Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1983/10/10CITY COUNCIL MEETING _ CITY OF MOIINIIs VrEW I� October 10, 1983 7:30 p.m. A G E N D A 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call - Hankner, Blanchard, Doty, Linke, McCarty 3. Approval of Minutes: September 26, 1983 (Regular Meeting) October 3, 1983 (Special Meeting) 4. Residents Requests and Comments from the Floor ------------------------------------------------ CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE. GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES ------------------------------------------------ 5. Approval of Consent Agenda ITEM A. Approve Resolution No. 1655 Resolution of Appreciation to Sharon McCarthy ITEM B. Approve Resolution No. 1665 Approving Waiver of Group Health Insurance Coverage and Allowing Re -Entry ITEM C. Approve Resolution No. 1666 Rescinding Resolution No. 1630 and Authorizing Installation of a Streetlight ITEM D. Approve Resolution No. 1667 Authorizing Installation of Streetlight ITEM E. Set Public Hearing for Amendment to Chapter 48 on October 24, 1983 at 7:40 p.m. ITEM F. Approve Resolution No. 1670 Commending the Groveland Park Foundation ITEM G. Licenses for Approval ITEM H. Approve Resolution No. 1668 Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds -continued- AGENDA October 10, 1983 Page Two 6. Presentation by Paul WcllsLone, Special Assistant to the Governor on Energy Policy, Regarding the Governor's Community Energy Program 7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 349 Amending the Municipal Code of the City of Mounds View by Repealing Chapter 35, Entitled "The Festivities Commission" and Adopting a New Chapter 35, Entitled "Mounds View Festivities Commission" 8. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 341 Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by Amending Chapter 41 Entitled, "Specific Rezonings" (Poppelaars) 9. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 346 Amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by Amending Chapter 41 Entitled, "Specific Rezonings" (Bayerkohler) 10. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding the Silver View Park Grand Opening and Purchase of a Park Sign from the City Contingency Account 11. Authorize Purchase of Playground Equipment for Lambert Park from the 1983 Revenue Sharing Account 12. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Purchasing Used Fencing for the leaf Composting Program at Ardan Park 13. Status Report on 10/4/83 Meeting with MnDOT on NSA Resurfacing Project 14. Third Quarter 1983 Department Head Reports Finance Director Brager Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry Anderson Acting Police Chief Smith Director of Public Works/Community Development Johnson 15. Report of Director of Public Works/Community Development 16. Report of Attorney 17. Report of Councilmembers - Hankner, Blanchard, Doty, Linke, McCarty 18. Report of Administrator 19. Adjournment 6 1 , PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW -� PROVED RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA NAp Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Mounds View City Council was called to order by 1. Call to Order Mayor McCarty at 7:32 PM on September 26, 1983. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Linke, Hankner, 2. Roll Call $ anc ar , oty and Mayor McCarty. ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/ Administrator Pauley and Public Works/Community Development Director Johnson. Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to approve the 3. Approval of September 1983 minutes as corrected. Minutes: September 12, 5 ayes 0 nays 1983 Motion Carried Don Frauendienst, 8335 Pleasant View Drive, stated 4. Residents Re - he has lived at that address for the past six years, quests and and for the past six months has been trying to get Comments from a street light put in. He stated there is a light the Floor on each end of the street, and they would like one in the middle, due to vandalism, and they have had seven out of eight home owners sign the petition for the street light. He explained the eighth person was the neighbor across the street from him, who does not want the light in his yard. Mayor McCarty replied that the Council had approved the installation of a street light across the street from Mr. Frauendienst, but there turned out to be electrical problems in that spot, and a new location must be found. Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated that he has asked Staff to meet with the residents and find a new location for the light which is agreeable to them. Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to direct Staff to give the Council, for consideration at their next agenda session, a list of three alternative sites for the street light on Pleasant View Drive. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried I Mounds View City Coun September 26,'1983 UNAPPROvE-D Regular Meeting Page Two -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Councilmember Doty noted that Mr. Donut is listed in 5. Approval . Item B for approval of a temporary occupancy permit, Consent . Pda but they actually had opened for business already, Clerl-IlUm'nistrator. Pauley explained that he gave them permission to open last Friday, as at the last Council meeting they had not been aware they would be ready to open that quickly, and they had received all the other necessary permits. He added he had been assured by Staff that they had met all the requirements of the City, so he made the decision to allow them to open three days in advance of Council approval. Mayor McCarty recommended addressing this type of issue, and setting up some type of policy in the future. Councilmember Doty stated he would like to be informed next time something like that happens. Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to approve the consent agenda, as presented, and waive the reading of the resolutions. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Cad Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened 6A. Public Hearing the first public hearing at 7:42 PM. 1984 Revenue Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the Council Sharing Budget would be conducting two public hearings, one for the revenue sharing budget and the other for the general and other funds budget for 1984. He added that Staff recommends no action be taken on either budget until both hearings have been held. Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the process that Staff and the Council had gone through in preparing the budget, and the number of hours and meetings that were involved. He added that once the Council takes action to adopt the budgets, Staff will pre- pare an article for the newspaper, outlining the budgets. Finance Director Brager made a presentation of the proposed 1984 revenue sharing budget. He also reviewed Director Johnson's memo of September 26, re- garding left over funds from the 1983 budget for areas in the Public Works department, requesting that those funds be carried over to 1984. There were no comments from anyone present in the audience. Mayor McCarty closed the pub] ;• hearing r reopened Mounds View City Council "� i't� September 26, 1983 Regular Meeting'y�'p" -Page Three ---------------------------�k_-_ .d_._f._ the regular meeting at 7:59 PM. Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened the second public hearing at 7:59 PM. Finance Director Brager made a presentation of the 1984 General and Other Funds budget. Bob Schmidt, 8118 Gdgewood Drive, asked if the State could possibly be collecting more revenue than anticipated, and if so, if that would increase the State's payment to the City. Finance Director Brager replied that the Governer has announced he will seek an increase in government aid to the Cities, and that it could amount to $9,200 for Mounds View, but that action would not be taken until March 1984 at the earliest. Mr. Schmidt questioned if the $38,000 recovered from the Metro Sewer Department from overbillings was still in the sewer fund. Finance Director Brager replied it was, and it will be used as a buffer for repairs. Clerk/Administrator Pauley pointed out that they still cannot guarantee the States budget, and that many things are being done to balance the budget. An unidentified resident asked if the long term forecast the City prepares goes to the State. Finance Director Brager replied that it does not, as the City is not required to submit it. Neil Loeding, 5046 Long View Drive, questioned the increase in the levy for 1984 over 1983. rinance Director Brager clarified it for him. An unidentified resident stated he had heard many reasons why the budget should be increased, but stated that a 19 percent increase in taxes is not going to go over with the residents, and recommended the Council take another look at the budget. Bob Waste stated he had called the assessor earlier in the day and was told his store property would have an approximate 40 percent increase, plus the 20 percent from the City, and would have an approximate $32,000 increase in assessed value alone. Mayor McCarty stated he can understand what the mer- chants are facing, and that was why he had contacted some of them and asked them to attend the hearing for their input. 6B. Public Hearing 1984 Budget - General and Other Funds Mounds View City Counc September•26, 1983 Regular Meeting _-Page Four _______ ________ ----U-NAPPROV Finance Director Brayer explained that residential ' property asSeSSIMILs have decreased, and consequently, business property assessments have increased, lie also explained the proposed 19 percent increase in the budget. Mayor McCarty stated he would recommend the Council go through the budget again, and consider using left over revenue sharing funds from 1983 to reduce the 1984 budget. There was considerable discussion among the Council of expenditure habits and how many more cuts could be made, as well as what level of service is desired from the residents, and what cuts they would like to see made. Councilmember Hankner reminded the Council that all five members had stated they were in agreement with the proposed budget at their last meeting last week, and no one had any problems with it then. She added that she has been over it with a fine tooth comb and does not know where any more money could be cut. She reviewed the amount of time spent on preparing the budget by both the Council and Staff, and again asked the residents what level of service they would like. Mayor McCarty stated he had looked into the budget further since the Council last met, and he feels the Council should take another look. Bob Beutel stated he would like firm figures to comment on. Mayor McCarty explained the public hearing process and that it was an opportunity for Mr. Beutel to comment. Mr. Beutel stated he could only place his trust in Staff and the Council that they had done the best job possible. He scaced he did not feel any further cuts could be safely made, and pointed out that the more that is cut from the budget, the more the City penalizes itself on State aid. Councilmember Hankner explained what had happened recently in the State Legislature, with the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis going after money from the suburbs, and explained the formula that is used. She also asked if the budget is cut, if another pub- lic hearing would be required. Attorney Meyers replied that he would recommend the Council continue the hearing, and reminded them that October 10 is the deadline the State has set. .Mounds View City Counci NA D n l f September 26, 1983 Regular Meeting F 11 1 p 11 EDPage Five ---------------------- F iiiJJJ YY ---------------------- Councilmember ilanchard stated she thought the Coun- cil had come to a consensus last week that the budget was the best possible one they could come up with, and that she was very frustrated. She added that the Council must know where services could be cut before they go through the budget again. She also pointed out that the City is trying to build up a contingency fund for unforseen problems. Mr. Loeding stated that he was pleased to hear the frustrations voiced during the hearing, and that this was not just a rubber stamp on a canned budget. Councilmember llankner pointed out to Mr. Loeding that this was not a rubber stamped budget, and that the Council had worked long and hard on it, and had 12 meetings, all of which were oven to the public, at which they worked on the budget. Mr. Loeding stated that the large increase in the proposed budget is in capital equipment, not in public services. Mr. Beutel stated that there was excrutiating detail provided on the capital equipment and that the citizens at some time must give the Council their support in the decisions the Council has made. He added he would like a budget that would maintain the same level of services as provided in 1983. Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened the regular meeting at 9:25 PM. Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to deration of the 1984 City budget October 3 at 7 PM. 5 ayes 0 nays It was decided the Council would 29, after their meeting with the to work on the budget further. continue the consi- until Monday, meet on September Planning Commission, Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to pass Resolution No. Levying a tax for delinquent utility charges over a one year period, and waive the reading of the resolution. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Consideration Rslt. No. 1663 Motion Carried Mounds View City Co u c A n September 26, 1983 Regular Meeting {�/.e��-{01���-- Page Six ------------------- -- JJLLLL �� { {/ ---------------------- Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to table Ordinance No. 8. 1st Readirl of an review at the next agenda session. Ordinance 349 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to have the second read- 9. 2nd Reading and ing '--and adoption of Ordinance No. 347, amending Adoption of the municipal code of Mounds View by amending Ordinance No. Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions of Code" 347 and Chapter 202, entitled "Snowmobiles", and waive the reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Linke - aye Councilmember Hankner - aye Councilmember Blanchard - aye Councilmember Doty - aye Mayor McCarty - aye Motion Carried Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to accept the three 10. Consideration o names from the Civil Service Commission as can- Certification didates for the Police Chief position. of Police Chief Finalists from 5 ayes 0 nays Civil Servjje Commissio Motion Carrie Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to table the appoint- ment or the choice of Police Chief until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Hankner explained that the Council had appointments to meet with the three finalists on September 27. Attorney Meyers advised that the three finalists should be notified of their selection, and that once the names have been certified by the Council, they have a reasonable time to do so. Mayor McCarty questioned whether another 90 day 11. Consideration extension could be granted. Attorney Meyers of Staff Memo advised that it could. Regarding Actii Police Chief Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to reappoint Position TTm—o—ETy_IFFtT as Acting Police Chief, for a period • up to 90 days, or until the new Chief assumes the position, whichever comes first. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried PI V 'Mounds View City Council Y� U `1 eptember 26, 1983 Regular Meeting u age Seven Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the request from Acting Police Chief Smith for compensation for the period he has served as Acting Police Chief, retroactive to his appointment on April 1. Clerk/Administrator Pauley recommended compen- sation be paid at $150 per month. Motion/Second: McCarty/Linke to pay Acting Police Chi-e-f—Smith compensation at the rate of $150 per month, retroactive to April 1, 1983. Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the reasons 12. Consideration why the 1979 Plymouth Volare was being deadlined. of Staff Memo Regarding Pur- Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to authorize chase Bids for $_ta_fT__to_s_e1T the 1979 Plymouth Volare to D & T Disposal of Auto for their high bid of $925, and to deposit 1979 Plymouth the receipts in the 1983 contingency account. Volare 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Director Johnson reviewed the status of the pro- 13. Consideration C ject on the modifications for potassium permanga- Partial Pay nate feed on treatment plants 2 and 3. He stated Request No. 1 they anticipate receiving the request for final for A & K Cnst. payment within 30 days. Inc. Motion/Second: Doty/Hankner to make a partial payment to A & K Construction, Inc., in the amount of $12,984.60 for the water treatment plants 2 and 3 modifications, Project 1983-3. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Director Johnson reviewed his memo of September 14. Report of 26 to the Council, regarding the update of the Director of City aerial photo and contour maps for the Silver Public Works/ View area. Cuuuuuuity Dvlp. Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to approve the contract wit ar urd Aerial Survey, Inc., to update the aerial photo map for the Silver View project area, in an amount not to exceed $1,700, with the funds to be taken from the SWM account. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Blanchard stated she was not pleased with the memos being dropped on the Council at their official meetings, for them to take action on. She stated that money is being requested here and there and she would like more time to review the requests before taking action. Mounds View City CouncO�APPPOVED September "26, 1983 Regular Meeting u I V Page Eight ----- -------------- --- ----------- ----- ------------- Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied that he will advise Staff to discontinue this practice for other than emergency items. Director Johnson presented an update on the pave- ment evaluation work done two weeks ago, and showed the recommendations made by the consultant, which agreed very closely with Staff's recommen- dations. He stated the information received from the consultant would be furnished to the MnDOT office. Director Johnson advised that the seal coating work was to be completed earlier in the evening, by dusk. Director Johnson advised the Council of the emergency work that was done at 2516 Ridge Lake on September 25 to repair a water main failure, He stated he would be giving the Council a more detailed report. Director Johnson reminded the Council the Planning Commission will be meeting with them on September 29 at 7 PM. Attorney Meyers had no report. 15. Report of Attorney Councilmember Linke reported he had attended the 16. Reports of Ramsey County League meeting on September 21, Councilmembers where members of various watersheds spoke. Councilmember Hankner reported she had received a call concerning garage sale signs which are being left up, as well as nails being left in utility poles. Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied that the City of Blaine has an ordinance concerning that issue, and he would get a copy to review. Mayor McCarty recommended advising the Public Works employees in the Maintenance Department to pick up the signs that have been torn down, as they are making their rounds of the City, and dispose of them properly. Councilmember Hankner asked the status of the house on Edgewood and Hillview. Attorney Meyers replied a hearing is being set to get a court order to get it demolished. Clerk/Administrator Pauley also advised that since charges of arson have been filed on the building, the County may not allow demolition until after the case is tried. -Mounds View City Council September 26, 1983 Regular Meeting PageMine ` ���"��� Y --------------------------"'----------------------------------- .�. Councilmember Blanchard had no report. Councilmember Doty reported that the Park and Rec Commission is develupinq rccunn:u:ndations for guide- lines on park planning funds and matching funds. Councilmember Doty reported the Park and Rec, Commission had received a report from the Grove - land Park foundation, and they have raised approximately $6,600 over the past year and a half. He recommended that they receive some type of commendation. Mayor McCarty asked that Staff draw up a resolution of commendation for the Groveland Park group, and that an article be published in the next newsletter. Mayor McCarty reported he had received a letter of resignation from Sharon McCarthy Jones. Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to accept the resignation from Sharon McCarthy Jones, with regrets, from her position on the Planning Commission. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Clerk/Administrator Pauley presented copies of 17. Report of a memo he had received from the Met Council, Clerk/Adminis concerning the review schedule for the Anoka for County/Blaine Airport Master Plan. He stated he would put the issue of the Master Plan on the agenda for the next agenda session. Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to adjourn the 18. Adjournment meeting at 10:14 PM. 5 ayes 0 nays iiution Carried Respectfully submitted, Donald F. Pauley Clerk/Administrator r PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting 1983 --------�---° ergEO October 3, Hall Ui+"����°`�� Mounds View City Ball !! � h� -2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View City Hall -------- --------------------------------- The Mounds View City Council was called 1. CALL TO ORDER to order at 7:22 p.m. on October 3, 1983 by Mayor McCarty. Members present-: McCarty, Doty, Ifankner, 2. ROLL CALL Linke, Blanchard Othheers_present: Clerk -Administrator Paulcy an Pud blic Works/Community Development Director Johnson Mayor McCarty opened the Special Meeting by 3. CONTINUATION OF reminding those present that the meeting was DISCUSSION OF 1984 a continuation of the September 26, 1983 REVENUE SHARING, public hearing on the City's 1984 Operating GENERAL, AND OTHER Budgets. OPERATING FUND BUDGETS Mayor McCarty further indicated that the Council had met at a Special Work Session on the evening of September 29, 1983 to review possible modifications to the General Fund Operating Budget in order to provide for a reduction in the amount of monies levied for tax purposes. Finance Director Brager provided the Council and others present with an overview of those changes identified at the September 29th meeting which were outlined in a memo he presented to the Council dated October 3, 1983. Mayor McCarty pointed out that the changes in the Budget resulted in a decrease in the estimated 1984 mill rate from a 19.92% increase to a 10.14% increase and an estimated reduction in the 1984 tax increase from 15% to 58 for a market value house of $77,200. Mr. Bill Frits, 8072 Long Lake Road, requested clarification of information regarding the mill rate increase, the percentage of such an increase, and the reasons for budgeting contingency and fund balance development. NEDij Mounds View City Council ` �'Y°'� October 3, 1983 Special Meeting ------------------Page Two ---------------------------------- ------------ Mayor McCarty and Councilmember Linke attempted to clarify the information provided in the budget documents and resolutions adopting the budget. Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to pass Resolution No. 1658 and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to pass Resolution No. 1659 and waive the reading. 9 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried Councilmember Hankner voted against the motion and stated that her reason for voting no was because the budget depends too much on debt service funds for short term cash flow purposes. In lieu of Local Government Aid and revenue sharing loses and changes in revenue sources this budget puts operating expenses in a position that is not wise. Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to pass Resolution No. 1660 and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Linke/Doty to pass Resolution No. 1662 and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Clerk -Administrator Pauley reported on his investigation of the type and cost of psychological evaluations that can be performed on the three Police Chief candidates and recommended that Mr. Jack Richardson of the Diagnostic Testing Services be hired to perform psychological evaluations on all three Police Chief candidates at an expense of $150.00 per person. a Mounds View City Council U------------------------------ P PR!I�;• ' October 3, 1983 Special Meeting -------------- ----------------------- Page Three i Motion/Second: Doty/Nankner to authorize the psychological evaluations of the Police Chief candidates per staff recommendation. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Doty reminded those present that a final decision has hot been made on the position of the Director of Public Works/ Community Development and that such a decision will need to be made in the near future. Motion/Second: Blanchard/Linke to adjourn 4. ADJOURNMENT at 8:05 p.m. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Respectfully submitted, Donald F. Pauley Clerk -Administrator N I'r CONSENT AGENDA October 10, i983 The rConsentoutine nAgendscellnnenns'!nf'ftc1.11buslnessgned to eofetheeCitndling the Council in one Council, The entire Agenda may be ndnpted by motion• The moeinn for adopt ton iques't ofhanynindividualmust receive unanimous approval. By r Councilmember, any item can be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed upon the Regular Agenda for debate. i n ITEM A. ITEM 8. ITEM C. ITEM D. Adopt Resolution No Streetlight Adopt Resolution No. 1655 - Resolution of ApprecLat o to Sharon McCarthy Adopt Resolution No. 1665 - Apprnving Waiver of Croup Wealth Insurance Coverage and Allowing Re -Entry Adopt Resolution No. 1666 - Rescinding Resolution No. 1630 and Authorizing Installation of a Streetlight 1667 - Authorizing Installation of ITEM E. Set Public Hearing for Amendment to Chapter 48 on October 24, 1983 at 7:40 p.m - ITEM F. Adopt Resolution No. 1670 Commending the Croveland Park Foundation ITEM C. Licenses for Approval General - Expire 6/30/84 Freeberg Construction - New Heatin 6 Air Conditioning - Expire 6/30/84 Riccar Heating 6 Air Conditioning - Renewal ITEM N. Adopt Resolution No- 1668 - Approving Just and Correct Claims Against City Funds RESOLUTION NO. 1655 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SHARON MCCARTHY WHEREAS, Sharon McCarthy Mounds View Planning Commission service; and has resigned her position on the after four years of dedicated WHEREAS, Sharon McCarthy has shown a sincere interest in the .elf --re of the cttiipns of Mounds View during her tenure on the Mounds View Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Sharon McCarthy has won the respect and gratitude of all those who have had the privilege of working with her on the Planning Commission and other areas of community development; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View on behalf of the residents of the City of Mounds View expresses its heartfelt appreciation to Sharon McCarthy for her dedicated and selfless work on the Mounds View Planning Commission. ATTEST: Adopted this 16nd day of September, 1983. Mayor Duane McGarry Councilmember Hankner Councilmember Blanchard (SEAL) CouncilmembeFIE nke Councilmember Doty Clerk -Administrator Pauley Sept --1, i9of dk l:yua d (uwtci I`lcnbena, %.Ceue accept mkt 2uuytation iiwm )ite P)xa:.inj COMIaLaaivn 414 •I llaVe ae-ma4AiCd and moved to Sanaauta, Flv.uila. SinceAey Youe,e, S/m,wn L JOnu � cca U RESOLUTION NO. 1665 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING WAIVER. OF GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE AND ALLOWING RE-ENTRY WHEREAS, Clerk -Administrator Pauley has advised the City Council that his wife's employer provides a more attractive health insurance program on a coverage and cost basis; and WHEREAS, Clerk -Administrator Pauley has indicated a desire to transfer his family coverage from the City of Mounds View group to his wife's employer gro..r, and WHEREAS, Group Health Plan has agreed to allow such transfer to occur without any underwriting requirements and at no expense to the Mounds View group if the City of Mounds View agrees to allow Mr. Pauley to transfer his family coverage back to the City of Mounds View should his wife's employment conditions change; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Mounds View City Council to allow employees to improve their health insurance coverage at no greater expense or risk to the City of Mounds View without jeopardizing their ability to obtain coverage through the City of Mounds View's Group Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City Mounds View that Clerk -Administrator Pauley be allowed to re-enter his family health insurance coverage to the City of Mounds View group at such time that the conditions of his wife's employ- ment change in such a manner to make such a re-entry more attractive or necessary. ATTEST: (SEAL) Adopted this loth day of October, 1983. Mayor Clerk -Administrator October 4, 19803 City of Mounds 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, CA11 View ;5l12 cof of vowjg lei NAM5EY COON I Y. NIINNESOTA 240114IGHWAY 10 MOUNDSVIEW.MINN 55112 1863055 ne: waiver of Health Insurance coverage: Dear Mayor and City Council: previous Pursuant to our discussion on the evening of October 3rd, a which time I related that my wife has returned to her p employment rovidethealth and dental insuranceable coveragerough myher employer, p aid for health coverage family at a lower rate than that being P olic lease be by myself under the City of Mounds View's p ' P advised othat I provide meewithed to do so and health insuranceaive the coverageCthroughbli- theion to p This option is being their normal employees benefit package. wife's employment taken with the understanding that should my conditions with Medtronic be modified in suchra way as to make more attractive, our membership hlvethe reedCity byfresolutionView's allowpme to do so. that you win a 9 Thank you for your understanding in this matter. j liCcrelY. TY OI MOUND VI9 �J �� I Donald P. Pauley Clerk -Administrator f DPP/pf • `o�t' C.--, RESOLUTION NO. 1666 j CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1630 AND AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A STREETLIGHT WHEREAS, on June 17, 1983 the City received a petition from residents along Pleasant View Drive for the installation of a streetlight on that block; and WHEREAS, at the July 11, 1983 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1630 authorizing the installa- r;on of �,• and .ce�,Ight between 8325 and 8335 Pleasant View Drive; WHEREAS, the decision to place the light at this location was as a result of concerns voiced by the resident of 8330 Pleasant View Drive; and WHEREAS, following this meeting it was noted that no pad mounted transformer is located between 8325 and 8335 Pleasant View Drive and to install a light at this location could be done but at a greater cost to the City; and WHEREAS, per the requirements of Resolution No. 1354, the City Council has determined that the placement of a street- light between 8320 and 8330 Pleasant View Drive would also be in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View orders the placement of a streetlight between 8320 and 8330 Pleasant View Drive. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No. 1630 adopted July 11, 1983. ATTEST: (SEAL) Adopted this loth day of October, 1983. Mayor Clerk -Administrator RESOLUTION NO, 1667 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OP MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF STREETLIGHT WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has received a petition from residents along Eastwood Road between Ardan Avenue and County Road J requesting a streetlight in the 8400 block; and WHEREAS, following staff review of possible streetlight locations, the most feasible location, based on distances to lights, vandalized homes and rear yard poles, is at the south- east corner of property located at 8432 Eastwood Road; and WHEREAS, the petition does not include the signature of the property owner at 8432 Eastwood Road, whose lot is directly affected by the proposed streetlight location; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1354 amending Resolution No. 1069 authorizes the City Council to install streetlights at locations where property owners have not consented to that location, when the public health, safety and welfare is a factor; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the place- ment of a streetlight at 8432 Eastwood Road would be in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View orders the placement of a streetlight at the southeast corner of property located at 8432 Eastwood Road. ATTEST: (SEAL) Adopted this loth day of October, 1983. Mayor Clerk -Administrator RESOUITION NO. 1670 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATI; OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE GROVELAND PARK FOUNDATION FOR 'THEIR OUTSTANDING EFFORTS TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF GROVELAND PARK WHEREAS, the Groveland Park Foundation has been established to develop community pride and raise funds for the development of the Groveland Park neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Groveland Park Foundation has coordinated and sponsored eight special fundraising projects during the past year with over $6,000.00 in monies raised for park development projects; and WIIEREIAS, the Groveland Park Foundation has coordinated two neighborhood picnics with proceeds over $2,000.00 with hundreds of neighborhood residents participating; and WHEREAS, the Groveland Park Foundation has volunteered hundreds of manhours towards park projects and maintenance activities which was resulted in major cost savings for the City; and WHEREAS, the Groveland Park Foundation supervised the 1982/83 winter skating program which improved the quality of the program as well as participation in the skating programs at Groveland Park; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City r^LIn.Ci1_ encourages community involvement at the grass roots level to develop the City's park system and other City amenities, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby congratulates and heartily commends each of the Mounds View residents involved in the coordination that has led to the tremendous growth and success of the Groveland Park Foundation; and -z- HE IT FARTHER RFSOLVFD that the City Council of. the City Of Mounds View looks forward to developing programs that will further support and endorse the concept of local neighborhood involvement suet, as the establishment of the neighborhood park fund; and HE IT FukTtwij RFSOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View looks forward to continued efforts and cooperation between the City and the Groveland Park Foundation in the future years. ATTEST: Adopted this loth day of October, 1983. Mayor McCarty Councilmember nlanchard Councilmember Doty Councilmember Hankn ------ Councilmember Linke (SEAL) Clerk -Administrator Pauley MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE: October 5 1983 SUBJECT: PARTIAL PAYMENT TO ALLIED BLACKTOP FOR 1983 SEAL COAT WORK The claims list, Item K on the Consent Agenda, contains a request for partial payment of the 1983 Seal Coat work done by Allied Blacktop. I'lie claim is for 90 percent of the Base Bid, Alternates 1, 2, 3, and Change Order No. 1 items which totaled $33:700.59. Installation work has been completed with final aggregate clean up scheduled for either 10/7/83 or 10/10/83. Staff is progressing on final "antity determination and final paperwork wrap-up. RECOMMENpATION: Staff recommends approval of partial payment to Allied Blacktop in the amount of $30,337.73 as presented on the claims list. Staff will until final swnot send the check to the Contractor eeping is completed. ' JCJ/pf I fi•:;;ii,p')'IgJI i;U• 1668 ;,F 1.x..;,7 CI.913; AIb1iW;il' CITY fIICi, II • I'i l;y t:nunci i nI' Fl,na„L: ....,..� i .. IaI I'tiIPmL to :i. l,a:: full nulb,�r;t. �'��•• lio. ;;ua:,„• . .... • .::I I. :I f1 :Ii1•J I h.• I.I I.:: I., q:I'.-i1 11: r; I" - -, i,•V.,,II I.II,: I•I a ' nc.:, ,a,:hbc:•::: _17.417-__ Ill""'):h 17418.-- iu L111! mmnml. I,f :G. 3,407_55 1824,727.14 ....._.01 .18203 iu Lhl• nnl,unll. nl' 'C 17419... .... 1*111.014:11 •17435 hl Ih1; auuaull. ,II' :b 54,380.57 ..12179 _._ LII,,,II;,II 12248 iu Ih: aunnult ,J' 54,366.63 TOTAI. r111,'IIM'I' ,iP CIa116S; I'Itl':SI':IV'I'F:U a' _ __ ,8HL99 au,l Icl : fauud ::aid claim; 1.n llr• , .1 c;l. Hurl rnrr,:�•L. ( Ii::1. ,,I' nlir "..••-•pl.iill ) 1*11'l'llftlih:F0lih:. be •I I. ppgplYcd t11.1!. I.hc huC7ly CQunc11 OI' IrAllndS V1eView,•ab:! nl)h)'ovCd Lhc ati:achr.'d lists of claims Anted e,,l.c —__ by the ATTV:;T: illcrk-Aihni.ui;trator —' ADDITIONAL DIRFCT FXPFNDITURES CHECK AMOUNT CLAIMANT PURPOSE 17418 $ 226.70 Chimera Theater Gadabout 17417 3,180.85 State Treasurer Pensions 18201 2,280.54 State Treasurer - PERA Pensions 18202 2,362.50 John C. Johnson Salaries 18203 84.10 Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance $ 8,134.69 F Li 1' r i•. 1 .. l l, i- c l . Y L 11.': 1 1 ---...�.Li.••A :� :1 ;. :! s Y1• � ��L„)� 'yrI1I� '�� ly; .1 _ •1Z• 1 .� I � 411 � (J. _ _, ..,�: .; . ';�� ' � � 'a .. ,r: ... ., . � 1 � � �:� - r '.' �� i Liht---- - �---V1' i' .., a� .+ .. .lr '.�i. '�iln —_. �.. ..... _.. _�L �1 �� i � _�i_ �� •,� r 1. � r . _- - _. �. ��•J :7 yr -f .� �ir..3 � 4 • 1.i• _ . I _ { yl T I ;L INA MEMO TO: Mounds View City Council n FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, —Hi c or Parks, Recreation anWe r DATE: October 4, 1983 RE: Ordinance #349 Enclosed is a revised copy of Ordinance #349 outlining Chapter 35 in the city code relating to the Mounds View Festivities Commission. The revised ordinance as proposed would reflect the changes and modifications as directed by the City Council on Monday, October 3, 1983. The changes that were made in the ordinance are as follows: 1. Under "Composition" we clarified it to be consistent with the remainder of the code stating that the Mayor would appoint the members of the Festivities Commission. In addition, we deleted the statement regarding residency in the City of Mounds View as well as the statement on recommendations coming from the Festivities Chairperson. 2. Under 35.03 item b we added with approval of the Commission. 3. Under 35.03 item c we added subject to approval of the City Council. 4. Under 35.04 item no. 1 the dates were changed to reflect September 30 of each year for appointments to terminate with new members to be appointed at the first meeting in October. Staff feels that this would be the logical time for the terms to commence and terminate as the yearend report would be completed as well as budget recommendations from the previous commission. 5. The last item that was basically changed is that 35.07 and 35.08 were deleted and we will recommended to the Festivities Commission that they be reinstated as a section of the by-laws. RECOMMENDATION: To schedule a first hearing of Ordinance #349, Chapter 35, Mounds View Festivities Commission at the October 10, 1983 City Council meeting. BKA/sll Attachment ORDINANCE NO. 349 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA I %N AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW BY REPEALING CHAPTER 35, ENTITLED "THE FESTIVITIES COMMISSION" AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 35 ENTITLED "MOUNDS VIEW FESTIVITIES COMMISSION" The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. Chapter 35, Entitled "The Festivities Commission" is hereby repealed. SECTION II. The new Chapter 35, "Mounds View Festivities Commission", is hereby adopted as follows: 35.01 CHAPTER 35 MOUNDS VIEW FESTIVITIES COMMISSION 35.01 Purpose. To promote an annual community -wide special event. 35.02 Composition. A nine (9) member voting board shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council and shall operate under Chapter 35 of the Municipal Code. 35.03 Organization. 1. The first Tuesday of each month or as deemed necessary. 2. Quorum shall be five (5) appointed members. 3. The first meeting in September shall include: a. Election of chairperson (chairperson must be someone who has served at least one year on the Commission.) b. Vice -chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer shall be appointed by the Chairperson with approval of the Commission. c. Reviewal of by-laws. By-law changes, if any, should be read and suggested at a meeting and can be voted on at the following meeting and changed by a 2/3 vote of the members present subject to approval of the City Council. 4. Budget shall be prepared and submitted to the Council for approval by September meeting and shall include projected revenues and expenditures. The Commission shall recommend to the Council uses for any donations or revenues generated by the Commission. 35.03 1. 5, An nr.lundn will hit prupar•ud and bo dlstributud to members prior to nureting, Muotlntl datos must bu pnst:ud 24 hours hnfur,Ihu mu,rl_ln'.I, 7',,114 Tormn and Vaenncius. I, MemburI$ of Lhe Comm Inil lon shall nurvu thruu-year staggered Lormn, wil.11 1..urmn uxpiring !III pLumhu1' 30 ul'. unch year, All uppnlnlnu ntn .0 a to hu rondo each year at I.ha Iirst regular uunrCin,l of the Council In October, Both orii,linal and suc- cenolvu appolntuun shall hold Lhulr ufticus unL.il their nuccusnurn Ora appolnt.nd and ,lualiflud. 2, Vaeanclun during Lhu Lurm nliall bo Illlud by thu Mayor with tho npproval of Chu majority of tho Cuunell for the unexpired poPllon of Lhu term, Evury appointurl mumuur shall, betore unturing upon the dinuhar'go of his dutius, take an oath that he will faithfully dinchnt'ge the dutlus of his office. No mumbor ohall bu puroonally InLuruutud in any contracts in which the Commission may ontsr, 35.05 Compensation, 1. Members of the Commission shall surve without compensation. 35.O6 Removal from Office. 1. Any member of the Commission may be removed if two consecu- tive meetings are missed without a valid reason, if the Commission duties are not faithfully carried out and for cause duly found, by a two-thirds vote of the Commission members and consent of the Council. SECTION III. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of Its publication. Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on this 10th day of October, 1983. Read and passud by the Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of _ 1983. ATTEST I (SEAL) Mayor Clerk -Administrator i011\ ORDINANCE NO. 341 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING CHAPTER 41 ENTITLED, "SPECIFIC REZONINGS" The Council of Mounds View does hereby ordain: 41.12 Pursuant_ to Chanter 40,23, the official Mounds View zoning map is hereby amended to reflect the following rezoning: Subdivision 1. Registered Land Survey No. 386. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication. Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the 23rd day of May , 1983. Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1983. ATTEST: (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Mayor Clerk -Administrator I4EMO TO: Mayor and City Council Clerk -Administrator FROM: Engineering/Planning Technician DATE: September 30, 1983 SUBJECT: BAYERKOHLER REZONING At the August 22, 1983 Council meeting, the first reading to rezone the existing 4-unit residential building located at 7901 Sunnyside to R-2 was conducted L motion .,a- madc for staff tit delay submitting the ordinance for second reading until proof of title transfer and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District has been received. Staff has received an executed contract for deed agreement signed by the present fee owners of the property and future owners and has also received a verbal response from the Rice Creek Watershed District that approval was given at their September 28th meeting. The contract for deed agreement, according to City Attorney Meyers,is sufficient as proof of title transfer. Attached are the following for action at your October 10, 1983 meeting: 1) Ordinance No. 346 for second reading. 2) Resolution No. 1664 authorizing execution of Development Agreement No. 83-62. 3) Appropriate pages of Development Agreement No. 83-62. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. 1664 and to have the second reading of Ordinance No. 346. FJK/pf Attachments ORDINANCE NO. 346 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY AMENDING CHAPTER 41 ENTITLED, "SPECIFIC REZONINCS" The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: le SECTION 1. 41•1isursuanr to hereby amendedtto reflectt'the0following Mounds View zoning mapp rezoning: Subdivision I. Spring Lake Park. Hillview, subject to highway and except the northeasterly 150 feet of Lot 84 is hereby rezoned from R-3 to B-2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its publication.. Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on the 22nd day of August , 1983. Read and passed by the Council of the City of Mounds View this day of , 1983. ATTEST: (SEAL) ynr Clerk -Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 1664 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR. AND MAYOR TO EXECUTE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 83-62 WITH SABASKONG BAY ASSOCIATES WHEREAS, the Mounds View Code, Section 59.07, requires development review of the proposed conversion of a ;-unit apartment building to an office building with accompanying parking lot and ponding area; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has reviewed the proposed conversion and development request; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council has stipulated requirements to be included in Development Agreement No. 83-62 hereto attached; and WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed conversion and development request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View City Council authorizes its Clerk -Administrator and Mayor to execute Development Agreement No. 83-62. ATTEST: (SEAL) Adopted this loth day of October, 1983. Mayor Clerk -Administrator CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMEY STATE OF MINNESOTA MOUNDS VIEW DEV1-3,011MENT AGREEMENT IJf1. 03-62 .SA13ASKOHG_—.— THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 1.9 by and botween the CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, party of the first part, hereinafter called the "City", i and SABASKONG BAY ASSOCIATES - party of the .second part, hereinafter called the "Developer", {'7I'1'NES:i1:T1I: WHEREAS, I:hc Developer, in consideration of the __ J conversion of a 4-unit apartment building to an office building and construction of a parking lot and storm water detention area. and the issuance of permits thereof, hereby agrees with the City to perform all of the acts required herein and to conform to all of the conditions set forth as follows: t 1. Wherever the word "City" appears herein, it shall mean and include the City of Mounds View and also said City's agents and euq�lnycc::; and wherever the %,ford "Developer" appears herein, it { shall mean the developer, and any of its agents and employees. Wherever the words "development- site" appear herein, it shall mean the premises dosr-r.ibed .in the following cshibits: Exhibit 1 (legal description) Exhil7i.1: 2 (site plan) Exhibit 3 (landsca elan _ ) Exhibit 4 (Chapter 49A seven year security of $1,000) Rev. 4/13/01 .* ti. tha City in Lhe processing, review and evalual:ion of the proposed' , dowalupment and iu L•he .inspeeLion ol: all work performed pursuant to said contract. Such costs shall. include but not be limited to the acbn.i.ni.nLral:ive, .Icg01., and en(liuo:ering exponses incurred herein, and .^.tieh other c::pottuus as auLhorixod by said Chapter. 13. Developer agrees that the City can terminate development of the development si.te or Lite construction of any building struc- tunas (:hereon it i.n the City coitnc.i1.'s opinion the tornts of this Development Contract have not been conformed to by the developer and the said Developer herein agrees to cease construction and waives i.ts right of recourse, claim, suit or action against the City. I'll addition, in the event the Developer fails to conform to the condiLions of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to enforce it pursuant to the terms of: this contract and/or the provi- sions of the Mounds View home Rule Charter, Chapter 26 of the Municipal Cock:, or applicable Minnesota Statutes. The Developer herein agrees that in the event the City is compelled to enforce any of the provisions of this contract by court action and judgment is rendered in favor of the City, that all costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney's fees will be paid by said Developer, its heirs, successors and assigns. 14, 'l'lie Developer shall -furnish to the City at the time of the execution of this Contract a cash bond, a corporate surety bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or any other negotiable instrument approved by the City AL•torney, which the Developer agrees to keep in full force and effect during the term of the obligation created herein in the amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND AND N0/100 AML ($11,000.00) Dollars, wherein the -4- ■ ft DEVELOPMENT AGRE'EM11,1H No. 81-62 EXHIBIT 2n In addition to the foregoiny conditions, fieveloper agrees to the fullowiny: 1. Concrete curbing shall be installed around the entire perimeter of the parking area. 2. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed where necessary to direct storm water to the ponding area. Date: Date: FOR THE CITY: FOR THE DEVELOPER: MEMO TO: Mounds View City Council PItOM: Bruce K. Anderson, Dir(ctc _ Parks, Iecreation and I'6 s / UATE: October 6, 19113 III.-: Silvur View Park Grand Opening The Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission has set Saturday, October 29 as the grand opening date for Silver View Park. in addition to some type of brief presentation or ceremony at Silver View Park, the Park Board will also be kicking off the City's leaf composting program at Ardan Park on that particular day with a speaker, demonstration and other related activities at Ardan Park. Staff has met with a sub -committee from the Park Board and it is their desire to have a brief ceremony with the Park Commission and City Council at Silver View Park at noon on Saturday the 29th to inaugurate the park site. Their thoughts were that we could construct a park sign, similar to the other park signs at our local neighborhood parks. We could then hang the official park sign as a symbol of the opening of Silver View Park. Unfortunately, we do not have a park sign at Silver View Park at this time or the monies budgeted to complete such as project. We have constructed the park signs, in house at a cost of $250.00 for materials, routing of the sign, painting and installation. Should the City Council feel this is a project worthy of funding or consideration, it would need to be budgeted out of the City's contingency account. Staff feels that if this project were approved, we could commence conscruution Of the sign immediately and have it ready for the hanging of the routed sign by the City Council on Saturday, October 29. The specific itinerary for "Park Day" on Saturday, October 29 is as follows: 12 - 12:15 p.m. Hanging of park sign and official ribbon cutting ceremony to designate the grand opening of Silver View Park. 12:15 - 1:00 p.m. Park Commission members would be on hand to provide tours of Silver View Park and explain the existing facilities and future improvements slated for Silver View. -2- r 1:10 - 2:00 p.m, ur.. Leon Snyder, Professor Emeritus, from the university of Minnesota and founder of the, university of Minnesota Arboritum will be the guest speaker. at Ardan Park to kick off the City's leaf composting program. Dr. Snyder is world renowned for his expertise on North American plants and plant diseases and is an exceptionally high quality speaker. Following Dr. Snyder's presentation, there will be brief comments by the Ramsey County Public Health Department regarding the composting program and how our particular site will be operating in the Citv of Mounds View. 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. There will then be a brief raffle to distribute shovels and rakes that have been donated by local businesses as part of the leaf composting day and distribution of free pumpkins to all the young people involved in the day's activities. Throughout the day, the Park Commission will be offering free orange helium balloons to children that attend both Silver View Park and Ardan Park. The brief programs would then end by 2:30 p.m, with closing comments by the Mayor, Councilmembers or Park Board Members. ...inr of The leaf composting site will remain open fur tha r� ai.. -- the day for residents to drop their leaves off. Staff feels that this would be a very simp)N; vet effective, way to initiate both the leaf composting and Silver View Park programs as well as gain additional exposure before the residents, of the accomplishments that both the Park Commission and Park Board have made during the past two years. RECOMMENDATION: To authorize $250.00 of the City's contingency account to construct a Silver View Park sign on the north side of Silver View Park adjacent to the parking lot. BKA/sll MEMO TO: Mounds View City Council FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director Parks, Recreation and Forestry DATE: October 5, 1983 RE: Playground Equipment Staff presented a memo to the Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission at their regularly scheduled September 22, 1983 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting regarding the purchase of playground equipment as per the 1983 budget for Lambert Park. The Park Commission reviewed a number of pieces of equipment and voted unanimously to recommend a Landscape Structures 29R unit at a cost of $4,530.00. The budget in revenue sharing account 200-120-4703-511, playground equipment, has 54,400.00 budgeted for playground equipment for Lambert Park. The Landscape Structure unit was selected by the Park Commission because of the play space usage, with the varied decks, the tunnel support, tire swing area and spiral slide. This particular piece of equipment meets all of the needs as heard fr;,m the Lambert Park residents accept for the merry-go-round which will be relocated from the Red Oak playground. The Park Commission looked at to other pieces of equipment that were basically wooden structures similar to this particular piece but felt this would work best in the neighborhood and meet the residents' needs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Landscape Structures 29R unit be purchased at a cost of $4,530.00 plus freight to be budgeted out of the revenue sharing account 200-120-4703. BKA/sll f� E°arA notG"ia�aE�";ee� , s'^E•#j� r["D, teld'9 �' rr+��r) Our all heart California Redwood playstructures are well known for their beauty, quality of materials and natural durability. All our Redwood structures are made of 4 x 6 and 6 x 6 timbers for superior sturdiness and safety. With Redwood from Landscape Structures Inc., you get the time -tested value of natural resistance to insects and decay. And, of course, you get our exclusive 10- year materials warnnty that applies to all our play equipment. As you look through this catalog, you'll see that all our play - structures can be ordered in your choice of Redwood orAlumaCore materials. Depending on your choice, the playsuvctures may vary slightly in overall dimensions (see the "actual size" listed for each playstructure). However, Elie playstructure design and the "play area required" will be the same whether you order a Redwood or an AlumaCore structure. *When ordering your PlayStructure• be sure to specify, an ' ' for Redwood or an "a" for AtuniaCore after the product number 3 muo To: Mounds View City Council � l FROM: Bruce K. Anderson —a'' t r Parks, Recreation an o ' DATE: October 6, 19333 RE: Leaf Composting Program As you are aware, October 22 is our kick-off date for the city's leaf composting program. Most of the details have been taken care of to ensure a positive and welcome service to the City residents. As part of staft's initial investigation in this project, I have toured a number of local leaf composting sites and feel there would be one welcome addition which would greatly improve the leaf composting program at Ardan Park. That item would be to fence the entire leaf composting area off with chain link fence. To that end, staff has contacted a number of local fencing firms to receive bid proposals on a variety of fencing including green fabric, varying heights and gauges. Staff would recommend that we go with the bid proposal from Crowley Fence Company for 550 feet of used 6 ft. 9 gauge fencing to enclose the entire area off. The used fencing bid proposal of $2,060.00 is most beneficial from staff's perspective for the following reasons: 1. The proposed fencing is 6 ft. which would be higher than the other fence proposals and should deter any unacceptable material from being thrown into the composting area during non -supervised hours. 2. The used fencing is 9 gauge as compared to 11 gauge which is a much stronger fence. 3. By having 550 ft., we would be able to make our rectangle 200' x 75' which would allow ample space for the heavy equipment to turn the windrows on a quarterly basis. 4. It would provide a buffer from the remaining park area which will be further enhanced by planting in the spring. Ramsey County has budgeted $400.00 for the installation of a gate at each of their composting sites so the actual cost to the City for the installation of the fencing and gate would be $1,660.00. As there is no money budgeted for the leaf composting program in 1903, the monies would have to come from the City's contingency account in the amount of $1,660.00. As staff feels that the fencing would not only keep the area in a neat and presentable manner but it would also establish some permanence to the program. It should also be noted that I have spoken to Crowley Fence and they have guaranteed installation prior to October 22 of the fence as outlined. Should you have any questions regarding staffs position on this issue, feel free to contact me directly at ext. 141. RECOMMENDATION: To allocate $1,660.00 from the City's contingency account for the installation of 550 ft. of used 6 ft. 9 gauge fence to be installed at Ardan Park for the City's leaf composting program. BKA/sll Crowley Fence Company, Inc. 10630 Nassau Street N.E. Minneapolis, Minn. 55434 612/784.1120 . 3124 DATE nc nhar l,.1_,9t13 PROPOSAL NO. TERMS Net 30 Days FOB: Jobsite To: City of Mounds View 2401 NE lli(;hway 10 Mounds View, pSnnesota 55112 Regarding Leaf Compost Area (1 --�- ❑ h:rnL•.". �d • �• ❑ remove and reinahll ❑other We propose iite wslvwirig...:�rcL .,,v I. _II 534' - 721' x 9 Ca. x 2" mesh with 2" line posts x no top rail 4 - 2-1/2" corner posts 2 - 4" terminal posts 1 — 161 double drive gate Note: line posts to be driven all material is previously used All necessary appurtances, for the total cost of ............................ . .... $ 2060.00 The above price(s) is (are) firm for a period of 30 days from this date. Thar.k you for the opportunity to quote on this project Il Respectfully submitted by: r I,(' ` 1 Michael P. Keller, Sales Representative ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL PROPOSAL NO. N 2 .3124 The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature: Date: PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS ohm C6aJ AS" 0/01 i7a000017 USS Cyclone Fence Unlled $lilee Steel Cerperellen DATE t�"22-83 PROPOSAL TO.- SHIPTO_ _—.__ NAME CiLy Of ;buuds View salae JTREET STREET CITY STATE ZIP CODE CITY STATE ilUtlnds View, Jinnvsuta SPECIFICATIONS OVERALL HEIGHT 5 ABOVE GRADE BARB WIRE D STRANDS FABRIC HEIGHT 60" -P.V.C. COATED Ci green_..._._.__—__-_—._--.__._ —_ CHAIN LINK FABRIC -ALUM. COATED ❑ WEIGHT OF COATED GALVANIZED ❑ COATING .15 mils WIREGAUGE 119 P.V.C.COATED ❑ LINE POSTS -SHAPE round --_ DIMENSION 1'S�BII _ GALVANIZED IN SPACING MIDDLE RAIL ❑ TOP TENSION WIRE ❑ TOP RAIL- none BOTTOM RAIL ❑ none BOT. TENSION WIRE ❑ none END & CORNER POSTS- 2" 0 U GATEPOSTS- 4" U D QUANTITY ITEM 400' complete fence per above specifications (GREEN FABRIC) 4 2" 0 D corner posts 1 20' double gate 2 4" 0 D gate posts MESH SIZE 2 11 DRIVEN 1D' SET IN CONCRETE ATE FRAME I-5/811 IN. MATERIALONLY MATERIAL & INSTALLATION PRICE NO'l"::ALL LING POSTS DRIVLN INTO GROUND 2' - ALL TERIINALS SET INTO CONCRETE 31 ALL STAKING, GRADING, AND CLEARING BY OTHERS ADD 2.00 FOR MATERIALS PER FOOT - ADD 1.25 PER FOOT FOR LABOR IF ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE NEEDED $1978.00 TOTAL FRAMEWORK STRENGTH �n-15-83 � Prim subject to change ells ,Ad Is based on all ewrk performed THEORETICAL MINIMUM BENDING FORCE ON CRITICAL AXIS in 1 phase operationlsl. Charge for each remobillzeaon LINE POST @ 60" ABOVE GRADE l TOP RAIL @10'0"SPAN Add to toulS for Installation alter TERMINAL @ 6'0" ABOVE GRADE layout, grades and comer stakes by others. Price is based on all Zinn F.O.B. POINT erected FREIGHT PREPAID Elaccessibteby mobile equipment unless otherwise speclfied In this proposal. COLLECT ❑ Holes through rock will be charged extra. TERMS OF PAYMENT: Net Cash 00 Days or as otherwise stated herein. ACCEPTANCE: After receipt of signed copy Imm Buyer, this proposal when accepted SUBM)TTED BY:, by Cyclone Fence, at Its General Offices in Joliet. Illinois, or at any .��� district sales office, becomes a contract between the two parties. P` LCf 4 The conditions on the reverse side of this shoat are made apart hereof. kick KuehlWein BUYER'S SIGNATURE DATE ypy 641-8742 MAILING ADDRESS: 254SE. University five St. Paui, MIT 5JI14 ORIGINAL Cyclone Fence HIT.= T366. J Q Crowley Fence Company, Inc. 10630 Nassau Streat N.E. Minneapolis, Minn. 55434 612n84.1120 W 3116 September 21, 1°03 PROPOSAL NO. -- DATE FOB: '"bs +o TERMS Net 30 D)ays To: City of 1•1,ounds View Regarding: Leaf Compost Area 2401 11E llighway 10 Founds View, 1-21 Attention: Fr. Bruce Anderson _ r.7 , _•....0 lJ nth.r We propose the following U furnish anty Ldl furnish and Inauii u retea.a u� 4341 - 6011 hi X 11 ga. X 2' mesh with 211 line posts X no top rail 4 — 2-1/2" corner posts 2 — 4" terminal posts 1 — 16, Double Drive gate **110TE: Line posts to be driven. All necessary apPurusnces, for the total cost of ................ 3 2.260.00 The above price(s) is (a Thank you for the oppc Respectfully submitted for a on Michael P. of 30 days from this date. Sales Representative - --'-"__.........—..--- -.............,....,...,............,......,...... ..n,......,....,..,.n.,...n.....�,..r..n..n.rn.rr...r.n.- ....:....:......-.:.-_ _ _ _ _ ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL PROPOSAL NO. NO 3116 The above authorized ptoldo the wtsatisfactory f work as specified. Payment will bemade as outlined above. capes You are Date:_� Signature: PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS /3 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of. Public Works/Communj.ty Development , DATE: October 5, 1993 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT FOR 1983 MSA RESURFACING PROJECT On 10/4/83 a meeting was held with Elmer Morris, MnDOT District 9 State Aid Engineer and his assistant. The purpose of the meeting was to resolve the impasse on approval of an eligible project to allow bids to be taken and funds encumbered to meet the MSA regu- lations. The proposed project area, Groveland from Highway 10 to Ardan and Arden from Groveland to Red Oak, was reviewed in the field. Other segments of Ardan, Groveland, Edgewood, and County Road I were also field reviewed. Mr. Morris thought that the roads were in good shape except for the few isolated problem areas previously identified. After considerable discussion the following items were determined: 1. The proposed resurfacing of Groveland from Highway 10 to Laport would be defined as "maintenance" and, therefore, not eligible for "Construction" funds. 2. The proposed repair work on Groveland from Laport to Ardan and repair on Ardan from Groveland to a point 130 feet east Of Fairchild should consist of total reconstruction which, if rebuilt to current MSA standards,"should"be eligible for "Construction" funds. 3. The proposed work on Ardan, except as noted above, between Fairchild and Red Oak would be also defined as "maintenance". 4. Almost all of the MSA street work needed in Mounds View appears to fit under the "maintenance" definition as opposed to "Construction" definition. 5. The only apparent eligible construction projects would be as follows: A. County Road I, from Silver Lake Road to Highway 10. B. County Road I, from Highway 10 to I-3511 in cooperation with Ramsey County. C. Edgewood, from County Road I to Hillview (a new road which may never be completed due to wetland problems). D. County Road 112, from Highway 10 to Quincy. -2- E. Portions of County Road H2 west of Highway 10, Silver Lake Road south of Highway 1.0, Long Lake Road and County Road J. F. The 0.43 miles of undesignated MSA mileage. 6. The City could apply to the State Aid office for an exception to the "maintenance" definition. 7. To meet current MSA standards for construction fund eligi- bility the following basic criteria will need to be met; A. road strengths meet a nine ton design standard. B. road width shall be 46 feet or obtain a variance to 44 feet with concrete curb and gutter. uate o handle a ive C. storm.(Current bstorm gt sewerparallfn paralleling mayar not meet this criteria.) D. new roadway will be "as good as new" when project is complete. Attached for your information is a copy of the minutes of the "Unencumbered Construction Fund Subcommittee" meeting held on August 17, 1983. Item 5 is the recommendation for Mounds view. If the December 1, 1983 deadline for establishing a bid date is not met then the 1984 construction allotment will be reduced by $26,000+. If further progress is not made by June 30, 1984 then the 1985 construction allotment could be further reduced by $52,000+. The 1983 allotment was 184,086. The recommendation of the Subcommittee will go to the full committee on October 26, 1983. The final determination will be made by the Commissioner of Transportation in January 1984. The following are possible options to prevent reductions in the MSA allotments: 1. File formal appealfor exception to the "maintenance" definition. 2. Request a variance to the required pavement width (approval routine) and concrete curb and gutter (MnDOT staff indicates that approval is not likely). 3. Authorize staff to advertise for bids for the proposed project with award contingent upon formal approval by MnDOT of the project for funding using MSA monies. Staffs proposed project is as follows: -3- ( A. resurface Groveland from Highway 10 to Laport without concrete curb and gutter. B. iecuiis LrueL Groveland from LaporL to Ardan WiLh ur WiLhunL concrete curb and gutter depending on MnDOT ruling. D. reconstruct Ardan ;rom Groveland to 130 feet east of Fairchild with or without concrete curb and gutter depending on MnDOT ruling. D. resurface Arda❑ from 130 feet east of Fairchild to Red Oak with or without concrete curb and gutter depending on MnDOT ruling. Recommended bid date is November 22, 1983 at 2:00 p.m. Estimated probable construction cost is $89,000 without concrete curb and gutter and $110,000 with concrete curb and gutter. If resurfacing work is deleted the estimated cost .:cold be ecc,500. 4. Attend the October 26, 1983 MSA screening committee meeting in Brainerd, Minnesota to present• the City's case. 5. If items 1 and 2 above are not successful then focus effort on getting a County Road I project started as soon as possible (before June 30, 1984). 6. Staff learned at the October 4, 1983 meeting that by filing a simple request by December 15, 1983 that up to 25 percent of the annual MSA allotment can be used for "maintenance" activities including resurfacing, patching, seal coating, street sweeping, streetlights (electrical), and storm sewer cleaning. The 1983 maintenance allotment was $10,215. If no reductions are made in 1984, then up to $47,750 could be made available for maintenance on the MSA system. A detailed "Annual Maintenance Expenditure Report" would have to be filed at the end of each year. Staff will actively pursue this option unless directed otherwise. Staff requests direction and/ur cunfiiiea LiGr, to prccccd or all of the options outlined above. JCJ/pf Attachment r MINUTES OF THE UNENCUMBERED CONSTRUCTION FUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, August 17, 1983 Mankato City Hall Mankato, Minnesota Subcommittee Members: Duane Aden -- Marshall, Chairman Paul Baker -- Mankato Charles Honchell — Roseville Others in Attendance: .Aly� -� LO2 � ^1a Robert Simon -- South St. Paul - Chairman, 1983 Screening Committee /`_-._ n„trtr.crad -- Minnesota Department of Transportation VGv♦bu 1 Meeting was called to order at 9:45 A,M., by Chairman Duane Aden. The subcommittee discussed the guidelines by which the meeting would be con- ducted until 10:00 A.M., at which time the interviews began. The following format was used for conducting each interview in the same manner: THE CHAIRMAN WILL: 1. Review the rules that apply. 2. Explain the reason for the interview. 3, justification that will be considered: a. A 429 feasibility study held by city council and project ordered. b. Project submitted to the District State Engineer. c. Plan approval by city council and District State Aid Engineer. d. Project letting date established or contract has been let. 4. Discuss the need for enforcement of the rules. a. Accumulated funds in statewide account ($38,000,000 as of 12/31/82). b, Possible legislative action. -58- �y Page 2 f Subcommittee Meeting OTHER SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL: 1. Ask other applicable questions. a. Are city councils aware of Screening Committee rules? b. What financial impact the rules would have on each community. C. Status and support of 5-year Capital Improvement Fund. d. What is anticipated construction next year to avoid the nrnblem being continued. The primary screening committee rules that are applicable are: That, whenever a municipality exceeds $300,000, or two Limes their annual construction allotment (whichever is greater) in the construc- tion fund balance available as of June 30th of the current year, not including the current year's allotment, the Unencumbered Construc- tion Fund Subcommittee will review and allow the city in question to explain the reason for the large balance. Seven communities were reviewed by the subcommittee. Their fund situation, a brief outline of project status, and the subcommittee recommendation to the screening committee is provided for each city. AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1983 CONSTRUCTION AS OF 6/30/83 ALLOTMENT RATIO I. CRYSTAL $1,658,426 $180,234 9.20 The City of Crystal has had its needs adjusted for the past 3 years. William Sherburne, City Engineer, called George Quickstad of Mn/DOT prior to the meet- ing. He indicated to Mr. Quickstad that there was no new information available and the status of the situation was the same as had been last year. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The construction needs for the City of Crystal be reduced by 5 times their present construction fund balance less the current consrrnr- tion allotment period. AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1983 CONSTRUCTION AS OF 6/30/83 ALLOTMENT RATIO 2. CHASKA $432,366 $202,733 2.13 Glenn Cook of the consulting firm of Bonestroo, Roselle, Anderlik and Associates, represented the city at the meeting. lie indicated that the city is currently developing a project in cooperation with Mn/DOT to construct traffic control improvements along TH 41 at Crosstown Blvd., Engler Road and Hunter Road. This $350,000 project would require approximately $100,000 of MSAS funds from the City of Chaska. The project is in location design status now and may be taken to contract before the end of the year. The city is also reviewing projects to be taken to construction in the next few years. These include Staughton, Co. Rd. 10 and Pioneer Rd. They hope to get a $400,000 project moving by the end of this year and another in June of 1984. -59- Page 3 Subcommittee Meeting The city is still hopeful of the project moving quickly enough to meet the rules and will be sending a letter to George Quickstad before October, 1983, updating the situation. 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The construction needs for the City of Chaska be reduced by 2 times their present construction fund balance less current construction allotment prior to the 1983 apportionments, unless significant progress is made in accordance with the guidelines which would result in the unencumbered con- struction fund balance being reduced by December 31, 1983,conform to the regu- lation. In the event that the screening committee accepts the probability that the construction will, indeed, occur late in 1983 and does not move to have the construction needs adjusted and said project does not, in fact, move at the anticipated rate before the end of 1983; then is is further recommended that in 1984 the needs be adjusted for the City of Chaska by reducing it by a factor of 2 times the balance in the construction fund that existed as of June 30, 1983. AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1983 CONSTRUCTION AS OF 6/30/83 ALLOTMENT RATIO 3. HUTCHINSON $358,563 $151,016 2.37 Marlow Priebe, Director of Engineering for the City of Hutchinson, represented the community at the meeting. He stated that this past year did award a con- tract, but found that past overpayments from the state has caused the entire amount of his requested use of MSAS funds to be eliminated. The city is, however, also progressing on five other MSAS projects with an es- timated total MSAS funding of $236,483. On three of these projects hearings have already been held and it is expected that bids would be taken during 1983. These projects total approximately $87,700 of estimated MSAS funds. The com- mittee indicated that at the very latest, these bid dates should be established by December 1, 1983. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The construction needs for the City of Hutchinson be reduced by 2 times their present construction fund less the current construction allot- ment period to the 1983 apportionment unless they have succeeded in progressing projects to the point of having bid dates established by December 1, 1983, which would bring their construction balance into line with the rules. In the event that the screening committee accepts the probability that the construction will, indeed, occur late in 1983 and does not move to have the construction needs ad- justed and said project does not, in fact, move at the anticipated rate before the end of 1983; then it is further recommended that in 1984 the needs be ad- justed for the City of Hutchinson by reducing it by a factor of 2 times the bal- ance in the construction fund that existed as of June 30, 1983. AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1983 CONSTRUCTION AS OF 6/30/83 ALLOTMENT RATIO 4. LITCHFIELD $330,095 $114,586 2.88 IWayne Carlson, City Administrator, represented the community at the meeting. He informed the committee that on July 15, 1983, the State Aid Project 47-611-18 -60- Page 4 Subcommittee Meeting for the improvement to County State Aid Highway No. 11 48s478nofeMSASCmoneyuc- for has now begun on that project which is utilizing $ from the City of Litchfield. This would reduce their unencumbered construction h meets the criteria set forth in the rules balance to an amount whicbeing consid- An additional expenditure of $222,000 of MSAS fw�ds is cuointtexpected that 1right-of-way Bred by the city for a Ripley St. improvement. At this p problems and matching funds are slowing up the project, but is it will go to contract in the spring of l984. This would avoid the reoccurrence of problems in the forseeahle future. guidelines. RECOMMENDED None, as the community 1s now within the AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1983 CONSTRUCTION RATIO As 0�ALLOTMENT 2.30 $422,789 $184,086 5• MOUNDSVIEW at this meet- John Johnson, Director of Public Works, represented the comm llYcity approach ing. ears and as such been unable to the Re indicated that the city had been developing to storm drainage problems over the last 5 Y this fall to guide had been working "with Ramsey County pursue any projects. Final deliberation is anticipated community in ir.r.future decision. The city are not and the State Co have various improvements done on [hose roadway systems with MSAS funds being utilized for local shares. These projects, however, currently high enough utilized the priority system of these organizations to cause the construction to take place until 1986 or 1987 at the earlier the expecta- projects had been developed by the city before A set of resurfacing tion that this A miles of work would be done late in 1of The day however, the in/DOT review of tbecauseaof thelunCed the subcommittee's meeting, n therefore, to meat that [he projects would not be acceptable for MSAS funding t to modify its Johnson indicated the city would now attempt suitability of the subsoils and the failure of the design, the standards. Mr• rove. original resurfacing plans for the reconstruction of some of these roadways. oint, but every effort would This would result in a change in the schedule and the extent oEatbiduletting went. The actual timeframe is unknown at this Pf establishing _,_ December 1, 1983. le was to provide a letter to Mr. Quickstad by Oct - be made to have this accomplished co cne p date 1, the progress of this endeavor. Ober 1, indicating e City RECOh1h1E_ ND The resen[construction construction fundhbalanceolessuthe currentiew be rcon- unless the city is able duced by 2 times their p on struction allotment prior to the 1tha apportionmentwill make significant progress which a bid date by December 1, 1983, to provide reasonable probability that they Point projects to reach a point of establishing committee accepts would lead to the reduction of the unencumbered construction funds to the P indeed, occur late in 1983 and does where it met the regulation. In the event that the screening the probability that the construction will, does not, in not move to have the construction needs adjusted and said project -61- �1 Page 5 1 Subcommittee Meeting fact, move at the anticipated rate before the end of 1983; then it is further recommended that in 1984 the needs be adjusted for the City of Mounds View by reducing it by a factor of 2 times the balance in the construction fund that existed as of June 30, 1983. AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1983 CONSTRUCTION AS OF 6/30/83 ALLOTMENT RATIO 6. NORTH MANKATO $39.7,162 $141,769 2.80 Robert Ringhofer, City Administrator, and Martin Menk of a consultant firm of Bolton and Menk, Inc., represented the city at the meeting. They indicated that the city had, in fact, planned to undertake projects that would reduce the MSAS construction balance to that which is allowable this year, but were unable to do so because of the natural disasters which struck their community this spring and summer. They experienced a major failure of their primary sanitary serer transmission line and a landslide which caused removal and re- construction reconstruction problems. It was indicated that a project, Lee Blvd., with a total estimated cost of $250,000 and an estimated MSAS funding need of $75,000, was now being aggres- sibely developed. The city has already approved the project and it has been sent to the state for review and approval. They are interested in having the bid letting be late in 1983 with construction in 1984. An unknown factor af- fecting this project, however, is the availability of Federal Aid Urban Funds which had not been released as of this date for construction projects. The city is also progressing on the reconstruction of Belgrade Ave., Lake Street and Range Street. These $400,000 to $700,000 projects, however, are not anti- cipated to be let until 1984. Utility reconstruction, siting of a river cross- ing and other improvements, all will have an impact on the final scheduling of these improvements. The representatives were instructed to send a letter to Ceorge Quickstad outlining the natural disaster problems which had deferred their original schedule for completing projects in 1983. They were further instructed to demonstrate by December 1, significant action on the Lee Blvd. project. or others. It should be noted that the anticipated draw -down of $75,000 of MSAS funds for the Lee Blvd. project would still leave the community approximately $20,000 too high in its fund balance. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The construction needs for the City of North. Mankato be reduced by 2 times their present construction fund balance less the current construction allotment prior to the 19U3 appuitionment unless the screening committee feels that North Mankato has made significant progress on moving to the construction stage one of its major projects. In the event that the screen- ing committee accepts the probability that the construction will, indeed, occur late in 1983 and does not move to have the construction needs adjusted and said project does not, in fact, move at the anticipated rate before the end of 1983; then it is further recommended that in 1981, the needs be adjusted for the City of North Mankato by reducing it by a factor of 2 times the balance in the con- struction fund that existed as of June 30, 1983. -62- Page 6 Subcommittee Meeting AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1983 CONSTRUCTION AS OF 6/30/83 ALLOTMENT RATIO 7 WORTHINGTON $316,450 $142,637 2.22 Duane Haffield, the engineer, represented the community at the meeting. He indicated that the city had awarded a project which is drawing the unencumbered fund balance down by approximately $80,000. The city would, therefore, be within the guidelines. of the screening committee. Mr. Haffield also indicated that a $270,000 reconstruction project is antici- pated for 1984 which would avoid the community's problems with the fund re- quirements. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. The community is now meeting the regulations of the unencumbered fund rules. The committee then discussed the advisability of increasing the $300,000 limit and the 2.0 factor. It was ultimately determined that the committee would not recommend such changes at this time, but would monitor the situation in the future to see if such changes would be in order. Respecfully submitted, Charles Honchell, Secretary 1983 UNENCUMBERED CONSTRUCTION FUNDS SUBCOMMITTEE CVH/c -63- CI'i'Y OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL October 17, 1983 A. 6:00 p.m. - Special Meeting 1. Discussion with Legislators on the Anoka County Airport Master Plan. B. 7:00 p.m. - Agenda Session 1. Discussion of employment arrangements (full-time vs. consulting) for Director of Public Works/Community Development. 2. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Mounds View School District Grant Application for Chronic Absenteeism Projcct. 3. Consideration of memorandum and Resolution No. 1671 regarding County Road J. 4. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Edgewood Drive/Bona Road walkway fence. 5. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding garage sale signs. 6. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Governor's Blue Ribbon Citizen's Commission on the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. 7. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding the Fire Department Budget. 8. Consideration of revisions to the Purchasing Policy. 9. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding certification of delinquent utility bills. 10. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding insurance and risk management services. 11. Discussion of hiller industrial Falk WcLiaad niteratioa Permit and Final Plat. a) Review of modifications to Checklist for Chapters 48, 49, and 49A. (Material will not be ready until Monday.) b) Review of Bruce Malkerson letter dated 10/7/83. c) Review of approval timetable set at 8/8/83 Council Meeting. -continued- AGKNPA October 17, 1981 Page Two 12. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding contested water bi11 for Mrs. Susan Jarrett at 2841 Woodale Drive. 13. Consideration of staff memorandum regarding Arthur Zielinski Minor Subdivision. 14. Consideration of revisions to Ordinance No. 349 amending the Municipal Code of the City of Mounds View by repealing Chapter 35, entitled "The Festivities Commission" and adopting a new Chapter 35, entitled "Mounds View Festivities Commission". 15. Discussion of St. Stephen drainage concern. (Material will be presented Monday night.) �—' MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development li U l� DATE: October 12, 1903 SUBJECT: DIRECTION OF PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POSITION FOR 1984 At the September 6, 1983 Council meeting, some additional infor- mation was requested by the Council from myself concerning manhours expended on various activities, both for the director and the foreman. Attached*are summaries of manhours spent through October Sth for myself and Mr. Rardell. The attached information was requested to assist the Council in reviewing how the supervisory personnel was utilized and/or might be adjusted in 1984 to better meet the objectives of the Public Works/Community Development Department. (*Attachments will be handed out Monday night.) The 1984 budget contains $37,828.00 spread between the general, sewer and water funds for Director of Public Works salary and fringe benefits. If this was based on a 2,080 hour year, it would result in a per hour rate of $18.19. Further recognizing that the City Personnel Code provides for 80 hours of paid vacation and 80 hours of paid holiday leave, deducting these hours from the 2,080, results in a net per hour cost of $19.70. In addition, the Personnel Code provides for up to 80 hours of paid sick leave per year. Once again, deducting these from the 2,080 hours would result in a net per hour rate of $20.56. This is compared to the current contract rate of $22.50 per hour. If the $37,828.00 was utilized at a $22.50 per hour rate, this would provide up to 1,681 hours for use in the general, sewer and water funds. If you have any questions, please contact me. ici/bc A MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Clerk -Administrator - DATE: October 10, 1983 v \ SUBJECT: MOUNDS VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT GRANT APPLICATION FOR CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM PROJECT Attached please find material received from the Metropolitan Council regarding the application of the Mounds View School District for funding under the Minnesota Department of Health, Maternal and Child Health Special Project Fund. The project proposed by the Mounds View School District is for the development of a program focusing on the prevention of chronic absenteeism in schools. The Metropolitan Council is requesting comments from the City on this proposed project and staff would request Council direction on this matter. DFP/pf 4 Attachment 04 ILp Melropolilon Council 6� f} 910/j13 +,ti 300 Metro Square Building Seventh ano Robert Streets SI. Pout, Mlnnesoto 55101 lolephone (612) "VON C1 0' or October 3, 1983 To Whom It tray Concern: RE: Mounds View School District No. 621 Application for Minnesota Department of Health tfaternal and Child Health Special. Project Funds Chronic Absenteeism from School Received 09/16/83 letropolitan Council Referral File No. 11576-1 The Metropolitan Council has received an application for state funds to accomplish the above referenced project. The ; of these applications require that an 3 procedures for s, n y potentially affected units of government, neighborhood organizations, groups and human rights commissions be notified of the project and given an opportunity to comment. The interest of ycur community or group should be expressed by means of a letter describing the effect the project might have on your community or the type of additional information you would like to receive. Upor. receipt of a notice of your interest, if any, it is incumbent upon the Metropolitan Council to arrange a conference with the applicant for the benefit of all interested parties. If you desire to review the application, copies are on file at the Metropolitan Council and in the offices of the applicant. JR/ch Sincc,cl METROPOLITAN CIL L% Johhnn Rutford Referral Coo dinator An Equal Opportunity Employer FACE SHEET APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FOR NATER;IAL AND CHILD HEALTH SPECIAL PROJECTS 'APPLICANT AGENCY Name Independent School District 621 REFERRAL' FILE NONO.-&S 2L.1 Address Phone (include area co• 2959 North Hamline Ave., St. Paul, MN 5511 (612) 636-3650 PROJECT DIRECTOR Fusan me Address Phone (include areacoc• Hagstrumtor of Special Services 2959 North Hamline Ave., St. Paul, MN 5511 (612) 636-3650 CONTACT PERSON Address Phone (include area cod' Name i Mounds View High School (X-19 Jean Norrbom, P.H.N. 1900 W. Co. Rd, F„ St. Paul, MN SS112 (612) 633-4031 PROJECT INFOP,MATIOM Date of application Title of project 'total MG:sP funds zeque:: MCH Special Project September 15 183 Chronic Absenteeism, from School 1 $105,000. Date project to begin Date project to end71escent al service children ages 5 - I: I -I 84 12 31 85 Health Services (also services for Health district and/or county(ies) served by this project: Mounds View School District #621 (located within Ramsey County) TYPE OF AGENCY .APPLYING (check one): ❑ Board of health ❑X Other ❑ Private non-profit organization ❑ Specify: School District TYPE OF AGENCY ACTING AS FISCAL MANAGER (check one): ❑ Sbard of health © Other ❑ Private non-profit organization ❑ Specify: COPIES OF THIS APPLICATION HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE FOLLOWING APPROPRIATE REVIEU AGENCIES: .10ENCY Nkd (s) DATE SENT ACENCY TYPE ,yone Reglonal oevelopncnt Ccentssion(s1 Metropolitan Health Board Health Systcm agency(lea) Local Board(s) of llcoith I Ramsey County Board of Commissioners (If applicant is not a Board of Health) AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL Signature Irt} Burton M. Nygren Superintendent 7Por .genesis other than jo-erwortal units, please attach evtdenre that apP a recrrinlzed nonprofit institution or organization (501 C31. 9-15-83 9-15-83 pate 9pp /13/B3I,, is — InJapendent School District 0^,11 � ����M ®®p� rgoaam, s %7if? i uc cIAStU y 2959PIorthHamlineAvenue • St. Paul, Minnesota a 55113 C Phone (612)636.3650 Susan liagstrum. Director of Special Services c• • CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM FROM SCHOOL p PROPOSAL FOR ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION HOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS oeo le The Minnesota rxprri- Chronic absenteeism is a reflection of the new morbidity of Children and adolescents identified in Health CCa ,dents, chronic nand ence. Absence from school due to illness roblems or environmental capping conditions, social and emotional p om the conditions limi idedhand mayabilityto tbenefit r thechild'spotential,stational experiences p Ein three target schools, the per - In Independent school District school centage of children absent from school for ten or more days during the 1982-83 school year is as follows: Elementary Grades I - 6 24% Junior High Grades 7 - 8 33% Senior High Grades 9 - 12 39% Each of these students was absent for at least 5.5� of the school year. Current levels of staffing do not provide for adequate identifica- tion, assessment and intervention necessary to limit or prevent future absence from school. This proposal seeks to develop -a method of assessment to be used for children in the target schools who are chronically absent from school, to identify the patterns and causes of those absences. gIn addition, emphasis will be placed on developing and impe mentiintervention strategies aimed at limiting or preventing future absence from school. The development of programs focusing on prevention of chronic ab- senteeism have been largely ignored In recent health and educa- tional planning. This pilot proposal will provide services Cur- s ofhildren and co rently unavailable to large number othereschooI distrIct5d serve as a model which could be used by e The projected cost of this project is $105,000.00. 5erving the communwes of Arden I+lls 0 Muur " w 0N Ior8agh1o. a^N North id lis & Roseville 0 Shoreview o Vadnais Heigh: ' MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Clerk-Administrato/r/ DATE: October 11, 1983 C SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD J Attached please find correspondence from Shoreview City Manager Gary Dickson regarding a meeting on the evening of August 30th where representatives of interested communities were present to discuss the condition of County Road J in Ramsey County/85th Street in Anoka County and the need for improvements along that road. Included with the correspondence from Mr. Dickson is a proposed resolution for adoption by each of the cities that attended this meeting,which was prepared by Mr. Dickson in consultation with this office, which encourages the engineers' offices of Ramsey County and Anoka County to work together in the areas of planning and improving County Road J/85th Street. The resolution also recommends that these agencies work in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Transportation on these matters. The last item was added as it was felt that such coordination would be appropriate in view of the efforts of MnDOT in developing new Highway 10. Attached to these materials is Resolution No. 1671, Resolution Encouraging the Consideration of Improvements to County Road J/ 85th Street by Anoka and Ramsey Counties. DFP/pf Attachments VILLAGE OF SHOREVIEW tI� I1 RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4fifi5 NnnnI Vic rn1uA STnCET SSmevim,Minneso1a55112 • Totphone489.3353 October 5, 1983 OVvi � 6 i o" OCT1983 QkEi ft M1Y OF M E M 0 �,09NDS W&%. TO: Mayors of: Mounds View Circle Pines Shoreview Spring Lake Park Blaine Lino Lakes FROM: Gary Dickson, City Manager Shoreview SUBJECT: Meeting - Oct. 18 - Mounds View City Hall regarding improvement of Co. Rd, J. • On August 30 the City of Mounds View hosted a meeting at their City Hall to discuss the conditions of County Road J in Ramsey County/85th Street in Anoka County and the need for improvements. Attached are the minutes of that meeting which recommend a subsequent meeting scheduled for October 18 at 1:00 P.M. in the Mounds View City Hall. Also included is a proposed Resolution for consideration by the communities involved with this road proposing planning for its improvement by the respective County Engineering Departments. GLD/mlj cc: City Clerks of respective communities Don Pauley, Clerk-Admin., Mounds View E PROPOSED RESOLUTION WHEREAS, those communities in Ramsey County and Anoka County border- ing on County Road J are experiencing increased development, and WHEREAS, the development being experienced is causing increased traffic on County Road J and creating needed increased services, and WHEREAS, these communities :.giving recognized the common need to improve County Road J., and WHEREAS, these communities and their neighbors viewing the increased use of this road and its service demands on them prefer to anticipate and plan in order to prevent increased and unnecessary hardships on their residents and residents in the neighboring communities in the counties of Ramsey and Anoka. NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shoreview respect- fully requests the Ramsey County Engineer's Department to pursue negotiations with the Anoka County Engineer's Department to provide adequate planning for the improvements of these segments to avoid unnecessary and needless cost and inconvenience to the residents. DE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Department of Transportation be invited to participate in these discussions in order to coordinate any projects they may be considering with these planning efforts. MINUTES • PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR COUNTY ROAD J The meeting was held at the Mounds View City Hall at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, August 30. Those in attendance were Duane McCarty, Mayor, City of Mounds View, Dick Wedell, Mayor, City of Shoreview, Jim Duevel and Ron Clark, Council - members, City of Blaine, Gary Dickson, City Manager, Shoreview, John Theo, Public Works Supt., Circle Pines. Invitations were extended to representatives of Spring Lake Park and Lino Lakes. Also present was Bill Wagner of the New Brighton Bulletin. Mayor McCarty expressed his concern at the condition of County Road J. The City of Shoreview shares these concerns, experiencing a tremendous growth in the north end of our community. There is increased use of the truck terminals and development along County Road J in all the communities, plus the complications produced by the location of the Blaine -Anoka Co. Airport. All these constitute an increase in traffic patterns and use made of the road. It was suggested that in order to avoid the many problems that are incumbant on all of the neighboring communities to County Road J, particularly to avoid a piecemeal development approach, that the cities unite to obtain cooperation from Ramsey Co. and Anoka Co. to start the planning process. It is hoped that in this way that we will anticipate the needs rather than reacting to them. There was a consensus among all of those present regarding the need and desire to bring all Councils together in order to get the counties acting on behalf of the communities. It was also the general agreement of the representatives present that the issue should be taken back to the representative Councils in order to solicit support and with their general concurrence, schedule another joint meeting 2 of the cities in preparation for a meeting with the respective County boards. The City of Mounds View agreed to forward to the representatives of the cities the traffic counts obtained from the Ramsey County Engineering Depart- ment. Another meeting should be held within three to four weeks, to consider a resolution soliciting support from the communities. This should be forwarded prior to that time. The subsequent meeting is scheduled for October 18 at the Mounds View City Hall at 7:00 P.M. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:00 P.M. GLD/mlj 10/5/83 J I~\ RESOLUTION NO. 1671 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE CONSIDERATION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY ROAD 3/85TH STREET BY ANOKA AND RAMSEY COUNTIES WHEREAS, those communities in Ramsey County and Anoka County bordering on County Road J are experiencing increased development; and WHEREAS, the development being experienced is causing increased traffic on County Road J and creating needed increased services; and WHEREAS, these communities and their neighbors viewing the increased use of this road and its service demands on them prefer to anticipate and plan in order to prevent increased and unnecessary hardships on their residents and residents in the neighboring communities in the counties of Ramsey and Anoka. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mounds View respectfully requests the Ramsey County Engineer's Department to pursue negotiations with the Anoka County Engineer's Department to provide adequate planning for the improvements of these segments to avoid unnecessary and needless cost and inconvenience to the residents. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Department of Transportation be invited to participate in these discussions in order to coordinate any projects they may be considering with these planning efforts. Adopted this 24th day of October, 1983. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) --- Clerk -A min1.strator d,ktjyn q MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE: October 12, 1983 SUBJECT: EDGEWOOD DRIVE/BONA ROAD WALKWAY NEAR EDGEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER Attached are the following items: 1. A copy of the memo dated 9/29/83 from the Engineering/ Planning Technician discussing background information on the subject walkway. 2. A letter from Mrs. Maria French, 5101 Edgewood Drive, requesting construction of a fence along the walkway. As can be seen from the attached material, the City has several walkways currently in use throughout the City. In all cases, walkways that have homes developed on either side have had chain link fencing installed. In the subject case, the fence along the north edge of the walkway was installed partially by the City and partially by an existing homeowner. If the City is to contemplate installation of a fence along the southern part of the walkway then the following items should be addressed. 1. The location of the easement line should be varified to insure proper location of the fence. 2. The fence should be installed in such a fashion as to allow wintertime snow removal activities. 3. The fence should be of substantial materials and relatively vandal and maintenance free. It is estimated that construction of approximately 270 feet of fence will cost at least $800.00. This work is not currently contemplated within any of the 1983 or 1984 budget items. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Council direction as to whether a ence siou d e installed along this portion of walkway. If a fence is to be installed,.who should bear the cost of the fence, either the City or the adjoining property owners? It is further suggested by staff that if a fence is to be installed that a meeting with the property owners be arranged and a determination as to type and location of fence be established. Staff would like to suggest to the Council that future walkways installed as part of subdivisions or developments in the City be required to have fencing, landscaping and/or control devices Mayor and City Council Page Two October 12, 1983 installed at time of subdivision and construction of walkway so that the kind of concerns raised by Mrs. French are minimized in the future. If you have any questions, please contact me at my office. JCJ/bc Attachment 1 4 MEMO TO: Director of Public Works/Community Development FROM: Engineering/Planning Technician DATE: September 29, 1983 SUBJECT: EDCEWOOD DRIVE/BONA ROAD WALKWAY FENCE This memo is in response to the request by the property owner at 5101 Edgewood Drive, Mrs. Maria French, for the City to construct a fence along the south side of an existing walkway between Edgewood Drive and Bona Rnad and also to construct a fence along her rear (west) property line. I was asked to obtain some background information as to when and under what conditions the fence on the north side of the walkway was installed. According to Mr. Roy Schaffhausen, owner of prop- erty at 5130 Bona Road, the fence along the north side of the walkway was installed in 1973. Also according to Mr. Schaffhausen, the City, back in 1973, was going to pay for the entire fence stretching from Bona Road to Edgewood Drive. At this same time Mr. Schaffhausen was in the process of con- structing an addition onto the rear of his home. The only way that cement trucks could gain access to the rear yard was from the south. The installation of a fence along Mr.Schaffhausen's south property line would have prohibited access of trucks to his rear yard. Mr. Schaffhausen supposedly asked the City to delay installation of the fence for two weeks at the most to allow him to pour footings for the addition. Apparantly, according to Mr.Schaffhausen, the installation could not wait two weeks, and no reason was given. The City installed the fence along the east half/north side of the walkway and also paid for it. Mr. Schaffhausen at his expense paid to put up the remaining fence to Bona Road. He also, at this time, installed a fence along his rear (east) property line. I have searched through City Cuuncil minutes back at the time his addition was constructed and could find no reference to the fence installation circumstances. The walkway was dedicated on September 14, 1964. This walkway was part of the Berwyn Addition platted in 1977. The City has five other walkways similar to this one. They are located at: l) Pleasant View Court 2) Silver lake Woods Addition (2) 3) Between Adams and Quincy near Pinewood School 4) Greenfield Place Adjacent to Greenfield Park Director of Public Works/ Community Development September 29, 1983 Page Two All walkways are fenced with the exception of the two in Silver Lake Woods, although this area is still undeveloped. Mrs. French Is requesting fencing be put along the entire length of the walkway on the south side, this measures 269 feet. She is also requesting fence along her rear property line, this measures 82 feet. 351 feet of 4 foot high chain link fence would cost approximately $1,100 installed. If you need additional Information, please contact me. Attachment FJK/bc 11 I L 0 IQ EXITING Pg�wa • • • PAID 6i GITY (AccoRDINU To MR hOAVAV)M) JV v,y Vkln Cq'/ Ndo 5101 frM6H RE�IDEmm� ® PENGB PRorow oy FIzu(,q 4P! IA..I.AA u.� 0. 0 0 u.! 0 T N rJune 2.1, 1983 Mr. Duane McCarty City of Mounds View 2401 N.E. Highway 10 New Brighton, MN 55112 Dear Mr. McCarty: I want to take this opportunity to present to you a problem that exists within the City of Mounds View and suggest an alternative to correct the situation. In September of 1982 the Edgewood Junior High School was replaced by the Edgewood Community Center at the school closing. It was brought to my attention that approximately three to four years ago Mr. Christian donated a 10' easement to the City of Mounds View for a public walkway between Bona and Edgewood Drives, for ease and accessability to the Junior High School. When the school closed in 1982 the walkway remained open. Due to the closing of the school, some of the traffic has been eliminated, but unfortun- ately a certain amount of vandalism and a large amount of trespas- sing on private property has not been. In our own personal experience since acquiring the house at 5101 Edgewood Drive (adjacent to the South side of the walkway), we have had at least five acts of vandalism and theft on our home. Since the walkway is North of the cross street Woodcrest, a large number of the persons who would utilize the walkway simply walk up the South border of our property as opposed to using the walkway. There appears to be only one viable solution to ease the situation: To build a chain link fence up the South side of the walkway from Bona Drive to Edgewood Drive and running from the walkway South approximately 80 ft. to the Southern property border between the two houses on the South side of the walkway. This would eliminate the problem of trespassing and damage resulting from trespassing. This courtesy was extended to the homeowner on the North side of the walkway. 4 Mr. Duane McCarty June 21, 19U3 Page 2 Residents would be responsible for fences along the South side of their property. Please consider the above recommendation and respond to us as soon as possible so that we might resolve the situation. Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation. Sincerely, SteveM. French 1 tcc <<t I 1r/ Maria Z. French 5101 Gdgewood Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 �. k�'1%n Yiw s�/n SS i•w.41 ` l •��t� l ('e� � �sird ,7f 0 ■ MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council r�\ FROM: Clerk-AdminisLral:or DATE: October 3, 1983 SUBJECT: GARAGE SALE SIGNS Pursuant to Council direction at the September 26th Council Meeting, staff reviewed the City sign code regarding a prohibition against the posting of garage sale type signs on utility poles and has determined that no such prohibition exists within our existing City code. Attached please find a copy of the City of Blaine's zoning ordinance which, under Section 35.184 (H), provides for such a prohibition of signs. We would also point your attention to a copy of the April 1982 Newsletter for the City of Blaine which includes an article on garage sale signs and states that the ordinance was not meant to prevent advertising garage sales and that the enforcement of such a prohibition would be extremely difficult. Staff would agree with such a finding and recommend the inclusion of an article in the City's newsletter in the Spring and Fall quarters requesting that people be aware of the hazards of not removing such signs and the nails holding such signs, as well as the overall detraction from 1 the community. It is our hope that we would obtain the cooperation of our residents, thus, avoiding the need to establish an ordinance prohibiting such signs which would be difficult if not impossible to enforce. RECOMMENDATION: Placement of regular newsletter articles in the Spring and Fall quarters requesting the cooperation of citizens in the removal of outdated garage sale signs and nails holding such signs. DFP/pf Attachments 1 ZONING 35,104 (H) (1) All signs legally erected e'iall be I inspected annually to determine that the sign has been maintained in such a manner as to insure the painting and maintenance of obviously deteriorating materials and to insure electrical and structural safety. (2) Any sign for which an annual inspec- tion permit has not been secured :ram the Building Inspector by the first of January or for which maintenance has not been conducted, shall be removed at the owner's expense thirty days after written notification from the Building Inspector, 35.184 Prohibited Si;:ns. (A) Signs that, by reason of positicn, shape Prohibited or color, would interfere with the proper function Signs of a traffic sign or signal. (B) Signs within a public right-of-way or easement, except for signs installed by governmental subdivisions. r (C) Signs that resemble any official marker ! erected by a governmental agency or that displays such words as "Stop" or "Danger", which are not erected by legal authority. (D) Flashing signs, including indoor signs,:;` which are visible from the public streets. (E) With the exception of searchlights, which may be approved in conjunction with an administra- tive permit as provided in Section 35.194 of this ordinance, no rotating beam, beacon of flashing illumination shall be used in conjunction with any display. (F) sigh or bi rl strucwcas that Cbctruct ?ny window. door, fire escape, stairway or opening, in- tended to provide ingress or egress for any building structure. With reference to commercial and industrial districts, signs painted on the inside class portion of windows or doors are permitted. (G) Banners and stringers, unless approved in conjunction with an administrative permit, as pro- vided in Section 35.194 of this ordinance. (H) Sign posters, that are tacked or posted 7C on. trees, fenca I utility posts, or other such supports. 7/12h4 83-2 NEWSL VOL. 5, N0.2 TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN CITY AND CITIZENS PROJECTS 1982: 1902 is a big year for projocis in the City of Blaine! Below are lour major projects underway or expected to be under construction in 1902: EAST SIDE WATER TOWER Blaine's New Hydropillar Water Tower, just south of 95th and Hamline Avenue on the City's East Side, is about Iwo -Thirds complete. The million gallon lower, along with a vratermain lu be constructed along Lexington Avenue and Ball Road, will pro- vide the East Sidewith greatly im. Proved service and fire protection and possibly lower the City's in. surance rating. The project should be completed in June. PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING „,G any s new ruollc Works Building on 101st Avenue (shown under construction) is just slightly behind schedule but moving toward dedication the 1 si of July. CIVIC CENTER/ICE ARENA An artist's concept of the North Suburban Civic Centeuand Ice Arena, is shown with its proposed City Hall site. This unique project involving private ptonies and volunteer labor as well as County and City of Blaine funds, is nearing its fund raising goals. II you would like to help pul it over the lop, please call 755.5555 to "Buy A Brick" or offer your bor. _,ENIOR CENTER At the bottom of the above layout is a concept drawing of Blaine's planned Senior Center. This building is also prog" rammed to be completed within the year. APRIL 1982 UNDERSTANDING FLOOD INSURANCE! The rain In Blaine falls mainly on fhe Plain —and sifsl So why do we talk about Flood Insurance in Blaine? Be. cause even in Blaine there is Finil designated by the Na" lional Flood Insurance Program as "flood prone", II you haven't sold or purchased property in fairly recent years, chances are ynn may have never heard of the Na- lional Flood Insurance Program. If, however, you have been involved in buying or selling properly more recently, you may have been asked the question, "Is the property lo. cated in an area designated by the Federal Government as being flood prone?" You may not have had the slightest idea whether or not the property was located in a flood prone area, or, for that matter, what a flood prone area was or what the possible consequences of being in a flood prone area might be. The intent of this article is to make you a little more aware of the National Flood Insurance Pro" gram and its impacts within Blaine. Conlinued Page 2 SPRING AND SUMMER POTPOURRI Spring Clean -Up �;''f�r" Eoa�e The City's Spring Cleanup p0o urf;� `�r4, 2s, Program for large appliances SQR�' eyR1cE E7 stc�s and furniture will begin atic May 3rd and continue through that week. Items placed at the curb on your regular collection day will be picked up. Caution: Woodlake will not pick up car parts, animal wastes, building materials, sod, rocks or dirt. Garage Sales and Signs The garaga sales, estate sales, or what have you sale season is upon us again. Would you believe there is a problem with garage sale signs? Way back in September, 1980, City ollices received a citizen's letter saying "not only (do garage sales signs) fell up forweeks after Iheyare over waste gas for the person going where the signs indicate, but they make our City of Blaine look tacky." March 16, Continued Page 2 SUBJECTS OF NEWSLETTER Projects 1982 ........ 1 Interviewwith Flood Insurance ..... 1.2 Richard Moran 15 Potpourri ... , , . , . , , . , . , , . 1.2 Flag Presentation 16 CommunityServices .. , . Driveway Permits 16 Activities , .. , . , , . .... 3.14 Board of Review . , , . , 16 FLOOD INSURANCE CONTINUED WHY A NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM? Fat decades the nalional response to Ilood dis- asters was to build flood control works, dams, levees, somwNls, etc., as well as providodfsastar relief to flood victims. However, in Ilia lace at mounting flood losses. Congresscroatod the Na- lional Flood Insurance Program In 1968, The in. bell of the program westiis to reduce annual I" losses through more careful planning, that is by regulating construction within Ilood prone areas in return for providing property owners with af- fordable Ilead protection. 11 is estimated by the year 20DO the (load insurance program will save the American taxpayers and flood victims 1.7 bil- lion dollars a year. Blaine is located at Ilia headwaters at lour major drainage basins within the northern metropolitan area and, therefore, is not subject to'Iraditional down stream flooding'. Fwf iumme, in that there are no major rivers Iransversing the City, it is not anticipated any major flooding would over occur in Ilia City. However,'llooding'could lake place wnon high intensity rain storms occur, flooding shoals and causing small streams and low areas to fill up. This flash flooding could result in the lower levels of homes being inundated if they are located within areas hydrologically de- termined to be flood prone areas. (Hydrology is Ilia science at the distribution of water on land surfaces.) WHAT IS A FLOOD PRONE AREA? Any area subject to inundation on a periodic basis, that is having a 1% chance of being Inun- dated in anyone year, is flood prone. Over the life of a 30year mortgage, there is about one chance in lour (26%) that the defined level of (loading would occur in any given (load prone area. Most Blaine citizens would probably be surprised at the amount of land area in Blaine, largely unde. veloped, that Is designated flood prone. WHEN IS FLOOD INSURANCE REOUIRED BYLAW7 In order to obtain financing to buy a building, build, or improve property located in an area de - signaled as being flood prone, flood insurance must be purchased. The law applies to any mortgage loan, grant, or other funding that is in any way federally connected. either direct Imanc- ino from a federal lucency IFHA, VA loans, EPA grants, etc.), or a conventional mortgage from a bank or savings and loan institution that is regu- lated or Insured by the Federal Government. In shod, flood insurance Is required if: 1. AFederalEmorgencyMonagomenlAgancy flood map is in effect. 2. The Improved property is located in a [load prone area, and 3. The financing is through Ilia Federal Gov orient or a federally connected tender. All of these conditions exist within the City of Blaine; in shod, any building or structure located In a flood prone area is required to be insured. WHO DECIDES WHETHER FLOOD INSURANCE IS RECURRED? When the loan, grant, etc., Is directly from a Fad - oral agency, the agency itself must make Ilia do• cision. In Ilia case at a private Institution covered by Ilia act, tiro lender must decfdo. In certain cases, whine Ora landing institution is making a FI IA or VA loan. Ilia duties would be shared by both Ilia larding institution and [he Federal agency. HOW CAN YOU FIND OUT IF A PARTICULAR PARCEL OF LAND IS LOCATED IN A FLOOD PRONE AREA AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR FLOOD INSURANCE? The office of Community Development, City of Blaine, has all flood prone areas designated on a map located within City Hall. It you will call the Of lice of Community Development at 784-6700 and idonlily the property in which you are inter• fisted, you will be told whether or not it is located within one of these flood prone areas. You can also call your local insurance company, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency at the toll free number of 1.800-424.8872. Flood Inuu• ante is riot required if no pal of a building is in the flood prone area. II you should question information you are given or, in the case of a loan, a requirement that you have load Insurance, Community Development can provide you assistance in research the issue. k POTPOURRI CownNUED 1982, we received another loiter on the s..bjecl, this lime tram NSP. It read as follows: 'These sales have created a hazard for us in that people post their 'notice of sale' on our utility, poles. Not only do these signs spoil the appearance of your community but they create a real danger for the men who climb these polos. When the sign is removed, the nails [hat held it are usually left in the pole, thus creating problems. II the climbing spur of a man on the pole contacts a nail head, the man could lose Iraclion and slide down the pole, resulting in possible serious Injury. Also, it a man was working on [he pole and an emergency should arise whereby he loses his balance and rapidly slides down the pole, he could be seriously injured by the protruding nails. We have instructed our people to remove these signs whenever they are working near a sign of INs type. We would also like to enlist your help in this matter and would appreciate it if you would inform the residents of your community of those dangers through your community news loiters.' Please be so Informed. Actually, garage, etc. sales signs are prohibited by City Code Soclton 35.104(4)'Prohibited Spits -'Spn postings that are tacked or posted on Irefis, lances, utility posts, or other such supports.' However, it Is lob the ordinance was not meant to prevent advailis. ing garage sales. Further, the prohibition in such regard would be vary hard to enforce. Novorlho. less, there is a problem about which we ask your cooperation. Watch your method of advertising and remove the signs when the sale is over. Recreational Fires • Open Burning Leal, brush and (rash burning is not permitted within Ilia City. Recreational Gres for cooking food or personal enjoyment are permitted. While written permits are not required for a recreational lire, the fallowing procedures must be followed: Fire roust be small in size and on your property. Some means of extinguishing lire must be at hand, such as a bucket of water or con• necled water hose. Central Dispatch must be notified at 427.1212 just prior to starting the lire. Please gNo your name. address, telephone number and approximate length at time you plan to burn. rite must be comp;atc", cxhnguishcd:.her, ea longer allanded. It you have any questions, plese call lira head• quartets of 786.4436. Peddling and Soliciting Peddlers and solicitors operating within the City must be licensed and cleared with the City. You may ask to see a Peddler's license if you are ap- proached to purchase wares at your home or on the street and you are encouraged to report any unlicensed peddlers to the Police Department Bicycle Thefts With the bicycling season upon us, it can be ex- pected that bicycle thefts will be Increasing. II is Important to have your bicycle licensed as an aid in recovering it in the event it is stolen. Bicycle licenses are available from Deputy Registrars, including any office from which vehicle licenses are available, and possibly some bicycle sales shops. The City does NOT Issue bicycle licenses. Bicycles slolan from within the City limits should be reported to the Blaine Police De. partment, Be sure to have readily availablr serial number and a good description of Ihi Unclaimed bikes are hold for a period of one`.. - and than sold at the July 41h auction. Conlinued Page 15 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Clerk -Administrator DATE: October 3, 1983 SUBJECT: GOVERNOR'S BLUE RIBBON CITIZENS COMMISSION ON THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Attached please find a letter from John Boland, Chairman of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Citizens Commission to review the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, requesting our comments regarding the interaction of the MWCC with the City of Mounds View. staff has reviewed this letter and our present relationships with the MWCC and would offer the following comments for consideration by the City Council for inclusion with those you might wish to make to the Governor's Commission. These comments are as follows: 1. The organization is so monolithic that it is at best diffi- cult to obtain concise information about those aspects of the MWCC operation having the greatest impact upon our community. 2. Our needs are being met as it relates to the handling and treatment of sewage, however, the substantial increases in the cost of the system levied on the City on an annual basis has become burdensome to the point that it is limiting our ability to maintain our local system. Annual billings from the MWCC have been of such a magnitude, particularly in light of the more than substantial percentage increase in their budget, that the City has been unable in good conscience to pass these increases along to the consumer and as a result we have been forced, until very recently, to reduce our operating budget, thus, not providing for the adequate maintenance of our system. 3. It greatly distresses us to learn from the local news media LhaL iL is the posiLiun of donne uL the staff of the MWCC that all users of the system will be expected to pay for a storm water/sanitary sewer separation system when only a select portion of the system's users will benefit from the project. We feel that we should not be held financially responsible for correcting the deficiencies of a system caused by a decision of one community to cut their original construction costs and now expect all communities in the system to rectify. -z- 4. MWCC costs are a substantial part of the Sewer Fund operating Budget of the City of Mounds View. It is difficult to obtain estimated costs to use in budget preparation. We would suggest that the MWCC routinely mail cities estimates of their next year's changes in the same manner that the Minnesota Department of Revenue provides estimates of Local Government Aid and levy limits. 5. It is our considered opinion that the MWCC has expanded in the areas of manpower and plant facilities at such a rate that the system has gotten out of control and could be running amuck because those in authority are unable to manage the system. We would strongly encourage that a non -biased, technically competent, outside organization be given the task of evaluating the entire MWCC organization and sulAnit recommendations to the MWCC, Metro- politan Council, and the Legislature for modifications to the administration and operation of the MWCC. Staff would request that, at your Agenda Session on October 17th, you provide comments with respect to those provided by staff in this memorandum and any which you wish to have included in any communication to the Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission. DFP/pf Attachment j SF" I S33 CITY Of MOUNDS VIEW September 15, 1983 �i�9Cr, iY�F Dear Local Official: The Governor's Blue -Ribbon Citizens Commission to review the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has recently received funding through the Governors office for a staff person to continue its investigation into the organization, administration and decision -making process of the MWCC. The Citizens Ccmmission intends, in December, to issue a report, to the Governor containing the findings and recommendations that result from its investigation. As part of the review process, we are soliciting comments from all those municipalities and counties who use the MWCC sewage treatment facilities and are affected by MWCC operations. The Citizens Commission would appreciate your comments regarding MWCC interaction with your governmental unit, whether your needs are being met by existing MWCC operations, and suggestions as to what might be changed or improved, if you feel changes are necessary. It would be extremely useful to us if you would provide written comments and suggestions to the Citizens Commission at the following address within the next three weeks: Karen L. Dingle Citizens Commission to Review MWCC CDC Business and Technology Center 2115 E. 6th St. St. Paul, MN 55101 After reviewing your comments, the Citizens Commission may want to hear from you at a fact-finding hearing in October or November 1983. Please indicate whether you would be available to meet with us any Wednesday evening during those two months. Thank you very much for your assistance. We look forward to receiving your comments and suggestions. Sincerely, John Boland, Chair Karen L. Dingle, Staff Citizens Commission to Review the MWCC MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council !"1 FROM: Clerk -Administrator DATE: October 3, 1983 SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET Attached please find copies of the 1984 Fire Department Budget as negotiated by the Administrators of Spring Lake Park, Mounds View, and Blaine. As indicated in a memorandum to you dated September 22, 1983, this budget calls for an 8% increase over the 1983 budget and a net increase of $4,695 to the City of Mounds View. The budget has been reviewed in great detail and reflects significant reductions from the first draft budget presented by Chief Fagerstrom. Some of the changes between the first draft budget and the one you are being presented are an elimination of the funding for the construction of a new fire hall and administrative offices in Blaine to replace the fire hall attached to the Blaine City Hall, elimination of funding for a part-time clerical position and a full-time fire inspector position, elimination of funding for a vehicle allowance of $1.00 per meeting and training session for each fireman, and elimination of funding for the use of a consultant to assist the Fire Department in purchasing a microprocessing system with an agreement that the three cities will provide assistance to the Fire Department in evaluating their needs and the equipment available on the open market as it would relate to their needs. RECO14MENDATIO14: Staff would recommend the adoption of this budget by the V=ew City Council at their regular meeting on October 24th. DFP/pf Attachment t Is DATE: September 26, 1983 c����/ZOl6l9l���'�y� sugar er: Final 1984 Budget TO: Leslie M. Johnson, Blaine City Manager Donald F. Pauley, . Mounds View Clork-Admints trator. Donald B. BL'ech Spring Lake Park Clerk -Preasurer FROM: Ron Fagerstrom Fire Chief _p Attached hereto is the final revised budget. for 1984 agreed to at our meeting at the Mounds View City Hall ou September 21. RF/Js Attachment l • SPRING LAM PARK FIRE DEPT., INC. 1984 FINAL BUDGET I ITEM AUNT . CAPITAL OUTLAY BUILDINGS $ 39,564 APPARATUS 43y7_01, 83,265 OPERATING EXPRNSE PAYROLL 177,292 UTILITIES 9,875 SUPPLIES/REPLACEMENT OF GEAR 18,405 RADIO TAUnW'NT 6,525 TRUCK MAINTENANCE/CAS 6 071, 31,000 TUITIONS /DUF..^,/CONFERENCES 2,000 BUILDING MAiNTRMANCE/SUPPLIES 101364 FIRE PREVENTION/TRAINM-. 5,858 (TRAINING 4)858) (FIRE PREVENTION 1VNL?OUTS 11000) HEAT 9,150 INSUR.INC4/1,i1r,A1,/ACCO)ID'T7%:r 45,555 MRDICAT, 11000 UNIFORMS/➢ADGES 2,500 MORK PROCESSm)t/cOMP1Pfe 5,850 TOTAL $408,639 WNT'IA(TNry :1D0) nt _ -0- 1T)TAL BUMET FOR 19G4 $408,639 *All miscellaneous income received in 1984 will be credited to the Contingency Fund, so no requirement is included for this. SPRING LAKE PARK FIRE DEPT., IHC191Y+ FINAL BUDGET - COST DISBRMTLRI ITEM 1984 TOTAL MMGM MAC INCOME TOTAL ALLOCATED TO CITIES AMOUNT - $408, 639 0"139 CITY PFRCFNT AMOUNT BLAINE 61.8 $240,117 MOUNDS VIEW 115.0 97?135 sivilo LIKE PARK 13,2 51,287 TOTAL - 'A- 4, s MEMO TO: Mayor & Council 'ROht: Finance Director - Treasurer Brager Clerk -Administrator Pauley i DATE: October 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Purchasing Policy During their last session the State Legislature raised the limit on the requirements of advertising to solicit the submission of sealed bids for purchases from $10,000 to $15,000. We have revised section 2.01 of the City's purchasing policy to reflect that change in state law. We also took the opportunity to review all of the purchasing Policy with department heads. Our review indicated that section .1.121 "Issuance of Purchase Order Forms to Department Heads", while performing its intended purpose of controlling and recording purchases, was inadvertantly causing inefficien- cies in City operations. Section 3.02 requires that prior to the purchases of goods or services, which are estimated to exceed $25.00, a purchase order be issued, signed by a department head, and countersigned by either the Clerk Administrator or Finance Director. On a weekly, and sometimes daily basis, circumstances arise under which adherence to this provision of the City's purchasing policy causes inefficiencies in the City operation. A few examples of what has actually occured in the past will illustrate this point. The mechanic is working on the front end loader. He determines that a hydraulic hose needs to be replaced. From past experience the mechanic knows that this hose costs approximately $65.00. The mechanic then contacts the Public Works Foreman, informs him of the need for a hydraulic hose, and requests the issuance of a purchase order. Then the Public Works Foreman requests the issuance of a purchase order from his department head, the Director of Public Works/Community Development, who in turn, issues a purchase order and requests it be countersigned by the Clerk -Administrator or Finance Director. All that time and effort to issue the purchase order was for an item that was included in the City budget. In the parks department the following occured. Several of the maintenance men are taking down boards which have been used for ballfield fencing and which will subsequenctly be used hockeyfor cracked or brokenand need sto bevreplacederal of theWe have boardbeen einformed that �—•., just one of these boards cost $23.00. Since several need to be replaced purchasing policy requires a purchase order be issued prior to their purchase. Thus, the procedure previously outlined for the issuance of a purchase order must be followed. -2- The above were just two of the many instances in which we believe that the present purchasing policy has inadvertantl caused inefficiencies in the City operations. Most of these instances have involved routine maintenance operations which have been budgeted for. We feel that it is not cost effective to require the issuance of purchase orders for goods and services which exceed $25.00 and which are budgeted. That limit is too low. We recommend that section 3.02 be changed to require purchase orders only for goods and services which are estimated to exceed $100.00. We further recommend that for purchases of goods and services which have been approved in the budget and which are estimated not to exceed $500.00 a purchase order may be issued upon the signature of a department head. Countersignina of purchase orders by the Clerk -Administrator or Finance Director would be required for purchases which are estimated to exceed $500. A very large number of the purchase orders that are presently issued are for routine maintenance items costing less than $500 and which have been budgeted. We do not see any benefit to the City in countersigning a purchase order for goods or services which have been budgeted, are for routine maintenance, and under $500. Allowing issue of purchase orders for those items by the department heads signature would make our operations more efficient. Purchases would • still be recorded and monitored under this system and thus the purposes of a purchasing policy would still be served. We await Council's direction on this matter. Should you have any questions do not hestitate to contact us. mb Attachment • !, PURCHASING POLICY 1.01 ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY The purchasing policies of the City of Mounds View are established by the City Charter, the City Code, and the City Council. 1.02 POLICY a) Purchases to meet the requirements of all departments of the City are made by the appropriate department heads by purrhose order pursuant to the policy set forth below. b) The City Council declares its intention to purchase competitively without prejudice and to seek the maximum value for every dollar expended. 1.03 PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY This policy is designed to set forth, in detail, the poli- cies and procedures necessary to facilitate the purchasing operation of the City. (^ 1.04 RELATIONS WITH SUPPLIER'S REPRESENTATIVES a) Departments should not be burdened with, nor encourage visits from supplier's representatives except where it is to obtain a quotation for goods or services. b) Every opportunity shall be made to encourage respon- sible suppliers to do business with the City. c) All employees of the City shall keep themselves free of obligation to any of the City's suppliers. BIDDING AND QUOTATIONS 2.01 Competitive bids or quotations shall be solicited in con- nection with all purchases whenever possible. Purchases shall be made from the lowest responsible bidder complying with specifications and other stipulated bidding condi- tions. The following requirements shalt apply: a) Purchases over $}97999 $15,000. If the amount of the purchase is estimated to exceed $t07999 $15,000, sealed bids shall be solicited through advertisement in the manner and subject to the requirements of law governing purchases by the municipality. All purchases under this section shall be awarded by the Council. Purchasing Policy Page Two b) Purchases from $S;AAA-tn-$}A;AAA $10,000 to $15,000. If the amount of the purchase is estimated to exceed $57090 $10,000, but not to exceed $107099 $15,000, the purchase may he made either by advertisement and the receipt of sealed bids, or by obtaining two or more written quotations from suppliers at the discretion of the City Council. The purchase shall be awarded by the City Council. c) Purchases from $1,000 to $57909 $10,000. If the amount of the purchase is estimated to exceed $1,000, but not to exceed $57099 $10,000, the purchase may be made only after obtaining two or more written quota- tions from suppliers and the purchase shall be awarded by the City Council. d) Purchases from $500 to $1 000. If the amount of the purchase is estimated to exceed $500, but not to exceed $1,000, the purchase may be made only after obtaining two or more verbal quotations from suppliers and recording-them-on-a-form-to-be-aappifed-by-the-Finance department.- and recording them on paper and attaching/ same to the purchase order. ej Purchases under $500. If the amount of the purchase is estimated to be under $500, quotations are not required but are encouraged. 2.02 FORMAL BIDS All purchases which require advertisement and the receipt of sealed bids shall be awarded by the City Council. 2.03 STATEMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS A statement of "General Conditions", as approved by the City Council, may be included ;rith all specifications sub- mitted to suppliers for their bids. These general con- ditions may be incorporated in all contracts awarded for the purchase of supplies, equipment, or services. 2.04 COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL PROVISIONS The purchasing procedures employed shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the State and of the City of Mounds View. 4 Purchasing Policy Page Three PURCHASE ORDERS 3.01 PURPOSE A purchase order authorizes the vendor to ship and bill for materials or services specified in the purchase order. 3.02 ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE. ORDER FORMS TO DEPARTMENT HEADS Purchase -orders-mast-be-fastred-and- sent- to-supp-lfers-prior to -order -of -goods -end -services -which -are -estimated -to exceed- $25;-afgned-by-a-department- head ;-when-provisions of -this -policy -pertaining -to -bidding -and -quotations -have been -comp -lied -with; -and -the -purchase -order -has-been counter-signed-by-the-clerk-hdministrator-or-Finance Bireetor- It shall be the responsibility of the Finance Department to maintain an inventory of purchase order forms. The Finance Department will issue purchase order forms to department heads for their use in purchasing needed goods and services for their departments. It shall be the responsibility of the department heads to maintain a record of purchase orders issued by their departments. At a minimum this record shall include: purchase order number, date _issued, name of supplier issued to and the amount of the order. Department heads shall, upon request of the Clerk Administrator or Finance Director, make available for inspection said record of purchase orders issued. 3.03 RS ISSUANCE - GENERAL sopfes-of-issued-pnrehase-order-shall-be-distributed-as follows- a)--Brfginai-to-supplier b)--First-Copy-(yellow)-to-Finance-Bepnrtment e)--Second-copy- (green )-to-be-retained-by-the-department orfginating-the-purchase-order Purchase orders must be issued and sent to suppliers prior to order of goods and services which are estimated to a) For orders of goods or services which are estimate exceed $100 but not to exceed $500 a purchase orde be issued upon the signature of a department head. n Purchasing Policy Page Four b) For orders of 4 exceed $500 a J' provisions of t quotations has has been proper the C nods or services urchase order ma his policy pertai been complied wit a department only —be issued_ after ing to bidding and the purchase order to provisions of thi finance Director. 3.04 PROCEDURES REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE ORDERS Copies of the issued purchase order shall be distributed as follows: a) Original to supplieridea ` ` ' ` Yam_ as eYluCYIC V1 tIIC order va nVYo or services. The supplier should be instructed to include the purchase order number on the statement or invoice sent for the goods or services purchased. b) First copy (yellow) to the Finance Department. c) Second copy (green) to be retained by the department originating the order. After the goods or services have been delivered and an invoice or statement received the department head shall submit a request f payment to the Finance Department. This request shal Include the following: for payment form signed by d (2) The second copy of the purchase order. (3) Invoice or statement for goods and services ordered. (4) Copies of bids or quotations required pursuant to City purchasing policy. EMERGENCY PURCHASFS 4.01 DEFINITION Emergency purchases are those made by departments only when normal operations of the department would be hampered by the delay resulting from purchasing in the normal manner, or where property, equipment or life are endangered through unexpected and unforeseen circumstances. 0 Purchasing Policy Page Five 4.02 AUTHORITY In case of an emergency a department head may, with the approval of the Clerk -Administrator, purchase directly any supplies, materials, or services necessary to alleviate the emergency. Upon the next working day such emergency shall be explained in writing and such explanation submitted to the Clerk -Administrator. Every effort shall be made to contact the Clerk -Administrator whether the emergency occurs during normal working hours or after normal working hours. GENERAL PROVTSTONS 5.01 Department heads are not to split orders to attempt to circumvent any provisions of the City Charter, State Law, or any policy established by the City regarding purchasing. 5.02 Any willful violation of this policy will be reported promptly to the Clerk -Administrator. 11tw TO: Mayor & Council h 1 FROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Brayer i!I DATE: October 13, 1983 RE: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS Since preparation and approval of the resolution certifying the collection of delinquent utility bills with 1984 property tares two accounts which were certified have subsequently been paid. The Ramsey County Department of Property Taxation requires Council author- ization to remove any accounts from the certified list they received. With Council's approval I will prepare a new resolution for inclusion in the October 24, 1983 Consent Agenda. DB/ds Attachment Y7 RESOLUTION N0. 1663 DFI,INQUI--VT UTll.)TY CHARGES ADDRESS PARCI-J, CODIi 2816 Arlon Avenue 59-30000-030-01 2114 11L.IIc I. anc 59-59030-060-11 2440 Clearview Ave 59-42500-030-01 2901 Co.Rd. 112 59-70900-950-00 7990 8oscwood Rd. 59-70700-690-00 7900 lid8ewood Dr. 59-04000-310-00 2342 Illtivicw Itd. 59-59040-050-16 2504 III ILview Rd. 59-32020-020-03 7090 Knollwood Dr. 59-42000-880-00 2349 Laport Drive 59-45600-091-01 7069 Pi.View Dr. 59-42000-650-00 2138 Terrace Dr. 59-59000-110-03 $ AMOUNT 69.31, 162.74 246.86 351.10 276.44 Paid 40.18 90.64 Paid 75.60 89.64 455.42 255.02 397.52 $ 2,5tO.50 - 367.0E Paid $ 2,143.42 Balance TO: Mayor. & Council el,QlROM: Finance Director Treasurer Brager DATE: September 28, 1983 RE: INSURANCE & RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES I recommend that the Council give serious consideration to contracting for insurance and risk management services. In this memo I shall comment on why I believe that the City should contract for insurance and risk management services and then discuss proposals that have been received for those services. An insurance and risk management consultant would assist the City in three basic areas: 1) determining the level and adequacy of present coverages; 2) preparation of specifications and assistance in bidding; 3) assistance in the handling of claims. In determining the level and adequacy of coverage an insurance and risk management consultant would review current City operations to determine the risks that should be insured against. Often as a result of this review, recommendations are made for modifying City operations for safety considerations and to reduce or eliminate risks that must be insured against. After a review of operations is completed the City's present insurance policies would be reviewed to determine if they are adequate to protect the City from the /- risks which are a consequence of City operations. At this point recommend- ations would be made as to the insurance coverages the City should have. Once the risks to insure against are identified and the insurance coverages needed to protect the City against those risks are determined the consult- ant would prepare specifications, assist in the review of proposals receiv- ed and make a recommendation for the award of the City's insurance contracts. After insurance contracts are awarded the consultant would assist in claims handling. One client reference I checked with stated, "we had a fire in one of our buildings. The consultant assisted us in handling the claim. Our claim settlement was greater than it would have been had we handled the claim ourselves". While many insurance agents could be considered insurance consultants and may claim to offer similar services, they are motivated primarily by economic considerations, i.e., their commissions which are a percentage of the total premiums paid. Prior to obtaining proposals I spoke with the Risk Managers of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. They were of the opinion that an insurance and risk management consultant to be effective should not be an insurance agent and should be independent of any insurance company. Such a consultant would in their opinion, have much more expertise and competence than an agent. They reasoned that an agent can not spend sufficient time to develop expertise in risk management and risk control when an agents primary task is to sell insurance policies. We would, they advised, be best served by hiring a consultant that was independent of any insurance company and pay them a retainer. I obtained the names of two such Twin Cities based consulting firms from them. September 28. 1983 Page 2 Even though L have handlod insurance in the pa:it and we have soon some reduction in our annual insurance premiums I would, nonetheless, recommend the hiring of an insurance and risk management consultant. While I have some knowledge of insurance, my primary area of expertise is finance and accounting. A consultant would possess far more expertise in insurance than I would. I believe that the rationale for hiring an insurance consultant is similar to that whichis used in hiring an engineering consultant. Even though we have an engineer on staff the consultant hired has a much greater level of expertise in the subject he or she was hired to report on. Three proposals were obtained. Copies of the proposals are attached for your review and consideration. The firms submitting proposals and the cost of retaining them for one year are: ICMA/Wyatt Chicago, Illinois $3,765 Risk Control, Inc. $3,500 Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. $3,325 The ICMA/Wyatt proposal is a program sponsored by the International City'"] Managers Association. Provisions of the plan call for mailing copies of insurance policies to Wyatt Company in Chicago where a review would be made and a written report submitted to the City. A representative of the firm would fly in and present the report to the Council. The second part of the proposal is for marketing assistance. Based upon the review of the policies, specifications would be prepared and given to the City to be used in obtaining insurance proposals. The Wyatt proposal does not include an inspection of operations nor does it include claims assistance. For those reasons plus the fact that it is the most costly proposal I would not recommend their proposal. The proposals from Risk Control, Inc. and Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. both include all of the services I previously indicated an insurance and risk management firm could perform for us. Briefly, those services are: 1) determining the level and adequacy of present coverages; 2) preparation of specifications and assistance in bidding; and 3) assistance in the handling of claims. Each firm was asked to provide client references. I checked three of the references provided by each firm. Attached are summaries of the comments made by the individuals I spoke to. All of the individuals were satisfied with the services provided by each firm. A common comment was that the firm had improved their insurance coverages and/or saved them money by reducing their insurance costs. �1 September Page 3 While there is no yuarantee that an insurance and risk management consultant could save the City money the possibility exists. More importantly, the primary reason I would recommend the hiring of an insurance consultant is for the determination of the adequacy of present insurance coverages. nce having an insurance expert, who is not associated with an coseracoverages company, review our operations and advise the City as top P and to benwell worthetheng it at retainerthe paidest to thesconsultant,ible cost, would, in my opinion,ion, I would recommend that Council enter into a contract with Corporate Risk Manager's Inc. to provide insurance and risk management servicesob for to Their the City. Based upon reference checks the will do a 9 J fees are also the most reasonable. Our insurance Account 100-190-4480 is under budget this year due to lower than anticipated insurance costs. I would recommend that the annual fee of Corporate Risk Manager's Inc. be paid from this account. 28, 1983 Should you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me. DB/ds Attachments September 20, 1.903 Reference Chcck Risk Control, Inc. Wallace McKay, Administrator Minnetonka Public Schools - have used the firm about 1s years - they have done a good job in preparing specifications - their fees are reasonable - the district has used insurance consultants before - hired Risk Control because our previous consultant was retiring - when the district first used an insurance consultant a savings on insurance premiums was realized - would recommend firm Reference Check Risk Control, Inc. Bill Scott, fiscal Manager Carver County Chaska, Minnesota - have used the firm for two years - County is satisfied with services provided by Dwight Tange of the firm - use of firm resulted in better coverages at lower costs - saved 40% in premiums the first year - costs reduced $100,000; from $250,000 annual premiums to $150,000 - would recommend firm Reference Check Risk Control, Inc. Gary Plotz, Administrator %ity of ::litchi.^.�Cn - used firm for two years - I was skeptical of value of an insurance consultant - the local school district hired the firm and the first day Dwight Tange was on the job he saved the district the price of his retainer by eliminating an unnecessary coverage from their policies - the City then hired the firm - the first year we found that our coverage was not adequate, improved it, and still reduced our annual insurance costs by $40,000 - Home Insurance Company was our insurer both years - would recommend firm September 28, 1983 ' Reference Chock Corporate Risk Manager.,, Inc. Roy Trullinger, Clerk/Treasurer City of St. James - City just retained fire. in April 1983 specifications; the firm did a good job reviewing coverages and writting coverages will be improved - presently soliciting insurance proposals based upon specifications drawn up by firm - would recommend firm Reference Check Inc. Corporate Risk Managers, James Spore, Manager City of Burnsville - have used firm one year firm drew up specifications and assisted - our insurance premiums were reduced 40%; - the firm is presently assisting the City program - would recommend firm Reference Check Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. Tom Meulebroeck, City Clerk City of Marshall in review of proposals recei, saved $158,000 in the development of a safe. - have used the firm for three years proposals for two tilt firm has BsEistP4 City in obtaining inc second year ve .3 a—vcd years now; the first year we saved $40,001, $30,000 the firm assisted us in The City had a fire in one of our bwas greater than it would have been handling the claim; our settlement was g had we handled the claim ourselves very satisfied with the services provided would recommend the firm 11 II°p GSaeel NeIIIr1C51 Wa•d.mglonDc 20 os International City Management Association Mr. Donald Brager Finance Officer City of Mounds View 2401 Highway It10 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mr. Braqer: Thank you for your phone call Insurance and Risk Management Entities. Area C000202 626 4600 May 10, 1983 concerning the ICMA/Wyatt Consulting Services for Public Through ICMA sponsorship, the Wyatt Company is able to provide these services at significantly reduced costs because the program does not entail writing detailed proposals nor does it require costly business development time. A further cost reduction results from the absence of any on -site data gathering expenses for municipalities with populations of 50,000 and under. The Wyatt Company, which is a nationally based firm, operates independently of insurance companies, banks or trust companies, legal or accounting firms, but in cooperation with such organizations as directed by its clients. The firm acts solely in the interest of its clients and on a whoily professional basis. Should you choose to pursue the audit service, you will be asked to complete a questionaire identifying the special operations and risks of Mounds View, MN. You will also be asked to send copies of such items as insurance policies, by-laws, annual budget, sovereign immunity statutes, etc. The Wyatt Company will be available to present their final written report in person. Thq audit service does not contemplate any work in the areas of employee benefits, group insurance, or retirement programs. Other areas not covered would be school boards, hospitals, airports, transit authorities, or public utilities. Water and sewer would be included. I have enclosed an agreement for your examination. Please read the back of the form as it further explains the service. Also enclosed is the brochure, material on the Wyatt Company, and articles on risk management. Page 2 Mr. Donald Urager Should you decide to have the audit performed, you would send the executed agreement to me for disposition to the Wyatt Company. If. I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, h�. Michael P. Hoagland Director Consumer Services ICMA Enclosures Attachment: References • • f~ References: Mr. David Limardi Village Manager Village of Lincolnshire 45 Londonderry Lane Lincolnshire, Illinois 60015 (312) 945-8500 Pop. 4,200 Mr. Richard Sartor Town Manager Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 (203) 644-2511 Pop. 17,600 Mr. Kim Wilde City Planning Director City of Ardmore P.O. Box 249 Ardmore, Oklahoma 73401 (405)223-2933 Pop. 25,000 Mr. Karl Tomion City of Dowagidc 241 South Front Street Dowagiac, Michigan 49047 (616) 782-2195 Pop. 6,500 FEE SCHEDULE ICMA/WYATT INSURANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES (All fees are valid until POPULATION 0-9,999 10-19,999 20-29,999 30-39,999 40-49,999 50-59,999 60-69,999 70-79,999 80-89,999 90-99,999 100,000 & over' AUDIT $1,695 $2,090 $2,545 $2,995 $3,450 $4,455 $4.695 $5,335 $5,775 $6,215 June 1, 1983 MARKETING (A) $1,355 $1,675 $2.035 $2,395 $2,530 $3,575 $3,915 $4,270 CA Ron ,y'gvw $4,975 'Variable fee subject to activities and exposures; members should call for a quotation. (A) The Wyatt Company reserves the right to require the Audit as a prerequisite. NOTE: Councils of Government, School Boards, Hospitals and other local government entities are not covered by the schedule above. Entities other than Municipali- ties and Counties will be quoted fees on an individual basis. ,Od-k� Risk C.autrol, Jim INSUP14NCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES Mr. Donald Hrager, Finance Director City of Moundsview 2401 Highway 10 Moundsview, Piimesota 55112 Dear Mr. Drager: 216 WATCH STREET E2CE1 SI011 MINNESGTA 35]]1 16I2)476.6204 64ay 2, 1983 Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule on April 28th to visit with me about your City's insurance program and Risk Control, Inc. To reaffirm our conversation, we would charge a fee of $3,500 payable in ten equal monthly in- stallments for twelve months of service in the administration of your risk manage- ment and insurance program. Our services would include the areas of property and casualty, workers' compensation and employee benefits as well as other related areas. It is difficult to outline all the services that we would perform since we don't know specifically what problems we will face in your insurance program in the caning year but listed below is at least a partial list of some of the key services that we would perform based on our conversation of last Thursday. 1. Since you indicated that you just recently renewed your insurance policies for the caning year, the first task I would perform is to •_ •i/".• %nyr current inc ranre pnliriac anri mgkP romrtnenrlAtions for adjustments as needed. 2. As we discussed, the conventional public bidding process that is currently used by most municipalities in the purchasing of their insurance places the majority of its emphasis on the pricing of the insurance policy and very little emphasis on the qualifications and requirments of the servicing agent. one method that is be- ginning to be utilized is the selection process of an agent of record based on submission by interested agents of a form outlining their qualifications and indicating their willingness to oarply with the specific services that will be required of them along with a bid of a dollar figure as a fee for servicing the City's insurance. This approach to the selection of an insurance agent has its ad- vantages and disadvantages and is a method that I am quite familiar with. If it should be the City's decision to ut.i.l.ize this method to select an agent for your next renewal, I would perform the task of preparing the specifications and proposal form for the selection and helping guide the City through this process. 3. If the City were to elect to utilize the Agent of Record selection process described in item two above, I would assist the designated Agent of Record in preparation of specifications to seek quotations for the City's insurance. In the event that the City's decides Mr. Donald srager City of Mtoundsvicw May 2, 1983 Page II against utilizing the NJ011, of Ilecorll nelv000n promlls, 1 could alone PrClhlro the slxcifiratiunn for Li,klllvJ ul llmurmlce. 9. I would Cxmnino all. I,idn tool iv �l and yivu welLCon rcccmialelaLlunu to the City Council. 5. I would make recannondatiunu ;nut hell, inq iuiunC lhr Lcclnllyuou of risk managennt for prcrnlun 001911. G. I would assist die City in obtaining thu nvlxlnun level of servicu from your Agult and ln`st1rLlllcc CCAIq)Ally with J-uspeet Of lOFlFl 1'Obgrlq vent:ion and engimorhxJ Sul-vl0ell an,l Ux. provlclil>7 as well as other needed lnfomaLion. rencW to 7 enable cusrtJJlcontinually lronlltorlyotu Of linsuranceLl candlri kymvlagnnent progra, and avoid any Lu*lwwn gaps in covorage. w Of Our ublic ellt'ty Its you requested, 1attached to this Lett actrany ofis a lthem for aist of a ereference Incident YI clients and y ' i might mention that Risk Control, Inc. is the only insurancethrds and glx been eccep e State of Ptirncsota whose lmlivrs have net Ule objectivety We, as a firm, are as members nn tho Institute of Risk Managanent Consultants. AV proud of the fact tJlat our clients have traditionally achieved savings in their proud o pthe tare wi tll our help that is substantially in excess of the fees that ws suran charge. I munt.ioncd wilco we net, I would be more than willing to attend a City Council m�r;m to answer any cluustions that your Council Menbera nay have. Again, I want to L . 1 T lmk forward to a mutually ben#- r,.,- 1_in tine you have spent w1u, Wl= MAIM YCu ficial relationship between the City of Moundsv'13' and Pss.. Control,Inc. sincerely, DwighV;. Tangle, / Risk Manager lzr/scb Eno. 0 hI 'X G'airtrul, ,7�rc�. INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES r Mr. Wallace McKay Administrator Mr. Glenn Matejka SupL. of Schwas Mr. Donald Burton Business Manager S, o-t�- Mr. Bill Sehett Fiscal Manager Mr. E. Dale Pd111Cr Auditor Mr. C1ry D. Plotz, City Administrator 216 WATER STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 16121474-5204 t4innetonka Public Schools 261 School Avenue Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 612-474-5401 Hutchinson Public Schools 30 Glen Street, North Hutchinson, Mn. 55350 612-507-2860 Coluurbia Heights Public Schools 1400 49th Avenue, N.E. Columbia Heights, Mn. 55421 612-574-6505 Carver County 600 East 4th Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 612-448-3435 Jl1eLUV11IC oum-uy Inn . JG, 1Wrj Elk River, Minnesota 55330 612-441-1441 City of. Ilutchinson 37 Washington Avenue, W. Hutchinson, Mn. 55350 eii.7.-507-5151 -c , Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. f09 Mon wool pioloamonal building 7525 mdchall fond • cdnn piano. muumnola 55344 - (612) 931.9942 July, 198) T0; City of Mounds View SUBJECT: Proposal for Insurance Services For your review and consideration, we submit the following outline of Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. services which would cover all City operations. I Property /Casual ty 'Functions Make initial review and report of your current status with regard to exposures, coverages and costs. Our review would be an ongoing process. Review of your safety program and assist in making improvements. Determine insurance specifications, negotiate renewals and placement of coverages subject to your approval. Review and recommend use of blanket policies, deductibles, self insurance or transfer of risks. Provide claims handling on vehicles including losses under dedunti.bles, Put together property claims and handle settlements. On General Liability and (Yorkers' Compensation cases, we would obtain status reports and review claim reserves. Keep records on costs, losses, building and equipment values, check premium invoices and approve for payment. II, 'Group Review group coverages for design and cost effectiveness. Negotiate coverages with carriers and place coverages with your approval. Conduct employee orientation on a ruu basis, g p s , provide and assure that all written materials to participants are accurate. ' r Audit paid claims and insurance company costs to determine that premium levels are justified. Explore markets for new benefit programs, assist in implementing any new programs. City of Hounds View July, 1983 Page 2 In summary, our activities are performed to assure that the City assets are properly protected at the minimum possible cost. In addition, we would advise the Council of important legislative activities and insurance marketing conditions. Public Officials' Liability is one example. Why 'Corporate'Risk'Mana2ers? We are the original and most experienced in the field. Backgrounds that involve years of experience in'all aspects --property/casualty - emplcyee benefits - safety. The most professional staff available providing continuity of services and I ackup for our clients. 'Annual'Cost Corporate disk Managers, Inc. would manage the insurance functions for the City of Mounds View for one (1) year at a cost of $3,325. This would be payable at a rate of $685 the first month and the balance in eleven (11) monthly payments of $240 over the remaining months of the contract period. While not anticipated, any travel and board expenses outside of Minnesota would be additional. This contract would be based on an estimated seven (7) days at our daily rate of $475. Any days over the estimated seven (7) days would be additional at the daily rate of $475. Any days under the estimated seven (7) days will be adjusted by Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. at the same daily rate. Respectfully submitted, CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS, INC. Brian G. Colway Risk Manager BCC/jb • CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC. I� 109 Edenwest Professionaulldlng 7525 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Telephone: 612/937-8942 Counties COOK COUNTY Grand Marais, MN 55604 (218) 387-2282 Robert O'Connor, Coordinator _NOBLES COUNTY 9orthington, MN 56187 007) 372-7711 Ken Roberts, Auditor McLEOD COUNTY �i---.- wi edit (612) 864-5551 Gene Reddemann, Exec. Sec. WRIGHT COUNTY Buffalo, MN 55313 (612) 339-6881 0. J. Arlien, Auditor OLMSTED COUNTY Rochester, MN 55901 (507) 285-8115 Richard Devlin, Administrator DAKOTA COUNTY Hastings, MN 55033 (612) 437-3191 Frederick Joy, Jr., Administrator WISCONSIN OFFICE CRM RISK MANAGERS 148 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 208 Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186 Telephone: 414/542-2745 CLIENT REFERENCES (Partial Listing) Population Cities Population 41092 COTTONWOOD, MN 56229 924 (507) 423-6488 Gregory Isaackson, Clerk/Administrator 21,840 SLAYTON, MN 56172 2,420 (507) 836-8535 Margaret Staples, City Clerk 29,657 ST. JAMES, MN 56081 4,346 (507) 375-3241 Roy Trullinger, Clerk/Treasurer 58,962 MARSHALL, MN 56258 11,161 (507) 537-6763 Tom Meulebroeck, City Clerk 91,971 AUSTIN, MN 55912 23,020 (507) 437-7671 Darrell Stacy, Administrator 194,111 BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 35,674 (612) 890-4100 James Spore, Manager • Page 2 Quasi -Governmental Agencies HIAWATHA VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER Winona, HN 55987-0619 (507) 454-4341 Dr. Lawrence Green, Director MINNESOTA VALLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 387-1856 Shirley Higginbotham, Director REGION VIII NORTH WELFARE Marshall, MN 56258 (507) 537-6747 Frank Moorse, Director Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. currently manages a Workers' Compensation trust program with 77 participating counties, as well as the entire governmental insurance programs for 58 counties, 8 cities and 9 quasi -governmental agencies. 0. !00s, MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development: DATE: October 12, 1983 SUI3JL•'CT: MILLER INDUSTRIAL PARK WL•'TLAND ALTE10%T1ON PERh1IT AND FINAL PLAT Staff has placed on the agenda the following items for consideration by the City Council as they relate to the review and approval process for the Miller Industrial wetland alteration permit and final plat: a) Review of modifications suggested at October 5, 1983, Wetlands Committee for checklists for Chapters 48, 49 and 49A. Due to the backlog at the work processor, the material for the revised checklists will not be available until the meeting on Monday evening. b) Review of letter dated October 7, 1983, from Mr. Bruce Malkerson on behalf of John Miller. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council as to how the City should respond to the items presented in Mr. Malkerson's letter. Staff particularly calls attention to items 1 through 4 starting on page 2 of the letter. It is staff's recommendation that prior to any formal response on behalf of the City that the input from Mr. Meyers be received by the Council. c) Review of approval timetable established at the August 8, 1983 Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the minutes of that meeting concerning item 10 which granted the time extension to the final plat for the Miller Industrial Park. Attached is a summary of the time frames listed in the August 8th minutes and assigning target dates for completion .of various portions established in the timetable. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would like Lo obtain City Council direction so that necessary items desired by the Council will be available for the October 24, 1983 public hearing on the alteration permit items. Staff is of the opinion that the Council will wish to utilize the checklist for review of the alteration permit and, therefore, would like consensus as to the form and content prior to initiating a response to the items listed in the checklist. JCJ/bc Attachments AUGUST 8, 1983 TIMETABLE FOR MILLER INDUSTRIAL PARK WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND 17INAL PLAT FOR PHASE I August 8, 1983 60 days October 10, 1983 15 days October 24, 1983 45 days December 19, 1983 December 26 or 27, 1983 Council granted time extension to January 4, 1984. Prepare report on wetland items and prepare ordinance checklist. Council receives reports and sets public hearing. Review of reports and develop "conceptual" approval of wetland issues. Council gives "conceptual" approval for wetland issues. Developer prepares and submits all required final plat documents. Review of Final Plat at Agenda Session. Council action on Final Plat. wAT NE D. r•oI.IAM n A1.011D A. MAIn ROGER W. SCMNOORICM DCNVEn AAUrMAN DAVID 5. DOT♦ IIOUCRT A. MINIS. ROLIC A. onDr, U. MARC WIIIIC."11 ORUCC D. WILLIS r ILOCn¢n ... nl ClunD5 G. ROnenT 10.15O11 GARY n. MACO.DCR NODrnT 5. DUnI -UGH v, P"HHEIT. 1D r nCO[nlrw f SRO,N POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN G DOTY, LTD, 4344 105 CENTER MINNEA POLIS I MINNESOTA 55402 TCLCO.10HE ARD I,,000..,R 012.333-4000 _ IIIOMAj n. GC11G ORUCE D. MALKCRGON JAMCC. R. STEILUI JAMCS O. LOCANART ALLCN W. IIu10CDAACR CLNIORD M. GRCCNC O. WILLIAM H.,r..N OCSIL L. OCTCRSON MICHAEL O. r.Cf..H IIOMAS C. UJOUILA LAnn. O. C:nEL JANIC S. MAgROII DAVID A. JONCS LCC C.SNCPI• LLULIL GaLEPC Mayor and City Council City of Mounds View 2401 Highway f10 St. Paul, MN 55112 MICHAEL 1. NILAN non CRT C. MLLLANnI DAVID J. CDOUIST 57CYCN G. MDACMS 11IOMAS I. NELSON T.DMAS J. RADIO AAIILLCIH M. MARIIN JOHN C.C.ILDS DOUGLAS A SCATON DnUCC B. MLPNECTCR GART D. DLACnrORO SCOTT C. RICNTCn GREGORY L. WRMCS CLIZADETM A. THOMn5nN October 7, 1983 2660 AETRO•LEWIS TOWER TD SCVENTCCNTN STREET DENVER. COLORADO a02O2 1CICIM0NE A., 1ELEC0y1CR 303.292•1660 SUITE a02.2000 L STREET H. w. WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20036 ILLCIMOHE ANO 11LCC0II1R 2021667-SIS4 Re: Application by John Miller for Rezoning and Subdivision of Approximately 75 acres of Property Bounded by Minnesota Trunk Highway 110, County Road J and Judicial Ditch fl Dear Mayor and Council: As you know, my clients and I appeared before a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council of the City of Mounds View on September 29, 1983, to discuss our proposal for approval of the final plat of Phase I and the wetland alteration permit on the Miller property. This letter will summarize what occurred at that meeting and outline what steps we believe the City should now take to keep on the previously aar.eed upon timetable. A. Presentation of Braun Mr. Blomquist presented a map showing the wetland boundaries on the Miller property as determined by him and Mr. Sunde, all at the direction of the City Council. That map is in his report and shows that there are the 31 acres of wetland on the property, 97% of which is on the eastern portion of the property. A small one acre wetland area is identified on the west corner of the ro t p per y1 October 7, 1983 Page 2 The general map adopted by the City without the benefit of on -site inspection, showed a larger area of wetlands. Both consulting engineers for the City and the City Engineer and our consulting engineer agreed that the wetlands map should be amended to reflect these findings by the City's consulting engineers. At that meeting, the Millers presented again their plan for alteration of a small area of the agreed upon wetland area. That plan included the filling of the one acre 'wetland' in the northwest corner and the filling of approximately 11 acres in the northeast corner and south central portion of the property. The Millers would create 12 acres of new wetland, water area and wildlife habitat. Of this 12 acres, 5.5 acres will be water, approximately 6.5 acres is transitional and upland area which will now be available forever as wetland, transitional and upland wildlife habital areas and flood control areas. All of the engineers present agreed that it was more beneficial to the City to have a consolidated 31 acres of wetland and habitat area than to have a disjointed and spread out collection of small unrelated wetland and habitat areas which presently exist. 11 B. Present Status of Application 1. All present agreed that the wetlands map must be amended to reflect the agreed upon wetland area. The Council on Monday, October 10, 1983, Will set a public hearing for October 24, 1983, and will, hopefully, amend the map that evening to reflect the actual wetland boundaries on the Miller property. Concerning the 1.1 acre in the west corner of the property, the Millers believe that this area is not and should not be a 'wetland' protected by the ordinance. The Millers request that the map be amended to exclude this area. The City consulting engineer from Braun and the engineer from Barr agreed that this area served no beneficial purpose. It is too small to support wildlife and too small for flood control or water quality enhancement or water recharge. Moreover, Jim Miller proved that this area had historically drained to the north through a culvert and only because the road had been built and the culvert not maintained, was water artificially trapped on their property, to October 7, 1983 Page 3 which, in fact, constitutes a trespass. This trespassing water has promoted the appearance of a wetland which, in fact, does not exist. In fact, the soils are all mineral soils which are not wetland soils. Even though this 1.1 area should not be a wetland,. the Millers propose to create a 2.4 acre pond on their dry buildable property on the east to enhance the existing wetlands and to provide more and varied wildlife habitat as part of Phase I of the plat. This map amendment does not affect Phase I of the plat in any other manner. 2. The Millers then want the City to approve the final plat of Phase I which does not necessitate any filling. There are no new roads to be built in this phase. We have submitted all the information the City required for final plat approval. 3. In the event the City has not removed the 1.1 acre area on the west from the wetlands map, for the reasons noted in paragraph 1 above, the Millers ask that the City grant their pending application for an alteration permit to fill that area. Because of the insignificance of that small are: and its lack of relationship with the drainage areas to the east, the Millers permit meets all of the criteria in the ordinance. However, if the Council feels that a portion of that wetland should remain as is or be enhanced, the Council could grant the permit subject to the non -alteration of the westerly 1.1 acre of the proposed lot 1, and/or creation of a duck pond in that area. The City thereby will have the same amount of wetland and wildlife habitat that presently exists. 4. At the meeting, we sugyested that the Council amend the ordinance to allow the Council the necessary flexability in the future to accomplish what is in the best interests of the City and public. Presently, according to the interpretaion of some people, the City Council does not have the power to promote the public good as it may deem appropriate. We recommend that the words 'or that it is in the public interest as determined by the City Council' be added to the last sentence of Section 48.02 of the Drdln,:n CC. Th2 City Council would then be able to promote the publi: interest as it deems necessary in each case where extraordinary facts are present. However, a text amendment is not necessary to approve Phase I of the plat or to grant an alteration permit for a portion of October 7, 1983 Page 4 the 1.1 acre area on Lot 1 as set forth above. Please give me a call if you have any questions or suggestions or if my clients need to submit any more information. BDM/jf Enclosure cc: Planning Commission /City Manager City Engineer City Attorney Mr. John Miller Mr. Jim Miller 3170j Mr. Len Kramer very truly you//r��s, Bruce D. Malkerson 1 U E Bounds View City Council August 8, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Five ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Miller stated they are requesting to file a final 10. Consideration (00'*N, plat, and at the last agenda meeting, Staff had of Extension indicated they would like more time to consider the for'Filing of wetlands alteration, lie stated that he has no Final Pldt fo: objection to any additional time that they would Miller Ind. like. Park Councilmember Hankner stated that there are a number of differences in completing the process, and that both Staff and the Planning Commission have requested policy statements, She presented the Council with a suggested timetable to be established for completion of the process for the Miller plat. She also stated that the Council has discussed the extension process and what they want to look at during that period, to insure conformance with the ordinance, make sure the preli- minary plat meets the wetland reclassification, that they give Staff the necessary time for their review, and resolve the drainage issues. Attorney Meyers reported that the input the Council has received points out two areas to work on, to amend the inventory of the wetlands, as the ordinance does provide for it, which would require a public hearing and a 4/5 vote of the Council. It would also involve an ordinance, which would involve a waiting time. He stated that he felt six months was more than adequate to handle it. Attorney Meyers also advised that once the wetlands have been redefined on the parcels, they would have to look at the plans as submitted by the developer to see if they will fit within the redefined wetland. He stated that the Council had extended consideration of the preliminary plat on April 11, and the Council should now respond to the developers request and extend the time limit for approval of the preliminary plat . ifotion/Second: t4cCarty/Linke to extend consideration o the preTiminary plat for the Miller Industrial Plat for six months, until January 4, 1984, and to refer the matter to Staff for their reports on the proposals for: a reclassification of the wetlands and the ability of the preliminary plat to conform to the wetlands designa- tion, if amended, plus other criteria that must be followed with the wetlands ordinance, within 60 days. Also, prior to the expiration of the 60 day time frame, Staff will submit to the Council for their approval, a checklist to weigh the requirements of the ordinance against the proposal, such as whether the proposal complies with the ordinance and reasons why it does �-' not comply. Conceptual approval of amendments of the wetlands alteration permit and drainage issues and amendments, if any, to the wetlands alteration permit to be considered target: date is 15 days after receipt of hJounds View City Council August•8,• 2983 Regular Meeting Page Six ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Staff's report. The developer will submit all docu- ' h r ments necessary for final plat and development agreement approvals within 45 days of conceptual approval of the wetlands alteration permit. The Council authorizes Staff to submit proposals for an expert in the field to determine the validity of the developers proposal in reference to the wetlands boundry lines. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carries Mayor McCarty clarified that they can only enforce the ordinances that are in effect, and they need tc take the proposal against existing ordinances only. Mr. Miller replied that it is important to get conceptual approval of the wetlands alteration before they spend a considerable amount on engineering. Councilmember Linke stated he thought the Council would be able to give a definite opinion at the end of the 60 day period. It• was also clarified that Phase 2 was not involved at this time. Mr. Miller stated thatthe Ramsey soils and slater Conserva- tion District has indicated there are errors in the map used for the wetland map, and that they will be happy to resolve those issues. It was pointed out in an August 5 letter from Mr. Malkerson that the site might be reclassified. Mr. Miller stated he was comfortable with the dates which had been established. It was noted that the Council granted the extension on the basis of the applicant's attorney's recommen- dation and the request of the applicant, per their letter of August 5, 1983. Clerk/Administrator. Paul.ey presented the Council 11. Consideration with a proposed timetable for review and approval of Timetable of amendments to Chapter 40. He stated that to Advance copies would be given to the Planning Commission, Review of after approval by the Council. Chapter 40 Motion/Second: Blanchard/Hankner to approve the timeta a or Chapter 40 zoning code review. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie(: `-N Mj,,M0 '1,0: Mayor and City CAnnCi1 I'IiUh1: Dircctur of Public Works/Couununity Dcvclopmcnt ,I"E DATE: October 2.1, 1983 SUBJECT: MILLER INDUSTRIAL PARK WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Attached are copies of the following items: 1. Letter dated October 20, 1983 to Mounds View Directcr of Public Works/Community Development from Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District. 2. Letter dated October 19, 1983 to Ramsey Soil and [dater Conservation District supervisors from Tom Peterson. 3. Letter dated Octobcr 20, 1983 to Mounds View from John Miller. 4. Drift copy of Chapter 48, 49 and 49A checklists. Checklists have been completed as much as possible at this stage of review. The above items arrived at City ball on October 21, 1983 and are being distributed to the Council for review prior to the pub "- 4 114 hearing scheduled for October 24, 1983. JCJ/bc cc: Don Pauley RAMSEY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT MINNESOTA I `—) SOIL ANo WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS October 19, 1983 To: Supervisors of Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District From: Tom Petersen, Conservation Specialist��� Subject: Request by the City of Mounds View to review wetland data specific to the proposed Miller Industrial Park. The following is a brief history of District involvement with the proposed development. In July of 1980, the District forwarded a site plan review of the proposed Miller Industrial Park to the Rice Creek Watershed District. The report listed soils information and suggested erosion and sediment control measures. During the summer of 1980, the District supervised a wetland survey as requested by the City which culminated in the development of a water resources map which was printed in August of 1980. The District also produced a 1.5ounds View Wetland Inventory Document which contained wetland data sheets and a general discussion of wetlands and their potentials in urban areas. This latter document was printed in December of 1981. Since the release of the aforementioned document, the City has developed a wetlands protection ordinance utilizing, the District information as supporting data. As the attached letter indicates, the City has requested that the District comment on the Barr Report as prepared for Mr. Miller and a report prepared by Braun 1:nvironmental Laboratories for the City (see the attached reports). These reports suggest that the District's original mapping of wetlands in the Miller Industrial Park area may not accurately reflect site specific wetland boW dories. Mr. Miller proposes as indicated on his phase development maps (see Barr Report) to significantly alter wetland 1-22 and to a lesser extent wetland 1-23. It is my understanding that the Mounds View Wetland Ordinance provides for this through the wetland modification permit process. However, Mr. Miller contends that wetland 1-22 is in a transitional state, and, therefore, questions the integrity of its wetland status. Also a more detailed site specific evaluation of wetland 1-23 has revealed that there are inclusions of upland or transitional habitat within the area originally mapped as wetland 1-23 by the District. In light of this fact, it is WD' understanding that Mr. Miller has petitioned for a change in the official wetland map to exclude wetland 1-22 and portions of 1-23 from wetland development restrictions as provided for in the City ordinance. The official wetland map is a rendition of the District's data with the exception that the exterior boundaries have been assigned to an elevation. AN EQUAL 01'P ORTUNITY EMPLOYER Proposed Miller Industrial Park, wetland data review. October 19, 1983 Page 2 I have the following comments in regard to the water resources map as prepared by the District for the City and of the !.Viler Industrial Park proposal in general. The water resources map was prepared as a "P,eneral land use planning tool", as indicated in the cover letter for the City of Hounds View Wetland Inventory dated March, 1982. The wetland boundaries projected on the original D strict map may be subject to site specific error and may require updating as detailed site specific information becomes available. It is my understanding that this possibility was understood by the city during the draft phase of ordinance development and provisions for wetland boundary update were incorporated into the ordinance. Raving been party to the development of the Barr Reports proposed wetland boundaries, I concur with both consultants findings that there are areas of upland habitat, and that there are areas in the transition -phase within the area mapped as wetland 1-23 by the District. Also, the consultant's reports indicate that the soil mapping units as portrayed in the Ramsey County Soil Survey are in error. The soil survey indicates that the major ;rapping unit on this site is Seelyeville muck. MT personal observations also shed some doubt as to the accuracy of the soil survey on portions of this site. In light of this, the District indicated to Mr. Miller that it would be possible for the area to be resurveyed and amendments made to the Washington and Ramsey County Soil Survey. This procedure would, however, require the permission of the land owner. Todate the District has not received any indication from Mr. Miller as to his interest in this. 0 cc. Mr. Sim Miller RAMSEY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT PhdAa�...... 1s.4 a.da�,, 1827 Nntl• ;omi hul Rcu MINNESOTA 1 '406 SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Date: October 20, 1953 To: Mr. John Johnson, Director Mounds View Public Works/Community Development From: Ramsey Soil and .'later Conservation District Plat Review Cc^elittee Chairman Dr. Russell S. Adnms 6h RA.44.9d//6Z(1d,IkJJ/ Subject: Review of wetland data specific to the proposed Miller Industrial Park. Mr. 'Thomas Petersen presented the above review to the Ramsey Soil and .Pater Conservation District Bonrd of Supervisors for their consideration. We accept his report. Mr. Petersen makes a clear and concise report of the events that have taken place with this report. We would reemphasize three things. Our original wetland inventory specified that these data are general in nature and that site specific data may still be in order. Thus, the Engineering Reports were in keeping with our recommendations, and we concur with their findings. Second, earlier data and data in the Engineering Reports suggest that the organic Soil indeed may not be Seelyeville muck as shown in the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey. This would make a difference in our recommendation. The Soil Conservation Service has volunteered to remap that area, but Mr. Miller did not follow through on his part. Finally, there is probably little question that upland habitat is becoming established because of long-term drainage by judicial ditch No. 1. If development occurs, action must be taken to make certain that this ditch remains open or this area will he in potential danger of reverting to wet).erd condition. If we can be of any further service, we would be pleased to do so. cc, Mr. Jim Miller AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER V4..•. JOHN A. MILLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 4725 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55416 TCLEP14ONC 920•0600 ,.,Mayor and City Council City of Mounds View 2401 Highway #10 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mayor and Council: 'P /ttLL:1VtU Cil y OF October 20, 1983 Re: Wetlands location on Miller Property The City now has received the report from its consultant regarding classification and location of wetlands on my property. As you know I have contended all along that the City of Mounds View wetland map is in error. I have reviewed the Braun Engine- ering report with my consultants, Barr Engineering, and they are in substantial agreement with it. I have been in process of trying to develop my property for four and one-half years. I am in concurrence with the Braun report and want to go on record as supporting it. There now seems -to be no difference between my position and the Mounds View study. I ask that the Braun report be accepted so that I can proceed with my development. y yoursf a JAMwm /Jo$n A. Miller CHECKLIST Fr.A , LLOPAEr-- F-:�CS+tg Project ?N1�� n P Page, SutmLttal Date i/2b/93 — IMPACTED BY L1Uf r4 =a Revision Oat* W21/ 83 ------- �------'-- (Council Credo Requirements Ordinance Section j Oeeision RLeulred Staff Review/ DGmDIILOCe DLCi51da /•��� Comments Yes !o 48.01 Subd. 2 Is proposal In compliance with the following: M.S. (Minnesota I �° Statutes (M.S.) 104, M.S. 105, M.S, 112, P.,C,w•O. Regulations, V tiles of P1,��t10^ D.N.R. Regulations, Public Law 92-5001 Met Council Open SpacP R6LU p h01$ been -, Policies. Yvsclde- at 48.01, Subd. 2A ba would wetlandsvPresarved in as natural a state as possible? 1/ 13e would all other requirements as listed In this sectlonwmet7 48.01, Subd. 28 Does the proposal represent sound land use development whichi V would result in the minimum damages and economic losses cited? 48.01, Subd, 30 Does proposal preserve and enhance the existing condition of V - the wetland?`s 48.01, Subd, 3E Have techniques been applied so as to minimize ratios of ✓ �� Impermeable surface to open space? 48.01, Subd, 3G Have other agencies or consultants been contacted for Inputs? V Sec {3 rm v n If so, who and what were their commonts7 Barr a ,A RS §InIG 'I`9n re Pa,+Z. 48.02 Does proposal require amending the wetland map? Has proof of .si error or changed conditions boon documented? Iles .. _.' 4 48,03 Are uses proposed In conformanpe with underlying zoning s V rez0n,,,� neceS%Ory Q district? `g 48.04 Definitions N. r 48.05, Subd, I Does this proposal require a wetlands alteration permit?� (Soo 48.06, Subd, 1) c - Has a wetlands alteration permit been applied for? to �A Lies Has a copy of the ordinance and/or checklist boon furnshied f/ _ the doveloper7 Subd, 2 Are buildings other than accessory buildings proposed within NO a4,r 48,05, the wetland? �^ - ejECKLIST I`ELOPMENT PROPSALS IMPACTED Br , (Eii 48 Page .2. of Are buildings designated for designed To be used) for human habitation? V NC 48.05, Subd. 1 Are there -'defined" drainagaways to be dedicated for the public? 5 Are required easements to be dedicated To the public? 46.05, Subd, 4 Is a wotiand zoning district located on lands To be subdivided? If so, are easements required for purposes stated. Li tS 18.05, Subd, 5 Are minimum requirements met as listed helow: a) Lot size - 20,000 square feet A) — L�aS b) Lot width - 125 feet :/ Ll S c) Building setback - 100 feet e) — yf .e,P.e ..ds on 18.05, Subd. 6 Was parcel recorded prior to October 11, 19827 f l � I wet)u �d Is existing parcel non -conforming? — ---- No 8,06, Subd. I Are any of The regulated $-activities" being proposed? a) The digging, dredging, filling, draining, or In any way altering or removing any material from a watland, b) The removal of vegetation within the wetland or the removal of vegetation within 50 feet of the wetland, L{e except To abate a public muis_nce. v s c) The construction, alteration, or removal of any ✓ i jo structure. d) The altering of any embankment or pending area, or the changing of The flow of water or pending capacity, (� e) The storing of materials which would in+erfero with the I # 1 ....1-.+.....1-.. ti 1�io .... urv1• y..m, uy �awV �l• CHECKLIST UE v:LDFME;IT PROPG$AL5 IMPACTED BY CHAPTER e6 Page 3 of 48,06, Subd, 2 48,06, Subd. 3 uisposing of non -organic waste materials including, a'T not limited To, deaoliTipn debris, g) Installation or maintenance of essential services. Pas infornation requlred under 48,06, Subd, 4(5) been supplied? a) Is there potential danger to life or property due To flood heights or velocities? b) Does the proposal conform To The Comprehensive Plan? Does the proposal Impact the veTland(s) within The drainage district or drainage basin? c) Do65 the proposal impact the phosphorus stripping capacity of the wetland? If so, has impact been deter- mined? Is proposed fill the minimum necessary to allow use of property? a) Will fill opportunity be equally apportioned? Will filling adversely affect the ecological or hydrological characteristics of the watland? 1) Would filling cause the storage capacity to be exceeded? 2) Would ill ling cause stripping capacity to fall below Phosphorus production? 3) Would fill be substantially free of pollutants or wastes? v I %ha.,IL,t_ I L� I �4S , 2yCfyP} 05 noted. v No � No No o V 1�S r� 'FINAL 'FINAL O1.Fr6iIN1NArvON i3A5fv ON fu ErLPH,7 P b.tnlpq,ty �1 D�wsYhfal No-AcceRo..wS Td A V%L./CP Ni W. 1,30 ' es 4) Would filling be carried out so as to minimize the I �/ Impact on vegetation? I F.S� 4CLORvaNTr 1-0 AAPr_fcPNr Impnct�[[d`e}sr ,Jtd Gf+er -F-Al Lva+ION b10�u. do'Lj d4 ffl .,r,A - T, o rl EZSLIST ?U'�'�LDFt4ERT PROPOSALS iPACTED BY'L _2/�/48 go LL of L .___ 06, Subd, 38Mould dredging have a significant ottect on the ecological or hydrological characteristics of the wetlands? I i 1) Mould dredginc be located so as to minimise any impact on ! i vegetation? 2) Mauld water flow charectar;Sfics be significantly changed? V 3) Mould the drecged area be Iinited to the minimum required? ✓ 4) Mould disposal of dredged material within the wetland i toning district result In any of the effects listed below: ' a) A significant change in the current flow r o pending, b) A substantial destruction of vegetation or fish spawning areas, c) Substantial change In water pollution, 5) Mould any work in the watiand be perform during breediog ! season of were, fowl or fish spauning season? I ✓ (6,Subd, 3C 1) Mould any sewage disposal system be located within 100 1 feet of the wetland? I i Mould disposal system meet the criteria as set our in I Minnesota Rule 6, MCAR 4,8040? 2) Mould any organic waste be discharged to a wetland? )/ 3) Mould erosion control measures and retention facilities be In place prior to the start of construction? ! i 4) Mould sediment yield from construction be mare than 2 tons per acre per year? AjO — ALcoe JvN r, f 4P41c.tir Yfs— ALLb'ZU,a/F To A PPLIG n^/T Na i YES' ALL4C✓/N (^ rc AOPu c�Nr I NO pp No W.. No Yes NO 1.w 18X i .148 Pe90 ge _o, _.L_' 46.06, Subd, 30 48.06, Subd, 3D 48.06, Subd, k 48.06, Subd, SF 5) after covolope-.ent, would soil loss exceed 3.5 Tons per acre per year? Is proposed Increase in storm water runoff the minimum necessary to allow use of property? Would storm water runoff affect the ecological or hydrolegioal charc:eris-ics of the wetlands? Would runoff opportunity be oqually apportioned? II Would runoff be "cl"_an" and within regulated rates? 2) Would the rate of runoff exceed the natural rare? 5) Would infiltrated water remain substantially unchanged? 4) Would storage capacity fall below the project volume of runoff? 5) Would phosphorus stripping capacity fall bale+ phosphorus production? 1) Mould the lowest building floor elevation of proposed sirucTures in -no wetland be at least 2 feet above the adjacent +etland boundary? 2) Would the development endanger the health, safety, or welfare of persons? Would the development result In unusual road maintenance cr ,,: i; ;y Lido „rvakdycs? Would vegetation removal meet the standards of this Chapter? Would vegetation removal be required for use of property? 1) Should additional conditions other than as listed in e3.06 Subds, 1-3, be imposed? Ne—V/Ars,e is, 1714zfc 7a rare.,r+ew Pe, G GFrcf 4J ryn,v, YE s yes N6 Y>< s N4 A A/A No Nd Y,-s AL.cagp,NL To A yperc A Nr ;N4CAl. CST F .ElOAAEHi PROPOSALS IHPACTED BY .ER 48 sage _ o of 18.06, Subd, 4(8) 18.06, Subd. 4C 18.07, Subd, AS 2) Is the application to have Planning Commisslon review? 3) NIII surety be posted to guarantee conformance? Have the following drawings and exhibits been Included with Permit application? I) The name and address of the subdivider, developer and owneh 2) A legal description of the proposed site with a map showing its location with indications of private access roads, I existing or proposed public roadways within and surrounding the development site. I 3) A full and adequate description of all phases of the operation and/or proposed physical changes, i 4) A soil survey map of the proposed development site, i 5) A topo map as speclf led, 6) A detailed site plan as specified. 71 A site design map as specified. I 8) Information on existing drainage and vegetation as J specified. 9) The time period for commencemont and completion of The , development, 10) Design specification and Dian which will moot stated ' requirements, j Has the applicant applied for any of the exemptions cited? Is the proposed development considered an emergency or repairp n \J vI �es i 1 o./cl�rn..lo.� P�rpoa•e V �CS I I v ��tS,ty/ SundLiiSiors V ��ies 1 j 1 1 l .�1be ad-ed he su�plsed ✓ I Nf) echo o. Su1od i i o ;HECKL111 Ff LOH4H1 MOWSaLS ,NaA_Tc at 4e >ago 2 of 48.07, Subd, C 48.08, Subd. I 48.08, Subd, 2 48.09 48,10, 48.11, d 48.12 48.13 48.14, Subd, 1 48,14, Subd. 2 _— - I ✓ C,ry Ii SG 4vl-, Were 'here any prior agreements between tno City an,: t'a ewnor I � t•fZE ���, Pis T and/or applicant? a) Has park land credit boon requested toward dedicaclon of ✓ l '! fS land requirements? No*Yct b) Is itonslfleatlon of land use densifiva profN;od? ✓ NdIr Ye r e) Is intonsiteation of building square too'age proposed? would there be agreements or conveyance In return for foregoing ✓ Yf S credits? the ✓ Nor CQEr.r,.r Is any acquisition of Interests in land contomplatec by City? Is any abatement of taxes or assessments conunplat<_c? Standard ordinance protection provisions. Provides relief from special assessments, NM $VA /V o Is a variance requested? Would the variance grant any use which is prohibited in the i t/ /� O zoning district in which the property Is located7 i a) would Incompatible land uses I-eSeIT tra: variance? Would variance be detrimental to the Proinc'ipn Of su:!ace and ground water supplios7 b) would the granting of a variance Increase the financial burdens Imposed on the community due to Increasing floods and overflow of water? c) would the variance be not in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives? I CREAaIS °tR l Pagp 'ta ENT PP7CS-'LS Sit-Ittal � IMPACTED Ruvi>ic0 _ �1PTER .) Project _ Ordinance Section --_--- - Code Rp,uire^ent9 Council :-cisionl neguired S'afI Review/ 6,mpllance Decision _ Yes t10 49.01 Statutory Authorization and Statement of Purpose, i a would the proposal tend to Increase any of the hazards cited? 'J JLt S n � •tc� a a 49.02 Subd. I Do lands for which development is being proposed lie within j I ('F N o 'ignatcd on Tno =Iced Plain Z^ning lr.pt I a cd n�6Y _ - u cc. �.v_.w. I V � NA 49.02 Subd, 2 Establishes Flood Plain Zoning pap. 49.02 Sub0. ) Is an development proposed below one foot above the Y r 'Jets bvt ou'aa.t. o" elevation of the regional flood? '� .',poi p'a ^ 01<n 49.02, Subd, 4 would "Interpretation" of district boundaries be required? 'f ��' '•'""d'"' �Dt arJ s'�o ,dd 49.02, Subd, 5 is any structure or land proposed to be used or any ✓ Nz$ structure proposed to be located, extended, converted, or structurally altered? Would any such use or action comply with the terms of this a<. Chapter? 49.02 Subd. 9 Definitions NA NA 49.03 Establishing Zonine Districts WA , NA Would any of drainage facilities sited be adversely affected? I .� NO 49.04 Subd. I Are any of the following uses listed below, which are permitted L-- NO obtolled s•+t uses in a Flood Plain Zoning District, proposed? ( I pie na hint nd en i i a• Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck would Ind'co+< farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. la..d U Se 5 ot'i.jr +"ho.i ,�vlus�n a b. Industrial - Commercial uses such as loading areas or �It L•e I g p.,.,,.t pa,king areas. ' CHECKLIST F LOr4ENT Fr.,,0' ALS 'IMPACTED 13 ER 49 Pago y of 10 e. Private and public recreational uses such as golt courses, j tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, j shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and s'seet ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose d. Residential uses such as lawns, oardens, parking areas, and play areas, 49.04 Subd, 2 Are any of the following uses, which requires a conditional use permit, being proposed in the Flood Plain Zoning li District? a• Structures accessory to open space uses. Do r,oy k nevi b. Placement of fill, <I - No rha Sa 2.— LjCS c. Extraction of sand, gravel, and other materials, pkat4t' j — n-lo d. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, Dlers, wharves, and water control structures. I NA e. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, NA and pipelines, I. Storage yards for equipment, machinery, and materials, I M pvlbC g. Other uses similar in nature to uses described in Section 49.04 Subd, I and 2 which are consistent with the pre ;•�e l_r- -., n;-t fa 52ct!cw AG nl G;hd, 3 an% S_rtinn 49.04. 9.04 Subd. 3(a) Mould the proposed use Increase the flood heioht7 v No KLIST-F �.LOMENT PROP-MALS .TED BY L. iER 49 3_ of c_. Would the proposod use meet the = contained in 49.07, Subd. 4E. Subd. 3(b) I. Would the amount of fill ba deposited more than the minimur„ amount necessary to conduct the Conditional Use? Would Tne fill ba limited to that needed to grade or landscaped for that use? �,- ' Would the fill in any way obstruct the flow of flood I No waters? 2. Would any spoil from dredging or sand and gravel operations be deposited in the Flood Plain Zoning district and No not in conformance with 49.04 Subd. 3b(I).? 3, Would the fill being protected from erosion by vegetative cover? Subd. 3(c) Are accessory structures proposed? W I. Would structureswaesignated for human habitation? 2, Would structures be placed to minimize obstruction to Do Kw10tn1 flood flows? n u� 3. Would structures be flood -proofed per Building Code? L/ Do not krNoW Subd. 3(d) I, Is the storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, Flammable, explosive, or injurious to - human, animal or plant life being proposed? 2. Would the storage of any other material or equipment be ' readily movable following a flood warning? PO not KnUvJ CHECKLIST F LOPMENT PROPOSALS IMPACTED BY fim 49 Page 4 of _/ 0 • 49.04 Subd. 3(e) Are Structural works for flood control such as daps and I I channel en l argments That will change the course, current V N p or cross section of a public water being proposed? w thcy r..oct .he „ .,..... ._. of Hine _set_ Staiuted, _ha,.ar ✓ I "�CS 105? I I 49.05 Is land to be Subdivided unsuitable by reason of flood, inadequate drainage, water supply, or sewage treatr..ent I ✓ facilities? Do all proposed lots within The Flood Plain Zoning di srriGs -IC S Lies contain building site ar or above the Regulatory Flood Protec- t ion Elevation? Would the subdivision have water and sewer disposal facilities that comply wltn the provisions of Chapter 49? 1✓ I] 11a�7 ha ue no'j bce.; swk;,..Tt-ad. Would the subdivision have road access to the subdivision itself and the individual building sites no lower -han 2 II feet below The Regulatory Flood Protection Elovation? Will all public utilities and facilities such as gas, elec- trical, sever, and water supply systems to be located in the Flood Plain Zoning District be flood -proofed In accordance v II with the State Build ing Code or elevated to above the Regula- tory Flood Protection Elevation? 19.06 Subd, 2 Do railroad tracks, roads and bridges located in the Flood Plain Zoning District comply with Section 49.04 Sued. 3 (a) V N and (b)? Is the continuance of operation of the transportation faci- lity essential to the orderly functioning of the area or will failure or Interruption of the transportation services endanger the public health and safety? CHECKLIST EL0R4EH? PF.C:ti5ALS IMPACTED B#ER 49 Page S of 49.07 Subd, 1 49.07 Subd, Z Designates Zoning +'ministratcr (a) Is a use permit being requested to under,ake any of the following: erection, addition, or alteration of any building, structure or portion thereof. use or change of use of a building, structure or Ian:, - change or extension of a non -conforming use. placement of fill or excavation of materials +itnin a Flood Plain Zoning District, (b) Has an application for a use permit been received which includes the following: 1) plans In duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot. Z) existing or oroposed structures, if I or storaae of materials. 3) location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel or water body. (c) Have all State and Federal' permits been obtained? (d) Has a Certificate of Zoning Compi lance been issued for a new, altered, or non -conforming use? Is such a certificate required? (a) Has the applicant submitted certification by an engi- neer, architect, or land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 49? NA j NA 'Jo `J c l rhd- c i — No Ph4ie 'Z — L-165 ' J a �g 1J, A . L,— No L{ es ()Ot L-et CHECKLIST. Fl `dLOPME14T PHUPDSALS IMPACTED BY . .ER 49 0 Page Q_ of )_ Have the fiord proofing measures boon certified by an V Nofi UI Gfi engineer or arch! -act? (f) Has the Zoning Mministrator maintained a record of the Iirst floor elevation of all new structures or addi?ions to existing s.,_-.ures in T"o Floc! Plain Zoning District? Has a record been noted of the firs? floor elevations ' of structures or additions To structures which are Li N • A , flood proofed? 49.07 Subd, 3 (c) Mould the granting of a variance be contrary to the public N interest? Would literal enforcement of the provisions of the chapter result In unnecessary hardship? Would the granting of a variance allow uses prohibited in that district? Mould the granting of a variance permit a lower degree of flood protection elevation for the particular area or pormil standards lower than those required by STare Law? 19.07 Subd, 3 (d) Is appeal sought? Has notice of hearing to the Interested N. A. parties been given? Has the Board of Adjustment and Appeals notified the Commissioner of Natural Resources of variance request at least 10 days prior to the hearleg+ 9.07 Subd, 3 (a) Has a decision of the Board of a variance or appeal boon made within 30 days after the public hearing. Has a copy of variance decisions been mailed 10 The Commissioner of Natural Resources within 10 days of action? CHECKLIST 1`401*11.LOPMEW PROPOSALS IMPACTED BY C... iER 49 Page _7 of • 49.07 Subd, 3 (1) Is the doeislon of the Board of Adjustmen' and P;tpoals Laing appealed to the City Council? Is the decision of the City Council being appealed to the district court as provided in Minnesota Statutes 462,36'? 49,07 Subd, 4 (a) Has notice of C.U.P. hearing been sent to OhR Commissioner (at least 10 days prior to hearing)! V IJo has r�^� 49.07 Subd, 4 IN Outlines C.U.P. Review Process and Time Table, N.fl. 49.07 Subd, 4 (c) (1) (a) Does the application for conditional use permits include the Information listed below as deemed Li �ina I necessary by the Planning Commission for a determin- Pro ca Ss ation of the Regulatory Flood Protection -Elevation? V.ra 1-1o..d bovrdq•4 A plan (surface view) showing: - elevations or contours of the ground, - pertinent structure, fill or storage elevations, - size, location, and special arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site, - location and elevations of streets, - photographs showing existing lands uses and vegetation upstream and downstream, - soil type, (2) Has one copy of the above been transmitted to an engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance in determl,nu ,The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevations, Have Minnesota Regulations IR 86-87 been not? (3) Has the Planning Commission determined the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation at the site? (� OHECKLIST 40""'ELOPm ENT PROPOSALS IMPACTED By , rEa 49 Page —14— of L_ 49.07 Subd, 4 (d) I (1) Has the applicant submltted the information listed below and additional information as deemed necessary by the Planning r.-;isslpo - o,-' City Ci,uncii to determine The Suitability of the particular site for the proposed use? (a) Plans in triplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevation of the lot, exist- ing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, flood -proofing measures and the relationship of the above to the location of the stream channel. (b) Specifications for building construction, and materi- als, flood -proofing, filling, dredging, grading, Channel Improvement, storage of materials, water supply and sanitary facilities. (2) Has the above Information been submitted to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency to determine the items listed below: - the relationship of the proposed project to flood heights and velocities, - the seriousness of flood damage to the use, - the adequacy of the plans for protection, - other technical matters, (3) Has tha Plannino Commission evaluated and determ;,.^ the specific flood hazard at the site, and also evaluated the suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood hazard? 49.07 Subd, 4 (a) In passing upon Conditional Use Permit applications has the City Council considered all the factors specified in other sections of Chapter 49 along with matters listed below? V No No No - is PAECKLIST F406*1:LOPNENT PROPOSALS I NPACTED BY U... iER,n 49 Page � of I, The danger to I to and property due to Increasod flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments, 2, The danger that materials nay be swept onto other lands or downstream to the Injury of others. 5. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems aeJ the ability of those systems to prevent disease, con- tamination, and unsanitary conditions, 4. The susceptibiliy of the proposed facility and its , contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the Individual owner, 5. The Importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. 6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location, 7. The availability of alternative locations not subject to V flooding for the proposed use, B. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the fore- seeable future, 9. The relationship of the proposed use to the conprehen- sivo plan and flood plain manacement program for the area, 10. The safety of access to the property in tines of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles, 11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site, 12. Such other factors which are relevant to the purpose of this Chanter, 49.07 Subd. 4 (f) Is additional Information necessary to rendor 0 decision? A written decision is required within 15 days from the receipt ACS of such additional Information beyond the time limits aiven above), 49.07, Subd, 4 (g) What additional conditions should be attached to the condi- tional use permit? Some conditions may Include, out are not I�QaR ncl Pfs-r u,0o� II limited to: 1 Vic riand aIttr0:ron pewrvvt, .CiHECKLrSt F ;LOW ENT PRC�SALS IMPACTED 8Yf TER 49 Page -9- of 49.08 49.09 49.10 �on I, Hodif lcation of waste disposal and water supply fact lilies. 2, Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation, 3, imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. 4. Requirements for construction of channel modlf ications, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. 5. Flood-proafing measures, In accordance with the State Building Code, The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood -proofing measures are con- sistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. Is structure or use nonconforming? Did nonconformity exist before December 13. 1962 or amendment of Chapter 497 (Non -conforming use or structure may oe continued subject to conditions sited in 49.08, Subd I, A through H). Penalties for Violation. Does application require amendments to Flood Plain Zoing Pap? Has DNR Commissioner and Federal Insurance Administrator been notified of proposed amendments to the map? (a) Is nap In error? (b) Has area been filled to above flood elevation? (c) Has Commission of Natural Resources determined lands are adequately protected? No N, P" No Igo 1c 3 CRECCLIS? ;C• .: LC�tE:.t ZKDOSALS 2v CRA:'E5 :9r S. bm i tta 10 7/Z8-/ �a��I 'Lrr6J RevI sion Date 1t Project 1.ge Trd. 10'L — 'dinance Section ------- (ode Requirements Covncil Ikcisionl Required Yes No Staff ?evie+/ Comp"lance Zision I_ i Comments 1A,01 Subd, I _ Findings of Fact ✓ f IA,01 Subd, 2 a, Would improvements proposed by the devolepmont reduce or eliminate storm water and drainage damages and minimize ' Storm water runoff? b; Would the development be consistent with the iTv..s listed below? A area W C"ma 1) the City Zoning laws rF qr. „^ Qr°F.Cta vSJ 2) the Comprehensive ?Ian 3) the requirements of the Rice Creek b'atersned District 4) the City Municipal Code 5) the Minnesota State Statutes 6) other regulatory agencies Would there be any economic burden to other property owners due to this proposal? k.02 Subd. I Is application subject to Chapter 5,9,07? ✓ `rE 5 1.02 Subd, 2 Will the City require specific drainage Improvements? ✓ 1.02 Subd, 3 Would the proposed drainage Improvement be privately owned 9 S r L a ydv' 'and maintained? If so, A II a seven—year malnionanco—porformance guarantee r/ S , be provided by the developer? Would the developer hold the City harmless for any design, I{6 construction or operation defects? )/ S l � r CHECKLISIUDEVELOPMENT PACPOS+LS IMPACTED BY CHAPTER 49A Page �_ of _3 49A.02 Subd. 4 49A.03 49A.04,.05,.06,.0 49A.08, Subd. I 49A.08, Subd. 2 Mould the drainage faclIIty Improvements be the sole flnan- I 1/ S f.L AI v t cial responsibility of the developer? a. Mould now storm sewer systems be required? Ir so, would ✓ Y( S they be designed and constructed to accommAdate at least a five year frequency storm? b. Mould retention basins be roquiroc? if so, would they be designed and constructed to retain at least a hundred year storm? c. Mould runoff from the property after development be ✓ ,/ limited to the amount that would occur in its undeveloped 7 t'S state resulting from a five year storm? ✓ d. Mould detention basins be required? Definitions, Responsibility, Penalty, and Severabillty NA /JA /VA Mould a variance or appeal to the Code be required? ✓ me Mould the variance allow a use that is prohibited In the zoning district In which the property Is located? a. Mould the granting of a variance result in Incompatible NA land uses or would the granting of a variance be detri- mental to the protection of surface and ground water supplies? b. Mould ?no granting of a varioncw Increase the finon- clal burdens Imposed on the community through Increasing )VA floods and overflow of water onto land areas within the City or onto land areas adjacent to Rice Creek? CHECKLIST OEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IMPACTED BY CHAPTER 49A Page __:�_ of 3 49A,08, Subd, 2 49A,08, Subd, } 49A,08, Subd, 4 c, Would the granting of a variance be not in keeping with land use plans and planning Objectives for the City? Mould the granting of a variance increase or cause danger to I llo o (MI sling) Has required supporting data been provided to determine the effects of the development on the affected land and rater area? I NA ✓ I (L) See AW4, MEMO TO: Mayor rind City Council FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development DATE: October 13, 1983 SUBJECT: CONTESTED 2ND QUARTER WATER BILL FOR MRS. JARRETT AT 2841 WOODALE DRIVE Attached are the following items: 1. Letter from firs. Jarrett received September 1, 1983. 2. Letter from Director of Public Works/Community Development and Finance Director dated September 21, 1983. 3. Copy of meter test date July 6, 1983. On August 8, 1983 and August 10, 1983, Mr. Brager talked with Mrs. Jarrett about her 2nd quarter water bill ($145.60 less $4.64 credit due to meter test) researching her claim determined the following sequence of events. December 13, 1981 - Meter Reading 214,060 February, 1982 - The Jarretts moved in at 2841 Woodale Drive March 31, 1982 - Meter Reading 228,650 (14,000 gallons used) June 31, 1982 - Meter Reading 248,580 (20,000 gallons used) *September 30, 1982 - Meter Reading 322,850 (74,000 gallons used) December 31, 1982 - Meter Reading 502,590 (180,000 gallons used) Staff concludwlread iag was in error and billed an estimated 3,000 gallons. March 31, 1983 - No reading received. Staff estimated 27,000 gallons June 30, 1983 - Meter Reading - 560,010 (208,000 gallons billed) This bill prompted Mrs. Jarrett's calls and letter in August. *July 6, 1982 - Meter removed for testing by City. Meter Reading 560,740 (old meter), 2,430,400 (new meter), 740 gallons since 6/31/83 Mayor and City Couucll Page Two October 13, 198.1 I October 5, 1983 - Meter Rending 2,431,540 verified by City personnel *Meter readings by City meter readers or City personnel. When the meter was tested in early July, 1983, it was found to be slightly in error by 3 to 3-1/2 percent which resulted in a $4.64 dollar credit being Issued based on 235,000 gallons of water estimated to have been consumed during the 1st and 2nd quarters of 1983. The staff letter dated September 21, 1983 indicated that the city could find no reason that the billings were in error if a 3 quarter average was used. On October 31983, Mrs. Jarrett contacted the Director of Public Works/Community Development and asked results of 3rd quarter 1983 reading. This prompted a second review of data since the water consumtion was only 11.000 gallons for the quarter which is usually the highest quarter for residential customer . If the December 31, 1982 meter reading furnished by Mrs. Jarrett is assumed correct (which 1s Mrs. Jarrett's contention), then the water use for the 1st and 2nd quarters for 1983 would be 58,000 gallons, not the 235,000 gallons billed. This would also mean that 4th quarter u� for 1983 was 180,000 gallons which would be extremely high for a residential user for the 4th quarter. This amount could only be explained by a faulty water appliance, a continuously leaking faucet, or a faulty meter. Testing of the meter and conversations with Mrs. Jarrett have eliminated all of these reasons. Mrs. Jarrett claims the December 31, 1982 meter reading was correct and that the meter malfunctioned during the 4th quarter of 1982. Mrs. Jarrett is requesting an adjustment in her water bill for the 4th quarter of 1982. Mrs. Jarrett verbally indicated that an average useage for the uncontested quarters, which is 29,500 gallons, would be a reasonable amount. RECOMMENDATION: Staff concludes the following: 1. There is no evidence proving the water meter malfunctioned. 2. 180,000 gallons is a very high amount of water useage for a 4th quarter water bill. 3. CUrrLnt policy does not provide for staff to "adjust" water bills if concrete facts do not exist to document adjustment (such as a meter test). 4. "Adjustment" of water bills is cause for concern due to precedent issues. Staff If, therefore requesting direction and/or authorization to resolve this claim. Mayor and City Council Page Three October 13, 1983 If an adjustment is made then the to be recalculated. An adjustment would mean a write off of $82.50. would be as follows: JCJ/bc Attachments previously issued credit will have from 180,000 to 30,000 gallons Mrs. Jarrett's revised water bill 4th Quarter 1982 Adjustment + $14.85 lst Quarter 1983 Adjustment + $ 1.40 2nd Quarter 1983 Adjustment + $20.30* Credit - $ 0.62 TOTAL $35.93 *2nd Quarter bill has not Men laid to late. n i3 MEMO TO: City Council and City Administrator FROM: Engineering/Planning Technician DATE: October .1.2, 1983 SUBJECT: Arthur 'Zielinski Minor Subdivision At their October 5, 1983 regular meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 95-83 recommending approval of a minor subdivision (lot line relocation) as requested by Mr. Zielinski at 8344 Groveland Road. Attached are the following items which pertain to this request: 1. Staff Report 2. Certificate of Survey 3. Guardianship papers 4. Resolution No. 95-83 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For the October 17, Council Agenda meeting, staff recommends the Council to direct staff to draft a resolution approving the minor subdivision. FJK/mb C C►ty of Mounds View PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP REVIEW DATE: September 21, 1983 AGENDA ITEM NO: 2 CASE NO: 142-83 APPLICANT: Arthur Zielinski PROPOSED REQUEST: Applicant proposes to relocate the east 211.60 feet of his south property line 30 feet to the south thereby creating two 130 foot lots. kid LOCATION OF REQUEST: 8334 Groveland Road 8344 Groveland Road 51TH SIZE: 8334 Groveland 8344 Groveland Road - .78 Acres Road - 1.04 Acres I4 LOT DEPTH AND WIDTH: 8334 Groveland Road - 211.6 X 160 8344 Groveland Road - 453.2 X 100 (1� EXISTING ZONING: R-1, Single Family t� rp�l CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: R-1, Single Family all sides M z CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN: Yes. No Change to the Comprehensive Plan is being proposed. ZONING'CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Yes j STAFF REPORT CASE 142-83 PAGE. TWO OF TWO PLANNING CONSIUERAT1ONS 1. The addition of a strip of land 30 feet by 211.60 feet to the existing north Jut will create a ,jog lu the property lines (see Exhibit 2). 2. Side lot line setbacks of the existing building on the lots would be as follows: Northerly Lot - 42.9 Feet Southerly Lot - 41..5 Feet These distances greatly exceed minimum setback requirements. 3. The proposed subdivision will reduce the frontage of the southerly lot to 130 feet. Based on existing Code requirements, the location of the house on the southerly lot would prohibit this property from subdividing into two separate lots (without variance findings) so the decrease of a 30 foot frontage distance of the property would not change the lot's ability to subdivide into two. 4. Both proposed properties meet minimum square footage require- ments. 5. Should, sometime in the future, the owner of 8344 Groveland Road lot) desire to subdivide into 2 lots lying east (the northerly and west of each other, the City should require that the new subdivision line lines up with the existing west lot line of the property directly to the south to avoid another jog in the property lines. uJ 0 8 I J 8351 1 Mf4 prorosld lot Ming with Gorrgnt 40bdIV1410n `x�E I11 z 100' T �oFrH I ��big i futwe 1&+ 60 5334 a V_ 1 ez VIM IMC .Y1. si `--aatl �1 Aglrl..'>-tea. J—�J- . } 1 I 1\ ' I fIY nup Y la pW.Y9 •I 1 I I M wM .I+n PAY• S\ I I w..w�. Y r.p..d I 7 >I I c� I 1 i7 .C. ' LOCATION 0r moroo miNoR sm Ai' OCANT 1 APB WR ZI�LIN%l WIDIT 1 I 2Y0•YR/ R50•Y2 I a I GJ 'r e, .L !• . utc 7S � m w (, Vy - 032.02— - - I •� , : : S. .fee + �1 a 4Z l k (e rS,Llr 2 . Ilk /rjO 0 �'%1' •)r.n +i l•S�. I ,o / P. 15\�±1I l V f1 4 n` 7 .a va < 0 13 fJ ^ A i l Q' iyt cm2i0-Y2 220•v2 y U 7. 0.90 fs 5 T 2/0•41Z 200-V2 b !- Q ar: at V i'u.a uv.•' SnA eJv ' LI0.L � •v ! 1 ^ i,� @ L, •. .• . tell 10 •`3 /70. I a Ci /GO.OS 7� VIK qq < ..t h m_ 9 ` — h I /YO•Y3 C ,9 *r I \ 12.1, I f 170.OX L. 1 n n 1 Q 111 QD 7So•O7 0 0l t 2. RD I /„pfif / 0 m , r P` NJ,ll LP n.c "1 yd 0 �P' • I liromf l 3 5 f?, el . I V, e A 190-43 V I : 0 ')l xle.! Rp0 s o J e 060.0( e a,eA i 0 ,. a .c ff ------ ✓< F„, ft• >L \ LROMP Nfw PROPERTY L& 010•44 I • . ,.. A7 o h 180.35' /?0 2 N ^ ael 020•YY X .� 1 I. e . all0.3S ogee /07-aJ ifi Cr '1 •.. PC m 20.35 I d . `08 -4B , 5 09. ; 0(915 GrOvO ton d' L I rL a- v W xle lrv'r , 36 +� "-. ° 270 27?Ir 27W � • .x y xR" .Lfe ^ rEGA1 NE2ND ADaf•t_ AsOZO.3 i 1') 2 3 .. 4 lI S o C' r� o '—GAL-6- 0 1--T10 s t UMUROAN - I^Ir'^7NOINa[RINo ' [-1❑ I Certificate of Survey for ii I r :A I N o, al ;b Y I' �N 211.bo — I- I 16.9 _ 0—.._...._.... 0 0 0 d 0 -- —— — — —— — — — — —— - 21 60 - rr / V I L� I I I .•L!._ I��. I f I hereby terrify 'her Ih,r n a Irv, and mrrrrr r.yr. unrolien of o survey of 1M bavndonn of The abon Juuib.J land, nnJ of the la.,mo. al pil bw1dinyr, Ih.noq and nll ril iflb .nirayahm.nn, it troy.Lom or en mid land Ar Ivwr./.J b/ ��n IAn .� Ada/ ol— !y _A 0, )or j ti- } SUB AN ENGINEIRINGI/NC. Inyin.uh /' SurVo ron by--_.._.—_ r I STATE Or h11Ni lRSOTA : r� Country OF In Re: Guardianship of Clara D. 1'ord, Arthur Zielinski 7� 19l33 , -10 SECOND Jf1DICIAf, DISTHIMa PROBATF. COURT DIVISION r Court bile No, 157022 LIsTTCRS Or Gl1NCRAL GUARDIANSHIP having been appointed and having qualified, is — hereby authorized to act as general guardian _of the person and estalr. of the above named ward, with all the posers and authority prescribed by statute, (COUIrf SEAL) is In Testimony Whereof the Ilan. —J,J..erome Plunkett Judge of District Court, has set llisyg,K hn>ul and affixed the seal of Sad Co iurt this 17_ day of Au ' t 19.83 4. Judg 4f PRESENT ADDRESS AND P1tI7SENT AIDDRFSS AND T) EPHONB NUMBER OF WARD TPLGPHONE NUh1BFR Or GUARDIAN Z54�I.Xelslane N E�.- _—A114.Grneelandd_N F . HINN='u�rJ hAva+1, &0 . . FrOlo,Y,—q-5502____.Mnundszjew.,,4 5A32 -.. .. ... ..... .. .. ��.. .. ... .... .... .._....._..... .. Inn fore of (lmtnr•J Guar . I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Ramsey In Re: Guaidianship 06: CCnhn R F6-id (Uaad DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT PROBATE COURT DIVISION Court File No, 151022 CERTIFICATION I, Suzanne Alliegro, Acting Clerk of Probate Court, Ramsey County, , do hereby certify that the attached Letters o6 Genowl Guandimiahip 1 l I 1 I t�y f1 is a true and correct copy of the original on file and of record in 4, my office. Dated this 19.th day of Auguhp 19 63 m n� BY '� /l,. r.�.t_ t-Lytil(!, DCpUty (Court Seal) i 1,� '•S.'y�r-a,-ram,wuirvyaa.:arma.Eawi1l19i' MOUNDS V11:W PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-83 ) CITY OF F1011NI)s VIEW COUNTY OF IIAMSI.Y STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE NO. 142-03, A MINOR SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, an application was received by staff for a minor subdivision (relocation of a property line) fur properties located at 8344 Cruveland Rued by Mr. Arthur Zielinski; and WHEREAS, Mr. Arthur Zielinski is the owner of the property located at 8344 Croveland Road and is also the legal guardian for Clara B. Ford, owner of the property located at 8334 Croveland (toad; and WHEREAS, the applicant with this proposal is requesting approval to relocate the cast 211.60 feet of the existing south property line of 8344 Cruveland (load thirty (30) feet to the South; and WHEREAS, the two proposed lots meet minimum frontage 1 requirements and square footage requirements; and WHEREAS, the haildings on the two properties will meet minimum setback requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a minor subdivision as requested by relocating the east 211.60 feet of the existing south property line of 8344 Croveland Road, thirty (30) to the south; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends that a five (5) foot drainage and utility easement be taken on both sides of this proposed lot line as shown on the survey dated August 29, 1983; HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 5th day of October, 1983. ATTEST: Chairman (SEAL) Director of Public Works% — Community Development MKMO TO: Mounds View City Council FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Dir tr parks, Recreation and tstry DATE: October 1.3, 1983 RE: ordinance #349 As you are aware, the second reading of ordinance 4349 modifying Chapter 35 is scheduled for Monday, October 24, 1983. City Attorney Richard Meyers contacted staff on Thursday morning regarding some minor changes that he feels should be made to the ordinance as initially submitted. The two changes are as follows: 1. Under 35.03 Organization; item #1, we have rewritten it to read that the Commission will meet the first Tuesday of each month or as deemed necessary by the chairperson. 2. Under 35.06 Removal from Office; it has been reworded to read as follows: "Any member of the Commission may be removed if said member misses two consecutive meetings without a valid reason, and for cause duly found by a two-thirds vote of the commission members and consent of the City Council." Under this change, we have added the phrase, "said member misses" and deleted the phrase "if the Commission duties are not faithfully carried out" as Attorney Meyers feels this is too ambiguous. A copy of the revised ordinance is attached for your review. If you have any questions regarding the minor modifications in this ordinance feel free to contact staff directly at ext. #41. BKA/sll Attachment ORDINANCE NO. 349 CPfY OF MOUNDS ViEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW BY REPEALING CHAPTER 35, ENTITLED "THE, FESTIVITIES COMMISSION" AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 35 ENTITLED "MOUNDS VIEW FESTIVITIES COMMISSION" The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. Chapter 35, Entitled "The Festivities Commission" is hereby repealed. SECTION II. The new Chapter 35, "Mounds View Festivities Commission", is hereby adopted as follows: 35.01 CHAPTER 35 MOUNDS VIEW FESTIVITIES COMMISSION 35.01 Purpose. To promote an annual community -wide special event. 35.02 Composition. A nine (9) member voting board shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council and shall operate under Chapter 35 of the Municipal Code. 35.03 Organization. 1. The Commission shall meet the first Tuesday of each month or as deemed necessary by the Chairperson. 2. Quorum shall be five (5) appointed members. 3. The first meeting in September shall include: a. Election of chairperson (chairperson must be someone who has served at least one year on the Commission.) b, Vice -chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer shall be appointed by the Chairperson with approval of the Commission, C. Reviewal of by-laws. By-law changes, if any, should be read and suggested at a meeting and can be voted on at the following meeting and changed by a 2/3 vote of the members present subject to approval of the City Council. 4. Budget shall be prepared and submitted to the Council for approval by September meeting and shall include projected revenues and expenditures. The Commission shall recommend to the Council uses for any donations or revenues generated by the Commission. 35.03 5. An agenda will be prepared and be distributed to members prior to meeting. Meeting dates must he posted 24 hours before the meeting. 35.04 Terms and Vacancies. 1. Members of the Commission shall serve three-year staggered terms, with terms expiring September 30 of each year. All appointments are to be made, each year at the first regular meeting of the Council in October. Roth original and suc- cessive appointees shall hold their offices until their successors are appointed and qualified. 2. Vacancies during the term shall be filled by the Mayor with the approval of the majority of the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. No member shall be personally interested in any contracts in which the Commission may enter. 35.05 Compensation. 1. Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation. 35.06 Removal from office. 1. Any member of the Commission may be removed if said member misses two consecutive meetings without a valid reason, and for cause duly found, by a two-thirds vote of the Commission members and consent of the Council. SECTION III. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date oi Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on this 24th day of October, 1983. Read and passed by the Council oftheCity of Mounds View on this Y o ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) Clerk -Administrator DATE APPROVED: 10/10/83 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 Hwy. 10, The Mounds view City Council was called to order at 7:22 p.m. on October 3, 1983 by Mayor McCarty. Members present: McCarty, Doty, Hankner, Linke, Blanchard Others present: Clerk -Administrator Pauley and Public Works/Community Development Director Johnson Special Meeting October 3, 1983 Mounds View City Hall Mounds View City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Mayor McCarty opened the Special Meeting by 3. CONTINUATION OF reminding those present that the meeting was DISCUSSION OF 1984 a continuation of the September 26, 1983 REVENUE SHARING, public hearing on the City's 1984 Operating GENERAL, AND OTHER Budgets. OPERATING FUND BUDGETS Mayor McCarty further indicated that the Council had met at a Special Work Session on the evening of September 29, 1903 to review possible modifications to the General Fund Operating Budget in order to provide for a reduction in the amount of monies levied for tax purposes. Finance Director Brager provided the Council and others present with an overview of those changes identified at the September 29th meeting which were outlined in a memo he presented to the Council dated October 3, 1983. Mayor McCarty pointed out that the changes in the Budget resulted in a decrease in the estimated 1984 mill rate from a 19.92% increase to a 10.14% increase and an estimated reduction in the 1984 tax increase from 15% to 5% for a market value house of $77,200. Mr. Bill Frits, 8072 Long Lake Road, requested clarification of information regarding the mill rate increase, the percentage of such an increase, and the reasons for budgeting contingency and -` fund balance development. Mounds View City Council Special Meeting ------------------------------ Mayor McCarty and Councilmember Linke attempted to clarify the information provided in the budget documents and resolutions adopting the budget. October 3, 1983 ---Page Two ----------- ------------ Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to pass Resolution No. 1658 and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to pass Resolution 1659 and waive the reading. 9 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried Councilmember Hankner voted against the motion and stated that her reason for voting no was because the budget depends too much on debt service funds for short term cash flow purposes. In lieu of Local Government Aid and revenue sharing loses and changes in revenue sources this budget puts operating expenses in a position that is not wise. Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to pass Resolution No. 1660 and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Linke/Doty to pass Resolution No. 1662 and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Car ied Clerk -Administrator Pauley reported on his investigation of the type and cost of psychological evaluations that can be performed on the three Police Chief candidates and recommended that -Mr. Jack Richardson of the Diagnostic Testing Services be hired to perform psychological evaluations on all three Police Chief candidates at an expense of $150.00 per person. Mounds View City Council Special Meeting ---------------------------------------------- Motion/Second: Doty/Hankner to authorize the psychological evaluations of the Police Chief candidates per staff recommendation. 5 ayes 0 nays Councilmember Doty reminded those present that a final decision has not been made on the position of the Director of Public Works/ Community Development and that such a decision will need to be made in the near future. Motion/Second: Blanchard/Linke to adjourn at 8 5 ayes 0 nays October 3, 1983 Page Three --------------- Motion Carried 4. ADJOURNMENT Motion Carried DATED APPROVED: 10/10/83 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MTNNESOTA Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Mounds View City Council was called to order by 1. Call to Order Mayor McCarty at 7:32 PM on September 26, 1983. MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Linke, Hankner, 2. Roll Call g anc ar oty and Mayor McCarty. ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Meyers, Clerk/ Administrator Pauley and Public Works/Community Development Director Johnson. Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to approve the 3. Approval of September 1983 minutes as corrected. Minutes: September 12, 5 ayes 0 nays 1983 Motion Carried Don Frauendienst, 8335 Pleasant View Drive, stated 4. Residents Re - he has lived at that address for the past six years, quests and and for the past six months has been trying to get Comments from a street light put in. He stated there is a light the Floor on each end of the street, and they would like one in the middle, due to vandalism, and they have had seven out of eight home owners sign the petition for the street light. He explained the eighth person was the neighbor across the street from him, who does not want the light in his yard. Mayor McCarty replied that the Council had approved the installation of a street light across the street from Mr. Frauendienst, but there turned out to be electrical problems in that spot, and a new location must be found. Cleric/Administrator Pauley stated that he has asked Staff to meet with the residents and find a new location for the light which is agreeable to them. Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to direct Staff to give the Council, for consideration at their next agenda session, a list of three alternative sites for the street light on Pleasant View Drive. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mounds View City Council September 26; 1983 Regular Meeting Page Two -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Councilmember Doty noted that Mr. Donut is listed in 5. Approval Item B for approval of a temporary occupancy permit, Consent i a but they actually had opened for business already. Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained that he gave them permission to open last Friday, as at the last Council meeting they had not been aware they would be ready to open that quickly, and they had received all the other necessary permits. He added he had been assured by Staff that they had met all the requirements of the City, so he made the decision to allow them to open three days in advance of Council approval. Mayor McCarty recommended addressing_ this type of issue, and setting up some type of policy in the future. Councilmember Doty stated he would like to be informed next time something like that happens. Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to approve the consent agenda, as presented, and waive the reading of the resolutions. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Ca.•'-d G Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened 6A. Public Hearing the first public hearing at 7:42 PM. 1984 Revenue Sharing Budget Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the Council would be conducting two public hearings, one for the revenue sharing budget and the other for the general and other funds budget for 1984. He added that Staff recommends no action be taken on either budget until both hearings have been held. Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the process that Staff and the Council had gone through in preparing the budget, and the number of hours and meetings that were involved. He added that once the Council takes action to adopt the budgets, Staff will pre- pare an article for the newspaper, outlining the budgets. Finance Director Brager made a presentation of the proposed 1984 revenue sharing budget. He also reviewed Director'Johnson's memo of September 26, re- garding left over funds from the 1983 budget for areas in the Public Works department, requesting that those funds be carried over to 1984. There were no comments from anyone present in the audience. Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing ar opened Mounds View City Council September 26, 1983 Regular Meeting ------Page Three --------------------------------------------------------------- the regular meeting at 7:59 PM. Mayor McCarty closed the regular meeting and opened tha second public hearing at 7:59 PM. Finance Director Brager made a presentation of the 1984 General and Other Funds budget. Bob Schmidt, 8118 Cdgewood Drive, asked if the State could possibly be collecting more revenue than anticipated, and if so, if that would increase the State's payment to the City. Finance Director Brager replied that the Governor has announced he will seek an increase in government aid to the Cities, and that it could amount to $9,200 for Mounds View, but that action would not be taken until March 1984 at the earliest. Mr. Schmidt questioned if the $38,000 recovered from the Metro Sewer Department from overbillings was still in the sewer fund. Finance Director Brager replied it was, and it will be used as a buffer for repairs. Clerk/Administrator Pauley pointed out that they still cannot guarantee the State's budget, and that many things are being done to balance the budget. An unidentified resident asked if the long term forecast the City prepares goes to the State. Finance Director Brager replied that it does not, as the City is not required to submit it. Pfeil Loeding, 5046 Long View Drive, questioned the increase in the levy for 1984 over 1983. Finance Director Brager clarified it for him. An unidentified resident stated he had heard many reasons why the budget should be increased, but stated that a 19 percent increase in taxes is not going to go over with the residents, and recommended the Council take another look at the budget. Bob Waste stated he had called the assessor earlier in the day and was told his store property would have an approximate 40 percent increase, plus the 20 percent from the City, and would have an approximate $32,000 increase in assessed value alone. Mayor McCarty stated he can understand what the mer- chants are facing, and that was why he had contacted some of them and asked them to attend the hearing for their input. 6B. Public Nearing 1984 Budget - General and Other Funds Mounds View City Council September 26, 198 Regular Meeting Page Your ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finance Director Brager explained that residential �) property assessments have decreased, and consequently, business property assessments have increased. 11e also explained the proposed 19 percent increase in the budget, Mayor McCarty stated he would recommend the Council go through the budget again, and consider using left over revenue sharing funds from 1983 to reduce the 1984 budget. There was considerable discussion among the Council of expenditure habits and how many more cuts could be made, as well as what level of service is desired from the residents, and what cuts they would like to see made. Councilmember Hankner reminded the Council that all five members had stated they were in agreement with the proposed budget at their last meeting last week, and no one had ;Iny problems with it then. She added that she has been over it with a fine tooth comb and does not know where any more money could be cut. She reviewed the amount of time spent on preparing the budget by both the Council and Staff, and again asked the residents what level of service they would like. n Mayor McCarty stated he had looked into the budget I further since the Council last met, and he feels the Council should take another look. Bob DCUC'el stated he would like firm figures to comment on. Mayor McCarty explained the public hearing process and that it was an opportunity for Mr. Beutel to comment. Mayor McCarty asked Mr. Beutel if he was recommending the Council adopt• the September 26th budget proposal. Mr. Beutel stated he could only place his trust in Staff and the Council that they had done the best job possible. tie stated he did not feel any further cuts could be safely made, and pointed out that the more that is cut from the budget, the more the City penalizes itself on State aid. Councilmember Hankner explained what had happened recently in the State Legislature, with the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis going after money from the suburbs, and explained the formula that is used. She also asked if the budget is cut, if another pub- lic hearing would be required. Attorney Meyers replied that he would recommend the Council continue the hea:` ng, and reminded them that October 10 is the (: :Line the State has set. Mounds View City Council September 26, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Five -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Councilmember Blanchard stated she thought the Coun- cil had come to a consensus last week that the budget was the best possible one they could come up with, and that she was very frustrated. She added that the Council must know where services could be cut before they go through the budget again. She also pointed out that the City is trying to build up a contingency fund for unforseen problems. Mr. Loeding stated that he was pleased to hear the frustrations voiced during the hearing, and that this was not just a rubber stamp on a canned budget. Councilmember Hankner pointed out to Mr. Loeding that this was not a rubber stamped budget, and that the Council had worked long and hard on it, and had 12 meetings, all of which were open to the public, at which they worked on the budget. Mr. Loeding stated that the large increase in the proposed budget is in capital equipment, not in public services. Mr. Beutel stated that there was excrutiating detail provided on the capital equipment and that the citizens at some time must give the Council their support in the decisions the Council has made. He added he would like a budget that would maintain the same level of services as provided in 1983. Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and reopened the regular meeting at 9:25 PM. Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to continue the consi- deration of the 1984 City budget until Monday, October 3 at 7 PM. 5 ayes 0 nays It was decided the Council would meet on September 29, after their meeting with the Planning Commission, to work on the budget further. Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to pass Resolution No. T6TT, levying a tax for delinquent utility charges over a one year period, and waive the reading of the resolution. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 7. Consideration Rslt. No. 1663 Motion Carried Mounds View City Council September 26; 1983 Regular Meeting Page Six -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to table Ordinance No. 8. 1st Readir-hpf an review at the next agenda session. O49inancc r 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Doty/Linke to have the second read- 9. 2nd Reading and ing an a option of Ordinance No. 347, amending Adoption of the municipal code of Mounds View by amending Ordinance No. Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions of Code" 347 and Chapter 202, entitled "Snowmobiles", and waive the reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Linke - aye Councilmember Hankner - aye Councilmember Blanchard - aye Councilmember Doty - aye Mayor McCarty - aye Motion Carried Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to accept the three 10, Consideration o: names from the Civil Service Commission as can- Certification didates for the Police Chief position. of Police Chief Finalists from 5 ayes 0 nays Civil Serp-f Commissim . 4W Motion Carried Motion/Second: Linke/Hankner to table the appoint- ment or the choice of Police Chief until the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Hankner explained that the Council had appointments to meet with the three finalists on September 27. Attorney Meyers advised that the three finalists should be notified of their c.:lection, and that once the names have been certified by the Council, they have a reasonable time to do so. Mayor McCarty questioned whether another 90 day 11. Consideration extension could be granted. Attorney Meyers of Staff Memo advised that it could. Regarding Acti Police Chief Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to reapoint Position T'im_oEFy__9m_L'tT as Acting Police Chief, for a period up to 90 days, or until the new Chief assumes the position, whichever comes first. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mounds View City Council September 26, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Seven -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the request from Acting Police Chief Smith for compensation for the period he has served as Acting Police Chief, retroactive to his appointment on April 1. Clerk/Administrator Pauley recommended compen- sation be paid at $150 per month. Motion/Second: McCarty/Linke to pay Acting Police Chief Smith compensation at the rate of $150 per month, retroactive to April 1, 1983. Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the reasons 12. Consideration why the 1979 Plymouth Volare was being deadlined. of Staff Memo Regarding Pur- Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to authorize chase Bids for Nam. R sell the 1979 Plymouth Volare to D & T Disposal of Auto for their high bid of $925, and to deposit 1979 Plymouth the receipts in the 1983 contingency account. Volare 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Director Johnson reviewed the status of the pro- 13. Consideration e ject on the modifications for potassium permanga- Partial Pay nate feed on treatment plants 2 and 3. He stated Request No. 1 they anticipate receiving the request for final for A & K Cnst. payment within 30 days. Inc. Motion/Second; Dotv/Hankner to make a partial payment to A & K Construction, Inc., in the amount of $12,984.60 for the water treatment plants 2 and 3 modifications, Project 1983-3. 5 ayes 0 nays Director Johnson reviewed his memo of September 26 to the Council, regarding the update of the City aerial photo and contour maps for the Silver View area. Motion/Second: McCarty/Doty to approve the contract with Mark Hurd Aerial Survey, Inc., to update the aerial photo map for the Silver View project area, in an amount not to exceed $1,700, with the funds to be taken from the SWM account. 5 ayes 0 nays Councilmember Blanchard stated she was not pleased with the memos being dropped on the Council at their official meetings, for them to take action on. She stated that money is being requested here and there and she would like more time to review the requests before taking action. Motion Carried 14. Report of Director of Public Works/ Community Dvlp. Motion Carried Mounds View City Council September 26; 1981 Regular Meeting Page Eight ------------------------------------------------------------------------=- Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied that he will advise Staff to discontinue this practice for other than emergency items. Director Johnson presented an update on the pave- ment evaluation work done two weeks ago, and showed the recommendations made by the consultant, which agreed very closely with Staff's recommen- dations. He stated the information received from the consultant would be furnished to the MnDOT office, Director Johnson advised that the seal coating work was to be completed earlier in the evening, by dusk. Director Johnson advised the Council of the emergency work that was done at 2516 Ridge Lake on September 25 to repair a water main failure. He stated he would be giving the Council a more detailed report. Director Johnson reminded the Council the Planning Commission will be meeting with them on September 29 at 7 PM. Attorney Meyers had no report. 15. Report of Attorney Councilmember Linke reported he had attended the 16. Reports of Ramsey County League meeting on September 21, Councilmembers where members of various watersheds spoke. Councilmember Hankner reported she had received a call concerning garage sale signs which are being left up, as well as nails being left in utility poles. Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied that the City of Blaine has an ordinance concerning that issue, and he would get a copy to review. Mayor McCarty recommended advising the Public Works employees in the Maintenance Department to pick up the signs that have been torn down, as they are making their rounds of the City, and dispose of them properly. Councilmember Hankner asked the status of the house on Edgewood and Hillview. Attorney Meyers replied a hearing is being set to get a court order to get it demolished. Clerk/Administrator Pauley also advised that since charges of arson have been filed on the building, the County may not allow demolition until after the case is tried. Mounds View City Council September 26, 1983 Regular Meeting Page Nine -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Councilmember Blanchard had no report. Councilmember Doty reported that the Park and Rec Commission is developing recommendations for guide- lines on park planning funds and matching funds. Councilmember Doty reported the Park and Rec. Commission had received a report from the Grove - land Park foundation, and they have raised approximately $6,600 over the past year and a half. He recommended that they receive some type of commendation. Mayor McCarty asked that Staff draw up a resolution of commendation for the Groveland Park group, and that an article be published in the next newsletter. Mayor McCarty reported he had received a letter of resignation from Sharon McCarthy Jones. Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to accept the resignation from Sharon McCarthy Jones, with regrets, from her position on the Planning Commission. 5 ayes 0 nays Clerk/Administrator Pauley presented copies of a memo he had received from the Met Council, concerning the review schedule for the Anoka County/Blaine Airport Master Plan. He stated he would put the issue of the Master Plan on the agenda for the next agenda session. Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to adjourn the meeting PM. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 17. Report of Clerk/Administ. for 18. Adjournment Motion Carried I, Duane McCarty, request a Special Council Meeting on r Monday, October 24, 1983, at 7:00 p.m., at the Mounds View City Hall. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the position of the City Engineer. DiTane W. McCarty Mayor