1995-05-09MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF REVIEW - MAY 9, 1995
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the board of Review
rec0nvened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, HenneDin
County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said city on May 9,
1995 at 7:00 PM.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Ahrens,
Hanus, Jensen, Jessen. Also present were: City Manager Ed Shukle,
Deputy Clerk Linde Strong, Hennepin County Assessor Bill Elf,rtz,
Hennepin County Appraisers Julie Sundby and Steve Chimielewski, and
the following interested citizens: Buchi Njaka, Dick and Mary
McCurdy, Phyllis Baker, Frank Weiland, Art Anderson, Ray Anderson
and Bill and Jan Darling.
1.0 Mayor Polston opened the reconvened Board of Review and
introduced Bill Effertz, Assessor for Hennepin County and Julie
Sundby and Steve Chimielski, appraisers for Hennepin County. Mr.
Effertz stated that he has spoken with the persons from the Board
of Review meeting of April 25, 1995 and he was presenting the
decisions that were made from these conversations. He stated that
if property owners were not pleased with this Board of Review they
can, after this meeting, appeal to the County Board of Equalization
which begins June 19, 1995. It is imperative that the person
attend in person to appeal and an appointment was needed by June
12, 1995. The phone number is 348-5076.
PID #24-117-24 23 0021 - MYRNA HOLDEN, 5459 BARTLETT BLVD.
The Assessor recommended no change in the Estimated Market
Value (EMV) of this property from $174,000.
PID ~13-117-24 22 0064 - RAYMOND ANDERSEN, 5430 - 3 PTS.
BLVD., UNIT 121
The Assessor recommended to lower the EMV of this property
from $85,300 to $80,900. Mr. Andersen was present and stated
his disagreement with the EMV.
PID ~23-117-24 34 0096 - VERNON SNODGRASS, 3025 LONGFELLOW
LANE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of this property
from $102,000.
PID #13-117-24 21 0085 - RICHARD MC CURDY, 5330 - 3 PTS.
BLVD.
The Assessor recommend reducing the EMV of this property from
$173,000 to $170,000. Mr. and Mrs. McCurdy were present and
protested this value.
PID #13-117-24 41 0005 - CLIFFORD /ARSON, 2051 ARBOR LANE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of this property
from $152,000 to $141,000.
PID #13-117-24 12 0190 - PAUL KASTER, 1625 FINCH LANE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $37,000.
PID #13-117-24 11 0117 - DEWEY WHITE, 4929 - 3 PTS. BLVD.
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $156,000.
239
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PID #23-117-24 31 0067 - SAI SIMONSON, 6075 RUSTICWOOD ROAD
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $83,000.
PID #18-117-23 23 0025 -ARTHURIVERSON, 1872 SHOREWOODLANE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV from $110,500 to
$104,000.
PID #25-117-24 11 0106 - JANET HASSELBRING, 4929 DRUMMOND
ROAD
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $65,000.
PID #14-117-24 32 0044 - ROY DWORAKOSKI, 6241 BIRCH LANE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $74,000.
PID #19-117-23 24 0031 - JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $162,000
$156,500.
to
PID #25-117-24 21 0166 - MIKE CHITKO, 3301 WARNER LANE
The Assessor recommended changing the non-homestead
homestead with no change in the EMV of $83,000.
to
PID #13-117-24 21 0058 - DON THOMAS, 1724 BAYWOOD SHORES DR.
PID #13-117-24 22 0050
The Assessor recommended no change in either EMV's of #0058
$174,000 and 0050 of $7,000.
PID #13-117-24 42 0011 - MARGARET THORNE, 5012 EDGEWATER
DRIVE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $143,000 to
$119,000.
PID #13-117-24 42 0012 - JANICE HOLM, 5016 EDGEWATER DRIVE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $113,000.
PID #13-117-24 42 0009 - BARBARA BARRETT, 5000 EDGEWATER
DRIVE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $115,000 to
$110,000.
PID ~23-117-24 41 0016 - R.O. LARSON & M.A.
HIGHLAND BLVD
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of
$243,000.
NOYD, 2976
$253,000 to
PID #30-117-23 22 0069 - KEN JUNKER, 4776 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $69,000.
PID #13-117-24 34 0006 - JANE KEMPF, 2207 CENTERVIEW LANE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $73,000 to
$69,000.
21. PID #13-117-24 31 0014 - BUCHI NJAKA, 2186 CEDAR LANE
240
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $110,000.
Ms. Njaka was present and protested this EMV.
22.
PID ~14-117-24 13 0002 - CRAIG JOHNSON, 5849 GI~a~NDVIEW BLVD.
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $90,000 to
$76,000.
23.
PID #23-117-24 23 0057 - STEPHEN SPRAGUER, 2785 HALSTEAD
LANE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $132,000.
24.
PID #14-117-24 41 0019 - GERALD BAKER, 2085 IRONWOOD LANE
The Assessor asked that they have Council approve the County
returning to this residence and appraising the property. Mrs.
Baker was present and said she approved of them returning to
appraise. At this time the Assessor recommended no change in
the EMV of $101,000.
25.
PID #23-117-24 23 0034 - JAMES LONG, 2654 HALSTEAD LANE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $140,000
$136,000.
to
26.
PID #30-117-24 22 0063 - JAMES MILLER, 4871 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $171,000.
27.
PID #24-117-24 22 0023 - PETER BERRIDGE & JENNIFER PETERSON
2522 LOST LAKE ROAD
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $134,000 to
$116,500.
28.
PID #30-117-23 22 0008 - FRANK AHRENS, 4673 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $168,000.
29.
PID #25-117-24 12 0223 - PAUL HENRY, 5056 SULGROVE ROAD
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $99,000.
30.
VINCE FORYSTEK, 3131 INVERNESS LANE - The Assessor
recommended:
PID #19-117-23 33 0225 - No change in EMV of $89,000
PID #19-117-23 33 0061 - No change in EMV of $59,000
PID #19-117-23 33 0058 - Reducing the EMV of $6,000 to $5,000
PID #19-117-23 33 0064 - Reducing the EMV of $6,000 to $5,000
PID $19-117-24 33 0070 - Reducing the EMV of $5,000 to $4,000
31.
PID ~24-117-24 44 0220 - LEE DORHOLT, 4924 TUXEDO BLVD.
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $104,000 to
$102,000.
32.
PID #13-117-24 43 0048 - LEION WITTE, 5050 SHORELINE DRIVE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $73,000.
33.
PID #19-117-23 31 0072 - JIM OSTMAN, 2945 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $96,000.
241
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
34.
PID ~24-117-24 21 0045 - AL GOLZ, 2551 LAKEWOOD LANE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $156,000.
35.
PID ~13-117-24 22 0117 - BETTY HARTNETT, 5410 - 3 POINTS
BLVD. UNIT 416
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $43,700 to
$40,000
36.
PID #13-117-24 22 0110 - ALDEN ERICKSON, 5400 - 3 POINTS
BLVD. UNIT 335
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $73,600 to
$72,000.
37.
PID $19-117-23 34 0075 - DOUG EASTHOUSE, 3042 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE
The Assessor recommended reducing the EMV of $208,000 to
$197,000
38.
PID ~13-117-24 31 0059 - WILL BOTKO, 2149 CARDINAL LANE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $168,500.
39.
PID #14-117-24-31-0054 - ERVIN MUTH, 2146 FOREST LANE
The Assessor recommended no change in the EMV of $102,000.
Councilmember Jessen moved and Councilmember Jensen seconded the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-50
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ENTIRE
ASSESSMENT ROLL AS PRESENTED BY THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSOR.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION by Councilme~ber Hanus and seconded by Mayor Polston to
adjourn the Reconvened Board of Review at 7:40 PM. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
242
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 9, 1995
The city Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, May 9, 1995 at 7:50 PM, in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Persons present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea
Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Also present:
City Manager Ed Shukle, Deputy Clerk Linda Strong, City Attorney
Curt Pearson, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Police Chief Len
Harrell, Gary Groen of Abdo, Abdo, and Eick, and the following
interested citizens: Karl Gruhn, Mary M. Smith, Jim Bedell, Carl
Glister, Stan Drahos, Phil and Eva Hasch, Ralph Harvey, M.J.
Harvey, Dave Schmidt, Ken Smith, Michael Mueller, Oy Moy, Suzi and
Geoff Michael, Mrs. Moy, Michael Durrel, Mr. and Mrs. Netka, Mr.
and Mrs. Lilledahl, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Jones, Chad True and Frank
Weiland.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 25t 1995t REGULAR MEETING AND
THE BOARD OF REVIEW.
Councilmember Hanus had some changes to the minutes of the regular
meeting: Page 1464, center of page, "Councilmember Hanus stated
that he- the applicant didn't feel this business would increase the
boat traffic in the channel .... "
And, Page 1481, center of
Councilmember Hanus statement:
the current location ..... "
page, 10 lines into the first
"...that you were not in favor of
And, Page 1483, first comment by Councilmember Hanus: "...There
were far more cars stopping or slowing down nc~ than when there was
a crosswalk..."
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Minutes of
the Regular City Council as amended and approve the Minutes of
the Local Board of Review as presented. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2 PRESENTATION OF THE 1994 /%~FIqUi%L FINANCIAL REPORT -
GARY GROEN OF ABDO, ABDO ~%ND EICK.
Finance Director Gino Businaro introduced Gary ~roen o~ ABdo, ABdo,
and Eick, Public Accountants. Gary walked the Council through the
Annual Financial Report using charts and graphs for assistance.
His summary was the City of Mound has a decreasing outstanding
debt.
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following
resolution:
243
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 95-5~
MAY 9, 1995
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL~994
FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO
BUSINARO AND ABDO, ABDO AND EICK.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS - SHORELINE DRIVE
(HOUSE OF MOY) AND COMMERCE BOULEVARD (POND ARENA)
Mayor Polston continued the discussion on the pedestrian crosswalk
on Shoreline Drive and Commerce Blvd., by the Pond Arena. He
indicated that he would open it up for public comment. He asked
that all comments be directed to the chair, no one on one
discussions, and would try to hear everybody who wishes to speak.
Mayor Polston recapped: "Two weeks ago we had quite a bit of
discussion on the merits of the crosswalk on Shoreline Blvd.
connecting the parking lot on the north to the business side on the
south. There were a number of public comments, the City Council
participated with their comments and suggestions. In the meantime,
I have done a great deal of work, working with the Department of
Public Safety, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, talking
with some professional highway engineers and I think we are at a
point where I am ready to offer a solution for the situation. At
this point, I would like to open it up to the city Council and ask
any member of the Council if they have anything they would like to
say relative to this issue at this point. If not, is there any
members of the audience that would like to speak?"
Stan Drahos, 5016 Woodridge Road:
I just have a couple more items that I would like to add to
what I had said last week. Number one, I never got a chance
to see it, but, I am sure the survey is valid. My question is
whether or not the survey said that the crosswalk should go on
Commerce Blvd., in Mound, Minnesota, in mid-block, here,
thereabouts, close to, wherever you are going to put it. My
second point I would like to have you consider, I would like
to have the city attorney answer what type of legal thing are
we putting ourselves into, if in fact we put the crosswalk
back in and someone else got killed. Would we be liable in
any way? That's the question. And the last question I have
is, addressed to Mr. Mayor and anyone on the City Council, if
in fact you did put the crosswalk back in and someone else was
killed or maimed, would you consider taking it back out? I
would like to have that question answered. Thank you.
Mayor Polston:
Curt, would you like to respond to the question that was
directed to you?
Curt Pearson:
Mr. Mayor, I think that the problems we are trying to assess
liability as to what may happen, wilt rest so much on the fact
situation that exist based on whatever happened at that
particular time. Whether the crosswalk is out or whether the
244
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
crosswalk is in. I don't know that this council is the one
who is going to make a decision which is going to say what we
do is liable, or we are not liable. In the first place, this
is a county road so whatever the City Council does, as it's
done in the past, is a recommendation to the County. My
presumption would be that if the County felt that putting it
in or taking it out, whichever the cause may be, would create
problems for them as the entity that is in charge of the
highway, that they would have to look at it and consider it
very carefully as to whether they would or wouldn't do it.
But as in the case of the gentleman that was killed, I don't
believe there was a lawsuit in that case. I am not sure of
the circumstances, but we would have to take into
consideration the actions of the driver. You would have to
take in the considerations of the pedestrian, whoever was
there. So, with all honesty, I can't give you an answer other
than to say it will be based on facts. But, I would also
presume, that since this is a county road, the county is going
to have to make the ultimate call on it because it's going to
be their responsibility. The Council is nothing other than a
recommending body.
Mayor Polston:
Does any member of the Council wish to respond Mr. Drahos's
comment or does any member of the Council wish to speak.
Stan, I will cover a little later the question that you
raised. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
Oy Moy, 2458 Fairview Lane, Mound
I would like to put on record that there are 28 letters
representing over 30 people who are unable to attend tonight's
meeting. Nevertheless, these individuals would like to be
counted among those here tonight in favor of returning a well
marked crosswalk connecting the downtown County Road 15
business community to the Mound City parking lot. These
people are: (here she read off a list of persons but did not
give a list or any letters to the clerk).
Ken Smith, 2927 Cambridge Lane, Mound
I am basically against putting the crosswalks back in. My
reason is I think that when I sat on the Council, we did a lot
of research, we had some very good information from the chief
of police and from the county. It made a lot of sense to take
it out. I am not sure that since the crosswalk has come out
that we have had any accidents in that area, if we have had
any near misses in that area. I don't see a reason to put it
back in if we are not affecting public safety right now. It
was not a safe situation when the crosswalk wa~ there. We ~d
have accidents on that corner. It is natural to look at the
semaphore at the end of the corner, which is not that far away
from the crosswalk and ...and I am not being pretentious of
the crosswalk. If you think when we removed the crosswalks
from in front of the Royer's Variety Store. At that point, I
was not on the City Council. But he was upset about us doing
it, but years later he says it hasn't affected his business.
It's been a definitely a lot safer corner without that mid-
245
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
block crosswalk. I am not sure that if you were to put the
crosswalk back in there, how fair it would be to the other
businesses on 110 where you took the crosswalks out. Are we
saying that people that cross the street on 110 from the city
parking lot have no more right to safety than the people who
cross the county road at the House of Moy? I don't think that
just because somebody puts up a protest, puts a chicken on
their roof, puts banners out in front of their business and
embarrasses the City of Mound, that we should turn around and
go ahead and put the crosswalks back in. This thing has been
to court. I realize the court has not said that the crosswalk
did not belong there, but they did back up the City with the
right to remove the crosswalk. That was a great expense to
the taxpayers. We thought we were right, we went to court,
and we were agreed with. So, I don't see anything has changed
since the crosswalk was removed, to dictate putting it back
in. And, I haven't been in town every day, but at the same
time, I have not read about any deaths, any accidents or
anything on that corner. Thank you.
At this point, Councilmember Hanus began speaking and the Mayor
asked him to let the public speak first.
Bill Darling, 2600 Grove Lane, Mound
I come here as a resident of the City of Mound, as a business
man and also as one of your commissioners on the Parks and
Open Space Commission. I'd like to present my views on this
proposal to reintroduce the crosswalk from the public parking
lot to the front of the House of Moy. The facts are plainly
this, a man was hit by a car in the crosswalk, while trying to
cross highway 15. The City, along with Hennepin County, did
look at the potential risk and did make a decision that the
risk was too high to public safety. The City recommended that
the crosswalk be removed. The owner of the House of Moy has
fought this decision for quite some time now. What could be
their motivator? Obviously the safety of the citizens is not
their primary concern. The owner has done good to derail the
process and embarrass the City. Having crosswalk guards
illegally stop traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the road,
by placing large visually distracting signs that impart
pedestrians have crosswalk rights there, and finally placing
an oversized inflatable chicken head on the roof as an added
insult to the city of Mound. What then, could it be? Does
the owner want us to pay for the fact that they need a public
access in a public parking lot for their private enterprise?
The City Council represents the overall best interests of the
citizens, not the financial well being of the restaurant. The
City already considered the issue and voted against the
restaurant yet for the safety of the public. To change that
decision would go against everything we stand for and make the
death of the innocent victim meaningless. By the way, what is
his name? Consider that the public post office and public bus
stop is 150 yards east, yet the city does not consider that
the public bus stop serves over 200 customers daily, and there
is no crosswalk to that bus stop or to the post office. Stop
considering the private interests and start considering the
246
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
citizens of Mound. Put an end to this ridiculous issue and
let private enterprise know that public funds are for public
use. Thank you.
Mayor Polston:
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
Bruce Jones, 5820 Lynwood Blvd., Mound
I have a vested interest, my wife works at the House of Moy,
but, um, I moved in here, I thought it's a nice town, it's
going to serve me well. I haven't seen anything great out of
this town. I have seen stores close, I've seen um move, but
I haven't seen a whole lot of them come in. The gentleman
before me said private interest, private interest is what
makes this city. Businesses. If you do not have businesses
private interest, you have nothing. A person died, that's
tragic. It's going to happen no matter where, no matter what,
when someone goes onto a street, eventually someone's going to
get killed. I also heard rumors, I don't know where from, but
it was something to the effect of a... a faint security, some
type of security, (false sense of security) Would you take
the flashing red lights and stop arms off of a school bus. I
don't understand this, I really don't. Thank you.
Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, Mound
Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council for having this discussion.
I think it shows a real openness in the government and it
shows that the concern is here to deal with the concerns of
all parties. The Mayor had mentioned that he had received
many requests to have this discussion and I am very glad we
are having this discussion in an open forum like this. I have
been a resident of Mound all of my life, born in 1958, grew up
and lived here all of my life. As a 13 year realtor in this
town, I try to adapt to changes in the marketplace, to changes
that happen in business. That means computerization, means
dealing with other factors, different types of financing,
different things that I have to learn about or change my
business to accommodate so that I am up on what's happening so
that I can provide a good service to the people that I am
serving. In this situation when the crosswalks were put in in
downtown Mound, they were put on when we had two lane roads,
or if there were four lane roads, they had parking on the
sides. It was a much slower, a much easier pace in dealing
with people crossing the street from parking lots that were
not necessarily in front of the businesses that they were
using. When the Commerce Place came, they decided that they
should do a plan, that included parking in front of their
businesses. They set the businesses off back of the county
road. Which they knew was a four lane highway and it was
going to be a very difficult road to move in between the
different businesses. So they made their own parking lot.
They did so under the guidelines that are required within the
city code with some variances by the City that was allowed at
that time. For the House of Moy crosswalk, and I call it the
House of Moy crosswalk, and I don't mean that because there
are other businesses there that should be able to utilize the
247
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
parking that was purchased by the City of Mound across the
way. But, by not adapting to change, with the four lane
highway instead of the two lane road that we started with. It
was accepted that the parking lot across the road would
continue to serve the businesses on the south side of the
street. Changes that further happened, we are dealing with
Auditor's Road. And Auditor's Road change gives a wonderful
opportunity for a viable business in this town to take
advantage of such. To have the City take care of a slower
road, that would provide wonderful access to the rear of the
property. In most cases, a business doesn't have the
opportunity to change just their entry way from a front to a
back, and have it serve its public for its customers. Most of
the time, they have to relocate or have to figure something
else out such as, Commerce Place did when they decided to open
up as a viable shopping center to provide parking in front of
their businesses. It is my understanding that the Council has
the opportunity to provide for parking through the CBD program
and the land that is currently owned by the City and paid for
by the CBD parking program to do some upgrading of the parking
lots on Auditor's Road. And with the change that I see
happening with Auditor's road, there should be ample parking
to allow a revamping of the area that would serve the use of
businesses on the south side of Shoreline. What I am saying
is that are changes, by not adapting to the changes, things
happen that make it more difficult. In this case you have a
four lane highway, it's a highway, it's not a parking area, it
is not something that should be utilized for crossing. Frank
Weiland, our historian on the Planning Commission, made a
suggestion the last time we were here and that is to move the
bus shelter over to the parking area that's utilized by the
Park and Ride. Great idea. That's where most of the bus
shelters is in the parking lots, they aren't necessarily
across a four lane highway. There is another aspect that
could be done in order to alleviate some of the concerns with
the congestion in that area and that is move the mail boxes
that serve the post office off one car width off of the
highway. At 4:00 on almost every day there are three or four
cars lined up to pull into the mailboxes to drop their mail.
By moving those to the rear of the post office, we are
alleviating some of the parking concerns that have public
parking where the bus shelter is now. Therefore, there would
be more parking within a half of block of the House of Moy,
where the people won't have to cross the road to utilize it.
There is also parking behind. By adapting to what the changes
are that are happening, and I hope we don't ever remain
stagnant, because things do need to change. By adapting to
those changes is what is required of the businesses in order
to maintain it. Lord Fletcher's since it was first built has
had seven new face lifts. The reason they do that is to keep
enticing people to come to Lord Fletcher's. The Jubilee store
has changed. It was a National Tea store back in the 1970's.
It is now a Jubilee. They have gone through signage, they
have gone through changes in floor plan, it's changing again.
They do it to appreciate their customers so they keep coming
back. Thank you for your time.
248
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
Chad True, owns a home in Minneapolis
I have many relatives who live in this area, specifically
Maple Plain, Long Lake and because of that I find myself out
in this part of town and I eat at the House of Moy Restaurant
and I think since all of this controversy that you have had
around the crosswalk situation, I have gotten to know the Moys
through that. My family is familiar with the situation on
County Road 15, they are not here tonight. Basically, it
boils down to is there is a situation that exists and whether
or not the goals of the city are to move traffic or make an
issue of Mrs. Moy have a crosswalk or not have a crosswalk, it
seems that people are crossing there and because of this there
is a need to address that specifically other than the design
of this city and what direction it is going. People are
crossing the road and obviously there is a need for a
crosswalk from what I have seen. The material supports a
crosswalk, that's the way I see it. Whether in the future
try to make this town more accessible. So people can get
around on foot, but I have seen, when in the restaurant
eating, many people crossing the street. Many people come up
to Mrs. Moy bringing this to her attention of how ridiculous
it is to run across the street. I see a crosswalk on 15, by
Toro that is very faint, not even maintained, the paint isn't
legible. Maybe the poor maintenance is a reason is why there
was a problem. What there was, wasn't very good. If you do
decide to put back the crosswalk, it's a step in the right
direction.
Mayor Polston asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak.
Geoff Michael:
Has the city done a study as to where, if we are going to put
a crosswalk in, where it should go. Maybe it should go by the
post office, or by the bus stop. Have they done such a study?
Mayor Polston:
Has the City done such a study? No they haven't yet.
Geoff Michael:
Would it be a benefit to do so? If everyone feels that a
crosswalk is needed, then let's put one in, but let's put one
in in the right area. Perhaps, the best part to put one in is
the bus stop or the post office. Thanks.
Frank Weiland, 6045 Aspen Road
One comment was about school bus stopping and lights flashing,
possibly that would be the answer for the crosswalk. I think
that's a little bit different because a bus driver will get
your number if you go by, that's where you get the ticket, at
the crosswalk, there is nobody there to write a ticket out or
get a number. I feel that Auditor's Road is the ideal spot
for a parking lot for Moys. Anyone who is for the crosswalk,
has anyone been asked if they would use Moy's if a back
entrance. The distance from the parking lot up to the corner
is supposed to be too far away. The parking behind Moy's is
closer than the parking lot across the street, it is also a
249
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
lot safer back there than on the main road. Any improvements
that would be made to the building will only make it worth
more if Auditor's Road plan goes into effect. I wonder if
this has been taken into consideration. But I am definitely
opposed to a crosswalk in that area of the main road.
Bruce Jones:
One thing I notice is crosswalks in general. Whether it is in
the middle or end of the block. This is about the crosswalk
by Super America. I was in the right hand lane, a boy was
crossing walking his bicycle. I stopped and motioned for him
to go across. A car came in the left hand lane in the same
direction, never even saw brake lights, almost took this kid
out. I motioned for the kid to cross again and he said no.
I went after the guy who didn't stop and lost him in traffic.
If you are going to have crosswalks, you have to enforce them.
When I lived in California, and someone steps in the
crosswalk, you hear brakes and tires squealing. It's a
situation, we need enforcement on the all crosswalks in the
City. I don't care if you are downtown at 15 and 110, or up
by SA, anyplace. When you make the decision ...
Police Len Harrell:
Mr. Mayor I would like to address that. In a four year period
we wrote 155 tickets for crosswalk violations. We right when
we see them or when people call us.
Mayor Polston: Anyone else
Ken Smith: What do the courts do with the crosswalk tickets?
Len Harrell:
We haven't had much luck. That's one of the problems. What
we used to do every spring is assign people overtime just to
work crosswalks, especially at the House of Moy. We had 12
people show up on one day to answer to crosswalk violation
tickets. The judge who was presiding that day offered them
$10 court costs, to just pay the court costs and he'd dismiss
the tickets. So, that just made us look like fools. That's
one of the problems and it got all around town. I heard back
about it from the previous mayor asking why are we writing
these tags, people just come back mad, cause the judge
dismisses them. We see them we right them.
Ken Smith:
I just wanted that pointed out. In California, if you don't
stop there is a $200 fine. They don't do it in Minnesota.
Mayor Polston:
We are covered by the same law. And talking to the Department
of Public Safety and Department Transportation today, Chapter
169 of the code does indicate that pedestrians do have the
right of way. But as Len has pointed out, it isn't enforced
in the courts and the Department of Public Safety and
Transportation is doing everything in their power to see that
section 169 is enforced the way it is in California, but so
far, they haven't been able to do that. Is there anyone else?
Ok, we are going to close the public part of the hearing and
250
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
return it to the City Council. First of all I would like to
thank all of the people for coming and voicing their concern
and opinions. I would like to thank all of the people that
I have talked to over the last two weeks. Citizens of Mound
who have called, whether we agreed or disagreed with my
position on the issue. It is not my intent to embarrass the
city, intimidate any of the citizens, nor have anybody feel
threatened. I have done what I consider as thorough as an
investigation and looking into a situation as I can possibly
do as a lay person. I have talked virtually to professionals
at the Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Transportation,
I have talked to people of Hennepin County, I have talked with
professional transportation engineers, people that I have
known and worked with over the years in jobs that I have held
in public works. I have talked with Benshoof and Associates
who cooperated with the County in doing a study of this
particular area. As City Council members and public servants
to the people of the City, we as city council members cannot
afford the opportunity to refer to areas as the House of Moy
crosswalk or to tell people how to run their businesses or how
to conduct their private affairs. We can't afford to become
emotionally involved in the decision making process. What we
must strive for, as members of the city council and public
body, responsible for the health, safety and welfare of the
community is to try and find the best professional advice that
we can find, base our decisions on the best logical and
rational methods and approaches to go about reaching those
decisions. You know, I go back, I am not going back to cast
stones or criticize the former city council that made the
decision to close the crosswalk. That was a decision that
they made based upon some information that they received. I
made a statement at the previous council meeting that for some
reason our police chief was put in a very unfair position to
try and analyze and report back to the city council, and he
did the job that he was asked to do. I sincerely believe
after talking with the Department of Public Safety, the
Department of Transportation, and a professional highway
design engineer, and a legal opinion that our own city
attorney wrote in 1992, that the action that the city council
took in removing that crosswalk, placed this city in far more
legal jeopardy by basing that decision on what they asked the
police chief to do, we could ever get out in a life time,
maybe, if something happened in that crosswalk. By all
professional standards that all of these people talked to,
applying the best guidelines they can come up with and looking
at the professional study that was done, a mistake was made
when the crosswalk was removed. It meets all of the criteria
based upon logic and rationale that were developed by all of
the manuals that Department of Transportation refers to. All
of the guidelines that were developed Smith and Knoblach in
their study. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not my intention to
enter politics into it. I simply am looking at the facts,
there should be a crosswalk there. Not because I seek
somebody's votes, but because it is right. Now does anyone
else on the City Council have anything that they would like to
say?
251
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
Councilmember Hanus:
Yes, I would like to make a couple of comments on a couple of
things I heard tonight. A question was asked if replacing a
crosswalk in this area would be fair to other businesses on
110 and my answer to that is if the criteria were met for
other businesses I would certainly consider the replacement or
installation of crosswalks in other areas. I am not aware of
any requests for any and I am not aware of any criteria that
meets the requirements to have one installed in any other
areas at this time. Some more comments were made also about
this chicken, what's disturbing to me, and I have heard this
for two years now, that people are upset with some of the um,
methods used with regard to the chicken, the signs, whatever,
and I am really afraid that there's too much emphasis put on
that and that people are making their decisions based upon a
dislike for certain methods. I personally know people that
were not in favor of the removal until the chicken went up.
If this is the basis for their decision, I would caution
anyone to please, please consider the reasons for your
decision. Whether or not a sign or a chicken or whatever goes
up is not the proper reason to make a public safety decision
on it. It has nothing to do with it. Another common
assumption that I see is that people are assuming that this
crosswalk played a role in the fatality that happened two
years ago. Friday I had a discussion with the Chief of Police
and tried to go over whatever facts are available and he
admitted that there is no evidence one way or the other
indicating whether the crosswalk played a role in that
accident. Since then I have been supplied with an affidavit
that was used in the court case and the councilmembers all
have a copy of it now. That is the only sworn affidavit or
evidence of anything that I can find that indicates anything
one way or the other. I can't say for sure if it's right, but
it's the only evidence that I have in front of me. That
affidavit indicates that the caravan was making the turn from
110 to County Road 15 while that individual was in the
crosswalk already. If that was the case, the crosswalk played
no role and this may have happened one way or the other. So,
again I want to be careful about making assumptions in that
area. A comment was made about moving the crosswalk down to
the bus shelter or down to the Post Office. Again, like I
mentioned briefly, two years ago and the County responded
negatively to that because there are a lot of turnoffs in that
area and so because of the auto traffic. A couple of comments
were made, one idea that was presented two weeks ago by Frank
Weiland, I think it was a great thing to look into as far as
moving the bus shelter over into the parking lot area. I
don't know MCTO, if they would be agreeable in doing it, but
I sure think it's worth pursuing. That would eliminate a lot
of the crossings in that area and like Mr. Mueller commented
on the mail boxes, another good idea. Because hopefully, if
the mail boxes can be placed in such a position that they
encourage mail drop offs to be done by either Belmont or
Auditor's Road, that eliminates a lot of the turn offs in that
area. The end result is a lot of the congestion in that end
of the parking lot, the east end of the parking lot, would be
252
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
greatly reduced and that in itself helps the condition in the
area. It doesn't solve the crossings up on the other end of
the Darking lot, that's still an issue. But, that's one, what
I just mentioned, is one more step in the right direction. At
that I will leave it be.
Mayor Polston:
IS there anyone else on the Council that wishes to comment?
Liz Jensen:
Yes, I would like to say something and what I'd like to do is
share some information with the people who are here. To do
that I will need the overhead projector. I apologize for
speaking to you this way, but I have to speak into the
microphone so everyone can hear. There has been mention of
some studies and mention of criteria and I know that there are
certain people in the audience who have had an opportunity to
see that and all members of the Council have had an
opportunity to see that. But I would like to share it with
the other people that are here. So what I am about to show
you is from the Knoblach and Smith Study. There is a study
that was done and fairly vigorous in terms of its approach to
establishing some guidelines for the installation of crosswalk
markings. It starts off as the San Diego Study, it's been
referred to. It was done originally in 1970. The document
that I received recently highlights a part that says the San
Diego Study is frequently misquoted as having proved that
crosswalks are dangerous and should not be used and this is
not the case. That was some of the language that was shared
with the Council 2 or 3 years when this was first discussed.
There was a graph in there that proposes to establish some
logical professional guidelines to help establish when
crosswalks should be marked. And there are some that are
fairly obvious; all signalized intersections with pedestrian
signal heads and that goes on to say that is not necessary to
mark the crosswalks at all signalized intersections as long as
the stop bar is adequately set back from the intersection.
And so as long as pedestrians and drivers can pretty well
determine where the crosswalk is, but that is a logical place
for a crosswalk. All locations were school crossing guard is
normally stationed to assist children to cross the street. So
then we have a school patrol standing there with a stop sign.
I remember years ago when I got to do that. So we have some
vision of what that might be. Then it says: All
intersections in mid-block crossings satisfy the volume
vehicular and pedestrian criteria in figure 3 and the
following basic criteria. And the basic criteria have been
coded as being four. I'd like to start with the vehicular and
pedestrian volume criteria. This is the graph that we have
been looking at. The graph suggests that the average aisle
and pedestrian volume during the peak four hours compared to
the average daily traffic volume, it you fall to the left hand
side of the lines, you do not put in a crosswalk. If you fall
to the right hand side of the lines, you do put in a
crosswalk. And when you have the solid lines... Basically it
says if you are over here put in a crosswalk, if you are over
253
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
here, don't put in a crosswalk. So the first criteria is how
does your pedestrian volume compare to your vehicular volume
and without checking for daily traffic volume, or the average
hourly peak pedestrian volume, and accepting this as accurate,
it would suggest that the crosswalk connecting the north and
south sides of County Road 15. So based on what we have read
up to this point it says, are your sections and mid-block
crossings satisfying minimum vehicular and pedestrian volume
criteria in figure 3, and the following basic criteria. The
previous document mentions 4 but I have a document here that
shows that there is five. The first one, is the speed limit
is less than 45 miles per hour. It fits the situation that
we have. Adequate stopping sight distance, in other words can
you see a pedestrian far enough in advance to react to the
pedestrian. That fits. 3) For mid-block crosswalks a back
length of at least 600 feet. I am not sure that we satisfy
the 600 feet. I think it is fairly close. If we measure from
Marion Lane, I am not sure that we are there. Total crossings
of 517 across the study period which was April 7th. When I
measure from Marion Lane to Belmont I come up with something
less than 600. Maybe close enough. 4) Crosswalk is
adequately illuminated. There has been some discussion as to
whether or not we have proper illumination there. I do know
that in some of the documentation that we have that there are
lights there to light the area. This is a criteria to putting
in crosswalks is adequate, so that makes sense. I would
submit to you and my fellow citizens that are here, it is the
last criteria that got the attention of the council several
years ago. I am not convinced that beyond a reasonable shadow
of a doubt that this is a proper thing to do. Minimal
conflicting attention demands was an issue that we really hit
on when we looked at this location. There are many things
that get drivers attention, that demand their attention as
they are driving through that area. To go back to the
transportation research record, it says that the last criteria
is a judgmental factor suggesting that crosswalks not be
marked or complex highway geometrics signing or other
circumstances distract the drivers attention, I don't think
there are many of those. But we do have other circumstances.
Let me step back, we don't have complex highway geometrics,
there's no interchange, there is no big highway signs. But it
goes on to say that legitimizing such locations as pedestrian
crossing points, could lead pedestrians into unsafe
conditions. It goes on to say that pedestrians should not be
encouraged to cross in areas where the driver does not already
span for vehicular traffic. That was one of the things we
also talked about a couple years ago when we looked at this.
There is a narrow street intersection there so drivers are not
looking for traffic. They are indeed looking at the other
things that distract their attention. The most important
elements of the guidelines of the criteria which place some
restrictions on crosswalk marking applications to prevent
their being placed in locations that would be extremely
hazardous to the pedestrian. So based on that piece of
professional information, the basic criteria, I don't think it
says in here you have to meet all of them. But I would submit
254
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
my fellow councilmembers, as well as my fellow citizens, that
we have a situation of many conflicting attention demands.
And, I did react emotionally when a pedestrian was killed in
that crosswalk. I told people we killed someone in one of our
crosswalks. We have talked earlier about how hazardous our
mid-block crosswalks were and when that happened, we killed
someone. I took it personally and I did take it emotionally.
I am attempting to take it at some professional and logical
fashion at this point. By looking at this basic criteria and
saying conflicting attention demands exist in that area, and
I have a real hard time with the idea of placing the crosswalk
back in that area because to me it suggests to pedestrians
that this is where we want you to cross. I would really
prefer that pedestrians cross at the stop light. But I can
afford at least a little bit better sense of security because
they have the stop light with them. That is all I have on
this for now, thank you.
Councilmember Jessen:
I want to take it one step further. I am going to talk about
the people who crossed there since we have taken it out and
their feelings. Their feelings on driving down that street
where the crosswalk is fear that someone will hit them from
behind and have to stop suddenly, and somebody is going to hit
them in the back. They have expressed to me over this time
since it has been gone, they feel relief that there is no
crosswalk there to worry about. They are talking about the
other night, last Thursday evening, the Mound Visions
Committee put on a wonderful program where the room was full
and people were standing in the back. This program will be in
effect within the next two years and it is the use of
Auditor's Road. It's going to be lovely, it will open up Lost
Lake. People are going to be able to park along there,
diagonally along there, which I don't like, but they will be
able to park in there and its going to make a wonderful
entrance to the back door now, but it will be a wonderful
entrance to those businesses. I wish you would all could have
seen it. It is something that we are all excited about, we're
looking forward to it. And Mrs. Moy could be one of the first
to utilize it. So, why are we going back to what we had for
years when we are looking at this coming up in another 2-3
years. And some other things that were said tonight that I
would like to agree is the bus shelter being moved across the
street. Also, I thought of, I got caught in it today, the
post office mail boxes. I am going add a third wish, better
lighting behind and along Auditor's Road. I have heard that
people do use the back lot but they don't like the lighting.
So if we put better lighting there as a concern to address.
With these three things, we ought to be able to handle the
situations until Auditor's Road is done. I don't believe in
putting the crosswalk back at this point.
Councilmember Ahrens:
I went back and looked at the same criteria that Liz displayed
on the overhead and I do agree that it has all of conditions
and I was concerned when we voted to take out the crosswalk
255
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
about the conflicting attention demands that were all around.
One of the things I went back and looked was some advice we
got from our city attorney, and I don't know if it holds any
more water than the advice we got from our Police Chief, but,
we have a responsibility to provide the public safety and one
of the calls that I got when we originally looked at the
crosswalk issue was a woman who told me that we should take
out the crosswalk because it was a serious safety hazard for
people and it was a safety hazard for cars. She has since
called me back and told me that when we got rid of the
crosswalk, we were supposed to get rid of all of the people.
Now put it back because all of the people are thinking when
they cross the street in the old crosswalk location, except
everyone figures the crosswalk is gone so no one is watching
and nobody stops, or some people stop, some people watch. I
guess what I'd like to investigate is an alternative solution.
I don't think the crosswalk, in its original location, allows
adequate sight distance from the County Road 15, County Road
110 intersection. I did not measure the block from there to
Belmont. I have never been on Marion Street and I can't ever
remember in all of the years I have been in Mound recall a car
coming out on Marion Street. And I am in Mound frequently.
I don't know the distance from Marion Street, but I know it is
over 700 feet from Belmont to 110. And, one of the other
things that wasn't real clear was that some of the conflicting
attention demands include egress and ingress for some of the
businesses there and if there is any way we could do
something about that. I totally agree with moving the bus
shelter across the street, I too have been caught in the
middle of the road trying to use the mail boxes at the post
office. Even the person that is first at the mailbox,
everyone else tries to pull into the parking lot.
Mayor Polston:
I applaud all of the people who have worked on the issues. I
agree with Councilmember Jessen said, and with the conflicting
attention demands, and the long discussions that I have had
with MNDOT, and the professionals about crosswalk guidelines
and I have prepared a motion that I would like to make that I
believe addresses all of the issues and concerns that we have
raised at the Council or I have heard from the public. At
this time I would like to make the following motion:
MOTION made by Mayor Bob Polston and seconded by Hanus, to
direct the City Manager to request that Hennepin County
replace the mid-block crosswalk on Shoreline Drive, that
connects the city parking lot on the north side of Shoreline
to the businesses on the south side of Shoreline Drive, with
the following stipulations:
That the crosswalk be installed approximately 15 feet to the
east of the position where the crosswalk existed until it was
removed in 1993. This is to eliminate pedestrians from
walking out of the door of any existing business directly into
the crosswalk.
256
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
That the marking material be the new standard for material
rec0 mended by the County. Longitudinal blocks 2' by 5' to
add v[slbility to the crosswalk. That standard pre--formed
durable marking material be used, which provides the benefit
Of lasting longer than paint, and has improved reflectivit¥.
That advance warning signs, and crosswalk warning be provided.
These signs to be constructed of the material recommended by
Hennepin County in 1993 which are HI intensity sheeting to
improve nighttime visibility, and day-glo plaques on top of
the advance warning signs, to call the signs to drivers during
day light hours.
Further be it resolved:
That the city Manager be authorized and instructed to
negotiate with the MTCO, to relocate the bus shelter from the
south side of Shoreline Drive to the north side of Shoreline
Drive, to reduce the number of pedestrians that need to cross
Shoreline Drive.
Also, that the City negotiate with the Post Office to try and
relocate the mail boxes from their present location to either
Auditor's Road or Belmont Lane by the Post Office to encourage
users to access the mail boxes from either of the locations
listed above.
That parking on Shoreline not be allowed for delivery vehicles
making deliveries to businesses between Commerce Blvd and
Belmont Lane.
That all businesses served by this crosswalk be asked to
participate in instructing pedestrians to use caution and
basic safety principles in using the crosswalk.
That the City Manager be authorized to pursue finding a type
of illuminated sign, that will warn motorists when the
crosswalk is in use by pedestrians. This light should be of
the type that is actuated by a pedestrian pushing a button, to
illuminate the sign, and goes off automatically in a
predetermined time.
Councilmember Jessen:
Would you also add the request that you add a light behind
House of Moy until Auditor's Road is done because there are
always people would rather not cross the street whether there
is a crosswalk there or not, so they park behind. It's a
minor thing.
Mayor Polston:
No, it's not a minor thing. I think it is important.
there any other discussion?
Councilmember Jensen:
I want to know if the 15 feet was concrete distance?
Is
Mayor Polston:
257
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
NO, I am saying that 15 feet is approximate, because they have
a concern over the right-of-ways, but we do not want to do is
allow the crosswalk to be where someone can walk out of a door
of a business and directly into the crosswalk and directly
into the street. We are open to the latitude and where they
tell us it will improve the sight line and will cut down on
the possibility of somebody walking from a door directly into
the street. I think that I have tried to address the other
things that will reduce danger in crossing a county road.
Councilmember Jessen:
Have you had the county out to actually walk it through with
you?
Mayor Polston:
The county has been out here, no I have not walked it with the
county. They are familiar through my discussions with them
and every foot of the area.
Chief Harrell asked if the county was willing to put in a push
light for the pedestrians to use now because they were not willing
before.
Mayor Polston:
What MNDOT referred back to was the Minnesota Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, that covers types of
lighting, whether or not the County will agree with that, I
don't know. What I am saying in the motion is to pursue,
getting this put up. In my discussion with Mr. Shay, of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, he almost recommended,
it depends upon whether there is a conflict with the county or
not and in fact what Mr. Shay tells me is that in the report
that Benshoof and Associates did, they used the exact same
material for professional standards for crosswalks. The
Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Handbook,
Institute of Transportation and Engineers, and the Policy of
Geometric Designs for Highways and Streets, Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Len Harrell:
The reason I ask Mr. Mayor is that we tried to pursue that and
the County told us no way.
Mayor Polston:
My understanding is, I don't want to speak for the County, I
did call Mr. Genzlinger and advised him that we were going to
discuss it, ask him if there is any reason from a professional
standpoint that you can see why this crosswalk shouldn't be
put there and if I am making a fool of myself, would you
please tell me. He says Bob, I have to tell you our position
is what it always has been. That the County will support the
action that the City Council takes. If you want it taken out,
we took it out. Now if you want it put back in, we'll support
the City's decision. That's all I can tell you now.
258
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
Len Harrell:
We went round and round about this light.
Mayor Polston:
Well, it may be that the City has to provide the funding for
it. And there's another crosswalk that I have a very bad
feeling about that I would like to see addressed, cause I have
seen people almost killed in that one and I don't want to wait
until somebody is before we do something to try and upgrade
and that's the one at the Pond Arena. Is there any further
discussion?
Councilmember Jensen:
It's my opinion that as a package it has some merit. But, my
fear is that we won't get it as a package. So, to start off
by replacing a crosswalk without also getting agreement for
the illuminated sign, and the restriction of no parking on
County Road 15, I would like to see those things in writing.
Mayor Polston:
They are, the County, all the stuff that Ed gave you, it's
right in the packet.
Councilmember Jensen:
The County made a lot of reco~u~endations in their packet to
the questions that we had asked them some time ago. Including
the new standard for durable marking materials which would be
an additional expense over and above of what is usually
provided. The signage using the high intensity sheeting and
the day glo, whatever it was, was also over and above their
standard. So I think is appropriate for us to consider it as
a package and look at what would it cost to put these items
in. We have been interested in putting a stop sign in a Three
Points and Co~erce for a number of years and we have only
recently been able to because we met the warrant. That is not
an inexpensive proposition either. So, as a package, I think
it is worth pursuing. But it is worth pursuing the whole
thing and to put the crosswalk back in and therefore we are
suggesting to people that this is where we want you to cross
and not taking care of the number of visual obstructions for
the drivers, puts me ill at ease. I would like to see us
pursue it as a package and come back and see how much of the
package can we get.
Mayor Polston:
The only part of the package that we can't get, as far as I
know, is the light itself without paying for it. All of the
other items as far as the marking., the county assured me
yesterday afternoon at 4:00, they would do ~t w~th %he
material that they reco~end. The others is for us to pursue
moving the parking to the other side, I am not sure we could
do that, but I am all in favor of it. I am not sure we can
negotiate about the mail boxes, but I am in favor of it.
Knowing the facts that I know after tal~ing the Department of
Safety and Transportation, I do not feel safe one more day
without making a decision to reinstall that crosswalk based on
259
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
the information that I have in the packet.
Councilmember Ahrens:
Are we uncomfortable about having to reinstall the crosswalk?
There doesn't seem to be any answer to making people stop
crossing. I am uncomfortable enough about it to want more
assurances on the items that you put in your motion. I would
like to have the County do something about, put something in
writing saying that they will do ...
Mayor Polston:
The County said they were for it.
Councilmember Ahrens:
I though the last time we had the County here, they told us
that we didn't qualify for a light. Am I recollecting that
wrong? Do you remember that?
Councilmember Jensen:
Yes I do. I see that as part of the package, I think it is a
great idea. Move the bus shelter, move the mail boxes is a
great idea, if we can get businesses to agree not to have
deliveries on County Road 15, that's a great idea too. These
are things that would help reduce some of the attention
demands on drivers. This is a great package. But
individually, it puts me back in the position of saying to
pedestrians it's safe for you to walk here. Even they cross
there, we aren't telling them it's safe to walk there, that's
the difference.
Councilmember Ahrens:
But at the same time we are allowing it to happen, and there
is no indication to motorist that its happening.
Councilmember Jensen:
They certainly can put up a sign like we did on Lynwood Blvd.
east of Commerce, when there was discussion of putting a
crosswalk in there. We put up a sign that said watch for
pedestrians. We certainly could put a sign to notify drivers
that there will be people crossing the street.
Councilmember Ahrens:
The point is that people will see that for 21 days and then
its filed.
Councilmember Jensen:
Again, it's a good package. But I can't support it with the
first item being take this immediate step and see what else
happens. I would like to see how much of this package, and
you're telling us they are going to give us all of this
package,
Mayor Polston:
The day glo.. the marking, that is their recommendation.
260
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
Councilmember Jensen:
Right, but what about all of these other things that together
are a great package?
Mayor Polston:
None of these other things are their recommendations, it was
feedback that I have gotten from citizens that I included in
the motion because I think they're logical and rational and
fit into the best possible crosswalk. If we can control
parking on the street ....
Councilmember Jensen:
Is it posted no parking right now? You can't control parking
on the street if there is no parking.
Mayor Polston:
You can't control people walking outside of the crosswalks,
you can't control everybody from speeding, there's always
exceptions to the rule. But ......
Chief Len Harrell:
Part of the problem, I think, is early on when I came here, we
used to tag people for parking on 15. The Council got an
awful lot of calls saying we tagged somebody who was just
running into pick something up and coming out. So we stopped
and we haven't tagged people who drop off supplies at the auto
body shop, just like we don't tag John Royer, he has no place
to park, we allow him to put flashers on. Are you telling me
now that you want us to start tagging, the businesses will be
very upset. We'll do what ever you tell us to do.
Councilmember Jensen:
So, I go back and say that it is a good package. It covers a
lot of great ideas, but I see it as a package. I would like
to know how much it is going to cost us and how we are going
to pay for it, and how much of it can we get, and how much are
the materials, because the County says they'll do it but it's
over and above the normal. So my assumption is that we will
have to pay for that. And I think we deserve it to our
taxpayers to know how much of their money we are going to be
spending.
Councilmember Hanus:
The way I read all of those opinions, I never once deemed from
any of those documents that the County was insinuating that
the city paid the difference. Particularly the markings. I
think they are saying that this is above and beyond our normal
marking requirements, but they were willing to do that. I
never read anywhere that they were insinuating that the City
pay the difference.
Councilmember Jensen:
Did it say that the County would pay for it?
Councilmember Hanus:
The way it was written, that's the way I understood it, yea.
261
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
Councilmember Jensen:
That's not the way I understood it.
Mayor Polston:
In my discussion with Mr. Genzlinger yesterday afternoon, he
indicated that this offer still stands with the County. They
will provide the higher standard of marking material at no
cost to the City.
Councilmember Jensen:
Great, have them put it in writing.
in writing.
I want to see the package
Chief Len Harrell:
The way I recall it is that they would do it the first time
and we were responsible after that.
Mayor Polston:
Yes, that's correct.
Councilmember Jensen:
That is a cost. I want to know what the cost is. How much
more is it going to cost us. I don't think that it asking too
much.
Councilmember Jessen:
The other time when we went through the discussion the County
came out and we had discussions with them. I feel, you talked
to them, and I am sure you have. I would like to hear from
them or as you said, get in writing. I think the Council
deserves that if they are going to vote on such a motion.
Mayor Polston:
You are free to research and not get to the Council meeting
when we know something is coming up and say this, why didn't
you say so weeks ago and we could have arranged for the County
to come out. I didn't realize it was a concern. I am sure
that if any one of the Council invited the County out here,
they would have been more than willing to bend over backwards
to try and help us. They would have been here if we would
have asked them.
Councilmember Hanus:
I stated my opinion several weeks ago, and at the time we
didn't have these other ideas. At the time I felt,
personally, that the reinstallation at a new location was the
proper thing to do, based upon all kinds of data. Now, with
these new ideas come in, which are great ideas, I agree with
them completely also. But, whether or not they happen, I
still think the right thing to do is to put that back in
there. If these other things happen, wonderful, it's all the
better. Even without them I think it is the proper thing to
do at the location that was mentioned in the motion.
Councilmember Ahrens:
Did they give you indication of how long it would take to do
262
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
it?
MAY 9, 1995
Mayor Polston:
I didn't ask, nor did they tell me, they will respond to the
Council wishes. Anyone else? If not, those in favor of the
motion, will the clerk please call the roll on this issue.
The vote was 3 - 2 in favor of the motion. Councilmember Ahrens,
Hanus and Polston voting yes. Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen
voting no.
Mayor Polston said this was a long and tedious process. He
complimented his colleagues on the research that they have done.
He hopes all can work together to make this motion become a
reality.
Stan Drahos asked his question again that if there was another
death in the crosswalk, would it be removed again?
Mayor Polston:
I would refer you to the legal advice that we got where it was
suggested to the City prior to taking it out, that we get and
seek the best professional advice available from the attorney.
That was not done, the crosswalk was removed without seeking
the best professional safety experts that we could as to
whether or not it should be removed. It wasn't done. So, I
am suggesting that without the crosswalk there we may be in a
lot worse legal condition than we are without the crosswalk
there.
Stan Drahos:
Would you take it out if someone was killed?
Mayor Polston:
I don't want to ....
Councilmember Ahrens:
I would consider it if they could prove that because there was
a crosswalk there, that was what... If something came up now
that they did not realize, some new study that said crosswalks
with these kind of conditions cause deaths. But right now I
can't find anything that says this about this accident.
A member of the audience mentioned a lady was
crosswalk by 2020 Commerce with flashing lights on.
mentioned at all tonight.
killed in the
This was not
x.4 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTXONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.5 Pa~nent of Bills
Motion by Jensen and seconded by Jessen to authorize the
263
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 1995
payment of the bills presented on the pre-list of $277,196.49,
when funds become available. A roll call was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
1.6 ADD ONS
The Northwest Tonka Lions have applied for the following permits,
approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being
submitted:
Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit for June 17
and 18, 1995 at the Pond Arena
Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit for June 18,
1995 at the Depot at Mound Bay Park.
Motion by Mayor Polston, seconded by Councilmember Hanus to
approve the mentioned licenses. Approval contingent upon all
required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for April, 1995.
B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for April, 1995.
Letter from Mound City Days Parade Committee re: your
participation in parade. Please notify the Committee
chair directly if you wish to be in parade. In the
past, the Mayor and City Council have chosen to ride in
cars or walk the parade route distributing candy they
have purchased.
De
Letter to Mayor Polston from the Minnesota Chamber of
Commerce Foundation who will be presenting a $15,000
Professional Development Challenge Grant to Shirley Hills
School on Monday, May 8, 1995 at 7 pm, School Board
Meeting Room, 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Letter invites Mayor
Polston to attend and be a part of the ceremony.
REMINDER: Committee of the Whole, Tuesday May 16, 1995,
7:30 PM
Fo
REMINDER: Family Safety Day, 10 am to Noon, City Hall,
May 13, 1995.
Ge
REMINDER: Monday, May 29, 1995, City Offices are closed
for Memorial Day Observance.
REMINDER: Saturday, June 10,
Run/Walk, 8 AM, Mound Bay Park.
1995, Around Mound
REMINDER: Saturday, June 10, 1995, Mound Fire
Department Fish Fry, 3 -8 PM, with dance beginning
at 9 PM, Mound Fire Station.
264
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 1995
J. REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 16-18, 1995.
XO:O0/~
~ity- M~nager
Attest Acting y
MOTION by Ahrens and seconded by Hanus to adjourn meeting at
10:00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at
265
BILLS May 09, 1995
Batch 5043 $172,285.68
Batch 5044 104,910.81
Total Bills $277,196.49