Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1989/09/05CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL r AGENDA SESSION SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 7:00 P.M. 1. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding August 11, 1989 Letter of Deborah Jones, 7405 Park View Drive 2. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Silver View Park Pathway Plantings 3. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Greenfield Park Baseball Field Improvements 4. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Silver View Park Picnic Shelter Committee Plans 5. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding County Road J Reconstruction 6. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Statutory Amendment Regarding Park Land Dedication 7. Consideration of Resolution No. 2530 Regarding Acceptance and Commendation to the Mounds View Lion's ` Club 8. Consideration of Resolution No. 2531 Regarding Acceptance and Commendation to the New Brighton Eagle's Club 9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Utility Bills 10. Consideration of Proposed Contract for Past Due Utility Bill Collection (to be hand carried Monday evening) 11. ConsiderationtStephensfNorth ofndum CountygRoadnI Traffic 12. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding State Liquor Law Amendments 13. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Student Representation on Committees/Commissions 14. Continued Discussion of 1989 Long -Term Financial Plan 15. Continued Discussion of Proposed 1990 General Fund Budget PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA UNAPPROVED Regular Meeting August 28, 1989 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Mounds view City Council was called to order by 1. Call to Order Mayor Hankner at 7:01 PM on Monday, August 28, 1989. 2. Pledge of The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Allegiance MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Wuori, Quick, 3. Roll Call Blanchard, Paone and Mayor Hankner. ALSO PRESENT: Clerk/Administrator Pauley, Public Wor.s Director Minetor and City Planner Hren. Motion/Second: Paone/Quick to approve the August 4. Approval of 14, 1989 minutes as presented. August 14, 1989 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Presentation Mayor Hankner read proposed Resolution No. 2528, 5. Certificates commending aquatics supeof Certs rvisor Kelley Lindquist of Recognition for his service to the City, and wishing him well in his endeavors. Motion/Second: Wuori/Quick to adopt Resolution No. commending aquatics supervisor Kelley Lindquist 2528, for his service to the City. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Hankner read proposed Resolution No. 2481, commending City Forester Richard Wriskey for his efforts and accomplishments with Tree City USA. Motion/Second: Quick/Paone to adopt Resolution No. �2481, commending City Forester Richard Wriskey for his efforts. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Hankner presented the awards to Mr. Lindquist and Mr. Wriskey. Mounds View City CounciUNAPPROVED August 28, 1989 + Regular Meeting ------------------------ Page Two -- Mayor Hankner also presented awards to Scott Peterson, for his volunteer work in the parks, resulting in his earning his Eagle badge, to Bill Engberg, for his volunteer work in the parks, and to Ben Voss, who placed first in the state spelling bee, third in the state geography test and 14th in the state math contest. Alice Frits, 6072 Long Lake Road, stated she would like to see the Council form 6. Residents an organization next spring to educate children on bike riding and Requests and safety, stating sh'i had had several near misses this summer. Comments from the Floor Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the City has conducted bike safety classes in the past, in the City Hall parking lot, in conjunction with the Park and Rec department. He added he did not believe the City could require people to attend the classes. Paul Mielke, 516 Brighton Lane, stated it is not difficult to get registered, and he did not believe a safety class could be required. Councilmember Blanchard suggested the Police depart- ment enforce the rules of the road, and issue tickets if necessary. Motion/Second: Paone/Hankner to direct Staff to `-, have the Attorney look into the legal requirements and how to set up an education program for next spring. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Motion/Second: Quick/Wuori to approve the consent 7. Approval of agenda, as presented, and waive the reading of the Consent Agenda resolutions. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried City Planner Fren explained each of the lots meets minimum width and 8. Consideration area requirements for an R-1 dis- trict. The outlot is planned to remain of Resolution as is at this time. The final plat is consistent with the prelimi- No. 2527, nary plat, which was approved earlier, and Staff Michael Mezzenga Final Plat recommends approval of the major subdivision. Sub - division, 8140/ Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to a rove Resolution 212.Long Lake R Road a No. 2527, pproving a final plat major subidivision for Michael Mezzenga, approximately 8140/8212 Long Lake Road, Planning Case No. 256-88, and waive the 718� reading. 5 aves 0 nays Motion Carried Vr ~ Mounds View City Council D August.28, 1989 Regular Meeting Page Three 04 Ms. Hren explained the proposed resolution would approve the wetland enhancement project which has been proposed at past meetings. Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve Reso- lution No. 2525, approving a wetlands alteration per- mit for Mounds View Business Park South wetland enhancement project, Planning Case No. 259-89, and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Ms. Hren explained the proposed resolution would allow the Mayor and Clerk/Administrator to execute the development agreement regarding the PUD, Woodale Drive extension and wetland enhancement project for Mounds View Business Park South. The Attorney has reviewed and approved it. She noted the applicant has proposed some last minute minor changes, and the Attorney recommends the Council approve the agree- ment, with the changes, contingent upon his final approval. Motion/Second: Paone/Wuori to approve Resolution No. 2526, authorizing the City of Mounds View to execute Development Agreement No. 89-91 with Everest Development Group, contingent upon the approval of the Attorney, and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported the Council had received the contract for review at their August 14 meeting. Attorney Karney has reviewed the contract and finds it acceptable. Motion/Second: Blanchard/Paone to approve the con- tract £or private redevelopment between the City of Mounds View and Commercial Property Investments, Inc for Mounds View Business Park South. 5 ayes 0 nays Ron Langness, of Springsted, Inc., explained the proposed resolution is related to the land buydown costs associated with Mounds View Business Park South. Bids will be called for on September 25, and reviewed for accuracy and will be presented to the Council at their meeting that evening. Consideration of Resolution No. 2525 Regard- ing Mounds View Business Park South Wetlands Alteration Permit Motion Carried 10. Consideration of Resolution No. 2526, Mounds View Business Park South Motion Carried 11. Approve Contract for Private Re- development Between City of Mounds View and Commercial Pro- perty Invest- ments, Inc. Motion Carried 12. Consideration of Resolution No. 2527 OMMM 71 DDR D August_ 29, 1989 �'�' � �� Epage Four Council U ii i.! ------- Mounds Yiew city -------- - Re9ular Meeting_ lution -- rove Reso Motion/second: fo uth taxsincrem to uan Of Quick/ the issuance an ent 5 providing eneral obligation View, and No. able 9 C;ty of Mounds $1 490,G00 is 1989C of the bonds, series waive the reading- 5 ayes 0 nays explained proposed Reso- Pauley for the issuance and sale it-2529 torwit rovide obligation bonds, lutioNo 2529 will P t general lution W°• tax exemp of s939,000 in 1989B' adopt Resolution NO- series,000 Paone to sale of $93., Second: Quick/ 898, Motion/ the issuance and $arias 19 2529�ngenera1 obligation bonds, in tax exemP reading and waive the 5 ayes 0 nays ed Resolution Motion Carried 13. Consideration of Resolution No• 2529 14 Pauley read PYOPos standards of maistructur for Clerk/Administrator establiandnpublic works infrastructure No. City is arks been struggling the City's P +he Council has working within Mayor Hankner explained mart the issue of parks maintenanandaequiP before the budget and with the manpower had been She noted last week for their available, Commission the Park and Rec review• noted a cost accounting paufor this area. Clerk/Administra5et up gesolution system is being rove Diotion/S BlanchastandardsPaone tOfamP econd: aintenanCe for No. 2 ablishinP�lic Works infrastructur , nd the City the he reading• and waive the r 0 nays 5 ayes to Pro- v wined Ramsey Foyn�ollectiohas n expenses Ms. 9ren e•P- 3,800 ram in the City' vide an additionthesreCycling program associated with discussed this noted the Council had ° additional kner there is n t4ayor an and unfortunately expenses. last week, educational available for authorize the money into Second: Quick/Hankner to Administrator to enter ant Agreement M°to=nand Clerk/ the Recycling May Number 1 to Addendum,e` County• with Ram" Motion Carried Consideration of ResolutEsta_ No. 2516, blishing standards of Maintenance isi the CityWorks and Publc Infrastructure Motion Carried 15. Authorization to Enter Into Addendum No' 1 for Recycling Grant Agreement with Ramsey County .4otion Carried 0 nays 5 ayes ` Mounds view City Counci UNAPPROVED August 28, 1989 Page Five Regular Meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the Planning 16. Consideration Commission had recently raised concerns about the City of Position Planner offering formal recommendations to them on Accountability planning issues, so the position accountability Write -Up for write-up has been changed to reflect that, to have City Planner the City Planner provide a report indicating com- pliance or non-compliance. Mayor Harkner noted the Council had discussed this at an agenda session. Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to approve the position accountability write-up for the City Planner. Notion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Public Works Director Minetor reported Staff has met 17. Consideration with representatives of Voto, Tautges, Redpath & Co., of Staff Memo and Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc., to discuss an Regarding analysis of the current water and sewer rates and Utility Rate rate structure. Proposals have been received back Study from the two firms, one to have SEH prepare the necessary engineering information and the other to have Voto, Tautges, Redpath & Co. prepare the financial. analysis. Costs would be covered from the water and �~ sewer maintenance accounts, and if SEH's bill were to go over their proposed $12,500, they could come back to the Council before proceeding. Clerk/Administrator Pauley noted a rate study has not been done since the early 80's, even though rate adjustments are done yearly. Mr. Minetor stated they hope to have this completed before it is time to adopt the water and sewer budgets for next year, by October 25. Motion/Second: Paone/Quick to authorize Staff to enter into agreements with Voto, Tautges, Redpath & Co. and with Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. for a water and sewer rate analysis with a combined total estimated cost of $21,000, with the cost of the study to be charged to the water and sewer system maintenance accounts. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mr. Minetor explained the Environmental Quality Task 18. Consideration of Force has accepted the resignation of Carol Christensen, Staff Memo Regar and there may be another vacancy occurring soon. They ing Vacancy on presentiv have 6 members, and since the original concept Environmental was to have up to 9 members, they would like to see them Quality Task filled to keep the group going. Force Mounds View City Councily 1141'11 1 E i U V L iJ August 28, 19`89 - Regular Meeting Page Six -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Hankner noted they need to work on recruiting people for this group. Park and Rec Director Saarion reviewed the bids 19. Consideration received for the Oakwood Park grading project and of Bid Award recommended the Council approve the low bid of on Oakwood Stanway Excavating, Inc. Park Grading Project Motion/Second: Blanchard/Paone to award the grading project at Oakwood Park to Stanway Excavating, Inc. with a bid of $3,850.00, to be funded from the Park Improvement Fund. 5 ayes 0 nays Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the proposed ordinance was drafted per Council direction, based on action taken by the Legislature. Motion/Second: Quick/wuori to approve the first rea ing or Ordinance No. 473, amending the Municipal Code of Mounds View by repealing Chapter 108, entitled "Public Dance Halls", and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 473 Ms. Saarion made a slide presentation showing improve- 21. ments made to each of the City parks over the past five years. Mayor Hankner reported the Council has discussed plantings at Silver View Park before, to delineate the private property from the park property. The Park and Rec Commission has recommending the plantings begin this fall. Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to direct Staff to have Forester wriskey put plantings in in accordance with the August 25, 1989 memo from Park and Rec Director Saarion. 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Hankner reviewed the August 25 memo from Ms. Saarion concerning recommendations for members to serve on the Silver View Park Picnic Shelter Planning Committee. It was agreed that Councilmember Quick would represent the Council. Mayor Hankner reviewed who the other proposed members would be. Motion CarrJU "-a Second Quarter Report of Parks, Recreation and Forestry Director Motion Carried Mounds View City Council UNAPPROVED August 28, 1989 Regular Meeting Page Seven Motion/Second: Quick/Hankner to make the appoint- ments to t.5e Silver View Park Picnic Shelter Planning Committee as proposed in the August 25, 1989 memo from Park and Rec Director Saarion. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Hankner asked that tha Council be kept informed of all meetings of this group. Motion/Second: Quick/Wuori to set the first meeting for August 30, at 7 PM at City Hall, contingent upon a cancellation if there cannot be a quorum. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Hankner noted the City had received a letter from the New Brighton Eagles, committing $16,000 to the park building when it is approved and bids have been let. Motion/Second: Quick/Hankner that Staff be directed to prepare a resolution accepting the $16,000 to be used toward the park building and a communication to the New Brighton Eagles to that affect. 4 ayes 0 nays 1 abstention Motion Carried Councilmember Paone abstained from the vote. Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick that Staff be directed to prepare a similar resolution of thanks to the Mounds View Lions Club. Motion. Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Mr. Minetor reported an additional right of way is 22. Report of required from two property owners for the woodale Staff Avenue extension, and negotiations have been under- Members taken. Motion/Second: Quick/Paone to authorize Staff to o tain the necessary right of way and easements at a cost of $1.32 per square foot for the permanent right of way and $0.132 per square foot for the tem- porary easements, and to include a value of $2,000 to the Kroonblawd's for damages to trees in the temporary easement, and that all costs be charged to the tax increment financing of Mounds View Business Park South. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mounds view City Council V i'JFAI ! 9 i v v ` August 28, 1989 Regular Meeting Page Wight -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Minetor explained the total cost for the right • of ways would be $19,668.07. Mr. Minetor reported Allied Blacktop Co. has completed the chip sealing, sweeping and striping of the streets designated in their contract. He has reviewed the pay request, which has an overrun of $479.58, due to the addition of two sections of street not in the original contract, and higher usage of material than was planned. Motion,iSecond: Quick/Wuori to accept the project and approve thefinal payment to Allied Blacktop Co. in the amount of $55,628.78, to be charged to account 1100-4270-705, the street department construction account. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mr. Minetor reported the building inspector Jim Tobias would be on vacation the first three weeks of Seotem- ber, and Carl Norlander will be assisting during that time, for 20 hours per week, at $16 per hour. Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve the hiring of Carl Norlander at $16 per hour, for 20 hours per week, while the building inspector is on vacation. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Ms. Saarion reported they are accepting community fund raising projects for the Festival in the Park, to be held September 17, and anyone interested should contact City Hall. She also reviewed the entertainment and activities planned. Ms. Saarion reported the fall newsletter will be going out this week. Ms. Hren reminded everyone the household hazardous clean-up day is scheduled for September 23, and they are still looking for volunteers to help. Councilmember Wuori had no report. 23. Reports of Councilmembers: Councilmember Wuori Councilmember Quick reported he had received a letter Councilmember from Neil valley, NBAA coach, requesting several im- Quick provements be made at Greenfield Park, and he read the list of improvements requested. Mounds View City Council UNAPPRO�tM August 28, 1989 Regular Meeting Page Nine Motion/Second: Quick/Hankner to direct Staff to Fake cost estimates for the improvements and make a priority list and present it to the Council at the next agenda session. 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Hankner noted the Park and Rec Commission had discussed this last week, and they will be talking to Mr. Valley. Councilmember Blanchard had no reccrt. Councilmember Paone had no report. Mayor Hankner had no report. Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had received a letter from City Attorney Karney, requesting another payment be authorized to Robert Waste, to reimbursement him for the statutorily required appraisal fee, and interest on the $10,100 award - made earlier, at 81, for a total additional payment of $1,646.81, to be charged to the Mounds View Business Park tax increment fund. Motion/Second: Quick/Paone to approve payment of $1,646.81 to Robert Waste, to be charged to the Mounds View Business Park tax increment fund. 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Hankner noted complaints had been received concerning the Amoco station playing their adver- tisements over the loud speaker late at night. Clerk/Administrator Pauley responded that the City Planner would contact them. He noted Super America has been contacted twice recently, and there have been problems with pallets also. Mrs. Frits reported cans they have set out for pick- up on recycling day have been taken by someone else the night before. Clerk/administrator Pauley explained that is a problem nation-wide, and while some cities have adopted anti- scavanger ordinances, they are very difficult to enforce as you must catch the person and know that they are not the property owner or do not have permission from the property owner to take the items. Motion Carried Councilmember Blanchard Councilmember Paone Mayor Hankner 24. Report of Clerk/ Administrator Motion Carried Mounds view City council UNAPPROVED 89 Regular Meeting August_ 28, 19' "- --- Page Ten ---------------------------- There being no further business before the Council, 25. Adjournment Mayor Hankner adjourned the meeting at 8:41 PM. Respectfully submitted, Donald F. Pauley Clerk/Administrator MEMO TC: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL \� FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR/PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989 SUBJECT: AUGUST 11, 1989 LETTER OF DEBORAH JONES, 7405 PARK VIEW DRIVE At the August 14, 1989 Council Meeting Mayor Hankner presented the attached letter she had received from Mrs. Deborah Jones. Staff was directed to distribute copies Of the letter to Council, which was done, and respond to the points contained in the letter. The issue of extending the Silver View Park trail has been before the City for the past few years and, as you well know, fought with controversy. In preparing a response, staff has reviewed City records and drawn upon the recollection of various individuals involved in the development of the park and trail. One of the difficulties we encountered is the fact that in some cases City records are contradictory and memories have faded. We have made an honest attempt to accurately reflect the facts. 1. It is true that the Kraus -Anderson or Mary Anderson Homes salespeople displayed copies of the Saunders and Thalden prepared Master Plan for the park and that the i plan showed a bridge at the narrows and no extension of the trail to the west. What apparently did not come out during the sales presentation is that it was a plan prepared in an effort to obtain additional funding for parks development through LAWCON grants and park bond referendums. The City did not succeed in obtaining the LAWCON grant nor were we successful in our attepts to receive voter approval of bond referendums. As a result of the City's inability to secure the necessary capital, the Master Plan for Silver View and the other City's parks became a guide used by the Park and Recreation Commission rather than a binding document, The Commission established the goal of making use of available park dedication funds to improve the Parks recognizing that those funds would not be adequate to accomplish all of the improvements shown in the Master Plans. 2. On May 27, 1988 an on -site meeting was held with Dan Boxrud, Council, residents and staff present. The path route had been staked prior to the meeting and Mr. Boxrud reviewed the plan, copy attached, he had prepared. ' 3. Forester Wriskey has not prepared a formal landscaping �-' Dlan for the trail. Instead, he has discussed a conceptual plan with them which included a suggestion MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PAGE THREE AUGUST 30, 1989 15. The 1981 Master Plan does not show a path to the west, but Dan Boxrud's plans indicate that the extension is feasible. 16. It is true that no cost estimate has been made for the maintenance of the trail extension. Estimates have been made for the materials and manpower needed tc constcuct the extension with those numbers being provided at various times and not summarized in one report. DFP/MS/MJS Ms. Susan Hankner Mayor City of Mound View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Sue: August 11. 1989 I would like to take this opportunity to summarize some of the events that have led to our frustration with the Silver View Park path extension. 1. In November 1985, I purchased my home at 7405 Park View Drive. At that time, the builder briefly discussed the future plans of Silver View Park including a bridge at the narrows. 2. In the spring of 1988, I met with other residents, then mayor Jerry Linke, and Mary Saarion at the path site where we expressed our concerns and objections to the path extension. One of our specific objections had been its proximity to our lot line. We were told at that time that before anything was decided, a plan would be done showing the exact location of the path. The residents would have an opportunity to review the plan before any decision was reached. 3. A meeting was later held with the forrester where planting options were discussed. I was unable to attend this meeting, but 1 have been informed that a plan for the path was not available for the residents to review. r.. 4. In June 1989, 1 attended a Park & Recreation meeting where I was told by the commission that the copy of the Silver View Park master plan blueprint that I had recently sera, which included a bridge at the narrows and no path extension, had never been approved. We were told that the only master plan for Silver View Park was the brief reference in the 1981 Master Plan book. Note: The blueprint I had seen was one that had been given to Carol and Steve Golden by the Mounds View Park Commissioner. The Goldens had requested confirmation prior to purchasing their home in 1983 that no path would be constructed behind the private homes. This blueprint was provided to them at that time. 5. My husband, therefore, went to city hall and requested a copy of the master plan done in 1981 so that we would be aware of the plans that had been approved. 6. However, after extensive research, we have found Park & Recreation Commision and City Council meeting minutes which document the approval of the Silver View Park Master Plan. Park & Recreation Commission 4-23.81 City Council 4-27-81 The dates of these meetings correspond with the dates on the Goldens' blueprint. 7. At the August 7, 1989 City Council meeting, there was no denial by the Park & Recreation attendees that a master plan exists. Instead, they commented that it is continually being updated and changed. My interpretation of this is that there is a master plan, but that the Park & Recreation Commission has decided not to follow it. It is my understanding, that significant changes to the plan (i.e. path extension, elimination of a bridge, grossly expanded picnic shelter, etc.) requires public notification and hearings to determine the requirements of the residents, as well as, to ensure those changes fit in •Hith the intent of the original master plan. 8. In July 1989, I attended a City Council meeting and was surprised when I was told that the path had been approved. I had expected that Mary Saarion would keep her word when she said in the spring 1988 meeting and subsequent meetings and letters that the residents would have an opportunity to see the plan before anything was approved. As lan far as tolits ow,appnone of As a rnmsidensof fact1Ctherectly tareaseveralyofhus who did noth had t evenknow prithat it had been approved. 9. Since that time. I have contacted the city and requested all the background information that went into the approval of the path. I have received copies of several memos, but to date. I am still waiting for a copy of the Council minutes when it was approved so I can find out when it happened. 10. I would like to comment on a memo from Mary Saarion to the Mayor and Council Members dated June 14. 1988 (see attached). • When questioned why the wood chip path did not extend around the entire pond, an appropriate response would have been that the master plan includes a bridge to connect the two existing paths and provide easy access to the park. When funds were available, it would be constructed. • I think Mary stated it very appropriately in her memo when she wrote, "it was the desire of the Park & Recreation Commission to extend the path" - not the best interests of the residents that were considered. 11. In Mary Saarion's memo to the Mayor and Council Members dated March 28, 1989 (see attached), she states "the pathway plan was... reviewed several times by residents." This statement is not true. We never saw a plan until late this summer after we were told it had been approved. 12. Once I finally received a copy of the path plan (July 1989), I contacted both Rick Wriskey and Wayne Burmeister regarding its proximity to our lot line. The path and plantings as currently planned will be on our property. We had pointed this out to Mary in the spring 1988 meeting, but we were accused of moving the stakes that had been put in for the meeting. This past week Wayne Burmeister has restaked our property lines and agrees that there is a problem. There is no room for the plantings which the residents have been promised. Since our lot is also adjacent to the concrete access walk, it is even more critical that there be a definition of our property. Otherwise, there will be a tendency to "cut the corner" through our yard. In addition, if the ag-lime turns out to be anything like the wood chips, many walkers will choose to walk along side the path rather than on it. 13. The plan also indicates the path will be 8 feet and "narrower as required." Since the culvert is being put in so vehicles can cross and drive down the path, anything narrower than 8 feet would have the trucks driving on the unstable bank of the pond or on the plantings. 14. It should also be noted that two trees will need to be relocated to complete the path. 15. It is obvious that it was never intended to have the path along the residences. • There is not enough room for it. Our lot line would not have been established where it is if there had been a plan for the path. • Plantings have already been made based on the master plan. • In addition, if one looks at the master plan, it is quite obvious that the paths and bridge at the narrows are intended to provide easy access to the park and its facilities. There is no need for a path behind the residences. The bridge at the narrows would connect the park to the paths from County Road H2 and the two concrete access walks from Park View Drive. 16. It also comes as a surprise to me that in the packet of information I received regarding the path, there is not one mention of cost - either development or maintenance. As a tax paying citizen, I believe I have the right to that information. There must be some document itemizing the cost for the development (i.e. material, labor, backfilling, plantings, tree relocation, culvert bridge, benches, waste containers, etc.). In addition, maintenance costs must include annual smoothing of the ag-lime, filling in of holes in the bank caused by rodents. tree trimming, repair and replacement of benches and waste containers, etc. These costs and associated benefits should have been compared to the costs and benefits of a bridge at the narrows before a decision was made to change the master plan. Mote: I disagree with the comments that using the city equipment and labor for the construction of the path is "free." The maintenance department is already ever: 41 burdened and not providing the service and maintenance to the parks that is required. For example, at Silver View Park alone, the trees need to be trimmed, the holes in the bank need to be filled, the new bench needs to be re -anchored, etc. If the people who normally are responsibile for park maintenance are spending their time constructing a path, then there will be even less maintenance provided to the parks. This is not "free" labor. As you can see, we are very frustrated for a number of different reasons. I believe that the residents have been lied to, ienored, and insulted. The tax paying citizens and businesses are paying for projects that have not been cost/benefit justified, and as such. our money is being used to satisfy the desires of a few individuals not the needs of the community. This situation needs to change. Your help and support is greatly appreciated. Regards, Deborah ivl. Jones 7405 Park View Drive 11 hTi:40 T0: NAyOR AND COUNCIL4DI,`1BERS FROM: W' 'I SAARION, DIRECTOR PARRS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY 1 DATE: JUNE 14, 1988 SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PA.R.'C PATHWAY The completion of Silver View Park pathway became an issue when staff received telephone calls from residents who inquired why the wcod chip path did not extend around the eacire pond. Staff brought this issue up to the Park, and 987. After se Recreation this issue with hr sidengs onof lboth sides, itvwas'theedesire of the discussing Parss k and Recreation Commission to extend the path completely around the pond. Some residents living on land bordering park land continued to object to the extension of the pathway. The issue was turned over to the City Council with the recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission that the pathway be extended. The City Council held several meetings with residents during the 1-1/2 year timespan. A final plan explaining the pathway layout has been developed by Engineer Dan Boxrud (see attached). It is staff's request that direction be given from the Council to staff regarding the wood chip path at Silver View Park. The City staff has conferred and is is the opinion that work done on the ed until fall of his pathway could conchs andtthere is already would longli if st stressed if of summer maintenance projects to be completed. City Council direction is requested. 'NS/SL Attachment yam.. /-,*N MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR 0 PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DATE: MARCH 28, 1989 SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PARK PATHWAY EXTENSION It was suggested last year that the City look towards Spring, 1989 to install the pathway link of trail between the present woodchip trail on the northwest side of the pond to the south side cement walk easement and adjoining woodchip trail. It was determined that this segment should be a crushed rock material. The completion of this segment of pathway would follow with the planting of shrubs and trees. Forester Rick Wriskey will visit with each resident abutting this park area to consider their desires for tree and shrub variety and Placement. The pathway plan was designed by Short -Elliot -Hendrickson and reviewed several times by the residents, Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. The crushed rock has been budgeted for this year in the Parks Account. The public works crew would cut the grade, pour the rock and pack the material. Forester Wriskey would coordinate the planting details with each individual resident whose property abuts this section of Pathway. RECODL•!ENDATION: Approval to proceed with the installation of the south section of Pathway using crushed rock material as a base. MS/SL ........ ... ...._....... _ EXIST, BRIDGE , u ••, ,. `�„ RELOCATE BP.:OGE lOYLnr¢T . RELOCATE TREE I i, ,•. ,J',` ' 2 AEL THEE DECID ISTMD DECIDUOUS TREE 6 EX L • EXIST. i� IIIII AILUX % _---EXISTING ��• -t. �F`,_-- '---- _ - �' 10 WOOD CHIP TRAIL 6 1 •]__Kc,I •'B- -• / y �1 ' ill ✓!-PROPOSED 9WOW CRW TRAIL — - _ - Ivy _ + I (NARROWER A! REQUIRED) ' VIEW ;j 2" i I I W i I a ' III Y W 1 1 m HODGES LANE I uv. ,t-sae SILVERVI£W PARK TRAIL CONNECTION MOUNDS VIEW ene+ SILVER VIEW PARK PATHWAY MEETINGS Silver View Park pathway was discussed at the following meetings as documented in minutes: Park end Recreation Commission Meetings February 26, 1987 March 26, 1987 April 23, 1987 June 25, 1987 August 27, 1987 September 24, 1987 March 25, 1988 April 21, 1988 June 16, 1988 Council Meetings -----' March 14, 1988 (meeting notices Beni to msiuciiw) June 27, 1988 Agenda May 2, 1988 (SEH with plan presentation) Special Meetngs May, 1986 Former Director Anderson met with residents regarding the resolution of residential property abutting park land. May 27, 1988 on -site meeting; area had previously been staked and Mr. Boxrud presented plans to residents, staff and Councilmembers present. September 30, 1987 Meeting at Golden's house - Commission, Council, Staff, Residents. November 17, 1987 Meetings with residents at City Hall with Forester Wriskey. r ,-271z, �/-7 ,,2 MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR M12 PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989 SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PARK PATHWAY PLANTINGS Staff requests Council to review the letter prepared by Forester Wriskey informing property owners abutting the proposed pathway extension of the Wanting oroiect directed by Council on August 28, 1989. If this meets with Council approval, the letter can be sent immediately with plantings to follow the installation of property stakes. Staff requests direction as to the exact properties to receive the bushes. Please consult the attached map. Staff presumes the indicated properties. Please verify if this presumption if correct. MS/SL Attachment 4. Ci 0f voundg VW V AAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 740114IGHWAY 10 MOUNDS V IE W, MINN. 551 f 7 1840055 August 29, 1989 Dear Silver View Neighbor: The City will be planting "indicator" shrubs to mark the vicinity of the comer stakes of your south property adjacent to the park. In keeping with the framework of the eventual planting, the shrub selection will be compact amur maple (3 ft. planted). The shrubs will be planted by the markers shortly after they are located. If you have any questions regarding this planting, please contact me at 784-3055 (Tuesday/Thursday). Sincerely, Rick Wriskey, Forester City of Mounds View RW/SL r r_ _ a� T - n I. 1 n I n I L� I I I i I I.. �1 11, 11III u4X. �ili III •III ilt 1 _ :r, � j,; - !1�-� ' � ,� • r1 I In —. -flli'rij Timt!1'Ij�(•. �I'•�1/ I .I •fir i� .'" — 1 YI'Ij111 I "t I ! l ICiilJlli�ll! S; "� ,^ . , w n .. •, ..^ _u I it rI CITY OF I „•� h ..-, !• i.� . RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA n••� 1 ZONING MAP STREET or MDIWOS WIN 1.11I WIRM9 ❑rMlImflll rl LJ U-N'R4 RII ADDRESS " -- --� UNIMPROVED ROAD ._-- ~�-- MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR el PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989 SUBJECT: GREENFIELD PARK BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS Staff is currently working on obtaining approximate costs for improvements as stated in Mr. Valley's letter regarding Greenfield baseball field. I will bring the estimated costs to the agenda session on September 5. As suggested by the Parks and Recreation Commission, I had already sent letters inviting Mr. Valley and Mr. Flanagan (President of MVAA) to the next meeting on September 24 to discuss options for the achievement of these improvements. MS/SL 4 C(f� 0f NI00 9 View RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 HIGHWAY 10 MOUNDS VIEW, MINN. 55112 ISA-7055 August 28, 1989 Mr. Neal Valley 8440 Knollwood Dr. NE Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Valley: Thank you for submitting your letter of concern regarding Greenfield Park baseball field. Your letter was presented to the Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission the Thursday, August 24 meeting for discussion. [have been directed to gather costs for project requests stated in your letter. In addition, the Commission has requested your presence at the September 28, 1989 Commission meeting to discuss options to consider in implementing such improvements. The meeting is held at the City Hall in the Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m. If you are unable to attend this meeting, please call me at 784-3055 so that all alternate plans can be made. Sincerely, Mary Saarion, Director Parks, Recreation and Forestry MS/SL is MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989 SUBJECT: SILVER VIEW PARK PICNIC SHELTER COMMITTEE PLANS The Silver View Park picnic shelter planning committee met on Wednesday, August 30 to further discuss and offer ideas for the picnic shelter plan. A list of ideas is attached. At the next meeting (to be held Thursday, September 7) a revised plan including these suggestions will be presented by Mr. Linke and reviewed by the committee. The committee would like to present the plan to the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission at a pre -council meeting on Monday, September 11 at 6:30 p.m. with consideration for approval at the Council meeting. it is the desire of this committee that this joint meeting be advertised in the paper and televised over cable TV, access channel 16. MS/SL Attachment Silver View Park Picnic Shelter planning Committee MINUTES Wednesday, August 30, 1989 City Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Call to order - Wayne Burmeister 2. Present: Wayne Burmeister, Gary Jones, Lenore Ahlberg, Gary Quick, Edd Trettel, Jerry Linke and Mary Saarion. 3. it was suggested by Wayne Burmeister that the committee visit Lakeside beach house to get an idea of similarities and size. The Committee stopped at Silver View Park to discuss picnic shelter location. Staff was directed to set stakes to indicate the shelter dimensions. Upon return, the Committee reviewed the former plans as presented by Jerry Linke. At that point, an idea session began to evolve with options for layout. A plan was developed and agreed upon by all committee members. Jerry Linke will re -draw the plan. Staff will then mail this plan to each committee member for review and contemplation. The next step was to brainstorm amenities that each committee member would like to see in the picnic shelter. A list of these items is attached. Finally, it as decided that the committee meet again on Thursday, September 7 at 6:00 �.m. to review the new layout including the amenities. The Commtttr would like to present that plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council at a joint meeting, before the regular Council meeting on Monday, September 11 at 6:30 p.m. to review the plan. Staff was directed to consult the City Attorney on the appropriate bidding process and also consult staff as to the possibility of acting as general contractor. The Committee discussed remuneration for the time spent by Architectural Designer Jerry Linke. Edd Trettel said that he would propose a remuneration idea to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 4. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mary // S rion, Director Parks, Recreation and Forestry LIST OF ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE PLAN FOR SILVER VIEW PARK PICNIC SHELTER 1. Stainless steel fixtures: toilets, sinks, mirrors 2. Block partitions in the restrooms with plywood doors on stalls attached by hinges. 3. Electric hand dryers in restroom. 4. Roof vents in restrooms and kitchen. 5. Six (6) gallon water heater to service the kitchen and restrooms. 6. Meta: doors with metal frames. 7. Metal roll -up door for serving window with locks on the inside. 8. Adequate electrical outlets in the kitchen on independent circuits using wire mold. 9. Silcock located inside the hallway for hose attachments. 10. Floor drains in kitchen, restrooms and picnic area. 11. Security light located under the eaves at the peak on photo cell. 12. Telephone line to be brought in with electric line -- staff to check on cost. 13. Water fountain -- staff to check on options. 14. Inside electrical meter placement -- staff to check with NSP. 15. Picnic table options -- staff to check on options. 16. Entry door - 3'6" width. 17. Hallway to be 4 feet. 18. Shelving in storage room. 19. Footings for fireplace - request for cost to determine feasibility. 20. Possibility of shelter location in other than square setting, lying on an angle in relationship to the parking lot. 21. Slop sink for clean-up located at end of hallway. C MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL F�2 FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATC DATE: AUGUST 28, 1989 �(( SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD J RECONSTRUCTION As you may recall, at the July 24, 1989 Council Meeting the City Council approved the reconstruction of County Road J by Ramsey and Anoka Counties conditioned upon the following items: 1• The County improve the condition of that portion of County Road J to be turned back to the City of Mounds View prior to turnback consideration. 2. The County establish a fund for maintenance of the turned back portion of County Road J prior to turn - back. 3. The County negotiate the acquisition of property needed for easements directly with the property owners. 4. The County make a determination and ensure the health, safety and welfare of Mounds View residents. 5. Ramsey and Anoka Counties actively pursue the completion of Highway 610 by MnDOT. 6. Noise abatement be considered for that portion of Highway 610 abutting the City of Mounds View. At the request of members of the Ramsey County Public Works staff, Public Works Director Minetor and I have met with them on two occasions to assist them in determining how they Might best address the aforementioned items. Ric and I have also met with Mayor Hankner to obtain assistance in interpreting the action taken by the City Council and determining what actions might be taken by the County that would be acceptable to the City Council. As a result of these meetings, the County has agreed to undertake the following items in response to the direction of the City Council with the hope that the Council will find these acceptable. 1. Since the portion of County Road J that will be turned back to the City of Mounds View is part of the MnDOT project for realigning County Road J, MnDOT would be responsible for upgrading the turned back portion of County Road J. Ramsey County agrees to work Minnesota Department toftTransoortation to the upgrade that portion of County Road J asp t their realignment project. Part of MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PAGE TWO (' AUGUST 28, 1989 2. Since the turned back portion of County Road J will be eligible for MSA designation which would then provide the City with a maintenance fund for this road section, the County has agreed to assist the City in pursuading the Minnesota Department of Transportation to authorize the use of undesignated MSA mileage which MnDOT has been withholding from the City. 3. After discussing the County Road J reconstruction project with the County and their consultants, Ric and the County have determined that the road reconstruction could occur on the west side from Spring Lake Road to approximately Knollwood Drive within existing right-of-way. The only need for additional right-of-way would be as a result of a decision by the City to install sidewalks. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way would be required from Sysco and Watson -Forsberg on the east side but, in both cases, those property owners should be willing to contribute that right-of-way as it will be a direct benefit to their project sites. Therefore, the County has agreed to limit it's work on the west portion of the project to existing right-of-way and work with the City in obtaining the additional 10 feet of right-of-way from Sysco and Watson -Forsberg on the east side of the project. 4. The County has agreed to assure the City in writing that they will undertake the County Road J project in a manner that will ensure the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Mounds View. 5. The County will provide the City with resolutions previously adopted by the County Board urging the completion of Highway 610 by the Minnesota Depart- ment of Transportation and restate those resolutions. 6. The County agrees to assist the City in having the Minnesota Department of Transportation study the issue of excessive noise resulting from traffic on 610 which is purported to have a negative impact upon residential property within the City. Both Ric and I strongly recommend that the City Council find these actions by the County to be in conformance with your earlier direction of July 24th and authorize the County and City staff to proceed based upon those actions. DFPjMJS Ramsey County Department of Public Works 350 St. Peter Street Site 270 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 2984127 August 28, 1989 Don Pauley City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Dear Mr. Pauley: Kenneth E. Welt:ln Dxia and Canty Ergs Paul L. Kirkwold Decry Dm rw and Assaw Canty EJ7p The Department of Public Works has been authorized to expend Capital Improvement Bonds for the reconstruction of segments of County Road J within your city. Ramsey County has retained the services of BRW, Inc. to prepare a feasibility report which addresses the entire road segment between T.H. 65 and I-35W. This report will provide construction alternatives for those tom, segments which are recommended to be included in a Ramsey County/Anoka County project. One segment which is not included in the County construction proposal is the realigned segment of County Road J caused by the interchange construction of County Road J with T.H. 610 (or New 10). Both Ramsey and Anoka Counties have chosen to remove this segment from the BRW construction analysis because the interchange design alternatives have been reviewed and approved by the affected municipalities and because the construction of this interchange segment solely rests upon Mn/DOT. The Ramsey/Anoka County construction proposals identified in the BRW feasibility report which is currently being considered will be compatible with the Mn/DOT interchange improvement as proposed or modifications of it which may occur due to detail design considerations. The reconstruction of New T.H. 10 has been of concern to the northern suburbs for several years. Design alternatives and construction staging have been developed and delayed for several reasons. During this process, Ramsey County has continued its support for the need to complete this necessary link. In 1979 and again in 1987, the Ramsey County Board passed resolutions which urged Mn/DOT to proceed to the construction phase of this project. Finally, an interim segment was constructed in 1988 which connected County Road J to T.H. 65. As part of my future y, discussion with the Public Works Committee and County Board, I will again be asking for their support in advancing the Mn/DOT protect to the final stage. Mn/DOT is not required by law to receive Ramsey County approval to proceed with the construction of the final segment of New T.H. 10 or its proposed interchange with County Road J. Mn/DOT staff, however, has reviewed the proposals with us and has solicited our comments. I know the municipalities' concern over traffic noise and the other safety, health and welfare issues that will arise from a project such as this. These issues are also important to Ramsey County and I can assure you Ramsey County will to every extent possible see these issues are addressed by Mn/DOT rp lgr to implementation of the plan. When the County Road J/New T.H. 10 interchange construction is complete, several issues regarding local roads will need to be addressed. For Ramsey County, these issues mainly concern the condition, operation and jurisdiction of Old County Road J and L ong Lake Road. Both of these routes are currently on the County State -aid Highway system; however, depending on the final design configuration, this may not be appropriate when construction is complete. Ramsey County will at that time conduct an analysis to determine what the appropriate jurisdiction should be and recommend a course which will resolve the issue. Should that recommendation result in municipal ownership of those segments, Ramsey County will assist the City in obtaining MSAS designation providing the segments meet the criteria and municipal limits for MSAS designation. The issues of County Road J and New 10 are many and complex. Some, but not all, can be addressed with the Ramsey/Anoka County project and others addressed as part of the Mn/DOT interchange plan. Ramsey County shares the City 's concern that these issues are addressed and will work to thtend on both proposals. If I can be of further assistance, please Sincerely, �5nnet EE• Weltz�E• Director and County Engineer PLK:vl cc: Commissioner Duane McCarty Paul Rudd, Anoka County Boyd Paulu, BRW, Inc. Enc. r Resolution . Board of .?amsey Coun y Commrssr'oners Presented By Commissioner 4cCarty Date April 13 19E7 No. 87-216 Attention: Budget 6 Accounting; Ven Weltzin, Director Public Works WHEREAS, A coordinated transportation network which provides reasonable access to both the State and metropolitan highway systems is essential to the economic development of an area; and WHEREAS, I-694 in the City of New Brighton is congested from I-35W to the Mississippi River; and WHEREAS, The Northtown Highway System, of which Highway 10 is a part, will provide much needed additional means of facilitating the movement of people and goods between Ramsey County, North Hennepin County and Anoka County; and WHEREAS, It is anticipated that the construction of Northtown Highway 10 and the nearly completed construction of the Northtown river crossing would alleviate some of the congestion on I-694; and WHEREAS, If the I-694 bridge would be closed, for whatever reason, traffic in northwest Ramsey County will become paralyzed, and the new Northtown Highway would provide the only viable detour for the I-694 bridge; and WHEREAS, A segment of the highway located along the proposed new alignment for Trunk Highway 10 from I-35W to the North County Line has been built and used since 1972 as a temporary route; and WHEREAS, This temporary segment of new Highway 10 from I-35W to the North County Line has created a severe negative impact on Ramsey County Road J from New Highway 10 to the existing Trunk Highway 65; and WHEREAS, The construction of new Trunk Highway 10 between Ramsey County Road J and Trunk Highway 10/47 is an essential component of the Northtown Highway corridor in the northern metropolitan area and has been delayed for fifteen years; and WHEREAS, An Environmental Impact Statement on the construction of new Trunk Highway 10 has been completed and the proposed roadway has been designated as part of the Trunk Highway System; and RECEIVED RAMS Y COU,•!TY PUBLI—C WORKS Diane Ahaem, Chain By Continued Resolution Board of r ,?amsey County Commissioners Presented By C09missione" ccarty Date April 11, 1987 No._ Attention. Budget 6 accounting; Ken Weltzin, Director Public Works 87-216 WHEREAS, Anoka County 9oard of Commissioners' Resolution 86-59 declared the construction of New Trunk Highway 10 from Ramsey County Road J to Trunk Highway 10/47 to be the number one priority for new state highway construction in the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, Anoka, Hennepin and Ramsey County have positively worked to complete recent Federal Highway legislation which has resulted in the release of significant funding for interstate highway projects; Now, Therefore, Be It RESOLVED, That the Board of Ramsey County Commissioners reaffirms Resolution 79-912, dated August 14, 1979, endorsing the new alignment alternative for the construction of Trunk Highway 10; and Be It Further RESOLVED, That the Board requests the Commissioner of Transportation to give the segment between County Road J and Trunk Highway 10/47 a high priority for state highway construction in the metropolitan area providing for its best and earliest completion in 1987. STATE OF MINNFjOTA SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY I, John R. Velin, Chief Clerk -County Board, duty appointed and qualified for Ramsey County, Minnesota do hereby certify that the foregoing copy is a true and correct transcript of a resolution adopted by the Board of Ramsey County Commissioners on April 13, 1987. Dated at St. Paul, Minnesota this 13th day of April, 1987. RECEIVED John R. 10, n, Chief Clerk - county board ArH 1. i?r7 CIF AMSEY COU !TY PUSLI^. WORKS Diane Ahrtem, Chain /f. '0L Resolution Board of 52amserf. Coun � Cornmissioners Presented By Commiqginnpr Danna Date August 14,.1979 Attention: Ralph McGinley, County Administrator, Anoka County; Commissioner Kordiak; Mr. William Crawford, Mr. Wayne Murphy, Mr. Richard Braun, Department of Transportation; Ken Welton, County Engineer; Budget 6 Accounting: j�l•EiF WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation is proceeding with the review of the draft environmental impact statement which covers the selection of alternate location and design proposals that will be the basis for the improve- ment of Trunk Highway 10; and WHEREAS, A public hearing was held at Westwood Junior High School on June 13, 1979, at which time a description of the alternatives was presented, consisting of alternatives as follows: "do nothing," upgrading along the existing alignment of Trunk Highway 10 and construction of a new facility paralleling and approxi- mately one mile north of existing Trunk Highway 10; and WHEREAS, It is the opinion of the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners that the "do nothing" alternative does not address existing or future problems of traffic safety or capacity and the upgrading of existing Trunk Highway 10 would have ser- ious adverse impacts on adjacent properties along the roadway, require substantial capital improvements to alleviate safety hazards and fail to adequately meet recog- nized transporation needs; and WHEREAS, A segment of highway located along the proposed new alignment for Trunk Highway 10 from i-35W to the :forth County Line has been built and used for several years and represents a significant financial investment and wise planning in anticipating future traffic needs on the part of the Minnesota Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, The new segment of Highway 10 from I-35W to the North County Line has created a severe negative impact on Ramsey County Road J from New Highway 10 to the existing 65; and WHEREAS, I-694 in the City of New Brighton is extremely congested from I-35W to the Mississippi River; and WHEREAS, It is anticipated that the construction of Highway 10 and the North Crosstown river crossing would alleviate some of the congestion on I-694; and WHEREAS, A major river crossing between I-694 and the present crossing in Anoka County is non-existent, and the proposed North Crosstown major river crossing will provide a crossing about midway between these two locations; and (continued) ROBERT J. ORTH, Chauuncat By ue eAt - Cotutty SoaAd Resolution Board of TamSey Coupy CommISSlOnerS Presented By Commissioner Danna Date August 14, 1979 Attention: Page 2 No. 79-912 WHEREAS, If the I-694 bridge would be closed, for whatever reason, traffic in northwest Ramsey County will become paralyzed, and the new North Crosstown river crossing would provide the only viable detour for the I-694 bridge; and WHEREAS, The North. Crosstown highway system, of which Highway 10 is a part, was considered by the Interstate Substitution Task Force which found these projects to be of first priority and that they meet all the qualifying criteria for utili- zation of Interstate Substitution monies; Now, Therefore Be It RESOLVED, That the Board of Ramsey County Commissioners does hereby endorse the new alignment alternative as the proper option for construction of Trunk Highway 10; and Be It Further RESOLVED, That the Commissioner of Transportation, Mr. Richard Braun, be urged co select the new alignment alternative for Trunk Highway 10 as the option for con- struction, and that the Department of Transporation make known its findings as soon as possible to allow for progress on the highway improvement to proceed as scheduled; and Be It Further RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to Mr. William Crawford, Minnesota Department of Transportation, District 5 office, to Mr. Wayne Murphv, Minnesota Department of Transporation, District 9 office, and to Mr. Richard Braun, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation. ROBERT J. ORTH, Chaikman By e en - Lounry oa)t MM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNC 9 FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATO \ DATE: AUGUST 21, 1989 SUBJECT: STATUTORY AMENDMENT REGARDING PARK LAND DEDICATION The regular session of the 1989 Legislature adopted Chapter 196 of the 1989 Laws of Minnesota amending Section 462.358 Subdivision 2b. of the statutes toPinclude atetwetlands among those items that a developer may roy i unds dedication require - order to meet the ParksanddPlay8. It has been my understanding ments of the Subdivisi....n since the adoption of the Wetlands ordinancetlands as that partithe al oCity full is open to the idea of accepting compliance with the dedication requirements of our subdivision code. Therefore, thelMuniOrin cipalprepared Code entitled, ance No. 474 amending Chapter "Subdivision Regulations". Your consideration of this ordinance would be appreciated DFP/MJS M ding Mounds V niewoMunicipalnCode Chapter 42 of the Attachment: ORDINANCE NO. 474 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 42 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED, "SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS" The City Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain: SECTION I. Chapter 42.13 PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS DEDICA- TION, Subdivision 1. _Dedication Required. is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.358, in all subdivisions to be developed for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses, or as a planned developed which includes residential, commercial and industrial uses, or any combination thereof, a reasonable portion of each proposed subdivision shall be dedicated to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds, public open space, wetlands, or storm water holding areas or ponds, or, at the option of the Municipality, at its sole discretion, that the subdivider contribute an equivalent amount in cash based on the fair market value of the �1 undeveloped land. SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View on this day of , 1989. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this day of F 1 1989. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) Clerk -Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney RESOLUTION N0. 2530 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION MOUNDS OFACCEPTANCE AND COMMENDATION TO THE LIO WHEREAS, the Mounds View Lion 's Club has committed to the donation of $75,000 to osthe City er atof Mounds Viewlver View for the construction of a picnic NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View accepts the donation on behalf of the residents of Mounds View and commends the Mounds View Lion's club for their civic mindedness. Adopted this llth day of September, 1989. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) Clerk -Administrator RESOLUTION No. 2531 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF ACCEPTANCE AND COMMENDATION TO THE NEW BRIGHTON EAGLE'S CLUB WHEREAS, the New Brighton Eagle's Club has committed to the donation of $16,000 to the City of Mounds View for the construction of a picnic shelter at Silver View Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds View accepts the donation on behalf of the residents of Mounds View and commends the Eagle's Club for their civic mindedness. Adopted this llth day of September, 1989. ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) Clerk -Administrator 1 !MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council `4T``'✓� FROM: Don Brager, Finance Director -Treasurer DATE: August 16, 1989 SUBJECT: UTILITY BILLS I have been informed that Councilmember Quick has received some complaints that our utility bills are difficult to understand. I feel it may be appropriate to review the billing format and the reasons it was chosen. Prior to billing a postcard is sent to utility customers requesting that they read their meter and send the reading to Us. The instructions state that an estimated bill will be sent if the card is not returned in ter. days. Hear the portion of the card where the meter reading is to be recorded is printed the message, "Return Card by July 6 to Avoid $5.00 Est. Charge". The estimation charge is intended to encourage the customer to read the meter and return the card to us. A lot of additional handlina is involved when an estimate is taken. The additional handling is not making the estimated billing, the computer does that based on past usage. The additional handling is explaining to the customer, who believes the estimate to be too high, why and how the estimate was made. The most difficult situation is explaining a billing in a quarter subsequent to that in which an estimate was made. Usually what happends is this: An estimated billing is sent for a quarter in which the customer has used more water than their average usage. The estimated billing is for average usage and the customer has thus been under billed. The next quarter the customer reads the meter. The billing is the sum of the current quarter's usage plus the difference between the previous quarter's actual usage and estimated usage. At times that can be an unusually large bill for the customer. Staff greatly prefers customers to read their meter so their billings reflect their actual usage. A postcard billing is sent to all utility customers. A postcard billing was chosen because of cost savings associated with postcards over placing the bill in an envelope. The cost savings are a result of the following: 1. Staff time is saved by not having to place bills in an envelope. 2. Postcards are less expensive than a bill and an envelope. 3. Less wear and tear on postage machine because envelopes must be sealed. 4. Postage for a postcard is $.08 less for each piece than sending envelopes. We send 2,970 bills each quarter. A savings of $237.60 each quarter and $950.40 each year is realized. Mayor and City Council August 16, 1989 Page 2 A sample billing is attached. The past billing is shown as "Previous B/F". The amount last paid on account and the date paid is next. Balance forward represents any amount that is unpaid from previous billings. The current billing for each service is printed next. For water, the present reading (590 in the example), the previous reading (559), and usage (31) are printed. Days represents the billing period, in this case 6/30 - 03/31. The amount due for each service is printed under "Billing Changes". Sewer service is a fixed amount each quarter for residential customers. The billing period is also printed for sewer service. Message lines are at the bottom of the bill. Three lines are used each billing to advise of the due date and that a late fee will be added after the due date. One messags line of 40 character may be changed each quarter. Staff has received approximately 25 calls about the billing format since converting to CSI's utility billing softt•:are in 1986. That number is less than 1$ of our customers. All calls were about how to read the bill. After an explanation the typical response was, "Oh, I see now. Thank you". As is the case with most packaged software, "what you see is what you get"; i.e. these programs are sold as is and are designed to appeal to a large number of users. Programming CSI's current rate for custom programming is $75.00 per hour. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. DB/BAC Attachments i1 FROM CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2401 Highway #10 St. Paul, Minn. 55112 PLEASE READ YOUR'NATER METER IMMEDIATELY UPON RECE!PT OF THIS CARD. AN ESTIMATED BILL WILL BE SENT IF THE CARD IS NOT RETURNED WITHIN 10 DAYS. CITY OF NIOUNDS VIEW READING AS OF DATE WATER METER READING _N}:a AL' "WEDS NCLJOIHG:ACS METER NUMSER 0080143A ACCOUNT NUMBER 13-K24 00-0 2075 RUSTAD LANE RETURN CARD by JULY a TO AVOICI 45 EST CHARGE CITY C:a MOUNDS VIEW 2401 RIGHWAY 110 ST. i•AUL. MINN. 55112 i I=C3 1s: us ' U.S. PoSMp po" ' Pv No aW5 i St. PiuL Umn. 00 w r 0`-3274 00-0 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW !� 2401 HIGHWAY 10 MOUNDS VIEW. MN SS 112 IAf 91 ]IW'!!IS{ ! 05 PRESORTED 8274 00-0 FIRST CLASS MAIL Ob/0/99 U.S. POSTAGE PAID ST. PAUL MN PERMIT NO. JAOB PAID�07 12 1000: 1000 BALANC'c FORWA D 17109t 171O99F D WATER DUCT 59 F PAI OS/SO 03/3a ' I CAS-RT SCF ,(CR1204 55 3 26f _`<"WR SEWER 04/0 Oh/ 36751 3Ai`SR Name I I I I t i I I I I I I Address i Name Stu DATE 2%'�j*9 2: 419 F'<IY T4I9 AMOUNT AFTER 09/3L/39 240.51L. b.?" IS A:'uFD ON DELINIIUENT DATE. WATER METERS RE-PD STARTING SEPT 15 PAYMENTS DUE ON OR BEFORE AUG 31, 109? RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS I RETURN THIS STJ9 WITH PAYMENT v6-In", /a CMAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR PAUL DATE: August 18, 1969 SUBJECT: STATE LIQUOR LAW AMENDMENTS During the regular Session of the Legislature in 1989, several amendments were made to the State"s liquor laws. Of these, three have a direct impact upon the City"s liquor codes. These Statutory changes and the current requirements of the City Code are as follows. 1. State law was amended to allow the sale of intoxicating liquor on Sundays for appropriately licensed establishments from Noon to 1:00 a.m. City Code reflects the old Statutory requirements, namely, Noon to Midnight. 2. State law was amended to allow the sale of intoxicating liquor on January 1st and July 4th. City Code contains the old requirement that liquor sales are prohibited on these days. 3. The final change in State Law requires that a Public Hearing rprecede any increase in fees for liquor licenses and that all `�.. affected licensees be notified by mail at least 30 days before the hearing. The City Code allows for changes in liquor license fees by resolution of the City Council with no requirement for a public hearing. In the case of items 1 and 2, staff would request Council direction. If you wish, you may leave the City Code as is and be more restrictive than the State law. Staff will be preparing an amendment to Chapters 100 and 101 of the Code to reflect the requirements of item 3 and will include any changes needed to comply with your direction on items 1 and 2. f /3 MEMO T0: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI FROM: CLERK-ADMINIST M DATE: AUGUST 28, 1989 STUDENT PRESENTATION ON COMMITTEES/ SUBJECT: COMMISSIONS As a result of earlier direction by the City Council I contacted the Chairpersons of the Parks aTask nd eForce land appointing students Commission and the Environmental Quality I have since received requested their reaction to the idea o aPP ort on to their commissions or committees, responses from these individuals las those ofuthe uotherkcommissions their positions as well a - who had previously commented on this item. Commission whulaheartedly endorsed the idea of The Planning on their commission but preferred having students servingad order that theseindividuals serve on an .erminationsofnquorum nor that they The Planning have binding votes on the commission. Commission also suggested that a member of the commission be responsibilities of the assigned to ea�heSt" activitis aaoennd respto assist them in understanding plays in relationship to Planning Commission and the role y the activities of the City ported The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously sup the idea of student representation and agreed with the should iserve as ad hoc ncluded in the determination of quorum that students Planning Commission members not being votes. The Commission also endorsed the nor having binding appointed as mentors. idea of members being pP ed the appoint - The Environmental Quality Task Force eTask Fg ment of student representation on the Task Force with e lThe Task Force limit of 2 members. felt that allowing a non -binding vote foreview after these student mrepresentatives would be appropriate with a sehould be non -binding d the idea of student The Charter Commission also endors representation but felt that theart of the quorum, representatives not considered P ,s four standing Based upon the positions taken by the City commissions and committees, staff would request Council direction on this matter. DFP/MJS t, �A DATE APPROVED: 8/28/89 �F APPRu V L PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL A CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ' RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 14, 1989 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View. MN 55112 Call to The Mounds View City Council was called to order by 1. Order Mayor Hankner at 7:00 PM on Monday,August 14, 1989. 2. Pledge of The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Allegiance MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Wuori, Quick, 3. Roll Call Blanchard, Pane and Mayor Hankner. ALSO PRESENT: Cith Attorney Karney, Clerk/Administra- tor p- auley, Public Works Director Minetor and City Planner Hren. the July 24, 4. Approval of Motion/Second: Paone/Wuori to approveMinutes: 989— min— u�as corrected. July 24, 1989 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 5. Residents residents requests or comments from the Requests andComments There were no floor. Hankner closed the regular meeting and opened the 6. Public Hearing: Application for Mayor first public hearing at 7:05 PM. Minor Sub- uest of the applicant City Planner Hren reviewed the request Knollwood Drive. The division by E. Mezzano, for a minor subdivision at 7490 the request and 7490 Knollwood Planning Commission has reviewed Drive recommends approval. 7474 Knollwood Drive, noted the lots in Dave Mesaros, low and asked if there would be a that area are requirement for filling it in, and if so, who would be responsible for paying for it. Ms. Hren explained when the building plans are submit - be reviewed drainage for the new home, drainage plans will be no further at that time, to assure there will the than already exists. She drainage from property be responsible for any costs added the developer would involved. Mounds View City Council August 14,•1989 Regular Meeting Page Two Mayor Hankner closed the public hearing and reopened the regular meeting at 7:09 PM. Councilmember Blanchard requested that the restaurant 7• Approval of license for Loose Ends on 10 be removed under Item E Consent of the consent agenda. Agenda Motion/Second: Quick/Paone to approve the consent agenda, minus the restaurant license renewal for Loose Ends on 10, and waive the reading of the resolutions. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Councilmember Blanchard suggested, since there had been so much trouble with the kitchen at Loose Ends on 10, that someone from that establishment come in and talk to the Council at the agenda session, rather than setting this on automatic renewal. Clerk/Administrator Pauley advised he had no further information on the bankruptcy. The Ramsey County Health Department has advised the kitchen facilities are now in compliance with County code. Motion/Second: Blanchard/Paone to table the renewal of the restaurant license for Loose Ends on 10 for two weeks, with the stipulation that someone comes in and talks to the City Council at the next agenda session. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Mayor Hankner closed the regular meeting and opened 8. Public Hearing: the second public hearing at 7:12 PM. Application for Major Sub - Ms. Hren reviewed the request of the applicant for a division at major subdivision at approximately 8140/8212 Long Lake 8140/8212 Long Road. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Lake Road request and recommends approval to the Council of this stage of the major subdivision. The Planning Commission will continue to discuss the proposed development of Outlot A. Staff has reviewed the con- cept plan for potential development of Outlot A and the lots fronting on Eastwood. The Planning Commission held an informational meeting with the residents located within 350' of the property. It is the con - census of the Planning Commission from that meeting to keep options open for future development of that area. Mr. Minetor explained a primary concern in that area is drainage, as the area serves as a storm water drainage area. He reviewed the plans and recommended Mounde View City Council Regular Meeting the concept plan be handled separately. He also reviewed the easements and stated he did not see a problem with them, and also stated questions would most likely come up concerning the concept plan later. Councilmember Paone questioned if the property was designated single family. Ms. Hren replied yes, it is R-1. Mayor Hankner noted the Council had discussed this last week. There were no questions or comments from the floor, so Mayor Hankner closed the public hearing and reopened the regular meeting at 7:16 PM. Mayor Hankner explained the Council has been given the oppurtunity to receive $75,000 from the Mounds View Lions Club for a picnic shelter at Silver View Park, and she called on Lion Jerry Linke to review the proposed plans. Mr. Linke explained he was representing the planning committee of the Mounds View Lions, and he reviewed r the steps the committee has taken so far. Costs on IL` the proposed shelter came in higher than anticipated so they sat down and made cuts to reduce the cost. He added they have had discussions with the Council and Park and Rec Commission concerning providing utilities and the cost of them. He stated that he will be going back to the full Lions Club later this week with input from the Council. Mr. Linke reviewed the proposed construction of the building, which will be 34' x 691. He estimated that the plans, as revised, should come in at the $75,000 bid price, and if the bids come in over that, they'll have to sit down again and do more cutting. He also noted the Council and Park and Rec Commission will decide on the policy and use of the building. Councilmember Quick expressed concern with the loca- tion of the outside security lighting, and antici- pated problems with maintenance. He also reviewed the layout of the proposed shelter and questioned if it could be layed out differently, in case changes were needed in the future, specifically in the rest - rooms. Mayor Hankner noted one side of the bathrooms would not be visible to the police driving by at night, and expressed concern with vandalism, noting that they are experiencing more in each of the parks. August 14, 1989 Page Three 9. Review and Discussion of Silver View Park Picnic Shelter Plans Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting Mr. Links explained why the layout is proposed as is, and the different options they have looked at. Alter- nate layouts of the restrooms were discussed, but Mr. Linke noted that they could not be cut in size much due to the space requirement for making them handicapped accessible. Mayor Hankner pointed out that items the Council needs to consider include replacement of items, on -going maintenance and or. -going utility costs. The planned restroom fixtures are porcelain, as they are less costly than stainless steel, but are more susceptible to damage and vandalism. Mr. Links explained money is not available at this time for picnic tables, but the Lions hope they may have the funds to provide the tables in the near future, and he reviewed the various options they have considered. He added he does not feel the utilities will be more than what the City is paying at Lambert Park. Mayor Hankner stated the Council is working with the budget for 1990 and she hopes they might find the funding for the tables. Mr. Links stated he hopes to bring the plan back to the Council in two weeks. They presently have about one month left for planning and bids, before con- struction must begin. Mayor Hankner stated the item would be placed on the agenda for next week, in the event Mr. Links is ready to meet• with the Council then, and it could be tabled if he is not ready, and in the meantime, Staff can look at the issue of on -going utility and maintenance costs. Motion/Second: Hankner/wuori that Staff be directed to gather cost information relative to on -going maintenance, replacement and on -going utility costs for the Silver view Park picnic shelter. 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Hankner stated she had received a letter about the path extension around Silver View Pond, and the City may have a problem as the proposed path area is very close to one of the homes. She stated she would have Staff copy the letter for the Council. August 14, 1989 Page Four L'� F Motion carried August 14, 1989 Mounds View City Council page Five Regular Meeting --- ----- % County Commissioner Duane McCarty asked for direction nfrom the Council relative tothe Countyn they had Road previously regarding Y RoadJ reconstruc- tion, concerning eminent domain, and whether the Council really wants to give up that authority to the County, or if they would prefer to leave it within the local domain. He noted not all commissioners live in or close to the City of Mounds View. He stated that if it is a cost containment issue, the County may be able to help somewhat. Mayor Hankner stated it is covered in the July 24 ect, Council minutes, and noted it is a County prof and it is the Council 's feeling that if acquisition is needed, it is the responsibility of the County. She noted Anoka County does it for theirake commudotnot and the cities of propeine andrty Spring necessary for the County Park have to acquire thee Road J reconstruction. Mr. McCarty noted this would be giving authority to the County, and he pointed out the residents would have access to only one County board member. Councilmember Quick noted the County board is elected by the residents of the County, and all board members are representatives of all the people. He statedy to he has no problems with giving p the County. Councilmember Wuori noted not all suburbs have the same election structure as Mounds View, which is the same situation as precincts or the County board repre- senting several communities. Mayor Hankner noted this is a County project and should be done jointly by the two countiest and she added the City should be represented by more than just one commissioner. It was the concensus of the Council to leave the resolution the way it reads. Mr. McCarty reported that Long Lake Road construction north of County Road H is included in the cap ital improvement plan for 1991, but he cannot guarantee that won't change within the next session. Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to Approve Resolu- tion , approving a minor subdivision for 1;w.� Elizabeth Znandwaivethereading- o490 ooDrive, Planning Case b Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting Motion/Second: Wuori/Quick to approve 2518, appr—ov g a major subdivision for Mezzenga, approximately 8140/8212 Long Planning Case No. 256-88, and waive the 5 ayes 0 nays Resolution No. Michael Lake Road, reading. Clerk/Administrator Pauley clarified that the final plat will have to be piled and approved before the building permit can be issued. August 14, 1989 Page Six ------------------ �11 Motion Carried Ms. Hren reviewed the request of Taco Bell to add a 24 s.f. reader board 10. Consideration to the freestanding sign. The additional signage is still within the allowable of Resolution signage for the property, but because this is a PUD, No.2524, any change to the plan requires Council approval. Reg Regarding Taco Bell Motion/Second: Paone/Blanchard to approve Resolution No. 2524; approving the planned unit development sign plan amendment request by Taco Bell for Mounds View Business Park, and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Finance Director Brager reported the City is trying to comply with the 1988 11. Consideration truth in taxation law, and is taking a conservative approach. The citizens will of Resolution receive mailed notices of all public hearings of all 523, bodies who levy taxes on their property. fyi Certifying Certifying the 1990 Property Mr. Brager reviewed the proposed 1990 budget for the Tax Levies and City, and compared it to the 1989 actual, which Budgets represents a 2.9% increase in the budget. The property tax levy will remain the same. A public hearing has been scheduled on the final proposed budget for 7:05 PM on October 9. Motion/Second: Paone/Wuori to approve Resolution No. 2 23, certifying the 1990 final proposed general fund, forestry fund and debt service property tax levies and budgets and setting the date for a public hearing on the same pursuant to present truth in taxation legislation. 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried Dave Putnam, of Merila & Associates, project engineer 12. Consideration on the Mounds View Business Park South project, reviewed the bids received for the project. Ile of Staff Memo stated the Council could delay or delete the wetland and Bid Mounds for Mounds ViM restoration and trail construction, by change order. Business Park South Public Improvements Mounds view City Council Regular Meeting ---- August 141 1989 Page Seven Moact tion/second,. Blanchard/Quick to award the contrpublic rove- mentshte the low View dder,nGlenn ess aRehbeinrk hExcavating, Inc., ifor the alternate bid total in the amount of their bd of $545,903.93. Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays auley clarified that if the ay Clerk/Administrator Pight ease- �o theSchool Board does not ld issueeatchangerorder tow take it ment, the City out of the bid. Mr. Minetor, who just rejoined the Council meeting after attending the School Board meeting, reported the School Board agreed to the directed their Staffcept of the to of WOOdale Drive, and they getting that implemented. work with the City Council in g- and again They also agreed to the work withetherCity council - directed their staff to work lace the Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated he would p wetland alteration on the August 28 agenda. explained the Council had approved a zero this 13. Consideration of Staff Memo ^ Ms. Hren lot line subdivision for Wally Bauer earlier from the resolution and Resolution 2520, - year, but two items were missing h2520unty, No. Wally Bauer Zero when he tried ed proposedrResolutiontNo reviewed proposed Lot Line Sub - and she 4 nick/Wuori to approve Resolution division, 2565/ 2567 County Road Motion/Second: No. 2 nding Resolution No. 2483 to add zero requirements regarding I Ramsey County recording request by Wally Bauer, 2565/ lot line subdivision Road I, and waive the reading. 2567 County Motion Carried 5 ayes 0 nays Pauley explained this is the redevelop- 14. Consideration emo Clerk/Administrator rivate second draft of the contract for p Park South, and he is Regarding Mounds ment of Mounds View Business action tonight. He reviewed be View Business Park South for Council it would not asking stating has the document and timetable, stating At Karney Contract for Redvlpt. placed the August to review. Private ce also received a COPY Mr. Brager reviewed data supplied by the Citizens 15. 1989Quarterment tax survey, property taxes Head Reports: League relative to their 198 pof roperty Finance T and he reviewed the perceurisdictions and how they Director which go to the various j have changed between 1988 and 1989. Brager Mounds View City Council August 14, 1989 Regular Meeting Page Eight -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Minetor reviewed the activities of the Admini— stration and Engineering department, building activity, and activities of the Streets, Garage, Water, Sewer and Park Maintenance departments. Attorney Karney had no report. 16. Report of Attorney Ms. Hren reported she is still looking for volunteers 17. Reports of for the household hazardous waste clean—up day on Staff Members September 23. Mr. Minetor explained that "No Parking" signs had recently been placed because of the chip seal pro— ject. He noted all cars must be moved and if the owner cannot be located, the vehicles will be towed. Clerk/Administrator Pauley noted they also cannot allow water to drain into the street during this process. Councilmember Wuori had no report. Councilmember Quick had no report. Councilmember Blanchard had no report. Councilmember Paone had no report. Mayor Hankner noted the Soviet students who are visiting in the City would be visiting her at her office tomorrow, to see the Legislature. Mayor Hankner reported Barr Engineering and the attorney will be meeting to update the wetland ordinance. 18. Reports of Councilmembe . er Councilmemb Wuori Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained there had been 19 difficulty in getting dates agreeable to everyone for the team building meetings in August. After further discussion and conflicts in dates, he agreed to get back to the Council with other possible dates. Councilmember Quick Councilmember Blanchard Councilmember Pacne Mayor Hankner Report of Clerk/ Administrator 71 Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting ------------------------ ("' Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had been asked by the Ramsey County Court to obtain the signature of acceptance and oath from the two new appointees to the Charter Commission, and while he has received the docu— ments back from one, he has not received them back from the other individual after several attempts. He stated he will send another certified letter, stating that if there is no response, Ramsey County will begin the process over to select another individual. Attorney Karney clarified that the oath must be filed. There being no further business, Mayor Hankner adjourned the meetng at 9:12 August 14, 1989 Page Nine 20, Adjournment