HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1982/07/26n
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
July 26, 1982
7:30 p.m.
A G E N D A
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call - Blanchard, Doty, Forslund, Hodges, McCarty ` 70
.'
3. Approval of Minutes: July 12, 1982 (Regular Meeting) 4. Residents Requests and Comments from the Floor
GIVE
UR
CITIZENS: BEFORF FULL NAME EAND NADDRESS EO
FOR THE MINUTES
---------------------------------------
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
ITEM A. Authorize Submission of 1983 Civil Defense Grant
Application
ITEM B. Approve Resolution No. 1467 Adopting the Comprehensive
Plan for the City of Mounds View
ITEM C. Approve Recnlgtipn No. 1468 Approval of Excavation
and Revised Hydrologic Modifications for Oak Lake Pond
ITEM D. set Public
Hearing for
Fairchild 0veenue Right -of -Way
Vacation
ITEM E. Licenses for Approval
ITEM F. Approve Resolution No. 1466 Approving Just and Correct
Claims Against City Funds
6. Remove from Table and Consideration of Joint Powers Agreement with
Circle Pines
7. Remove from Table and Consideration of Resolution No. 1449 Revising
Permit Fees Established by Resolution No. 749 *
8. Consideration of Proposal for. Extension of Sanitary Sewer Monitoring
9, Second Reading and Adoption of Urdinance No. 314 Establishing
Candidacy Filing Fee
-continued-
Informationis item
ke the
inyourboxes onhFriday fordyouttoapackets
review overthebweekend,oe
AGENDA
July 26, 1982
-'�N Page Two
10. Consideration of the Ramsey County Executive Summary for the
Landfill Abatement Proposal
11. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Stop Signs at the
Intersection of Sherwood and Sunnyside Roads
12. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Pay Estimate #2
for GTF, Inc.
13. Consideration of Memorandum from Finance Director Regarding
Temporary Help during Accountant's Sick Leave of Absence
14. Report of Director of Public Works/Community Development
15. Report of Attorney
16. Report of Councilmembers
17. Report of Administrator
18. Adjournment
f
CONSENT AGENDA
July 26, 1982
The Consent Agenda is a technique designed to expedite handling of
routine and miscellaneous official business of the City Council.
The entire Agenda may be adopted by the Council in one motion. The
motion for adoption is non -debatable and must receive unanimous
approval. By request of any individual Councilmember, any item can
be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed upon the Regular Agenda
for debate.
ITEM A. Authorize Submission of 1983 Civil Defense Grant Application
ITEM B. Adopt Resolution No. 1467 - Adopting the Comprehensive Plan
for the City of Mounds View
ITEM C. Adopt Resolution No. 1468 - Approval of Excavation and Revised
Hydrologic Modifications for Oak Lake Pond
ITEM D. Set Public Hearing for Fairchild Avenue Right -of -Way Vacation
on August 9, 1982 at 7:40 p.m.
ITEM E. Licenses for Approval
General
C. 0. Field Co. - Renewal
Stenco Construction - Renewal
Heating & Air Conditionin
American Burner Service - Renewal
As hp alt
P. E. Johnson & Sons, Inc. - New
Excavation
D. D. Contracting - New
Sewer & Water
Ko-S— o— n P p g Co., Inc. - New
Other
Arrow Sign & Fence Co. - New (fence)
Herbst & Son's Construction Co., Inc. - New (demolition)
ITEM F. Adopt Resolution No. 1466 - Approving Just and Correct Claims
Against City Funds
ols
T RESOLUTION NO. 1467
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires
local units of government to prepare comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared such a plan entitled,
"Mounds View Comprehensive Plan" in response to the requirements
of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and
WHEREAS, the plan was adopted by the Mounds view Planning
Commission on April 1, 1981 following a public hearing with
required legal notice; and
WHEREAS, the plan was sent to the City of Blaine, City
of Spring Lake Park, City of Fridley, City of New Bright Watershed
Village of Arden Hills, Village of Shoreview,
Rice CreekDistrict, School District #621, and the Ramsey County Department
of Public Works for review and comment on September 11, 1980; and
WHEREAS, the plan was considered and accepted but not
officially adopted by the Mounds View City Council on April 13,
1981 and submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review on the
same date; and
WHEREAS, said Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed by the
Metropolitan Council, which has made favorable comment on the plan
and found it to be in conformity with the metropolitan area -wide
framework and policies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council adopts this document as its official Comprehensive Plan of
the City.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 26th day of July, 1982.
Mayor
Clerk -A ministrator
LPL
RESOLUTION NO. 1468
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVAL OF EXCAVATION AND REVISED HYDROLOGIC
MODIFICATIONS FOR OAK LAKE POND
WHEREAS, Kraus -Anderson has requested approval of Oak
Lake Pond; and
WHEREAS, Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed and
approved changes; and
WHEREAS, unfavorable soil conditions exist on southerly
edge of pond; and
WHEREAS, revised hydrologic data has been submitted and
reviewed and conforms to Resolution No. 983 requirements; aAd
WHEREAS, preliminary pond approval is required to allow
final design of outlet structure to proceed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View approves the excavation limits and the
hydrologic modifications for Oak Lake Pond as illustrated in the
drawing prepared by Gerry Sunde dated March 30, 1982;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the certain elements of
necessary work have not been constructed to date, thus approval
for these items is not granted by this resolution.
ATTEST;
(SEAL)
Adopted this 26th day of July, 1982.
Mayor
Clerk -A ministrator
t
' i *Pt.- D
/00V, D R A F T
1 - - - - -
RESOLUTION NO. /Q-(o f
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION VACATING FAIRCHILD AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY
BETWEEN LAPORT DRIVE AND ARDAN AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City has existing 30 feet of street
right-of-way, named Fairchild Avenue, between Laport Drive and
Ardan Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from the
required number of property owners to vacate this portion of
right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, there are presently large subdividable parcels of
land which abut this existing 30 feet of right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that future access
be available to these subdividable lots; and
WHEREAS, access to these parcels can occur from existing
Laport Drive via a cul-de-sac type roadway; and
WHEREAS, the City has deemed that 60 feet is the minimum
street right-of-way width; and
WHEREAS, the City Council chooses to provide the owners of
the subdividable parcels reasonable time to convey the necessary
easements and installation of streets and utilities for the cul-de-
sac;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City
Council approves the vacation of the north 210 feet of the
existing 30 feet of right-of-way, legal description as follows:
The north 210 feet of that portion of street right-
of-way westerly of Lot 6, Block 2, Degardner Addition
and also west of Lot 5, Block 1, Mid -States Estates,
all in Section 6, Township 30, Range 23 in the City
of Mounds View, Ramsey County
with the following conditions:
1) The west portion of the right-of-way ("area to be
dedicated" on attached map) be dedicated at the
present time for future street purposes.
Resolution No. I y(Q 9
Pago 2
2) That within ono yuar following the date of Cho
adoption of thiatrosolution, construction will be
commonued on thu paving, curb and guttorl storm
drainagu, watormain and sanitary nowur systems for
tha poi -Lion of Fairchild Avanue cul-do-nac lying
northerly of Laport Drivo, Such installation shall
moot tho criteria of tho City.
U IT FUR'I'IIER RESOLVED that tho City will rotain the
wouLarly 10 [oat of tho north 210 foot of thin vacatud area for
drainage and utility purposes.
ATTESTi
(SEAL)
Adopted this day of , 1982.
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
10' D6AINA4 AND
UTILITY EASEMEMT
AWAn
AVEnUL
AREA TO M DE UTN `� �, ARC tiMMT T M fA
IT,ESOIATION NO, 1466
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEM
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVING JUST AND CORRECT
CLAIMS AGATNST CITY FUNDS
ew�v
WHEREAS, the City Council of Mounds View, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 412.241, has full authority over the financial affairs
of the City and;
WIIEIIFAS, The City Council has reviewod the claims numbers:
17740 through 17762 in the amount of T 222�268.01
9329 through 9462 in the nmouul, nr $ 80,116.80
1-hrough in the ❑mount of $
through in the amount of 1
TOTAL AM01111T OF CT.ATM:3 PRE,",IiNTF.1) ? 302,384.81
and has found nnld ,anima to he ,inst nud covi-ce..l.;
(list of any exception)
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of Mounds View
hereby approved the attached lists of claims dated 7-26-82 by the
vote ayes nayes
r.'
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk-A&ninistrator
y ,
t
0
CITY OF HCUNrSVIEN C r r r L N T P G v r B t F 0_TF
® rHrrK• A M c rl C �, M A �: P U - P ,•
v
017740 719.00 MAUSAU ?h5 rC
• 017741 1,010.00 U ' POfTPd TF" PCST+GE •
017742 49.05 MOLNrc V7FH PrI ING rfSTIVI'!::OHM°:;ION —'
• 017743 31,221.95 FIGSI STATE PANK CF SILA'IES, =EGUL I •
I.HC_SrL.'— :CS,TEPPoPA0 TIME
0;0-OVEF Is
017744 32F.O0 MET CFNTFr SCPPLTES,OPFRAT :NG
• 617741 200.00 4FrC CUE CF HN FfSTIVITIC.. "ONMISSION
• 017746 1f410474c1 rtHSCN CCN'^T9UC7I0 C'HF. P4CFI'^,°?Okd- 5E+'y •
017747 21,5.00 r,TTY OF MCUN^S VIEW rESIIVITI`S I;OMH_S;IOk
• 017748 50.00 CHUPrH OF THr FESTIVITIES iOMM!S: ION j •
Ju,
917749 3,2Ef..00 STFhCC CCMFANY EOUIPMEN7 is:
-- 017751 9f.00 rCUNTPY CLUB IIArxrT FrsTIVITIEr: LOMNT SS ION — I`
011757 EI.4A 01100S YID F=INTING FESTIVITIE: COMH?SS ION T III•^
017753 12.48 LUhr.S
•. FESTIVITIC' COMMIom C
--- 917754 75.00 OWE CLCKN rLUE FESTIVITI+S COMHTS_IOh •z
c
017756 f90.00 GHCSY -YCEFS FESTIVITIE' 'OMNISSION I •
017797 9C.00 CTTV CF SCSEVTLLE FESTIVITIE`. COMMISSION ».
• — 017780 250.OA r"111HY Fn"EYP.Ercf.B FCSTIVITIES COMH!c;ION
• I 017759 225.00 FOGEr STICKMEY FESIIYITIFS COMMIS.;IOh
017760 2G.0a CT-CLF "CUAREc FESTIVITIES COMMIS^ION .�
s,
-- 017761 5.20 SHI,LFY FUHT'OCK FESTIVITIES :CMMISEION
•II 017762 1E0.00 FAFIS TFE MAGICIAN FESTIVITIES COMMISSION •
a
21 Zii,TfP.01 Hl:Cf'Oi•F1 FxPEttiLI"U'%E'' 'i`:^E L-`T CUUNLIL MEETING �
• I
"I
t
•
CITY PF NOUNPS ts,, A F. C n U A T� P A Y n O
CHErxo A M C l! r L T h t N 1
00 009329
• 009.1J0
0093J1
009332
009333
": 009JJ4
�', 009JJ5
�' 0093J5
009J37
f,'i 00933N
009339
�n
`- 009340
009341
�" 009342
- 009343
009344
�''' 009J49
OV9341
00O347
�009J49
009349
® i•
COMO
�" 009J91
vl
�I
i
21!92n I L F IN''Oh
19F;.n7
FdrL F 4NOF.rSFN ♦ tMf
13.44
IPSF.NIL
=:h" ♦ Gp4VEL CC
10.3i
I-T%FAC
2E.17
EFISSNFNCF.F
LPPLI!hrF
790.50
B7TGHTCh
VETF%INAPY HO'P
72.00
CAPITAL
ELEC,TFOHICS
51.40
CHTFPFVA
SFFINrS 'C=F
974.90
CL049 L-hCSCAPING
fo.00
CCLLFFTA
irANSI' raGP
123.00
COLUHPIA
TFANSTT
37f.57
CCN7r4CT
(LEANING
42.So
CFONSTGC?5
9.49
CY5 wh mo
43.45
CATA CISFATC,H 'NC
722.6n
EA74 OPP.991701"5o INC.
41.00
CALLAGNEFS SFPVICE W
$0037
M M GP wrR THC
74f.39
HlNN19C CHENTCAL INC
91.00
HF.ALY LAfCFA*CPIE!
70.02
J C QUTG SLPPLY
1149f.29 JOPN C JCNNSON
F9.gl' LTLITF SM0913AN NCMS
O�TF 07-2f-92 PAGF 2
P U" P C S F.
1
ig,
I s
SU•FPLIE_- gOPFFl ITNG
SOPPL'FS ♦CPE WING
e
SUPPLIES, 7L9CSWNDS
-
UNTFC-MS ♦ '.LCTHING
J 1•0
p,
SUPPLTE.St BLCGS♦6'NOS
•
OTNE" PFCFESSIOWL SERY
I�0
FEPAT:S, EOUIPHEN'
}
I.
SUFPLTF.SlcPFP-TINC
u•
?FEE FE14CVAL
r!u�
;UPPLM tOPFR-TINC
FENT-L. EGUIPMENT
!UFFLIES♦ ELG6S♦6=NCS
ANO-JrNTTOF SEPVICF.
• n
iFP.q BLOCS a GGOUNCS
s;o
0'HE'+ PPOFES::IM. SERY
=o�f
CON". SVCS.# FELIWY
CONT. SVCCOI KF.Y FUNCF
�.O
�EFlISE CCLLEC'i0N
J,
SUPPLTES♦ FLUGS46:NCS
SUPPLIES ♦OnUP-'TINf•
SUPPLIES♦ UTILI'IES
SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
n
ANC-TEP F't VEHICLES
w
O-PF.r. Pn'OFES'IOHAL SERV
'!'•
LFG A. NOT IC;'.
v .
I
ANO-AOMIN. MO CES PAYA8l6
".
ANC-:CVEFTIFENENTS�
133�
r�
CITY OF PCUNrtvifW
CWFCKf A! E l N T
009]52 30.OA
. 009J5J 11,91
009]94 27tElA.94
009355
OO�J96
009J57
•
009J99
009J60
0'
009J61
0093E2
009363
---
009364
0
009365
009766
� ae9]67
a09]6e
009169
7[frlN1
P1.Y::rLf
P'rAA
PrLv VCN-C,-LITF
NrT�e HASTE 'CNTcZL C,OPH
49217.5R RICP^Fr lFYERlz
0409
PTELANC F=CCUCTS
291.04
PTCUEST ASFNCLI COcP
91.6E
PILLEP CAVTS CO
71.P?
PPLS 51AF 4 TrIBUNr
9,?5
FINN FI;F IN^
it2E1,S6
MINNESCTA UC FUME
40000
CITY OF MOL'NOS VIEW
1VA.97
N N FELL TELEPHONE CC
200.35
NEN BFI010 MGWE
172.t2 N" RRIGPTCN LONE
44715472 NCRTNEch STATF" PON" CO
A_E4n.76 NORTHFFN STATFS POWFc
i.44 NORTNEFN STATFF POWFR
110.00 CCNALC F FAULEY
1,'.TF 07-2F.-A2 P:L• ]
F U P O 5 c
SUPF'LIE`.tCPFRATTkG
SUPPLIE's OLOGStGFNCS
F E F U N 0
:N!4ETPC HASTE UONT COMM
GENE',SL LFG: L SERVICE'S
ANO-PROSECUTING .TTY SERVICE
4NO-A"M!h. NArGF PAYABLE
ANJ-OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERV
CNAFtER CCMMISSION
SUPPI'FSt STPFE'S
fUPPL:E'tOPF.RAIIN6 _-
LCG,L NOTICfF-
SUPPL.TF.S, 01VGStG•N1S
UNEHFLOYMENT COMP —
�tFUNtS
COHMUNICGTIONS-TELEPHONE
SUPPLIES} EQUIPMENT — —
eNC-SUPPLIE�t ST°EETS
ANO-SUPPLIES90PERATING
:NC-SUPPLIFS9 9LM 09NOS —
SUPPLTESt 8LCGS4G';N0S
ANO-SUPPLICStOPEPATIN6 —
ANO-SUPPLIES• VEHICLE
ANC- %PFLIESt EQUIPMENT
ANO-POTOR FUELS t LUBRICANTS
F.IECTRICT'Y
ANC-NATUNAL GFS — —
ANC -STREET LIGHTS
AND -TRAFFIC SIGNALS - ELECT
FLE.CTRICI'Y
ANO-NLTU94L G: S
ELF.CIr•ICI'Y
MILF'GE
--
ei�.
A C r r� L r 0 Y Q I E
r.: Tc C7-2E-P2 PAC'" a
1
CITY Of kCUHCSV?EN
O'I
CHECK•
I h C L N'
•
O
000370
�39.30
M
Pfocl LA A0T'L'NG CO
°F5T1VIiIFS COMMISSION
009371
22.71
FF'CQSCN FAUL r1,LF!
rUPP..'ES.r VEHICLE
009372
tA.45
F"ECI"TCF fUS SYET TRr
°'EF4I.`S1 EOUIPHENT
l
009373
2,720.49
REMSFY CtUNTY TREASUSF-
CCNT, SVCS.1 FAPSEY CNTV
Alm -TRAFFIC SIGNALS - ELECT
I
,S
�
009374
10.55
RAF1' FcIN'TING
cF1N'TNf,
-
009J75
Igloo
PINE.L7 S FOrr
rALARIE5rTE'1P+PA;T TIME
009376
FA.AN
5 + " OFFICE PVCCUCT`
His," OfffiE SIIPPLICS
n�
i
aa9377
48.59
!W Y rISTVTgUTO r
FE">TIVI'IE: COMM_cSION
-.
r—
''
09937A
325.00
c
S11ELL:TE INSUSV IF..
SATELLITE°
009J79
113.24
J L rPIF.LY CO
SUPPLIFSr OLP4S+CcNOS
t
`� 1
0093NO
27,Sn
i
CITY OF r HCRF.VTEN
rUPPL:ESrOPE�.�TIti;
809381
t1A.22
SMYCFRS CFVG STORES
SUPFL1EStOPEPATING
P"I
0093n2
197.00
CTT1 Or coOTNG LAKE FGPK
COIICCTItNS•OTHE' ACCY9
-
�c
�'
0093AJ
11977.58
OFFING LN FAok F1cF. CEPT
CFA,yT':: + SUP7I0IE5
-.
— 0093P4
20.01
51 FALL P.06K+STA"IONE-V
SUPPLTESrOPEIATING
0093n5
F90.On
T + S TaCPH Trr
.UPPU E>10PE=4iNG
P°
OAa3n6
1Q.0P
'bJP C111 1ESTTNr;
CTNEF PPCFESSIONi.L SE?V
„®
C
0093A7
29045
UN]TOG FINIALS SYSTEM
UNIFPVMS + ''LOTHING
ANC-SUPPLIc".SrOPEV.(ING
"
,
2a,a0
L'NI'CG RENTALS SYSTEM
UNIFO-K + i LOTHIN6
°'®
-- 0091P9
74.A0
VNITOG AFNIALS SYSIEN
UNIFOtMS + CLOTHING
P :
OQgJ90
1.95
UNITOG RENTALS SYSIEN
UNIW HS + CLOTHING
1„
009391
Oc,On
FILL S1cET1 JCU NAL
NISC OFFICC SUPPLIES
?'•e
009392
1,190.16
CITY OF kpiTE OEA' LAKE
SALA'I Sr RcGUI. F
� +
ANO^PENSIONS
INC•f.I.C.G.
itro
AN4-4oRKF=S-OMPENSATION
JI R
7i
++I$1
JI ®�
lt; ,
M�
.. .
CITY r,F PCONOSVIF.N A f r l N T S P Y 0 r
CHFCK• A F C U N' f L T M A N'
® 099393
' OA9J94
'- 009J99
00919e
004397
° 009399
009319
' 00940E
r:
'° — oe91Q1
i
�; 009402
''0094AJ
::t. Q09109
OA910e
I ; 00960e
�L
A094n9
0094f0
' OA911T.
'�_. 00941J
(" OQ4414
009119
" -- 009416
1"� 009417
t
5A.0n
10°.07
7F.On
ta.Qn
fAP.0n
50.0n
233.3E
AFC.Fn
aA3.3n
7E.00
too -on
sA.on
1l4.On
C04.On
213.39
20.0E
W.3n
24feOn
a10a01
233.JA
50.0E
E2.50
37a.ae
!0.0�
e(.oe
urru AhrPE S
1.1,70F EMS
(FATG P17TEET
MAN CAPCH
^reNNF COFLSTFOH
TrH CHUf1TK
r,0rll+ FJEIf
PAnTIN FLM
RATIE FCLEv
EO GIP.SOh
PLIMNE EMU
KACK HAA1
PARK HJELLF
CAVIL A JCHN"ON
hoNCY KELLU NAN
OFIH KrUIE
WILLIAH PAHN
(HPIS NCdhINCH
JANFT HGCCT
Plr,HFIIF HC W O
KCVIN HOPIR
NIKF MOW
Jt!LIE CKEcS71'01`
GAT G rAILCY`WIS
EFAO PFTF.rSON
":'F, P7-2E-9? FAG:
PrOG'AH INSTaU M S
Pr'OG +M INST:.UCTO
Pr•CG'!H INSTRUCIt" E
PFCGCAH INSTnUC10''S
FrcvG M !hSTOUCTC'+s
r"OGPAM ItiSTwic 5
Pv'OG:LH INSTPUCTOl'S
PrOG=AM INSTROCTO^S
PNOG%'m IN£TRUGICr'S
PPCGv'AM INSTRQfTWS
PFOG".,M INST?UC10rS
PFOGrAH INSTRUCTOrS
PFOGrAH INSTRUCTORS
PFOG% M INSTRUCTOrS
PPCGF:H INST;UCI0-S
PFOGFAM INST,%UCTO;S
PsOGFAM INSTP.UCTOPS
PFCGPIM INSTRUCTOPS
FW060AM INSTRUCTOrS
POOG^AM INSTPUCTOOS
PrOGr=M INSTRUC70:S
PPOGPAM INSTPoCTOOS
PPOGFAM INSTRUC M.S.
rr=OG,AN INSTFUCTOcS
P.CG°tH INSTRlr100S
CITY OF hCUHP"VIEN
A C
r r
L
A
P '' Y 0 1 E
rNErK- A
M C U N
C'
1
P P
N'
009410
oo9a19
I
OM20
I 004021
009422
00g423
009424
009429
00g426
009427
00942P
009429
Ong430
00g431
004432
609433
�" OQ?i34
00g436
I'' OOa437
' 009i30
I,
` - 009439
I' 009440
'.Fd00 HY=cU "Ef!"5".1
2q,,in
J.LL `FATGN
135.On
CGN T;TF
2CdA0
PC7FY TOLLCF''011
1AO.OP
JEANNF. VIN'
233.7n
ErUrr NAK
50.00
Eire MITT
Ee421.P3
TNrA
50.2E
JOLLY TYPE FAVOFS
IF*fn
NOCTHFCH LIGHTF-3
20dOn
CO1NIFv CLUM MRFNE'
29413.25
RAMSFY CCUNTY SHrRIFF
laden
S791F OF HN rEPT LAPOF
420011
EL MASNE-IfG
40d00
PINE CCNF. NUPcrRY
95.an
CLEM WILLIAMS FILMS
75900
Lr) LANGSfAPING
209.00
TELEMArN LCEGE
711.0n
MN PLAYGCCUN" INC
40.00
H'POLr E FINNFY
L54d00
TOTAL ELF.r.TBIr INC
75.00
CT11 OF WEN HILLS
.9n
NrN nPIG?TCN LUMBFF CO
74.00
MFS FOPLPTA
144or
H:S THVHIAN
e.
r''E 07-2E-82 PAGE. 6 e'
UPOS'�
�I�
FG'OGc4m INSThU:iC S
PrOGrLM ?MST=VC10 S
•
P'OGrAM INSTrUCTOSS
�s•
:UPPLIE.S.OPERMNG
F
PtCG�AM INSTPUCIOrS
r•
PvcGFAM INSTrUCTOFS
e
to
P;CCSAM INSTnUr,TOzS
;1ej
OTHE% PRCFESSIONAL SERV
"e
FrSTTVITTES COHIIISSION
u
{u�
O'HEP PRCFESSTONAL. SERV
CCNFFPFNCES
s
COMMUNICATIONS -TELEPHONE
SUPPLTESt BLCGS46;�NOS
n�
SUPPLIE9VOPER:TTNG
m
n•e
SUPPLICS.CPERATING
am
RENIAL9 ECUIPMENT
(r•.
AND-SUPPLIE' tOPERATING
J
f+
f]•
SUPPLIf.;e BLCGSOGRNOS
1,
SUPPLIES9OPERATING
"UPPLT.ESt PLCGS4GFNO5 —
-
.sr.SUFFLIESr
OLOGSOGANOS
ss
FGUIPMFN'sr
Pr IN, ING
'u
SUPPLIESe ULDGSKRNGS
it
0 E F U N p
i
cF ari Nn."
-
I U
•i
— I.
CITY OF MCUNCSVIEW
A S 0 0 0 N T 5 P A Y A P !. E
0'•iF 07-26-82
Part 7
CHF.rK•
A N T L h!
L T M A N
P U P
0 S E
0OP443
CIAO
pet, ;;a52
009444
P.An
L-L-" LINCIS
F E U
N'
009445
C150
GTNA Y"U C
R E U
N"
009446
45.00
PHII JCHNSCN
F E r U
N
009447
9.pn
KrISTEN FECHa
F E r U
N 1:
----- 009445
1210a
COPOTPV NILLHIUS
FPOG-:AM
INSTRUCTC-'S
009449
12#00
MPI HALLEY
R c< U
N C
009450
t0.0a
NFLISS! JChNSON
F F. F U
N i
— 009451
i
12.00
SHTPLEY JCHNSCN
N f. F U
N - -
009092
40400
TAVIT 4 FAPO SCHAAF
FEF0 S
009453
40.00
PFk HOL2EHFP
rFFUNCS
009454
4C100
PAY HCLLFHA
EPUN,S
---
!
809459
40.00
VALME PUSMOrT
-'FFUflrS
009456
40.0a
WAYNE LAGC
�FfUN!'S
i - 069457
760.E0
HA:VEY H GLONNEN
FESTIVITIES COMMISSION - --
I 009456
t_
2]4.00
LENFEF TAANSMISSION
SUPPLIES• EMPMENT
009459
12.00
M,S NEINU
r E F U
N S
i---- OG9460
2000
IENE KUCEFEH
R E F U
N
t009461
: -
29.00
OFO"F ^IONE
PPOGF.M
INSTRUCTOcS
009462
137.50
NEAL TCE!GSON
PFOG°AM
INSTRUCT0r5
,- 134
11ttlE.ta
CNEC,NS NAIT-EN
TOTAL OF
1S4 CHECNS TOTAL 302 014.p1
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
�. THE CITIES OF CIRCLE PINES AND
MOUNDS VIEW
Puroose
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Circle Pines
to prepare a Trails System Master Plan requiring the ser-
vices of a landscape architect; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has a staff member,
Engineering/Planning Technician, who has a landscape archi-
tect degree from the University of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View submitted a proposal,
Attachments A, B, and C, to the City of Circle Pines whereby
said staff member would provide the design and planning ser-
vices for a Trails System Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Circle Pines has indicated that it
is their desire to have said Mounds View staff member prepare
a Trails System Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Cities of Circle Pines
and Mounds View to enter into a Joint Power Agreement estab-
lishing the conditions for the preparation of a Trails System
Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, it is agreed between the
Parties as follows:
Employing Municipalit
The City of Mounds View hereby agrees to be the employing
municipality for the joint powers agreement. The City of
Mounds View shall be accountable for the receipt of that
portion of the labor costs paid by the City of Circle Pines.
No property shall be acquired as a result of this agreement.
Staff Responsibilities and Accountability
The responsibilities of staff in the preparation of a Trails
System Master Plan are outlined in Attachment B, Design Pro-
cess. The staff shall be responsible to the Parks Director
of the City of Circle Pines for all work related to the prep-
aration of the Trails System Master Plan and to the City of
Mounds View Director of Public Works/Community Development
for all other duties related to his employment.
- 1 -
-2-
Time Allocation
The Engineering/Planning Technician's time will be allocated
at the weekly rate of two days performing work related to the
Trails System Master Plan either in Circle Pines or at the
Mounds View City Offices and three days performing duties
related to his Mounds View employment until the Plan is com-
plete.
If the Plan is not completed after the Engineering/Planning
Technician has expended 85 hours of his time, no additional
work shall be performed on the Plan without the prior written
approval of the Council of the City of Circle Pines to exceed
the $1,000.00 expenditure limitation contained in the "Alloca-
tion of Cost" section of this agreement.
Allocation of Cost
The City of Mounds View shall invoice the City of Circle Pines
upon completion of the Plan based on the following:
1. Ten dollars per hour for each hour the Engineering/
Planning Technician works on the Plan.
2. Nineteen cents per mile for the use of a City of
Mounds View vehicle for travel related to the prep-
aration of the Plan.
3. Actual costs incurred by the City of Mounds View in
the printing of 15 copies of the Plan.
The amounts due under this agreement will not exceed $1,000
without the prior written approval of the Council of the City
of Circle Pines.
Administration and Clerical Support
The City of Mounds View will be responsible for all general
clerical and administrative work including Worker's Compen-
sation and insurance. The City os Circle Pines will be respon-
sible for the publication and mailing of official notices and
making available all information necessary for the prepara-
tion of the Plan.
Miscellaneous Expenses
r
All miscellaneous expenses including but not limited to post-
age, photocopying, and long-distance telephone charges will
be the responsibility of the City of Circle Pines.
Equipment Provided fy
The City of Mounds View hereby agrees to make available a
vehicle for transportation purposes and all needed printing
equipment for the printing of ie Plan.
r
-3-
Indemnification
The City of Mounds View hereby agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless and defend the City of Circle Pines, its agents and
employees, against any and all claims for damages, of whatever
nature, arising from or in consequence of the duties it has
assumed hereunder, except for vehicles and/or equipment owned
by the City of Circle Pines.
Authority
Each party executes this agreement pursuant to the authority
of their respective governing bodies.
Duration and Term
This agreement shall remain in effect until the Plan is com-
plete, unless terminated by either party subject to thirty
(30) day written notice.
Agreement entered into this
1982.
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
day of
CITY OF CIRCLE PINES
Mayor
City Administrator
W_&OL. 2
MEMO Vol'Mayor and City Council
FROMI dl'uctor of Public Works/Community Developmen
DATEi duly 231 1982
SUBJECT REBOLUTION NO. 1445 - REVISING PERMIT FEES ESTABLISHED
BY RESOLUTION NO. 749
Resolution No. 749,adopted July 26, 1976, used fees recommended in
the 1976 edition of U.B.C. except that the base fee for all ranges
were increased $5.00 over the U.B.C. base fee.
Two additions were made to Resolution No. 1449 fee schedule:
1. Subdivision 8 (4), duct or tin work. This item was previously
covered by Subdivision 3, but with the increase in remodeling
work the change to a fee based on dollars rather than building
square footage is proposed. It will also simplify administra-
tion of fees for permits.
2. Subdivision 12, Installation of Mobile Homes, provides a fee
for a service currently not covered. State statute modifica-
tions in 1982 may result in requests for more mobile home
installations and inspections.
Chapter 59.03, Subdivision 1, sets a $350.00 floor for construction
cost before a permit is required. This fee is set by each coeununity
and typically established at a 1evP1 ee-ending o;, Lhe degree of
control desired. The current fee of $350.00 was established to
require a permit for even relatively minor improvements.
Six neighboring communities were surveyed as to current practice on
the above fees. The results are listed below:
Shoreview
New Brighton
Columbia Heights
Fridley
Blaine
Arden Hills
JJ/pf
$ Floor for Permit
$ 150.00
$200.00 - 300.00
$ 500.00
$ 500.00
$ 100.00
$ 600.00
Rate Schedule
1979 UBC
1979 UBC
1979 UBC
1979 UBC
1976 UBC
1976 UDC
f
MEMO TO: Mayor and CityiCouncil n /
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development y�
DATE: July 21, 1982 Q
SUBJECT: SANITARY SEWER FLOW MONITORING FOR INFLOW/INFILTRATION
STUDY
T.R.D.A has completed the required flow monitoring per Inflow/
Infiltration contract. Since a major rainfall event has not
occurred, they have not been able to obtain desirable data on
inflow.
It is recommended that flow monitors be left inplace unitl a
major rainfall (lk inches or more) or the end of August, 1982
whichever occurs first.
Cost of continued use of flow meters is $98.00 per week for
rental, if Mounds View personnel change the charts on the meters.
If the hoped for rainfall event occurs, then it will cost
approximately $610.00 to analyze data and write a letter report.
It is requested that the Council authorize utilizing budgeted
excess of $1,400.00 in Account #730-121-4515, due to underrun
on sewer root control and T.V. inspection costs, for extension
of flow monitoring of sanitary sewer system.
JCJ/bc
ORDINANCE NO. 314
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ESTABLISHING CANDIDACY FILING FEES
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
SECTION I. Authority: Pursuant to Section 4.02 of the
Home Rule Charter of the City of Mounds View,
the City shall establish a fee by ordinance to
be paid by individuals filing for Municipal
elective office.
SECTION II. Filing Fee: A filing fee of $5.00 shall be
collected by the Clerk -Administrator from all
individuals filing for a Municipal elective
office.
SECTION III. Effective Date: This ordinance shall take
effect thirty (30) days from and after the date
of its publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the 12th
day of July , 1982.
Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View on
this day of , 1982.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
C erk-A ministrator
Cif of vor s !QW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
2401 HIGHWAY 10
MOUNDS VIEW, MINN. 65112
78a3055
July 22, 1982
Mr. Douglas G. Wood
Manager
Division of Environmental Health
Ramsey County
Public Health Department
1910 W. County Road B - Room 209
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Dear Mr. Wood:
I am receipt of your letter dated July 20, 1982 and attachments
regarding the Executive Summary for the Landfill Abate:aent Proposal
for Ramsey County.
A brief review of the Executive Summary, Mr. Wood, leads me to
believe that it would be hasty for the Ramsey County Board of
Commissioners to take action on this Executive Summary at their
meeting on Monday, July 26th, as the municipalities of Ramsey
County, including the City of Mounds View, have just received this
Executive Summary and it would be difficult for us to give it
our full attention prior to the Board of Commissioners meeting so
that we might have input at that time. In view of the fact that
you are seeking the cooperation and assistance of the municipalities
in Ramsey County it would seem wise to delay action on this summary
until such time as each city can thoroughly review the proposal and
prepare for formal presentations before the Board of Commissioners.
Also, Mr. Wood, as the Executive Summary contains a proposal which
has far-reaching impacts upon the municipalities of Ramsey County
and the City of Mounds View, I am forwarding it to my City Council
for their review and comment as they are the policymaking body for
the City of Mounds View and the impacts of the proposal directly
relate to policy issues. A response from the City of Mounds View
will be provided to you once the Council has had opportunity to
review the information you have supplied.
DFP/pf
cc: Mayor and City Council
RAMSEY COUNTY
Public Health Department
Raymond G. Clnk, Director
Environmental Health Division
1910 W. County Rd. B. • Roorn 209
Roseville, MA. 55113
633.0316 — 298.5972
July 20, 1982
Donald Pauley, Clerk - Administrator
City of Moundsview
2401 Highway 10
Moundsview, MH 55112
Dear Mr. Pauley:
Enclosed you will find the Executive Summary for the Landfill Abatement
Proposal for Ramsey County. This proposal is being considered for approval
by the Board of Ramsey County Commissioners at the next Board meeting. The
meeting is 10:00 a.m., Monday, July 26 in the Board Room, Ramsey County
Courthouse.
Throughout the planning process Ramsey County has become increasingly
aware that only with each municipalities' cooperation and assistance can
Ramsey County implement an efficient solid waste management system.
We look forward to hearing from you or your staff regarding the
Executive Summary, Feel free to contact me if you would like more information.
DOW/gt
ant.
Sincerely,
& -Z4�d
Douglas Wood, M�abnager
Division of Environmental Health
4
1
4w®
D R A F T PRIUMINRRY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Solid waste management in the Metropolitan Area is reaching a critical turning
point. By 1936, the sanitary landfills which now provide virtually all of the
region's management capcity will be full. This projected short -fall in capacity,
combined with the growing trend to avoid on -land disposal, were the primary
motivating factors behind the 1980 enactment of the Minnesota Waste Management
Act and this Landfill Abatement Proposal. By implementing the solid waste
management alternatives set forth in this proposal, Ramsey County can realis-
tically expect to reduce landfill use by 60-65% by 1986, and possibly to a
greater extent in subsequent years.
The process by which this Landfill Abatement Proposal was developed may be as
important as the plan itself. To deal with the highly controversial and
sensitive nature of solid waste issues, the Ramsey County Board of Commis-
sioners appointed a 19 member Solid Waste Management Advisory Council to study
abatement alternatives. This group of Ramsey County citizens, industry
representatives, haulers and government officials, worked closely with the
Ramsey County Environmental Health Division staff and the Donohue consulting
team to identify an acceptable mix of technically feasible landfill abatement
alternatives.
GENERAL FACTS ABOUT THE EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
* 493,200 tons of solid waste are generated each year by residences,
businesses and industries in Ramsey County.
* Some 94% of the total waste volume is currently disposed in land-
fills in Anoka, Washington and Dakota Counties.
* 6% of the total waste volume is currently recycled or reused.
* 60% of all commercial and residential waste is recyclable glass,
paper, aluminum,.iron and organic waste.
* Organizationally, the existing system favors disposal over other
management alternatives.
* Refuse collection is not a mandatory requirement for over one-half
of the county's residents.
* In all but three Ramsey County communities, refuse collection firms
compete for individual residential, commercial and industrial
accounts. In the communities of White Bear Township, the City of
White Bear Lake, and the St. Paul neighborhood of Tangletown, there
are collection contracts between the local unit of government and
one waste hauler.
0
* Residents of White Bear Township, White Bear Lake and the St. Paul
neighborhood of Tanglctovn pay 20-30% less than a typical Ramsey
County resident who is not served under an organized collection
contract.
THE PROPOSED LANDFILL ABATEMENT PROGRAM
The Ramsey County Solid Waste Management Advisory Council considered a broad
range of possible landfill abatement methods from the standpoint of; reliability/
risk, costs, ease of implementation and the degree of landfill abatement
expected. Five specific methods were selected as priority landfill abatement
strategies.
Waste Reduction
The Advisory Council recommended that the County actively pursue a
waste reduction program through the County's internal Waste Reduction
Task Force. This task force would seek to implement a variety of
procurement policies and office procedures within County departments
designed to reduce waste quantities. The County would also provide
technical assistance to private businesses interested in estab-
lishing similar waste reduction programs.
2. Source Separation
The Advisory Council has recommended the development of a ;;ountywide
curbside collection program for recyclables as its primary source
separation strategy. With a 30% participation rate, a Countywide
program would recycle about 20,000 tons of material per year by
1986. The current level is about 5,000 tons per year.
Recycling would be carried out primarily by private recycling organi-
zations, waste haulers and possibly municipalities. The County's
primary role in establishing the recycling program is developing the
appropriate organizational framework (organized collection) and the
financing mechanisms. Collection centers for recyclables and com-
mercial/industrial recycling programs would be maintained or expanded
to augment the County's curbside recycling program.
3. Yard Waste Management
The Advisory Council has recommended that the County develop a
network of small scale (1 to 2 acres) composting sites. The location
of these sites would be coordinated with the location of existing
composting sites in Roseville, New Brighton, and in Planning District
No. 12 of St. Paul. The Advisory Council has suggested that the
composr sites be located on public lands.
I]
The County's primary role in developing a composting program would
/^ be in the identification of sites and program financing. Separate
yardwaste collection and handling would be financed similar to the
source separation program.
By implementing a composting program in the County, disposal require-
ments are expected to be reduced by 15,000 tons/year
4. Co -composting
The feasibility of co -composting sewage sludge and solid waste is
being considered for the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant.
If demonstration studies substantiate preliminary feasibility/market
projections, a co -composting facility with a 750 ton per day capacity
(50% of Ramsey County's solid waste) could be developed. The
actual size of such a facility, can however, not be firmly estab-
lished at this time.
The Advisory Council views co -composting as an important element of
the overall plan proposed for the County because a co -composting
facility could be readily sized up or down to meet waste flow require-
ments of other resource recovery facilities; or it may serve as an
important back-up if other alternatives fail.
The City of St. Paul and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
have assumed primary roles in developing a co -composting project.
County involvement is expected to remain limited to general coordina-
tion and political support.
5. Mass Burning Incineration
The wast Ito -energy element of this Proposal involves construction
of a I%Zton per day mass burning incinerator. The supply of waste
would come primarily from Ramsey County, with Washington County and
possibly Dakota County supplying the balance. Although specific
wasteshed boundaries for the facility hava not been established, 5eO%rr -
{$ Apo tQir� p[r daj #Szap[Med C tjgina• i II�mca.• r^•_tyt .,k
th}�cata s nee, a mass burning incii the County's
.landfill capacity requirements by 50 percent.
The project which is currently under in tigation by the City of
St. Paul and Ramsey County involves aton per day incineration
facility located in eastern Ramsey County or western Washington
County that would supply steam energy to the 3-M Corporate head-
quarters in Maplewood. The County has entered into a joint admin-
istrative agreement with Washington County and the City of St. Paul
to continue evaluating the feasibility of this project.
FACTORS WRICN PREVENT IMPLEMENTATION
Each component of the waste management system which now serves Ramsey County,
whether the method of collection, transportation of waste or pricing structure,
Is disposal oriented. Organizationally and economically, the existing system
is tilted toward the use of landfills and away from landfill abatement.
The organizational and economic factors which essentially reward disposal and
discourage landfill abatement are closely related. Recycling provides a good
example of this point. A recycler removes material from the solid waste
stream, sells the material to secondary materials markets and is compensated
at the current market price for a given material. Yet for each ton of material
recycled, the hauler (and not the recycler or the homeowner who recycles) is
in effect subsidized by not hauling and disposing that ton of waste. If the
direct economic benefits of recycling (i.e., the avoided transportation and
disposal costs which amount to $22.00 per ton in 1982) were returned to the
recycler, there would be adequate incentive to pursue this landfill abatement
alternative.
The factors which constrain implementing major resource recovery projects are
similar, but more involved The sizeable capital investment normally associ-
ated with "high technology" resource recovery alternatives, combined with the
variable nature of key factors such as projected energy prices, BTU content of
the waste, projected energy demands of the market and interest rates; represents
a significant constraint. Additionally, the long-term guarantee of a steady
sup;rly of waste is an organizational factor which constrains the implementation®
of resource recovery facilities.
KEY ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT PLAN
The recommended strategies for implementing this Landfill Abatement Proposal
require key policv decisions on the urganization of the solid waste system and
financing of landfill abatement programs. Details on the specific steps to
implement the County's proposal are provided in the main body of the report.
This summary deals with the key County decisions required to implement the
proposed abatement programs.
Orgat,ized Collection .
Implementation of a Countywide organized collection system is the corner-
stone of Ramsey County's landfill abatement proposal because:
* organized collection provides a contract within which any require-
ment for separate collection of recyclables can be made;
* it provides systematized curbside recycling by arranging for same
day collection in an entire district;
* it provides a contract within which any requirement for flow control,
such as to a resource recovery facility, can be made; and
* it increases system efficiency, and thus provides savings that could
be used to eira;lur abatement programs without increasing costs to
consumers.
To implement an organized collection system dedicated to landfill abate-
ment, the Adv{aory Council recommended a County controlled system. The
county would develop a solid waste management ordinance that would establish
organized collection, recycling and yardwaste collection districts; provide
flow control for a resource recovery facility; establish Countywide collec-
tion rates; and establish contracts with waste haulers and recyclers. A
municipality would be given the opportunity to maintain its own program if
equivelent to the County program.
The County controlled program recommended by the Advisory Council was
selected over the following:
* A mandatory municipal management program established through a County
requirement.
* A voluntary municipal management program induced by County -sponsored
incentives.
* A voluntary municipal program induced by County incentives with a time
limit. In non -cooperating municipalities, the program becomes a
mandatory County management program.
2. Financing Abatement
A program of economic incentives is proposed as a means of tilting the
existing disposal oriented system towards abatement. The recommended level
of subsidy for landfill ahatement is $22 per ton or the avoided cost of
traRnporting and disposing of solid waste that is realized when abatement
occurs.
The Advisory Council recommended that landfill abatement (in particular the
waste reduction, source separation and composting elements) be financed
from the waste management system and not through the Count,, property taxes.
The financing systems which were considered include:
* Waste charges at landfills,
* Collection vehicle registration fees,
* Landfill abatement fees within organized collection contracts.
Any of these options could effectively finance the proposed County program
without increasing costs to consumers if a Countywide organized collection
system is implemented.
More conventional financing methods, such as revenue bonds, will be required
to finance the mass burning incineration and co -composting elements of this
proposal. These financing decisions will be deferred until a later time,
however, the organizational and financing framework established for the
other abatement programs will facilitate the implementation of either a
mass burning incinerator or a co -composting facility by:
* providing for flow control, and
* by providing a system -wide pricing structure capable of equalizing
tipping fees at landfills and resource recovery facilities.
CONCLUSION
The proposed mix of alternatives set forth in this proposal can reduce Ramsey
County's dependance on landfilas by 60% to 65%. The recommended implementation
plan involves two key factors: a County controlled organized collection system
and a County sponsored abatement financing program. The pre:erred mix of alter-
natives and implementation strategies recommended by the Ad,•':sory Council are
flexible. The final chapter of this proposal is dedicated : potential contin-
gencies arising from the failure to meet one or more of tht. •,dvisory Council's
objectives.
Ramsey County, by virtue of the corporate and municipal res,urces available to
it, has the opportunity to develop the most complete landfill abatement program
in the country. Aside from this economic potential for landfill abatement,
Ramsey County also exhibits the strong Bence of the civic and social commitment
required to implement landfill abatement programs.
404V�//
�J
i
TO: Mayor, City Council and
Clerk-Admjnistrator
FROM: Police Chief
DATE: July 20, 1982
RE: Two Stop Signs
The Police Department requests that two stop signs going East and West
on Sherwood at Sunnyside Road be removed.
The signs were installed because of a cross walk for children going to
Red Oak School.
I feel that the signs are not needed because of the closing of the school.
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
Don Brager
FROM: John Johnson yv�J
DATE: July 20, 1982
SUBJECT: PAY ESTIMATE #2 FOR GTF, INC. ON PROJECT #82-2
LONG LAKE ROAD DITCH MAINTENANCE
Attached is a copy of Short -Elliott -Hendrickson letter dated
July 9, 1982 and pay request #2 concerning the above referenced
project. Please note a reduction in payment is recommended by
Short -Elliott -Hendrickson. Staff concurs with recommendation.
With the recommended reduction, the project is approximately
55 percent complete. Staff recommends payment of modified pay
estimate No. 2 to GTF, Inc. in the amount of $2,095.26. Project
is funded with SWM funds.
JCJ/bc
Attachments
SHORT—ELLIOTT—HENDRICKSON, INC.
® li�l9t CONSULTING ENGINEERS
b�t'9 t�19 t 11 I'41 I, \IIKM1I5U14 ( I111'I'l15'4 I.5115, l5'ISCU\VIN
July 9, 1982 RE: MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA
LONG LAKE ROAD
D[TCII IMPROVEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 82-2
SEII FILE NO. 81165
GTF, Inc.
P.O. Box 212
14855 Lake Drive
Forest Lake, Minnesota 55025
We have received your Application for Payment No. 2 dated June 29,
1982. The application includes payment for all excavation
performed even though not all of the excess material has been
hauled from the project site. For that reason, we have reduced
the amount of payment to you accordingly as shown on the attached
copy of the application for payment forwarded to the City.
Also, we are in receipt of a letter to the Fairfield Company by
Willard Davis dated June 22, 1982 relative to a claim he is making
for payment' of work he has completed. In his letter, he states
that he "will file a lien with the owner of the property" if the
matter is not properly resolved. In accordance with the contract
documents, the general contractor and the bonding company are to
hold the city harmless in the event of any claims or liens filed
against the city or the fee owner of the property. Please be
certain that this matter is taken care of properly so as not to
disrupt the completion or final payment for this project.
The Mounds View City Council has discussed the lack of completion
of this project. It is quite likely that liquidated damages will
be deducted from f<.nal payment in accordance with the contract
documents. You are advised to complete the project as soon as
possible to minimize liquidated damages.
If you have any questions or concerns about the procedure in
completing this project in the shortest amount of time, please
contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Daniel R Boxrud
Enclosure
cc: John C. Johnson, Mounds Viaw
Richard Myers, Mounds View City Attorney
The Fairfield Company
200 GOPHIR BUIIDING • 222 LAST LITTI[ CANADA Pn111 . ST. PAUI, VIWTSOT A 55112 • PIIO\t (612) 404.0272
.O.d "G:..J1'Y', .I,"ugMr l.':, 1 .
owner's Project No.
APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT
(UNIT PRICE CONTRACT)
NO. 2
RECr- ivi7p
1JrVrF
Y
sr, PAUL
Engineer's Project N0. 181165
LOCATION MOUNDS VIEW, MN.
Contractor G.T.F., INC.
Contract
Date
March 2, 1982
BOX 212
Contract
Amount
$ 11,962.80
FOREST LAKE, M•]. ' 55025
Contract for _Long Lake Road Ditch Construction a/OK 5.2�
.pplication Date June 29, 1982 Application Amount $
For Period Ending June 29, 1982
CONTRACT
QUANTITY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
TO DATE
PRICE
_ TOTAL
1.
CLEAR AND GRUB TREES
TREE
69
69
$ 35.00
92,415.00
.8�
2.
3.
COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION
CLASS B RIP RAP
C.Y.
C.Y.
1,475
26.4
� Qo
I h �
4.28
20.75
�03
$�
$
4.
TYPE 2 FILTER BLANKET
C.Y.
13.2
12.42
$
5.
SEEDING
ACRE
0.60
2,000.00
$
6.
COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION
(SUBCUT)
C.Y.
270
215
4.90
1,o53.5Q
Page 1 of 2 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.
APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT - Continued
7,30
Lai Contract Amount $ 11,962.80 Total Amount Earned
Lerial Suitably Stored on Site, Not Incoporated into Work
�Lract Change Order No
,ntract Change Order No
ntract Change Order No
Percent. Cony letc
Percent Complete
Percent Complete
GROSS AMOUNT DUE ...............
.- 17.3J
8,'Ifl: 90
LESS 5 % RETAINAGE......... $ Q 5-. 3 1 S,
AMOUNT DUE TO DATE ............. s blYI
LESS PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS..... $ 4,086.67 d
,IITRACiOR'S AFFIDAVIT AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION.... $ 4r866:z 7 101f,
e undersigned Contractor herebyswears under penalty of perjury that (1) all previous progress.
yments received from the Owner on account of work performed under the contract referred to
ove have been applied by the undersigned to discharge in full all obligations of the under-
gned incurred in connection with work covered by prior Applications for Payment under said
ntract, and (2) all
terial and equipment incorporated in said Project or otherwise listed in or covered by this
plication for Payment are free and clear of all liens, claims, security interests and
cumbrances.
d a' 1 , 19�_Z G.T.F.
( i�11
By Pai11 at
LINTY OF �\i\,10 5-u1c ) SS
ATE OF 4N )
fore me on this Q 9 _ day of �..� . , 19 personally appeared
known to me, who being duly sworn, did depose
11 say that he is the _ �•� of the Contractor above mentioned;
Office
,it he executed the above Application for Payment and Affidavit on behalf of said Contractor;
.I that all of the statements contained therein are true, correct and complete.
Commission Expires: t Do0 NAL�DID_DELAoA
n n 01 n
NARYRAMSEY COUNTY (Notary Public
..
MY COMMunoM nnn[e APR, 19: 1003
�mdersigned has chetklsE plication for Payment shown above. A part of
is Application is the Contractor's Affidavit stating that all previous payments to him
Ier this Contract have been applied by him to discharge in full all of his obligations in
onection with the work covered by all prior Applications for Payment.
:ordance with the Contract, the undersigned approves payment to the Contractor of the
,t Due.
e g , SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.
BYLTA---
e 2 of
APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT
(UNIT PRICE CONTRACT)
NO, 2
Owner's Project No. Engineer's Project No. 081165
LOCATION MOUNDS VIEW, M .
Contractor G.T.?.,
INC.
Contract
Date
March 2, 1982
BOX
212
Contract
Amount
$ 11,962.80
FOREST LAKE, YN. 55025
,gontract for Long Lake Road Ditch Construction
2Plication Date June 29, 1982 Application Amount $ '
For Period Ending June 29, 1982
CONTRACT
QUANTITY
UNIT
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
TO DATE
PRICE
TOTAL
1.
CLEAR AND GRUB TREES
TREE
69
69
$ 35.00
$2,415.00
2.
COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION
C.Y.
1,975
J180 7(d
4.28
5��
$ i
�
3.
CLASS B RIP RAP
J/
C.Y.
26.4
20.75
$
4.
TYPE 2 FILTER BLANKET
C.Y.
13.2
12.42
$
5.
SEEDING
ACRE
0.60
2,000.00
$
6.
COMMON CHANNEL EXCAVATION
(SUBCUT)
C.Y.
270
215
4.90
1,053.50
Page 1 of 2 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, IdC.
APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT - Continued
.
fal Contract Amount $ 11,962.80 Total Amount Earned $ ra;518
Lerial Suitably Stored on Site, Not lncoporated into Work $
rdct Change Order No. ____ Percent Complete
NLract Change Order No. Peraent Complete $_
,ntract Change Order No. Percent Complete $
07,30
GROSS AMOUNT DUE ............... $ M+5.1840
LESS 5 % RETAINAGE......... $_
AMOUNT DUE TO DATE ............. $ 'P44;z �
LESS PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS...,. $ 4,086.67
AMOUNT DUE THIS APPLICATION....
INTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT
e undersigned Contractor herebyswears under penalty of perjury that (1) all previous progress.
yinents received from the Owner on account of work performed under the contract referred to
ove have been applied by the undersigned to discharge in full all obligations of the under-
gned incurred in connection with work covered by prior Applications for Payment under said
ntract, and (2) all
terial and equipment incorporated in said Project or otherwise listed in or covered by this
plication for Payment are free and clear of all liens, claims, security interests and
cumbrances.
:d y 7 19 !=S.T.F., INC. r \
/ Tyet
and litle
LINTY OF a2cN ) SS
ATE OF
fore me on this 6?C1_ day of , 19 C& D.,personally appeared
Q^J 6o _known to me, who being duly sworn, did depose
1 say that he is the of the Contractor above mentioned;
(Office
dt he executed the above Application for Payment and Affidavit on behalf of said Contractor;
.I that all of the statements contained therein are true, corect and complete.
Commission Expires: ;pia, OONALD D. DELAGE
NOTARY FU7M-11NNOU [A
OAMSCY COUNTY Jotary Public
MY COMMISSION zxpinas AP,1. 13; 1803
undersigned has checked the Contrac or s pp is or Payment shown above. A part of
is Application is the Contractor's Affidavit stating that all previous payments to him
Ier this Contract have been applied by him to discharge in full all of his obligations in
;inection with the work covered by all prior Applications for Payment.
•cordance with the Contract, the undersigned approves payment to the Contractor of the
..it Due.
SHORT(ELLIOTnT HENDRRIC'KSONf/ INC,
By f!a1:Y 4 6.66
P. 2 of 2
1 TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Brager
�!\ DATE: July 22, 1982
RE: TEMPORARY HELP DURING ACCOUNTANT'S SICKLEAVE OF ABSENCE
At the last Agenda session we discussed temporary help during
the accountant's sickleave of absence. At that time I indicated
to you the possibility of hiring an individual directly rather
than using a temporary help service. The individual whom I had
in mind was unwilling to work the hours that I felt necessary for
the efficient operation of the department. I further considered
using the Police Department's part time secretary on a part time
basis. After speaking with the Chief of Police in regard to the
hours that they needed this individual and in reviewing the needs
of the department and the deadlines which must be met for accounts
payable and payroll I determined that we could not utilize the
services of the part time Police Department secretary due to
conflicts in scheduling.
I then reviewed the Finance Department's workload in the next four
to six weeks and realized that it is imperative to have an account-
ant on a full time 'basis rather than the three fourths tim^. that
we talked about at the Agenda session. During the next four to
six weeks the department will be working on budget, special assess-
ments for the Silver Lake Woods Project and elections. In order
to accomplish those tasks, as well as the normal department's tasks
of accounts payable, payroll, monthly financial reports, and other
reports which are performed on a monthly basis it is necessary to
have the services of a full time accountant. I therefore request
Council authorization to use the services of a temporary help agency
at a cost not exceeding $2,040.00. This would be six weeks at $8.50
an hour.
If you have any questions please dr not hesitate to contact me.
DB/ds
cc: Clerk -Administrator Pauley
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SESSION
August 2, 1982
7:00 p.m.
1. Presentation on Fixed Asset System by Mr. Ben Kowalski of
Marshall & Stevens, Inc.
2. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding reorganization
transition of Building Inspection Department. (Please note
the memo was in your 7/19/82 packet.)
3. Consideration of request for letter of support from Ramsey
Action Programs.
4. Consideration of staff memorandum on Worker's Compensation
Benefits and Injury on Duty Pay.
5. Consideration of staff report on noise complaints on
County Road J.
6. Consideration of staff report on preliminary Seal Coat cost
estimate.
7. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding temporary
occupancy permit for Tyson Trucking.
8. Consideration of staff report on street patching costs.
(A memorandum will be presented at the 8/2/82 meeting.)
9. Consideration of staff memorandum on Pleasant View Drive/
Highway 10 traffic signal.
j� T0:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor 6 City Council
Finance Director -Treasurer Brager
July 29, 1982
FIXED ASSET MANAGE14ENT SYSTEM
Ben Kowalski of Marshall and Stevens, Inc. will be present at the
August 2, 1982 Agenda session to describe what a Fixed Asset
Management System is and why it is of a benefit to the City. He
will also answer any questions you may have about the level of
staff participation in the system.
DB/ds
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Counc'
FROM: Clerk-Administrat
DATE: July 27, 1982
SUBJECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT TO RAMSEY ACTION PROGRAMS
Attached please find a letter received by this office from
Roberta Brainard of Ramsey Action Programs requesting a letter
of support from the City of Mounds View regarding their Energy
Assistance Program. Staff would request Council direction on
this request for a letter of support.
DFP/pf
Attachment
07
Chairman
Scott marcatt
vice,chair
Bob WeyandI
Secretary
Kathy Guerin
Truwrar
Barbara Robinton
Executive Director
James R. Brown
Deputy Dir,clOr
Leroy Cunningham
��JN1T Y gF G
9
o N
9 �
O��NISTNP�\0
01 RAMSEY ACTION PROGRAMS, INC.
e.
cz
r
July 20, 1982 0
Mr. Don Pauley
Moundsview City Hall
2401 NE Hwy 10
Moundsview, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Pauley;
We are happy to report that 4,846 households (13,796 individuals)
received Energy Assistance through RAP's 1982 Energy Assistance Pro-
gram. Of this number, 1,193 households had elderly members, 1,534
had handicapped members, and 1,828 had young children. The average
grant per household was $309.00. Unfortunately, 836 households were
formally denied assistance due to the income limitations under which
the program operated. This number does not include those applicants
who, after learning about the guidelines, decided not to complete
an application.
In order to insure that RAP can continue to help low income re-
sidents of Ramsey County meet skyrocketing energy costs, we would
very much appreciate receiving from you a letter of support for our
program. With your support we hope to be able to demonstrate the
continuing need for an Energy Assistance Program as well as the limi-
tations of community resources to meet this escalating need.
We would like to thank you sincerely for your assistance to our
staff and clients throughout the harsh and hectic heating season.
Without your cooperation many families might well have suffered far
more.
Please feel free to call me at 227-8954 if you have any suggestions
regarding how we might improve the design and operation of future
Energy Assistance Programs.
Sincerely,
Roberta Brainard,
Acting EAP Coordinator
RB:ps 1644TIMBERi.AKEROAD, SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 56117 x (6121 488.0244
"An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. "
,
I
I
1
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Counci
FROM: Clerk-Administrato
DATE: July 270 1982
SUBJECT: WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND INJURY ON DUTY PAY
Attached please find a letter from Attorney Mark Karney regarding
the injury on duty benefits paid to Chris Weston, the denial of
Worker's Compensation insurance benefits after payment has been
made by the City's insurance carrier,and a request for information
regarding any policy statement the City might adopt regarding the
filing of Worker's Compensation claims by the City employees.
Basically, Mr. Karney is recommending that the City follow some
basic steps in the process of paying injury on duty benefits,
some of which should be contained in a written statement provided
to each employee upon commencement of their employment with the
City. These statements would basically be the following:
1. The City should encourage all employees to report any
injury immediately upon occurrence of that injury.
2. That all employees be required to report any injury to
their direct supervisor who would then be responsible
for notifying the involved department head, Clerk -Administrator,
and Finance Director in order that the appropriate reports
and notice might be provided to our insurance carrier.
3. That the City will not pay benefits under the injury on duty
clause of our contract. until the insurance carrier has
determined its liability for Worker's Compensation benefits.
Should the Council wish staff to prepare a formal policy statement
for your consideration and adoption, we would be able to prepare
it for your consideration at your next regular meeting.
Finally, it is the understanding of staff, based on the direction
of the City Council, that it is to be an administrative matter
for us to attempt to recover any injury on duty benefits
paid to Mr. Weston by the City by deducting such benefits from
the vacation and sick leave accrual he is earning during his
regular employment. Staff will be attempting to develop a program
for the collection of these erroneously paid benefits, however,
will not begin to do so until your full consideration of the
information included with this memorandum. Should you determine
it is your desire not to recover these benefits, it would be
appreciated if you would advise staff of this fact in order that
we might not begin the process of recovering previously paid benefits.
DFP/pf
Attachments
Rushton & Korney
Arrorneys or Lo%v
Sure 504. Roseville Professional Cenrer
2233 Homhne Avenue Nonh
fbSeville, Mnnesoro
Telephone (612) 6369654
Mork A Korney Nthord Meyers
5horosW.N,hron July 26, 1982 OfCWNA
Donald Pauley
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Re: Workers' Compensation Benefits and Injury on Duty Pay
Dear Don:
I have reviewed the material with regard to Chris Weston and his
claim for workers' compensation benefits against the City. I
submit the following information and recommendations:
Under state law an employee is supposed to notify an employer of
a work related injury within 14 days of occurrence. However, the
employee may give notice within 30 days from the date of injury
and unless the employer is prejudiced in some fashion the notice
is sufficient. In addition, the employee may give valid notice
within 180 days of the date of injury if the delay in giving
notice was caused by mistake, inadvertance, or ignorance of law
or fact.
The insurance carrier must pay benefits within 14 days of notice
of injury but can file a 30 day extension in which to investigate
the propriety of any claim. It is the insurance carrier's
responsibility during this period to properly investigate the
claim and pay or deny benefits. With the extension provisions
the insurance carrier should have sufficient time to investigate
a claim and make a determination.
In the Weston wattar notice was properly given. Apparently the
insurance carrier did not invesigate the claim but began paying
benefits. It was not until after the investigation that the
benefits were discontinued.
I would recommend the following to avoid any future conflicts
with regard to benefits and injury on duty pay:
1. The City should encourage all employees to report any
injuries immediately upon occurrence.
2. All employees should be given written notice upon
commencement of employment to report any injury to, their
Donald Pauley
July 26, 1982
Page Two
direct supervisor. The City should then follow through
with the first injury report and notice to the insurance
carrier.
3. The City should not involve itself with the
investigation of claims but allow the insurance carrier to
do so. The insurance company is set up to make such
investigations and has primary responsibility to do so.
Further, it employs persons familiar with state law
regarding workers' compensation benefits who are able to
determine liability.
4. The City should not pay benefits under the injury on
duty clause of your contract until the insurance carrier
has determined its liability for workers' compensation
benefits. Then the City should act in accordance with the
insurance carrier's determination.
5. If benefits are paid by the City and insurance carrier
and then denied by the insurance carrier, the City should
recoup those benefits from future compensation. The
employee has a right to contest denial and if successful
the benefits should be reinstated by the City as well.
6. The injury on duty portion of your Labor/Relations
contract should include a provision that payment of such
benefits are contingent upon the employee's eligibility for
worker's compensation benefits.
In the case of Mr. Weston, I concur with Mr. Smythe that benefits
already paid be recovered until such time as Mr. Weston is
successful in proving that his injury was, in fact, wort; related.
If successful the benefits should be reinstated.
I hope this answers your questions in this regard.
Very truly yours,
RUSHTON & KARNEY
Mark A. Karney
MAR/rp
f
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: July 28, 1982
SUBJECT: JIM PETROWSKI INFORMAL VARIANCE REQUEST FOR GARAGE SETBACK
Attached is a copy of Pages 1 and 2 of the Planning Commission
minutes of May 5, 1982. Mr. Petrowski appeared before the Planning
Commission during the "Residents Comments and Requests From the
Floor" portion of the agenda.
This item was further discussed with the Planning Commission at
their July 21, 1982 meeting.
The Planning Commission advised Mr. Petrowski that for them to grant
a variance he must show that his situation is unique and not self
caused. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that there were
other alternatives which should be evaluated prior to requesting a
variance, for instance, that he investigate the possibility of
redesigning the interior spaces of his house so that sleeping areas
were not on the County Road J side. The Planning Commission was
concerned as to whether the plan which he is proposing would do what
he wanted it to do, that is lessen the noise. They suggested that
Mr. Petrowski consult a builder to look at other building alterna-
tives which might achieve the same end.
Mr. Petrowski was told that he could apply for a variance and that
if the request was denied he could appeal the decision to the City
Council. They also suggested that he appear before the Council
during the citizen input part of the meeting and ask Council for
direction.
The Planning Commission attempted to inform Mr. Petrowski that there
may be other alternatives available to lessen the noise problem
that may not require construction of a garage only 18 feet from the
road right-of-way. Another area of concern discussed by the Planning
Commission was how granting of the setback variance might impact
other properties along County Road J and would the City be approached
with similar requests for setback variances.
Also attached is a c:,py of the results of the noise study conducted
as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for
New Trunk Highway 10, dated February 20, 1979. Noise receptor No. 3
was located between Mr. Petrowski's home and Red Oak Drive. Noise
level monitored was L10 = 69 dBA and L50 = 57 dBA. Projected noise dBA
level for the year 2000 under the no build alternative is L10
and L50 = 69 dBA. M.P.C.A. standards are daytime: L10 = 65 dBA and
L50 = 60 dBA; nightime: L10= 55 dBA and L50 = dBA.
1981 Ramsey County traffic flow data indicates an average of approx-
imately 13,000 vehicles per day travel the section of County Road J
Mayor and City Council
Page Two
July 28, 1982
near Mr. Petrowski's home. This is approximately 10 to 15 percent
more vehicles than at the time of the noise study.
It therefore appears that the noise levels may well exceed M.P.C.A.
standards. The Council may wish to proceed with one of the following
alternatives:
1) Proceed with the variance process.
2) Request M.P.C.A. enforce compliance with noise standards.
3) Request Ramsey and Anoka counties to implement noise abate-
ment procedures such as restricting truck traffic, erect
noise walls, resurface pavement or relocate County Road J.
9) Request area truck terminals to restrict truck traffic on
County Road J.
JCJ/bc
Attachments
cc: Peg Mountin
APPROVED
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
May 5, 1982
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy, 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
The Mounds View Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Mountin at 7:30 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Linke, Anderson,
McCarthy arrived at 7:32 PM), 'Marren, Miller
and Breske and Chairman Mountin.
ALSO PRESENT: Councilmember Forslund and
Building and Zoning Official Rose.
Motion/Second: Linke/Breske to approve the
arch, IW and April 7, 1982 minutes as
presented.
6 ayes 0 nays
Commissioner McCarthy arrived at this time.
2708 County Road J, stated he
wou i e comments from the Planning Commission,
regarding the garage addition he is proposing
to build, so he would know whether to proceed
with filing an application and paying the
required fees. He presented the Planning
Commission with copies of a sketch of his lot
and the proposed building. He explained he
wanted to put the garage in the proposed spot
to serve as a noise buffer from the traffic on
County Road J. He added that he cannot sleep
in the bedroom in his house that is closest
to County Road J.
Official Rose explained the right of way is
33' from the center of the road, and there
would be approximately 18' from the proposed
addition to the right of way. He also stated
Mr. Petrowski was presently in line with his
neighbors.
There was considerable discussion among the
Commissioners regarding the possibility of
granting a variance, with comments being made
that the code should be adhered to, and
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of
Minutes:
March 3, 1982
April 7, 1982
Motion Carried
4. Residents
Requests and
Comments from
Floor
Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 1982
Regular Meeting Page Two
---------------------------------------------------------------------
f differences in opinion being stated about whalic-r AP PROVEO
the traffic increase would be a unique situatiouation,
as well as the suggestion thaL barriers could be
used, such as shrubs and trees, or additional
insulation in the house, that the proposed garage
could cut off the line of vision for neighbors,
with the majority agreeing that there were alterna-
tives to be used other than a variance.
Chairman Mountin advised Mr, Petrowski that he
could make an application for variance, if he wished,
and if the Planning Commission denied it, he would
have the right to appeal it to the City Council. She
also advised him that the Council has a Lime for
residents requests and comments at their meeting if
he wished to address them.
Official Rose explained the requested variance is
5. Gregory & Mary
7'10" and drew a sketch of the property involved
Windsperger,
and the proposed addition. He reported the
2610 Louisa
property directly across the street is classified
Avenue, Variance
Request (Reduced
wetlands and may never developed, as well as
Greenwood not being a through street and never
side yard setbac'
will be.
corner lot) R-1
Single Family
-. The Planning Commission discussed the request,
Zone
clarifying the grade of the property, and making
Case 106-82
the points that it is actually only half a
rnrner, that there is still potential for develop-
ment of the wetlands, that it is not necessarily
a unique situation, and there could be a safety
factor involved with people driving around the
corner, and they should stay as close to the
required setbacks as possible.
Motion/Second. Breske/Miller to approve Resolu-
tion—' No.n-61 as amended, granting approval of
the requested variance.
2 ayes 5 nays
Motion Denied
Commissioners Breske and Miller voted in favor of
the motion. The remaining Commissioners stated
they did not feel it was a unique situation, and
an 8' variance request was too large, with a
similar variance request being denied in the past.
Motion/Second: McCarthy/Linke to adopt Resolu-
tLo-n—No. 52-82 as presented, denying the variance
request,
6 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried
Commissioner Breske stated he did feel the situa-
tion was unique.
of relatively homogeneous land lisp.. The chosen
receptor iocation was normally the structure or activity
center nearest the roadway. The noise susceptible
homogeneous land use wrens and the approximate
receptor locations are shown in figure 21.
The noise regulations applicable to the proposed project
are those established in FlIPM 7-7-3, and the State of
Minnesota in its Noise Pollution Control Regulations.
Tables 17 and 19 describe the permitted noise levels
under these regubitions.
The existing "Oise levels 'it the receptors were
determined by monitoring and/or using a highway noise
prediction model. Noise monitoring was conducted at
nineteen of the receptors on average weekdays between
9 A.M. and 3 P.M. Modeling of existing highway noise
levels was performed for all but nine of the receptor
sites. The nine sites exchtded from this modeling were
considered too remote from any existing major roadway
(and thus, could not be satisfactorily estimated by a
highway noise prediction method).
The highway noise prediction model used was the
procedure described in N-0:ional Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 174 (NCIIRP Report 174)
Ilighwoy Noise - A Design Guide for Prediction and
Control." This procedure which has been computerized,
reoresenls a revision of the previous procedures under
NCIIRP Reports 117 and 144. The input parameters for
this revised modeling procedure include traffic volumes,
traffic speeds, and the physical characteristics of the
roadway and the surrounding aren. The traffic volumes
used in estimating existing highway noise levels were
taken from traffic flow maps issued by the Minnesota
Departtncnl of Transportation and by Ramsey County.
The specific traffic conditions examined for existing
conditions were the estimated 1977 Design Hourly
Volumes of autos? and trucks and the corresponding
operating speeds. Predictions under these traffic
7According to FIIPM 7-7-3 for automobile traffic
the lesser of the Design Ilourly Volume or the manimum
volume which can be handled under traffic level of
service C conditions is to be used for predicting noise
levels. for truck traffic the use of the Design Hourly
Volume is recommended. for the proposed project the
Design Ilourly Volumes of automobiles is less than the
roadway capacity at traffic level of service C
conditions and therefore was used in this analysis.
156
r
L:
L
ff I
;t:' %
z %VS
lApproximate Scalo)
4500 0 4500 0000
11.4500
TABLE
DESIGN
17
NOISE LEVEL/ACTIVITY HELATIONS111PS-411WA(1)
Activity
Design Noise
Description of Activity Category
Category
Level - 1,10
A
00 OA
91•ncls of Innds in which serenity and quiet
(exterior)
me of extraordinary significance and serve
an important public need, and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential
if the area is to continue to serve its in-
tended purpose. Such areas could include
amphitheaters, particular parks or portions
of pnrks, or open spaces which are dedicated
or recognized by appropriate local officials
for activities requiring special qualities of
serenity and quiet.
B
70 dBA
Residences, .�.otcls, hotels, public meeting
(exterior)
rooms, schools, churches, libraries, picnic
orcas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active
sports areas and parks.
C
75 dBA
Developed lands, properties or activities
(exterior)
not included in categories A and B above.
D
n/a
Undeveloped lands.
E
55 dBA
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting
(interior)
rooms, schools, churches, libraries,
hospitals and auditoriums.
(I)PIIPM
7-7-3, Figure 3-1
159
L
9 0
(001� TABLE IS
NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS--MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY{1)
General Nighttime
Land Use 'Daytime Noise Level
Category Types Noise Level (10 PM to 7 AM)
NAC-1 Residenlinl & 1,10 of 65 dllA 1,10 of 55 dBA
Inslilutiunnl I,5O of 611 (IRA 1, 11 of 50 dBA
NAC-2 Commercial h 1,10 of 70 dBA 1110 of 70 dBA
Recreational 150 of 65 dBA 1150 of 65 dBA
NAC-3 Industrial 1,10 of RO dBA 1,10 of 80 dBA
L50 of 75 dBA L50 of 75 dBA
(1)NPC-2 - Noise Standards; Adopted September 17, 1974.
160
,44
conditions ore anticipated to represent the existing
noisi0st hour. 'fable 19 presents the existing noise
levels at the receptors.
Projected Noise The future (year '2000) noise levels at each of the
Levels receptors was predicted for the Relocnlcd Til 10,
Upgraded I'll 10 and No -Build Alternatives using the
previously described highwny noise prediction model.
Since detailed design/loenlion plans have not been
prepared for the alternatives being considered, the
prediction of future noise levels was made assuming
probnble "worst case" conditions. Except for specific
grade separated intersections, it was assumed the
1 relocated or upgraded TII 10 would be at grade. For
each alternative the rondwny was assumed to be
centered within the nvuiinblc right-of-wny. The traffic
1 conditions used are the anticipated year 2000 Design
JHourly Volumes of autos and trucks (being less than
Levei u( Service C capacity) and the corresponding
average operating speeds. The traffic volumes were
obtained from a computer analysis by the MnDOT
Metropolitan Planning Section. The resultant year 2000
noise levels shown in Table 19 are considered to be the
probable noisiest conditions under each alternative.
Probable Impacts The probnble impact of each alternative was analyzed
Of Alternatives by comparing the year 2000 noise levels to the FIIWA
Design Noise Levels, the State of Minnesota Noise
Level Slnndards (NPC-2) and the existing noise levels.
The following describes the noise impacts of each
alternative assuming special noise abatement measures
are not provided.
Relocated Til 10. As nnticipated, the introduction of
traffic into the new Tit 10 corridor will result in
increased noise levels and some noise impacts. Under
unshielded conditions, areas within 900 feet of the
Relocated Tit 10 centerline would experience peak hour
I, noise levels in excess of 65 dBA and areas within
338 feet would experience peak hour L noise levels in
excess of 70 dBA. The diversion bQ traffic from
existing arterial roadways to the relocated TH 10 will
result in reduced noise levels on major paralleling
routes. The year 2000 noise levels along existing TH 10
(east of University) would be below existing levels as a
result of this alternative.
Upgraded Til 10. This alternative will result in
increased noise levels along the existing TH 10 corridor.
Under unshlelded conditions, areas within approximately
I 300 feet of the roadway centerline would experience
i 161
pcnk hour I,LL1'11 noise levels in excess of 0fi dDA and
fircus within 2n11 feel would experience levels in excess
of 70 (IIIA.
No-Iluild Alternative. With this alternative traffic is
still anticipated to increase along the existing TII 10.
Thus, noise levels will also increase.. The noise levels
associated with this aliernitive would be almost identi-
cal Whose for the Upgrailed'I'll III alternative.
Measures to The analysis of the Ilnrcc nllcrn"lives indicated noise
Minimize Harm levels in excess of both the MICA Noise Level
Slfindards and PIIWA Design Noise Levels would occur
AI nuuty rcceplors. 'I'horefure, noise abatement
measures will be provided. 'Typical methods for abating
exterior highway noise include lrnffie management,
elevation, or depression of the highway, noise barriers
and ]and use controls. Modification of the receptor
through soundproofing and air-conditioning is another
method, nithough it will lint nfreel exterior levels.
Considered fill ext•am'dinnry mensurc, it is used only
wife" ingmcts me severe And whrn other methods are
physically infeasible or ecnnomieAllY unrensonoble.
These conditions fire unlikely.
" Analysis of the ullermilive ahulenlent measures
indicated thin noise harriers nre the most fensible for '
the Itelocalcd TII Ill projccl. The projected noise
levels with noise barriers Arc indicated in Table 19.
'I'ypicully reductions of up to 15 d11A can be achieved by
barriers. Except where local fiecess to properties would
require openings in barriers, (receptors 2,3,7 and 15)
both the PIIWA Design Noise Levels find the MPCA
dnytime Noise Level Standards can be achieved. There
remains, however, some uncertainty ns to whether the �•
MPCA nighttime Noise Level Standards can be achieved
even with typical noise abatement measures.
Much of the land adjacent to the project corridor is
~
presently vacant and thus, no activities are impacted.
However, these areas will undoubtedly develop. To
assure tlml additional impacts from post -construction
V
development are avoided requires the proper considera-
tion of noise in the local planning and zoning of the
area. The noise reports will assist the local municipali-
ties in this effort by identifying future noise levels and
land use/activities which are compatible with varying
noise levels. This information call be used to prepare
Plans which place the most susceptible uses away from
the highway and to utilize open space, structures or
other less susceptible hind uses as buffers or physical
barriers.
162
L
I
04 rn
OI^ °
O�� 1
Lon I•0 1
s r•'
'uuo$E � N
1
J r' O D r m �, i N' r •r a G
F it r.l 1 1 ^
9 � .
m
L O 1 1' .. .• u N - rr 10
Cam^
p ; 1. gym' :'r•'. 1- � 1• i. _
^ !
g 6 4
%�L O O IT •. �MI I.
S , D t• F, .. r r
j m -
v. U O J T I •I r� r .r r r.
J `0 'wl flilac
if117 n"
uE;u� t 1•i
Q C IZ Vi O N N rG r!f r- N
rj O r•1�J m m .O Y. •G 'J
5.
CJa a.
6wGs �Q
0
O
E U
E o'..ct
zr%<UC
C
CUm
E5
°C
u5
S
u
a 0
!"jaLE
z 6a2
C m m m z m m
•n 1- m n O
r It m It p N m
/1-1\
n
•r
1-
T
r r
1
1
I
1
N
r r
r
r
r
I
b
a,
ar
m
rn
..
T
.•
n
c
e
_ i
c
I.
%
•e
u
G
N
N
N
o-
p O
p^ .^+ .G•r � � rD. � O^ .. r O^ O^ ^ D^ p
_ W ^
�•' af- 'h �t- .oF aF F i- 9 9 F 1- Zf � 'F
89 789 �09 tV CV U 9 9 w •� 9 9 .0 V 9
L 0 x; ` V0.'•OL Mm L U =L a u' ^ri0a L b U0 L L 9 U Q L Q°L
m_ C Q=o ro 'v3 _o = o -u uu o o A to 20
W5
U Ua T o`o o `0 01..
`oo Co`o ou QO -.0O 0O 00 000 •.0 `0 `o `o U `o `o ..00 o
WN N.�N 0 In ym .gym %% Wo %01 ^'L .gym N N zz wo 0
r�V rw� y'V ,�\. r•: »l.. •�» »VV Y� rr r » y» V.4� 'Y4�i
0 O 0 O C O 00 O o o cc 0 0
^O COM opm ON OI• mm Np CNN rT.rO OO ^.
N 'rTCI Irml• n'• nM !Im NmT M TCI 1 1^ �� HT MM"
N
w � �
u o
.N` m flr q °
E
mm0 8 N V! N n m ulu" mm n fmu
m ..�
T T N N •p M-. J• C.1 CI m i.i.' I m NP•••
0 y
9 9 U U U 2 4 d m 0 m ] 0 b
9 9 9 2
U m 4 0 JI 9 y O G J U u m U o
C cod C C $ > C C
.• N M T 0 11 1. m ']. O r r N M M Y
1
�l
0
111 F:.r
CI
•t �
•�
.uJgau
s 'Azy
v.
0 �
4
�
b
uE
4 � V
F n
Ca
-U
J
0?
0
�oz
'I 1
U
S
In
1i
9
U
r
O 0
uu
�
N
.l
N
b
u v.E
�zoLl0
O
o
a
6
f
I-
N
C o
N VU
z<t
a
W
00
a
,j c
bo 9
NIj
;
T
Yl 'c
0
7
O
r
N
U ,.00i
n
A
o EUhc
omao�
20izN
o
.a
N
10
n u
t•
p• 0
a
e
n+ma
•6twc.Y
0
0
0�
zu"2iiu<
R
0
•r.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
o
I
I
I
'C
e
'a
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
f•�
I
I
I
I•
LL
I
I
�
I
0
•c
o
b
mV
b
-
m
.I
•�
-.
•c
m
w
o
c
•II
m
o
FZ
0
�y
•n
•n
T
'.
F
•n
¢
¢
m
L
•J'
¢
s
'J
o
�.
a
'L
w
D
�
�
o
V'
t-
o
¢
•-
F
o
I-
¢
c
m
b
n
I.
•-
F
n
a
+
I.
t•
•L
o
w
I
I
I
e
n
In
T
1-
w
n
•'
I_
T
•n
•I
I•
M
•!
n
•n
c
n
n
T
o
I
••
T
N
T
¢
T
n
N
¢
n
o
n
In
In
In
T
T
T
T
N
b
w
r
a
o
r
e
z
�
o
w
a
I.
n
I
1-
1.
1.
I•
I-
..
1•
_ a
Wz •�4Z
z F c v F F ZF ZrF 3
yu CTU COU cC :� �O 'LO +bO OU Op O 0 �0 _O >O
a �C U U as XC FC roF'C FC =C K r mC m`W n
z N v) WO z
0 `a ` 0 0 u -,_0 0 0 0 0 -0-0 0 0 a 0 0 O y ^O S 0 0 z' 0 0 O a a t
0 'm T•T. U1 rW z U)M zSW Y Wra VISN NWy %� ''•
•s4 •'N ••••I I'• `•.• ••�, 4� Y•u 44V OV �� � M O M� y4•.• `
4 4 4
00 O O O 40 00 DO COO 00
N 40 N In b0w9.
00
N0 CI NIT omT
TTN NONO
w
p�L � T T m N N n•+a m N C7 •. +• I m NT•w m
C 0 C•
� e c e 9 G C - C � .• _• C C
I , .
According to FIIWA Policy (wrd similar pending MOOT
policy), noise ❑bnlenuml measures will riot be provided
for hinds which arc undeveloped on the date of public
knowledge of the proposed highway project except
whera (1) th0y tunic been planned, designed, and
Programmed before the highway studies (and have been
only temporarily delayed) or (2) where the development
is phmncd, designed, Mad progranuacd during the
highway project phnming Mad design; there is a high
pros nbiiity of its construction and the developer has
considered the noise impmcts to the extent reasonable
and practicable. At present no lands meeting either of
these two criteria have been identified.
Coordination with The "Preliminary Noise Analysis Report" will be
Local Officials furnished to federnl, dale, regional and local officials
us well as made nvailable to the general public for
inspection. Comrnerlls received on the Prcllminary
Noise Annlysis Report Its well as the draft EIS will be
reviewed and where desirable, incorporated into the
preliminary design plans for the selected alternative
_ - and into the finnl EIS. Public input (i.e. citizens and
municipalities) will be used in the development of the
noise abatement plans. The comments will provide
input into the "Final Noise Analysis Report" which will
also be furnished to local municipalities having
jurisdiction along the selected alignment.
_ MOOT has furnished all cities, counties, and regional
development commissions in Minnesota with copies of
— "The Audible Landscape." This handbook provides
guidance for land use planning, plat layout, and building
design for compatible development near traffic noise.
Additional copies are available upon request.
- Proposed plats for land adjacent to all Minnesota Stale
Highways are submitted to the department for review
prior to plat approval. When a potential for noise
impact is identified in the review process, it is noted in
lie review comments to insure that the approving
authority is aware of an existing or possible highway
noise impact on proposed noise sensitive areas.
Summary Preliminary analysis indicates that (with noise
abatement measures) achievement of the MPCA
daytime noise standards is feasible for most locations
along ::ithcr the Relocated TH 10 or Upgraded TH 10
alignment. The No Build Alternative results in levels
exceeding the MPCA daytime standards for most
locations along the existing TH 10 alignment.
Achievement of the MPCA nighttime noise standards
165
Ce
tray lc difficull (even with noise abatement) for most
receplors along the aligumenls of either the Iteloculed
'I'll III or hpgrnded'I'll III n1ternnlive., Most receptors
along the existing 'I'll 10 alignment will experience
nighttime noise levels in excess of the, Slate standards
for the No Iluild Alternative. The "Preliminary Noise
Analysis Rcpori'" eonlnins more complete information
and is available upon rrgnrsl.
CONSTRUCTION
Impacts The construction of the proposed action would have it
number of impacts associated with it. Must of these
impacts would be temporary in mature and would
terminate with the completion of the facility. The
impacts would be temporary air, noise and water
pollution, crosiou during construction, traffic manage-
ment during construction including detours and
bypasses, mixing plant operations and borrow pit areas
outside the right-of-wny.
Proposed Mitigation The Mmur staadnrd specifications for Highway Con-
-Air, Noise, Water struction provides controls over the contractor's con -
Pollution and struction operations. This document can be augmented
Erosion Controls by special provisions to the contract to provide
additional controls relating to the prevention of air,
noise and water pollution and erosion control.
Air and noise pollution by construction equipment will
be subject to the standards established by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, and applicable federal
agencies.
Water pollution and erosion will be controlled by
monitoring the contractor's progress and limiting the
amount of surface area of erodible earth exposed by his
operations. Examples of these operations are, cleaning
out grubbing, excavation, borrow and embankment,
grading, paving, and revegetation work. Once the side
slopes are shaped, immediate revegetation of lnese
slopes will commence by sodding, seeding or ground
cover and a mulch placed to limit erosion and thus,
water pollution.
Some temporary measures may also be used for erosion
control such as slope drains, dikes, sediment basins, and
temporary quick -growing grasses which will provide
temporary cover, but will not compete with permanent
grosses later.
166
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: July 28, 1982
SUBJECT: 1982 SEAL COATING PROJECT
July 21, 22, and 23, 1982, Allied Blacktop Company installed the
seal coat materials in the northwest quadrant of Mounds View.
Preliminary review of installed quantities indicate the following:
Rock - 94 loads @ 18 tons/ea. @ $14.84/ton = $25,109.28
Oil - 31,141 gallons @ $0.87/gallon = $27,092.67
TOTAL $52,2O1.95
Original Contract Price $52,854.98
Net Underrun $ 653.03
Average rock application rate 22.62 lb./SY (spec. 22 to 24 lb./Sy).
Average Oil application. rate 0.208 gal./Sy (spec. 0.20 to 0.22 gal./SY).
Sweeping of excess rock should be complete by August 6, 1982. A
final pay rayuast will be submitted after work is complete for your
approval.
JCJ/bc
cc: Gary Kardell
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Johnson, Director of Public Works/Community
Development
DATE: July 28, 1982
SUBJECT: TYSON WAREHOUSE/DISTRIBUTION CENTER OCCUPANCY
The Tyson Warehouse/Distribution Center on Mustang Circle is
near completion. It appears they will ask for a temporary
occupancy to begin operation in their distribution center some-
time between August 15 and the first part of September. If the
building is acceptable from a Building Code perspective, does
the Council want staff to issue a temporary occupancy?
The development agreement and security would not be released
until the entire building and project are completed at which
time Council would approve the occupancy permit.
JCJ/bc
ITEM 9
MEMO TO: City Council/Planning Commission
FROM: Public Works/Community Development Director
DATE: July 29, 1982
SUBJECT: PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE/HIGHWAY 10 TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Attached for your review is a letter from Steve Rose to Mr. Evan
Green, District 5 MnDOT Project Manager, in regards to a meeting
between staff and MnDOT personnel concerning the proposed
signalization of Pleasant View Drive and Highway 10. A corre-
spondence was received from Mr. Green (attached) outlining the
projected costs and right-of-way requirements necessary for
construction.
Note that additional right-of-way is needed (area outlined on map)
of apprxoimately 1,300 square feet in the City of Mounds View for
access to Highway 10.
Please -review the attached items and give direction to staff as to
response back to MnDOT District 5.
/be
Attachments
C►� s VfVOW. 4
RAMSE Y COUNTY. MINNESOTA
24011111111WAY 10
MOUNDS VIFW, MINN 55112
III&J0115
March 23, 1902
Evan R. Green, Project Manager
Minnesota Dept. of Transportation .
District Five
5001 Duluth Street
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Re: SP 0203-68 Tdd 10
Alternate Layout 93 for Pleasant
View Drive Signalization
Dear Mr. Green:
Thank you for you and vnllr � ,Pal-
��-... � aLtuilueuce at the March 17,
1982, meeting. As we discussed at that meeting there is a
considerable amount of additional information necessary with
regard to the proposal of Alternate #3. Please include the
following items in your re -submission of Altcrnate 13 informa-
tion:
(1) Current traffic counts for the signalization area.
(2) Project traffic counts for the signalized area for
the area at full development pursuant to both cities'
Comprehensive Plans.
(3) Give estimates of costs that may be incurred by the
cities for such a signalized improvement. This should
include costs of right-of-way as well as project costs
and operating costs.
(4) The signalization timing program and as we discussed
the possiblity of a censor at the intersection of
Pleasant View Drive and the frontage road stating
proposed time intervals for all traffic movements to
occur.
Mr. Croon
Page 2
March 23, 1902
Please let me know if you need assistance or additional infor-
mation in which to answur these requests for your submission
regarding the feasibility of the Pleasant View Drive semiphore
proposal.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
T Y OC MOU S VIEW
Steven AIR s e
Building & Zoning Official
SARjbc
cc; Mounds View Planning Commission
Donald Busch, City of Spring Lake Park
j
otT)4
Minncsrna hl
Af Deparlm;nl f>f'Ir;mslx)iImilni
District Five,
5801 1XIIU111 `;treel
of rid' Golden ValleI, NUM SOW 55422
22
July 22, 1982
Mr. Steven A. Rose
Building 6 Zoning Officer
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
S.P. 0203-68 T.H. 10
From 1500' E. of T.li. 65 to Pleasant View Drive
Signals, Channelization and Fr. Rd. Construction
Dear Mr. Rose:
.rG' A
R�CF 1oRz
Moo ryop
(612) 5453761
As you know, we have been trying for some time to come up with a preliminary
plan for the above referenced location which will be acceptable to all of the
affected municipalities. Attached for your review and comment is a print of
our latest proposal. The project is tentatively scheduled for letting in 1984
and we anticipate funding construction with 90% Federal funds and 10% State
and local funds. The local municipalities will be responsible for right of
way acquisition.
We estimate that the project will require approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of
right of way north of TH 10 and approximately 3,000 sq. ft. south of TH 10.
We are assuming that the 30' strip of street right of way along the south
right of way line of TH 10 is available to construct the proposed frontage
road on.
The only other costs of the project that the municipalities will have to
participate in is the State and local share of the signals and maintenance of
them. Our normal participation on the signals is determined by entering legs,
Mn/DOT would be responsible for 50% and Mounds View, Ramsey County and Spring
Lake Park would be responsible for 509. Assuming the signal system costs
$91,000, the Federal share would be $81,000, the State share would be $4,500.
The local share would be split with Mounds View paying $1,125, Ramsey County
$2,250 and Spring Lake Park $1,125.
Also attached for your information and review are traffic counts which were
taken in June. We have included an assignment of where this traffic will be
after we construct the project.
The proposed signal will be fully traffic actuated and will greatly improve
access to and from TH 10 in this area. We also feel this design will
discourage the use of Pleasant View Drive by traffic not destined for that
area but yet will provide a c, venient access.
:In Egno( Opp.)iguni(v $updoyer
Mr. Steven A. Rose ,
July 22, 1982 '
Page 2 I
I would appreciate a quick review of this proposed plan so that we can
continue with the project development. .After f receive a response from all
the municipalities Involved, we will proceed with a pohlir hearing.
Sincerely,
Evan R. Green
Project Manager
ERG:bn
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NAPPROVED
Regular Meeting
JulyCi 1982
Hall
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View City Council was called to order 1. Call to Order
by Mayor McCarty at 7:30 PM on July 26, 1982,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Blanchard and 2. Roll Call
Hodges and Mayor McCarty,
It was noted Councilmembers Doty and Forslund
were absent on vacation.
ALSO PRESENT: Clerk/Administrator Pauley,
ub iP� c Works/Community Development Director
Johnson and Acting City Attorney Karney.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to approve the 3. Approval of
u7Ty I2 -1W minutes as corrected. Minutes:
July 12, 1982
3 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
There were no residents requests or comments from 4. Residents Re -
the floor. quests and
Comments from
the Floor
Motion/Second: Hodges/Blanchard to approve the 5. Approval of
consent agenda and waive the reading of the Consent Agenda
resolutions.
3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hodges to remove the joint 6. Remove from
powers agreement with Circle Pines from the table. Table and Con-
sideration of
3 ayes 0 nays Joint Powers
Agreement with
Circle Pines
Motion Carried
Mayor McCarty reviewed the additions made to the
proposed resolution, regarding time allocation.
Mounds View City Couni NAPPBOVED July 26, 1982
Replax Meeting ?age Two
--------7--------------------------------------------------------------
Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to approve the
jo nt powers agreement between Mounds View and Circle
Pines in reference to a trail system.
3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Hodges/Blanchard to iemove Reso- 7. Remove from
ut on o. 49 from the table. Table and Con-
sideration of
3 ayes 0 nays Resolution No.
1445 Revising
Permit Fees
Established by
Resolution
No. 749
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Hodges/Blanchard to approve the
changes and additions made to Resolution No. 1445,
and approve Resolution No. 1445, revising permit
fees established by Resolution No. 749.
2 ayes 1 nay Motion Carri
Mayor McCarty explained he voted against the motion
a3 he felt it was tco large an increase at once,
and the people who would be hardest hit would be
the Mounds View residents who were trying to do a
small addition or remodeling to their own home.
Director Johnson explained this was
a follow up 8.
He
Consideration o
Proposal for
to the previous agenda session discussion.
stated they would like to extend the
monitoring
Extension of
for the inflow/infiltration study as
there had
Sanitary Sewer
not been enough rainfall to date. He added the
Monitoring
cost would not exceed $1,400.00.
Motion/Second: Hodges/Blanchard to
approve the
extendor flow monitoring of the
sanitary sewer
system by TKDA, in an amount not to
exceed $1,400.00,
from account 730-121-4515.
3 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hodges to adopt Ordinance 9. do Second
Reading
f
No. , establishing candidacy filing fees. and p i
Ordinance N
Councilmember Blanchard - aye 314 Establi
Councilmember Hodges - aye Candidacy Fi n(
Mayor McCarty - aye Fees
Motion Carried
Mounds View City CouncUl
NAPPROVED July 26, 1982
Regular Meeting - ----------
Clerk/Administrator
Pauley reported
he had re-
10. Consideration
ceived very short notice from
Ramsey
County
of the Ramsey
regarding the City's
input on
the landfill
County Execu-
abatement proposal.
He asked
if the
Council would
tive Summary fo
like to discuss the
issue now
or put
it on the
the Landfill
next agenda.
Abatement Pro-
posal
There was discussion among the Council with the
concensus being they would like to review the
proposal thoroughly but were concerned with meeting
the deadline, while still being in the position of
protecting the residents of Mounds View.
Motion Second: McCarty/Hodges to convey to Ramsey
ounty conceptual approval of the executive summary
for the County landfill abatement proposal,
reserving formal comment for within the next 30 days.
3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported that Police 11. Consideration
Chief Grabowski has recommended that the stop signs of Staff Memo -
and parking signs on Sherwood at Sunnyside Road be randum Regard -
removed and that stop signs be installed at Groveland ing Stop Signs
Road and Arden, making it a 4-way stop. at the Inter-
section of
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Hodges to approve the Sherwood and
removal. of signs from the Red Oak School area and Sunnyside Roads
the installation of signs at Groveland Road and
Ardan Avenue.
3 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hodges to approve the 12. Consideration
payment o ,095.26 to GTF, Inc. for work done of Staff Memo -
on Project 82-2, the Long Lake Road ditch randum Regardin
maintenance, with the funds to be paid from Pay Estimate #2
the SIdM fund, for GTF, Inc.
3 ayes 0 nays
Finance Director Brager reported that while
the accountant hopes to be back to work part-
time beginning August 10, pending her doctor's
approval, he had assessed the workload and
determined that full-time help was necessary
now. fie added that there were some funds left
over in the City Hall account for insurance,
which could be transferred to the salary
account for the Finance Department.
Notion Carried
13, Consideraticn
of Memorandum
from Finance
Director Regard
Temporary Help
During Accoun-
tant's Sick Lea
of Absence
Mounds View City Council F; 'w r 6" j Jul 26 1982
Regular Meeting U N"''�" � ka, July
-------------------------------- P_ � _�__$_�a ��.D------�--------
Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to approve the
iring o a temporary accountant, at a cost not to
exceed $2,040.00, which is to be paid to AccounTemps
from the contingency fund.
3 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Director Johnson reported the seal coating had
14. Report of Direc
been started and completed the previous week,
for of Public
with the root control program to start on July 27.
Works/Community
Development
Director Johnson reported the Fairchild Avenue
resolution would be brought before the Council
soon and asked that they add any comments or
suggestions to the resolution. He also reported
that the Wetlands subcommittee meeting had been
cancelled from the previous week.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hodges to change the
meetingof the Wetlands Subcommittee from July
29 to July 27.
3 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Director Johnson reported that due to a Staff
oversite, the discussion of the reorganization
of the Building Inspector and Zoning Official
position had not been placed on the agenda, and
asked when the Council would like to discuss it.
It was the concensus of the Council that it would
be discussed at the next agenda session.
Attorney Karney stated he did nom have a report 15. Repult of
from Attorney Meyers, Attorney
Attorney Kerney stated that regarding the workers
comp claim the City was involved in, he would
recommend the City take the payment made back out
of future compensation, until such time as the
employee could prove his injuries were work related.
He added that for future reference, the City should
let the insurance company determine if benefits
are due, and then follow suit on their recommenda-
tion.
Mayor McCarty and the Council stated it was an
administrative matter to collect the benefits that
had been paid in error, and directed Clerk/Admini-
strator Pauley to collect them.
Councilmember Blanchard stated she wanted to 16.. Reports of
thank everyone for the excellent job done on the Councilmembers
Festival in the Park, esper'nlly with the childrens
parade.
Mounds View City Council July 26, 1982
UNAIPROVED
Regular Meeting m page Five
---------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------
The Council directed Clerk/Administrator Pauley
to draft a resolution of appreciation and thanks
for everyone involved in the Festival. They also
stated the Council could send a letter to everyone
involved, and have the Festivities Commission come
in to a Council meeting, to give their thanks
personally.
Councilmember Hodges had no report.
Mayor McCarty had no report.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained that Reso-
lution No. 1470 was the first step in the process
of setting assessments for the Silver Lake Woods
improvement project 1981-3, and that the notice
of the hearing must be published on August 5,
before the next Council meeting.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hodges to approve Reso-
lution No. 70 and waive the reading.
3 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had received
notice from the MAMA negotiating committee that
negotiations with AFL/CIO Local 49, which is the
public works union, will be going into mediation
on August 18, He added, however, that they have
success with mediation in the past.
Mayor McCarty asked the status of the Council's
request to the Planning Commission for further
information regarding their decision on County Road
J. Director Johnson replied that he has discussed
it with the Planning Commission and will be preparing
a report which will be in the agenda packet.
Motion/Second: Hodges/Blanchard to adjourn the
meeting at 8:15 PM.
3 ayes 0 nays
17. Report of
Administrator
Motion Carried
18. Adjournment
Respectfully submitted,
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk/Administrator
0, _ .
Motion Carried
DATE APPROVLus 7/26/82
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
" . " °, Regular Meeting
k r I July 12, 1982
1� U t� Mounds View City Hall
Aft
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View City Council was called to order 1. Call to Order
by Mayor McCarty at 7:30 PM on July 12, 1982.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Blanchard, Doty, 2. Roll Call
Forslund, Hodges and Mayor McCarty.
ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/
AMRstrator Pauley and Public Works/Community
Development Director Johnson.
Motion/Second: Hodges/Forslund to approve the 3. Approval of
31—un—e7g= minutes as corrected. Minutes:
5 ayes 0 nays June 28, 1982
Motion Carried
There were no residents requests or comments from 4. Residents
the floor. Requests and
Comments from
the Floor
Clerk/Administrator Pauley asked that Brighton 5. Approval of the
Excavating L_ »_,t a__ Excavation ender T_te^_! (:nncanh Agenda
Exca ating UG addcd undo Ex u
E.
Councilmember Forslund asked that Item B be
removed.
Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to approve the
consent agenda, minus Item B, and waive the reading
of the resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Forslund/Doty to table Item B
and s� cis at the July 19 agenda session.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
04
Mounds
View City Council
July
12, 1982
Regular
Meeting APPED-----Page-Two----------------------------
----
----
Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned that a time
frame was not stipulated in the agreement, and
questioned what could happen if the funds ran out
before the project was completed. Attorney Meyers
advised that a completion date should be
stipulated.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to table the joint
powers agreement with Circle Pines until the time
frame provision in the contract is resolved.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion/Second: Doty/Forslund to adopt Resolution
o. an waive the reading.
3 ayes 2 nays
Councilmembers Blanchard and Hodges voted against
the motion.
Councilmember Blanchard stated the purpose of the
resolution was to establish more guidelines for the
Clerk/Administrator position, and suggested that
if there are going to be additional duties, the
Charter Commission and the public should have some
input into the decision. She added she has no
problem with directing Staff, but hues not feel
a resolution is the piuper method for that direction.
Councilmember Blanchard also expressed concern that
in following the direction of the resolution, so
much time would be spent in Daperwork and logs
that office efficiency could'suffer. She added
the resolution is vague and nebulous, and could
possibly be used as a method of harrassment.
Councilmember Hodges stated he did not feel the
resolution was necessary, and would prefer a memo
of understanding, which could be reviewed during
the yearly evaluation.
Councilmember Doty stated he felt this was a Council
resolution, not Charter action, and is not meant
to be intimidating.
Councilmember Forslund stated she felt a memo of
understanding could get lost in the shuffle, and
she did not see any problem with having a resolution,
as it will be brought back each year for review and
could be changed then.
Approve Join`
Powers Agret
with Circle .
for a Trails
System Master
Plan
Motion Carried
7. Consideration o
Resolution No.
1464 Establishi
Performance Gui
lines for
Clerk/Administr
for
Motion Carried
1
0
Mounds View Planning Commission APPRO
VEJ
Regular Meeting
Motion/Second: McCarty/Forslund to amend the main
,-mot on to change Item 2 of Resolution No. 1464 to
eliminate "participate with" and add "direct".
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayor McCarty stated he did not feel the resolution
would add duties but felt it was important to give
direction in writing, He added that there had been
discussion on the meaning of the word "significant",
which is used frequently in the resolution, but did
not feel that a disagreement on the meaning of that
word in a particular situation would be a cause for
dismissal in the future.
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to amend the main
motion to change Item 3 of Resolution No. 1464 to
read "(or a representative designated by the City
Council)".
5 ayes 0 nays
July 12, 1982
Page Three
-------------
Motion Carried
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Forslund/Doty to approve Development 8. Consideration
Agreement 81-41, Exhibit 2B. of Amendment to
First State
5 ayes 0 nays Bank of New
Brighton Develo
went Agreement
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: McCarty/Hodges to approve the first 9. First Reading
rea ind— g��dinance No. 314. of Ordinance
No. 314 Esta-
5 ayes 0 nays blishing Candi-
dacy Filing Fee
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to table the item 10. Consideration o
untti tTe my 19, 1982 agenda session. Staff Memorandu
Regarding Re-
5 ayes 0 nays organization
Transition of
Building Inspec
tion Department
Motion Carried
o ,--Director Johnson reported he has a written propo- 11., Repbrt of Diree
sal on a root control program, for of Public
Works/Community
Development
Mounds View City Council APPROVED
- Jul 12 1982
Regulax Meet�.ng ------->?age-Foux
-----------------------------------------------
Motion/Second: McCarty/Forslund to direct Staff to
rawer up a contract with Solidification, Inc. for D
root control in the amount of $3,747.00, and an
additional $856.80 for televising.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Director Johnson reported the I&I study is near
completion, with TKDA having completed monitoring
the system. He added he would have further informa-
tion available at the next agenda session.
Director Johnson advised that the Fairchild Avenue
vacation would also be on the next agenda. He added
that sealcoating would begin either the 22nd or 26th
of the month, and that the Wetlands Subcommittee
would like to have a meeting on July 15 at 7 PM.
Attorney Meyers reported there have been changes
12. Report of
in the liquor law financial obligation provisions,
Attorney
which he will report on soon to the Council.
Attorney Meyers reported he would not be available
for the July 26 meeting, and would have Mark Carney
attend in his place.
'
Councilmember Blanchard reported she had received
13. Report of
a letter from the Ramsey County League regarding
Councilmembers
their general membership meeting to be held on
July 21 at 5 PM, to include a tour of county
parks. She asked that the park people be advised.
Councilmember Doty reported the Park and Rec
Commission had not met for its last two meetings as
they did not have the required quorum, j
Mot�ionLSSecond: Forslund/Hodges to pay Dawson
onC struction for the Silver Lake Woods Area City
Project 81-3, in the amount of $184,047.93.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Councilmember Hodges asked the status of road
maintenance, mentioning specfically Eastwood and
Woodcrest as needing repair. Director Johnson
replied they will be repaired when the next
paving work is none in the City. He explained
the City crews could not do the repair work them-
selves.
Mayor McCarty had no report.
,Mounds View City Council
A
p_-
July---12-iV,-1982
July
11 e
Regulax Meeting
--------------------------a
_I1_-------------
---------
----
Clerk/Administrator Pauley
shad received $185,000 from
reported the City
the State for the
14, Report of
Administrator
O'Connell Drive acquisition, and also
received
just under $0,000 from the
government
for the
I&1 study.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley asked the Council to
set a special meeting to discuss the policy issues
that were brought up during the first round of
budget meetings. Consensus of Council to set the
meeting for 7 PM on July 20.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the Association
of Metropolitan Municipalities would be holding a
meeting on August. 6 on surface water management,
which Director Johnson was planning to attend. He
asked that anyone else who was interested in attend-
ing let him know so registration could be sent in.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported that an
additional $860 is needed to complete the lighting
at Lambert Park, and reviewed the three options
proposed by the Park and Rec Director for funding.
Council directed Cleric/Administrator Pauley
to take the steps necessary to have the work performed and
submit a recommendation for a source of fundinq. He also
asked for a clarification of the cost of steps for the
warming houses, to be discussed at the next agenda session.
Motion/Second: Forslund/Doty to adjourn the meeting 15. Adjournment
aC 8�FVM.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried