HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1986/04/21CITY OF MOUNDS VIVW
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SESSION
APRIL 21, 1986
7:00 P.M.
1. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regardinq Maintenance
Agreement On IBM Personal Computer
2. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding 1986
Legislative .Action
3. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding City Hall
Receptionist
4. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding New Peking
Restaurant On -Sale Wine and Non -Intoxicating Beer Liquor
License Application
5. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Fire
Protection Service Contract
6. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Fire
Department Contingency Fund
7. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Proposal to
Construct Mini Storage Facility by Rosewood Corporation
8. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Herbst and
Sons Demolition Companv Request for Rezoning and Major
Subdivision
9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Awarding of
the Bid fcr Outfield Fencing at City Hall
10. Consideration of .Staff Memorandum Regarding the Miring
of Part-time Summer Employees
11. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Liability
and Property Casualty Insurance Renewals
12. Discussion of Economic nevelopment Plan, Needs
Determination
Please notes Each Cnuncilmember is to bring a list of
five development related goals to be
achieved by an Economic Development
Program.
' 13. 1986 Goals and objectives, Mission Statement Development
with Department Heads.
UNAFI',
k�: LJ
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Av-� CITY
OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEy
COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
April 14, 1986
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds View City Council was called to orde,* by 1. Call to
Mayor Linke at 7:01 PM on April 14, 1986. Order
The Pledge of Allegiance was said. 2. Pledge of
Allegiance
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Hanknet, Blanchard, 3. Roll Call
Quick, Haake and Mayor Linke.
ALSO PRESENT: Attorney Meyers, Clerk/Administrator
Pauley and Public Works/Community Development
Director Thatcher.
ncilmember Hankner asked that the format of the 4. Approval of
nutes be changed to reflect under Councilmember's Minutes:
,,eports, whose report it is. March 24, 1986
Motion/Second: Hankner/Hawke to approve the March
24, 1986 minutes as corrected.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mayor Linke closed the regular meeting and opened 5A. Public Hearing:
the first public hearing at 7:05 PM. CUP for Self -
Service Car
Bruce Holton, representing the developer, made a Wash at 2135
presentation of the proposed self-service car wash Program Avenue
facility, showing drawings of the facility.
Director Thatcher reported the Planning Commission
has reviewed the plan and recommends approval. Fie
added this is not required to be reviewed by Rice
Creek Watershed District, and the storm water
retention for the site meets the City's requirements.
Director Thatcher reviewed the requirements listed
in the conditional use permit.
Mr. Holton clarified that the overhead doors will be
' high, which will allow room for pick-up trucks
A vans, but nothing larger.
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 7:12 PM.
Muuuds view City Council .� 1 -APage
14, 1986
Regular Meeting L Page Two
Mayor Linke closed the regular meeting and opened the
5D. Public Hear
next public hearing at 7:12 PM.
Transfer of
Sale Intoxic cot
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported that at tl,e April
Liquor License
7, 1986 agenda meeting the Council had received
for Loose Ends
numerous documerts relating to the request for transfer
on 10
of the intoxicating liquor license for Loose Ends on
10, and that all documents required by the City have
been provided, and the Police Department has found
no indication of any background problems of either
3f the applicants, Steve Hauck or David Arone
and everything appears to be in order.
Richard Povlitzki, 7762 Lakeview Lane, stated he is
the owner of the building and he was not notified
until recently the business was being sold, and he
has the right to approve or disapprove of any sale,
under the terms of his agreement with Mr. Loosen,
and while his attorney has advised him the building
is being leased, rather than sold, he would like
further time to look into it.
Mr.Ha,ick stated he and his partner are purchasinq
the business and leasing the building from Mr. Loosen.
Mayor Linke reminded everyoee the Council is dealing .
only with the liquor license transfer issue, and
they could recommend transfer of the license contingent
upon the final sale.
Attorney Meyers stated he does not know what Mr.
Povlitzki's interest ir, in the property, and the
issue before the Council is the application for the
transfer of the liquor license, and they should rule
on that only.
Mr. Povlitzki stated his attorney :s quebtioning the
terms of the lease agreement between the applicants
and Mr. Loosen, and he feels Lhe terms and fie for
leasing the building are exorbitant.
Councilmember Hankner asked if Staff has reviewed the
purchase agreement to determine if everything is in
order.
Attorney Meyers replied the City looks at the agreements
to insure that the parties involved have a legal interest
in the property, but the,,, do not question the terms or
amounts specified.
Mr. Loosen stated the transfer of the license is urgent
as they have people lined up to come in tomorrow to •
inventory the business, and they have loao commitments
which have to be met. He added that Mr. Povlitzki had
told him last Thursday that he nid no problem with
this. He explained the purchase agreement between he
Mounds view City Counci l .' _ —D April 14, 1986
Regular Meeting rage :brae
----------------------------------------- ---------------
�� nd Mr. Povlitzki stated that Mr. Povlitzki has the
:ight to approve the buyer during a sale, which was
a provision meant to protect Mr. Povlitzki from
someone coming in and running the building down
while he still had a considerable financial obliga-
tion open, but in the past three and a half years
since Mr. Loosen purchased this from Mr. Povlitzki,
he has reduced the debt significantly. He also
explained that he has filed a separate lawsuit
against Mr. Povlitzki, unrelated to this transfer,
and Mr. Povlitzki has stated he is willing to allow
the business to be sold only if Mr. Loosen will
drop the lawsuit.
Attorney Meyers advised that Mr. loosen could allow
the applicants to move in but he would still be
liable. Ile added the only issue before the Council
is whether this is a valid transfer, and they must
stick with that issue.
Mr. Povlitski stated the City is going to becone
involved in the lawsuit Mr. Loosen had. referred to,
as it involves parking and what the requirements are.
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing, and reopened
he regular meeting at 7:27 PM.
Motion/Second: Linke/Quick to approve the transfer
of the on -sale intoxicating liquor license for
Loose Ends on 10, 2375 Highway 10.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Attorney Meyers stated the lease between the applicants
and Mr. Loosen is valid as far as he is concerned,
until he is told differently by a court of law.
Park Director Anderson introduced Crank Qum of 6. Residents
Honeywell, who made a donation, on behalf. of Honeywell, Requests and
for the Neighborhood Park Planning Fund. comments from
the Floor
Park Director Anderson thanked Mr. Quam and Honeywell
for the continued sponsorship of this program, whicli
have gone to the creative play area at Croveland Park.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley read proposed Resolution
No. 2001.
Motion/Second: Quick/Hankner to approve Resolution
`io. 2 0 , commending Honeywell, Inc. for their civic
evolvement.
5 ayet 0 nays Motion Carried
Mounds view City Council J1 �1 April 14, 1986
Regular ;.;e r;nn NI �/ 11 1 : t%.: EDPage Four
e--..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Linke presented the reboluticn to Mr. Quam.
Alice Frits, 8072 Long Lake Road, informed the Council
of the death of Joe Schutta, brother of Carb McCarty;
and what the funeral arrangements were.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley requested that Item E
be removed fru,n the consent agenda, as it appears
later on the regular agenda.
Motion/Second: Quick/Hankner to approve the consent
agenda, minus Item E, and waive the reading of the
resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays
7. Approval of
Consent Agenda
Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauiey reviewed the request of B. Consideration
the Association for Alzheimer's and Related Disorders, of Staff Memo
for a charitable gambling license. He stated it is Regarding
Staff's recommendation that the request be denieu as Charitable
haritableicense
they do not comply with the City's guidelines. Application
There was no one present to represent the organization.
Motion/Second: Haake/Blanchard to adopt Resolution
No. 1995, denying a charitable gambling license to the
Association for Alzheimer's and Related Disorders, and
waive the reading.
Motion Carried
5 ayes U nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the proposed 9. Consideration
plans and fee schedule. of Staff Memo
Regarding 1986
Bill Frits, 8072 Long Lake Road asked who would be Spring Clean -Up
separating the recyclable and non -recyclable items,
and expressed concern that it would be such a lengthy
process that traffic would get backed up.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained that the workers
from Beerman Services will sort through load and take
out what is recyclable and then send the vehicle on
to the next stop. He added they will have an article
in the newsletter, asking people to sort their things
before they come.
Motion/Second: Haake/Hankner to approve betting
May 10, 1986 as Spring Clean -Up Day, with the fee
schedule as noted in the March 18, 1986 memo from
the Clerk/Administrator.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Mounds View city Council' '
Regular MceLiny
----------------------------------
�Y�April 14, 1986
J Page Five
--------------------- --
Councilmember Quick stated that he has noticed the
maintenance garage dumpster is usually full.
Director Thatcher explained that the Public works
employees pick up garbage as they go around during
the day. He stated also, that people often fill it
with their own garbage over the weekend, or during
the night.
Director Thatcher reviewed Staff's recommendation
regarding the hiring of a full-time, temporary
engineering aide for the M.S.A. street project.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to approve hiring
Carl Pung for the full-time temporary engineering
aide, at $6.00 per hour, effective Monday, April 21,
1986, with the funds to come from the 1386 M.S.A.
street project.
5 ayes 0 nays
10, Considerati.on
of Staff Memo
Regarding Hiring
of Engineering
Aide
Motion Carried
rinance Director Bragpr reviewed his memo of April 11. Consideration
9, 1986 to the Council, regarding the Greenfield of Statf Memo
Park grant, and the transfer of funds and closing Regarding
the account. He explained the auditors have requested Greenfield Park
the transaction be backdated to December 1985. Grant
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to adopt Resolution No.
1998, authorizing the transfer of funas to the
Greenfield Park Grant Fund for the City's share
of the grant and the closing of the fund upon
completion of the project plans, ana waive the
reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed his memo of
April 10, 1986 to the Council, regarding the
police computer software contract.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Hankner to authorize
the Mayor to enter into an agreement to purchase
a Police Records Management Module Software
Package from MaSys Corporatinn, totaling $21,600,
and to enter into a software licensing and
installation agreement dated April 8, 1986.
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
12. Consideration
of Staff Memo
Regarding Police
Computer Softwar
Motion Carried
Mounds View City Council j't}r, - April 14, 1986
Regular Meeting V v ll LJPa a Six
------------------------------------------ � --- -----------------
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to approve 13. Considerati�
Resolution No. 1999, regarding the Mounds View of Resoluti.
Planning Case No. 185-86, Bruce Holton, Self- No. 1999
Service Car wash at 2135 Program Avenue, and
waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to approve 14. Approval of
Development Agreement 86-73, for the Self -Service Development
Car Wash at 2135 Program Avenue. Aareement No
-
5 ayes 0 nays 86-73
Motion Carried
Director Thatcher reviewed proposed Ordinance 15. Second Reading
No. 406. and Adoption of
Motion/Second: Haake/Quick to approve the second Ord. No. 406
reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 406, and waive
the reading.
Councilmember Hankner - aye
Councilmember Blanchard - aye '
Councilmember Quick - aye
Councilmember Haake - aye
Mayor Linke - aye Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Haake/Quick to approve Resolution
No. 2000, as amending, regarding approval of the
MTC Park and Ride Facility, and waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays :lotion Carried
Director Thatcher had no report. 16. Report of Public
Works/Community
Dvlpt. Director
Attorney Meyers had no report. 17. Report of
Attorney
Councilmember Hankner reported a Council to Council 18. Reports of
exchange meeting has been called for Thursday, Councilmembers:
April 17 at 6:00 PM at the Mounds View City Hall, Councilmember
for Mounds View, Lexington, Circle Pines, Shoreview, Hankner
New Brighton and Blaine, to visit about the airport
issue, and give the other Councils a briefing about
where things stand presently.
Mounds View City Cuunc;i, • April 14, 1986
Regular Meeting
Paae Seven
Councilmember Blanchard had no report. Councilmember
Blanchard
Motion/Second: Quick/Hankner to authorize a budget Councilmember
of $500 from the Council account for the second Quick
annual City Council and Staff picnic, and to set
up a committee to include representation from all
departments, including the Council, to organize
this event.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
It was agreed that Councilmembers Quick and Hankner
would be co-chairmen of the event.
Councilmember Haaake had no report. Councilmember
Haa;,e
Mayor Linke reported he had received an invitation Mayor Linke
from the Ramsey County Friends of the Library for
their annual spring meeting on April 26, and asked
Staff to find someone to attend, as he would be
out of town on that date.
Mayor Linke reported he will be attending the library
' board meeting on April 22. He also reported that
Ramsey County is holding an upen house reception
on April 22, from 4-6 FM, for the new directors.
Councilmember Hankner agreed to represent the City
at that event.
Mayor Linke reminded everyone that the appreciation
dinner is Saturday, April 19.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the City has
20. Report of
Clerk/Administ
received the EIS for the Anoka County/Blaine
for
Airport, and he will be monitoring the check-out
of the report, as it is the only copy the City has,
and due to it's length, it will take quite a while
to get through. He noted that there is a copy
available at the Blaine branch of the Anoka County
library.
Councilmember Haake reported she had also received
a copy of the report, and she would bring it to
City Hall.
Motion/Second: Haake/Hankner to schedule the May
2, 1986 meeting to begin at 6:00 PM, so that the
Council can adjourn. in time to be at the Spring
,ake Park High School auditorium for the 7:30 PM
.searing on the airport.
Motion Carried
5 ayes 0 nays
Mounds View City Council U Nil �s April 1986
Regular Meeting Page Eigght
---------------------------------------- --
Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 8:18 PM.
21. Adjournment
Respectfully subcitted,
Donald F. Pauley,
Clerk/Administrator
11
4
fMEMO TO: Mayor 6 City Council
FROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Brager
DATE: April 3, 1986,
RE: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ON IBM PERSON41, COMPUTER
The maintenance agreement on the IBM Personal Computer that the
City has with AmeriData Systems, Inc' is up for renewal on May 9,
1986. The contract has been renewed at a rate of $648 per year.
That compares to a rate of $766per year
rthe mwhich was paid last
year. Staff recommends approval
nt
with AmeriData Systems in the amount Of $648.
DB/ds
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK -ADM INTSTRATO�
DATE: APRIL 9, 1986
SUBJECT: 1986 LEGISLATIVE ACTION
As has been my past practice, it is my intention to provide
the City Council with a summary of those significant actions
taken by the 1986 Legislature having impact upon the City of
Mounds View. At the present time, I do not have all the
details available to me regardinq the Legislation adopted
during this Session, however, as I am sure you are all
dwate, one action has not been taken by the Legislature and
tnat is to cut local government aids.
As you may recall, the Council adopted a Contingency Plan,
copy attached, at the beginning of this year to prepare the
City for anticipated reductions in 1996 State Aids. Since
those reductions will not be reality it would be my
recommendation that the Council allow for the implementation
of those items which are reasonable and necessary and
require additional sibstantiation from the affected
Department Head for any other items.
It would be my suggestion that the Council authorize the
following items to be implemented immediately or as soon as
feasible.
110 COMMISSIONS
4020, Salaries, Part-time
$
840
4303, Professional Services
S
4,000
200 POLICE DEPARTMENT
4303, Professional Services
S
1,500
4702, Buildings and Structures
$
2,2,10
4703, Equipment
$
12,000
270 STREETS
4705, Construction
$
20,000
360 PARKS
4703, Equipment $ 1,500
4705, Construction S 51000
140 ELECTIONS
4703, Equipment s 9,000
120 ADMINISTRATION
4910, Contingency $ 4,000
Should Council concur with this Staff recommendation, the
reinstatement of these items would occur immediately and
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 9, 1986
PAGF. TWO
Department Heads would be advised that any other items
contained in the contingency which were not reinstated will
require additional justification prior to their approval for
expenditure by the City Council.
As a final comment with respect to the local government aids
issue, the 1986 Legislature approved an appropriation for
1987 which provides an increase in the overall appropriation
of 41 and would provide to most metropolitan area suburbs,
including the City of Mounds View, a maximum allowed
increase of 5.8%. It should be pointed out, however, that
all of this increase will he contingent upon the State's
economic situation staying the same or improving and should
the State's revenue picture reduce beyond that which is
already projected, the increase in local government aids for
1987 will be a likely target for immediate elimination.
DFP/mjs
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
i
FROM: CLERK-AUMIN[ti7RATGk
ty
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1966 �J
SUBJECT: CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR REDUCTION OF 1986 STATE
AIDS
Attached to this memorandum please find a copy of a
memorandum from Finance Director Brager dated January 30,
budget
1986 outlining the details of the Governor's proposal
designed to respond to the expected revenue shortfall for
the state and an analysis of the Governor's proposals as it
reletes to the contingency plan approved by the Council in
December of 1985.
Mr. Brager's memorandum indicatub that based upon an Action
Alert from the r.eaque of Minnesota Cities the City can
the Governor's proposal
expect total reductions pursuant to
the further
in the amount of $63,172. Mr. Brager makes
made by
Point that pursuantto news reports and statements
it is that the Legislature
legislative leaders, unlikely
the Governor's proposal to reduce school aids
will approve
and more than likely make larger reductions in the state
budget and local government aids in order to avoid any
the
reductions in school aids. Such a decision could bring
level nearly
total impact of reductions to the City to a
the
equal with the 5115,302 level currently contained in
City's contingency plan.
Bas3d on those preliminary findings, I have advised
department heads that a freeze has been placed on all
purchases curently contained within the City's contingency
plan. I would ask Council's concurrence with this order and
approval of a request that I be authorized to approve
modifications to the contingency plan by individual
it the is
departments where an item currently contained plan
department's
replaced by an item contained within that
budget only which is equal in value. This would allow
department heads to reevaluate their budgets on an on -going
basis during the period of time that a decision is being
in local
made by the Legislature with regard to redactions
City's
government aids thus avoiding a stagnation of the
efforts to provide the level of services expected by our
residents as well os undertaking actions to improve our
operations to the ,iverall benefit of the community.
RECOMMENDATION: staff would recommend that Council approve
the direction of the Clerk-Adci;;istrator to department heads
that a freeze is placed on all items currently contained
from
within the contingency plan outlined in the memorandums
26, 1985 and
Finance Director Brager dated November
to
January 30, 1986 and authorize the Clerk -Administrator
approve modifications to the plan whereby a department
1986
substitutes an itein currently contained within their
budget for an item of equal value contained within the
contingency plan.
DFP/mjs
Attachments
A-
MI:Mo TO: Clerk- ldminl,trator Pauley
FROM: Finan, Director -Treasurer Braflur�!/�
DATE: .lane.., i 30, 1486
RE: GOVEHfnIR'3 I1110GET PROPOSAL AND THE rlI'r'S CUN•1'1NGENC'
PLAN I IR RF:nuCTION Or 1986 STATE AIDS
An Action Alert 1. .,,1 thu Leaque of Mlnnvsola fill,••. ,lal ^I .Lu nlai
23, 1986 indicates that the Governor's proposal for dealing with
a predicted State reve^uo shortfall of $720,U00,00I) in part call
for a reduction nt 1986 Local Government Aid of apprn,xuma nrly
8.01 percent and reduction of 8.7? percent in the Homestead
Credit. The City' certified 1986 Local Government Aid is
$545,956. An 8.01 percent redurrion would amount r.l $44,222.
The amount of 11,unn .lead Credit Ihar .1 city will 1...�Iv' i•.
difficult to estim Its. When preparing General Fun! Hvv.rnuv
estimates I know Ihat th,e General Fund property tax levy will
equal Iho mit .11 \1010, rnrr.•nl Ad V.Ilorr•w I ,I,••. I.I'V:
Account 3315, Home .teed credit. The Ramsey County iA po, tnare,I ,11
Property Taxation calculates the Homestead Credit for eligihle
properties within rile City of Mounds View in January after the
property tax levy has boon certlFied to the runty I,w
collector. I recently called the Ramsey County Unparlment of
Property Taxation .Ind loarned that the General Fun,!'s portion of
-he Homestead Credit will be $215,813 versus the $2(j6,935 which
was originally ow1'leted. This mean; tnat the Homestead Credit
was overestimated .Ind the Current Ad 'Valorem Taxes account was
underestimated by the amount that the Homestead Credit was over-
estimated. Rememl•r that the sum of the two accounts equals the
total 1986 General Fund's share of the property tax levy. Thus,
a reduction of thc Homestead Credit by 8.78 percent oquals
$18,950. The total reduction of State Aids pursuant to Chu
Governor's budget ,)roposal is:
Local Government Aids $44,222
Homestead Credit Aide 18,950
Total Reductions Per Governor's
Bud,let Proposali72
The Contingency Plan for possible reductions of 1986 State Aids
adopted by the Council and outlined in my rlovember 26, 1985
memorandum provided for the use of 530,000 of Revenue Sharing
allotments to offs. -It reductions of State Aids. Bae:vd upon
a Revenue Sharing Recipient Accr,unt Statement received January
29, 1985 and takin•I into account a possible redurrlon of Revenue
Sharing because of Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction loll!slation, a
outlined in a Lea-lue of Minnesota Action Alert dat,+d January 10,
1986, 1 estimate that the amount. of Revenue Sharing Funds the
City will receive during 1986 will amount to $30,145. This
amount is $8,165 ireator than the $30,000 anticipat-ld at the tim•
the Contingency plan wa•• prepari•d. Accnrdim,ly, total resources
availahle for fun:• ,I,le Ite Ai : redtirti-ml'. ,re 111-w ':'I 1, If)? or
January 30, 1986
Page 2
$8,165 more than v,s ,nticipatoil. The renttngenry Plan contain,•
a 'Contingency" s;.ould Revenue Sharing Funds not 1w rvcuived.
One of those item was the purchase of only one of two squad cal
budgeted fr,r 1986. At the January 27, 1986 Council Meeting the
purchase of twit s'P"')d ''.u's was iuthorized. 'thus gIH, 011U of that
$30,000 re mains ay.lilablo to offset possible State Ail
reductions. i pr,00se that the foilowing items in, added to the
rity'q rontingrnrr Plon ,ntil surh time as the [,e,;islature has
finalized the am"'.'it of or Aid ruduction::
Priorit
item
100-140-47U.i glee.' i:,ns, Equipment $9,UU11 u
-eliminate purchase of ballot
countino equipment
100-120-490t Administration, contingency S4,UuU F
-reduce ;peraiions contingency
I00-360-4705 narks, Constn,otion
S S,nnll F
-eliminate construction of outfiotd
fences .it City Hall Park
Addtwl Lnc o�—v.:«�" t. the ri-y'_ Contingency plan makes
$115,302 availabl' for possible State Aid reductions.
Should the Goverm,r's budget proposal and oorresponding
reductions be implemented approximately $63,172 of hudget
reductions would he necessary. The following items as outlined
in the contingency Plan would have to be implemented:
use of all R-venue sharing Funds ;iH,16522,117
All A Priority reductions
The followiml B Priority reductions: 840
P G R Commissions recording secretary 4`0
Graphics cird for IBM Personal ComputO 1'000
Cable TV ,,quipment cabinet 570
New carpeting for Police Dcpartment 2,86U
Total B Priority reductions f63,172
Total reductions
A balance of $52,130 remains avAilable in the event of further
reductions in Loa,l Government Aids and/or HcmosteAd Credits
payable to the City in 1486.
At this time infntnation provided by the news media indicates
that many legislators art opposed to the Governor's proposal to
reduce Schrinl Ail; to snlve the State's revenue. shortfall.
Should 1986 Scllonl Aids not be redured it iS most likely that th-
shortfall will be resolved by further reducing thy• amnunt of Aid,.
to Cities.
January 30, 1986
Page 3
At this point 1 am cautiously optimistic chat the Contingency
Plan which has boon adopted will enable the City to "weather the
storm" of the Stato's revenue shortfall.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact
MO.
DB/ds
Attachment: Novemhor 26, 1985 Nemorandun from Finance Director t,,
mayor and Council
41
MEMO TO:
MAYI)R MU) CITY CUUNC4L
FROM:
FINANCE OIREC'fOR-TREASURER BRAGER
DAIK:
NOVEMB):r. 26, 1985
SUBJECT:
CONTINCENCY PI,AN FOR POSSIHLF.
RE000TION OF 19H6
STATE A I DS '
Recent forecast:: by the Minnesota Department of F'in.ance
indicate a very sliong Iikiihood that the state of Minnesota
will experience a I,udyet deficit for the biennium ending
June 30, 1987 as a result of projected revenue shortfalls.
The deficit has be,•n estimated to be between S160 mall inn -
$915. Already Stay! Officials and Legislators havo begun to
talk about cuts in the state's budget to make up these
projected deficits. Cuts in aids to local gnvermaents has
always come up in ..very discussions. Therefore, th,•re is a
very strong liklihood that our state aids will be cut. On
November 8, 1985 f attended a fcrum on Local Government
Revenue Stress which discussed the State's revenue problems
and the effect they could have on local government. Nallie
Johnson, Deputy Commissioner of Finance; Tom Tripirtt,
Commissioner of Revenue; and Bill Schreiber, Chairman of the .
House Tax Commltte�-, were presenters on the State side and
Dr. Paul Hasbargen of the University of Minnesota spoke en
the agricultural ourlook. As a result of attending that -
Forum I believe th.it the City could experience a 10-15
percent reduction „f local government aids, or
$521000-$89,000.
Recalling the "trd... na" that accompanied a reduction in state
aids in 1981-1982 1 recommended to the Clerk -Administrator
and Depailma,it Haa•:-, tt:at the City take a proactive versus a
reactive position regarding possible reductions in local
government aids. I proposed and they agreed that a
contingency plan notliniiiy possible budget cuts be Prepared
now to be used in the event of reductions of local
government aids.
The Clerk -Administrator and Department Heads met nn
November 19 and 26 and developed d contingency plan. The
plan addresses wha, we presently believe to be the "worst
case scenario'; a 15% (S89,000) reduction in local govern-
ment aids. We hope that the "worst case scenario" will not
be realized. 'therefore, ,he plan is divided into three
levels of budget cuts: A, B, C. Cuts labelled 'A" would be
made first; if necessary cuts labelled "e" would be next,
and cuts labelled "C" would be mane last. A description of
and the raticidle for the cuts proposed follows.
MAYOR ANU CITY Cotn',CIL
NOVEMRER 26, ;985
PAGE TWO
CONTINGENCY PLAN 1,j 004 18LE REUOCTION of 1986 SPA-V AIDS
Account Amount Lovell
110 Ccmmisstons
4020 Salaries, Pall-ttmr• S 840 B
- Elimination uL the Park:; and Recreation Commission's
recording secretary. This is a new position. The Parks
and Recreation Director would continue to take miqutrs as
he has done in t!ie past.
4362 Conferences S 250 A
4363 Training $ 25U A
- Reductions of SUX of tho amounts originally budgeted.
These accounts have had budget surpluses in the past.
4303 Professinnal Servlres 54,000 C
- F.lmtnation of thv Comprehensive Plan Update. Thi• rnuld
be delayed until 1987.
I'
120 Administration
4011 overtime, Reqular 51,263 A
4030 Pensions S 144 A
- Elimination of overttwo for Administrator's sec notary.
Recent legislation (November 1;, 19S51 regarding the
Fair Labor Standard's Act (FLSA) allows compensatory
time off in lieu of overtime.
4110 Books and Periodicals S 200 A
- Elimination of miscellaneous books from this account.
4303 Professional :services $3,000 C
- Reduction in amounts budgeted for legal assistance for
grievances or arnitraLlon and/or micrographics.
4910 Contingency $2,439 A
1° - Elimination of contingency for commissions' expenses
created by City council.
i
150 Finance 5 450 F!
1 Equipment
- Elimination of pqrchase of graphics card for IBM personal
computer. 4011 Overtime, Regular S 503 A
MA YUN AND CI l'Y i lit, 11.
NOVEMBER 26, 19d5
PAGE THREE
4030 Pensions $ 57 A
- Elimination or ni, rtim•• for Accounting clerk. kr..•-it
legislation (November 11, 1985) reyaidlny till. F..i, 1..ib•.r
Standard's Act (tI.SA) allows compensatory time utl In lieu
of overtime.
19U City Hall
4343 Printing $1,000 A
- Reduction as a'r•,•.ult of savings realized from r•,.•nt
award of cdnLrdel for printing of 1986 City newnl.•ilers'.
4703 Equipment 511000 8
- Elimination or ('-file -I'v equipment cabinet. This .•nuld
be deferred until 1987.
200 Police De artm.•nt
430 Pro essinnal rvir.•; S1,5(10 C
- Psychological tc^.tiny ut Police Ofticers could I„ Avi,rred
until 1987.
4702 buildings drill stru••Iures $2,200 H
- New carpeting to, police department could be de h•rred
until 1987,
210 Fire Departmeni
4390 Subsidies $9,101 A
- Reduction as a r.•sult. of savinys realized from n, pit iaLion
of new cost allocation formula for fire department
contract.
260 Community th vein ment/Public works
4011 Overtime, Regular $1, 161 A
4030 Pensions $ 189 A
- Elimination of overtime for Secretary and Engineering
Technician. Ruce:it ley,slation (November 13, i9tl51
regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows
compensatory time- off in lieu of overtime.
270 Streets
4705 Construction S3,000 A
- Elimination of the Laport Drive walkway. At the present
Lime the development pioposal which would have
necessitated the walkway has been withdrawn,
4705 Construction $10,000 H
- Reduction 01 the 1980 street Maintenance Program.
0
Sj
MAYUR ANI) CITY C/Rtrd'IL
NOVEMHFR 26, 11)R5
PAGE FUUR
4701, Con4trtiot nrn SIH, ()1)0
- Reduction „I III, 14Hn :.treot M.. nt,•adn,,• I•I„yr...,,,
350 Recreation
4010 Salaries, Re,,
4030 Pensions
4050 Workers C,mip.
P & R DirerL,,r
wilt not be unpl
4390 tiunsidles
- Consolidatio:l of
$500 of the cost
Community Cente,.
.IdI 5 1,1101) A
141) A
$ 350 A
vI-%•; IhAt the Aquatict D:rect,„ I,:,sitirft,
nent,•,i until April, IYUb.
i S00 N
proysains on the same pays could '.,vv
of thu building coordinator at F.dgewood
4343 Printing $ 11000 A
- Reduction as a r•sult of savings realized from n•,.rnt
award of coal ra, , for printing of i986 City new'cl,•I t.,rs.
4703 Equipment S I,500 H
- Elimination of equipment lur Ed,lewond
Center Pool.
360 Parks
4703 equipment
- Elimination of Iwo dri:,king f011.ItAinS At two City parts.
Total Expenditure ,,eductions
S Sq, 1 37
Revenue Enhancemen,: kevonue Sharing S30,Uuu A+
- Staff proposes 14at Revenue Shariig monies be us ...
to offset costs „f the Fire Department Contract. Hy
doing this an ad.titinn,,l $30,000 would h,• freed .,ol
would be availal,le for other purpusos avid wni ld i,e/s
help to offset a loss of state aide. At this tun.• an
apprepriations Lill to continue the Revenue Sht,i:iy
Proyram in a Nou.u-Sen.,te conference committer.
Total Resource Available for Possible State
Aid Reductions S89.117
Should the City n,,t reroive any Revenue Sharing 1-, !946 and
should the "worst ase ;,enario" regardiny state it is
prevail Staff prop„ses the following anditionil exln•ndituru
reductions:
140 Elections
470 EEquipment S 9,u00 A
- Elimination of t, pu,,'IlasS of Uallnt enu•,ti )y ,•p,ipment.
MAYOR AND CITY C01,.011.
NOVEMREN 26, PINS
PACE YIVt:
I/II AdNrinini,al r,m
/YIU Cimvanyenry
s 4,u0u It
- Reduction of th,• .,per.Ii
ions contingency.
1611 Parks
4705 Construction
- eliminate constn,otion
of softball field outfield tulces
at City Nall Pall..
200 Police
670 EqE pment
8 12,000 n
. - Purchase only on, of two squad cars Dudyeted for 1986.
Staff proposes the ibove
Itecome the City's C,ntiny.•ncy Plan
for Possible Redue, ion of
1986 State Aids and that rounviI
adopt it by motion. Stdlt
will Ix present At tho :wxI
Agenda Session to •,Igcu.s,
this plan with you .ind •r,•.ww- Any
questions you may have.
Db/m j s
0
0
\Pl: -2
,,on, MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: APRIL 16, 1986 4P
SUBJECT: CITY HALL RECEPTIONIST
Now that we are aware that the State Legislature does not
intend on reducing state aids in 1986 in orde- to make up
for the State's budgetary 0ortfall, Staff requests Council
authorization to advertise for and interview applicants for
the full-time receptionist position which is included in the
1986 budget to begin on June 1, 1986.
Staff would be proposing the following schedule for the
advertising and interviewing process.
April 24 - New Brighton Bulletin Ad
April 27 - Mpls. Star and Tribune and St. Paul
Dispatch and Pioneer Press Ad
May 2 - Close Applications
May 5-14 - Interview Applicants
May 19 - Recommend Applicant to City Council
May 27 - City Council Authorize Hiring of Successful
Applicant
June 2 or
June 9 - Start of Employment
Staff would recommend advertising a wage of $6.00 to $6.25
per hour which is within the budget provided for this
position. During the interview process we would indicate to
applicants chat a $.25 per hour increase would occur after 3
months of successful performance and the 6 month review
would be reflected in tl:e 1987 wage adjustments.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would request Council authorization
to advertise and interview for a full-time City Hall
Receptionist.
DPP; m 1 s
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
�F
FROM: CLERK-AUMiN1S'1'RATV
DATE: APRIL 16, 1986
SUBJECT: NEW PEKING RESTAURANT ON -SALE WINE AND NON-
IN'fOXICATING BEER LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
The City of Hounds View has received an application from
Mr. Louis Yak Leung Lau, owner of the New Peking Restaurant
in Mounds View Square for an On -Sale Wine and Non -Intoxi-
cating Beer Liquor License. Attached for your information
is a copy of Mr. Lau's application, surety bond, insurance
binder and Certificate of Naturalization. Staff is
currently conducting ar, investigation pursuant to City Code
and will be submitting a report for your consideration prior
to the public hearing which we would recommend be scheduled
for 7:10 p.m, on May 27, 1986.
Mr. Lau has been advised that this issue will be presented
to the City Council at their April 21, 1986 Agenda Session
and his presence has been requested in order to respond to
any questions you might have at that time. Should you
require any additional information from Staff, please do not
hesitate to contact. me.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend Council schedule a
public hearing for consideration of the liquor license
application for 7:10 p.m. on May 27, 1986.
DFP/mjs
�t'L•1s�
MEMU '10: MAYOR AND CITY COUN d
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISIRATO 1
1 DATE: APRIL 16, 1986
SUBJECT: FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE CONTRACT
As you know over the last several months the Administrative
Officers of the three cities have been neqotiatinq with the
Fire Department a new contract for fire protection ser^ices
to cover the period of 1986 through 1990. Upon the Fire
Department's being able to successfully obtain insurance
through the Leaque of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust,
which provires that each of the three cities be a named
insured our last hurdle relating to indemnification was
crossed and a contract was agreed to by the four parties.
This contract has been approved by the Fire Department's
Board of Directors and as you will note in the copy attached
with this memorandum signed by them. The three City
Councils are currently considerinq this contract and Staff
would recommend your approval of it.
For your information the f,lluwing changes are reflected in
this contract.
1. A reference in Article 1.3 has been added to refer
to the Fire Department's aqreeement with the Metro-
politan Airports Commission.
2. Article 2 has heen added to the contract to )utiine
the organization of the Fire Department and their
methods of operat'.on.
3. Article 3 has been added to the contract to addresF
the training standards to be met by the Fire
Department.
4. Article 4 has been revised to provide a new formula
for determining costs to be charged to the three
cities for their portion of the Fire Department's
services. This formula provides that each city's
cost will be determined by the average number of
fire calls during the past three years and the
city's current assessed valuation.
In the case of the City of Mounds View, this new
formula resulted in a $6,000 reduction in the city's
costs for fire protection services in 1986.
5. Article 5.2 has been added relatinq to the
preparation of a separate capital expenditure budget
by the Fire Department.
6. Article 5.4(c) now provides for City approval of the
hiring of permanent part-time and full-time
employees.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
!'AI; Y. TWO
APRIL 16, 1986
7. Article 5.4(e) provides that the Department's
Contingency Fund may be used only for expenses
exceeding $1,000 and which are not included in the
annt,al operating or capital expenditure budgets.
8. Article 5.5 has been revised to clarify the voting
arrangement.
9. Article 5.6(b) has been added at the request of the
Department to address the possible inability to
recruit volunteers.
10. Article 7.2 has been added which outlines require-
ments for the level of insurance coverage to be
carried by the Department and a notice of
cancellation.
The Administrative utticers of the three cities are
extremely satisfied with this contract and consider it to be
the best possible contractual arrangement between the cities
and the Fire Department. Therefore, Staff would recommend
Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk -Administrator to enter
into this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend Council authorize the
Mayor and Clerk -Administrator t.; enter intc the contract for
fire protection services between the City of Mounds View and
the Spring Lake Park Fire Department, Inc.
DFP/mjs
Attachment:
4
CUN'IkA(I lU F(IHNISII FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
TfiIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day
of , 1986, by and between the City of
Mounds View (hereinafter) referred to as the "City"), and
the Spring Lake Park Fire Department, Inc., a Minnesota non-
profit corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Fire Depart-
ment").
W I T N E S S E T 11 :
JIHEREAS, the Fire Department is located in the Cities of
Spring Lake Park and Blaine, Minnesota, and maintains a
fully equipped volunteer fire department which includes
necessary personnel, trucks, and fire fiahtinq equipment;
and
WHEREAS, said fire protection is believed to be in the
best interest, of the peo(le reitidino in the City of Mounds
View; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department needs and requires payment
to cover its estimated cost of operation, depreciation, and
damages to its equipment resultir.Q from fire fighting and
fire protection in said City of Mounds View.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the representations,
warranties and agreements herein contained, and the consi-
derations hereinafter set forth, the pecL.es hcreto agree as
follows:
ARTICLE 1
saviccs PROVIDED
:.l) Fire Department agrees to answer All rails for
fire protection by sending out fire fightinq equipment and
personnel as soon as practical to such areas designated and
requested by the residents Of the City.
1.2) All portions of the City of Mounds View shall be
designated on a map and attached or on file at the city
office. A copy shall be supplied to Fire Department.
1.3) Fire Department agrees to furnish the fire service
protection, equipment, and personnel and such other services
as requested by the residents of the City to the said
designated areas in the City, for the consideration set
forth below, and agrees that its firemen will make every
reasonable effort to attend all fires in said designated
'
areas when notified of such fires, provided, however, in
the event the fire fighting equipment or some part thereof
with attending personrel is engaged in fighting fires or in
response to emergency calls within the cities of Spring Lake
Park, Blaine and Mounds View or pursuant to the Fire
Department's agreement with the Metropolitan Airports
Commission or mutual aid agreements with other communities,
said fire department will respond to the call as soon as
practical and the judgement of the Fire Chief, Officer -In -
In -Charge of. the Fire Department shall be final; provided,
further that road and weather conditions are such that the
fire run can be made wish reasonable safety to the men and
equipment of said fire department.
- 2 -
1.4) The Fire Department further agrees that it will
cooperate with any other fire department that the City contracts
with for mutual fire protection.
AR'11CLE 2
DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION
(2.1) Ire Fire Department agrees to remain at all times a
non-profit corporation under Minnesota staLutes 317.17. It
shall be operated exclusively to combat fires, prevent fires and
perform other public assistance such as rescue work, emergency
medicals, natural or man-made disasters, or assistance to
police.
2.2) The entire method of operation shall be determined by
the Fire Department, including but not limited to (i) apparatus
response appropriate to each type of incident or condition; (ii)
emergency or routine response; (iii) manni,ig strength per
station; (iv) relocation of apparatus; (v) fire dispatching
procedures and protocols; (vi) mutual aid agreements entered
into; (vii) membership in various fire -related associations;
(viii) firefighter training procedures; and (ix) all other
activities usually associated with a fire department.
ARTICLE 3
TRAINING
The Fire Department aiiaii at all times be in compliance with
such equipment, personnel and training standards as may be
required by the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Federal
Government.
- 3 -
ARTICLE 4
PAYMENT 10
4.1) Payment for the services proviued by Fire Depart-
ment shall be as follow;:
(a) The annual cost for fire protection to the City
shall be determined using the following formula.
A.C. - (F.C. + A.V.) x (O.C. - O.R.)
(2)
A.C. - Annual Cost
F.C. - The percentage that the total number of Fire
Calls Lu Lhe City for the previous three years
bears to the total number of Fire Calls to the
Cities of Spring Lake Park. Blaine and Mounds
View for the same period.
A.V. - The percentage that the Assessed Valuation of the
City bears to the total Assessed Valuation of the
fire protection district.
O.C. - Total Budgeted Operating Cost as approved by the
City.
O.R. - Budgeted Non -City Revenues - to include only
other contract funds.
This formosi shall be reviewed by the Cities of Spring Lake
Park, Blaine and Mounds View in 1987 for possible
modification using additional statistical data maintained by
the Fire Department on their data processing system. Any
changes agreed to by the Cities shall. be implemented when
computing the 1988, 1989 and 1990 annual cost for each City.
(b) The total annual amount determined in (a) shall be
divided into twelve equal installments with payment
to be made by the 15th of each month commencing on
January 15, 1981. To facilitate payment, the Fire
Department shall bill the City during the first week
of each month.
ARTICLE 5
DETERMINATION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET
5.1) The annual Fire Department budget shall consist of
- 4 -
I-- the entire cost of operation of the Fire
Department ineludinq sa.aries, other,
compensation, repairs ar.d upkeep. The budget
shall also include the costs incurred by the Fire
Department in financing the spacial fund of the
Spring Lake Park Firemen's Relief Association,
such costs to be determined under the provisions
of Minnesota Statute 69.774.
5.2) Each year prior to June 30, the administrative
representatives of each City shall meet with the Fire
Department to review capital expenditure needs and to
develop a recommendation to be included within the Fire
Department's annual budget. These needs would be defined to
include any expenditures of $5,000.00 or greater.
5.3) The Clerk -Administrator of the City, or his repre-
sentative, shall serve on a budget advisory commitcee
consisting of like representatives from Blaine anu Spring
Lane Park. The budget advisory committee shall assist the
Fire Department during the month of July of each year in the
preparation of the annual budget for the succeeding year.
On or before August 15 of each year the Fire Department
shall submit to the City a copy of the annual budget request
for the succeeding year.
5.4) The following items of the Fire Department's
budget shall be subject to the annual budget hearing process
conducted by the Cities of 3laine, Mounds view and Spring
Lake Park.
(a) capital outlay - any proposal to construct a new
station or to purchase new fire apparatus.
- ` -
5.4 (continued)
(b) operating expenses will be subject to an annual
review to determine the justification for increases
and their adequacy for meeting the objectives of
fire service within the contracting City. 10
(c) any proposal Lo hire additional permanent part-time
or full -time employees. Pere onnel needs arising
during the year may be brought up for discussion
with the cities at any time.
(d) annual costs (estimated revenues and expenditures)
of the special fund of the Spring Lake Park
Firemen's P.elief .Association.
(e) Contingency Fund - a fund not to exceed $20,000
established in Fiscal Year 1982 through
proportionate contri-butions from the contracting
cities as provided in Article 4.1(a) of this
contract. The purpose of this fund shall be to
provide monies for ase by the Fire Department in
meeting unexpected expenses resulting from
emergencies and Wier unforeseen circumstances
causing expenditures in excess of $1,000 and which
are not included in the annual oparatinq or capital
budgets as provided for in AtLicles 5.4(b) and (a),
respectively. Said fund shall be maintained through
budget, surpluses, miscellaneous income or, if ,
necessary, addiLional levies to the contracting
cities. The need for additional levies shall be
substantiated by providing documentation detailing
the expenditures from this Fund and reasons thereof
during the past Fiscal Year. The City may if it so
chooses withhold it- Zhere of the contribution to
the Contingency Fund until the need for the
additional monies atises. Upon written notice by
the Fire Department of such need the
Clerk -Administrator shall disburse to the Fire
Department the City's pro rate share of the funds
necessary to meet the unexpected expense.
5.5) If a joint meeting should be necessary between the
City Councils of Blaine, Mounds View and Spring Lake
Park and the Fire Department to negotiate one of the
items in Article 5.4, a meeting shall be called at a
time and place Convenient to all parties. Each city
shaL: have one vote on all matters to be decided.
The issue shall be decided by a simple majority of
of votes and the nuLcome shall be submitted to the 10
individual City Councils for confirmation.
- 6 -
rma
5.6 (a) The City agrees that sufficient funds shall he
made available to ensure payment of all commitments agreed
to at past budget hearings. Tn the event it is determined
at any time during a Fisr.al Year by the Fire Department and
confirmed by the Clerk-Administrato- of the City that
budgetary appropriations are not sufficient to meet annual
expenses, the Fire Department may submit a request for
additional funding to the City according [c, the procedures
outlined in Articles 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5.
(b) In the event that volunteers cannot be
recruited and a critical shortage exists at any station, the
Fire Department can call a neeting of the city representa-
tives to determine the nevt course of action to take,
including but not limited to the use of rite personnel and
hiring of full-time firefighters.
5.7) The Fire Department agrees to submit to the City a
copy of the Fire Department's annual financial report as
prepared by its certified public accountant no later than
June 30 of each year.
ARTICLE 6
TERM AND RENEWABILITY
6.1) The tern of this contract shall be from
January 1, 1966 through December 31, 1990. The contract
shall be automatically renewed on the same terms and condi-
tions contained herein unless either party gives a 6 month
notice to terminate this contract or renegotiate any portion
thereof 6 months prior to December 31, 1990. In the event
the term of this contract expires prior to the execution of
a subsequent contract and during the time in which negotia-
- 7 -
tions between the parties are proceedtnq there shall be a 90
day grace period commencing on the date of such expiration
during which this contract shall continue in full force and
effect.
ARTICLE. 7
PAYMENT OF SALARIES AND INSURANCE
7.1) The entire cost of operation to the Fire Department
of salaries, compensation, repairs and upkeep sha11 be borne
by said Fire Department and payment shall be made from the
consideration herein stated and the City shall he in no way
liable for any amount other than the payment of the amounts
herein set forth or any amounts negotiated under Article
5.6.
7.2) It is
further agreed that the Fire Department shall
carry Public
Liability Insurance and Workers Compensation on
its equipment
and the operators of such equipment, said
insurance to
provide a minimum of $500,000 primary and
$1,000,000 excess
coverage. All :nsurance policies
purchased by
the Fire Department shall include the City as
an additional
insured and shall contain a cancellation
clause requiring
thirty (:0) days written notice to be
mailed to the
City prior to such date of cancellation.
A certificate
of insurance shall oe provided to the City
indicating the types and amounts of insurance in
force.
ARTICLE 8
DUTY OF CARE,
8.1) The Fire Department shall not be liable in any way to
-8-
10-
the City or any inhabitant or property owner thereof, or to any
other person, firm, or corporation for failure of said Fire
Department to attend or put out a fire except when said neglect
to attend or put out a fire is willful or except when said Fire
Department is grossly negligent in its operation.
ARTICLE 9
ENFORCEMENT
9.1) If any claim, proceeding or action is brought by the City
or the Fire Department to enforce the prnvisicns of this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition
to costs of suit, to reasonable attnrn-y'c fees incurred in
connection with any such claim, proceeding or action and the
same may be awarded by the court having jurisdiction of such
claim, proceeding or action.
ARTICLE 10
BENEFIT
10.11 This Agreement shall be binding upori and inure to the
benefit of the successors of the City and the Fire Department.
ARTICLE 11
NOTICES
11.1) Any notice required or permitted to Lt given under this
Agreement shall be given in writing, and shall be sent by mail
to the registered address of the Fire Department or the
Administrative office of the City.
-n-
ARTICLE 12 1
CHOICE OF LAW
12.1) The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
ARTICLE 13
HEADINGS AND CA'TTONS
13.1) The headings and captions of the paragraphs and
articles of this Agreement are inserted for convenience
of references only and shall not constitute a part hereof.
ARTICLE 14
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
14.1 This Agreement contains the entire understanding 10
between the City and the Fire Department concerning the
sub;ect matter hereof; and the provisions applicable there-
to cannot be amended. altered, enlarged, supplemented,
abridged, modified, extended, or waived except in writing
duly signed by all the parties hereto.
ARTICLE 15
COUNTERPARTS
15.1 This Agreement may be executed in several counter-
parts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which snail constitute one and the same instrument.
19
_10-
I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Agreement effective the day and year first above
written.
In the presenca of:
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
By
By—. --
SPRING LAKE PARK FIRE
DEPARTMENT, INC.
Ry % n^
ay 4
-11-
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUN IL
FROM: CLERK-ADMINIST RAT
DATE: APRIL 16, '_986
SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTINGENCY FUND
Attached to this memorandum please find a memorandum from
Fire Chief Fagerstrom to the Administrative Officers of the
three cities requesting the remaining portion of the
Fire Department's Contingency Fund De p..id in order to meet
advance payment requirements for their insurance package as
well as assisting in making up the $22,991 excess cost over
budget. Tte City's portion of the remaining balance due on
the Contingency Fund would be $2,069. As the City will have
a budgetary surplus of $6,000 in the Fire Department Account
due to the change in the contract formula, funds are
available to pay for this unanticipated expense within the
confines of the 1986 budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Staft would recommend Council authorization
to pay the balance due on the Fire Department's Contingency
Fund in the amount of $2,069 out of the Fire Department's
19a6 budgetary account.
DFP/mjs
Attachment:
DATE:
Aprt1 4, 1986
SUBJECT:
Contingency Fund
TO:
Richard P. Johnson
Rhine City Mduager
e16onald F. Pauley
Mounds View Clerk/Administrator
Donald B. Busch
Spring Lake Park Clerk/Treasurer
FROM:
Ron Fagrrstros co
Fire Chief
Because of the sizeable increase In ln,urance premiums over what was
anticipated, we will nerd the balance due to the Contingency Fund of $8,479.
the three items that are caustng the increase are as follows:
Policy
Premium
Umbrella Liability
$ 9,000
Commercial Package
28,000
Workers Compensatton
41,349
TOTAL
$7L,249
Budgeted for these items
55,358
Amount exceeding budget
$22,991
Further, the down payment requited fe $33,424 - hence our need for the
remainder due the Contingeney Fund. Enclosed herewith Is each city's
respective billing for their share of the $8,479.
RF/js
Enclosure I
HEADQUARTERS
1810 Highway 10
Spring Lake Park, Minnesota 55432
FIRE SERVICE STATEMENT
April 4, 1986
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
St. Paul, Minnesota 55112
FOR: AMOUNT DUE
Balance due Fire Departuent Contingency Fund, $2,069.00
Mounds View's share per 1985 Budget calculations:
24.4Z x $8,679.00 - $2,069.00
�I
Aouk
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council /
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Dev olopment
DATE: April 16, 1986
SUBJECT: ROSEWOOD CORPORATION'S APPLICATION FOR
MINI-STORAGF. FACILITY
Attached please fins; the following:
Application dated August 9, 1984
Staff report dated November 7, 1934
Revised drawings dated February 11,
Planning Commission Resolution No.
April 2, 19e6
Planning Commission
April 2, 1986
1986
155-86 dated
Resolution No. 159-86 dated
The applicant requests a code change, major subdivision and
development review approval to construct a mini -storage facility.
Code Code, Chapter 40, needs to be amended because it does not
expressly permit a mini -storage facility with house/office for a
resident manager. The mini -storage facility rill have 588
garages. Mini -storage facilities with approximately 600 garages
normally have a house/office for the resident manager. The
house/office is not permitted in the I-1, Industrial District.
The Planning Commission recommends amending Chapter 40 of the
City Code to allow the house/office for resident manager as a
conditional use. In other words, the applicant must obtain a
conditional use permit from the City to have a mini -storage
facility will a house/office fcr the resident manager. The
proposed change will allow a house/office with mini -storage
facilities only In other words, a house/office cannot be
constructed with an other use in the I-1, Industrial District.
The Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the
development based on several contingencies included in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 159-86. Please refer to this
resolution for details.
Rosewood Corporation has a purchase agroement with Mr. Russ
Underdahl who owns the property. I understand that Rosewood
Corporation is sueinq Mr. Underdahl to perform on the purchase
agreement. This fact raises the following question. Who owns
the land and who has the right ro build on it? Normally, the
City processes applications for companies that have purchase
agreement with the land owner, and Lhe land owner and developer
are not sueing each other. In this case, they are sueing each
other. I talked to the City Attorney about the advisability of
processing this application further. Our opinion is that we
should not process this application until the civil suit is
settled. Mr. Underdahl indicated that he would be sending me a
letter indicating that the purchase agreement is basically null
and void according to his opinion.
RECOMMENDATION: Table tho application until the o%vnership issue
is resolved.
SWC/bac
MEMO Tus Planning Commi•sion 11
FROM: Uirertor of pul.lic Works/Community DOvelopmeii G�
DATE: February 12, 1b86
SUBJECT: ROSEWC01 CORPORATION'S APPLICATION FOR HiNI Sr0RAGE
FACILITY
Attached please f"" the following:
1. Application dated August 9, 1984.
2. Staff Report dated November 7, 1994.
3. Revised drawings dated February 11, 1986.
The applicant prop�,ses to gonstWCt_p Etorm water 1-,tr�ntion p
ond
01 on his e-.
_property. The pond sizand calculations will be approved
by the City Enginc•rr prior to City_Council approval.
The major issues ale as follows:
Who will fund street and sanitary sewer improvements to
this site? I assume the developer and present property
owner will Iund the sewer and street improvements.
r.,tion fee in the amount of tyt prior
o of the Of
A park dedioval
U the land will need to be paid to the City po
of the subdivision.
C�)C.The City's a(Ireement with Mr. Beim of Pinecrest Properties
, is that devciopment on his site shall not occur until
berminq is c,instructed on the south side of CountyRRoadH-2
R-2, The City is proposinq to reconstruct County
this summer .Ind us,! some of the excavation to build a
portion of tiie berm. Does the land slope enough so that
the home .)wn•rs on County Road it-2 will not sec the mini
r storage?
flCity Code require,. a public hearing with mailed noticosed noticeS
�roto
J per.ty_ owners within 3>0_feet of the prep
subdivision.
sWT/bac
ASS /
of., fXt
�T ns n,A.
�1
5
CC VAnl.n-1 11 rt,+IM1 /r'f•5
11,;
e „- � 6 A � • I'lAtitUNC hPrll(nTIBR D.tta 00/t�''I''r'
Rosewood Coe ration _ phone676-xtl''
APPLICANT. name Po
address 1711 UesL County Road a. Suits. 300 i�ulh, Roseville IN 55117
Interest in property (check appropriate box):
G owaer of record
O contract for deed owner
O other (explain)
O lessee, operator, manager
■ ayreenent to purchase
Documentary evidence of APPlluet's interest In the property MY he
reaulred i�cfore final city action on this request.
PROPERTY: addressh-All1ral location Niahway 10 and County N2 , _
legal owner: name/address Pinecrest Properties, ATTN: W. N. Beim,
General Partner, 6750 Prance Avenue South, Suite 123, Minneapolis, MN 55415
present use (check appropriate box):
0 undeveloped 13 business establishment
O single family dweiliny ❑ Indu;lr;,,l e,lablishnient
O duplex dwelling U apartment,
13 other (explain)
kE!1UEST: icxplain) Plat approval of major subdivision, site plan appeNal,.-...
building blsns aPProvat �d buildiaj�ermiU.
r
I hereby declare that the above statcnenls are true. nature—_ -
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
RASE FEW
subdivision, nwjor
subdivision, mirwr
rezoning
conditional u__
variance
code appeal
(5150 Maa*
($75)
($50)
($50) _
($50) _
($50) _.
%ubtutal 19,0
ssasc fees In pa n ethasls are non-
refundable.
AODITI."111 1111
err
n•appurlionnx•nt -zoo�
public hearing notices QT
;fdff, cnn,ullant reviews
mi Sccllancou.
subtotal S
TOTAL FEES
data paidi
receipt //yfi'%
Parifund drdical11 _-
date p
r rrri:.
TA F A": am1a�r>r �nUnr�> Y�eJ
r .�
AI a AIEPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DATE: November 7, 1984
AGENDA ITEM NO:
CASE NO: 162-04
V / APPLICANT: Rosewood Corporation
�--5 PROPOSED REQUEST: Applicant requests a major subdivision
✓ and devel)pment review approval to construct a mini -storage
facility 'see Attached letter dated August 9, 1984).
ryl LOCATION OF RF.pUEST: Pinecrest Properly just north of
W Mc Donald's Restaurant and Mounds View Inn.
SITE SIZE: 231,684 square feet (5.34 acres)
ALOT DEPTH AND NIUTH: Approximately 1,000 ft. by 220 f[.
(..W EXISTING ZONING: I-1, Industrial District
CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: I-I1 Industrial and 4-3, Highway
��I—I Business Districts
VJ
CONFORMANCE To COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN: Proposed us -
is in cortormance with Comprehensive Pidr,.
In ZONING CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Cztst:nj zoning,
`J conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
t
STAFF REPORT
CASE: 162-04
PAGE TWO OF THHY.Y.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Bullding and Setback Requirements
1. Proposed main structure meets minimum setback requirements of 41
feet for front yard and 20 feet for side yard.
2. Parking and pived areas also meet minimum setback requirements rf
five feet.
V 3. Trash storage is proposed to be located in a mini -storage
enclosure near the office.
Parking and Access
1. Proposal includes ono 22 foot wide curb cut to proposed Raymond
Avenue. It does not exceed the maximum cut size of 30 feet.
2. Curb cuts do meet minimum distances for the corners of the lot
(50 feet minimum).
3. Curbing will be B6-18 type which is what Code requires.
4. Proposal includes 5 parking spaces. Code does not address tic
mini -storage development wnere a Caretaker lives on the site.
However, Chapter 40.07, Subdivision H (25) stales requirements
for warehouse::.
Drainage and Grading
1. Proposed site plan .Ines not include ponding area. The metho.,•
hardling storm water has not been illustrated.
owo, toot
2. The proposed site is Dsege enoujh WO to require Rice Creek
Watershed District approval.
Utilities and Sprinkling
1. Water service is available and aaequate in size.
CQ1 2. Sewer service is prasently not available. Septic tank and
drainfield sewage treatment is not permitted.
3. Sprinkling is required per Appendix E of the State Building Cod,
4. Raymond Avenuo access to the property is art constructed.
(/ Lighting
1. Lighting shall be arranged to reflect light away from adjoining
property.
■
Rosewood Corporation
Construction Division, Inc.
CommeKNl / Industnal / Apartment Homes
August 9, 1904
Mr. Steve Rose
City of Moundsview
2401 Highway 10
Moundsvlew, Minnesota 55112
Dear Mr. Rose:
Please find enclosed the follawing items in refererve t� the proposei
mini -storage facility off Raymond .Avenue.
Four (4) Buurdary Surveys
Four (4) Sets of Development Plans
Ore (t) Preliminary Plat Application
One 0) Development Description
Per our disvussion, we are submitting this material for Consid�tion
on the next Planning Council Agenda. On Monday, August 13,
will have delivered to you the actual Preliminary Plat Survey for this
parcel.
If there is ary information you still require, pleas: call me. Please
notify me of requisite meetings that we should attend.
We appreciate your assistance.
Sincerely
ROSEY/=D j CYi jSTom, INC.
l �
i A. Re ,M lgcr
% Construction Manage(
(/ APH:rab
cc: Gary Nordress
Bill Bartolic
Mary Lou Stephani
R'".Wd orhaa P1. • 5'. n v e 6mnh • 1—. ft" .- my nnan a Ruwvue Aa :;I'7 • t6ttl eJr >
PAGE: THREE OF THIl KE
STAFF REPORT
CASE: 162-84
Fencinu and Screenin
1. Site plan shows a 8 feet high chain link fence.
2. The Planning C,nmmission may want additional screening, planting
V and/or berm on the south side cf the prcperty.
3. Screening is required along the single house property line.
Signs
Signs shall conform to the Mounds View Sign Code (Chapter 39).
other Cunsideretin''!s
1. The City's agreement with Mr. Biem of Pinecrest Properties, fee
owner, is that development shall not occty ur
ruoadntil
berming is
constructed on the south side of
STAFF RECOMMENDATION '
The proposal in its present form cannot be approved.
SWT/bc
Enclosures: Lett,.r from Rosewood Corporation dated August 9, 1984
22• by 34" drawing received August 13, 1984
I
4
in♦,JJ '! 1 _W if
J
/
1 I r 1 I 1./1
r � �
aCa�v���■��
�=aa
a�a�aBe
BEES
SHMEHBM
-HHH■HaBROM
=ao=aAaHow
-=save®eBONAM
HaiHHHHkNwHm=
m�A�:oa®e®�Ba�
Wa
■aa■HM!Mwom
M.AN ♦711. On 1i0A 94101me
.. `LWOW
�J
TYPICAL PERSPECTIVE VIEW
j
Ir
mwu srncw - is �o[
U ---- �u._KL+N114Kl
1�
wry '
••••.„ •.« weeumro urruerr "slide see ni n l
uu...a aeamuu'^uuulru'nnn w a '� .N. pf .� 'uilW eeururbnnnnrnrrwunr..r r r ' u.dL "rw nrnu.r
uprr rlulr VrnrllrV nu. i nlll.
••Y1.
ar r.:maNNIHM
onto
'my plot of
RACHELLE•S ADDITION
c
a
RESOLUTION NO. 155-86
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
(all
STALE OF MiNNESOTA
RECOMMENDATION
W
NIOHHOUSE/OFFICE
TCIL FORREGARDING RESIDENT MANAGER
IL
WHEREAS, a mini -storage facility with house/office is not
expressly permitted by Mounds view City Code; and
WHEREAS, RosewOOd Corporation has applied for a Code
appeal;
Noll, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission recommends approval of the following
addition to City Code Chapter 40.20, Subd. D, as follows:
( 21 ) Mini -storage facilities with house/office for resident
manager provided that:
a. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the
buildings and site shall not be so dissimilar to the
existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence
within a reasonable distance of the lot.
b. Only one (1) house/office unit shall be permitted.
c. The house/office shall have a minimum 960 square feet of
residential living space.
d. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of
not less than ten (10) feet shall be landscaped and
screened in compliance with Section 40.04, Subd. H Of
this Code.
e. The entire lot area other than that occupied by the
buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material
which will control dust, drainage and erosion which is
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
f. The entire lot area shall
have a drainage
iCity ngineerstem which is
subject to the approval
g. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the
light source is rot vrsltie from Lhe public right-of-way
or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance
with Section 40.04, Subd. I of this Code.
h. Provisions are made Lo control and reduce noise.
i. The provisions of Section 40.25, Subd. A(5) of this code
are considered and satisfactorily met.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. i55-86
PAGE TWO OF TWO
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City
Council prior to approval of the mi.iutes.
Adopted this 2nd day of April, 1986.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Mayor
Clerk -Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 159-86
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESO':A
RECOMMENDA3'ION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING CASE NO. 162-84, ROSEWOOD CORPORATION
WHEREAS, Rosewood Corporation has requested City approval
to construct a mini storage facility on a lot in Pinecrest
Properties approximately one block rorth of the intersection of
Highway 10 and unconstructed Raymond Avenue; and
WIIERFAS, construction of this facility, as requested,
requires approval of the development and major subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the staff
report and reviewed information submitted by the applicant which
includes the following:
1. Development Plan
2. Site Survey
3. Evidence of Site Control; and
f WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has also reviewed this
prnposal and it is in conformance with all chapters of the
Municipal Code, specifically Chapters 40, 42, 49, and 49A and
State Statutes; and
WHEREAS, this development must be reviewed and approved by
the Rice Creek Watershed District RCWD) prior to construction;
WHEREAS, presently, City Code does not expressly permit on
site residency managers for mini -storage facilities; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the berm along County Road
I1-2 and the fire access from County Road 11-2 had been agreed upon
prior to rezoninq the property (Ordinance No. 368); and
WHEREAS, the location of the right-of-way of Raymond
Avenue has not yet been resolved.
NOW, THEREFORE, PE iT RESOI,VF,D that the Mounds View
Planning Commission recommends approval of the request by
Rosewood Corporation contingent on approval from Rice Creek
Watershed District, construction of the berm along County Road
11-2, and construction of utilities and street to the site and
resolution of the right-of-way of Raymond Avenue;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends that a development agreement he entered
Into between the City and the developer which includes the
following:
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 159-86
PAGE. TWO OF THRCE
1. Exhibits:
a) Site, G.adinq and 'Utility Plan
b) Development Plan
c) Site Survey
d) Legal Description
e) Otdinances No. 49A -7-Year Perf,rmacce
Bond of $1,000
f) Building Plans and Specifications
g) Landscaping Plar
h) Agreement executed between Rosewood
Corporation and adjacent property
owner for the location of Raymond Avenue
2. Security for the development in an amount to
oe determined.
3. Exhibit 2A to require the following:
a) Paved parking area to use 8-6-18 curbing.
b) Construction of emergency entrance/exic.
c) Rusewuud Corporation agrees to allow the
developer of the lot north of Rosewood's lot
to increase the size of Rosewood's storm water
detention pond on the north property if it is
the cost effective solution for storm water
mar.agement.
d) Rosewood Corporation and Pinecrest properties
nr assigns shall pay for the public impr.)ve-
ments.
e) Pinecrest Properties or assigns shall con-
struct the berm along County Road H-2 prior to
constructing the proposed mini -storage
facility.
f) Payment of all City expenses above and beyond
amounts previously submitted.
g) Other items as may be required by the City
Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends a conditional use permit be granted
which includes the above items and the following items:
i. '"he office residence building shall be used as an
office residence for this mini storage facility
only.
2. The office residence shall not be considered a
non -conforming structure as proposed by Resolu-
tion No. 155-86.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 159-06
400ft, PAGE THREE OF TIIRF,F:
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the
City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 2nd day of April, 1986.
Chairman
Director of Public works/
Community Development
I
Jttltw
ra
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Director of Public 'Works/Community Developmen /4•7-
DATE: April 17, 1986 /V
SUBJECT: HERBST AND SONS DEMOLITION COMPANY REQUEST FOR
REZONING AND MAJOR SUBDIVISION
Attached please find my memo to the Planning Commission dated
April 11, 1986, with all the attachments.
The Planning Commission is in the process of recommending
approval of the reionina, malor subdivision and variance.
Additional details are presented in my April 11, 1986 memo to the
Planning Commission.
City Code requires a public hearing with notices mailed to the
property owners located within 350 feet of the major
subdivision. A public hearing is also required for the zoning
change.
RECOMMENDATION: If this request meets with your approval, I
recommend publishing a notice in the New Brighton Bulletin on
April 30, 1986. Notices of the public hearing can be mailed by
April 30, 1986. The public hearing can be set for 7:05 p.m., May
12, 1986.
SWI/bac
r
\i
MEMO TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
DATE: April 11, 1986
SUBJEC"I: HERBST AND SONS DEMOLITION CO.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 168-85
Attached please find the following:
1. My memo with attachments dated April 23, 1985
2. My memo dated May 2, 1965
3. My memo dated May 8, 1985
4. Proposed Planning Commission Resolution No. 131-85
dated May 15, 1985
5. My letter to Russ Herbst dated May 21, 1985
6. Preliminary Plat of Herbst Enterprises dated April 9,
1986
Per City requirements, Herbst and Sons is proposing to sub-
divide their properly so that the Herbst and Sons consttuction's
building is on a separate lot and the Perkins' Restaurant is also
on a separate lot. In other words, they are proposinq to sub-
divide one lct into three lots. The Saddle Shop and Pettibone
are already on separate lots.
Herbst and Sons are requesting the following:
1. Maior subdivision approval
2. Rezon ing_,pL4posed lot and the lot that Pettibone is _on
from 8-3 to I-1.
3. Va tr sore apprgval (15' variance from the 10' sideyard set-
oack reguirement).-7�s i� S necessary hecause_the existing
Herbst and Sons building_ is resently loc_ate_d__5' from_the
existing property line. - -
Herbst and Sons Company is not planning an addition for their
building at the present time. Therefore, they do not need site
approval.
Russ Herbst will be present at the Planning Commission meeting if
you have any questions.
SWI/bac
n
MEMO TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Duvelopment
DATE: Aprii 23, 1985 `
SUBJECT: HERBST 6 SONS DEMOLITION COMPANY
As you may recall, at Lne last. Planning Commission meeting we
directed Herbst 1. Sons to prepare possible zoning layouts for his
property.
Attached please find two schemes indicating potential lot splits
and zonings.
Mr. Jim Donicht, President of Balco Building Systems, Inc., will
be present at the May 1, 1965 Planning Commission meeting to
discuss these two schemes.
SWT/bc
STAFFC►f of �oundsVey
r REPORT
PLANNING CIJMMISSION WORKSHOP REVIEW UATE: 4/17/8i
AGENDA ITEM NO: 4
P J� ,�,7r1IH1
CASE NO: 160-85
APPLICANT: Herbst 6 Sons bemolition Co.
W PROPOSED RQUEST: Applicant requests development review
1 approval to construct a 4,320 sq. it. expansion for storage
of sand blasting equipment. Herbst and Sons are also in the
demolition business.
LOCATION OF RCOIIEST: 2299 County Road 11
W
SITE SIZE: 142,000 square feet - 3.27 acres
LOT DEPTH AND WIDTH: 401.47- x 355.57'
i1 EXISTING 'ZONING: 11-3, Highway Business District
CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: B-3 to the north and east
R-1 to the west
W
1�1
/f1 CONFORMANCE 'l'0 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN: Comp Plan
V / status Highway Commercial
ZONING CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Zoning Code
does not specifically address the existing building use in
W B-3 but rather in I-1 (sand blasting and demolition).
However, since the comprehensive zoning review of 1983/1984
VJ did not recommend zoning changes for this property, I
assume that this existing building and proposed storage
h•/ expansion :s a favorable use but the City should consider
changing the zoning to I-1.
i.i
Z
STAFF REPORT
CASE: 168-85
L/ SETHACKS
PAGE TWO OF TWO
Pruposud structure and tenting (per Code 40,04, Subd. P) meet minimum
setback requirements.
0Uue5 I.lie Planning Conmission require additional screening of the
adjacent property zoned R-1 per City Code 40.07, Subd. D, Paragraph
(8)0.
ACCESS
Applicant uses two existing access points Crum County Road 11.
DRAINAGE
The applicant has applied to Rice Creek Watershed Dlir,(r,
PARKING
City Code 4U.07, Subd. D, Paragraph (8)J states requirements for
�l bituminous surface on driveways and parking stalls. City Code 40.07,
L Subd. (R), Paragraph 25 requires 39 parking spaces (8 spaces plus
I space ) Rfayi.rfh
500 sq. ft.
_ Applicant proposes 37 spaces on the crushed rock surface for
Uemployees. Need parking spaces for handicapped per Minnesota
Building Code.
Note: B-6-18 curbing will be required for the paved portion of the
access parking.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Exhibits: a) Plans and specifications for building
b) Site Plan
c) Ordinance No. 49 drainage requirements (if necessary)
d) Ordinance No. 49 security (if necessary)
Exhibit 2A conditions:
1. Paved parking area to use 0-6-18 curbing.
Th•:re may be a uti L ty easement over the front yard which limits
parking.
2. Rezone property from B-3 to I-1.
0
j
..r —! -'� / kin_ �� ��• • � � ��'� {:•
to � w .�'1 ,:' +%C••. z
Y ..p .
TAO
is
. �• •N'1: i!- szo nr - D.iw•w. `•.f A�i
10
Ao
ec R�/{
r
'LYI•rT1•/y ,GLxi(,Miis r' `.I��r
+'.:w.r>rJ AYE i •).':'y'N 11'�`' lx' .. _lA�,..� J t•/kw .�,�tRf• ,. vl J :{,7{u,'� �'�v••� ���¢4
{.••lY��r.i'• '..`. .�Ir re: a>. O\ ..-+.w�e�w..'r..ild lbrp ~?>. ;'� v,
"i,,. x•..l{a ,1.. :{. ','+II; •.G ram. ,, '`: .''t..' w�iui.a•!{�'•
74
.. 1 � I • � Y - .?ir ;l.
If is
-�- �i •Nt
�'i i � 1 1 w ••�(,j,1y��
.40"
t , Y s41
•.. ,' �!'yy��T,�1 t Jx.' :y'.' .�,1 .. 1 .9/.r. 'N ' � '11. Ir,
1 :"� •�!Sr •♦,wwJ_fYv ''�.: .',' Jt •t #��1�*'jy
•t 1 .�. �w i4.1J ♦�' �O : 't�Ml�• • 5 LS
Mr. }...
- kfcd NTY /' "r"• ,•• C7 f ,,i
:.+ ;lliTrry bad4+Kcs fill,Ri
'yam•: l,••♦.. .J ,% ��. �irar.: .•r.W.' ,. ..at Sri [� JIi L'fi~.�II
i •'�::r\!.i'q•C••'�li.•`�'p'.: '. , .1' :li .r . 3.1,•�\' 'i t::�� l`: �w�•.�j
between these devices, they have often been
confused by laymen and professionals alike. The
unfortunalc result I�as been ilim the whole plan-
ning process has suffered, and in some cases, the
zoning process has broken down entirely. It
cannot be emphasized enough that it is very
important for a community to follow the correct
zoning procedures. Many communities in the past
have learned the hard way the results of not
following the correct procedures and have lost
important challenges in the courts to their zoning
dcus:ons. With this in mind, the following is an
explanation of these various administrative devices.
Zoning Amendment (Rezoning)
The main purpose of the zoning amendment is
to alluw the community to change the zoning
ordinance or map. There are two basic types of
amendments. One is a zoning map amendment or
a change in the geographical area of a zoning
district which is also popularly known as rczuning.
The other is a change in the zoning text, or changes
in what is permitted io a particular zoning district.
ordinance was developed and adopted. to mos
planning programs, minor errors wi:l often be made
which are overlooked at the time of adopting the
comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance. To
correct these errors, lire zoning amendment pro-
cedure would be applicable.
Finally, rezonings (or changes in district lines)
arc often desired and appropriate in "staged
growth" plans which make use of "holding zones."
For example, a typical holding zone in a staged
growth plan may be a reianvcly large area de-
signated for agriculture. It is recognized that as
growth moves out into the rural areas that some of
these agricultural areas will be re -zoned for re-
sidential or commercial uses at such time that
utilities can be extended or services provided to
bring shout ordcdy development, It should be
noted that the staged growth approach has not yet
been tested in the courts in Minnesota although
this approach to planning has been upheld in the
highest court in New York State
Having discussed generally the rationale and
theory for zoning amendments, two problem areas
There arc a numher of rrasons why a com- dealing with zoning amendments need to be
mumty may want to amend the zoning ordinance. discussed at further length. One is spot zoning and
One is to reflect a significant and unanticipated the other is down zoning.
change in the community brought about through
rapid changes in technology, or urban Jevelopm - S orS or +nnrng Spot zoning has been fin as
or social behavior. In today's rapidly changin the rezo��tg O a single parcel of land cur a relative -
world, n is virtually impossible to predict future ly small area for higher intensity use than the
world,
development beyond a 5-i0-year period with any surroundinq the parlieular parcela,Mand. U�Suall
degree of accuracy. For this reason, it is recog- spot zoning involves an individua p'reel
nized by most planning professionals that the singled out for special and privileged treatment
comprehensive plan should be updated at least primarily for the benefit of the landowner and not
every 3.5 years to reflect these changes. Since in accord v;th the comprehensive plan. For
zoning should be teased on the comprehensive plan, example, the rezoning of a single parcel of land in
the ordinance should be amended when the com- a residential area for commercial or industrial uses
prehensive plan is updated, which arc not compatible with the surrounding
land uses or in conformance with the compre
t be
A second reason is to reflect changes in policy
by the community. This may come about in a
variety of different ways. For example, certain
planning policies and programs may not be bring-
ing about the desired goals which may necessitate a
change in development policies. Or development
in adjacent communities may affect the com-
munity in such a way as to require changes in
development policy. For example, a state or
county highway department may determine to
locale a major highway through or adjacent to a
community which obviously will have a substantial
effect on develonment.
A thirJ reason is to correct mistakes which were
made at the time the comprehensive plan or zoning
hensivc plan is usually held by tico courts
illegal in that it amounts to spot zoning. In the
absence of a comprehensive plan, it is more dif-
ficult to determine whether a particular rezoning
amounts to spot zoning.
Spot zoning usually results when the local
officials are too liberal in the granting of requested
.oning amendments. There may be many reasons
why a property owner may want rezoning or a
zoning amendment, some of which are legitimate
but some of which are not in relation to the
community planning process. For example, a
property owner may want a rezoning to enhance
the opportunities of selling his land, or to gam a
competitive, locatiunal advantage with a business
10G -
enterprise, even Ihough the Illopincd rctoninµ MAY
be incompatible wish the surruundmg homes due
to excessive norse, glare, and traffic.
Care should be tiled by tale local uffKfals in
issuing rctunings or tuning amendments. If loci
many rnnmg amendments ale authulued, It may
and often dues Jeslruy of aenUU►ly weaken the
planning process. II may 4hu Open the local
community to lawsuits from adlacenl property
owners.
Down :urdrq. Local offKuh sluwld also be
aware of some of the problems Involved in down
toning, that is, Amending lire zoning u4nance in
such 4 way as to change a tonc.g district fro,n a
higher to a lower density or from a "higher" use
(m ecrins of land values) such at commercial
or indu►inal to a "lower" use such as residential.
It hat been maintained by some individuals and
landowners that a community cannot down zone
since it wdi adversciy afftci property Values. Tile
theory behind this argument is that somehow a
toning ordinance veils absolute rights to a pro.
petty owner of some of Ibis anticipated profits and
that down toning amounts to inverse condemna-
tion.
It is clear that if all down toning were held to be
illegal, it would substantially limit the local tom•
munity's ability to piao and change the com-
prehensive plan and toning ordinance. In a recent
law case in California (Eldridge vs. CITY of Palo
Ado) lire court recently upheld the City of Palo
Alto in down toning an area by creating an open•
space district from a high -density resident.ah
district. The city attorney aigued successfully that
this did not amount to inverse condemnation and
cited the cast of Morse vs County or San Luis
Obbtrrr where the court stated that "... owners
have no vested right in an existing toning ordi-
nance, A purchaser merely acquires a right to
continue a use Instituted before the enactment of a
more restricted zoning," It should be noted
that down toning has nut yet been tested in the
courts in Minnesota.
Zoning Variance
Perhaps the toning device which is the least
understood and the most subject to ahuu is the
toning variance. The term "variance" has been
interpreted by many local officials, planning
professionals and even attorneys in its coloquial
sense • Ihal it, as a variance from file toning
ordinance that can be issued by the local com-
munoy at will. It dhuuld be noted at the uutxt,
however, IIlat a variance hat a special legal morning
and should only be asueJ under certain specs'
Urcullhtlancel.
Uasfully, a tuning variance is a modification of
the terns of the toning ordinance in order to
provide relief to a properly owner in those asss
where the ordinance imputes undue hardship or
lrracirtal difllCulnr•s to the property owner in the
use of his land. The hardship must not have bun
created by actions of Ine landowner. There Are
two types of variances • file bulk up area rararrce
and the we itriaue. The bulk or era variance
deals with modlDcatinns III area requirements such
as lot widths or depths or set -back requirements.
The use variance is an aulhuritatnon of land use
in a district that differ► from the land uses normal-
ly allowed in that district II should be emphasized
that many planning proresshonall, including this
Author, Are opposed to use variances for a number
of reasont. For one, the Issuance of a use variance
is likely to crate a monopoly situation in a part,-
colat land use district. Second, if too many use
variances are Issued by the elected officials, it will
seriously weaken the toning and planning process.
Many planning professionals are recommending
that the use vananse be prohibited and that the
toning amendment or conditional use permit be
used In place of the use variance. The Count
Planning Act (M.S. 394,27, Subd. 7) specifically —
,,ohibits the issuance of use variances, and the
Municipal Planning Act only authorizes one
type of use variance (temporary use of one family
dwelling as two family dwelling - M.S. 462.357,
Subd. 7),
One of the problems which the courts have
wre, led with is the definition of "practical dif-
ficulties" and "undue hardship." The following
are the factors which one court used and which
other courts arc likely to use in determining
whether a lai,downer has incurred undue hardship.
The parcel of land cannot yield a "reason•
able return" if us:d only for a purpose
allowed in the zoning district (for use
variances only). The courts have also held,
however, that proof that the owner could
realize a higher financial return for his land
as a result of the variance is not sufficient
grounds for granting a variance.
2. The plight of the owner of the land must '
be due to unique circumstances. If lh,
hardship is common to several properties
the variance cannot be granted. The proper
remedy under such circumstances is a
toning amendment.
107-
4' 1 L_� 6
MEMD Tu: Clork-Administrator. 4 City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Development
` DATE: May 2, 1985
R E4: IIERBST AND SUNS DEMOLITION COMPANY
Herbst and Sons Demolitinn Company has applied to the City to
construct a warchouso addition to their existing huilding located
at 2299 County Road H.
Enclosed please find the following:
1. Staff report dated 4/17/85
2. Memo to Planning Commission from Director of Public
Works/Community Development dated 4/23/85
3. Copy of Pages 105 and 107 from Gunnar Insbery's book on
Land Use Planning. This is a definition of spot zoning.
Unfortunately, f do nr,t have copies of tho -,ite plan to submit to
you at the present time. Herbst and Sons will provide additional
copies of the site plan on Monday night.
I will now present the background on this property and describe
the issues. The City's Land Use Comprehensive Plan indicates
that this property should be Cur Highway Commercial use. The
zoning on this property is U-3, Highway Business District. The
existing use is for sandblasting and warehouse storage space for
demolition equipment. The property, as far as I can tell, has
always been used for a warehouse. This is an Industrial zone
use. The warehouse use may have been permitted in a U-3 zone in
past zoning ordinances. The sandblasting operation is a more
recent use of the property. In ary case, the present use is
non -conforming and Herbst and Sons may not, under the existing
zoning, build an addition to their warenouse building. The issue
then becomes, should the City deny the building addition because
the zoning is incorrect for the present use even if that building
has always been used as a warehouse? (A warehouse is a permitted
use only in the Industrial zone.)
The same problem exists an the lot directly east of Herbst's
property. Pettibone runs their warehousing operation nut of this
adjacent property.
A second issue or question is that if the property is rezoned
from B-3 to I-1 is this spot zoning? The attachment entitlod
"Gunnar Insberg Land Use Planni 4" defines spot zoning. The
Planning Commission and Staft's analysis is that if the two lots
are rezoned from H-3 to 1-1 that this is prnhahly not spot
zoning. The justification for rezoning this property to its
present use is that the use has always been 1-1. In fact, there
are other single lots that are definitely a spot zone within the
City of Mounds View. An example is the K Gas Station At 2901
Highway 10. This single piece of property, as you know, has
May 2, 1985
Page 2
always been used as a norvice station and has always been zoned -04
H-3 which matches its present and past uses.
On the other hand, the City may determine that an I1 zone is not
appropriate for the two parcels of land presently occupied by
Herbst and Sons and Pettibone. If this is your determination,
the City can deny the request for zoninq change and thereby deny
the addition to the building. The Planning Commission and
Staff's review of the situation indicates that the Herbst and
Pettibone property is well buftered by the wetland from the
Edgewood Community Center which is zoned R-1. The property is
also well buftered from other uses by the property zoned H-3
between Herbst and Sons/Pettibone and Highway 10. Obviously, to
the south is Rice Creek and on the south side of Rice Creek is
the Towns Edge Mobile Home Court. The Mobile Home Court is
buffered adequately in my opinion by Rice Creek.
One other interesting twist about this development review is
that, to the best of my knowledge, the piece of property that
Herbst has his building on is also the same piece of property
that the Perkins is on. Therefore, in order to approve this
building addition, the developer must submit and receive approval
of a preliminary plat of a major subdivision. It's a major
subdivision because it is larger than two acres. Herbst and Sons '
indicated to the Planning Commission that they would submit a
preliminary Plat as soon as possible. They also said they would
have the preliminary plat to us before the hearing on the
preliminary plat if you decide to set up a hearing.
In summary, the Planning Commission does not see any problems
with rezoning the Herbst property and the. Pettibone property,
changing the Comp Plan accordingly, and a major subdivision. The
Planning Commission said they would also give a variance from the
code provision that his existing building rust be 20 feet from
the side yard pruperty line. The justification for giving this
varia.ce is char it. is a preexisting condition. The City Code
says that the Planning Commission grants variances and therefore
the variance does not have to be approved by the City Council.
Action Requested
At the May 1, 1985 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning
Commission requested the City Council to schedule a hearing date
fo, the rezoning and major subdivision. If you decide to
schedule hearings, you should also schedule a hearing on the Comp
Plan revision for these two lots. The hearing notices could be
published on May 15, 1985 with the hearing held on May 27, 1985.
ST/ds
Attachments
MEMU TU: Planning Commission
r RUM: DlreCLor of Public works/Community Development
DA'rtl: May B, 1905
SUBJECT: HERI3ST AND SUNS OEMOLITIUN CUMPANY
Attached please find a resolution for you perusal on Herbst and
Sons proposed building addition.
In summary, in order for the Herbst and Sons pemolition Company
to construct a building addition they need the following:
1. Major subdivision approval
2. Rezoning the property from B-3 to 1-1
3. A 15 foot variance from the 20 foot aide yard
setback requirement
C. Revise Comp Plan
Herbst and Sons indicated they will be providing a preliminary
plat of their major subdivision and revised site plan by May 15,
1985.
The City Connril reviewed the site plan and indicated that they
would set a hearing on the rezoning and major subdivision when
the preliminary plat is submitted.
SWT/br.
Attachment
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNINU CUMMISSIUN
RESOLUTION NO. 131-85
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RECOMMENDATION 'ro THE CrrY COUNCIL I<EGARDING MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING CASE 168-85, iiERDST AND SUNS DF,MOLrTIUN COMPANY
WHEREAS, Herbst and Sons Demolition Company has requested
City approval to construct a building additlnn Jr) their existing
buildiny in the Pity of Mounds View; and
WHEREAS, construction of this addition, as requested,
requires approval of the development, major subdivision,
rezoning, and variance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the staff
report and reviewed information submitted by the applicant which
includes the f,.Iiowing:
1. Developme.•t plan
2. Preliminary plat site survey
3. Evidence of site control; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Cormnisgion has also reviewed the
proposal and it is in conformance wlLn all Chapters of the
Municipal Code, specifically Chapters 4U, 42, 4V, anu 49A ane
Sta^_e Statutes; and
WHEREAS, this development has been submitted to the Rice
Creek Watershed District for their approval;
WHEREAS, the existing building is 5 feel from the property
line, and the City Code :e.,.lres a 20 foot setback from side yard
lot lines and this is a pre-existing condition not caused by the
property owners;
NOW, THEREFURE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission recommends approval of the major subdivision;
LIE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that tlir Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends rezoning the property from B-3 to I-1;
BE IT FURTHER RCSOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends that the property now occupied by Pettibone
Corporation bu rezoned from D-3 to I-1 at the same time;
ISE I'r ir'URTIIKR RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission grants a variance of 15 feet on the side yard setback
requirement;
M'
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CUMMISSION
RF,SOLNTIUN NO. 131-85 ,
PAGE TWO OF 'I'WU
HE IT' FURTBER HFSULVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission recommends revising the Comprehensive Plan for the
Herbst and Pettihone propertie4;
BE IT FURTHER RFSOLVF.0 Lhat a dovolnpmr,nt agreement he
entered into between the City of Mounds Vtcw and the developer
which includes the f.ullewiny:
1. ExhlhiLR:
a) Site, grading and utility plan
b) Development plan
C) Site Survey
d) Legal description
e) Ordinance No. 49A 7-year performance bond
of 51,000
f) Building plans and specifications
2. Security for the development in an amount Lo be
determined.
3. Fxh,h,t 2;; cequtre the Loliowing:
a. Paved parking area to use B-6-18 curbing
b. Approval from Rice Creek Watc..ned District
is required prior to construction
C. Payment of all City expenses above and beyond
amounts previously submitLed
d. Other items ds may be required by the City
Council; and
HE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission direct staff to forward this resolution to the City
Council prior to approval of the mtrutes.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Adopted this 15th day of May, 1985.
Dirnctor oP PuDCiC W rki
Community Devolopment
f-T
Cif� ofvovjg View
RAMSFI COUNTY MINNISOYA
,101 NIGNWAI 10
MOUNOS V 19 W, MINN p0111
7I.X 55
May 21, 1985
Fuss Herbst
Herbst 6 Sons Demolition Co.
2299 County Road H
St. Paul, MN 55112
Re: Proposed Building Addition
Dear Nr. Her!%st:
Enclosed please find a copy of my May 8, 1985, memo and a
proposed Mounds View Planning Commission Resolution No. 131-85.
As per our discussion, in order to construct a building addition
to your existing structure, the following items must be
completed:
1) Me3or Subdivision approval
2) Rezone the property from B-3 to I-i
3) Variance approval (a 15 foot variance from the 23 foot
side ,ard setback requirement)
4) Payment of Park Dedication fees
5) Site plan approval
6; Revise Comprehensive Land Use Plan
ob-iously, you crust pay other City fees (including wilding
permits fees), and adhere to all City Codes and satisfy other
requirements that the Planning Commission or City Council may
impose.
As we discussed, the next step is for you to submit a preliminary
plat and an appraisal of your land.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
CITY UP MOUNDS ,VIEW
Steven W. Thatcher, P.E.
Director of Public Works/Community Development
SWT:bac
Enclosure
cc: Clerk -Administrator. Pauley
i
f yt 1 P T
N
HERSST
ENTERPRIS
�.w w
wn Mr w
MEMO To: Mounds View City Council
FROM: Bruce K. Anderse�Z it 6t r
Parks, Receeatieh a d �6re�stry
DATE: April 17, 1986
RE: Fencinq for City Hall
Enclosed is the low bid proposal from Gopher State Fence Company
in the amount of $3,912 to provide two outfield fences at the two
Mounds View City Hall fields. A second bid proposal was submit-
ted by Cruwiey Fence in the amount of $4,470. The fence has been
budgeted for in Lhe 1986 budget and will be installed prior to
the May 5 opening of our adult softball program. Not only will
the fence greatly reduce our maintenance costa for installing and
taking the hockey rink board fence, but it will also be safer and
more aesthetically pleasing.
RECOMMENDATION: To recommend approval of the Gopher State Fence
Company low bid of $3,957 to include the 1-5/8" O.D. toprail in
lieu of Type "2".
BKA/sll
Enclosure
t
Inquiry No..
Gopher State Fence, Co. DNe
760 Rooney Avenue Fr t:
St Paul. MN 551DG Terms: Net
1112/771 Ofee
Atti Aruos Anderson PROPOSAL TO:
Name: _ CI_TT Or KO_'JM)5 VIEW
Ade reee, - l Alfi , d 10 VOATA Phone No.:
CrR ._ MOUN a VL:Nr ftW. MAIN. zip clests:
JOB LOCATION:
Name: ---
Address
MATERIAL QUANTITIES:
Perntiter fencing at two softball fields_ 432 Lin, Ft. Each
Lin. Ft. complete line fence
A - 2-1/2'1 0.0. I End Posts
"'OPAL MATERIAIL G LAAOR - IP12.00
If 1-5/8" O.D. Tdprail is used in lieu of
Tn*02e Please add $45.00 to the above quote.
7uetomer to give fence locatcns.
'ions on revwu side of this sneer sit
pan dyed
P"se read and initial where md,cated as a
owi quis'le for acceo4nce of this pr000aaf
Tax: Included
Sid Cue Doss:
SUMt11TTED BY:
M F. S^.IiIFp _
0apher 3tALe rence "obi
IIATEPIAL -�
SPECIFICATIONS
monommom
Sys Chain Link
N t: 60"
Une Pats: 3td. nnn
End • Car. Pats: 2-1/2" O.T.
m
11
Bottom Rag:
Braces:
Truss Rods. El
Gate Frame:
CONSTRUCTION
SPECIFICATIONS
Terminal Post Soming:
Concrete
Die. Foohn : q"
Io•Pmr_Foounye
Line Pool Soltlnq.
A
.11aA,A._ iv
MEMO 70: Hounds View City Concil
FROM: Bruce K. And�e /9ori, .Iuirector
Parks, Recr,alon a d Forestry
DATE: April 17, 1986
RC: Staff hiring
Attached are two contracts for the hiring of Andy Gray as a part-
time summer parks laborer and Deanna Mortenson as a summer cleri-
cal staff person. It would be staff's intent to have Ms.
Mortenson, who has worked for the City for the past five years,
begin work on a part-time basis commencing April 21, 1966 for 15
hours per week. Ms. Mortenson's pay rate would be $5.00 per hour
and she would be employed fn11-r1me effective May 19, 1986
through the end of July.
Mr. Gray would be employed as a summer park maintenance worker at
$5.25 per hour and would do a variety of park maintenance tasks
ranging from turf mowing to supervision of the summer J.P.T.A.
program. Both positions have been budgeted for out of the City's
general fund with Mr. Gray's salary coming from the park fund and
Ms. Mortenson's from the recreation fund.
In addition, staff would also like autnorization to hire Carl
Kellner as the compost coorainator at $4.00 per hour effective
April 19 - May 18, 1986. Carl has been employed by the City in
the past year in a variety of positions and was responsible fo:
assisting with the compost nrogram in 1985.
BKA/sll
Enclosure
U
MOUNDS VIEW PARKS AND RECREATION DEPAR771ENT
2401 HIGHWAY 10
HOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA 55112
784-3055
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
I, Deanna Mortenson , hereby aqree to provide the follow-
ing services for the Mounds View Park and Recreation Department.
I understand and agree to the services required as outlined
of c;-,i= position and that I shall be retained on the basis of the
following terms:
POSITION
STARTING DATE
CLOSING DATE
DAY SCHEDULE
HOURS OF SCHEDULE
RATE OF PA.Y/SESSION
Clerical
Assistance
April 21
1986
July 25
1986 _
Monday -
Friday _
8:00 a.m.
- 4:30 p.m.
$5.00 per
hour
MAXIMUM HOURS PER WEEK PAYABLE 15 hours/week 4/21 - 5/16/86
40 hours/week 5/19 - 7/25/96
Signed _
Date Apr11 17, 1966
Program Supervisor Apprcval
Director .approval "�/�
MOUNDS VIEW PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
2401 HIGHWAY 10
MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA 55112
784-3055
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
I, Andrew Gray , hereby agree to provide the follow-
ing services fnr the Mounds View Park and Recreation Department.
I understand and agree Lo the services required as outlined
of this position and that I shall be retained on the basis of the
following terms:
POSITION
STARTING OATE''
CLOSING DATE
DAY SCHEDULE
HOURS OF SCHEDULE
RA TF OF PAY/SESSICN
Public Works Laborer
April 21
1986
Jul_ll,
Monday -
1986 _
Friday
7.00 a.m.
- 3:30 p.m.
$5 25 per
hour
MAXIMUM HOURS PER WEEK PAYABLE 40 hours per week
P.DDITIONAL COMMENTS: Your immediate supervisor will be
Public Works Foreman Steve Rose.
Signed
Date April 11, 198
Program Supervisor Approval
Director Approval
Tj: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Donall Brager, Finance Director -Treasurer 'rr,�
DATE: April 17, 1906 _ \
RE: INSURANCE RENEWAL
I have been working with Brian Colway, our Insurance and Risk
Management Consultant, on obtaining quotations for the renewal of
our insurance policies which expire on April 30, 1986. At this
time it appears that the League of Minnesota Cities insurance Trust
(LMCIT) is our only viable option. Our quotation from the LMCIT is
scheduled to be received on April 23, 1986. At the April 28th
Council Meeting, Brian Colway, Corporate Risk Managers, Inc. and
Charles Clysdale, our new Insurance Agent, will be present to
present the League's proposal.
Attached is an article which appeared in the April 1986 issue of
Minnesota Cities magazine which explains the LMCIT insurance
program.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
DB/ds
Attachment
LMCIT: Questions &answers
by Peter Tritz
As a result of the increased cost
and dif(cully in obtaining insur-
mie aver the past couple of years,
a large number of cities have
joined the Leaguc of Minnewla
Cities Insurance Trust for the first
time. Over 6M cities now partici-
pate in LMCIT's workem' compen-
sation program: the property/
casually program now numliers
more than 900. But while the
majority of cities in Minnesota are
nnw covered through LICIT, many
people don't really understand
what 131CIT is and how It works.
This a,licle will answer wine of
the most common nuestions about
I'MCIT.
Our city his been in UICiT for
several rears. This rear, the premium
that LbICIT charged far proprriy and
habditi, coverage ncarlr doubled. A
IMC IT taking advantage of its status
as the only game in town to gouge
cars)
Some people have suggested that
because there are very few d any other
places for cities to get coverage,
LMCIT is taking the opportumty to
make a lot of money by charging unrea.
sonably high premiums. This is simply
nil the case. In fact, it would be
pointless for I.MCIT intentionally to
charge more than what is needed to
cover the losses.
LMCIT is nothing more than a coop.
erative orgrnneatirn of crimes. Il is in a
probhnakmg entity. Supp><e LMCIT's
charges are tin high: that is, suppose
flat the premiums are more than w1w
LMCIT needs to cover tit• pri gram's
expenses and :he member -incurred
boswc The result would he that I \ICIT
wind have some surplus funds. There
are really only two things LMCIT can di)
with lint surplus — enho ictwo it to
the rites as a dividend or retain it as a
teserve. enabhog LMCIT to retain more
risk in the future, koivering the ust of
remsuranC and thug the CItsi la Cities
for the future. Either way. a direct
savings to cities results. in a c nventorul
prate tsurance company, dose surplus
funds would botonvi ornfils for Jr com-
n'tnv's strrklx,dcrs.
.tio a'hi fix/ die c.-w yr, up?
Several factors have led to the
Increase in cost. One of the expenses
which LMCIT mats: pay out of the
geprinnea rrom aacxy rvmuntam news.
prenuum dollar is the cost of remsur-
anre. LNCIT buys "specific excess"
reinsurance to protect against the prn-
sibdity of a Urge catastrophic kiss.
LMCIT also buys ''aggregate excess"
reinsurance to protect against the pos-
sibility that the total losses in a year
night exceed the funds LMCIT has
avadable to pay those kisses,
Tv'o things happened in LNCIT's
last renewal with the reinsurers. First,
the price of the remsurance was high
— substantalhy higher than L11CIT
anticipated. This additional cost must
be reflected in the premiums i-MCIT
charges. Second, the reinsurers ins
isted an a relatively high ''attachment
point" for the aggregate coverage.
(The "attachment point" is the point
at Mikh to aggregate reinsurane
bcgtns to pay; if LMCIT's total losses
for the vear were to exceed the aua-h-
n,ent point, the aggregate remsuranm
would cover those excess kisses. up to
the limits of the aggregate reinsurance
policy ) The attachment print is high
cough that after paying exlxmses.
I,\ICIT would not have enough funds
renatmng from the premmm to full)
,over I.MCIT's potential lability up to
IM• ati at li nrnt pint. To fund this gap.
I.NCIT is charging each member a
"reserve assessment" equal to 10
perceal of the premium.
Aside from the reinsurance costs.
the level of losses from prevxus rears
also affected rates. particularly for lia-
bility coverage. Incurred lubddy losses
and the costs of attorneys' fees to
defend labduv claims have been higher
than pnifected. One of the problems in
providing IUbility coverage is that it
takes several years before you really
know whether the :ates charged were
vpproprate. LMCIT is still receiving
new claims for incidents which
occurred in 1980. nearly sot years ago.
The costs of paying and defending
liability claims incurred In previous
rears have exceeded the premiums
collected for habibty coverage for those
years. Thus. premiums have had to
increase to get them in line with what
LMCIT's actual loss experience shows
they shookd he
II'hen all is said and done. though.
isn't LAIC -IT just another insurance
connparli,)
No. LMCIT is not an insurance
company at all: it is a cnopera0ve pomt
powers orgamzatmn, which the item•
her cows themselves own and control
LMU I operates under statutes which
Allow , ors to organue -pools - A pool
is simply a nxv'hamsm for sharing risk
Among cites. LSICIT's governing body
1
J
April IOM u
is a board of trustees made uP of my
offruls of parncipamng cities.
If LMCIT's riarges are too high.
to excess money be'bngs in the rates
themi and to lbe stocklxokk-rs of
an msuranc company. It also means
that LMCIT is much uwire responsive
to cities' needs than is a Convenlxmal
insurance company. Some exampl"s of
this responsiveness might be helpful
Transit Casually. which was a ma)or
writer of lability insurance for hus
Imes, recentIv went bankruPt. leaving
a number of cities suddenly wn0wwt
coir•age for their trans'! ofirraoons_
Because of the shortness of time,
these cities w•e:en't able to get cover-
age in the private market for this
specauzed risk. However. LMCIT was
able on very short notice to provide
the coverage these cities needed to
keep their bus lines rumung, Similarly•
LMCIT provided coverage on very
shin notice to over 30 cares wow were
soddenly kft without insurance when
Iowa National collapsed.
Another example involves a city
which by conventional underwriting
standards was simply uninsurable.
largely because of circumstances
beyond their control. LMCIT was able
to develop a customized coverage form
which made it it possible to provide
coverage to this city without creating
an undue risk to the other member
cities. Had LMCIT not done so. the
city would have sunply been heft with-
out any coverage at all
The whole purpose of LMCIT's
existence is to provide Coverage to
cotes. Unlike a private insurance com-
pany. LMCIT is not going to simply
decide some day to get out of the
business of covering cities because
there is more money to be nude
vritmg some other kind of insurance.
Didn't LMCIT in tact cause the
current insurance crisis Gv undenrkmg
coverage and driving conventional
•aaeran'e companies out of the market'
This is one of the more laughable
suggestions we we heard. The crisis
in insurance cost and avauabd0 h-gan
in late 1984. At that time. LMCIT's
propert!casualty' program covered
about 2W cares and had annual reve-
nues of about $2.5 million. The sugges-
tion that this would give LMCIT
enough economic leverage to run sev,
enl multi -billion dollar internamonal
insurance companies nut of the market
is imaginative to say the least.
Note tau that the enormous influx of
cities into LMCIT occurred after
LMCIT had implemented rate
Increases. LMCIT now lovers over
(0) cities for workers' compensation.
and over 51xy for property and luabiht'.
Nearly half of the those cities lavr
entered LNICIT score rate inrr.ises
nook effect in June 1985.
Pucks. Minnesota cities are not the
only ones having insurance problems.
Problems in Minnesota countes are d
anything worse than cities' insurance
problems. Cities in other states, includ.
ing stales without municipal pnalmg.
are having similar problems. A Ken-
tucky Municipal League survey of 2.5
cities showed that lability premiums in
1985 averaged 350 percent of the 19:t4
levels. Washington cities are facing
increases of 300-700 percent The
story is the same Inevery' slate Pn-
vate sector businesses are being hid by
similar problems; ask the owner of the
local bowling alley about his insurance
rates. Cities in Minnesota are in much
better shape than arc many pnvate
sector businesses or cities In other
states- Minnesota cities have a source
of coverage; many others are not so
fortunate.
.4favbe our tilt' should (W, about
sell -insuring.'
Rather than thinking of self-insurance
as an either-or, we -do -or -we don't
question, it might be more helpful to
think In terms of how much risk your
city can handle. Very few Minnesota
cities are large enough to he able to
consider self -insuring completely nit
puny cities' budgets could absorb a
sngle $600.000 IOWA) loss, let alone
several such losses. Any prudent plan
for self-bsurancc must consider the
possibuity that the city could be faced
with several shock losses in the course
of a year, as unlikely as that possibility
might seem.
But nearly any citycan consider
some level of party self-insurance.
That's. nearly any city can benefit by
retaining a certain amount of risk itself.
This is not a new idea; Cities have
bought property insurance subject to
deductibles for years. Relativeh• few
cities, though, have considered buying
lability coverage subject to a deducti-
ble. Obviously, the size of the deducti-
ble must be geared to the size of the
city — perhaps $500 In a smaller city.
maybe 5.000 to $20.000 in a larger
city. These deductibles can have a
surprising effect on premiums. We've
seen instances where a $5.000 deduct-
ible reduced the premium by close to
25 percent. Of course, the reductici in
premium is not all savings, since the
roc 15 going to have some- aa'ms to
pay Itself.
The reason deducnbies work is fairly
simple, You know the at will have a
certain amount of losses. The entity to
whom vow would lransler the rink, in
this case LMCIT, knows that raa.
Thereforethat person is grung to
charge you the dollars necessan to pay
those losses, plus overhead cos!s. By
keeping those dollars and paying those
claims yoorsehf, you avid Paying that
overhead, and also have a chance to
nuke a little investment income on
those funds to hoot. You also benefit
directly from anything you do to re&wr
clams.
The city shouldn't look at it as a yeo
or -no. insure -or -self -insure decision;
rather a whole range of posa'bilttles
exist involving various ievels of Poten-
tial savings and varous levels of risk to
the city. It Is certairh• worthwhile.
especially for medium- and large: -sue
cities, to ask their agents to explore
the possibiity of deductibles on all lines
of coverage.
It my atv isn't big enough to setl-
insure on its Own• why couldn't we get
together with some other cities and
set( -inure tnger''er'
This is an excellent suggestion. In
fact, it s such a Rood idea we've
already done it. It's called LMCIT.
Perhaps it will help clarify ;rungs d
we sketch out exactly how LMCIT
works. Each mem'.er city pays a prem-
ium to LMCIT. LMCIT (which is noth-
ing more than a group of cities acting
together) !hen agrees to pay' certain
city losses. The funds LMCIT uses to
Pay those losses are the pint property
of the participating cities.
LMCIT also has certain expenses.
Because local agents offer the program
those agents receive a commission.
There is also the Cost of administering
the program, and the cost of purchas-
ing reinsurance. The funds remaWR
after paying these expenses are used
to pay the member cities' claims.
LMCIT provides each city a
$600.000 imit for liability coverage per
occurrence. and up to $500.000 of
property coverage. If the city 's prop-
ettv values exceed that amount.
LMCIT has an arrangement with the
Travelers Insurance Company to pro-
vide additional property coverage.
LSICIT can also make available an
additional $1 million of umbrella liability
coverage.
Of the $5o0.000 of property cover.
age the program provides, LMCIT
bears the risk for the frost "W-000.
and purchases reinsurance to cover the
remainingj;9Mo.(W Of the $6Iy11,ixXt
of lability «overage. LMCIT retains I
$250.000 and buys reinsurance
to
cover the remaining M
is
liability reinsurance n subject to a
$1.000.O0(1 deductbk. Tut is, tale
first few claims 10 exceed the f�`rf/•tom
level will remain entirely LAICIT's
responsibility. the reinsurers don't
begun to pay unto tlx: total kisses in
this excess layer exceed 81 rriilikm.
LMLIr also purchases aggregate
execs% reinsurance which begins lac pay
if LMCIT'6 trial claims for t!w year
exceed 1!0 percent of premm iu.
LAICIT's member cities. act ,^g
jointly. retain a substantial ayer of the
citiesnsks. In lather words, through
LMCIT, cities are able to handle a
large share of their risks. so that their
need to relc on the commercial nisur-
awe imrkel is drastically reduced.
Ar Jrxnaig LAI:IT isn't my rah
raking ate chance that another city's
losses will cost Its MMRIe"'
�—
5'es, that s thie very nature of pooled
self-insurance — sharing 9f nsk. How.
ever. LMCIT's pricing, reinsurance,
and reserving practices are such that itis unlikely that any coy' soil have to
contribute any money in addition to its
premium. This means the nsk that you
will have to pay an assessnwnt because
Of another city kisses a exlrenxdy
small.
The total losses of th,, group deter.
mine whether surplus fund, ale avail-
able for disttibut:on back to the
member. In that sense, another city
losses Ought mean the difference as to
whether there is a surplus or nol, and
thus whether there can be a dividend
Or not Of course, other cities are
taking the same nsk with respect to
your losses. Note, though, that
LMCIT's underwriters are fairly hard.
nosed in looking at a cities IOss histOn'.
A city with a consistent histoy Of lots
of preventable losses will pay a corre-
spendingly higher pr.mium than a city
good
with Ins- expenene.
Our agent has gotten a quote from:
pnvafe comipany whirh is cheaper than
LMCIT', quote. If LMCIT rs a non-
profit operation. how can a pnvale
company' give a rheaoer nrk'e.' _
Several possible rcasuns for this
exist. Either the private company's
underwriter or LMlli s urwel%1iivr
might have misjudged the nsk. Under-
writing liability nsks involves a large
degree of fudgement, and different p'o-
pie may' judge differently. However
LMCIT's underw•rit.ra have tar more
exprnerxe on judging Mmnevita cilx•s
fab7ity risks. and far nxrce data on
Mu.ewa cities' lenses than anyone
lathe,
Anottxrr pit s9rbdmv is that the cover-
xges are not comparable. I.MCrr's
coverage forms incorporate a large
number of features which broaden cov-
eng,• to match ntics' particular needs,
Thus. ' cu noted to Hoak: sure that vim
are kwkmg at comparable coverage
when comparing price. _
Another way insurance companies
car. protde coverage more cheaply' in
the first year is to wnle coverage on a
•'calms -mark" basis.
Ithat does "claims.made" mean'
A claims -made policy covers only'
those claims where 1) the incident
,or'
ured after the coverage ukeptxm
date, and 2) the chain takes place
Juring the polky� period. An "occur-
rence" policy. by contrast. would
cover any incident occurring during the
pdxy term. regardless of when stimr-
one Makes the %arm.
Labdmy coverage has a "long tall
An indent may result in damage..
but
the claim for those damages mail nit
happen unW several years later. Thus.
a claims -made policy would exclude
many of the coons that LMCIT would
cover under the "occurrence" form
for general liability coverage
-
01CIT's public officials' errors and
cro ssrons coverage is on a claims- lode
basis. as are almost all other par
lic
officals' policies.)
An example nay clarify the differ-
ence . Consider a claims -made for cand ei
ocarrence policy,
year 1986. Supple an incident Occurs
which results in a loss. The occurrence
pricey ll coin that incident. regard,
less ofcaw'heiher someone flies a claim
unmcdately or 20 years later. A
claims -made plwy, by contrast, will
cover the damages anmakes of incident orgy J the person
claim during 1986, When the city
renews the ciaims-made policy for
1987, the renewal policy will ty'px'aly
cover claims made during 1987, provd-
ing that the incident occurred no earlier
than Jan. I. 1986, the uiception date o
the original pulley. Each successiv
plwy. then. will cover claims ansm
alit of ."dents which happened aft:
the original polky's 1986 inception
Each successive renewal OI
"claims made' pricey will cover nor
and nwre claims. The first year can
very cheap, since Orgy a fraction of t
claims fur incidents during tat Year
will actually he filed tie same year.
I.MCIT's figures
for
198f)oe 1 claims
incurred that only 28 percent
incurred that year were actually filed
that year. This is a fairly typical pat-
tern. In otlwi wards, when a rlaim%-
made p hey replaces an occurrence
Policy. the first -Near premium should
be suniewhele in the neighborhood of
a thud of the Cost of the comparable
occurrence policy, Each successive
renewal will be rrare"and s 0rre a pennd'
hive, as the pOhry
more claims, after perhaps five or sal
years, lle costs should be quite close_
Soo. although claims made coverage
may have an als' act-'en`ir difference in
it its a very Significant
coverage
There is nothing wrong with claims -
made coverage. %valid reasons exist for
using cairn -made forms. It is a per-
fectly good way tO cover risks —
provided buyers understand what they
are buying.
it'c're in LA1C'IT and our insurance
consultant sat'9 we can execs
increase of two or three hundred per-
cent for our next renewal. is this true.'
No. This may be the consultant's
best estimate of what commercial
insurance rates are likely to do next
year, but a consultant who its giving the
city this advice hasn't asked LMCIT.
LAICIT's rates prnbably won't change
much tan renewal This is because of
the crucial differences between LMCIT
and commercial insurance compames.
LMCIT's rates are now in the range
where the loss experience suggests
they should be. Cities should not
expect another "shxk" increase in
LMCIT rates at roe next renewal. In
fart, we hop' to to cuk to discontinue
charging the 10 percent reserve
assessment upon renewal.
One factor beyond LMCIT's control
which could affect rates is the cost of
reinsurance. However, by increasing
the amount or nsk LMCIT retatof
have been able 10 reduce the portion
premium due to reinsurance costs.
Even a nnajor mcrease in reinsurance
costs would now have orgy a relatively
f minor effect on the rates to individual
: cites.
g Of course_ this doesn't mean that no
r city will see a major Increase in its
n costs upon renewal. A city which
shows a pattern of consistent. prevent•
a aUie x.>5r5 .3^ exp^.'-'f ,n arP its prem-
c min go up: the worse the "ny'su,s But
lot• the more tlw premium will go p_
April 190
` PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
r CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
March 24, 1986
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, M14 55112
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mounds view City Council was called to order
1. Call to
at 7:C1 PM on March 24, 1986 by Mayor Linke,
Order
The Pledge of Allegiance was said.
2. Pledge of
Allegiance
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Haake, Hankner,
3. Roll Call
Blanchard, Quick and Mayor Linke.
ALSO PRESENT: City Att'3rney Meyers, Clerk/
Administrator Pauley and Public Works/Community
Development Director Thatcher.
' MotioniSecond: Hankner/Haake to approve the March
4. Approval of
10, 19 66 minutes as presented.
Minutes:
5 ayes 0 nays
March 10, 1986
Motion Carried
There were no residents requests or comments from
5. Residents
the floor.
Requests and
Comments from
the Floor
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Quick to approve the
consent agenda, as presented, and waive the
reading of the resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the proposed
resolution would establish payment for non -union
police officers for uniform expenses and he reviewed
the proposed resolution.
'Councilmember Hankner questioned who the non -union
3fficers are and why uniformed officers would be
compensated in a different manner than plain
clothes officers.
6. Approval of
Consent Agenda
Moticn Carried
7. Consideration
of Rslt. No. 1990
March 24, 1986
Mounds View City Council Page Two
Regular Meeting
-------------------- --
-----
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained there are four
non -union officers, the chief, lieutenant and two
a cash
entadded
thethat
beginningunion
of thecontract
year,cand thealls for
a cash coat of the
uniforms usually exceeds the allowance.
The plain clothes officers have to purchase non-
uniform articles, such as gun belts and so forth,
and recommended they be reimbursed on a voucher basis.
Motion/Second: Quick/Hankner to approve Resolution
No. 1990, establishing a uniform allowance for non-
union police officers, and waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayor Linke closed the regular meeting and opened
the public hearing at 7:09 PM.
Director Thatcher reviewed the plans for the MTC
park and ride facility at County Road H and T.H. 10.
He explained the land does not have a zoning
designation at this time, and the Planning Commission
he.s reviewed it and determined the proper zoning
would be a public facilities district. Director
Thatcher read a letter the City had received from
MnDOT today, recommending a commercial use of the
property.
Mayor Linke stated he was concerned with the existing
mature trees on the site and hopes they can be
preserved.
Councilmember Haake stated she would like to see
the area remain as open as possible
Councilmember Blanchard stated the feelings of the
Planning Commission were that this should be a
public facility, to allow people access to Rice
Creek.
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 7:16 PM.
Mayor Linke closed the regular meeting and opened
the next public hearing at 7:16 PM.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the situation
of Simon's Liquors selling alcohol after hours and
to underage individuals. He stated Police Chief
Ramacher has met with Mr. Simon and advised him of
the situation. He added that the employee involved
in the violations is still employed there, and Mr.
Simon is aware of the seriousness of the situation.
Motion Carried
8. Public Hearing:
Zoning of MnDOT
Land at Cnty. Rd.
H and T.H. 10
9. Public Hearing:
Suspension and/or
Revocation of
Simon's Liquor
On -Sale Liquor
License
Moun" view City Council March 24, 1986
Regular Mcctiug Page Three
------------------------------------------------------------------------
f "ounciimember Hankner asked what guarantee there
ould be that the same employee does not continue
to sell to minors.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied they would have
to rely on Mr. Simon to control the situation.
There was discussion among the Council of the
appropriate length of time to close down Mr.
Simon's optration.
Mayor Linke closed the public hearing and reopened
the regular meeting at 7:22 PM.
Motion/Second? 6ianchard/Hankner to suspend the
liquor license of Simon's Liquors for seven
business days, starting at 12:01 AM on Friday,
March 29, 1986 through 12:00 PM on Friday,
April 4, 1986.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Director Thatcher reviewed the bids received for 10. Consideration of
chlorine equipment for water treatment plant Staff Memo
'10. 1. Regarding
Chlorine Equipment
Motion/Second: Haake/Quick to approve the purchase for Water
of chlorine equipment from Layne Minnesota Co. in Treatment Plant
the amount of $5,031.00. No. 1
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the March 20, 11. Consideration of
1986 memo from Energy Coordinator Rita Docken, Staff Memo
asking for the Council's endorsement of the goal Pegarding Exxon
statement for disbursement of the Exxon Oil over- Oil Overcharge
charge money. Monies
Motion/Second: Hankner/Haake to approve Council
endorsement of the goal statement for disbursement
of the Exxon Oil overcharge money.
5 ayes 0 rays Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve the 12. 1st Reading of
first rea ing of Ordinance No. 406, amending the Ord. No. 406
Municipal Code of Mounds view by amending Chapter
41 entitled "Specific Rezonings", and waive the
!adiiiy.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Mounds View City Council March 24, 1986
Regular Meeting Page Four
----------------------------------- --- --- -----
Director Thatcher reviewed the history 13. Consideration
of the Gale/Y09t property and stated of Rslt. No.
that the City has not yet been reimbursed 1980
for their costs, and recommended assessing
the costs to the property.
Mution/Second: ouirk/liankner to approve
Resolution No. 1980, assessing the City's
cost of preparing plans and specifications and
bidding the projert twice for Public Improve-
ment No. 84-5 for property known as the Gale/
Yost Addition, and waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion
Carried
Director Thatcher had no report. 14. Report of
Public Works/
Community
Dvlpt. Dir.
Attorney Meyers had no report. 15. Report of
Attorney
Councilmember haake expressed concern 16. Report of
in the lack of interest by the citizens Council -
in attending agenda sessions ano the fact members
that so much discussion goes on at them that
the public is then not aware of. She suggested
possibly combining the agenda sessions into the
regular meetings, which are better attended and
have formal minutes taken.
Councilmember Haake also asked for the status
and outcome of the City's neeting with MAC the
previous week.
Mayor Links stated the City was successful in
meeting with MAC end getting them to agree to
consider moving the north/south runway 2,500 feet
to the north and removing an equal amount of
existing pavement from the south end. He stated
it is contingent upon the environmental impact
statement (EIS), and the City's acceptance of that.
He added that the City has since requested they
amend the EIS to look at moving the runway 2500' to
the north.
Attorney Meyers stated they have approached MAC on
the segmented EIS issue in the past, and the City
has consultants prepared to study MAC's proposal., once
it is received. He added it is not necessary to do the
entire Master Plan over.
J
Mounds View City Council March 24, 1986
Regular Meeting Page Five
/..
i Councilmember Hankner stated they must first determine
whether a movement of 2500' would have any adverse affect
on the City, which they should be able to determine through
the EIS.
Alice Frits asked when the meeting with MAC was held,
how long it lasted, and what will happen with the runway
that is torn up.
Councilmember Hankner replied the meeting was an executive
session, attended by the previously appointed members cf
the Council. She added the City does not know yet what MAC
will be doing with the runway pavement that is torn up.
Councilmember Hankner stated that no formal meeting took
place between the Council and MAC during her time on the
Council, for the purpose of negotiations
Mayor Linke stated the meeting was held on March 13, at the
State Caoital, and lasted approximately one hour.
Duane McCartY stated many meetings were held before the
lawsuit with MAC, but that no progress was made at that time.
Mayor Linke read a letter the City had sent requesting
the EIS amendment.
Councilmember Hankner stated she also does not like the format
of the agenda sessions, in that the public does not attend
then and then is not informed. She stated she would prefer
having regular meetings throughout the month and foregoing
the agenda sessions.
Mayor Linke states he feels the agenda sessions serve a purpose,
and he has had input from citizens, stating they prefer to
deal with the Council on a more informal basis at agenda sessions,
rather than at the formal meeting .
Councilmember Haake stated she could agree that many people
arc more comfortable in talking to the Council at aaenda
sessions, but the public in general does not turn out for them,
She added she has no problem with the regular meetings lasting
until 11 PM or midnight, if necessary, to cover all the
business.
Mavor Linke asked that the people who are last on the agenda be
remembered, as they do not want to wait until after midnight to
be heard, and the Council is not fresh at that late hour.
Councilmember Eankner suggested considering going to four regular
meetings a month, which should alleviate the late hour yet still
allow the citizens to be informed.
Councilmember Haake stated she agreed that the solution may
be to go to four regular meetings per month.
Mounds view City Council March 24, 1986
Reqular Meeting pane Six
------------------------------------------------------------
Clerk-Administrator Pauley stated he does not
feel discussions that occur after 11 PM accomplish
what they should. fie explained the difference
between a City Manager form of government and
Administrator form, which is why some cities meet only
once a month. He pointed out, though, that those meetings
often last until 2 AM. lie stated that approximately
751 of the business on the Mounds View agenda would be
eliminated if the City had a Manager form of government.
Councilmember Blanchard stated she could remember sitting
in the audience at Council meetinqs until 1 or 2 in the
morning, which she does not want to see again. She
pointed out the meetings are scheduled and the public is
aware of them. She also added that if the Council cannot
he heard at the aqenda sessions, the citizens should speak
up and ask the Council to speak up. She also stated she
feels it is good to do the consent agenda and housekeepinq
items before the regular meeting, and that any item can he
pulled for discussion at any time.
Councilmember Blanchard stated she does not feel the
citizens want to sit in the Council chambers until 1 or
2 in the morning, and the City conducts public hearings
and notices are sent out and items are publicized in
the newspaper, so the citizens can know what is going
on and it is their decision whether they want to attend
the meetings. She added she does not feel the agenda
-cssiona are -utting off information to the people.
It was agreed that the Council would discuss the issue
further at the next agenda session and look at the
options available.
Councilmember Hankner expressed displeasure at the fact
the locks were changed at City Hall the previous
Friday, and she was not informed and had a difficult
time tracking dcwn a key to get into the building to
qet her Council packet. She asked the Staff try to
make sire everyone is informed of changes such as
that, to alleviate problems in the future.
Councilmember Blanchard reported the Fire Department
is looking for daytime volunteer fire fighters.
Councilmember Quick had no report.
Mayor Linke reported he attended "Chalkboard Capers"',
presented by District 1621 teachers, and had found it
to be a very entertaining production.
Mayor Links reminded everyone of the City Appreciation
Dinner, scheduled for April 19 at the Bel Rae Ballroom.
Mounds View City Council March 24, 1986
Regular Meeting Page Seven----
--------
ynn Foss of Foss Sweeping, asked for a clarifica-
ion of why the street sweeping bid was awarded to
someone else. tie stated it was his understanding
that his bid was low when they were opened.
Director Thatcher explained that when the City
opened the bids, none of the bidders met the
requirement to provide a bid bond along with the
bid, so all bids were rejected, and he called the
two lowest bidders, of which Mr. Foss was one,
and they both then provided it. Subsequently,
the City received quotes from both the parties
involved, which were lower than their original
bids, and American Sweepers, Inc. was the lowest
quote received.
Mr. Foss stated he does not feel the bond should be
required until the work is being done, and he
expressed dissatisfaction that he was not awarded
the bid.
Councilmember Hankner stated the bidders all should
have been informed that the item was going to be
discussed at the March 17 agenda session.
'ouncilmember Haake stated they have not done a good
ob of notifying people when certain items are up
for discussion informally at an agenda session, and
that while Staff has only operated in the direction
the Council has had them in the past, it should be
looked at now.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated that MAC's capi,al 17. Report of
improvement plan is going before the Systems Committee Clerk/stzator
of the Met Council on March 25.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley passed out draft copies of
the Economic Development Plan to the Council, and
stated it would be placed on the April 7 agenda
session, at which time he would like feedback from
the Council.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley passed out proposed
Resolution No. 1994, for the 1987 long term tinan
ial
plan and budget calendar, and asked Council's approval.
Mayor Linke stated he would like the employee reviews
done before the Council discusses salaries during the
budget process.
terk/Administrat,)r Dauley explained how the system
_.s set up presently and recommended possibly going to
two reviews per year, as it is important to do the
review as close as possible to the financial
compensation.
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
-------------------------------------------
Motion/Second: Quick/liaake to adopt Resolution
No. 1994, setting the 1)87 Long Term Financial
Plan and Budget Calendar, end waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 8:35 PM.
March 24, 198E
Page Eight
Motion Carried
18. Adjournment
1