1984-06-26 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 19U4
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2.
3.
4.
Approve Minutes of June 12, 19~4, Regular Meeting
PUBLIC_HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills for June
Report from Public Works Building Study Committee
CASE~#84-332:. Howard J. Hagedorn, 3830 Trenton Lane,
Ln., Plymouth - Vacant Lot East of'
1736 Shorewood Lane
Request: 14 Foot Front Yard Variance
CA~E~#84~33~: Steve & Jacquelyn Spencer, 3017
Longfellow, Lot 3, Block 8, The
Highlands
Request: 2 Foot Side Yard Variance
CASE.#84-33~: Leroy & Nancy Poetz, 1620 Eagle Lane,
Lots 6 & 19, N 1/2 of 18, Block 11,
Woodland Point
Request: 5 Foot Front Yard Variance
C__ASEJ#84~337; Richard Sufficool, 2072 Shorewood
Lane, Lots 13 & 14, Block 1, Shadywood
Point
Request: Floodplain Variance - 4.7 Existing Side-
yard Variance & Lakeside Variance
Application for Gambling Permit - Our Lady of the
Lake Catholic Church
Application for a Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer
Permit - Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
10.
11.
Comments & Suggesttions from Citizens Present
- Herb Wolner
Commercial Dock Application - Surfside, Inc.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
Pg.
12. Street Light Request
13.
14.
Approval of 1984 Administrative Code
Petition for Reconsideration of Rate Refunds -
Continental Telephone - Discussion
Pg.
1636-1650
1651
1652-1656
1657-1669
1670-1678
1679-1691
1692-1700
1701-1702
1703
1704
1705
1706-1709
1710-1734
1735-1738
Page 1634
15. Consideration of Appointment of a Councilmember to
Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. Pg.
16. Amendment to Chapter 46 of the City Code - No parking
East side of Island View Drive between Clyde and
Dorchester. Pg.
17. Payment of Bills pg.
18. M!SCELLANEOUSZINFOR~ATION
A. Planning Commission Minutes - June 11, 19~4 Pg.
B. Memo from City Manager on 1984 Work Comp. Rate Pg.
C. Dock Program Update Pg.
D. Announcement of Met. Council Regional Meeting' Pg.
E. Memo from West Hennepin Human Services Pg.
F. Breakdown of Contributions from Gift Catalog Pg.
G. AMM 1983-84 Annual Report Pg.
H. Memo from Community Services - Re: Senior
Citizen Funding Pg.
I. Letter from Senator Boschwitz Pg.
J. Public Services Redesign Project Memo Pg.
K. Letter from Hennepin County - Re: Town Square Pg.
L. Legion Post #398 Gambling Report Pg.
M. Evenson-Dodge Financial Report Pg.
N. Twin Cities Labor Market Report - June Pg.
O.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Agenda - June 12, 1984 Pg.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Minutes- May 17, 1954 Pg.
1739
1740
1741
1742-1747
1748-1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763-1780
1781
1782-1783
1784-1795
1796
1797
1798-1799
1800-1803
1804-1805
1806-181 9
Page 1635
108
June 12, 1984
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota met in
regular session on June 12, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council
Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were:
Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen,
and Gary Paulsen. Councilmember Russ Peterson was absent and
excused. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City
Attorney Jim Larson, rity Engineer John Camerson, City Clerk Fran
Clark, Finance Director Sharon Legg, Building Inspector Jan
Bertrand and the following interested citizens: Ken Weber, Linda
Kohl, Gary Shaleen, Merritt Geyen, Larry Connolly, Kathy Kluth.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the ~people in
attendance.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the May 8, 1984, Regular Meeting; the May 15,
1985, Special Meeting; the May 22, 1984, Regular Meeting; and the
May 29, 1984, Board of Review were presented for consideration.
Charon moved and ?aulsen seconded a motion to approve the
Minutes of the May 8, 1984, Regular Meeting; the May 15,
1984, Special Meeting; the May 22, 1984, Regular Meeting; and
the May 29, 1984, Board of Review, as presented. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING; PROPOSED VACATION OF CANARY LANE FROM WOODLAND
ROAD.SOUTH.TO.JENNINGS ROAD
The City Manager explained that this vacation has been requested
by Mr. Ken Weber who recently purchased Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21 and
22 Block 3, Woodland Point. He has purchased this property with
the intent to build a home and wants Canary vacated from Woodland
Road South to Jennings Road so that he will be able to.landscape
and blend it into the land. The City Engineer ~ecommended
vacation retaining a ten foot drainage easement (five feet on
either side of the centerline of Canary). The Planning
Commission recommended approval of this vacation.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments
for or against the vacation as presented.
Ken Weber -
the applicant was present and stated he is in
favor of the vacation.
Linda Kohl - 5149 Woodland Road, stated she is also in favor
of the vacation.
109
June 12, 1984
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~84-86
RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET EASE-
MENT OF CANARY LANE FROM WOODLAND ROAD
SOUTH TO JENNINGS ROAD
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING;..PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23.604,4.OF.THE
ZONING.CODE RELATING TO.SWIMMING POOLS
The City Manager explained that this proposed amendment will deal
__ _ with an oversight in ~he. new Zoning Ordinance dealing with
swimming pools in R-l, R~2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. ?he
following would be added:
Private swimming pools having a water depth of two (2) feet
or more which are operated for the enjoyment and convenience
of the residents of the principal use and their guests
provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Pools should be located not less than fifteen i15) feet
from any rear property line, ten (10) feet from any
side yard property line and in the case of corner lots,
not less that fifteen (15) feet from a side street
property line. all pools shall be at least twenty (20)
feet from a principal building on an adjoining lot.
e
No private pool shall extend forward to the established
front building line.
The swimming pool Shall be entirely enclosed by a
protective fence or other permanent structure not less
that five (5) feet nor more than six (6) feet in
height. Such protective enclosure shall be maintained
by locked gates or entrances when the po01 is not
tended by a qualified and responsible person.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments
for or against the proposed ordinance amendment. There were
none. The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Council discussed the reasons for this amendment.
Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
ORDINANCE ~463
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23, SECTION
23.604.4 OF'THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
SWIMMING POOLS
CASE_~84~338:__DARYL.GEYEN,_5201_PIPER_ROAD_(AL_&_ALMA'S),
TEMPORARY_SIGN_PERMIT
The City Manager explained that these are temporary signs for the
time the Black Lake Bridge is under construction. They should be
placed on private property only and not the public right-of-way.
The City Manager noted that since the signs are less than 9
square feet~they are in compliance with the ordinance and a
· permit is really not needed. Thus, a refund of the $50.00' should
be authorized.
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to authorize a
refund of $50.00 for a sign variance application to Daryl
Geyen because the application was not necessary. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried
-- - DISCUSSION.REALIGNMENT_OF.LYNWOOD_BLVD,.BETWEEN.COMMERCE_BLVD.
AND ~LMONT
City Engineer John Cameron explained that they have now
investigated the possibilities of realigning Lynwood Blvd. from
Commerce Blvd. to Belmont Lane. Lynwood Blvd. is a Municipal
State Aid road and therefore, any improvements undertaken could
be paid for by State funds. He submitted a preliminary sketch
showing the suggested new alignment for Lynwood Blvd. The
proposed alignment would require the City to acquire the bakery
adjacent to the City owned Anderson building, a small portion of
Super Valu's parking lot and also a 10 foot strip along Lots 6
through 11. There is a good possibility that the acquisition of
these properties ~could be done with MSA funds, although the only
way to know for sure is for the City to submit a council approved
right-of-way plan to the State. He noted that MSA funds would
only pay for the purchase price, the City must stand all other
expenses such as appraisal fees, attorney fees, closing costs,
etc.
The Engineers are recommending the proposed alignment because
from a design and safety standpoint the westerly end should line
up with the section of County Road 15 which goes west. This also
holds true with the east end at the intersection with Belmont
Lane. He then presented the-cost estimates for the improvement
of Lynwood Blvd. and Belmont Lane. He qualified the' storm sewer
estimate because nothing has ever been done in that area.
The City Engineer stated that if the City wishes to proceed with
this project,.'the first step would be to prepare a right-of-way
plan for approval by the City Council and then submit it to the
State. Then the State determines if the properties to be
acquired for right-of-way are eligible for payment from MSA
funds. After that would come the preparation of the construction
plans.
June 12, 1984
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to deny the
request of James Rafferty for a lot split/subdivision of Lots
2,3,34 and 35, Block 15, Arden (PID #'s 24-117-24 43 0025,
24-117-2q 43 0026, 24-117-24 44 0173 and 24-117-24 44 0174)
because it would be creating 2 nonconforming lots (frontage
would not be adequate. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
REFUND_REQUEST_-_CONDITIONAL_USE_APPLICATION,_VFW_POST_5113
The City Manager explained that the VFW applied for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow Western Tree Service to use their property
for storage. Since the application was filed, Western Tree
Service decided to move their operation to another location out
of town, thus the refund request.
Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion to authorize a
refund of $200.00 to VFW Post 5113 for their application for
a Conditional Use Permit. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
CASE.tS~r336:__GARY_L._SHALEEN,_1687_EAGLE LANE,_LOTS_10_&_11,
BLOCK.3,.DREAMWOOD~_3 FOOT_FRONT_YARD_SETBACK
VARIANCE
The City Manager explained that this request is to allow the
applicant to construct a 10 x 12 foot deck on the south side of
his newly constructed home. The deck would be within 21 feet of
the front property line. The Zoning Code Section 23.408(5)
allows one front yard to be reduced to 20 feet for a lot width of
51-80 feet on a corner lot of record. The R-3 Zoning District
Section 23.610.5(3) allows a front yard setback to be reduced to
24 feet for a lot depth of 61-80 feet on lots of record from 30
feet for the R-3 district. The setback should be 20 feet and 24
feet. Thus, the 3 foot front yard setback variance. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this variance.
The Council discussed conditioning the variance so that the
applicant can only construct an unenclosed deck without
additional variance approval.
Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #84-87
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 3 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK
3, DREAMWOOD, TO CONSTRUCT AN UNENCLOSED
DECK ONLY
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
June 12, 1984
Charon moved and ?aulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #84-90 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE
AUDIT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1983
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
A?PROVAL_OF_PERMITS_&_LICENSES
3.2.BEER_PERMIT_-_FIRE_DEFT.
Jessen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve a 3.2
Beer Permit for the Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. for June 16 &
17, 1984. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
RENEW~L_OF_CLuB_LIcsN$~$
The City Manager reported that the Police Dept. has observed
that the YFW is staying open after hours. They will be
notified that this is against the Statutes and the City
Ordinances and if the practice continues, steps will be taken
to revoke their license.
Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the
renewal of Club Licenses for the Chamberlain Goudy VFW Post
~5113 and the American Legion Post ~398. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
RENEWAL_OF_$ST~UP_LICENSES
Charon moved and Polston seconded a motion to approve the
renewal of Set-Up License for A1 & Alma's Supper Club. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
WINE.LICENSE_RENEWALS
Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the
renewal of Wine Licenses for A1 & Alma's Supper Club and the
House of Moy. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried. ~
CIGARETTE~&_ENTERTAIN~ENT_LICENSES
The Light House (formerly Three Point Tavern) is asking for
renewal of these licenses. The Council discussed the unmet
conditions in the Conditional Use Permit. They also
discussed the notice that was given to them on the grand
opening set for June 23, where they are planning to have live
bands outside from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mayor Polston
stated he was not in favor of this because it would disturb
the neighbors.
113.
June 12, 1984
The Council discussed the project in detail and asked that both
Lynwood and Belmont be done at the same time.
Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~84-88
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEER TO
PREPARE A RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN FOR THE
REALIGNMENT OF LYNWOOD BLVD. BETWEEN
COMMERCE BLVD. AND BELMONT LANE, INCLUDING
THE UPGRADE OF BELMONT LANE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~0MMENTS.&_SUGGgSTIONS_FROM.CITIZEN$_PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from
the citizens present.
The City Council all complimented Larry Connolly on the fine
parade and activities that were held the weekend of June 9th.
The City Manager commended Larry on the clean-up his crew did
after the parade.
REQUEST_FOR~STREET.LIGHT AT_THE_WESTERN_END.OF_NORTHERN_ROAD
The City Manager stated that a request was received for a street
light to be instailed on the west end of Northern Road. Officer
Ewald checked with the residents of that area and the feeling was
that a street light is needed for the area because it is so dark.
Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~84-89
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF
A STREET LIGHT AT THE WEST END OF NORTHERN
ROAD
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REVIEW_OF_AUDIT_MANAGEMENT_LETTER
The City Manager went over different items in the letter with the
Council. The General Fund balance increased by approximately
$180,000 in 1983 and the Auditor recommends that the City
continue to improve this financial condition to provide working
capital and cover revenue shortfalls or unanticipated
expenditures.
The Finance Director stated that the only item the City still
needs to establish is general fixed asset records. Records have
been kept since 1981 but we need to go back and tag every
tangible item, land, etc. and find the original costs.
i.i 6
June 12, 1984
Black Lake Bridge will be approximately 4 months. This confirms
the City's fears that it will be at least the end of September,
if the weather cooperates, before completion. This was an
information item only.
The City Manager then informed the Council that he has just
learned that the MTC has cancelled all bus service on Island Park
even though they have a route that could loop the service. The
reason, because according to the MTC, is that they have not
received enough flack from the public. The Council suggested
that the City Manager contact Sandra Garbering of the Metro
Council regarding this problem with the MTC.
.~.~YMENT.OF~BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount
of $159,731.17, when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SIDEWALK~SAFETY
The City Manager called the Council's attention to the response
he received from Hennepin County regarding the City's letter on
crosswalk safety. He then asked the Council what they would like
to see done to make the crosswalks in Mound safer.
Councilmember Paulsen thought that flashing lights should be
installed at the crosswalk near 2020 Commerce Blvd. The City
Manager stated that he will research the costs, etc.
The Council then discussed the other crosswalks in Mound.
The City Manager presented the idea of having signs stating that
people are entering a Pedestrian Safety Zone at the Post Office,
2020 Commerce Blvd. and the Surf side each to have flashing
lights. The Council agreed this may be the best idea. The City
Manager will check into having the County do this for us and the
costs involved. ~
~PPOINTME~T_OF RECYCLING~COMMITTEE
The following names were submitted by Kathy Kluth to be appointed
to the Recycling Committee: Karol Richmond, Margaret Erickson,
Jackie Meyer, Claude Clements and Cheryl Burns.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~84-93
RESOLUTION APPOINTING 5 PERSONS TO THE
RECYCLING COMMITTEE
115. ..
June 12, 1984
Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion to extend the
Cigarette License, Entertainment License and the Conditional
Use Permit to The Light House until September 1, 1984, at
which time the conditions in their Conditional Use Permit
will be reviewed to see if he has met all the conditions.
The vote was 3 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion
carried.
TEAN$IENT_LICENSE
Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve a
Transient Merchant License to Tim Shore {Blue Bell Ice Cream,
Inc.). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
LOGI$.~EMBERSHIP
The City Manager explained that Mound is now eligible for a full
membership to LOGIS (Local Government Informational Systems
Association) and that we should have our membership upgraded so
that we could have move involvement in the decisions of this
group.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~84-91
RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN UPGRADE OF
MEMBERSHIP FROM ASSOCIATE TO FULL
MEMBERSHIP IN LOGIS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REFUNDS_FOR~VARIANCE~APPLICATION_FEES
The City Manager explained that because of an interpretation of a
section of the Zoning Ordinance on where certain properties have
frontage on an improved public right-of-way, 2 applications for
variances were granted but were not needed (Resolutions #83-137
and 83-144). These variances need to be cancelled and refunds
given.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~84-92 RESOLUTION TO NULLIFY RESOLUTION #83-137 -
5226 LYNWOOD BLVD. AND RESOLUTION ~83-144
- 4424 DENBIGH ROAD AND AUTHORIZE REFUND
OF FEES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CONSTRUCTION_NOTICE_ON.BLACK.LAKE_BRIDGE
The City Manager presented a notice from Hennepin County stating
that the temporary closure of CSAH 125 for the replacement of the
i.i 8
June 12, 1984
to refund everyone in the entire Continental Phone System the
same refund even though individual exchange rates vary and in
fact, some people will get a refund even when the final rates
increased over the interim rates. This means that Mound
customers will only receive a credit of approximately $8.03
instead the actual credit due. He is recommending that Mound
appeal this decision. The Council agreed.
Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion authorizing the
City Attorney to appeal the decision of the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission on the refund in the Continental Phone
Co. rate case. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
INFORMATIOn/MISCELLAnEOUS
Ae
Hatching Small Business - Article from Planning, May 84,
which the City Manager will work with HUD to obtain money to
do this in Mound.
Letter from MWCC regarding the Boland Report.
MWCC Newsletter - April 1983.
D. Westonka Chamber Newsletter - June 1984.
E. Report on League of Cities Local Government Aid Task Force.
F. Westonka Seniors, Inc. Newsletter - June 1984.
G. Metropolitan Council "Review" Newsletter - May 11, 1984 and
May 25, 1984.
H. LMCD Minutes - April 25, 1984.
I. LMCD 1983 Boat Survey.
J. LMCD Variance Application for Barry Krelotz and Variance
Approval for A1 & Alma's
K. Ehler & Associates Newsletter - June
Ce
League of Cities Action Alert - Highway Jurdisdiction Study
Commission Hearings.
M. New Stores RE:
Parade.
Economic Development Grants and Sweeper's
N. Memo from City Attorney regarding Town Square.
O. State Planning Agency Newsletter.
117.
June 12, 1984
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
TAX_FORFEIT_LAND_-_ASSESSMENTS
The City Manager explained that the County has now started to
notify property owners adjacent to tax forfeit land that they
will be conducting private sales on parcels that are unbuildable,
undersized, etc. The problem is that some of these properties
had assessments against them before forfeiture which were
cancelled at the time of forfeiture. When the City releases
these parcels for private sale, it certifies these assessments
and any assessment since forfeiture to the County. We don't want
to cancel the assessments from before forfeiture before the sale
because the City receives 80% of the appraised value to be
applied to the assessments. The problem is that the majority of
the property to be sold to adjacent property owners is. worth very
..... little and the assessments before forfeiture are most times more
than the property is wortH. After the property is sold and the
80% applied, the City then has the right to reassess the property
for the balance of the assessments. The potential owners, then
will not buy the property with the prospect of all these added
assessments. Thus, the question is! Do we want to make a
committment to ~the people intending to purchase the property that
we will cancel the balance of the older assessments after they
buy the lot. Since our goal is to get this proper~y back on the
tax roles and help. a number of people make their property
conforming, the'Staff is recommending that we assure these people
that we will not reassess them after they purchase property.
The Council discussed the problem and decided to have people who
purchased undersized lots come in and petition the Council to
cancel the remaining assessments after they purchase the
property. This policy will only apply to undersized lots, not to
lots that are buildable and for some other reason cannot obtain a
building permit.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION SETTING A POLICY ON ASSESSMENTS
PLACED ON TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY BEFORE
FORFEITURE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CONTINENTAL_TELEPHONE.RATE_CASE.UPDATE
City Attorney Jim Larson, was present and explained that the
Public Utilities Commission has handed down their decision on the
rates and set them at $24.45 per month. That should have meant
that each Mound customer would receive a credit of approximately
$42.35 on their future bill's. Unfortunately, the Minnesota
Public Utilities Commission did not see it that way. They voted
BILLS ....... JUNE IZ, 19~
Air Comm
Allstar Electric
Acro-MN
Blackowiak & Son
Holly Bostrom
Bury & Carlson
Donald Bryce
Butch's Bar Supply
Ronald Bostrom
Bradley Exterminating
Bowman Distribution
Janet Bertrand
Conway Fire & Safety
Coca Cola
City Club Distributing
City Wide Services
Cash Register Sales
Copy Duplicating Prod
Chapin Publishing
Robert Cheney
Century Auto Body
Dependable Services
Duane's 66 Service
Day Distributing
East Side Beverage
Jon Elam
First Bank Mpls
Flowers By Helen
Griggs Beer
General Safety Equip
Gager, Inc
Henn Co. Treas
Henn Co. Sheriff Dept
Herc-U-Lift, Inc.
Illies& Sons
Internatl City Mgmt Assn
Kromer Co.
Kool Kube Ice
Kelly Services
Lowells Auto Parts
The Laker
Lutz Tree Service
Metro Fire Equip
Marina Auto Supply
Mound Fire Dept
Mound Super Valu
Wm Mueller & Sons
City of Mound
Metro Fone Communications
Mpls Star & Trib
Navarre Hdwe
Northern States Power
North Star Waterworks
Minnetonka Refrig
Metro Waste Control
Linda Nelson
Robert Olson
162.60
273.61
333.58
95.50
326.OO
489.60
1OO.OO
294.40
6.50
19.OO
193.85
143.75
31.89
4O2.97
5,972.15
10.75
131.59
15.OO
94.49
367.OO
30.O0
33.00
42.00
4,590.30
4,523.70
32.47
4OO.OO
20.00
1,970.60
1,711.35
106.38
1,841.OO
137.10
56.14
4,8OO.OO
27.90
82.40
175.80
497.35
44.OO
316.78
3,945.O0
8,493.00
584.14
4,584.15
42.66
2,209.10
24.00
23.60
71.40
193.22
4,460.96
142.74
75.5O
29,986.80
5O.OO
35.OO
EOb MC~ulre
Mound Postmaster ..
A.J. Ogle
Pepsi Cola/7 Up
Pogreba Distributing
Pitney Bowes Credit
Royal Crown Beverage
Reo Raj Kennels
Real One Acquisition
Satellite Industries
Nels Schernau
Shepherds Rental Rugs
Spring Park Car Wash
Sterne Electric
The Sun Newspaper
Seton Name Plate Corp
Soil Exploration
Suburban Tire
J.L. Shiely Co.
Solidification Inc
Twin City Home Juice
Thrifty Snyder Drug'
Thurk Bros. Chev
Thorpe Distrib.
Univ of MN
Unitog Rentals
Van Doren, Hazard, Stallngs
Waconia Ridgeview Hosp
Western Tree Serv.
Water Products Co.
Widmer Bros.
Warner Hdwe
Wallin Heating
Williams Cabinets
Xerox, Inc.
R.L. Youngdahl
Marlys Annis
Commiss of Revenue
Consolidated Micrograph
Bill Clark Oil
Joseph Dutton
Dock Refunds
Judy Fisher
Firemen-Conference
Engle Fabrication
Griggs Cooper
Steve Grand
House of Moy
Henn Co. Treas
Hilary Hortsch
Gerald Henke
House of Moy
Steven Henthorne
Johnson Bros. Liq
Robert E. Johnson
Robert E. Johnson
Delbert Rudolph
Delbert Rudolph
Ed Phillips & Sons
IUU.UU
706.32
661.90
383.25
4,582.40
26.00
264.55
463.00
7o8.o5
549.16
8.14
21.45
109.00
164.o2
13.oo
411.24
9oo.oo
79.14
125.35
288.oo
52.50
15.99
32.37
4,716.55
225.00
328.59
1,049.50
94.30
1,535.50
189.08
978.72
122.08
34.54
1,53o.oo
219.04
4,971.0o
5o.oo
4,438.97
3.96
1,686.67
67.33
150.00
35.00
2,380.o0
14,148.00
4,276.02
6.oo
47.00
5.oo
35 00
8 38
28 62
22 25
4,7o2 27
692 38
621 86
247 5~
246 5,
2,934 62
(cont)
1.19
June12,1984
Wastewater Flow Verification Program Report - The Council
decided to have a discussion meeting on this subject after
the Board of Review on June 18, 1984.
June Calendar
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to adjourn at
10:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
Fran Clark, City Clerk
22 332 2208 O1
22 235 2401.41
22 238 4924 72
22 23815005 42
22 259 4949 O1
22 259 5237 91
22 259 5892 11
22 259 5901 02
22 259 6070 31
22 265 3053 91'
22 268 5909 41
22 277.5853 51
22 286 5949 21
22 292 6033 21
22 298 2965 62
22 310 2630 91
22 310 3136 61
22 '313 62'16 71
22 317 3016 51
22 343 2281 21
22 361 2346 51
22 373 5063 81
22 388 50O5 72
22 388 5061 O1
22 397 2539 93
22 404 4867 61
22 404 5092 01
Delinquent Water and Sewer
$ 65.10
110.12
96.56
117.34
61.18
100.47
94.54
73.32
59.19
84.88
59.52
453.09
95.57
75.68
52.92
168.60
160.14
74.29
131.12
100.15
77.44
98.98
46.79
122.46
86.68
53.68
145.26
6-20-84
6-20-84
22 232 2208 Ol
22 235 2401 41
22 238 4924 72
22 238·~5005 42
22 259 4949 O1
22 259 5237 91
22 259 5892 11
22 259 5901 02
22 259 6070 31
22 265 3053 91'
22 268 5909 41
22 277 5853 51
22 286 5949 21
22 292 603321
22 298 2965 62
22 31o 2630 91
22 310 3136 61
22 313 6216 71
22 317 3016 51
22 343 2281 21
22 361 2346 51
22 373 5063 81
22 388 5005 72
22 388 5o61 O1
22 397 2539 93
22 404 4867 61
22 404 5092 O1
Delinquent Water and Sewer
Ron Anderson
Zeb Hanson
Larry Gudvangen
Mike Woodhall
Herbert Miller
John Zambori
Duane Raze
Lois Hanrahan
Perry Ames
M. Amundson
Dick Janke
Kevin Morgan
Jadkie Rolland
Todd Warner
Ron AnderSon
W. Lang
Shirley Woytcke
Richard Melnory
Chester Pirk
John Royer
Charles Carlson
C Kelly
Robert Mack
Randall Giese
Doug Evanson
A. Barrett
Paul Neuschwander
paid
Paid
$ 65.10
110.12
96.56
117.34
61.18
100.47
94.54
73.32
59.19
2208 Fairview Ln.
2401 Chateau Ln.
4924 Edgewater Dr.
5005 Edgewater Dr.
4949 Bartlett Blvd.
5237 Bartlett Blvd.
5892 Bartlett Blvd.
5901 Bartlett Blvd.
6070 Bartlett Blvd.
~g.~pS~ ~['~'0~5~3 Bryant Ln.
59.52
·453.09
95.57
75.68
52.92
168.60
160.14
, 74.29
,131.12
Paid 100.15
77.44
98.98
46.79
122.46
Pai:d $~0.00 86.68
53.68
Paid 145.26
2865.07
5909 Glenwood Rd.
5853 Fairfield Rd.
· 5949 Hawthorne Rd.
6033 Cherrywood Rd.
2965 Oaklawn Ln.
2630 Westedge Blvd.
3136 Westedge Blvd.
6216 Bayridge Rd.
3016 Highview Ln.
2281 Commerce Blvd.
2346 Cypress Rd.
5063 Woodridge Rd
· 5005 Avon Dr.
5061 Avon Dr.
2539 Emerald. Dr..
4867 Shoreline Dr.
5092 ~?oreline Blvd.
6-20=84
22 232 2208 O1
22 235 2401 41
22 238 4924 72
22 23815005 42
22 259 4949 O1
22 259 5237 91
22 259 5892 11
22 259 5901 02
22 259 6070 31
22 265 3053 91'
22 268 5909 41
22 277 5853 51
22 286 5949 21
22 292 6033 21
22 298 2965 62
22 310 2630 91
22 310 3136 61
22 313 6216 71
22 317 3016 51
22 343 2281 21
22 361 2346 51
22 373 5063 81
22 388 5005 72
22 388 5061 01
22 397 2539 93
22 404 4867 61
22 404 5092 O1
Delinquent Water and Sewer
Ron Anderson
Zeb Hanson
Larry Gudvangen
Mike Woodhall
Herbert Miller
John Zambori
Duane Raze
Lois Hanrahan
Perry Ames
M. Amundson
Dick Janke
Kevin Morgan
Jackie Rolland
Todd Warner
Ron Anderson
W. Lang
Shirley Woytcke
Richard Melnory
Chester Pirk
John Royer
Charles Carlson
C Kelly
Robert Mack
Randall Giese
Doug Evanson
A. Barrett
Paul Neuschwander
$ 65.10
11o.12
96.56
117.34
Paid 61.18
* 100.47
94.54
73.32
59.19
84.88.
Paid 59.52
453.09
95.57
75.68
52.92
168.60
160.14
, 74.29
,131.12
Paid 100.15
77.44
98.98
46.79
122.46
Pa~d $~0.00 86.68
53.68
Paid 145.26
2865.O7
$2448.96
2208 Fairview Ln.
2401 Chateau Ln.
4924 Edgewater Dr.
5005 Edgewater Dr.
4949'Bartlett Blvd.
5237 Bartlett Blvd.
5892 Bartlett Blvd.
5901 Bartlett Blvd.
6070 Bartlett Blvd.
5053 Bryant Ln.
5909 Glenwood Rd.
5853 Fairfield Rd.
5949 Hawthorne Rd.
6033 Cherrywood Rd.
2965 Oaklawn Ln.
2630 Westedge Blvd.
3136 Westedge Blvd.
6216 Bayridge Rd.
3016 Highview Ln.
2281 Commerce Blvd.
2346 Cypress Rd.
5063 Woodridge Rd
5005 Avon Dr.
5061 Avon Dr.
2539 Emerald Dr.
4867 Shoreline Dr.
5092 Shoreline Blvd.
BI. LLS .... June 12, 1984 (cont) '.'.
Quallty Wine
Howard Simar
Nels Schernau
Thurk Bros. Chevrolet
Bruce Wold
2,24(::,.(:,2
555.OO
23.65
7,300. o0
290.00
TOTAL BILLS
159,731.17
for the City Council.
The first Committee Meeting was held on April 16, 19U4. This
meeting was a short orientation session reviewing the Council
charge to the Committee, potent±a± problems, and discussing ways
the Committee might operate.
On April 23rd, the Committee met for the second time to do site
visits to all the existing City facilities. These included, the
"Anderson Building" downtown, the Lost Lake storage area, and the
existing Public Works facility in Island Park. Tours of these
si~es were conducted by the Depar~men~ Heads (Streets, Parks,
Utilities and City Garage). Included in this tour was a drive
past all of the sites explored in the previous City Consultant's
report on the Public Works building.
The next session was held on Apr±± 30th. The Committee discussed
the previous weeks tour and attempted to develop a beginning
consensus. It was recommended that a questionnaire be developed
and sent to the Committee members, covering the various options.
From this, a list of the areas in conflict might be discussed
further.
Questions were turned in and discussed on May 14th, and from
those, the beginning framework of this report were evaluated.
Drafts of the report were sent to all Committee members who
signed off on it before it was submitted to the City Council.
CITY of MOUND
June 12, 1984
5341 M, AYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO-
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Public Works Building Study Committee
On March 27, 1984, the Mound City Council authorized and appointed
a Public Works Building Study Committee. This Committee was
createa for the purpose of analyzing several impor~an~ community
questions in the Public Works area. These questions include the
following:
a. Are the pres'ent Public Works facilities adequate?
b. If the answer to question "a" is no, then a recommendation
concerning the present facilities needs to be developed.
c. Explore and recommend a general site location for a Public
Works building/facility.
d. Develop some basic criteria in terms of property and
building size and projected cost.
e. Make a recommendation as to the various financing
approaches that could be used to finance a Public Works
building/facility.
With this as an Agenda, the Public Works Building Study Committee
has met four times over the past two months to explore the Public
Works building issue and attempt to develop some recommenda.~lons
the City is enclosed on all sides, it is envisioned tha~ this
facility will be a one time only expenditure and will meet
the City's long-term needs.
Because of the required size needed for a facility, sites
located on the western edge of the City are suggested. Top
priority would be to explore revising the City's former sewer
lagoon located on Westedge Blvd. and use the three acre site
for road access. At this time it is storing water an~ being
overgrown with trees and swamp weeds.
A second location could be the City owned three acre site
located north of the Burlington-Northern Railroad tracks on
the nor~n-sout~ section of Westedge Blvd. This site could be
used sooner than the sewer lagoon because the City owns the
property. It would also require less soil correction than
the lagoon site.
Other sites explored proved inadequate or potentially
expensive.
The Committee also recommends the continued use of the
existing Island Park facility as either cold storage or as a
City Shop/Garage. Improvements to this facility must also be
undertaken to make this facility useable. These should
include, instalixng new insulated electric doors and building
insulation.
The Council is urged to move ahead on thls project quickly as
t~e loss of the Anderson Building and the Lost Lake site,
both potentially eminent, wiii prove cos~!y to the City in
REPORT
SUMMARY
1. The present Public Works facilities are very inadequate and
antiquated and must be improved.
2. A permanent location for a City Public Works facility must be
developed to insure adequate care, in lieu of pres~4~t minimum
care, of the City's onemillion dollar equipment inventory.
3. A centralized facility will insure increased employee
efficiency, equipment maintenance, and provide a cost
effective way for the City to manage its valuable and limited
resources.
4. The City needs to move out of the "Anderson Building" on
Commerce Blvd. and the Lost Lake storage yard on County Road
15 as soon as p6ssible. These two facilities con~rxbute to
community blight and constitute a very poor use of the City
owned land withxn the downtown area. The City's image would
improve immediately if these existing uses could be
elimxnated.
5. Funds that are generated from the sale or reuse of t~e
"Anderson Building", the Lost Lake site and the balance of
the three acre site should be dedicated toward the
construction of a new Public Works facility. The remaining
cost should come from a public bond sale. City Ueneral Fund
reserves should ~ be used to pay for a Public Works
Building.
6. A site of 100,000-150,000 square feet (2-3 acres) would be
required to fully serve the City's Public Works needs. Since
CASE NO. 84-332
CITY OF
[~ound Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of June 11, 1984:
Board of Appeals
~ase No. 8~-332
Location' Vacant Lot East of
1736 Shorewood Lane
Legal Desc~ Lot 21 as described on
survey, Blk. 4, Shadywood
Point
Requestt 14 ft. front yard variance
Zoning Dist.: R-2
Applicant
Howard J. Hagedorn
3830 Trenton Lane
Plymouth, tiN 55411
Phone~ 937-1193 ext. 5081
The applicant is a prospective buyer for the recent]y.subdivided Lot :21.
He is requesting a 14 foot front yard variance to construct a dwelling
and a detached accessory building within 6 ft. to the unimproved SUNRISE
LA[IDItIG platted right-of-way.
The zoning code Section 23.408(5) statesthat lots which abut two or more
street shall provide the required front yards along every street (except
for lots of record). The R-2 zoning district requires 20 foot front yard.
The detached accessory bt~ilding setback for lakeshore lots section 23.407
(5lb allows an (8) eight foot front yard if the garage door(s) open to the
side lot line.
Comment¢
Mr. Kullberg at 1736 Shorewood Lane will need to relocate his
driveway onto his property. The section 23,408(5) would allow
a setback of 10 feet to one street front, if the lot width were
40-50 feet and the property was a lot of record prior to en-
acting of the zoning code but the lot width at the 20 ft. setback
is 50 to 55 foot wide. The lot is shallow considering'the lake-
shore setback is required to be 50 ft. & 20 ft. to Shorewood
which leaves an area of 38 feet ~ to put a structure. The side
& front yards required of 29 feet would leave and area in wide
of 29 feet,
Recommend:
Staff would recommed a 6 ft. to 10 ft. setback to the un-
improved 40 ft. Sunrise Landing due to shallowness of the lot
with the understanding that it is used by the abutting pro-
perty owner as a driveway access and a public landing area
for boats; mainly from the neighborhood. If the east setback
is 6 ft. & the west sethack is 6 ft., the construction area
would be .~ppr~imately 3~ ft. wide. .~he~topog~apby.of.the
site is such that a detached garage would be placed higher
on the lot with the dwelling approximately 6 ft. lower.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This item to be City Council Agenda for 6/26/84.
~/Jan Bertrand
Building Official
terms of lost storage space and the potential to have to pay
high rent for interim storage facilities.
The Committee, as its final recommendation, reminds the
Council to delay this decision further will only result in
added total costs in the future. It is estlmased tha~ just
in the last 6-8 years, the cost of a Public Works facility
may have doubled. This will occur again in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 11, 1984
Case No. 84-332 14 Foot..Front Yard Variance. on vacant lot east of 1736
Shorewood Lane - Lot 21 as described on survey, Block 4, Shadywood Point
~oward Hagedorn, Keitb 'Kullberg and Dale Pixler.were present.'
~he Building Official explained that Sunrise Landing is an unimproved public
r'i. ght?of-w~y and because this lot is on this right,of-way and also on Shore-
wood Lane and in the R-2 Zoning District, two 20.foot front yard.setbacks are
requI'red,. The applicant is requesting.a 14 foot front yard variance so he can
construct a dwelling.and a detached garage building within 6 feet of Sunrise
Landing. The lot,width ~at th~ proposed b'u~lding line for the house is approxi-
mately 53 feet. The bay window and fireplace are ornamental features which are
allowed in the side yard.provided they do not extend more than two feet into
a yard. .Garage doo~s would open.to the north. Sunrise Landing is'used for
'boats mainly~from, the neighborhood. Due to the lakeshore setback~of 50 feet
'and the st'reet front setback,.there is approximately 38 feet in which to put
structure. Because of the topography of.t'he site, the detached garage would
be placed higher on.the 'lot than the dwelli.ng. Pixler stated that these s~ruc-
tu~es have been designed to fit the lot and make the best use of the site.
Charon moved and Michael secohded a motion to approve the 14 foot front yard
variance as.requested.. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Jensen commented that this is a.recently subdivided lot and that we should look
at: divisions to see if we ~re.creating buildable lots.
This will be on City Council agenda June 26,'1984'.
MAY 2 9 t98zl
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
'Case NO.~/ '''~ ~'
Fee Paid x_~d],
Date ri led.,,
Street Address of Property.
Legal pescription of Property:
Addi.tion
Owner's Name
Lot ..~/, ~_ ~ ~,(F~ ~.~uY~ ~.Block
Day Phone No.
Address
Applicant (if other than owner):
Address 3 ~
Type of Request:
Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Interpretation & Review
Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
Day Phone No.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District ~-
7. Existing Use(s) of Property
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, var~.~,ce, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? a_~_~ If sb, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken ~d provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
.'Signature of Applicant ,------ Date ~''~2¢-~
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
~uncil Action:
Resolution No.
Date
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) ~Case # 84-332
D, Location of: Signs~ easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zoning Variance
Am All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No (' )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No (~)
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
D. Which unique physical characteristics ~f the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
(Y~) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ). Shape - ( ) Other: Specify:
E. Was the hardship described above created by t~e action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~)x If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No(~ If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~,.)'- No ( /
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? -_~ ...
Ho
What is the "minimum" modification ivariance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sh.e~ts, if n.eces~ar~y~_~._~.
Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforceme, nt of this ordinance?
CASE 84-332
CASE 84-332
April 19, 1983
Councilmember Charon moved the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 83-59
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIV.ISION OF LOTS 20
AND 21, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT - PID #13-117-24
11 0020 - THAT WILL MAKE THE TWO LOTS CONFORMING
WITH BOTH LOTS AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET
.WHEREAS,
an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained
Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of
Mound, and
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS;
said request for a waiver has been reveiewed by the City Counci
and the Planning Commission, and
it is determined that there are special circumstances affecting
s~id property such that the strict application of the ordinance
would deprive'the applicant of the reasonable use of his land;
that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver
will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other owners, and
WHEREAS, this subdivision will make each lot at least 6,OO0 square feet
which is the proper square footage in the R-2 Zoning District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That the request of Keith Kullberg for the waiver from the provisions
of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property
of less than five acres, described as Lots 20 and 21, Block 4,
Shadywood Point - PID .#13-117-24 11 0020 - is approved to be
divided ad follows:
PARCEL "AI' - That part of Lots 20 and 21, Block. 4, Shadywood Point,
according 'to.the recorded plat thereof lying northerly of the
following described line and its westerly extension:
Commencin~ at the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence southerly,
al.ong the westerly line of said Lot 21 a distance of 5.00 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect
86 degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds left to the easterly line of said
Lot 20 and there terminating.
PARCEL "B" - That part of Lots 20.and 21, Block 4, Shadywood Point,
according to the recorded plat thereof lying southerly of the following
described line and i'ts easterly extension:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence southerly,
along the westerly line of said Lot 21 a distance of 5.00 feet to the
point of beginning of the line to be described~ thence deflect 86
degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds left to the easterly line of said Lot
20 and there terminating.
87
A~rill 19,./983-
That any deficiencies on said property resulting.from division are
to be paid in full or waivers signed.
It is determined that the foregoi.ng division will constitute a
desireable and stable community development and is in harmony with
adjacent properties.
4. The owner shall submit as (EXHIBIT "A") a new survey showing the
proper division.
The City Clerk is authorized to.deliver a certified copy of this
resolution to the applicant for filing in the Office of the Register
of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show
compliance.with the subdivision regulations of this City.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Paulsen and upon vote being taken thereon; the followihg voted
in favor thereof: Charon, Paulsen and Polston; the following voted against
the same: none; with Peterson and Swenson being absent and excused; whereupon
said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his
signature attested by the City Clerk.
Artiest: City Clerk
q,.,,.,.; ". '.;. '.,: .~,'.¢:.'' ,','~,' -.i': .,I,";.,.,' ~', LEGAL DESCRIPTI0~S ,'-, :,':-'~': ', ','. · -.. ' .... . ,'.-
"L. .", ' "''!" ,- 'i "'". l-'""..i'.,'.:~:?: ff'"~.'-',: ~'.-:' ' , · ::."',.?'." , ;" .'i ",. '' "~'' "
,t,..." ,'.::,,' ,, Tract A' ', ',:.: Lt.',..~{(;-': )~':Yt!;'.,";,?'-; '-':',; :'::', C',~:'.; ~...,,'v, :- ',t:,...~,,v .., ~,;' , ':", .',,,,'.' ,; . : . ,,,' ., '.
~-~ · · .- ' ' ', ;. .' .' ': ..i;~' ~, '- ',", TM :.z.. ,,,"'- . .:."~.-~ r ....'~" ". ' .... ,',~ ."',';' ' ' · ' · '-; '.
. ,'-.~':"'.,,?' .That- part of Lots,20, and'21;.!Block:~,, ,Shadywood.'Point;,.accord~ng~to the,:' recorded plat thereof..,, .-;.:;
.,.'v' , lyin northerly of the following described llnff and its westepl'y extension; ' ' "- -" , '
.,-.. .... -: , . . ._. y. ,, :,.-'., ;.: ..- , ;.: · .. ,,, .;.. _ , ,,.- ,', . _ ,. .
Commencing'a~: the northwes'~ '~'or~6r' of-'.said(Lot 21'i':thence s'~ut~erl'y':'along' the westerly line
of said Lot 21 a distance.of?5.00 feet to the point of beginning'.of the line to De described;
-.- - thence deflect 86'degrees:55 minutes ll .seconds ,left'to.the easterly line of'said Lot' 20 a,n.d .
there terminating ...... .,,~ ' ' '' ~-,. '.
Tract B -- "
That.part of Lot 20 an'd 21, Bloqk.~,' Shadyv~od Point, according,to the 'recorded plat ther'eof
of the '.following described line.and its,easterl~ extension:
southerly
Commencing at the northwest'corner of said Lot 21;'thence southerly, along the westerly line
of said Lot 21 a distance of 5;00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
.thence deflect. 86 degrees 55 minutes ll seconds left to the easterly line of said Lot 20 and
there terminating.
..... · ..... ,- ' .-/4~
:',,;,'F',':-.~?i':'~"~',' ;. ..-.~:: ~,,.,,,-,....:,.. ... .,_.~/ /~ - ~,~?
. ,. ~.,,":.,. -.',L..,..~-.... N .. '.. ):"; .~ -': , .., , ..:
,...,. {
:if', ' -" '"' "" "~"- ' ' ' T' '?.',;, ',. ;" .... :. ,,.", %'~/r";, '. '-'L- '~,"' ', ..
I .... ' ~ ' .'~..7~X.i. .-",'.",,:' ' '.",:". " ', "'*" /"' '.,, ".,' ',"- " ",.'
),' "': ...... -' ~-' , \' 2 ." .,,.:~,,.i:~...:..,~. ,.,.: . - ~ ..,,., .... ~,~ .' ,,.. ,, ,.,: ..
,,.. ..,~ ./ . . ;..'.:'. ; ,'.:.\ .:."..'..;?¢b.?;:'.,.::,~,~.i..._,.'-/:.'.,'.,../.: · .., :,
' Hor~seR~-)' ~ ::'
Thor.p.'"':: .."
Pellinen, lnc:':..
rtf t~at this St rYe¥ prepared bV me or under my~ t:~t. ',
vis on ~i a true ~nu ~u~%,- --,- · ,"
du~ri~d l~nd and of the )oc~uon
io 326.16. ~/ ~' , ..... ~,, '-
CASE NO. 84-332
'ON 3S¥3
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case #84-332
RESOLUTION NO. 84-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE 14 FOOT FRONT YARD
VARIANCE FOR PART OF LOTS21 AND 22, BLOCK 4,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID# 1~-117-24-11 0020
WHEREAS, Howard J~ Hagedorn, the applicant and Keith Kullberg, owner,
of the property described as that part of Lot~20 and 21, Block 4,
Shadywood~Point, according to the recorded plat thereof lying southerly of
the fo~!owing.described line and ils.easterly extension; commencing at the
northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence sou6herly, along the westerly line
of said Lot 21 a distance of'5.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to
be described; thence deflect..86 'degrees 55 minutes 11 seconds left to the easterly
line of said Lot 20 and there terminatihg. PID# 13-117-24 11 0020 ~have
applied' for a 14 foot front yard variance to allow a home to be constructed
on Parcel B as approved in the subdivision under Resolution #83-59 on
April 19, 1983, and
WHEREAS, the City C~de Section 23.408'(5) requires lots abutting more than
one street shall provide the required front yards along every street with
the R-2 zoning district provisions allowing structures to be setback~from the
street front 20 feet to,the property line, and
WHEREAS, the Planning C6mmision has reviewed the request and does recommendz
approval, of the variance request due to the shallowness and topography of the
lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED'that theCity Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the 14 foot front yard variance,
as requested, for 1736 Shorewood Lane, Parcel B as described in the aforementioned
legal description, PID #13-117r24 11 0020, and~subdivided under Resolution #83-59
on April 19, 1983, frontage from the unimproved sunrise landing will be 6 feet
to the property line.
CITY OF HOUND
HOUND, HINNESOTA
CASE NO. 8Z~-333
Planning. Commission Agenda of June 11, 1984:
Board of AppeaJs Applicant
Case No. 84-333 Steven & Jacquelyn Spencer
Location: 3017 Longfell°w Lane 3017 Longfellow Lane
Legal Desc.: Lot 3, Block 8, The Highlands Mound, MN. 55364
Request: 2 Foot Side Yard Variance Phone: 472-4689
Zoning Dist.: R-2
The owner of the. property is requesting to place a detached block garage (26 X 26
feet) 2 feet to their south property.line and 8 feet to the west property line.
The Zoning Code Section 23.407(5a) states that lakeshore and through lots (lots
which have opposite lines abu~tlng two parallel streets) may be located within
four (4) feet of the side lot line In the front yard.
Comments: The site has a narrow approach to a stee'p hill. The owner would like
to use the foundation of the accessory building to retain the soil and
get the maximum width left for the driveway (50 feet minus 26 feet =
24 feet). Due to the proximity to the property line, the building code
requires a one,hour rated fire protection of the wall within three feet
to the property line. Block construction will accomplish that require-
ment,. Also, the accessory building could be reduced in size from the
26 by 26 feet requested.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This item to be on the City Council agenda for June 26, 1984.
Jan Bertrand
Bull.ding Official
,Case No, 84-333 2 Foot. Front Yard Variance. for 3017 Longfel'low Lane
Lot.3, Block 8, The Highlands
Steven ana Jacq.uelyn Spencer were present;
The Building Offic'ial explained that Mr. Spencer is proposing to cut into
~he hill and is.'requesting to construct a garage to'withi, n 2 feet of.the
south property'line. '~This i.s a thru lot.which.fronts on Longfellow ·Lane
and go through .to CherrywQod. The driveway approach is on a curved corner;
~ by'bui.lding into the hill, it would give him a better approach to ~he 26 by
26 foot block garage he.is proposing. .He would ·need a one hour fire rated
wall which the block construction.would.accomplish. Garage is for 2 cars
and'a trailer. ~Discussed that garage can be bui]t within the setbacks and
get plenty of garage space.. "
Vargo moved and Jensen seconded a motion to deny the request as no hard-
ship. All in favor of the denial.
This will be on the City Council agenda 'June 26, 1984.
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
Fee Pa i d
Date Filed
Street Address of Property.. . 3017 LONGFELLOVI LANE
Legal Description of Property: Lot #3
'Block,,#8
Addition THE HIGHLANDS
3. Owner's Name STEVEN & JACQUELYN SPENCER
PID No...23-//7 ~ ~':~Y
Day Phone No. 472-468
Address SAME
Applicant (if other than owner):
Name
Address
Day Phone No.
5. Type of Request:
(X) Variance ( ) ConditiOnal Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & ~eview
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
'*If other, specify:
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
6, Present Zoning District RESIDENTIAL ~- ~- .~.. ~ .
7. Existing Use(s) of Property HOHESTEAD ......
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
· other zoning proceduEe for this property? NJ~T BY PRESENT OWNE~f so, list date(s) of
list date(s)'of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in thi~ application by any authorized official of the City
of.Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and r~moving such
notices as may be required by law.
Signature of Applican~~--t------~ ~ ~~, Date ~-°~'--~
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
4/82
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2)
Case
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasOnably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zonin9 Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zonin9 Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (X) No (' )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (X) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Do
Which unique physical characteristics ~f the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
(X) Too narrow ~X ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ). Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Eo
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyon~ having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) 'No (X) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship creativity any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes No (X) If yes, explain: ~
Go
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( )- No (X)
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans wi'th dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)Because of the topography of the property. The garage
2 FEET * ~t,~.~.will be built into the hi]] and the variance would allow
/ /( access to the garage.
Will grantin9 of he variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
NO
000~3901
6
B
olLl
I '6
CITY OF HOUND
Hound, Hinnesota
CASE NO. 84-335
Planning Commission Agenda of June ll, 1984:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 84-335
Location: 1620 Eagle Lane
Legal Desc.: Lots 6 & 19, N.½ of 18,
Block 11, Woodland Point
Request: 5 Foot Front Yard Variance
Zoning Dist.: R-3
Applicant
Leroy & Nancy Poetz
1620 Eagle Lane
Mound, MN. 55364
Phone: 472-4905
The applicant is requesting a five (5) foot front yard variance to allow them
to remove their existing house and replace it with a new structure plus an
attached tuck under garage to be jogged out from the building 6 feet closer to
Eagle Lane (25 feet to the property line).
The Zoning Code for the R-3 District with a lot depth of 160 feet on lots of
record requires a 30 foot setback. Section 23.408(6) allows the front setback
to be averaged with the adjoining structures, but not closer than 20 foot set-
back.
Recommend:
I have discussed this variance with the applicant. Staff recommends
the provisions of Section 23.408(6); do allow the structure to be in
line to Eagle Lane as the existing house is and including the attached
garage.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This item to be on the City Council agenda for June 26, 1984.
J~al Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
PLAI!h.'I~)~ :OMMISSION MI~JUTES - June ll, 1984
Case No.. 84-335 5 Fqot Front Yard.Variance for-)620 Ea"g)e Lane'
Lots 6 & )9, N, ½ of Lot )8, B)ock )), Wood)and.Point
LeRoy and Nancy Poetz were present,
The.Bul)ding. Official.explained that applicants have an existing home on
this'~si'te and would llke to take that,home down and replace with a new struc-
ture,p)us an attached tuck under garage. The house to the north has a 30
~foot setback and one .to South is pretty much.in line with their existing
home.' Section 23.408(6) allows the front setba~ck.to be averaged with the
adjoining structures, but his doesn't come quite up to that, Request is
for a 5 foot front yard varia~ce, the same as their present house setback.
Michael moved and~Meyer seconded a motion to approve the request for a
5 foot front yard. variance.,'The vote was unanimous)y in favor.
This wl)) be on the City Counc)) agenda June 26, )984,
NAY 3 0 198/l
CITY OF HOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
(Please type the following information)
Legal Description of Property:
Addition
Owner's
Address
Applicant (if other than owner):
Fee'Paid
Date Fi led
P,D No. /3-/?-Wf/
Day Phone No.
Name
Day Phone No.
Address
Type of Request:
(~/) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District .~ R "''~
Existing .USe(s) of Property C' L~qm" z ' '
. ~. to, ,~ ~
Has an application ever been made for zoning, vgriance, or conditional use permit or
.other zoning procedure for this property? ~/~ If So, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, actiSn taken' and pr"-'-ovide Resolution No.(s) ·
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request,
certify that all o~ the above statements.and the statements contained in any required
apers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
r upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
if ~ound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaihing and removing such
~)tices as may be required by law.
ignature of Applicant ~ ~.~,~ ~.~/~ ~1/ -~~ ~~ j~ Date~/~J~/~y
' ~., -T~5 /~ ' 'tS/ fron(yard va '
lanning Commission Recommendatio .~approve the r~uest for a 5 foot riance.
· Date 6-11-84
ouncil Action:
Resolution No.
)~°00 !' Date 6-26-84
,t for zoning Variance ProcEdure
/' D. Loca't. ion of: Signs, easements,
(2) Case
underground utilities, etc.
Indicate North compass direction
Fe
A~y addit'ional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning O.rdinance.
III. Reques.t for a Zoning Variance
A. All..i~formation below, a site plan, as descr'ibed in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled.
B. Do~s.the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (7) No ( )'
If !'no", specify each n~n-conforming use:
Do .the existing.structures comply, with all area height and bulk.regulations
for the zone district'in'which i't'is located? Yes (~) ' No ' ( )
If ."no", specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical, characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of ~he.uses.permitted in(that) zoning.dj.strict?
( ) .Too narrow (~. Topography . (.) Soil
(.) Too.~mall :... ~)'~Drainage.. , Sub-surface
( .) Too shallow (~) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Ee
Was-the hardship described above 'create~ by the a~tion of anyone having
pcoperty interests in the land afte~ 'the Zohing Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (y). If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by'any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of h~rdship for'Which"you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described'in this petition?' Yes (~/) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly' affected?
What is the "minimumI' modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that. will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specif~;-, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.) .i ,..-'~z.
Will granting of the variance bej /'~a me
mate 11 detFi al to proper~y in the
same zo~n~, or to the enforcement of th~s ordinance?
,zo~i,~ ~u uo-~I : o
/
/
6/
~%ossuu~q 'i%unoo uIdsuu8H
%uto~ pu~IpooI~ ~II ZooI~ ~6I pu~ 'gI '9 s%o'I uT
z%ood 'f ~ousan~q ~o3
DESCRIPTION.
Lots 20, 21, and fha South one-hai~ of Lot 22, Block Il, '
"Woodland Po~nt" 'He~neo~n Cm~n.fy, ~nnesofm.
thereon· and oli visible encroochment~,.if any, from or on ~ald land,
·
of oil but ldtng~
this loth day of December- 1975
-' · £GAN,..-.F. IELO & ~O"H. AKIN~ .'
,-S ur' v e or~
'e hereby cerflfy thai this Is a true and correct representotlon of o survey of
he bounder/es of the land above, de~crlbed.and of the location
,5'7
I,
d
__ __.__x,x-+ J
\
x,
~, -33 ~
To: The Mound Planning Commission
Regarding: Variance for Nancy and Leroy Poetz at 1620 Eagle Lane
I hereby give my permission for LeRoy. and Nancy Poetz to build
their dwelling 25 feet from the street instead of 30.
Carl Ryden
1625 Finch Lane
Date~
To: The Mound Planning Commission
Regarding: Variance for Nancy and LeRoy Poetz at 1620 Eagle Lane
I hereby give my permission for LeRoy and Nancy Poetz to build
their dwelling 25 feet from the street instead of 30.
James Bradley
1612 Eagle Lane
Date:
To: The Mound Planning Commission ,
Regarding: Variance for Nancy and LeRoy Poetz at 1620 EAgle Lane
I hereby give my permission for Nancy and LeRoy Poetz to build
their dwelling 25 feet from the street instead of 30,
Dean Duncan
1628 EAgle Lane
Date:
To: The Hound PLANNING CO~MISSION
Regarding: VAriance for Nancy and LeRoy Poetz at 1620 EAgle Lane
I hereby give my permission for LeRoy and Nancy Poetz to
build their dwelling 25 feet from the street instead of 30.
LeRoy K~mrath
1613 Finch Lane
Date: ~7~ ~/~'
PROPOSED RESOLUTI O.N:
CA~3~, biO. 84-335
RESOLUTION NO. 84-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A 5 FOOT FRONT YARD
~VARIANCE FOR LOTS 6 AND 19, N. ½ OF 18, BLOCK 11,
WOODLAND POINT (PID# 13-117-24 12 0189)
WHEREAS, Leroy and Nancy Poetz~ the owners of~!property described as
Lots 6 and 19, North ½ of Lot 18, Block 11, Woodland Point,· 1620 Eagle
Lane,(PID # 13-117-24-12 0189) have applied for a'variance .in setback
toqthe front lot line of 5 feet to contruct a new home in the same location
as the present structure, and
WHEREAS, the City Code for the R-3 zoning/ district requires a 30 foot
setback to the front property line, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approvaI due to the shape Of the parcel and to afford the owner
reasonable use of the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE'IT RESOLVED that the~City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the 5 foot front yard variance, as
requested, for Lots 6 and 19, N. ½ of 18, Block 11, WoodlandPoint, 1620 Eagle
Lane~ PID #13-117-24 12 0189.
CASE NO. 8~-337
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of June Il, 1984:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 84-337
Location: 2072 Shorewood Lane
Legal Desc.: Lots 13 & 14~ Block 1,
Shadywood Point
Request: Floodplai'n Variance 4.7 existing
Applicant
Richard Sufficool
2072 Shorewood Lane
Mound, MN. 55364
Phone: 472-6263
sideyard variance & lakeside variance
Zoning Dist.: R-1
The applicant is requesting to construct a 12 foot by 22 foot screened in
porch to the S.E. corner of th'e house 4 to 8 inches below the existing first
floor elevation of 932.3 NGVD.
The parcel has a 25.0 foot access from Shorewood Drive to the property. The
Zoning Code requires a 60 foot lot width for the R-1 Zoning District at the
building setback line of 30 feet. The existing accessory building is 3.1 to
3.2 feet to the property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 4 foot side-
yard on lakeshore lots for accessory buildings. The dwelling has a setback
to the lakeshore of 39 feet+ and a side yard setback of 5.3 feet The Zoning
Code requires a setback of lakeshore of 50 feet and a side yard of 10 feet in
the R-1 Zoning District for the principal structure. Last, but not least, the
principal structure's first floor is at the elevation of 932'3 which is 1.2
feet below the required minimum flood plain elevation of 933.5 NGVD to Lake
Minnet0nka plus the .5 to .7 foot lower elevation of the proposed addition,
Comments:
I have attached to thls report cop[es of the City Code, Chapter 26,
Part A, Page Z¢ which is part of our ~lood ~in ordinance and a
copy of Page 93 of the MJnnes0ta State Building Code Flood Proofing
Regulation. Both provisions clearly state that construction shall
be above the flood plain elevation and both require registered
engineer and/or architect complete pla~$, Flood proofing perm[ts
shall be required for all al~ering, constructlng, repair or improve-
ment in the Flood Hazard area as per S.B.C. FPR 205.2.
Recommendatlon: Staff would consider approving ~:he request:ed 12 X 22 Foot
screened-in porch as the flood damage potential can be
to be minimal upon the following conditions:
1. The construction plan be designed by a registered
rural eng[neer.
2. The necessary Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit be ob
prior to building permit approval.
3. Any change Jn use of the addition or modifical:ion
addition would require additional variance approval.
Also, the existing setbacks to the property line and
do not change, if the variance is approved.
The abutting property owners have been notified.
This item will be on the City Council Agenda for June 26, i984.
~ a~rt rand
· Division 2
· Chapter 26 - Part A
Page 2¢
~. '~ .. · Any applicant who is denied a building permit for 'the,reason~=%
/~_et f.o_r~n in %his ordinance may appeal said denial to the City Council. The
Count?il may approve or d~ny said application or it may 'require the applicant
.to f~le .a c~rtification from a registered professional engineer certifying that
t~he location and elevation of the proposed structure will not be .subject~'~efcY nt~ ~at
.fl. oodin? .or cause the flooain9 of abutting properb_ies. The Counc~l ma cond~ "
. . . -~ u~ ~onaD~e requirements to protect the health, '-
Saf ety and general welfare of the applicant, abutting propereies or uablsthe ue'n!
0whets of %he subject p~operty. . . , ' _ .
6. uses having a lm¢ damage .potential that do not require structures'
or sto~age of equipment and materials shall be permitted to the extent .that they
are no~ prohibited by any ether ·ordinance.
The City ~4anager shal¥ review all. permit applications within
unnumbered A Zones to determine whether proposed buildi'ng sites will be
reasonably free from flooding. If building, site appears to be subject to ·. ;
flooding, the City Manager' shall utilitze any regional flood data. ava. ilable '
-from Federal, State, or other sources. In the absence of such data, the appli-
cant sha. ll be required to submit sufficient d0ta to delineate the flood hazard
area and determine the 'flood protection elevation at the site.. The analysi~
shall be conducted by a qualified engineer and be consistent with procedures.
outlined i~ ~.~innesota Regulations NR 86-87.
Ne~ construction and substantial improvement of str6ctu~es
located in the flood hazard areas shall be eldva~ed on fill so that thei. r
lowest floor (including basement) is above flood protection .elevation. Ne%4 "'
construction and substantial ~mprovements of accessory structures may, as an
alterna.tive, be flood proofed to above the flood protection elevation in
accordance with the State Building Code. Commercial and industrial s. tructures
may be flood proofed t6 the FP1 or FP2-standards of the State Building Co'~e.
All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical,. ·.
sewer .and water supply systems shall be designed and constructed· in a manner
°o minimize or eli~inate flood damage. Se~er and water supply systems shall.
~. designed 'to minimize infiltration by flood waters.
~2 . No structure in the flood hazard or flood plain area hereafter .
~ted,-~l-~eered, or moved shall be occupied, until the applicant submits a
~ification by a registered engineer or architect, that the finished fill
'tions or' other flood proofing· measures are in' compliance with this
Neither the building inspector or the City Council she'll ap.prove
:it or establish floo~ clever.ion which is 'less thhn three feet abc, ye the
h water l~:v~l or the following designed flood elevations:
b)
c)
~.~inimum building elevation of no less than 933.5 b~SL, 1929
datum dn any .lots in the City riparian to Lake ~.linnetonka.
~inimum b.uilding elevation of no less than 936.3 ~.~SL, 1929
datum, on any lots in the City riparian to L~ngdon La~'~
b~inimum building elevation, of no
datum, on any ]rd-~- :~-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 11, 1984
Case No. 84-337 Floodplain Var'lance,. 4.71Existing Sideyard Variance & Lake-
s'ide Variance for 2072 Shorewood Lane
Lot's 13 & 14, Block.l,, Shadywood Poi:nt ..
Richa'rd Sufficool.wa~.present. ..
The Building Of.ficial'explained that Mr. Sufficool gould like to c~ns'truct
a screened in porch '12.,x 22.feet.on.the S,E, corner of his house, The parcel
has a 25 foot access from Shorewood.Driv~.to ~he prop~rty.(Code 'requires 60
feet); exlsti'ng accessory building Is 3..1+ to the property llne. (Code requires
4 feet); dwelling has a~.set'back to the lak'-e of 39.+ feet and a side yard set-
back of,5.3 feet (Code..requires 50.feet and.lO feet--respectively); dwelling's
first.floor is..1,2 fee~ below the.required minimum'flood plain elevatio~ and
the.eleva~ion'of'the.proposed'addi.tion!.is.:.5'tO ,7 lower. The proposed addi-
tion' would be designed by ~ .regis'tered s~'ruc'tural and a Minnehaha Creek
Watershed permit would be.necessary to be obtained be'fore building permit
approval.'
Discussed at leqgth.and that Lot 14.is not a building lot,
Vargo 'moved and.Michael, seconded a motion to.approve .the variances requested
with the Staff's.~F~commendations.including that the screen porch 'not be.
enclosed. The vote on the motion was.unanimously in favor, "
This..it'em will be on the.Ci, tY Council agenda J'une 26, 1984.
~,-~- .... APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MOU
-- ~ t ' (Please type the following information)
1. Street Address of Property o,~.. ~"J/~'~'-~/~o~ ~.~.~'
!
2. kegal Bescription of Property: kot~
Addi t ion
Address
Date Fi]ed.
Block /
PID No.. /~-.//7 -,~J 3/ ooo~,
Day Phone No..'~'/x?,2 ""~'"Z.. ~'
4. Applicant (if other ~han owner):
Name ----
Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request:
Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Interpretation & Review
Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
t Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? )k/O' If s'o, list d~te(s) of
list date(s) of application, action takena~d- provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurste. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by la~. ~
· Signature of Applicant ~/'~~j~ Date ~-/-~7/
Planning Commission Recommendation: To approve the variances requested with the
Staff's recommendations including that the screened porch not be enclosed.
Date 6-11-84
Action:
6-26-8/~
Request 'for Zoning Variance P.rocedure (2)
Case # ~'-J37
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (x/~) No ( )
If "no", specify each n~n-conforming use:,
Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is.located? Yes 0~) No ( )
If 'lno'm, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow.. ( ) Shape .. (.x~ Other: Specify:
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after .the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (/~) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~-~r If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (Y~) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
'1. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
-\
\
PROPOSED 'RESOLUTION
CASE #84-337
RESOLUTION NO. 84-
'RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMEND^TION TO APPROVE -'! EXISTING NON-CONFORMING
SETBACKS AND A FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION VARIANCE FOR
LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT (PID #
18-117-23-311'0006), 2072 SHOREWOOD LANE
WHEREAS, Richard Sufficool, the owner of property described as
Lots t3 and 14, Block~l, Shadywood Point (PID #18-117-23 31 0006) ,
2072Shorewood Lane, has applied for a variance in setback 'to the lakeshore
and to construct below the floodplain elevation of Lake Minnetonka a
12 by 22 foot screened-in porch to the S.E. corner of the house 4 to 8 inches
below the existing first:floor elevation of 932.3 NGVD; and
WHEREAS, the City C0de.26, Part A, Page 2 C and the Minnesota State Building
Code does not allow construction below the elevation of 933.5 NGVD r~parian
to Lake Minnetonka without floodproofing permit approval and Sect'ion 23.408
and 23.604 provides for a 50 foot lakeshore setback and side yards for the
R-1 zoning district respectively;'and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commision has reviewed the .request and does recommend
approval due to the shape of the lot and to afford the owner reasonable use
of the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the floodproofing.permit approval
to construct a screened-in porch@931.ONGVD elevation a~d an 11 ~foot:lakeshore
setback variance and.recognize the existing non-conforming garage an~$tructure
side yard setbacks upon the:conditions that:
1) Permit approval'by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
2) Construction plans be designed' by a registered structural engineer.
3) Any'.change in use of the addition or modification to the addition would
require additional variance approval.
4) The lakeshore setback remain~ at 39 ft± to the Ordinary High Water Elevation.
/
JLJN I 8 1984 ,
C,-:-, OF. MOUND
~1 / ,
CITY. OF MOUND
· MoUnd, Hinnesota
APPLICATION FOR GAMBLING
PERMIT
annuaJ/s~ng]e occasion
Phone Number of Organization ~I~Z J/~p¢
Date Organization was organized '/,~ ~
Purpose of O.rgani'zat'ion C 0 ~d
Address
o. rganization,
gambling permit·
Type of .Gambll.ng to take place:
".Paddiewh~e! Yes No ~)A~-~.[ ,~c) ~'O'~-[U .~
Tipboard Yes No ~d Il ~ ~
Raffle Yes ~ NO ~ 0 ~y T~e ~-
hereby appli'es
/?o/
the gambling Al ~
(At least $10,O00.)
and we
Home Phone ~J. t--/Z_//¢~'
/¢ & (Requi red)
Location of Gambli.ng:
Name of Buildi.ng Owner C~ ~ ~ L~'b ¥ 0
Is the buildJ.ng owned or leased by the organization
Date ownership was acquired _ '1..~ 0 ~
If leased, .expiration date of lease
(Copy of lease must accompany application)
Gambling Hanager:
Name of Gambling Manager Jl ~j~l~ ~ }
Home address.l.~ j lb -' ~o~l~ be.
Is Gambling Manager an active member of organization
Date membership acquired .fi~?~,
Is Gamblin~ gaaager paid by the organization for handl~n~
(lhe answer to this question must be no - Sec.
Amount of bond furnished by Gambling Ma.nager
Name of Company furnishing Bond %~ ~ Q
agree to file a copy of the bond'wit~ the~ ~'i'ty Clerk.
Name of Bank where gambling ~unds will be kept .
(2) '
Bank ACcount Number for gambling funds ~ ~
Are funds in the above account mixed with other funds · (Answer must be "No")
AGREEMENT
The OU/~_ L~ov , ~ LA~e O_~~ he~eby agrees that if t~e 'license herein
Name of Ap~lidant
is granted that the C) L_L ~-~ u ~.E ~ will save the City, its officers
Name of Applicant
and agents harmless against any claims or actions and the cost of defending any
claims or actions arising out of or by reason of the granting of the liCense or
I
the con. duct of any of the activities authorized by the l icehse.
It is further agreed that monthly reports shall be furnished the City by the
Gambling Manager as directed in the ordinance and the O /--/-- ~ ~l ~ t~ ~., /~
' ; Name of Applicant '
hereby authorizes the Bank named above as the keeper of gambling funds to allow
the City access to the figure~ and activity of account number~l~ 5-O~-~g/listed
above. :,, ,
-: Signed by authorized Officer of Organization
Title
The above appl;cation is made on behalf of the
and all information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Date '
Title
Annual Licenses:
Expire on January 31 of ef,;ch"year. Fees are not prorated for
licenses purchased af"ter F¢:bruary I.
JUN I~ 1984. ~jt
OF MOUND,
APPLICATION FOR
additional day.
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 3.2 BEER PERMIT
1. Name of Organization
2...Address of Organizati'on
6~
7.
Name of Person Applying for Permit '~/~e~ ~" RucO i~
Organization Title' of'Person Applying for Permit u.sl/d¢S~
Dates Permit Will Be Used: From ~ l'q 19 ~ T.o '~1~ 19 '~ ~
Address at which Permit will be used · ~_:~-
Does the Organization carry Liquor Liability Insurance
~lu,o
8. If answer to No. 7 is YES, please list:
(a) Name of Insurance Company~-~.J[
If this application t° sell 3,2 Beer is on property owned by a public
agency, other than the City of Mound, written notice from the public
agency giving permission for 'such sales must accompany this application.
(a) Is ~uch written permission attached?
10. If this application is a request to sell 3.2 Beer on City property, the
City requires Liquor Liability Insurance with limits of $300~O00.
Date
ADM IN I$"I'RATIV £ OFFICES
June 14, 1984
Wayne Popham, Esq.
Attorney At Law,
4344 I.D.S. Center,
Minneapolis, Minn.
55402
Dear Mr. Popham,
Enclosed please find a "Notice of Removal" copy, which
was filed in Rid~edale by Ms. Peterson on the date shown.
Please respond to the following:
1. Why was the notice prepared and filed?
2, Did Ms. Peterson act on her own initiative, or was
she requested to prepare the notice; and if so,
who made such request?
3. Has your firm ever rendered a written opinion to the
City of Mound as to the propriety or legal consequences
of such a request? If so, please send me a copy.
4. Is the scope and duration of the request contained in
Notice of Removal within the bounds of legal propriety?
Your early reply will be appreciated.
Herbert E. Wolner
Box 125
Mound, Minn. 55 364
Copy to: Ms. Peterson.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55354
(612) 472-1'~55
August 24, 1983
The Honorable James H. Johnston
Asst. Chief Judge Hennepin County Dist. Court
Government Center C-751
300 S. 6th St.,,,
._ ~iinneapolis, Mn. 55487
Dear Judge Johnston:
'I am ~miting to request the removal of the Honorable Herbert E.
Wolner from all proceedings brought by and against the City Of Mound.
This request would include all arraignments, pre-trial conferences,
ommib~ hearings, court trials, ju~y trials and civil proceedings.
I request that the removal take place as soon as possible after the
receipt of this letter;..
Judge Wolner is a member of a group of Mound residents seeking
'50 establish a citizens review boa'rd to review all budget recommend-
'' ations made by the city staff to the City Council.'. The review board
is requesting t~.e power to recommend funding levels directly to the
City Council. As a spokesPerson for the bogrd, Judge Wolner is in a
..- .position to affect staffing levels in the police department, limit
the resources available.tO the police department to accomplish
objectiyes and control the budget expended for prosecution and defense
by the city attorney staff.
The membership, and leadership roll, of Judge Wolner on
proposed committee places him in a position of conflict of interest
when hearing crimJ_nal and civil cases involving the City Of >9ound.
I feel it is in the best interest of the Hennepin Counn%- Courts and
the City Of Fmund to remove Judge Wolner from consideration of all
City Of Mound cases...
VeD, truly ),ours,
Br~ce H. Wold Police Chief
Ci%' Of ~4omnd
cc'dE
DISTRICT COURT
STATE OF fv~INNESOTA
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTR
HENNEPIN COUNTY
CT
August 31, 1983
Chief Bruce H. Wold
'-Police Chief..
City of Mound
5341 May~ood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear 'Chief Wold:
This will acknowledge your letter of August 24 relative
to your request for removal of the Honorable Herbert E. Wolner
from all proceedings in our court involving the City of Mound.
I am referring your letter to Judge Wo!ner for his
response.
In the meantime, should Judge Wolner be assigned to
handle any case involving the City of Mound, your attorney would
have the right to file an affidavit of prejudice, and another
judge would be assigned to hear the, casa.
futu'r e.
JHJ/bjj
cc: Hon.
I will reply to your letter in more detail in the near
Herbert E.
CITY of 40UND
5341 MAYV,,'OOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
September 8, 1983
Mr. Curtis A. Pearson
llO0 .lst Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Curt:
Please review Bruce's letter to Judge Johnston
and give me your legal opinion as to if there
is anything in it that could be considered
libelous.
Judge Wolner thought it. is. The Council didn't
agree and ! thought it would be interesting and
constructive to get your legal view on it.
Sincerely yours,
Jon Elam,
City Manager
A. ThoMAS WURST, P. a.
CURTIS a. PEARSON, P. A.
JOSEPh E. HAMILTON, P. A.
THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD. P. A.
LAW OFmICES
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDEI~WOOD
I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
MINNEAPOLIS~ MINNESOTA 55402
September 19, 1983
TELEPHONE
(612} 338-4200
Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, PM 55364
Re: Letter to Judge Johnston
Dear Jon:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 8
with copies of a letter to the Honorable James Johnston and
a letter back from Judge Johnston to Chief Wold. Apparently
there is some indication by Judge Wolner that he has been libeled.
Libel is defined as follows: "Libel is a malicious publication,
expressed in print, writing, and by signs, tending to injure the
reputation of another, and expose him to public hatred,
contempt, and ridicule." Jon, the elements which go into
a libel are, the words used must apply to the plaintiff, the
letter or writing must be published, that means, to transmit
it to someone other than the plaintiff, and there must be
damages incurred. If it were determined that this was libel
per se, punitive damages could also be recovered without proof
of actual damages. If the words do not provide for an actionable,
per se libel, action, then malice would also be required as an
element. It is commonly said that malice is implied if you have
a malicious publication.
Based on the above, ahd my very limited knowledge of what
has transpired here, it does not appear that the letter is
libelous per se. It also does not appear that Judge Wolner could
prove damages. The statements which were made in this case
really go to impressions rather than to actual facts, although
the Chief has alleged a "conflict of interest" I agree with
Judge Johnston that the City has the right in any case involving
the City of Mound to file an affidavit of prejudice.
I hope this is responsive to your question.
Very~truly your~
CiTy Attorney
CAP:ih
June 25, 1984
CITY of
MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
This Meeting's probably Council Meeting attendees (complaints) beside
Herb Wolner, will be Norman or Rose Bute, 5420 Breezy Road (behind
Tonka).
On May 20th, the sewer lift station located at Spruce and Waterside
clogged up due to a blockage and backed-up into the Bute's basement.
Although the red warning light above the lift station went on, no
one called the City for 12 hours (it was early Sunday morning) to
notify them of the back-up. Once Greg was notified, he was quickly
on the scene and unplugged the line and got everything working again.
The problem is. Who is responsible for the cost of the repairs to
the Bute's basement. The City has insurance to cover situations
where we are liable. In this case, the line is in good repair and
became clogged from material that was put into the line by other
than the City.(Pampers are a common item that plug up lines.)
The Butes filed a claim and the insurance company investigated and
ruled the City was not liable and thus insurance would not cover
the estimated $7,500 worth of damages.
This gets at the question of liability and what we do. To assume
legal liability because we want to can cause far more problems then
it can immediately solve. The Butes have as much hardship as you
can get. He has been laid off for two months. They have foster
children and their bedrooms were located in the area that flooded
and haven't been used since.
I don't think I know an area that is a greater public relations
disaster than these sewer back-ups.
Obviously, politically, you could agree to pay for the damages or
we could ask for a reappraisal from the insurance company. Other
than that, I don't know.
-A tough emotional case.
HELLO FROM LAKE MINNETONICA, MOUND, MINN..
I
NAME OF APPLICANT
CITY OF ~,~OUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CC~MMERCIAL DOCK APPLICATION'
II d JLIN 1~1984,~ ~j [I
I i'y MOU DI
ADDRF_.S~
N~ OF BUS]2~ESS ~ o~S(~-- PHONE Z-/7.~-~'-M~?
Are you now~ or have you been en§a§ed in a similar business?,
If so, when
EXACT LCCATIC~ OF BUS~S.
STREET ADDRF~S ~-6'7~ ~ ~ ~-~c~Z_ ;f~Z~
LEGAL DESCRI.PTION - LOT
BLOCK SUBDIVISIC~
PLEASE ENCLOSE THE FCLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION:
1) A drawing to scale ~f the type, size and shape of the dock
proposed~ and the location and type. of buoy(s) to be used.
A drawing to scale of off-street oarking provided for each
three rental bo~t stalls, bouys or slips.
3) A stmtement outlinin9 the m~nner, extent and degree of use
~ comtemolated for the dock orooosed.
h) Payment of permit fee ~ust be included with this epplication.
5)
All applications received on or after March 1 shall be subject
to a late fee of $20.00
New applicant fee $200.00
Basic fee renewal
$100.00
Number of slips 6n water f~x $2.00=/~a
Number of boats stored
on land
TOTAL
x $1.'85--
Name of Firm
ture end Title
June 5, 1984
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: BILL HUDSON
FROM: JON ELAM
RE:
STREET LIGHT REQUEST FOR 1600 AVOCET
Could you have John Ewald check out this request. Please check the
stairway that goes down to the lake and what danger there is for
people coming up or going down these stairs without light.
Thanks.
JE:fc
er'lc.
June 4, 1984
City Manager of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Sir:
May we respectfully request a light on an existing pole
on the 1600 block of Avocet.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sij(e~rely, __ .
1680 ^vocet
Mound, MN
TO:
FROM:
RE:
_I~_~,EROFFICE MEMO
Acting Chief Billl~
Officer Ewald
Street Light Request for 1600 Avocet
I have checked with the residents on Avocet for their personal opinions as to
whether or not a street light is necessary. I was unable to contact everyone
who lives on the block as most of the people use the homes as cabins and only
come out to Mound occasionally on the weekends.
NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS
1667 Avocet
Michael Nelson 1672 Avocet
Bruce Are
John (no last name)
Olivia Ferguson
Mary and Wally
(no last name)
1676 Avocet
1677 Avocet
1680 Avocet
1681 Avocet
1688 Avocet
Vacant house - has been for one year.
Single, lives alone. Has a boat and
a dock. Would like to see a street
light for the safety of his boat.
Owns a strip of shore line behind
1672 Avocet, however, there are no
buildings. He has a boat and a dock
and would like to see a street light
(lives out of the Mound area).
Only comes out to Mound on the week-
ends. Would like to see a street
light though.
Has three children, ages 10, 7 and 5.
It doesn't matter whether there is a
street light or not. She rents the
property and doesn't own a boat or ha'
a dock.
No one knows who owns the home. How-
ever, people do use it a couple of ti
during the summer. Unable to locate.
They only come out to Mound a couple
times during the summer. Neighbors
state they would like a street light.I
I was unable to locate them.
Unable to contact owners.
(1
NAME
Marlene Cressy
ADDRESS
5061 Bartlett
COMMENTS
Has a boat and a dock on the end of
Avocet. Would like to see a street
light.
I have gone to these locations four times day and night in an attempt to locate
weekend visitors and property owners. With the exceptions of a couple of resi-
dents the rest of the homes at the end of Avocet seem to only be used once in a
while on weekends or during the summer.
In regard to the stairs without lights this is located on the opposite end of
Avocet in the 1700 block, which is south of Three Points. There is a street
light at the end by the stairway. The light does not penetrate to the beach
because of the heavy foliage. However, the request for a street light as I
stated came from the 1600 block of Avocet, which is north of Three Points. It
has no stairs or hills, with the lake being practically level with the shore.
If I can be of any further assistance please contact me.
(2)
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
JUNE, 1984
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
SECTION 5
SECTION 6
SECTION 7
SECTION 8
SECTION 9
SECTION 10
SECTION 11
SECTION 12
SECTION 13
SECTION 1 4
SECTION 15
SECTION 16
SECTION 17
SECTION 1 U
SECTION 19
SECTION 20
SECTION 21
SECTION 22
SECTION 23
SECTiON 24
SECTION 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
COMPENSATION PLAN
WORK SCHEDULES
OVERTIME PAY
COMP-TIME
CALL BACK
STANDBY PAY
COURI PAY
EDUCATION INCENTIVE
MILEAGE, MEALS, & LODGING REIMBURSEMENTS
DISCIPLINE
PROBATIONARY PERIODS ,
SAFETY
INSURANCE
HOLIDAYS
VACATION SCHEDULE
SICK LEAVE
SEVERANCE PAY
FUNERAL LEAVE
EMPLOYEE'S ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
EYE EXAMINATION
INJURY LEAVE
MILITARY LEAVE
JURY LEAVE
LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY
PAGE
1
4
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
10
lO
11
~2
14
16
16
17
17
17
18
~fL !
~AOO ~NOI£I~Od
~AI£VDO~6 ~AY2V~2~INT~fiV
~N~X01~ ~0 ~NOI£I~NO0
3AT~V~£~INTN~V ~IH~ 0£ 3ONVIq6~OO
XiH360H6 X/I9 ~0 qVSO~SI~
NOT£¥~HO~NI S~3N ~0 3SV3q3H
SaO3NVqq33SI~
NOYiVNOIS3~
O[ NOIiO3~
LE NOILD3S
93
1.1
1.2
ADMINISTRATIYE CODE
CITY OF MOUND
JANUARY, 1984
SECTION,,1 - PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
The City of Mound, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
412.651, is authorized to adopt an Administrative Code
incorporating the details of administrative procedures.
It shall be the purpose of these rules and regulations
to insure uniform and equitable personnel policies and
administration for all employees of the City of Mound;
except this Administrative Code shall not apply to any
recognized bargaining unit cove~ed by a labor agreement.
The City Manager is authorized and directed to adminis-
ter these rules and regulations incorporating this
Administrative Code. Any term and condition of employ-
ment not specifically established or modified by this
agreement shall remain solely within the discre%ion of
the Employer, to modify, establish or eliminate.
As used in this Administrative Code, the following words
and terms, unless %he context clearly indicates other-
wise, shall have the meaning as defined herein:
1. "Employer" - The City of Mound, Minnesota.
2. "Appointing Authority" - The City Manager or other
City officials to whom the City Manager has dele-
gated authority to appoint personnel.
10.
"Benefits" - Privileges granted to employees which
are included in the total compensation to
employees. Includes, but not limited to vacation
leave, sick leave, holiday leave, funeral leave,
military leave, hospitalization insurance, medical
insurance, life insurance, disability insurance,
and an Employee Assistance Program.
"Call Back" - Return of an employee to work to per-
form assigned duties at the expressed authorization
of the City at a time other than an assigned shift.
An extension of or an early report to an assigned
shift is not a call back.
Compensatory Time "(Comp-Time)" - Time taken off
from the employ.ee's regularly scheduled work week
in lieu of extra pay.
"Demotion" - The change of an employee's status
from one position to another position having a
lower salary rate.
"Employee" - A person holding a position in the
City service.
"Leave" - An approved absence from work as provided
by this Administrative Code.
"Overtime" - Work performed at the express authori-
zation of the Employer in excess of forty (40)
hours within a seven (7) day period.
"Outside Employement" - Employment of any kind
engaged in by a City employee for which compensa-
2
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
tion is received from a source other than the City.
"Base Pay Rater - The employee's hourly pay rate,
exclusive of longevity or any other special allow-
ances.
"Part-Time Employee" - An employee whose work sche-
dule is less that forty (40) hours per week.
"Permanent Full-Time Employee" - An employee
appointed to a permanent full-time position after
completing the probationary period.
"Permanent Part-Time Employee" - One that will
average thirty (30) hours per week over a one (1)
year time period.
"Postion" - An office, employment or place in the
City service. ~
"Probationary Employee" - An employee appointed to
a permanent full-time position serving the initial
probationary period.
"Probationary Period" - A trial period in a new
position which is a working tes~ period during
which the employee is required to demonstrate his/-
her fitness for the duties to which appointed by
actually perfo'rming the duties of the position.
"Promotion" - The change of an employee's status
from one position to another position having a
higher salary rate.
"Retirement" - The withdrawal of a member from
active public service who is paid a retirement
2.1
2.2
20.
21.
22.
annuity thereafter.
"Severance Pay~ - Payment made to an employee upon
honorable termination of employment.
"Stand-By" - An employee kept in readiness to per-
form assigned duties at the expressed authorization
of the City.
"Temporary Employment" - Employment which is
normally for short durations, seasonal in character
and compensated for on an hourly or seasonal basis.
"Termination" - A complete separation from City
emploYment resulting from discharge, resignation,
retirement or death.
SECTION 2 - COMPENSATION PLAN
RESFONSIBILITY
The City Manager is directly responsible to the City
Council for the coordination and administration of the
salary program. All salary adjustments for employees
sh~ll be based upon recommendations to the City Manager
by department heads and approved by the City Council.
PAY PERIOD
All City employees~shall be paid on a bi-weekly basis.
Any employee may authorize deductions from his/her pay
for any of the following purposes:
2.
3.
4.
City employee's group insurance;
United Fund;
Employee's organizations dues and fees;
Credit union;
3.1
3.3
6.
7.
8.
9.
8.
Uniform rental;
U.S. Savings Bonds;
Deferred Compensation Plan;
Supplemental life insurance;
Cancer insurance;
Other approved requested deductions.
SECTION ~ - WORK SCHEDULE~
The sole authority in work schedules is the Employer.
The normal work day for an employee shall be eight (8)
hours. The normal work week shall be forty (40) hours,
Monday through Friday unless service to the public
requires the establishment of regular work weeks that
schedule work on Saturdays and/or Sundays.
Service to'the public may require the establisment of
regular shifts for some employees on daily, weekly,
seasonal or annual basis, other than the normal 8:00
A.M. - 4:30 P.M. day. The Employer will give advance
notice to the employees affected by the establishment of
work days different from the employee's normal eight (8)
hour work day.
In the event that work is required because of unusual
circumstances, such as, but not limited to, fire, flood,
snow, sleet or breakdown of municipal equipment or faci-
lities, no advance notice need be given. It is not
required that an employee, working other than the normal
work day, be scheduled 'to work more than eight (8)
hours. However, each employee has an obligation to work
5
overtime on call backs, if requested, unless unusual
circumstances prevent him/her from so working.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
SECTION 4 - OVERTIME PAY
Eligibility for overtime pay shall be determined at the
time of appointment or at the time of establishing
compensation for the position by the City' Manager.
Hours worked more than forty (40) hours within a seven
(7) day period, will be compensated for at one and one-
half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate.
All work performed on Sundays shall be compensated for
at two and one-half (2-1/2) times the employee's regular
base pay rate, unless Sundays fall within the provisions
of Section 3, 3.4.
For the purpose of computing overtime compensation,
overtime hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded
or paid twice for the same hours worked.
Holiday pay shal'l be paid at a rate two and one-half
(2-1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate.
SECTION ~ - COMP-TIME
Eligibility to accrue comp-time is determined at the time of
appointment or by Department Head. Accumulated comp-time cannot
exceed 40 hours unless approved by a Department Head or the City
Manager. If an employee· is required to work, compensatory time
shall be accumulated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the
employee's regular base pay rate. If, however, extra time is
worked for the convenience of the employee, it shall be paid at
J
the employee's regular base pay rate.
SECTION 6 - CALL BACK
An employee called in for work at a time other than his/her
normal scheduled shift, will be compensated for a minimum of two
(2) hours pay at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's
regular base pay rate, except on Sunday when it shal£ be two and
one-half {2-1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate or on
Holidays when it shall be two and one-half (2-1/2) times the
employee's regular base pay rate.
SECTION 7 - STANDBY PAY
Any employee placed on standby duty by the Employer shall receive
one-half (1/2) hour's pay for each one (1) required to standby
for duty. ~
SECTION 8 - COURT PAY
In the event an .employee is required to appear in court during
his/her scheduled off-du'ty time, such employee shall receive a
minimum o.f two (2) hours pay at one-half (1/2) times the
employee's regular base pay rate. An extention of or early
report to a regular scheduled shift for duty does not qualify the
employee for the two (2)hour minimum.
SECTION 9 - EDUCATION INCENTIVE
The City shall provide an Education Incentive Plan for all
permanent full-time and permanent' part-time employees of the
City. If funds are not provided by any other governmental
agency, the City shall pay cost of tuition equal to that charged
by State institutions after the employee has successfully
completed a course with a grade of "C" or better. The course
must be job related and approved by the City Manager. Upon
completion of the course, the City shall pay the employee a one
time payment of five (5) dollars ($5.00) for each credit hour the
employee earned.
A certificate or some other proof of achievement in an approved
course shall be placed in the personnel file of the employee.
SECTION 10 - MILEAGE, MEALS, AND LODGING REIMBURSEMENTS
The City Manager or the department head may authorize travel at
City expense necessary for the effective conduct of City
business. Such authorization shall be granted prior to the
incurrence of the actual expenses and shall be subject to the
availability of funds.
In the event an employee is eligible for mileage reimbursement,
such employee shall be compensated at the rate established by the
City Council.
In the even.t an employee is authorized for reimbursement of meals
and lodging such employee shall be reimbursed at the cost
actually incurred providing such cost is reasonable and receipts
are provided.
11.1
SECTION 11 - DISCIPLINE
The Employer will discipline employees for just cause
only. Discipline will be in the form of:
a. Oral reprimand;
b. Written reprimand;
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
c. Suspension;
d. Demotion; or
e. Discharge.
Suspensions,demotions and discharges will be in written
form.
Written reprimands, to become part of an employee's
personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signa-
ture of the employee. Employees will receive a copy of
such reprimands and notices of suspensions and
discharge.
Employees may examine their own individual personnel
files at reasonable times under the direct supervision
of the Employer.
Discharges will be pr. eceded by,a five (5) day suspension
without pay.
~EQTION 12 ,- PROBATIONARY PERIODS
All newly hired or rehired employees will serve a one
(1). year probationary period.
All existing employees will serve a six (6) month
probationary period in any job description in which the
employee has not served a probationary period.
At any time during the probationary period a newly hired
employee may be terminated at the sole discretion of the
Employer.
At any time during the probationary period, a promoted
or reassigned employee may be demoted or reassigned to
the employee's previous position at the sole discretion
9
of the Employer.
SECTION 1~ - SAFETY
The Employer and the employees agree to jointly promote safe and
healthful working conditions, to cooperate in safety matters and
to form a Safety Committee to help advise the Employer of any
unsafe conditions that exist or need attention. The department
heads shall serve as this Committee.
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
SECTION,.14 - INSURANCE
The Employer agrees to pay 100% of the
hospitalization/major medical insurance premiums for
each permanent full-time and probationary full-time
employee or 85% of coverage i~cluding dependents after
thirty (30) days of c. ontinuous ~mployment.
Permanent part-time employees shall be eligible for
hospitalization/major medical insurance benefits under
the group policy at his/her own cost ~hich wil± be
deducted from the employee's pay. If the permanent
part-time employee wishes, dependent coverage can be
purchased and deducted from the employee's pay.
The Employer agrees to pay the full premium payment for
a five thousand dollar ($5,000) life insurance policy, a
long-term disability insurance policy, and membership in
the employee assistance program for each permanent full-
time and full-time probationary employee, after thirty
(30 days of continuous employment.
After thirty (30) days of continuoms employment the
10
lq..5
15.1
Employer agrees to provide dental insurance coverage
for each permanent full-time and full-time probationary
employee or pay up to twenty-two dollars ($22.00) per
month toward coverage including dependents for each
permanent full-time and probationary full-time employee.
Upon retirement, after 20 years of service at age 62 or
after 10 years of service at age 65 the Employer wilA
pay full premiums under the City's group plan for hospi-
talization/major medical and dental insurance for all
permanent full-time employees and spouse hired before
January 1, 1984, but only if the retiree and spouse are
not covered by another source. At age 65 or when
eligible for Medicare benefits, whichever occurs first,
the employee shall obtain supplemental insurance to
Medicare, which will then be paid by the Employer.
SECTION,,I~ - HOLIDAYS
The employer agrees to provide the following paid
Holidays to all permanent full-time and probationary
full-time employees:
New Year's Day
President's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
LabOr Day
Veteran's Day
Thanksgiving Day
The Day After Thanksgiving Day
1/2 Day Christmas Eve Day
Christmas Day
1/2 Day New Years Eve Day
One (1) Floating Holiday
Permanent part-time employees shall be paid holidays
designated above in direct proportion to the number of
11
15.2
15.3
15.4
16.1
hours worked in the pay period in which the Holiday
occurs.
If any of the above Holidays fall on a Saturday, the
preceding Friday shall be a Holiday. If any of the
above Holidays fall on a Sunday, the following Monday
shall be a Holiday. (If New Years Day or Christmas Day
fall on a Sunday or Monday, the 1/2 day Holiday allowed
for New Years Eve or Christmas Eve shall be the
preceding Friday.)
Any full-time or full-time probationary employee
required to work on a Holiday shall receive two and
one-half (2-1/2) times his/her hourly rase for all hours
worked. Any part-time employee required to work on a
Holiday shall receive one and one-half (1 1/2) times
his/her regular base hourly pay rate for all hours
worked.
An employee must work or be on a fully paid leave the
working day before and the working day after the Holiday
to receive Holiday pay.
SECTION 16 - VACATION SCHEDULE
Permanent full-time and probationary full-time employees
hired before January 1, 1984, shall accrue vacation
according to the fo-llowing schedule:
YEARS HOURS EARNED NUMBER OF
OF PER BI-WEEKLY DAYS
SERVICE PAY PERIOD PER YEAR
0 - 5 3.077 10
6 - 15 4.615 15
16 - 20 6.154 20
21 and over 7.692 25
12
Permanent f~ll-time and probationary full-time employees
starting after January 1, 1984, shall receive paid vaca-
tion based upon the following schedule:
YEARS OF HOURS EARNED
SERVICE PER BI-WEEKLY
OVER;
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
DAYS OF YEARS OF
VACATION SERVICE
PAY PERIOD PER YEAR OVER;
3.077 ' 10 13
3.077 10 14
\
3.077 10 15
3.077 10 16
3.077 10 17
3.385 11 18
3.692 12 19
4.000 13 20
HOURS EARNED
PER BI-WEEKLY
PAY PERIOD
4.615
4.615
4.923
5.231
5.538
5.846
6.154
6.462
6.769
7. 077
7.385
7.692
.16.2
4.308 14 21
4.615 15 22
4.615 15' 23
4.615 15 24
4.615 15
DAYS OF
VACATION
PER ~EA~
15
15
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Permanent part-time employees starting after January 1,.
1984, shall earn vacation in direct p~oportion to the
number of hours worked per pay period, based on the rate
established for permanent full-time employees.
On an employee's twenty-fifth (25th) anniversary of
service, he/she shall be granted forty (40) additional
hours of vacation with pay for that year. This vacation
leave must be taken off during that year and cannot be
waived to receive extra salary.
13'
16.3
16.4
16.5
17.1
17.2
Paid vacation shall be earned during the first year of
employment, but cannot be taken until the end of one (1)
year of employment without the approval of the City
Manager. Time off for vacation must be approved by
employee's department head.
An employee can carry-over up to one and one-half (1 1/2)
of all earned vacation from one year to the next. Ali
vacation time over that amount must be approved by the
City Manager.
Vacation leave cannot be waived to receive extra pay.
In the event an employee is unable to take vacation as a
result of their required presence at work as requested
by the City, the employee shall continue to accumulate
vacation hours unti.± the tithe the City authorizes
vacation. This must be approved by the City Manager.
SECTION 17 - SICK LEAVE
Each permanent full-time and probationary full-time
em.ployee shall earn sick leave with paj at the rate of
one (1) day per month for each month of full-time
employment with the City or 3.693 hours per pay period.
There shall be no limit on the maximum accumulation of
sick leave. After completing six (6) months of
continuous service with the City, an employee may begin
using his accumulated sick leave.
Permanent part-time employees shall earn such leave in
direct proportion to the number of hours worked based on
the rate established for full-time employees.
14
17.3
17.4
Sick leave shall not be considered as a privi±ege which
an employee may use at his discretion, but shall be
allowed in the case of personal illness, legal quaran-
tine, disability of the employee, disability relared to
childbirth, to receive dental or medical care or if
there is serious illness in the immediate family and no
other responsible adult is available to care for the iii
family member.
"Immediate family member" here includes the
employee's own parents, spouse, siblings, children,
grandparents, grandchildren, and spouse's children
who are regular members of the employee's
household. If the seriously ill family member, as
defined above, is not a~ regular member of the
employee's household, the employee may use up to
three (3) days of his/her accrued sick leave bank
upon furni.shing a doctor's sta~e'men~ citing the
family member's emergency or critical illness and
the necessity for requiring the employee's care or
presence.
Sick leave shall also be allowed for counseling or other
sickness preventat~ive measures upon prior approval of
the Department Head.
Employees claiming sick leave may be required to file
competent written evidence that he/she has been absent as
authorized above, or if more than two (2) days, that the
employee has been under treatment and supervision of a
15
doctor or dentist who recommends work not be per~'ormed.
If the employee has been incapacitated for the period of
his absence or a major part thereof, the employee may be
required to provide evidence that he is again physically
able to perform his duties.
18.1
18.2
SECTION 18 - SEVERANCE PAY
The following is the severance pay schedule which shal±
become effective for all full-time employees upon
reaching tenure of three (3) years.
The following schedule is based on a percentage of
unused accumulated sick leave.
After 3
After 5
After 10
After 1 5
After 20
After 25
years service
years service
years service
years service
years service
years service
33.3% to a maximum of
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
96 hours
to a maximum of 160 hours
to a maximum of 384 hours
to a maxxmum of 64U hours
to a maximum of 960 hours
to a maximum of 1320 hours
Th~ Employer shall pay full-time employees the full
amount of severance pay at the time of termination. If
requested, the employee may elect to receive equal
amounts over a period of five (5) years.
SECTION ~9 - FUNERAL LEAVE
Funeral leave for immediate family, not to exceed three (3) days
will be allowed by the City Manager. If more than three (3) days
are required, the employee may choose to deduct the extra days
over three (3) from either vacation or accumulated sick leave.
16
Immediate family is defined as mother, father, siblings, spouse,
children, grandparents and spouse's mother, father, siblings,
children, grandparents and grandchildren.
SECTION 20 - EM~LOY~'S ~S$ISTANCE PROGRAM
The City shall provide an Employee's Assistant Program. The
purpose of the program is to help employees and their families
identify problems of a personal nature that the employee may not
be able to overcome independently and which may have an adverse
-~affect on the employee's work performance. The ~Employee's
Assistance Program encourages the employee and their families to
seek assistance and/or treatment through the Diagnostic and
Referral Center. Participation in the program shall not
jeopardize the employee's job security, ~romotional opportunities
or reputation. All r~cords and discussions of personal problems
shall be handled in a confidential manner and shall not become a
part of the employee's personnel file. More information
regarding the Employee's Assistance Program may be obtained
through the department head or the City Manager.
SECTION 21 - EYE EXAMINATION
The Employer agrees to pay up to thirty-five dollars ($35.00) in
each twenty-four (24) month ~eriod of full-time employment toward
an eye examination or the purchase of eye glasses for each full-
time permanent employee.
22.1
~CTION 22 - INJURY LEAVE
In the event a City employee or permanent part-time
employee suffers an injury while in the line of duty for
17
the City, a report of the accident shall be made
immediately and all necessary forms completed by the
Department Head.
22.2 ~ury leave shall be granted to employees of the City
who a~ncapacitated as a result of an injury incurred
through no__duct of their own~~a-~n actual
perform_ance of t~sig~...~es for the City.
Injury leave shall noted against the employee's
accumulated v~.i~n or sick l~ever; vacation
leave ~..-~ot be granted_ immediatel.y~owing the
ret~~of an employee to his/her assigned job.
22.3 n jury leave may be extended up to ninety (_~) days
x~~ un. determined sooner~.~~employee can
~. ~ return to .hisS.ti. es. ~ce must be provided by
a competent medica~rity that the emploYee is
physically abl~eturn t~her a~signed job. In
the event~g~r period of time ~ary, evidence
~.st/~/provided _b_y a_.~omp..eten~ me~i~~h~ria~Yy
extention of injury leave.
SECTION ~ - MILITARY LEAVE
A permanent full-time or permanent part-time City employee who is
a member of the National Guard or the Reserve Forces of the United
States of America shall be entitled to military leave as provided
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 192.26 through 192.264.
SECTION ~4 - JURY LEAVE
Any City employee who is required to serve on jury duty shall be
granted an amount of compensation which will equal the dif~'erence
between the employee's regular base pay and compensation paid for
jury duty.
SECTION 25 - LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT PAY
The City Manager may, upon recommendation of the employee's
department head, allow a permanent full-time employee a leave of
absence without pay for a period of up to ninety (90) days for
sickness, disability, disability related to childbirtH, child
care leave, or other good and sufficient reasons which are to be
in the best interests of the City. Such period may be extended
up to one year with the authorization of the City Manager. While
on leave of absence withou~ pay, the employee shall not be
entitled to accrue vacation leave, sick leave, receive insurance
benefits, or earn seniority.
Insurance benefits may be~obtained by the employee paying his/her
full premium.
Child care leave refers to time spent caring for a chi±d in
conjunction with its birth or adoption.
Disability related to childbirth is the period in which a mother
is considered disabled as determined by a physician.
SECTION 26 - ABSENCES DUE TO WEATHER
In the event of snow storms, should an employee choose not to
attempt reporting for work, he/she shall use accumulated vacation
or comp-time hours.
19
27.1
27.2
SECTION ~? - LEGAL DEFENSE.
Employees involved in litigation because of negligence,
ignorance of laws, non-observance of laws, or as a
result of employee judgmental decision, may not receive
legal defense by the municipality.
Any employee who is charged with a traffic violation,
ordinance violation, or criminal offense, arising from
acts performed within the scope of his/her employment,
when such act is performed in good fait~, as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, Section 466.07 and
under direct order of his/her supervisor, shal± be reim-
bursed for reasonable attorney's fees and court costs
actually incurred by such employee, in defending agains~
such charge. ~
28.1
28.2
SECTION 28 - RESIGNATION
Any employee wishing to leave the service of the City in
good standing s~all file a letter of resignation with
his/her immediate supervisor at least two (2) weeks
prior to the effective date.
Any department head wishing to leave the service of the
City in good standing shall file a letter of resignation
with the City Manager at least two (2) weeks and pre-
ferably thirty (30) days prior to the effective date.
SECTION 29 - MISCELLANEOUS
29.1 - RELEASE OF NEWS INFORMATION
2O
. ~ no City employee shall release
any information regarding City business without the
approval of the City. In the event information is
requested on City business, such inquiries shall be
directed to the department heads or the City Manager.
29.2 - DISPOSAL OF CITY PROPERT~
No City property shall be disposed of without the
approval of the City. Before the City property is
disposed of, a letter of inquiry shal± be submitted to
all department heads through the City Manager stating
the description and function of the item and if any
department is in need of or can utilize the item.
SECTION 30 - COMPLIANC~ TO THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
30.1 - CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
This Administrative Code shall be deemed conditions of
employment, in the City service and violations of these
rules and regulation~ may constitute just cause for
disciplinary action or dismissal by the City.
30.2 - ADMINISTRATIVE PREROGATIVE
This Administrative Code shall cover the items set
forth, however; this Code shall also permit
administrative prerogative in making decisions regarding
conditions not included in the Administrative Code.
30.3 - POSITIONS COVERED
All offices and positions in the City service that now
exist or hereafter are created shall be subject to the
/?33
21
provisions of the Administrative' Code except the
following:
1. officials elected by the people;
2. members of boards or commissions;
3. the City Attorney.
22
A~. ThoMas WM!~ST, PA.
CURTIS A. PEARSON. ~A.
THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, ~A.
~OgE~ J- FELIOW~
LAVV OFFICES
Wurst, PEARSON, HAMILTON, IArSON & UNDERWOOD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
June 13, 1984
Mr. Randall D. Young
Public Utilities Commission
780 American Center Building
160 East Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Re: City of Mound - Continental Telephone
Docket No. P-407/GR-83-294
Dear Mr. Young:
Enclosed please find an original and 11 copies of a Petition for
Reconsideration filed on behalf of the City of Mound in connection with
the above matter.
Copies have been served on all parties of record.
Very truly yours,
JDL: cnm
Enclosures
cc: All parties of record
James D. Larson
173 S-'
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Leo G. Adams
Harry Seymour Crump
Roger L. Hanson
Terry Hoffman
Cynthia A. Kitlinski
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Corn missioner
Commissioner
In the matter of the proposed notice
explaining final rates submitted in
compliance with ordering I)aragraph
number 4 of the Commission's
March 23, 1984 Order in Docket No.
P-407/GR-83-294.
PETmo FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Docket No. P-407/GR-83-294
The City of Mound respectfully petitions the Public Utilities Commission to
reconsider its Order in the above matter, issued on June 5, 1984, approving refund
proposal B and across-the-board refunds to all customers.
Mound believes that refund proposal B produces an unjust, unreasonable, and
unlawful result for the citizens of Mound, for the following reasons.
First, the Commission has interpreted the interim rates statute, 237.075, Subd.
3, as requiring across-the-board equal percentage interim increases for all classes.
This was not done in this case. Implicit Metro class EAS rates were increased on an
interim basis while out-state EAS rates were not increased. Therefore, interim rate
increases were disproportionate, with the Metro class paying a much higher interim
increase than out-state customers. This discriminatory overcharge was illegally collected
and should simply be returned to the Metro customers, with interest.
On an interim basis, Mound's res{dential rate was increased from $21.90 to $28.30
or 29.2%, while the non-Metro rate group 1 was increased from $12.55 to $16.25 or
29.5% and rate groUP 2 from $13.80 to $17.85 or 29.3% on an interim basis. The
Problem with this approach is that the EAS components for non-Metro rate groups I
and 2 were not increased, while the EAS component for the Metro rate group was
increased. Since the implicit Metro line access rate was determined to be $13.80, the
same as non-Metro rate group 2~ the Metro class should have received an interim rate
increase of only $4.05 per month, or from $13.80 to $17.85, the same as non-Metro
rate group 2. Mound, however, received a monthly interim increase of $6.40. The
difference, $2.35 per month during the 11 month period of interim rates, should be
returned to the Metro class.
Only after the above described discriminatory overcollection is returned to the
Metro class, is it appropriate to decide how the balance of the revenues overcollected
during the interim priod are to be refunded. With respect to this issue, Mound would
ask the Commssion to reconsider its selection of refund Plan B and adopt refund Plan
A.
Mound does not agree that Minn. Stat. Sec. 237.075 mandates an across-the-board
equal percentage refund to all customers. The statute certainly does not state this.
In fact, the statute expressly requires refunds where ~interim rates are in excess of
the rates in the final determination,u The Commission has interpreted this language
to require across-the-board refunds when interim revenues are in excess of final
revenues. Mound does not agree that rates and revenues have the same meaning.
Mound believes that the statutory language mandates refunds only when a final rate
is below an interim rate. In the case of the Metro class, their final rates ($24.45)
are below interim rates ($28.30). Therefore, there should be a refund. Classes with
final rates above interim rates (i.e., t~e non-Metro class) are not entitled to a refund.
Mound is of the opinion that there is no statutory support for the Proposal B
refund scheme and respectfully petitions the Commission to reconsider its refunding
order.
Mound a~ks that the Commission order Continental to delay the implementation
of a refund plan pending the disposition of this Petition.
l~e/~/t f~.~ubmitted,
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON,
~,~ LARSON & UNDERWOOD
and James D. Larson
1100 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 338-4200
Mound City Attorneys
-3-
WESTONKA SENIOR
CITIZENS INC.
SPONSORED BY SUBURBAN COMMUNITY SERVICE · A UNITED WAY AGENCY · BOX 42 MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
June 11, 1984
Bob Polston, Mayor
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mayor Polston:
The Westonka Seniors, Inc. have recently set-up and installed
a 9-member "Governing Board" for the Center. It was determined
at the May meeting that we should have a representative'from
each of the surrounding communities oB this board. The term
of office would be for one year. They would be invited to
attend our monthly, board meeting and asked for input on
impending issues that could effect their city.
We will make available a copy of the minutes of the board
meetings and dates and times of future meetings for your
council members.
We invite the City of Mound to send a representative to this
board.
Sincerely,
Merlyn (I~oc) Meier, President
Westonka Seniors, Inc.
MDM: dmo
INTEROFFICE MEMO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CityManager, Jon Elam
Acting Chief, B.K, Roy
No Parking Zone
DATE June 21
It has come to my attention that the area be~veen Clyde and Dorchester
on Islandview Drive is posted no parking in a manner that is confusing
for the public. In checking with the Street Department Foreman, Geno
Huff, I learned that there is no ordinance prohibiting parking in this
location. Due to the hills and curves and to be consistent with the
other City streets where parking is limited to one side of the street,
I make the following recommendation:
The east side (or lake side) of Island¥iewlYrive between
Clyde and Dorchester should be posted no parking.
The reason for that side being posted above the other is that the east
side has many drivmvays. ~e west side would accomodate the residents
in the area to park more vehicles on the street than the east side
would offer. I would also recommend that the west side of the road, to
be consistent with the City Ordinances, be posted No Parking 2:00 a.m.
to 6:00 a.m. November 15 thru April 15.
A resident has contested a parking tag issued within the past week,
which has been voided. The reason for this is if the person were to
plead not gnilty, the City would lose the case because there is no
ordinance to backup the fine.
BI.LLS ..... JUNE 26, 1984
t.
Air Comm 172.65
Allstar Electric 2,306.20
Apache Paper 137.16
Assn of Metropolitan~Municip 1,603.O0
Burlington Northern 533.33
Blue Cross/Blue Shield 137.O1
Braun Environmental Lab 18,076.43
Bill Clark Oil 228.25
Coast to Coast 116.79
Contel 1,191.50
C & H Distributors 131.88
C J Industries 150.20
Davies Water Equip 45.61
Driver & Vehicle Services 8.25
First Bank Mpls 4.00
Glenwood Inglewood 52.50
Eugene Hickok & Asso¢ 2,120.41
Hawkins Chemical 114.38
Hayden-Murphy Equip 152.14
Internat'l City Mgmt Assn 256.00
Internat'l Institute Munic Clerks 50.00
Kromer Co. 23.76
Kool Kube Ice 215.90
LOGIS 1,930.04
Lyman Lumber 59.26
Sharon Legg 44.60
City of Minnetrista 140.00
McCombs-Knutson 3,496.00
Minnegasco 615.78
MN Dept Public Safety 40.00
Munitech, Inc 7.50
Mpls Oxygen 21.00
Martins Navarre 66 15.OO
Northern States Power 4,194.59
NW Bell Tele 270.05
No Star Waterworks Prod 139.47
Neitge Construction 82.50
Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00
Brad Roy 14.90
Tom Rockvam 202.00
Road Machinery 32.20
Suburban Community Services 898.25
Streicher Guns 17.95
S 0 S Printing '74.20
State Treas-Surplus 8.80
Francis Salden 63.90
Thurk Bros. Chev 15.00
Uniforms Unlimited
Von Klug & Assoc
Widmer Bros.
Waconia Emerg Physician
Westonka Sports
Westonka Firestone
Xerox Corp
R.L. Youngdahl & Asso¢
Kirk Corson
Commissioner of Revenue
Commissioner of Revenue
Consulting Radiologist
Griggs Cooper
Robert E Johnson
Johnson Bros Liq
Mrs Ralph Lang
Brad Landsman
City of Mound
Metro Waste Control
Mound Postmaster
P.D.Q. Foods
Ed Phillips & Sons
Quality Wine
Dell Rudolph
George Riches
Greg Skinner
State Treasurer
James Thompson
Keith Putt
TOTAL BILLS
146.40
1,250.00
3,216.72
57.75
132.75
57.54
933.92
3,347.O0
9.34
5,282.88
2,779.62
11.00
2,484.90
730.72
2,790.57
14.90
61.25
45.47
2,103.75
II0.04
1,289.97
2,028.57
76.68
427.50
9.00
27.00
15.00
547.4O
200.00
70,423.98
June 19, 1984
Janet Bertrand
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Janet,
Thank You for considering our services.
I am supplying you with a drawing Showing our proposed system layout.
Please note the drain tile placement and it's slope direction to the pump.
By installing the system in this way we achieve maximum exposure of
drain tile to the areas water is most likely to enter and will only be going
under a footing once. At that point we will terminate that line of tile into
the sump basin. We will discharge the water into the sanitary sewer line
or run the discharge outside as you wish. This can be decided later and
does not affect our price.
Our price is determined on the amount of linear footage installed of the
system. The approximate linear total is 214 feet based on measurements I
received from you.
! hope you find all in good order and informing. If not please call me.
Thanks again.
Yours truly,
S~~,. INC.
Gar~ McClanahan
CITY OF MOUND
DUCT WORK MUST
BE REMOVED PRIOR
TO DRAIN TILE
INSTALLATION
BOTX STAIRWAYS MUST BE REMOVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
WORK AREA SHOULD BE MADE AS CLEAR AS ~'~': .....
POSSIBLE OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS .......
241
40'
PUMP
DRAIN TILE PLACEMENT AND DIRECTION
OF SLOPE.
FOOTINGS
APPROXIMATE LINEAR FOOTAGE OF SYSTEM ......... 214
PRICE ..................... $4280.00
DRAWING NOT TO SCALE
..(
Standard wate'[ .Control Systems, inc.
6066 West Broadway Avenue, New Hope, MN 55428 · (612) 5374849
Waterproofing System
To be Inst~lled for ,. :/:. ·
8aid Owner ol
Job location
.... (If not same) .
Street
·. City
Phone ' ' ,
Standard Water Control Systems; Ir~c. will fu'rnish'all labor and materi~ls for in'stallati~)n of a~perimeter ·drain tile system,
hydrostatic pre~ure relief pump and discharg~ system in the basement at the above address;in accordance with the drawing below.
Installation guaranteed to be as specified and completed in a workmanlike manner. ' · ': ' · :
DIAGRAM OF ARIA TO Il IERYIGIO
Kind of wall covering
'tlt'l~lock EXpolure' :~ll
To be Inmtallod~ "' ' ·
1; 4" dr=in file ~y~t;~ it a 5 d,gree ~lope to ~ump pump ~ fl.
2. Gravel filter to surround dral~ tll~ ~nd sump b~Hn
3. All cJvitles In bl~ks ~apped
4. Cove plate/tube drainage Wstem on foot ~[~ ft.
5. Plastic moisture barrier
6. Pump'and discharge system .... ..
7. Replace new concrete
8.
The Owner Agreea to Pay Conireotor m mum ms followa*, .,_.. _ ~'_ ' ': ' '
A. Price OlWaterprooflng
B.. Other ., $ ~ ' · ~. " '"..'
C. Principal Balance · .."~ ~, ~T . ;..
D. Down Pa~;menl Made ByOwner $ ,,.
E, Unpaid Balance ~ to ~e Fle~,n~ed $
· ,... :. . ". .t ., .. ;..'.
BUYERS RIGHT TO CANCEL. If this agreement was solicited at.your residence and'you do not want the goods and services,
you may cancel this agraementby mailing e notice to the seller. The notice may say. that you do not want the goods or services
and must be mailed before midnight of the third business day'after you sign this agreement. The notice must ba mailed to: ·
Standard Water Control Systems. Inc.. 6066 West Broadway Avenue, New Hope, MN 55428. ;.'
NOTICE
· ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR
COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PRO-
CEEOS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR
HEREUNDER.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
I have read the reverse side of this egreemen[ and the above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are
hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work 'as specified. Payment will be made as outlined.
Approval by Standard Water Control Systems, Inc.
RITE WAY WATERPROOFING~ INC.
ADDE~EYJM TO CONTRACT
I, verify that of
Rite Way Waterproofing has verbally covered in detaml and thoroughly explained
any questions that I may have had on the followir~ points and conditions rela-
tive to the contract that I have entered into with them:
A.
1. If paneled and/or sheet rocked, it might have to be cut off
at the bottom.
2. Even though waterproofed, there miF~ht be condensation on the
walls.
B. FLOORS:
1. If tiled,' you will lose at least ~wo %o three rows of tile,
depending on the width of the footings, which will not be re-
placed by Rite Way.
2. If carpeted, carpet will have to be removed and replaced by
homeowner. When replacing carpet, the tacking strip is ~o be
glued down.
3. Baseboard will have to be removed and replaced by homeowner.
4. It might be necessary to slope floors.
C. WINDOW W~1.LS: If window wells are not water-proofed at the time
of the initial installation and they leak. this is not a mal-
function of the system and it will not be covered by the guarantee.
D. BASE~ENT. BATHR00M:
1.. Toilet or other fix-tures might have %o be removed.
2. If ceramic tile is in this area, we do not assume responsi-
bility if it cracks or chips.
Eo OTHER:
1. If you have an cji tank that has %0 be moved, ~t should not
· hav. v,e.~more than 40 gallons of fuel in it.
~_All objects near or along walls will have to be moved.
~We will be leaving a gap between the floor and the wall to
catch any moisture from the walls.
4. If there are objects such as a ~rnace or steps that can not
be removed and we have to tunnel under them, we w~ll not guarantee
that area.
5. If the contract states +~hat the home owner is responsible for
moving certain objects, this must be done before we arrive to start
the job. If not and it be~ames necessary for Rite Way personnel to
~.. O~e it, we will n6t be responsible for any damag~ resulting.
e home owner is responsible for having an electrical outlet
installed for the pump.
..d_-?T'~.-~y the areas waterproofed are guaranteed.
~./The location of the collection point has been agreed to
by
~ ,J~fe homeowner.
f~/9. There will be a service charge for any malfunction, i.e., re-
placement of pump, even ,if it is under warranty, if not the fault
of the system.
RITE WAY WATERPROOFING CUSTOMER
RITE WAY WATERPROOFING
ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT
PROPOSAL NO.
I, , having entered into a
contract with Rite Way Waterproofing, have decided to accept
the following selected guarantee for the work they do:
A.
- / :WATERPROOFING, INC.
7337 I~KE DRIVE LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 55104
n mahle, t uaran
The WATERPROOFING SYSTEM has been Installed In the basement of the
residence located at the following address;
THE GUARANTEE PaO¥lOt~O HEREIN DOES ItOT COVER BXMPNESS ON THE
BA~£MEJ~T WALLS - IT OO£S COYER ANY WAT[R LEXrd, G[ OR FLOW.
DATE
CUSTOMER SIGNATURE
Be
WA2' BP F G, INC,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
The ~?-~--~-"~ WATERPROOFING SYSTEM has been installed in the basement of the
residence located at the following address:
The ~:)~-~./.c~. SYSTEM providese per:
menent and positive built-in ~lraineoe system, guaranteed
her~ith to maintain e basement constantly dr/of ground
water for the life of the house. This guarantee covers all
areas where the system has been installed against any
future water problems due to malfunction of this insf81-
owner in event of future sale of the ebov~ ra.ddenco.
Sanitary $inver systems and/or submersible pump~ net
covered under this guarantee. If a pump is used, owne~
must n~intain pump, which is covered b~ e separate war.
ranty. If window wells have beea waterproofed I~ Rite-
Way, it will be the owners responsibility to keep th~n
lotion. This guarantee is transferable to each successive free end clean of debris.
THE GUARANTEE PROVIDED HEREIN DOES NOT COVER DAMPNESS ON
BASEMENT WALLS-IT DOES COVER AXY WATER LEAKAGE OR FLOW.
DATE
CUSTOMER
SIGNATURE%'~/~/'
.(
o ;
ARCHITECT ~v' 0ATE OF PLANS
JOB NAME
JOB LOCATION
JOB PHONE
PRE-INSTALLATION CONDITION OF BASEMENT AREA
f-] WALLS: ~:~(~k I-I Poured I-I Paneled O WIN00W WELLS: (Specify location of damaged
O Sheet Rock [~ Painted
Damages: (Specify No.. E., So.. W.)
D BASEMENT '~ATHRODM:
n FLOORS: ~ncrete i-JTIled ['1Painted [-1Carpeted
Dam.ge,' (~ ,~,, ~ ,/'Yrl Z'/fi'r* ~'/~'-~ ·, ^ -~ n REQUIREMENTS: nwi .... ~h & Stucco
This proposal {I,e., contract} entalla the following activities to be pedormad by Rite. Way Waterproofing, Inc.
II installation of the Rite. Way waterproofing syslarn in the residence Iocaled al the above address.
2{ Thie will be a complete waterproofing sysje['~_[ncompaesing the e~e perimelel of the basement unless otherwise limited.
specilicalty delailed in 3) below. Total ~eal leal. / /~ ,
;~' 31 In li.u of a complete lyslem only Ihl folluwing steal ate Io
~ ~ =outhWall C~ lt.
The ownerlsJ acknowledge{si that I/we was/were orally informed of my/our right to cancel this agreement as required by law and that f/we
have been turnished with an exact copy of this contract. You, the buyer, may cancel this purchase at any time prior to midnlghl of the lhi~d
business day after the date o! this purchase. See attached notice of cancellation form lot an explanation of this right. Receipt of two copies
of notice et cancellation is hereby acknowledged by owner{si.
Owner agrees that in event of cancellation beyond three business days of this contract date. owner shall pay on demand twenty-live [25%1
per cent of the contract price es its stipulated damages for the breach.
The seller has a right to a second mortgage on the real property being improved or to a securely interest on personal property if involved
in Ibis transaction. Il no security is taken, seller is entitled to lien rights Io the property of 1he Buyer as above described on which labor
end malarial is lurnished.
~d)a.,,~r-0pppa hereby'to furnish material ~nd labor - complete in_accordance with above sp~ecifications, for the sum of:
,.v..~, ,o ~. --?.,~,,~ ' ~ ..... ,/5-
- ~ ' ~ ~ lc~ ,
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
'June 11, 1984
Present were: Chairman Frank Weiland; Commissioners Liz Jensen, George Kinzer,
Wil'liam'Meyer, Geoff Michael and Michael Yargo; Council Representative Pinky
Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan
Bertrand'and Secretary Marjor:ie Stutsman. Commissioner Robert Byrnes was absent
and excused. Also absent was Thoma.s Reese.
Also present were the following.interested persons: James Rafferty, Steven E.
Amick, Glen Hill, Gregory~D. Gustafson, Herbert Wolner, Howard Hagedorn, Keith
Kullberg, Dale. Pixler, Steven.and Jacquely~'Spencer, Gloria Yule, LeRoy and Nancy
Poetz, Gary Sha.leen, Richard Sufficool, Keith and Kathy Putt, Rock [indlan, Jay
Gy!len and Dennis Geffre. ~'
The Chairman welcomed those persons in attendance.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commi~ss[on'meeting of. May~14, 1984 were presented
for consideration.. J~nsen moved and Meyer.seconded a motion to approve the minutes
Es presented. The. vote was unanimously in favor. The minutes of the Special
Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on May TS, 1984
were also included for the Commission's information.
BOARD OF APPEALS'
1.. Case No. 84-'327~ Sign on Bartlett Boulevard forWestonka Auto'Body, 4839
Shoreline Boulevard; Lots 5,18, 19 and part of 15, 16 & 17, Block l, Shirley
e
The Building Official explained that the'.handout tonight was on the results
of the City Council on.the Westonka Auto.Body sign variance on Shoreline and
their referring.the sign request for Bartlett back to the Planning Commission.
HoWever, Brad Patterson has not submitted any plans or drawings for the sign
yet.
Cases 84-328 & 329 Lot-split Subdivision and Lot Wi~dth Variance
Lots 2, 3, 34 & 35, Block 15, Arden
James.Rafferty was present..
The Building Official explained that the Planning commission had denied the
former, request because they didn't want 20 fgot lot width on the road or on
the commons and that ~she 'had talked with Mr. Rafferty and Fred Kellogg and she
believed they were going to come up with a.new proposal.
Mr. Rafferty explained the reason for his proposal was to give the existing
house more sideyard to the property line; door is 2 feet from present prop-
erty line. And also to give opportunity to build a wider home on the pro-
posed wider lot--feels it would give nicer home and generate more taxes for
the City. City Code requires 40 foot lot width minimum in this zoning dis-
trict. The City Manager explained the idea of the Planning Commission is
to bring parcels into conformance. Location of house is not in conformance
and house could be moved; this lot split would create 2 nonconforming lots.
Rafferty presented 2 alternative proposals. "B'~ was to be to go with a 36
and 44 foot lot width on the street.front and the reverse on the Commons
(10% of conforming width). "C'" was a compromise between "A" and
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 1984 - Page 2
Mr..Rafferty'would li~ke to go with proposal "C" as his second choice.
Michael not comfortable with a 30 foot street front width and Meyer agreed.
Vargo moved to approve the lot split of this property allowing 36 feet and
44 feet on t~e front portion of the lot and the opposite on the lake portion.
.(Exhibit "B" as corrected)..The motion was seconded by Weiland.
The motion was discussed. Michael didn't see a hardship. Vargo stated the
inappropriateness goes back to when they made a lot 40 feet wide and 200 feet
deep; seems reasonable to add'an amount to existing lot so he could paint
house without being on neighbor's property, Building Official advised these
are 4 separate tax parcels. Jensen stated, not correcting a whole lot by
splitting a conforming lo, t; house could be moved.
The vote on .t.he motion was all in favor of denying the request.
,·
Case No. 84-331 Public Hearing for Conditional Use for'a gas station-
convenience store for Superamerlca Stations, ~lnc,, 5377 Shoreline Boulevard
Metes & Bounds Desc., Block 4, Shirley Hills Unit F
Planner Mark Koegler noted that somet·ime ago the Superamerica proposal was
before the Planning Commission and Council for a change in the zoning and at
that:time, the City Council approved an amendment to the B-1 provisiods of
the ordinance permitting'motor fuel stations and motor fuel station con-
venience store as a conditional'use. Then he. touched on the two basic under-
lying problems with the site;.1) possible hazardous.waste mat.erial on site
(written analysis portion of.study not.in yet) and 2) area proposed is part
of a general re-development proposal that has been kicked around that was
formulated by Kraus Anderson.· To date, there is no written agreement or
plans with Kraus Anderson. The Supecamerica 'proposal is for a'1900 square.
· foot station store to be located·where the Metro Station is now. Koegler
reviewed the Staff report a~d recommendations.
The C.hairman opened the meeting to any questions from the Commission. Vargo
qqest.loned object of bumper fence. Discussed that it was perhaps to stop
rolling cars or headlights of cars. Also discussed was possible gas spills
in this location as it·is adjacent to t.he.Wetlands. Planner stated this
plan or any other would have to.go.before the Wat.ershed District. Jensen
would like to see how headlights might impact on traffic on Shoreline and
also questioned parking requirements.
Greg Gustafson, Attorney for Superamerica, stated that he and the two other
men from Superamerica were glad to answer any questions. As for signage,
they will work with the Staff. He stated that City may want the main sign
higher than 15 feet because from experience, they noted a lower sign can be
a traffic h'azard. Main issue seems to be parking. There would be 12 stalls
for the gas pumps and the other 7 proposed would make a total of 19. They
stated they don't have parking for their stations in excess of what they
have found to be adequate/but that Superamerica doesn't gain by not having
adequate parking. To Meyer's question on whether the 18 inch fence would
define area and make it look more concise, they stated Superamerica prefers
to use landscaping rather than a fence.
Riannin§ Commission Minutes'
June 11, 1984 - Page 3
Other comments: Herb' Wolner stated he developed this property in the early
5O's and. would like to see the new investments and City improvements and the
increase in the tax base. Also stated he is opposed to unreasonable delay
or.anything too technical so they couldn't comply with requirements of the
City.
City Manager stated this is classic Planning Case case of "do we take the
short term easy. way out (which is the gas station) and lose 5 million big
'out in the long term in 1985 or 19867'1, It is a case the Council will have
to deal with, not the Planning Commission, and Superamerica is well aware of
this. From a Planning standpoint, this is worst location for a gas station;
it really impacts on the potential use of iand on either side of the station.
Station should have been built at Cypress and 15. Choices the Council has
probably are to approve or not approve; risk to not approve is that the big
development you looked at last year won't happen or that the City will be
faced with buying the property. Vargo thought there are other properties
that are better sites for this operation.
Wolner stated that the oplnio~ in the beginning was that the area was not
subject to development at all; nothing but swamp.and the lost lake and he
came in with the idea that We should improve the property. He went to the
Catholic .Church and~they deeded over the property to the City for public
purposes with the intention that the City would not use other.real estate
for their'City development and with the idea, we would have City Offices
down. there, the Fire Department down there and boat dockage for people in
the outlying area to get ~o Lake Minnetonka as there wasn't, much access at
that. time. We've the station there.and We've had a car wash there and other
development. The Planning Commission should approve this station as this is
the highest'and best use we have right now.
Kinzer stated he hate to see. short time gain; like to see station on a site
at another location. Commission discussed that site doesn't meet minimum
lot size.
· Michael moved and Vargo seconded a motion to deny the request.
Discussion followed that there is a scheme for future development of area;
whether gas station should be there or something else; whether or not the
current use permit for. site has expired; could be redeveloped at a later
date--however, that would be very expensive. Present Superamerica Station
is terrible traffic hazard. Proposed site only one in town going through
throes of future development. Vargo doesn't think Superamerica Station is
the highest and best use of this land
The vote was ~ensen and Weiland opposed to the denial; Kinzer, VaPgo,
Charon and Michael in favor of the denial with Meyer abstaining. Motion
carries.
Ci-ty Council to set the public hearing date at their June 12, 1984 meeting.
Case No. 84-332 14 Foot Front Yard Variance on vacant lot east of 1736
Shorewood Lane - Lot 21 as described on survey, Block 4, Shadywood Point
Howard Hagedorn, Keith Kullberg and Dale Pixler were present.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 1984 - Page 4
The Building Official.explained that Sunrise Landing is an unimproved public
ri~ght-of-w~y and because this lot is on this right-of-way and also on Shore-
wood Lane and in the R-2 Zoning District, two 20 foot front yard setbacks are
required.' The applicant is requesting a 14 foot front yard variance so he can
construct a dwelling and a detached garage building within 6 'feet of Sunrise
Landing. The lot width at th~ proposed building line for the house is approxi-
mately 53 feet. The bay window and fireplace are ornamental.features which are
allowed in the side yard provided they do not extend more than two feet into
'a yard. Garage doors would open to the. north. Sunrise Landing is'used for
'boats mainly from the neighborhood. Due to the lakeshore setback of 50 feet
and the street front setback, ~there is approximately 38 feet in which to put
structure. Because of the topography 'of the site, the detached garage would
be placed higher on.the lot than the dwelling. Pixler stated that these struc-
tures have been designed to fit the lot and make the best use of the site.
Charon moved and Michael.seconded a motion to approve the 14 foot front yard
variance as requested.~ The vote was unanimously in favor.
Jensen commented that this is a.recently subdivided lot and that we should look
divisions to see if we are creating buildable lots.
This will be on City Council agenda June 26,'1984.
o
Case No. 84-333 2 Foot Front Yard Variance for 3017 Longfellow Lane
Lot.3~ Block 8, The Hi§hlands
Steven and Jacquelyn Spencer were present.
The Building Offic. ial exp.lained that Mr. Spencer is proposing to cut into
the hill and is requesting to' construct a garage to within 2 feet of the
south property'line. This i.s a thru lot.which fronts on Longfellow Lane
and go through to Cherrywood. The driveway approach is on a curved corner;
by bui.lding into the hill, it would give him a better approach to the 26 by
26 foot block garage he 'is proposing. He would need' a one hour fire rated
wall which the block constructiOn~would accomplish. Garage is for 2 cars
and a trailer.: Discussed that garage can be built within the setbacks and
get plenty of garage space..
Vargo moved and Jensen seconded a motion to deny the request as no hard-
ship. All in favor of the denial.
This will be on the City Council agenda June 26, 1984.
Case No. 84-334 Western Tree Service re use of vacant lot south of 2544
Commerce. This'application was withdrawn as they are moving from this
location. They have requested a refund of the fee.
Jensen moved and Vargo seconded a motion to recommend refund of fee.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be on the City Council agenda June 12, 1984.
Case No. 84-335 5 FQot Front Yard Variance for 1620 Eagle Lane
Lots 6 & 19, N. ½ of Lot 18, Block 11, Woodland Point
LeRoy and Nancy Poetz were present.
Planning Commission Minutes
dune ~11, 1984 - Page 5
The Building. Official explained that applicants have an existing home on
this site and would like to take that.home down and replace with a new struc-
ture plus an attached tuck under garage. The house to the north has a 30
foot setback and one to south is pretty much in line with their existing
home. Section 23.408(6) allows the front setback to be averaged with the
adjoining structures, but his doesn't come quite up to that. Request is
for a 5 foot front yard variance, the same as their present house setback.
Michael moved and Meyer seconded a motion to approve the request for a
'.5 foot front yard variance. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This wilt be on the City Council agenda June 26., 1984.
Case No. 84-336 3 Foot Front.Yard S~tback Variance for 1687 Eagle Lane
Lots lO & 11~ Block 3, Dreamwood
Gary Shaleen was present.
The Building Official explained [equest ~s to construct a 10 by 12 foot deck
on the south side of~ a newly constructed home within 21 feet to the south
property line.'
Charon moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the 3 foot front
yard setback variance for construction~of a 10 by 12 foot deck upon the
condition that it not be enclosed without additional variance approval.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
This item will be on the City Council agenda June 12, 1984.
Case No. 84-337 Floodplain .Variance, 4.7 Existing Sideyard Variance & Lake-
side Variance for 2072 Shorewood Lane
Lots 13 & 14, Block~l, Shadywood Point
Richard Sufficool was present.
The Building Official explained that Mr. Sufficool Would like to construct
a screened in porch 12 x 22 feet on~the.S.E, corner of his house. The parcel
has a 25.foot access from Shorewood Drive to the property (Code requires 60
feet); existing accessory building is 3.1+ to the property line (Code requires
4 feet); dwelling has a~set'back to the lak--e of 39 + feet and a side yard set-
back of.5.3 feet (Code requires 50 feet and 10 feet--respectively); dwelling's
first floor is 1 2 feet below the requ'ired minimum flood plain elevation and
the elevation'of the.proposed addiction is .5 to .7 lower. The proposed addi-
tion would be designed by a registered structural and a Minnehaha Creek
Watershed permit would be necessary to be obtained before building permit
approval..
Discussed at length and that Lot 14 is not a building lot.
Vargo moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the variances requested
with the Staff's recommendations including that the screen porch not be
enclosed. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
This item will be on the City Council agenda June 26, 1984.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 1984 - Page 6
10.
Case No. 84-.338 Temporary Sign Permits for Various Locations for A1 &
Alma's Restaurant at 5201 Piper Road, Lots 1 & 2, Block 8, Whipple
No one was present regarding this request.
The Building Official stated that the.requested signs are of a legal
size and are being mounted with Lakewind's signs. The City Manager will
approve the sign and a refund'of the fee made.
11.
Case No. 84-339 Conditional Use Permit Request for Tanning Studio at 2347
Commerce Boulevard, Metes and Bounds Description, Auditor's Subd. 167
Keith and Kathy Putt were present; also Rock Lindlan was present.
The City Manager explained that the first'time a tanning studio came along
was in March of 1983 when the one by the Legion came in; since then they
have become recognized as a standard norm rather than some exotic kind of use.
Not much difference'between them and a beauty shop treatment. Rock Lindlan
pointed out that commercial recreation designation given tanning studio's
was inappropriate zoning definition for tanning studi°. The City Manager
stated that if the Planning Commission defined this business as a beauty
shop type of use, a conditional use permit would not be required and they
not have to go through 'the process.
The Planning Commission looked at the definition for commercial recreation
and also at the permitted uses within the B-1 District. Discussed the
use and decided that due to the nature and the layout of the tanning studio,
it was similar to a beauty shop and if weight rooms, exercise rooms, etc.
would change the use and require a conditional use.
Charon moved and Jensen seconded a motion to consi.der this a permitted
use within the B-1 District and approve under "beauty sh0ps'l. The vote
was unanimously in favor.
Council action not.required on this item.. City Manager advised that the
fee paid for the conditional use could be applied on the building permit fee.
DISCUSSION
Discussed briefly Westonka Auto.Body's request for a sign on Bartlett and that he
is probably back at drawing board designing a sign.
Also discussed that Babler has.painted a sign on his building which is in violation
of the sign ordinance.
Chairman Weiland reported he received a letter from Mueller Drug asking Commission
to guarantee him space in the proposed development next to the Mound Medical Clinic.
Discussed that the Commission does not have any jurisdiction on something like this.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:55 P.M., a motion was made to adjourn the meeting.
was adjourned.
All in favor, so meeting
Attest:
Frank Wei!and, Chairn-,an
June 15,1984
CITY of MOUND
534t MAYWOOD ROAD
f,!OUND, f,,,;INNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Enclosed is the latest from the Insurance Company on our Workmans
Compensation Rate and a list of claims.
The best news is that between 1982 and 1984 we have reduced our
Workmans Compensation Modification Rate from t27 to 107. This
is important because it is an a determiner of rates, i.e. you
set the rate for the classification and multiply it by the Mod
Rate as they call it. Thus we are making real progress.
1985's rate, assuming no major calamities, promises to be below
1OO (est. 92-95).
The management of our Insurance efforts is really an important
one especially in light of the fact that this year we saved
$45,000.00 dollars over what we had budgeted.
JE:bam
eric.
UJ
IAI
/7,
2
N
· J U U
~J
X ~
o,~
'13 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ o
~ 0 '-
~~ ~ 8~~ ~ 88~'- < o~8~°~= o '==~ -- *
~g u~
o ~ ~0 Z~ ~
-: ~ ~ ~ ~
I
~ . [1~ D NN
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
DOCK PROGRAM UPDATE
June 14, 1984
As of June 13, 1984, 347 sites have been checked with the following
results. 192 were okay and tags were applied to the docks. 42 needed
some repairs and letters were sent explaining what needed to be done before
tags were issued. !13 sites did not have docks in place as yet. 22 owed
an additional fee for "L", "U" or "T" docks. There are approximately 60
left to inspect before all 400 will have been checked the first time
around. This will'be completed next week. Many special requests have been
answered by phone as well as staking Out sites for those requesting this.
The follow-up visits to all areas will probably begin during the last week
in June. Checks to see that registered boats only are at the proper docks
will follow that.
The cooperation and response to this year's program is good. A few
problem areas that have all been solved at this date.
Respectively,
Dell Rudolph
Dock Inspector
r'.'fetropoiitan Ccuncil
300 :'.tetro Square Building
Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Paul, :,:innesota 55101
Telephone (612) 291-6359
June 15, 1984
TO: Hennepin County Local Officials
I have been recently named a member of the Board of Directors of Clean Sites,
Inc., a national hazardous waste clean up program. The first meeting of this
board is on June 29 and thus I will have to reschedule the regional meeting
planned for that date. The regional meeting will be held on J~l~_~2~7_3t the
same location, the Copper Kettle Restaurant, 225 Central Avenue, Osseo. Again,
it will be a dutch treat breakfast at 7:30 a.m.
I'm sorry if this causes you any inconvenience. If you have any questions,
please call Bill Lester at 291-6630. Please R.S.V.P. Rosemarie Johnson at
291-6461.
Sincerely,
Sandra S. Gardebring
Chair
Hennepin County Legislators, Administrators/Clerks
SSG/kg
west hcnncpin human scrulces planning board
I~~ ~4101u~rn°n avenue s°uth'920-5533 st, louis park,Junemlnncs°~a 5541618, 1984
TO:
FROM:
Mayors of West Hennepin Member Municipalities
Marcy Shapiro, Executive
West Hennepin Hum'an Services Planning/Boar~/
The issue of residential care for chronically mentally ill adults has been
an important concern of the Legislature, the Hennepin County Board, the
Minneapolis City Council and some suburban City Councils in recent years.
The difficulties related to providing residential care are a combined result
of legislative changes, zoning and site location ordinances, Department
of Human Services rules, stigmas and myths, and the ever present shortage
of funds.
In May of this year, Hennepin County released six Requests For Proposals,
indicating an intent to establish six additional residential programs for
the mentally ill to start up by November of this year. Clear direction
has been given to potential vendors to seek locations outside of the already
impacted areas of Minqeapolis. Legislation passed in this last session
directs counties to establish a moratorium on new facilities in these areas
to relieve over-concentration, and to implement a dispersal plan that will
direct residential programs to be located in other parts of the County.
We are aware that several of these potential vendors are actively looking
for suitable sites in suburban communities. Perhaps you have already been
contacted in this regard.
The West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board and the Northwest Hennepin
Human Services Council are prepared to be of assistance to suburban City
Councils and Planning Commissions by providing information that would be
helpful in the process of working through some of the steps involved in
locating a residential facility in a suburban community.
We offer an excellent manual that covers the legal and regulatory aspects,
provides summarized information on human services rules and good information
on mental health clients and programs. At your request and convenience,
a member of our group could come to a City Council or a Planning Commission
meeting, highlight the manual and leave it with you. We could also provide
you with some information about existing programs and resources and other
information that would assist you in working with your community.
Even if you are not involved in a conditional use process right now, we
believe that the materials would be useful for the future. Because of
the new State laws and the timing of the Requests For Proposals, we would
like to meet with you within the next 60 days.
Please call me at 920-5533 to arrange for a convenient time.
cc: Planning Commission Chair
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, Mtr~NESOTA ~,~4
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Chris Bollis, Park Director
June 14, 1984
Contributions to the City through~ the Gift Catalog
The following is a list of people who have contributed to the
City through the Gift Catalog:
Kay & Jeffry Dunn $20.00 - I have contacted Kay and she
has no preference of shrub or a location. She wants us to
use our judgment in determining a spot.
Charles Howe $20.00 - I have not contacted Mr. Howe, but
his application stated unspecified shrub and location.
3. Terry Sincheff-Trees for Brookton Park - I have spoken with
Terry and will mark the locations for the trees.
Roger Laurence - Approximately 100 3" diameter trees - I
spoke with Roger; he has no preference of locations. City
will pay moving cost for the trees. He and I are going to
meet at his farm to examine the trees.
Peter Meyer (Jackie's Husband) - He has offered to do some
rewiring in the basement at the Depot to make the light
switch and plug more accessible.
6. You gave me a note about the Indianhead Players, but at the
present time I have no information on their contribution.
Chris Boll is
CB/ms
aeeociation of
metr. oj o!it.an
munlclpalll'le$
June 18, 1984
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mayors, Managers~Administrators
Vo terson, Executive Director
ANNUAL REPORT OF OPERATIONS FOR 1983-84 MEMBERSHIP YEAR
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) has just celebrated
its tenth anniversary and I am pleased to submit to you the attached
annual report of operations for 1983-84. As you will note from the report,
the financial condition remains strong and the number of member cities
stable. 1983-84 was also a good year for the organization from a Legislative
standpoint and it had major impact on the decision making process at the
Metropolitan Area level.
I would like to emphasize that the AMM Board Members and Staff welcome
your inquiries, suggestions and advice as to how we can make the A~H~ more
beneficial to you. Let us hear from you. Your participation and input
is what makes the AMM work!
VP/cw
attachment
aeeociation of
mefr. oj:)o![i~gn
munlclpallTlee
ANNUAL REPORT
OF
OPERATIONS
FOR MEmbERSHIP YEAR
1984 - 1985
Issued: June 19, 1984
AMM
ANNUAL REPORT OF OPERATIONS
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
A major purpose of the AMM is to provide representation (lobbying) for the
common interests and concerns of its member cities before the Legislature,
State Executive Branch; and State Agencies. The AMM had 103 action legislative
policies or positions for the 1983-84 legislature biennium. Over 65% of these
policy positions were completely or partially accomplished. These policies
were the product of many hours of work by the five AMM standing policy
committees (General Legislation, Housing, Metropolitan Agencies, Municipal
Revenues, and Transportation), Board of Directors, and Staff.
Eventhough the 1984 Legislative Session only lasted seven weeks, several major
items supported and lobbyed for by the AMM were passed: restoration of the
1984 LGA shortfall meaning cities will receive aids in 1984 at the certified
amount plus any reduction caused by the underfunding proration. The 1985 LGA
will be fully funded using the current formula of adjusted local revenues
base minus ten mills times the equalized assessed value. While the Legislature
did not grant every city a six percent increase for 1985 as called for by the
AMM policy, a grandfather clause was adopted so that no city will receive
less than the 1984 certified amount plus supplemental aid. A new Regional
Transit Board (RTB) as called for kn AMM policy will be created as of July 1,
1984 to replace the policy function of the current MTC and to concentrate
Metropolitan Transit concerns into one agency. Also as called for by AMM
policy, property tax feathering is mandated for taxes payable in 1986 with
funding loss to be replaced from the state general bank.
Also major amendments consistent with AMM policy to the Solid and Hazardous
Management act of 1980 were passed. In addition to establishing funding for
solid waste abatement, recycling and resource recovery type activities and
continuing funding for landfills that "go bad", cities containing landfills
can be compensated for the local risks, costs and other adverse affects that
the landfills cause such cities. The AMM was also successful in defeating
several bills which would have affected cities adversely.
Space limitation does not permit a detailed description of other items but
for a more complete analysis of the legislature activity, please see Appendex
A attached and also the "Sum~ry of Legislative Acts" mailed to AMM member
cities on May 11, 1984.
II. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND METROPOLITAN COMMISSION ACTIVITIES
A second major purpose and priority of the AMM is to advocate in a united effort
city concerns with respect to the policies, programs and activities of the
Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Commissions. The AMM was very active at
the Metropolitan level this past year and it was also a very successful year for
the AMM. The AMM led the effort to totally negate the issue of Metropolitan
Council involvement in IDR Bond selling and in the Metropolitan Council
establishing a 503 corporation. The AMM successfully initiated a delay by the
State Cable Board for designation of the Regional Channel 6 Agency to give citie
III.
IVo .
-2-
and other interested parties rmre time to compete against the Metropolitan
Council application for such designation. The AMM is continuing to act as
the lead agency in putting together alternatives.
The AM14 once again was involved in the Metropolitan Council's budget adoption
process and was responsible for getting the Council to reduce its 1984
property tax levy. While the reduction was not as large as called for by the
AMM Board, it saved the taxpayers more money than the total AMM's budget!
The AMM also played a major role in modifying the recommmndations contained
in the Metropolitan Councils Regional Services and R~venues Study so. that
the adopted recommendations were consistent with AMMBoard adopted recommendations.
Last but not least, the AMM served as the catalyst insuring that an independent
management study will be conducted mf the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
(MWCC) operations as called for by the "Boland Commission". An independent
"Advisary Committee" is being formed to supervize the study and the AMM has
three representatives on this committee. The AMM was also involved in other
items of less importance which are too numerous to detail.
With a new Chair at the Metropolitan Council and new Chairs to be appointed
soon for the MWCC and RTB, the coming year should also prove interesting. Early
signs indicate there can be better relationship between the Metropolitan Agencies
and local units of government. The A34M wi!l cooperate and coordinate with the
Metro Agencies to the maximum extent possible .... but the AMM will continue to
pursue its own agenda with vigor and forcefulness in the best'.interests of its
member cities!
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
The AMM also provides a number of support services to its member cities in
addition to its lobbying activities. The Annual AMM Levy Limit Seminar was
attended by over 100 persons and in addition to AMM member city officials,
approximately 20 LMC member cities outside of the Metropolitan Area were
represented at the Seminar. The AMM once again coordinated and managed the
Metropolitan Area Salary Survey and provided one-third of the.total funding
for this survey.
The AMM contined its financial support for the ongoing, coordinated labor
relations effort in the Twin City Metropolitan Area and also.produced the
Annual Elected Officials Salary Survey. The AMM staff continued to provide the
Secretarial/Administrative support for the Metropolitan Area Managers
Association (MAMA).
Last but not least, through its Board of Directors and Staff, the ;3~M continued
to have direct representation on several key Metropolitan Council Advisory
Committees including the Telecommunications Advisory Co~mittee, Long Term
Care Task Force, Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and the T.ec.~nical Advisory
Cormlittee (TAC) and Chairmans Advisory Committee (CAC) of Local Officials.
;~MBERSHIP AND FINANCES
The ~ ended the membership year with 66 member cities containing almost 90%
of all the people living in the 7-county metropolitan area. During its ten
years of existance, A.~M membeuship has increased from 53 rmm~er cities to the
present total of 66. As was noted in the President's Annual Report at the .~qnual
Meeting on ;fay 30th., the.'A~'s annual expenditures ~ave increased at an annual
-3-
of just over 6~ per year. ,,during its ten uear historu which is approximately 3°
per year" less than the average inflation rate increase during the same period.
It is also worth noting, that as a percentage of LMC dues, the AMM dues rate
has decreased from a high of 60~ in 1974 to 47~ for the year just ended. For
the year which began on June 1, 1984, the AMM dues rate is 46~ of the LMC's
dues schedule for each member city.
The AMM expenses for the year were $160,029 and income from all sources totaled
$168,966 for a net gain of $8,937. (see Appendix B for more detailed budget
and financial data).
1984-85 EXPECTATIONS
The AMM has just completed its tenth year of operation as was commemorated at the
Annual Meeting on May 30th. As we began year 11, there is certainly reason
for optimism but there are a number of uncertainties as well. A newly appointed
Chair (Sandra Gardebring) has just been installed at the Metropolitan Council
and a new chair has just been named for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
{MWCC) Members will soon be appointed to the newly created Regional Transit
Board (RTB) which will take over most of the present functions of the MTC. The
AMM must continue to be active and alert to protect member cities interests at
the Metropolitan Akea.
The next few months will also be crucial as cities and city organizations attempt
to achieve an internal consensus with respect to the formula for distributing
state municipal aids. The AMM's Municipal Revenues Committee has this item as
its highest priority for this fall's committee work program. In spite of good
intentions and a strong committment to meet this issue "head-on", a consensus
position will not be easy.
What does this all mean for the future? While there are some uncertainties and
probably difficult challenges ahead, the AMMis well positioned to respond to
these uncertainties and challenges. As newly elected Ai4M President, Ron Backes said
at the Annual Meetting. "Your help is needed. The AMM is not just my
organization nor is it just your organization. The AMM is our organization!
APPENDEX B
SECTION I
PERSONNEL
Salaries
PERA
Health Insurance
Social Security
Life Insurance
1983-84
ACTUAL*
$101,420
5,578
3,380
6,187
585
$117,150
1983-84
BUDGET
$101,800
5,600
4,500
6,200
6OO
$118,700
1984-85
BUDGET
$111,850
5,000
4,220
6,900
7O5
$128,675
OPERATIONS
Conferences & Travel
Rent
Telephone
Postage
Equipment
LMC Services
Office Supplies
Miscellaneous
Audit
$ 4,962
6,064
2,178
2,329
315
4,283
536
880
610
$ 22,157
$ 6,000
6,200
2,500
2,300
5OO
4,600
1,200
1,000
625
$ 24,925
$ 6,000
6,500
2,500
2,500
400
4,600
1,200
1,300
650
$ 25,650
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Salary Survey
Labor Relations
Newsletter
Con~nittee Support
$ 14,639
3,270
1,363
1,450
$ 20,722
$ 14,600
3,270
2,400
1,200
$ 21,470
$ 15,700
3,270
2,100
1,400
$ 22,470
$160,029
$165,095
$176,795
*Pre-Audit Figures
SECTION II
SECTION III
APPENDEX B
FUND BALANCE STATEMENT
(Pre-Audit)
1983-84 Membership Year
Beginning Year Fund Balance
Dues Income
Interest and Miscellaneous Income
$ 61,268
155,434
13,582
Expenses
Year Ending Fund Balance
Net Gain (.Loss)
STATEMENT OF PROJECTED INCOME, EXPENSES AND FUND BAL~CE
1984-85 Membership Year
Beginning Year Fund Balance $ 70,205
Projected Dues Income 160,000
Projected Interest and Miscellaneous Income 10,000
Projected Total Available Funds
Budgeted Expense
Projected Year Ending Fund Balance
$230,234
160,029
$ 70,205
$ 8,937
$240,205
176,795
$ 63,410
? ? ?
WESTONKA COMMUNITY SERVICES
5600 Lynwood Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
June 18, 1984
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Mayor~
City Councils
City Administrators
Don Ulrick, Westonka Communit~ ServiG~
Doc Meier, Nestonka Seniors , /Inc.
Ben Withart, Suburban Community Services
SIX MONTHS FUNDING OF WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER, JULY THRU
DECEMBER 1985
This communication is an initial step in involving the cities of our area
in the funding for the Westonka Senior Center staff.
The existing funding will not be available after June 30, 1985. Funding
thru the Metro Council Program on Aging is limited to three years.
The cities will not be the sole resource that fund the Senior Center, rather
you will be the one of nine entities involved. It appears that you will be
collectively asked to fund about 8% of the needs for the 1984-85 fiscal
year. Subsequent years are difficult to forecast, but ai)pear to amount to
15-20% of the total. The writers of this communication are working together
to prepare a budget that will illustrate the amounts provided~y all the
partners in the center. We will.have it prepared and ready to present during
your budget deliberations for the calendar year 1985.
We request'that your administrator or some representative of your city indicate
when we could meet with you to present the budget document and answer questions
relating to the Westonka Senior Center. It would be best if you could ca!!
either Don Ulrick 472-1600, ext. 240, or Cathy Bailey 472-1600, ext. 2q7 to
discuss a meeting date.
There is a marvelous story to tell about the involvement of hundreds of Seniors
and the benefit to them and their life style during their retirement years.
will make you feel good as you move toward retirement age.
Thank you for your time.
WASHINGTON. ID.C. 20510
May 31, 1984
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Dear Jon:
Because of your interest in some issues that are being
considered in Washington, I thought I would send you an update on
their status.
Like you, I strongly oppose the proposed limitation on the
use of industrial development bonds and the current volume cap
limitation in the House bill ($150 per person per state). The
Senate's tax bill doesn't contain a cap provision so we won't be
voting on it directly. I will, however, do everything I can to
support efforts to prevent the cap in the final legislation.
In 1981 Congress made some changes in the sewer construction
grant program. At the urging of the Administration, which
originally proposed to terminate the program, the federal cost
share was reduced to 55 percent and the program has been funded
since 1981 at $2.4 billion annually. No changes are expected in
the program until next year when it comes up for reauthorization.
At present, the Environment and Public Works Committee expects no
changes in the federal cost share provision, but does expect the
compliance date for municipalities (originally set for 1988) to
be once again extended.
Since a 1943 case, it has been presumed that local
governments were exempt from the antitrust laws because, state
governments were exempt. However, local government antitrust
immunity is not automatic. Two recent Supreme Court cases have
clarified that antitrust immunity for local governments must be
directly granted from the state. In other words local
governments are only immune from the antitrust laws under state
legislation that specifically exempts them.
As an example, a local government may be liable for a
violation of the federal antitrust laws if it provides a single
source of garbage collection in its town. If the statewide
policy was for all local governments to provide their own garbage
collection service, the local government would most likely be
immune from antitrust violations through the state's authority.
Home rule powers granted by the state are not sufficient. Under
current law it is necessary f.or the local government to act
pursuant to a directed state policy.
May 31, 1984
Page 2
Legislation (S. 1578) has been introduced that applies the
federal antitrust laws to local governments as they are applied
to state governments. That is, the antitrust laws would not
apply to local governments in their exercise of regulatory power
(i.e. zoning, licensing, franchising, etc.) but would apply to
any transactions such as the sale of goods or services by the
local government in competition with the private sector.
I support S. 1578 and recently became a cosponsor because
local governments should be given the same antitrust protections
as state governments. As long as local governments are complying
with state law they should be provided similar immunity.
You may have heard that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
filed an antitrust suit against the City of Minneapolis to
contest its regulation of taxicabs. This ac.g~.on furthers the
controversy over legislation to exempt ci×t~es ~,~d other local
governments from antitrust suits. I ha¥~ written Senator Laxalt
(R-Nevada), Chairman of the Appropriati/~ns Subco~nmittee on
Commerce and Justice, and requested h~n to withh~ld the funds
from the FTC so it cannot initiate si~hilar legal/ actions until
Congress can fully consider S. 1578./
I hope this answers some of th questions 'on these issues
that directly affect local governm~ntqs. Pleas/e let me know if I
can be of further assistance or provide add~/t/~onal information.
/
S in c/ere l~y.~
schwitz
yUnite~ States Senator
RB/bd
PUBLIC SERVICES
ESIGN PROJECT
Humphrey Institute
University of Minnesota
909 Social Sciences
267 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
(612) 376-9855
Ted Kolderie
Project Director
Jody Hauer
Associate
/ERNATE ROUTES TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION: PART II
~ ~%--' Mign~sota is now well into a year of intensive debate and
~iscussion~about the future of its system of education;
especially, public education. The goal is not really at issue:
a really excellent education for every child. What is at issue
-- and therefore is the issue -- is how we reach that goal. What
strategy . . what approach to school improvement . . . will
produce the c~nsiderable effort that this quality of teaching and
learning will require?
Broadly, two quite different possible answers are visible in
the current discussion. One, discussed in the first of these
memos, accepts as 'given' the present system of public education
and argues essentially for 'more'. It emphasizes money and
mandates. The other, to which we now turn, argues essentially
for making schools and education different. It proposes a
strategy of incentives, to be created by permitting teachers and
schools to break out of what has so far been accepted as.'given'.
The essence of the difference was perfectly captured in a
conversation recently with a state legislator closely involved
with public education. He had been expressing the Legislature's
frustration with the system's failure to move, in response to
"if they don't do
" he said,
legislative direction. "This time,
it we'll. " And he stopped. Someone else said: "You know,
there are r~aily two ways to finish that sentence. One is to
say, '. . . we'll make 'em', which is what I think you were going
to say." (The leg~-~tor agreed.) "The other is to say: '. . .
We'll give somebody else a chance to show what they can do'."
This memo is about that second strategy. It assumes that
people in general policy positions should not attempt to say what
is the right school, the right curriculum, the right pedagogy,
the right book, the right test. What those outside should do is
to restructure the system in a such a way as to broaden out quite
substantially the opportunities for those who are the
professionals to find and to use what really works in their
classrooms, with their students.
We hope this will be a useful contribution to a discussion
in which lay persons will be heavily involved. We are eager to
have your comments and the first
of the two memos, ask
(TK 5/84)
usY°au~dr~Cwt~S~en~
,~,. The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
The Humphrey Inst,tute fuses po!icy analysis, midcareer education for leadership, and training of younger students for roles in the policy process.
-- The Public Se,vices Redesign Project is dedicated to creating diversity and choice, access and equity in the provision arid production of public services
The Declining Discussion about Mandates
Here as elsewhere in the country the discussion about the
public schools was brought to focus in the spring of 1983 by the
release of the several national reports on education. That
discussion has so far been heavily influenced by their policy
recommendations. These run generally in the direction of what we
referred to in our earlier memo as the 'command' model.
To see clearly what is happening in the discussion it is
important to understand where this so-called 'excellence
movement' came from, what it seeks, and what has happened to it
in Minnesota.
Chester Finn of Vanderbilt University described it at a
conference in Minneapolis in April.
* 'Excellence', he said, is the movement's rallying-cry and
higher standards are its central precept. Its dynamics come from
the gap between the American public's fervent belief, still, in
the importance of education, and the public's dissatisfaction
with the quality of that educational process as it really is.
* The movement is broad, and decentralized. The federal
government had almost nothing to do with it. It is led by
business people, citizen activists and elected officials --
especially governors; for the first time in American history, in
the South. It is, curiously but essentially, an effort to impose
on this public system the devices of public regulation to which
governors and legislatures have traditionally turned when
dissatisfied with the performance of industries or systems in
private ownership.
* The movement clashes with the 'education industry' (as
other regulatory efforts have clashed with other industries).
The profession, Finn emphasizes, did not initiate the 'excellence
movement', is not leading it, and opposes much of it. Unlike the
profession, he says, he~vement is interested in what comes out
o~ education; not what goes into it. The movement is in conflict
with the pro~ession also over (a) its emphasis on outcomes rather
than inputs as a measure of quality; (b) its desire to mandate a
uniform curriculum; (c) its emphasis on standards and its
tolerance for the possibility of student failure; (d) its
insistence that teachers and schools should be held accountable
for student learning; and (e) the relatively low priority it
assigns to greater expenditures.
Finn went on to raise a series of basic questions about this
movement. These would be important questions to debate . . .
except that they appear to be no longer really live.
As of Spring 1984, after the legislative session and the
school year and another round of bargaining, Minnesota seems to
have come to its decision about this 'regulatory' approach; which
is that this state will not move along that route.
2
Looking at what has been proposed and considered, done and
not done, in the year since the national reports began to appear,
an analysis in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune April 23 summed
up the de-facto decision this way: Increase teacher pay? Yes;
more than inflation, but less than the major jump recommended by
some of the reports. Introduce merit pay? No. Raise graduation
requirements? No. Raise college admission requirements? Not
much. Require more homework? No. Lengthen the school year? No
(though some groundwork was laid for a summer program).
Introduce competency tests? Perhaps; but without standards, so
that nobody 'fails'.
If this is correct it represents an astonishing turn of
events. It means that both the the conventional 'solution' (more
money) and the 'reform' solution (more mandates) are no longer
up front in the discussion.
This does not mean Minnesota has decided against excellence.
It simply means this state will now look at other routes to that
goal, which may be more appropriate and more effective.
The Growing Discussion about 'Alternative Delivery Systems'
What is coming to the fore'instead, looking toward the 1985
legislative session, is the question of basic changes in the way
teaching and learning are organized and financed. 'Alternative
delivery systems' is a major focus of attention . . . in the
State Department of Education, in some of the non-governmental
policy studies, and in the work of the Legislative Commission on
Public Education which will be a major forum for the policy
discussion over the next eight months.
(This is a useful concept; and an unfortunate term --
suggesting as it does that education or learning is somehow
'delivered' from teachers, or from the system, to the kids.
David Seeley likes to make people think about the question by
saying, "The kids are not the product. Learning is the product.
The kids are the workers. The teachers are not the workers. The
teachers are the managers. If you want to use the 'factory'
analogy, at least get it right!" So we will talk instead about
alternative 'ways of organizing teaching and learning'.)
A discussion about new ways of organizing teaching and
learning will be a real challenge. Almost everyone's impulse is
simply to make the system improve. It is hard to think more
strategically about making the system want to improve.
True, changes and improvements can sometimes be forced into
a system despite its resistance . . . as desegregation and equal-
access policies and collective bargaining were forced into the
schools by the legislatures and by the courts. But it is hard.
Change is easier if the system itself wants changes
and improvements, in its own interest. And that is precisely the
object of an effort to restructure the way education is organized
and financed: to open up the desire and the opportunity for the
system to seek and to accept improvements.
There have always been and there remain administrators and
teachers dedicated to excellence. The problem is with the
system, which depends heavily on that reserve of teacher-altruism
and which depletes that reserve over time by offering so little
reward for superior performance and by imposing so little penalty
for inferior performance.
Excellence is hard work. The present system presently has
little reason to seek the painful changes this will involve, or
to accept them when proposed by others. There is little
incentive to do so in a system in which it is 'given' that
children will be required to enroll; that pupils will be assigned
to schools, and that revenues will be appropriated to districts
based on costs. The system will not fail if it fails to change.
So its tendency is to resist improvements -- unless these are
accompanied by money to finance them. To the public the message
is that excellence is an option available at extra cost.
An imperative for excellence ought to be built into the
system, so that those in it are continually -- in their own
interest -- looking for ways to improve even if this involves
some difficult change and even if it must be done without much in
the way of additional resources.
In thinking about how this imperative might be introduced
it is useful to review again the essential 'givens' of the
present system:
* The Legislature is increasingly (as PSRP uses the term)
the provider of education; responsible constitutionally for
seeing that the children of Minnesota receive an education, and
responsible increasingly for financing it. It is possible there
will be a proposal in 1984 for the elimination of the local
property tax as a source of revenue for public education.
* The state depends on an array of local public school
districts to 'furnish' (as the law says) the education it is
committed to provide. There are non-public schools, but the
Legislature will not on principle put its financing directly into
these. So it is locked into trying somehow to 'make' the local
districts do what it wants done.
* Most families use this public school system. Legally they
are free to use a non-public school. But they are then required
to pay for the education privately. So -- except for certain
upper-income families and those motivated strongly enough to make
an unusual financial commitment -- most (about 88 per cent) use
the public school.
* The public school districts are, in turn, producers of
their own school services: designers, builders and operators of
their own facilities and programs. Teachers and principals are
salaried employees who work for the district administration, in
the school and in the classroom. It is a symbiotic relationship.
Look, now, at this existing system in terms of the two
different routes to school improvement being considered in the
discussion about education policy in Minnesota.
The 'mandates' approach accepts as 'given' this present
hierarchical system in which all parties are locked into each
other, and assumes that improvement must be driven by direction
from the top. In this 'command' model action begins in the
political and administrative superstructure; and orders are
issued to schools and to classrooms. Not far below the surface,
too, in much of the discussion about this route to school
improvement, is the sense that teachers are the problem; and that
the object of action now must be somehow to 'make 'em' perform.
The 'restructuring' approach would permit the various
parties to disengage themselves in one way or another from the
'gridlock' of the present system. This approach builds on -- as
Chester Finn put it -- the premier finding of recent research;
that unusually effective schools are those in which the building-
level administrators and the teachers have a high level of
responsibility to decide for themselves how their school will
run. Implicit in this approach is the view that teachers have.
the problem . 'the problem' being the directives and the
pressures for ~niformity that inhibit initiative in the school or
(if no initiative arises in the school) in the classroom.
It is the disengagement involved in the second approach that
creates the opportunity for improvement. It is that opportunity
that creates the incentive for improvement -- when accompanied by
an accountability which says essentially that in a case of non-
performance, "We will give somebody else a chance to show what
they can do".
There would seem to be two principal ways in which this
'disengagement' could proceed.
1. Change the Relationship between Families and Districts
Parents and their children might be able to choose their
school or school organization rather than be assigned to it. And
might be free to leave if dissatisfied, and move to another (ie.,
to "give someone else a chance to show what they can do").
Open enrollment -- One way to do this is simply to expand
the opportunity to move among the public schools.
This would need to go beyond the open-enrollment programs
that exist today. In these choice is limited to the schools run
by a particular school district. So the differences among
'alternative' schools are the differences that the sponsoring
district and its board decide to create. (A school is typically
not permitted to decide for itself what it wants to be, and how
it will be different from the other schools in the district.)
Accountability is therefore limited. The successful school
probably will not grow, and the less-chosen school probably will
not fail. The board and a~ninistration can manage the situation
in such a way that the net effect of a strong parent demand for a
particular 'alternative' school is simply for the waiting list to
grow ever-longer at that school. Whatever happens, so long as
choice is only among its own schools, the district cannot fail.
Accountability would be increased considerably if families
could move among different public school districts.
This will be a new idea to many people. 'The assumption
usually is that if you are dissatisfied with the schools in your
own district, and are unable or unwilling to change your place of
residence, the only alternative is to enroll your child in a
non-public school.
Not so. It is possible to approach some other public school
district and to enroll your child there. If you are dissatisfied
with the district in which you live, and prefer to remain in the
public school system, an inter-district transfer may be the
solution. The striking thing is that it is so little known.
You do not hear much about this possibility, partl~ because
districts are prohibited from competing for enrollments (a
provision of law that began, historically, in an effort to
protect the consolidations of the 1960s and '70s). But space is
likely to be available, given the declining enrollments of recent
years. A number of districts will accept non-resident kids; some
will welcome them and certain ones will quietly solicit them.
The move may not be expensive. Tuition will probably be
charged, but is likely to be lower than tuition in some private
schools. And state law permits you, in figuring your income tax,
to deduct payments for tuition to public as well as to private
schools. (Some people believe it was this feature of the law
that persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Minnesota's
tuition-tax-deduction arrangement in Mueller vs. Allen.)
It is also possible under the law for the state-aid payment
to accompany your child to the new 'receiving' district, so that
the tuition could be reduced or eliminated. This will require
the consent of your home district. Some will agree; or will
agree under certain conditions. Some require a showing of
'hardship' ("Tell me again, one former school official asked
when this ~ubject came up in a recent discussion, "the difference
between a hardship and an opportunity?") So far the public has
not challenged the system's assertion that the inter-district
transfer of the per-pupil aid is a~privilege and not a right.
in 1984 the Minnesota Legislature enacted a new inter-
district-enrollment program... Districts will apply to be
designated "Schools of Excellence". Students may apply to
attend, and 100 a year will be permitted to leave their present
district to do so. (The program is designed so that the
receiving district in which the student enrolls and the home
district which the student leaves both will receive state aid.)
Enrollment in non-public schools -- This would further
encourage distri~-~s and schools to compete for students by
offering 'excellence', by making it possible for state aid to
follow a family's decision to enroll a child in a school not run
by a local public school district.
This idea for expanding the choice and competition among
schools is now active in the discussion in Minnesota,
particularly as a result of the bill offered by state Rep. John
Brandl. It would permit the family to use a non-public school,
with the state paying as it would if the child were in a public
school. What is new and unusual is the author's proposal to have
the arrangement 'closed' on the user side; limited to families of
$15,000 income and below.
Because the state's promise-to-pay would be good in any
school, Brandl's proposal would also implement (for the eligible
students) a program of choice among public school districts as
well. It does include an accountability feature: It would not
'hold harmless' (in terms of the state-aid payment) the district
which the child chose to leave.
2. Change the Relationship Between Districts and Schools
The competition created by open enrollment introduces the
incentives for change and for improvement essentially by creating
a market of families in which districts compete.
Another approach is to create a market of districts in which
schools compete. In this case the school board (and the person
who 'superintends' its program of instruction) would operate
essentially as buyers, focused on objectives and on outcomes;
securing the instructional services from schools (or groups of
teachers) left fairly free to decide how that job is best done.
We can think about this first from 'the buyer side'.
possibilities appear.
Three
School-site management -- This is an effort at disengagement
in which a district enters into what is in effect a contract
relationship with one of its own schools. Rep. Todd Otis of
Minneapolis was urging this approach, in the 1984 session.
The idea is that the board and superintendent would specify
general objectives about what should be taught and learned,
provide the resources and challenge the people in the school --
principal, faculty, parents and sometimes representatives of the
non-parent community -- to come up with better ideas about how
these objectives can be met. Several demonstrations of this idea
7
177
are currently under way around the Twin Cities area.
The idea is attractive. The problem is the district's
resistance to giving up uniformity and control. Boards are
nervous about differences among schools: Members frequently say
how important it is that a child who moves during the year from
one of the district's schools to another should not have to
change from one reading program, or math program, to another.
And superintendents can be uncomfortable with delegating
responsibility. (See the PSRP memo, Different Conceptions of
Deciding and Doing, spring 1983.) This is a system in which
decisions are arrived-at by 'talking it out'. Understandably,
there is a desire to minimize the controversy involved. And
nothing creates talk, and controversy, like differences. So
understandably, too, there is a desire to minimize differences.
Unions are apprehensive about the 'management' in 'site-
management', and worry about what might interfere with the
ability of ~he school board (with which they have influence) to
deal with a problem that might develop in the school for their
members. Interestingly, unions might well object less to an
arrangement that was more radical -- one that would devolve the
authority for managing the resources given to the school onto the
teachers themselves; and would make them collectively responsible
for selecting their own administration. (See the two PSRP memos,
Professionals and Administrators: Two Models of OrganizDtion;
summer 1983.)
Perhaps the central problem of site-management is that it
exists so totally at the suffrance of the board and
superintendent. The underlying legal relationship does not
change. Overnight a board or a superintendent that believes in
delegated responsibility can be replaced by one that does not,
and central authority will be reasserted.
Contracting -- A district that operates its own school might
buy certain selected courses, or instruction for certain groups
of students. Some schools do 'release' particular students, for
example, to take an advanced course at the loCal college or
university. Some districts contract for driver training. And
the Minneapolis schools contract with a group of alternative
schools on the city's south side for the education of kids who
simply have not been able to complete their high school education
in the conventional setting.
Tuitioninq-out -- A major disengagement occurs when a school
board does not run its own school at all, but buys education from
some other public school or public school district.
This practice was common in the Twin cities area early after
World War II: Brooklyn Center sent its kids into Minneapolis;
and Roseville sent its kids into St. Paul. Earlier, Minneapolis
had located Southwest High close to the west city limits in
anticipation of serving kids in Morningside and Edina.
Today this practice is found in rural Minnesota. There are
two districts that do not operate a school at all; but buy
instruction from other, nearby districts (in one case, in
wisconsin). Conversely, there are districts that sell
instruction: Ortonville, for example, has for years sold high
school to Big Stone City, SD.
A district can also be only partly operating. Minnesota law
now again permits a district to operate grades K-6 and to
tuition-out grades 7-12. Winsted, in south-central Minnesota,
for example, for years sent its upper grades to Howard Lake/
Waverly. In 1982 the neighboring district at Lester Prairie said
in effect, "Give us a chance to show what we can do". The
Winsted board decided to give parents their choice, and in the
fall of 1982 the 7th-graders went about equally to Howard Lake/
Waverly and to Lester Prairie.
This basic idea . . . of a school board which is a buyer
only . . . could be extended in several ways. Other existing
districts might be permitted to close their own, directly-
operated, schools and to buy instruction from some other, nearby,
public school district. Or, an area now a part of a larger
school district might be permitted to de-consolidate; not in
order to run its own small school but to tuition-out the
students, in a way that would give its citizens or school board
more control over the education their children will receive.
It is also useful to think about the disengagement from 'the
seller side', where again there are several possibilities.
An existing local public school district -- As noted,
Ortonville sells ~h school to a town in South Dakota.
Minneapolis has for years sold the exemplary services of its
Michael Dowling school for crippled children to other districts
in the Twin Cities area. If the 1983 amendment had gone into
effect a year or two earlier, either Minneapolis or Robbinsdale
or St. Louis Park or Hopkins might today be selling high school
to Golden Valley, which could then have remained as a district.
An existing public school -- A fully site-managed school,
transformed from simply a building into a legal entity, run by
its teachers and equipped with a full management capability,
might contract not only with its own but also with some nearby
district. Saint Paul seems to have an exemplary program in its
Webster elementary magnet school. If this school were on a site-
management arrangement it might conceivably 'clone' itself and
run a similar program for, say, Minneapolis.
The intermediate district -- In recent years new
educat--~nal institutions have appeared between the local districts
and the state. One set of these (owned by the local districts in
rural Minnesota; organized as independent districts in the Twin
cities area) handles special education and (if desired) secondary
vocational education. More recently, those in the metropolitan
area have been permitted to offer what ara called 'low-incidence'
/77
academic courses: certain specialized courses -- advanced
language, for example; or advanced math -- which cannot be
offered economically in every local district. A second set of
institutions, with similar potential, are the Educational
Cooperative Service Units, now handling some special-education
services for their member school districts. Both can be sellers
to the local districts.
Colleges and universities -- Institutions of higher
education might set up and operate a comprehensive educational
program for sale to non-operating local districts (as well as
simply selling admission to their own courses for advanced high-
school students). The teachers' colleges (now 'state
universities') did for years run 'lab schools' for their teacher-
training programs, each of which functioned as an additional public
school in its respective community. The last of these (at
St. Cloud State University) closed in 1983. But the tradition
could be revived by a Legislature interested in "giving someone
else a chance to show what they can do".
Non-~rofit institutions -- A number of non-public
(especially the non-sectarian) organizations that now sell mainly
to individuals or to social-service agencies or to counties might
become sellers of instruction to local public school districts.
A number of such organizations (the alternative schools selling
to Minneapolis, for example) now run some kind of school and the
willingness of the public districts to 'make a market' for such
services would undoubtedly cause others to appear. The Urban
League, or the Urban Coalition, or the Native American community,
might want to start a school.
Business firms -- The past year has seen a growing number of
reports that companies large and small are considering coming in,
or are coming in, to the general education field. Among those
reported to be interested: the Encyclopedia Britannica; Bell and
Howell, ITT.
The State of Minnesota -- Most interestingly: The
Legislature in ~ts effort to "see what someone else can do" could
itself create one or more new schools. Minnesota has of course
run specialized schools, as have other states_ _ . for'the arts
or the sciences; for the gifted or for the handiCapped. But the
state could equally well insert into the system, competitive with
the schools now run by local public school districts, one or more
general comprehensive schools distinguished only by the different
and hopefully more effective way of organizing the process of
teaching and learning.
A Teacher-oriented Strategy for Change and Improvement
The possibilities considered so far would create a
disengagement mainly between families and districts, or between
districts and schools. Except for the brief reference to the
~o£sibility of a school 'site' managed by its staff, none has
specifically addressed teachers. Yet finding a ne~ role for
10
teachers may be the key to the structural change.
Teachers do have a problem. They are as locked-in as any of
the parties in the educational system. Especially in a period of
declining enrollment their longevity-based compensation
arrangement ties them effectively to the particular district in
which they are employed. The labor/management arrangement
inside the system traps them in an adversary relationship with
the administration. They do complain about their pay. But they
complain most vigorously about the growing tendency of central
administration to prescribe what must be taught and how it must
be taught, day by day, in the classroom. They say they want a
greater opportunity to perform and to develop in their
professional role. Under present arrangements this plays out
into conflict with the board and administration; frequently in
the bargaining process.
Some of the capable and strongly motivated teachers stay in
the system. Some of these find an outlet for their energies in
moonlighting; perhaps writing software for the new firms
developing computer-based instruction. But many of the teachers
frustrated by the rigidities and restrictions of their traditional
role do leave the schools. For all but a few who are willing to
risk starting-up a school or selling to the private sector, there
is really no choice. The public sector offers only the
employment arrangement: It has not been a buyer of instruction.
Teachers, unlike most other professionals, therefore haVe no
private-practice option.
This would be worth reappraising. Teachers remain the great
resource in the system, and any effort at the improvement of
education ought to.look carefully at any possibility for turning
their energies loose.
A disengagement between the school/district and the
teachers, which would break teachers out of the existing
bureaucratic arrangement and offer them an opportunity to grow
professionally, might be very appealing to the teachers and very
effective for the system.
Two possibilities present themselves.
Run a department, o~ grade -- A group of teachers could form
a professional association, partly for the purpose of developing
and marketing, and partly for the purpose of teaching, new
curricular material on contract to a school or school district.
This might be a single-specialty group: for example, teachers
with a better idea about how kids could learn biological science;
or zoology specifically. Or it might be a multi-specialty group:
for example, teachers with a better idea about how to organize
first grade. In either case, its members would become
responsible for their own practice and for the management of the
resources they receive: for the assignment of work, and for the
evaluation of work and the decision about compensation.
11
Run an entire school -- A partnership of certified
professional teachers might, as suggested earlier, accept
responsibility for organizing and running an entire school: given
a clear assignment as to the job they are expected to perform and
the results they are expected to achieve; left free to decide how
that job can best be accomplished; paid a defined amount for the
work -- probably, so much per student -- and allowed to keep as
personal income what they did not need to spend; and allowed to
enlarge and to develop their group by taking on other work in
either the public or the private sector.
From time to time PSRP has asked teachers to consider this
idea, applied either to a department or to an entire school, and
to say (not whether they 'like' it or not, but) what they think
would occur, were such an arrangement in effect in their school.
Basically, the teachers say that if it were they would (a)
Bring in people from the community. They will frequently help in
the schools, without charge. (b) Introduce or expand peer
teaching. Kids frequently can help other kids, at the same grade
level or between grade levels. And not infrequently that
teaching experience becomes a reinforcing learning experience.
(c) Really use parents. There would be a strong motivation to
get them working as effective partners at the home end. (d)
Stimulate individual learning. Every self-directed learner would
be a major plus. (e) Differentiate the staffing. Concentrate
the resources on the highest-order teaching skills. (f) Get
really aggressive about the use of technology.
This is an appealing response, worth thinking about as much
for its impact on the learners as on the teachers. It suggests
the usefulness of focusing the education-policy discussion in
Minnesota, next, precisely on strategies for disengagement --
ways to open up new opportunities and incentives for all those
now locked into an essentially 'command' system.
If teachers could benefit from the changes needed, they
might well take the lead in making those changes.
Acknowledgements -- In the three months since the first in
this 'pair' of memos appeared much -- including the legislative
session -- has occurred, to help our understanding both of the
policy problem and of the possible responses. PSRP has learned
much from the opportunity to talk with and to listen to John
Goodlad, author of A Place Called School; to Theodore Sizer,
author of Horace's Compromise; to David Seeley, formerly head of
the Public Education Association, New York; to Paul Berman and
Dan weiler, consultants to the Minnesota Business Partnership; to
Chester Finn, of Vanderbilt University; to the local teachers and
superintendents and developers of educational software who have
been so willing to meet and talk with us; to the members of the
St. Paul School Collaborative, to the panel of the Center for
Urban and Regional Affairs, and those at Public School Incentives.
12
PHON£
CLERK TO THE BOARD $48-5433
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS~ MINNESOTA 554~57
June 19, 1984
Mr. E1 do Schmidt
Chairman
Mound Housing and
Redevelopment Authority
5341 Mayv~ood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
Your letter dated June 6, 1984 enclosing a copy of the
Town Square Proposed Development Program and Tax Increment
Financing Plan, was received by the Hennepin County Board
of Commissioners at their Board meeting today.
The contents were noted, and Chairman Derus directed that
the matter be referred to the Ways and Means Committee for
discussion.
Yours truly,
Kay Mii~chell
Clerk~f the Board
bm
American Legion Pos
DATE ,'~x 3'I. '1
O~mbli ng Report
CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE
GROSS: ['3AlO. O0 [! 16 ~ ,~95. O0
EXPENSES:
,Sa].~ s t~x !!191.0!
Supplies 593.60
PAYOUT AS PRIZES:
~;: :'~ o. 61
1900 .O0
~"P~' 12 35
95OO .00
PROFIT:
~;723.39
DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS:
. Boys Countv
Alano
MemorI
~'~6.30
25.00
_~0.00
P-9.~5
35.oo
· ~5.~5
Check' ~ ~; !: . ~
~.n~ ..cccunt ~975 zs
Trends In Public Finance
3608 IDS Tower, Minneapolis, MN * Summer, 1984 * 612/338-3535 * 800/328-8200 800-328-8100 MN
Market Trends
Municipal Market
Outperforms Taxable
Sector In Bear Market
The new year began with an
optimistic mood prevailing in the
credit markets, and interest rates
fell early in the year. In mid-
January the fundamentals turned
bearish and the credit markets
began a deep slump. The gross
national product (GNP) which
grew at a 5% annual rate in 1983's
fourth quarter surged in the first
quarter of 1984, increasing at an
annual rate of 8.8%. This rapid
growth in the economy combined
with the federal government's
massive deficit-prompted financ-
~g needs has created heavy credit
hands and renewed fears of
inflation. The Federal Reserve
Board has maintained its restric-
tive credit policies because of the
inflationary threat, and this has
added to the upward pressure on
interest rates. In response to these
forces, major banks raised their
prime lending rate three times
through May 8,1984, and it now
stands at its highest level since
October, 1982. T.he Fed raised the
discount rate, the rate it charges
on loans to banks, thrift institu-
tions and credit unions, to 9%
early in April, the first such in-
crease in nearly three 3'ears.
While the tax-exempt market
has not escaped these pressures, it
'has easily outperformed the tax-
able sector during the slump.
\\"hile long term government
bond prices dropped more then
ten points (SIO0 per thousand
do!!ars of bonds) between mid-
January and thc end of April.
,,~ term municipal bonds lost
Is There Development
After I.R.B.'S?
Consider T.I.F.
Federal legislation currently pending
in a House-Senate Conference Commit-
:ce will likely curtail the use of Industrial
Revenue Bonds (IRB's), in reaction to the
alleged widespread abuse of this financ-
ing technique, by which cities could in
essence lend their tax-exempt status to
private firms to gain below-market fi-
nancing for their development projects.
The limitation could take the form cfa
per-capita ceiling on the amount of IRB
financing that can occur in the State
during a calendar 5'ear, under the House
version of the Bill. The net impact for
economic development programs wilt be
a considerable reduction in the extent to
which cities can offer IRB's to local firms
to stimulate growth and expansion.
How can a City that is aggressively
an economic development pro-
gram continue to induce local growth
after the severe reduction of this powerful
ncentive? Traditional tools still exist.
including the provision of public improve-
ments and infrastructure through levy-
supported or special-assessment bonds.
Another tool, often neglected because
of its perceived complexities, is Tax In-
crement Financing (TIF). TIF is one of
the most creative tools developed for
cities to stimulate new growth on de-
teriorated or vacant properties. By "cap-
turing'' the additional taxes generated
from new growth on those properties, a
city is able to expend public monies on
~mprovements, land acquisitions and
write-downs, and other inducements to
private development, without passing the
debt service burden onto the general tax
base. The new development pays for the
~mprovements undertaken on its behalf
--and private development leverages
itself.
The complexities in TIFlie in the need
to carefully plan and evaluate these pro-
jects. Since public expenditures will bc
reimbursed throuoh= the pax. tllCIlI
property taxes, the viabilitx, of the pro-
posed development project b~'comcs
important F~.ICIoF. Thc citx's
When is Garbage
not Garbage?
The planning and financing of a solid
waste resource recovery project is a com-
plex operation for a local jurisdiction.
The project sponsor must determine what
type of facility to build, financing alterna-
tives, who should own the facility, waste
assurance, energy sale and many other
factors. Unfortunately, too often project
sponsors do not consider financial impli-
cations until the project structure has
been established. It is important to recog-
nize that key financial decisions must be
made in the earl.,,, stages of project plan-
ning.
Potential project rikks include: con-
struction costs exceeding estimates
changes in environmental laws; uncer-
taint>' of solid waste projections: finan-
cial and business characteristics of the
contracting party for waste assurance
and energy sale: facility siting and land
purchase: prior history of the technology
employed under similar circumstances
and form of contracts for solid waste
assurance and the sale of energy. The
degree of risk the project sponsor is
(Con;l'~,~ed on back)
Solid IFaste/Resource
Reco reD, ,4 dvisor
Hennepin County (,[[innea?olis) and
Olmsted CounO' (Rochester),
sota, recently appoinred Evensen
Dodge, h~c. as financial advisor for
their so/id waste/resoNrce recorerr
flrql'ects. The Henncpin County proj-
ect is a 2,000-wn per dov
energy s)'stcm Ia be awaked ~rivatel)'
but financed wid~ tax exempt bonds.
The facitit)' in Ohnstcd County is a
CoNnlV. Evensen Dod,~e will assist
el2cr~.l' sole and waste ass:o'once
Ii :5
Ma3 24, t984
BOND BUYERS INDEX
1982-84 MARKET HISTORY Prepared by Evensen Dodge, lnc.
15.0~
20 Year G.O. Index
14.0~ [t This Week-- 10.87;
I / kasl Week -- 10.36c5
13.0% \ I Year Treasury Bills
~ This Week -- [1.72~
12.0~' -- ·
I 1.0~'
10.0%.
9.0~-
8.0~
Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun
RECENT BOND SALES
Amount
Date Issuer (O00's)
4-10 State of Louisiana $121.460
4-10 Cook Count>. IL 117.000
4-11 Stale of Rhode Island 30,000
4-11 State of Texas 165.000
4-11 State of Ne'a York 4.300.000
4-16 Marincuc Sch. Dist.. Wl 550
4-16 Broken Arrow. OK 12.600
4-17 Grape\inc. TX 3.000
4-17 St:Itc of Missouri 50.000
4-17 lo'aa Falls. IA 1.460
4-17 S'a il't County. MN 1.210
4- I 7 ~¥aUwalosa. wI 1.600
4-17 B/cst Fargo. ND 1.245
4- I X Slate of Maine 26.555
4-18 Willmar. MN 3.830
4-23 Hastings. MN 1.150
4-24 Colorado River Municipal
Water Dist.. TX 8.275
4-24 Pine Counl>', MN 1,265
4-24 Alpine Sch. Dist.. UT 10.0(d)
4-24 Santa Clara Valley ~'ater
District. CA 33.000
4-24 North Koochichil'~g Area
Sanitary Dist.. MN 1.500
4-24 Osccola. IA 745
4-25 Cincinnati. OH 13.900
4-25 Houston. TX 70,2(X)
4-25 State of Virginia 29.065
4-25 State of Wisconsin 65.000
4-26 State Uni~crsityofhw, a 14.770
4-26 Oshkosh. WI 1.960
5-01 Madison. \VI 6.500
5-01 Grccn Bit,.. '9,'1 6.1';611
5-01 Grcclc>. ~'O 5.3111
54)2 Dallas. TX 90.000
5-07 Minnctonka. MN I 1.000
5-t)7 Nortiflicld. MN 1,300
5418 .M m sca poli',. MN 16.615
5-08 lhomp,onSch. Dist.. ND 3211
5-09 Mahtomcdi. MN 910
5-10 Ca rrolllon- Farmers
Branch lSD. TX 12.500
5-10 East Grccnbush CSD. NY 1.375
5-10 Uni,,. ol Oklahoma 12.260
5-10 Ru,k Countx. Wl 1.650
5-10 \Va r,.~ ick. Ri 5.630
5-14 Glcndalc. ~,VI 1.500
5-14 Rockford. IL 5.500
5-14 tlighldnd Park. IL 6,200
5-15 Bcttcndod. IA 4.000
5-15 Slate ol Calilornia 150.000
5-15 'Mi]~aukcc.~\'l 31,0'~5
5-t5
5-t~ l..r~c.', ('~i?. N.I 6.215
5-I'
BBI NIR
Purpose Maturity % Rating %
Various 85/04 9.97 Aa/AA 9.45
TAN 4. 10/85 9.97 MIG-I 6.64
Various 85/04 9.97 Aa/AA- 8.62
Veterans 85/03 9.97 Aaa/AAA 8.99
TAN. RAN 9. 12/84 9.97 MIG-I/A+ 6.53
1.3/85
School 85/94 9.89 A 8.80
Improvements 86/97 9.89 A 8.81
Water & Sewer Rev. 85/04 9.89 Baal/A- 9.92'
Building 85/09 9.89 Aaa/AAA 9.28
Various 85/97 9.89 A 8.43
Refunding 86/96 9.89 A 8.63
Prom. Notes 86/93 9.89 Aaa 8.06
Refunding Imp. 85/95 9.89 A 8.48
Various 85/04 9.89 Aa I/AAA 8.76
Rfdg. Re,,'. 84/96 9.89 A 9.13
Improvements 86/95 9.94 A 8.40
Waler Sys. Rev. 85/95 9.94 A 9.03
Imp. Rfdg. 86/93 9.94 Baa I 8.39
School Bklg. 93/98 9.94 A I 9.56
Water Re','. 85/04 9.94 Al/A+ 9.71
Sewer 87/04 9.94 NR 10.03
Corp. Purp. 85/94 9.94 A 8.69
Impro',emcnts 85/99 9.94 Al/AA 8.37
Impro,.cmcnts 85/04 9.94 Aa I/AAA 9.29
Higher Educalion 85/04 9.94 Aaa/AAA 9.04
Transportation Re'.'. 85/06 9.94 A I/A- 9.53
Acad. Bldg. Re','. 86/03 9.94 Al/AA 8.29
Corp. Purp. 85/00 9.94 Al 9.45
Prom. Notes 85/94 9.99 Aaa 7.93
Corp. Purp. 86/99 9.99 Aa/AA 9.18
Water Rfdg. 85/02 9.99 Aa/AA- 9.40
Walcr & Soy, er Rex'. 85/04 9.99 Aa/AA 9.65
Improvement,; 85/99 10.19 Al 9.31
L~brar,, 85/04 10.19 A 9.'/5
Variot;~ 85/01 10.19 Aaa/AAA 8.47
School Bldg. 86/99 10.19 NR 9.38
lmpro~cmcnt~ 85/91 10.19 Baal 8.09
School Bldg. 85/04 10.19 Aaa/AAA 9.52
School 85/96 10.19 A 8.35
UtiI. S>s. Re',. 87/96.04 10.19 A 10.23
l_av. Enl'. Center 85/99 10.19 A 9.92
Improvements 85/04 10.19 A/A 9.98
Prom. Notes 86/93 10.36 Aa 8.69
ln~prowmcnp, 87/97 10.36 Baal 10.26'
Corp. Purp. 92/96 10.36 Aa 9.48
Various 86/95 10..~6 A 9.39
\'ciera m, 85/09 I0.36 Aa/A.\ 9.44
Improxcmcnls 85199 10.36 &al,&&- 0.511
Improvements 85/04 1036 -\aa~AA-\ 9.40
\ aril,u,, 85/93 10.36 .\
Sd~ool 85/04 10.36 Aa \.\ 9?,
Colp Ptirp, 86'03 10 31'
Farmland Pt t.'s. 85/03
SO~,,,d 85/99 lO
P,~x~c[ S~:p. Rex. 9(i/99.04. 103" .\1 A- Il i4'
14.21
Consider T.I.F.
development staff and financial consul-
tant must work closely \vith the developer
to evaluate the City's capacity to pay debt
service on its bonds from tax increments
under different assumptions of economic
growth, including the timing and level of
new construction. Development Agree-
ments and Assessment Agreements can
also play a critical role, minimizing the
City's risk by establishing reasonable
controls on the developer's performance.
Evensen Dodge has developed inhouse
software to undertake feasibility and cash-
flow analyses of proposed TI~: projects,
)roviding cities with information on the
level of debt that can be supported under
varying sets of assumptions.
With these analyses to support de-
cision-making, a city can safely under-
take tax increment financing and con-
tlnue to actively support local economic
growth.
GARBAGE
willing to accept will often define the
parameters.
Two critical areas affecting project risk
are waste assurance and energy sales.
Financing by either public or private
methods will'be more difficult if there is
uncertainty regarding the potential eco-:
nomic success of the incineration facility.
Therefore, the demonstration of viable
contracts and contracting parties are criti
cai for obtaining financing at competitive
rates.
One of the principal characteristics of
resource recovery projects is that they are
capital intensive. Relatively large
amounts of capital are required to pay for
he cost of construction and related equip-
ment and to capitalize certain project
costs such as engineering, financial analy-
sis, legal consultation, interest during
construction and debt reserves.
Five general types of financing alter-
natives a\'ailable are: (11 general obliga-
tion bonds:'(2) general obligation
revenue bonds; (31 revenue bonds;
(4) equity with tax-exempt revenue bonds
including lex'eraged leasing: and (,5) state/
federal grants and loans.
Ex'ensen Dodo, e can provide additional
information reg{irding the above options.
IDB UPDATE
Federal legislation proposing restric-
tions on prlx'ate purpose tax exempt
bonds has been passed bx the U.S. House
a;~d 5cn:~:c. The differences bctx~cc'
l{ou.e and SCl];ilc ~i]]> drc currcntl
TWIN
CITIES
LABOR
MARKET
The unemployment rate in the Twin Cities metropolitan area dropped from a revised esti-
mate of 5.0 percent in March to 4.7 percent in April. This decrease was generally in
line with past years' trends indicating that most of the improvement in the unemploy-
ment situation was due to seasonal hiring of workers, especially construction workers.
Over the past several months, the local and national unemployment rate has changed very
little after taking seasonal changes into account. This trend is in contrast to the
steep declines experienced a year ago during the early stages of the economic recovery.
The significance of the health of the construction industry is reflected in the labor
force estimates of the metropolitan area counties. The counties which experienced the
greatest decrease in the unemployment rate between March and April, Chisago, Scott and
Wright, all have an above average proportion of their labor force employed in the con-
struction industry. For example, according to the 1980 Census, 8.1 percent of Wright
:ounty residents who were employed worked in construction, compared to 4.1 percent for
in county and 4.8 percent for the entire metropolitan area. As construction
activity picks up in the Spring, the unemployment rate will drop more in these coun-
ties. However, the fact that the construction industry has not fully recovered from
the 1980 and 1982 recessions is a primary reason why unemployment rates for these coun-
ties remain higher than other metropolitan area counties.
LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES
(not seasonally adjusted)
AREA CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Um~EMPLOYKE,NT
APR. p IqAR. APR.. APR.. MAR.
1984- 1984R 1983K 1984v 1984
Mlnnea~lis-
St. Paul S~A' 1,2t4.5 1,198.3 1,171.8 1,157.1 1,137.9 1,083.3 57.4
County:
Anoka 115,424 114,047 112,502 I09,539 107,726 102,551 5,885
~rver 21,880 21,729 21,084 20,704 20,362 19,383 i,176
Chisago 15,572 15,564 15,035 14,373 14,135 13,456 l,i59
Hennepin 550,273 541,852 530,821 526,136 517,428
Scott 2b,997 25.867 25,316 24,470 2~,0E5 22,909
Washington 66,5~3 65,712 63,914 63,473 62,422
Wright 35,J71 35,437 34,567 32,953 32,407
"~r.ea~lis ?~7,ZiS 213,817 2ro,~70 207,317 203
C~tv of
EMPLOYMENT, HOURS AND EARNINGS
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area
PERCENT PRODUCTION WORKERS' HOURS & E, ARNING 1.~/
EMPLOYMENT CHANGE Average Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekly
INDUSTRY (OUU) FROM Earnings Earnings Hours
APRIL Month Year Month Year APRIL Year APRILi Year APRIL Year
1984 _.Apo, __Ago Ago Ago 1984 Ago 1984 Ago 1984 Aqo
-~O~AL NDNAGRICUL1URAL 1120.3 llOl.O 1059.9 1.B 5.7 XX XX XX XX XX XX
HA~uFACTURING 244.7 241.3 229.4 1.4 6.7 422.30 380.27 10.25 10.06 41.2 37.8
bur~bl,. Goods 156.8 154.3 145.0 1.6 B.2 432.06 382.69 lO.19 9.94 42.4 38.5
Lumber & Furniture 6.9 6.7 6.3 2.8 9.8 476.03 399.38 10.77 lO.51 44.2 '38.0
Stone. Clay & Glass 3.8 3.8 3.0 5.5 29.5 383.53 376.70 10.04 9.81 38.2 38.4
Primary Metals 4.6 4.5 4.1 2.0 11.6 391.78 322.53 9.09 8.51 43.1 37.9
Fabricated Metals 26.4 26.4 25.9 -0.3 2.0 487.89 449.90 11.32 11.00 43.1 40.9
Non-Electrical Machinery 65.2 64.3 59.2 1.4 10.2 436.22 371.20 10.24 9.82 42.6 37.8
Office & Computing Equipment 34.0 33.3 30.3 2.0 12.3 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Electrical Machinery 18.8 18.0 16.5 3.2 12.5 361.74 346.86 8.78 9.08 41.2 38.2
Transportation Equ~praent 4.1 4.0 3.3 1.1 21.5 601.35 437.18' 13.13 11.88 45.8 36.8
Scie.tifi~ Instruments 23.6 23.1 22.7 2.2 3.8 415.67 373.98~ 9.85 9.92 42.2 37.7
Miscellaneous 3.7 3.6 4.0 1.g -7.7 326.49 327.98 8.35 8.22 39.1 39.9
i~Ondurable Goods 87.9 87.0 84.4 1.1 4.1 407.54 377.57 10.37 10.26 39.3 36.8
Food & Kindred Products 17.6 17.4 18.0 1.2 -1.9 402.37 345.47 9.79 9.65 41.1 35.8
Textiles & Apparel 2.3 2.3 2.4 -1.1 -2.2 J258.91 187.03 6.76 5.90 38.3 31.7
P. per& Al)led Products 24.9 24.8 23.9 0.4 4.4 456.65 428.06 10.77 10.29 42.4 41.6
Printing & Publishing 25.9 25.6 24.6 1.1 5.4 383.71 371.77 ll.09 11.30 34.6 32.9
Chemical & PeLroleum Products 8.2 7.9 7.9 3.5 4.1 '472.32 454.72 11.52 11.60 41.0 39.2
Rubber. Plastic. and Leather 9.0 8.9 7.9 0.8 15.1 356.51 337.03 8.98 9.06 39.7 37,2
NONMANUFACTURING 875.6 859.7 830.5 1.8 5.4 XX XX XX XX XX XX
COi~SIRuCTION 35.1 33.0 31.7 6.3 10.9 571.91 499.66 16.11 15.28 35.5 32.7
~uilding Construction lO.1 9.7 9.1 3.9 ll.3 564.76 450.59 16.D9 15.07 35.1 29.'9
Highway & Heavy Construction 3.0 2.3 2.9 31.3 3.9 442.22 401.76 13.36 12.96 33.1 31.0
Spec)al Trades Contracting 22.0 21.0 19.7 4.7 ll.7 591.84 535.57 16.44 15.66 36.0 34.2
TRANSPORTATION 43.6 42.3 39.9 3.3 9.3 XX XX XX XX XX XX ·
Railroads 6.3 6.4 6.6 -0.8 -4.8 529.58 525.12 11.22 10.94 47.2 48.0
Trucking & Warehousing 15.5 15.1 13.7 2.0 12.8 431.03 423.85 12.28 12.54 35.1 33.8
PUBLIC UTILITIES & COH~t. 21'.3 21.2 20.9 0.4 2.3 506.46 468.36 12,92 12.04 39.2 38.9
IRADE 269.6 262.6 258.0 2.6 4.5 239.40 224.46 7.98 7.74 30.0 29.0
Retail Trade 198.5 192.3 188.1 3.2 5.5 189.61 173.04 6.92 6.63 27.4 26.1
General Merchandise Stores 32.9 31.8 31.0 3.3 6.2 175.56 165.70 6.27 6.16 28.0 26.9
Food Stores 24.9 24.5 24.4 1.B 2.2 250.71 234.91 8.47 8.33 29.6 28.2
Eating & Drinking Places 64.1 61.4 62~0 4.4 3.4 87.04 82.45 4.51 4.53 19.3 18.2
SpecialLy Merchand~se2_/ 76.6 74.6 70.8 2.7 8.2 259.52 233.77 7.77 7.26 33.4 32.2
wholesale Trade 71.1 70.3 69.8 1.1 1.7 402.33 388.11 10.45 lO.16 38.5 38.2
FINANCE. INS. & REAL ESTATE 77.6 77.1 74.5 0.6 4.2 312.75 298.03 8.43 7.99 37.1 37.3
Fir~ance 33.1 33.1 31.8 0.0 4.1 320.90 304.79 8.72 8.26 36.8 36.9
Insurance 30.6 30.5 29.3 0.4 4.5 361.18 338.96 8.62 8.39 41.9 40.4
Real Estate 13.9 13.5 13.4 2.8 4.0 197.96 197.19 7.07 6.26 28.0 31.5
SERVICE & MISCELLANEOUS 271.7 267.0 253.2 1.8 7.3 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Lodging & Recreation 25.0 24.5 23.5 2.0 6.4 149.50 127.01 5.98 5.67 25.0 22.4
Personal Servi~es ll.6 ll.3 ll.5 2.4 0.5 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Business Services 60.2 59.0 51.8 2.2 16.2 XX XX XX XX XX XX
~epair S:rvic~ 13.4 13.0 12.3 2.6 8.9 252.04 242.95 7.06 6.73'1 35.7 36.1
Health S~rvices 74.3 73. B 72.5 0.6 2.5 239.38 215.56 8.17 7.81 29.3 27.6
Hospitals 30.0 30.0 30. O.1 -0.3 266.59 249.98 9.42 9.09 28.3 27.5
,ursing Homes 19.8 19.7 19.7 0.5 0.2 192.64 182.51 6.88 6.71 28.0 27.2
Other Health 24.5 24.2 22.7 1.3 8.2 XX XX XX XX XX XX
Legdl SeFvices 8.5 8.4 7.9 1.O 7.7 441.86 348.94 ll.gl 9.33 37.1
Private Education 16.3 16.3 15.0 0.4 8.8 XX XX XX XX XX XX
O~her Serv~ces~/ 58.2 57.6 54.9 1.O 6.0 XX XX XX XX XX XX
GOVERNMENT 156.6 156.5 152.4 O.1 2.8
Federal 18.0 18.0 17.5 -0.5 2.6
State 48.2 48.2 47,7 0.0 1.O
Lo~al 90.5 90.2 87. 0.3 3.8
'' Less than .0~
?. A~er~g~ earnings data ~re on a "gross" basis and are derived from reports of payroll for full- and part-time
production or nonsupervisory workers. The payroll is reported before deductions of any Klnd. BonuSes. retro-
ac'~ve F-m~. t~ps. pdyir~ent in kind. and "fringe benefits" are ~xcluaed.
:' !.l~z ~..'~d)r)~ ~j~tr',d!S~ AutOmotivr~, ApGarel, Home Furnis~,~r,~s,
~c~.J,:t ~,~:: Serv~:~s, ~,n~b~,rsn}p Organizations, and M)sCe';~res~S S~r~:es ~ucr cS [r,glr'eerlng and
EMPLOYi'iENT A[iD EARiIINGS CONDITIONS
T~m~expansion of nonagricultural wage
aI~s~lary jobs in the l'win Cities area
co~l~tinued at an above average pace in
April. Earlier this year total nonagri-
cultural payroll jobs surpassed the pre-
recession peak reached early in 1980.
An examination of employment trends by
industry from prerecession peak employ-
ment to recession trough to present fi-
gures shows a wide variation in employ-
ment change. The construction industry
cut 28.5 percent of its jobs from peak
to trough and despite some healthy over-
the-year gains has only recovered about
one-fourth of the number of jobs cut.
Manufacturing industries trimmed employ-
ment by about 10.5 percent from peak to
trough and have recovered about two-
thirds of those jobs. The government
sector cut back employment by 6.7 per-
cent during the recession and has added
back only 38.3 percent of those jobs.
On the other hand, finance insurance,
real estate and the service sector did
experience any decrease in jobs dur-
the recession. Employment in fi-
has grown by about 12 percent and
in services by 15.5 percent since tl~e
first quarter of 1980.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INSURED UNEMPLOYED
(Regular Benefits Program)
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL SMSA
Week Ending 4/12/~4
Industry and
Occupational
Attachment
Total, All Industries
Construction
Manufacturing
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Trans., Comm., and
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Fin., Ins., and
Real Estate
Services
Public Admin.
All Other
Inf. Not Available
Total, All Occupations
Prof., Tech., Msr.
Clerical
Sales
Service
Farm,, For., Fish.
Processing
Machine Trades
Benchwork
Structural Work
Miscellaneous
Inf. Not Available
Percent Change
From:
Percent
Long-TermS' Percent
Unemployed Women
25.6
29.4 3.;
22.6
24.6
18.2
23.2 !l .(
23.8
26,9 55.
53.0
25.6 29.
26.3 29.
22.7 43.
19.1
21.2
21.8
27.3
NOTE: Percentages may not total to lO0.O due to independent rounding.
l_./ Long-Term unemployed refers to une~plojrment insurance claimant~ whose
current spell of un~ploy~r, ent has lasted 15 weeks or lcn~er.
Economic Indicators
Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area
Latest Month Current Previous
Available Period Period
Initial UI Claimsl/*_ Apr. ., 1,727 2,061
UI C1 ai mants- Regul a fl_/* Apr. 14,639 15,562
Avg Wkly Hours in Mfgl_/* Apr. 41.4 41.0
Help Wanted Index2_/* Apr. 71 68
Mortgage Rate3/ Apr. 10.45 12.56
Residential BTdg Permits4/*_ Mar. 1,440 2,458
Retail Sales (Millions)5_/* Mar. 1,164 1,268
Consumer Price Index6/ Apr. 322.0 319.6
LS Employment Cost IndexC_/ Mar. 119.8 117.$
Percent Change
Year Ago. Year Ago
2,564 -32.6
24,085 -39.2
38.0 8.9
32 121.9
12.59
1,338 7.6
1,053 9.5
309.4 4.i
i13.2 5.8
.urces' l/ ;.,u:S, 2/ The Conference Board 3/ Minneapolis Star
~,esources, !nc., 4/ I,letropolitan Council, Z/' U.S. ~de,~.
Efrea~ of ~a~e)% Statistics.
.,.,-:-_.:~ ::<,~,~rali',,,'-a::usted data.
Trisune vi~ Data
of r
u~:. zFce, 3!-2
The Twin Cities area has experienced tremendous employment growth over the past year as
documented in other sections of this bulletin. It has been very uneven, however, with
respect to various industries. What effect has this had on the job market? Although
occupational supply and demand for the area is incomplete, some information is avail-
able from records of the State Job Service. The following table shows both the number
of active applicants and openings received during the month of April in 1983 and 1984.
The data reveals two main effects of the economic recovery. One is that the number of
openings listed skyrocketed over the twelve month period, rising by 72.1 percent.
Strong demand has been generated for workers in most occupational groups, the lone ex-
ception being material handlers and movers. Those engaged in the manufacturing sector
have shown the greatest surge from what had been very depressed levels. The strong re-
covery in certain industries puts the current overall number of openings above the 1980
level of 4,192, but still below those reached in the years 1976 through 1979.
The second effect of the recovery has been the slight rise in job applicants. One
would expect a decrease as those active in April 1983 have procured work, but this is
counteracted by the return of discouraged job seekers and new entrants who did not at-
tempt to find employment until conditions improved. For this reason, applicants in low
-skill occupations such as material movement and service are up dramatically whereas
the number in the professional and machine trade groups have declined. Minority appli-
cants are up an astounding 24.2 percent reflecting the degree to which these groups
were affected in the past recession. Moreover, the greater rise in minority job-
seekers has taken place among all occupations, showing broad as well as deep effects.
On the other hand, the number of female applicants has risen less than males, especial-
ly in the clerical, sales and service occupations. The legions of new and re-entrants
in these areas have had an easier time finding work as the finance, t.rade and services
industries have continued to add workers since the last employment peak in 1980, Al-
though these industries offer employment possibilities, income from jobs may be below
average because of low hourly wages and/or part-time hours.
Change in Job Service Applicants and Openings
April 1983 to April 1984 - Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA
Active Applicants Openings Receive~
April April Percent April April Percent
1984 1983 Chan~e 1984 1983 Cnante
All Occupations 48,375 44,769 ~ 4,~2 2,662 72.1
Prof., Tech., Mgr. 6,987 7,045 -0.8 49~ 294 65.0
Clerical 8,424 7,829 7.6 1,2~9 783 59.5
Sales 1,895 1,822 4.0 292 199 ~6.7
Service 8,798 7,134 23.3 1,235 595 107.5
Process & Math. Trades 3,907 4,249 -8.0 370 2S1 8~.1
Benchwork 3,122 2,756 13.3 261 lO2
Structural Work 4,629 4,130 12.1 253 127
Material Movemen~ 6,980 7,558 18.8 428 478 -10.5
Source: ESARS Cables 7A anJ 96, Research Office, Minnesota Deparzment of
Economic Security.
What the recovery hath wrought is the delineation of occupations into three types that
are in a surplus condition and two in short supply. As confirmed in a survey of Job
Service managers, there is an overabundance of l) low skilled applicants of all sorts'
assemblers, general laborers, truck drivers, welders, material handlers, general clerks
and computer operators; 2) college graduates with no work experience, even in the "hot"
fields ,~f management and computer programming; 3) construction workers at alt skill
levels as the industry has recovered only a fraction of ~he jobs lost since
Stll s~c,-~ages of ce .... .
- ~,.o~n types of workers are developing. Low-skilled ~.'idL~a~s
,'.'~: ,':'.:~ t;. ',.,:.~r~: ::~r~-~me~ , at odd hours and/or for low pay are needed in ~,~,u ser',,~
~:.-.:~ ~::~es, clea,.'~n.] and child care~ A second group consis:in~ of highly s<~lied
?:>.T:::'i: ~ :~: ;::.~;::' !r~! ~.:s~ auto i;;echanics, electrical enqineers,~ . programl]'e,-,"anal,, ~ s:~_, ',.,crc
'-'~'c?a[:]='.S e;]era..c;r.~, secretaries and office managers tace :~uu~,:u compeu,t
re' =_:i, : ~t~.::=~t'ic~,s, including formerly lucrat, ive mrofessionai ~,'~d "~a''='=-,'~
AGENDA
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Thursday, June 21, 1984
Wayzata City Hall
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order; present, absent, staff.
Reading and approval of minutes of the regular meeting of
May 17, 1984.
3. Approval or amendment of June 21, 1984, agenda.
4. Hearing of permit applications.
A. 82-45 Randy Boyd - improve existing rip-rap on 400
lineal of shoreline, Sec. 24DB~, Carson's Bay, Lake Minnetonka,
Deephaven.
B. 84-66 William J. Frank - rip-rap 170 feet of
shoreline for erosion control, Sec. 24DBD, west of West Chimo on
Carson's Bay, Deephaven.
C. 84-72 City of Minnetonka - floodplain development
for grading of a softball field, Sec. 16DAC, north of Minnetonka
City Hall, Minnetonka.
D. 84-77 City of Plymouth - construction of diamond
interchange, auxiliary lanes, and bridge over 1-494 at Co. Rd. 15,
Plymouth.
E. 84-82 Concord Realty Investment & Development,
Inc. - grading and drainage plan including floodplain development
and wetland alteration for a residential development referred to
as "Princeton Court Townhomes", Sec. 31BD, north of 26th Street
and east of Hwy. 100, St. Louis Park.
F. 84-84 Minnetonka Mist - construction of an overflow
parking lot, Sec. 18DDD, Del Otero Drive, Spring Park.
G. 84-85 Irving Misel - 115 lineal feet of rip-rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 16C, 3157 Northview Road,
Minnetonka Beach.
H. 84-86 Gerald Anderson - 85 lineal feet of rip-rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 16C, 3150 Northview Road,
Minnetonka Beach.
I. 84-87 Edina Realty, Inc. - grading and drainage for
a commercial office building, Sec. 5CBB, 1120 Wayzata ~u!evard,
Wayzata.
J. 84-88 Howard J. Hagedorn - 50 foot lake setback
variance request fr~m W, st Arm Bay, Sec. 18B, 1736 Shadywood Lane,
Shady~ood Poin,~ound
K. 84-89 ~11 Krutzig - 57 foot lake setback variance
request from Long Lake, Sec. 35ACC, 1020 Old Long Lake Road, Long
Lake.
L. 84-90 John Plaine - shoreline ero~3k_~otection,
Dutch Lake, Sec. 14AD, 5872 Grandview Boulevard~
M. 84-91 Vincent R. Anderson - 124 lineal feet of
rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, West Arm Bay, Sec. 18AD,
1855 Concordia Street, Orono.
N. 84-92 City of Minnetonka - recreational trail from
Gray's Bay Dam to Crosby Road, Sec. SD, Gray's Bay Dam, Minnetonka.
O. 84-93 Burger King Corporation - grading and
drainage plan for a Burger King Restaurant, Sec. 34ACB, west of
Long Lake State Bank, Long Lake.
Minnetonka, Orono.
O. 84-100 ' St. Paul's Lutheran Church - grading and
drainage for a building addition, Sec. 22DBA, Lake Street
Extension at Baker Road, Minnetonka.
R. 84-101 Wayzata Community Church - construction of a
parking lot addition, Old Highway 12 at Ferndale Avenue, Wayzata.
S. 84-102 Charlson Research Foundation - grading and
drainage plan for the construction of two buildings and entrance
road, Sec. 2AB, between Lake Zumbra and Stone Lake south of T.H.
7, Victoria.
T. 84-103 Lynn L. Charlson - 400 lineal feet of rip-rap
shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 2ADB, Lake Zumbra, Victoria.
U. 84-104 Super America Stations, Inc. - grading and
drainage plan for the reconstruction of a gas station,~,~e~_~3CC,
5377 Shoreline Boulevard, Lost Lake, Lake Minnetonka~
V. 84-105 City of Plymouth - grading and excavation for
a passive recreational neighborhood park, Sec. 20D, between
Zanzibar Lane and Weston Lane at 27th Place, Plymouth.
W. 84-106 Orville Fisher - approximately 550 lineal
feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 18DAA,
Fagerness Point, Lake Minnetonka, Orono.
X. 84-107 Joseph Fleischacker - 50 lineal feet of
rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Sec. 21CAA, Carman's Bay,
Lake Minnetonka, Orono.
Y. 84-108 Charlton Group - grading and drainage plan
for a 30-1ot residential subdivision referred to as "North Ridge
Farm", south of Holy Name Lake, east of Hunter Drive, Medina.
Se
Correspondence.
Hearing of requests for petitions by public for action by
the Watershed District.
Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney.
A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Carroll.
(1) Administrative Fund.
B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer.
(1) Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements at State
Highway No. lO0/Cooperative Project No. CP-8 -
Contract Negotiations.
(2) 1984 Water Maintenance and Repair Fund Status.
(3) 509/Watershed Management Planning.
(4) Headwaters Control Structure - Status Report.
(5) Maple Plain Treatment Plant
Phase-Out/Interceptor Construction.
(6) CP-5 Painter Creek Status Report.
C. Attorney's Report - Mr. Macomber.
Unfinished Business.
A. Rule and Regulation Revision/Chapter 509.
B. District Initiated Maintenance Projects.
C. Draft Permit Application Guidelines.
9. New Business.
10. Adjournment.
2665n
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
May 17, 1984
The regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman
Cochran at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 17, 1984 at the St. Louis
Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Managers present:
Carroll, Cochran, Lehman,
McWethy, Spensley and Thomas.
Managers absent:
Andre.
Also present were board advisors Miller, Panzer and Macomber.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of April 19, 1984 were
reviewed. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Carroll that the
minutes be approved as distributed. Upon vote the motion carried.
Approval of Permit Applications
The Managers reviewed a memorandum from the Engineer dated
May 10, 1984, indicating those applications which comply with the
applicable standards of the district and which were recommended
for approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in his
written memorandum. Following discussion and review of the
written memorandum, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Spensley
that the following permit applications be approved subject to all
%erms and conditions as set forth in the Engineer's written
memorandum:
84-41
Tom Green - resurface existing
parking lot with asphalt at
Greenhouse Eatery and Bottleshop,
City of Spring Park, 4056-4044
Sunset Drive, West Arm Bay.
84-50
ABC, Inc. - grading and drainage
plan and a truss manufacturing
plant, City of Long Lake, Sec.
34BCD, southwest of Daniels
Street and Shaughnessy Avene.
84-51
84-54
84-55
84-56
84-57
84-58
84-60
84-62
City of Long Lake - cartway
construction over drainageway to
Long Lake, City of Long Lake,
Sec. 34BCD, south of Shaughnessy
Avenue.
Robert Schlieske - rip-rap 50
feet of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Tonka Bay, Sec.
21DA, Interlachen Channel, Lake
Minnetonka.
Ronald G. Olson - rip-rap 175.8
feet of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Tonka Bay, Sec.
28BAD, north of Clay Cliffe
Drive on Upper Lake, Lake
Minnetonka.
Robert Melamed - rip-rap 150
feet of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Minnetonka
Beach, Sec. 15CD, southeast of
Huntington Point Road and
Lafayette Road.
James Schultz - rip-rap 103 feet
of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Shorewood, Sec.
34BB, north of Timer Lane on
Gideons Bay.
James Swenson - construct steel
sheeting sea wall for
erosioncontrol, City of Orono,
Sec. 9CBA, north of North Shore
Drive at Norenberg Channel.
Richard Sufficool - r~p~rap 380
feet of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Mound, Sec.
14CAB, southeast end of
Shadywood Point.
John Cusick - rip-rap 125 feet
of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Minnetonka,
Sec. 8CC, north of Highway t01
on the southeast shore of
Wayzata Bay.
-2-
84-64
84-65
84-70
84-73
84-74
84-75
84-81
Upon vote the motion carried.
Claire Thorwick - rip-rap 100
feet of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Victoria, Sec.
6BDB, west of Smithtown Road on
Smithtown Bay.
Everett G. Cilley - rip-rap
105.6 feet of shoreline for
erosion control, City of
Victoria, Sec. 6BCC, north of
Smithtown Terrace on Smithtown
Bay.
Charles Weibel - lake setback
variance to allow building
addition setback of 55 feet,
City of Mound, Sec. 13AC, south
of Wren Road on Harrison Bay.
Frank Plant - rip-rap 140 feet
of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Deephaven, Sec.
13DDC, west of Azure Road on St.
Louis Bay.
Rogers Cablesystems - crossing
Minnehaha Creek for burial of
cable, City of Minneapolis, Sec.
14CAA, Minnehaha Creek at 10th
Avenue South.
Rogers Cablesystems - crossing
Minnehaha Creek for burial of
cable, City of Minneapolis, Sec.
17DCD, Minnehaha Creek at Upton
Avenue.
Wayzata Country Club -
appropriation of public water
from water well for irrigation
of golf course, City of Orono,
Sec. 26DCB, northeast of Old
Long Lake Road and Wayzata
Boulevard.
3
Tablinq of Permit Applications
The Engineer's Memorandum recommended tabling the
following applications pending receipt of all required
exhibits. It was moved by Carroll, seconded by Lehman that the
foregoing applications be tabled as recommended by the Engineer
until all required exhibits have been received.
84-66
William J. Frank - rip-rap 170
feet of shoreline for erosion
control,City of Deephaven, Sec.
24DBD,west of West Chimo on
Carsons Bay.
84-69
Willow Wood Association -
~aintenance dredging of
approximately 93 cubic yards of
silt for dock, City of Tonka
Bay, Sec. 28ACD, east of Willow
Wood Drive on Gideon Bay.
84-72
City of Minnetonka - floodplain
development for grading of a
softball field, City of ..
Minnetonka, Sec. 16DAC, north
Minnetonka City Hall along
Minnehaha.
84-76
Freshwater Foundation - grading
and drainage plan for a
residential development of 3
duplexes and 2 single-family
residences, City of Orono, Sec.
20AAA, southeast of County Road
15 and County Road 19.
84-77
City of Plymouth - construction
of diamond interchange,..
auxiliary lanes, and bridge over
1-494 at County Road 15, City of
Plymouth, Sec. 34CB,
intersection of 1-494 and County
Road 15.
Upon vote the motion carried.
Derrick Land Company - grading and drainage plan for
"Manchester Place Addition", a 104 unit townhouse development,
City of Minnetonka, Sec. 16CD, Sussex Court Road. 83-63
The Engineer reviewed the request for approval of a phased
grading and drainage plan to allow construction of t%7o townhomes
-4-
served by the westerly cul-de-sac prior to the completion of the
remaining drainage facilities. The applicant appeared on behalf
of the request. The Engineer indicated that the property is
covered by the Minnetonka Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan and
advised the managers that the temporary drainage facilities meet
district standards and recommended approval subject to conditions
numbered 1 through 4 in his written memorandum. It was moved by
Lehman, seconded by Carroll that approval of the phased drainage
plan be granted subject to the conditions numbered 1 through 4 in
the Engineer's memorandum. Upon vote the motion carried.
Bliss and Company - grading and drainage plan for "Fitness
Unlimited", City of Minnetonka, Sec. 16DC, 15028 County Road 5.
84-78
The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and
drainage plan approval. He advised the Managers that the Board
had approved a similar project for this site in 1981 and that rate
control requirements had been waived in 1981 since the plan called
for water quality treatment of substantial off-site drainage south
of Minnetonka Boulevard. The Engineer advised that a revised
outlet control structure design had been submitted and approved by
the Engineer and recommended approval of the permit application as
submitted. It was approved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas that the
application be approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote
the motion was carried.
Concord Realty Investment and Development, Inc. - concept review
of grading and drainage plan including floodplain development and
wetland alteration for a residential development referred to as
"Princeton Court Townhomes", City of St. Louis Park, Sec. 31BD,
north of 26th Street and east of Highway 100. 84-82
The Engineer reviewed the request for concept approval by
the Board of Managers regarding proposed filling of floodplain and
wetland areas for the construction of approximately 40 townhouse
units. The Engineer advised the Managers that approximately 1.5
acres of the 4.47 acre site lies within the 100 year floodplain of
Twin Lakes and that approximately one-third of the floodplain is a
DNR-protected wetland. The proposal calls for filling all of the
wetland located on the applicant's property. The total wetland is
approximately 10.6 acres. Steve Cox and Michael Fowler appeared
on behalf of the applicant. Following review and questions by the
Managers, Manager Cochran expressed on behalf of the Board a
general consensus that for the project to proceed the Board would
likely require the developer to reduce the degree of wetland
filling to provide compensatory storage for any filling within the
100 year floodplain and water quality treatment at the site to
compensate for wetland encroachment. It was moved by Carroll,
seconded by Lehman that the application be tabled. Upon vote the
motion carried.
-5-
Citizen Comments
Chairman Cochran noted that no other members of the public
were present in connection with permit applications, and that a
member of the public was present and wished to address the Board.
Accordingly, the Chairman called upon John E. Iacono to address
the Board. Chairman Cochran noted that the Board had received a
copy of the letter from Mr. Iacono to Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe at the
DNR dated May 9, 1984, regarding water problems at his property
adjacent to Minnehaha Creek.
Mr. Iacono advised the Board that his residence was built in
1962 and that he purchased the house in 1974. Mr. Iacono
explained that he uses the walkout basement of his residence for
office purposes and that his residence has a perimeter internal
drainage system. Mr. Iacono stated that water appears to seep
through the fill material on which the house was apparently
constructed and up through.the basement floor. Mr. Iacono
suggested that his preliminary investigations indicate that he may
constitute an unique case on the creek in that he is not affected
by overbank flows but rather experiences water in the basement as
a result of underground flows which appear to be dependent upon
creek levels. Chairman Cochran and the Board thanked Mr. Iacono
for his presentation and indicated the Board's desire to
investigate remedial measures that might be taken at properties
that are affected by high creek flows.
Robert Schmidt - dredging for adequate navigational access, City
of Excelsior, Sec. 35BBA, Excelsior Bay, Lake Minnetonka. 83-08
The Engineer reviewed the prior action by the Board of
Managers in connection with proposed dredging for navigational
access. The Engineer informed the Board that after the Board had
last reviewed the project, a DN-R permit was approved for dredging,
limiting the dredging to an area 30 by 30 feet. The Engineer
recommended approval of the project and issuance of a permit to
conform with the limitations in the DNR permit. Manager Lehman
requested that the permit specify the depth to be dredged as shown
on the plan submitted by the applicant. It was then moved by
Lehman, seconded by Spensley that the application be approved as
recommended subject to the additional condition suggested by
Manager Lehman. Upon vote the motion carried.
Jack Dietrich, c/o Wayzata Childrens Shop - grading and
drainage plan and floodplain development for a retail shopping
development, City of Wayzata, Sec. 6DBD, south of Lake Street
and east of Gleason Creek. 84-47
The Engineer reviewed the project and advised the Board that
the applicant has determined the 100 year flood elevation of
Gleason Creek at this site as requested by the Board at the last
regular meeting. The Engineer also advised the Board that the
applicant proposes additional excavation to compensate for the
runoff which will be generated by development of the site. The
Engineer advised the Managers that Gleason Creek is a county
ditch, however, the channel does not show any recent change in
deposits of sediment which would indicate the appropriateness of
dredging prior to commencement of this project. The Engineer also
advised the Managers that maintenance in the channel would be
extremely difficult after completion of this project. It was then
moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman that the application be
approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Rodney S. Wallace - rip-rap 270 feet of shoreline for erosion
control and remove existing wooden sea wall, City of Greenwood,
Sec. 26DAC, north shore of St. Albans Bay at Weeks Road.
84-59
The Engineer reviewed the rip project and advised the
Managers that the project complies with applicable district
standards for rip-rap replacement except that rip-rap will
extend more than 5.0 feet waterward of the OHW. The Managers
noted that the project involves the desirable removal of an
existing vertical sea wall and it was moved by Cochran,
seconded by Lehman that the application be approved as
submitted. UpoD vote the motion carried.
Gayle's Marina Corp. - rip-rap shoreline for erosion control,
City of Orono, Sec. 8DDB, 3366 North Shore Drive. 84-61
The Engineer reviewed the application and recommended
approval subject to conditions numbered 1 through 3 in his
written report. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman
that the application be approved subject to the foregoing
conditions as recommended by.the Engineer. Upon vote the
motion carried.
Duane Markus - rip-rap 100 feet of shoreline for erosion
control, City of Wayzata, Sec. 5CCC, west of Bushaway Road on
Wayzata Bay. 84-63
The Engineer reviewed the application for rip-rap
placement adjacent to an existing concrete sea wall. The
Engineer recommended approval upon receipt of data indicating
whether or not a filter blanket is necessary. It was moved by
-7-
Thomas, seconded by Cochran that the application be approved
-subject to the foregoing condition. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Clark Connell - rip-rap 50 feet of shoreline for construction of
two 2-foot wide sheet pile supports for erosion control, City of
Greenwood, Sec. 26CBD, south of Meadville Street on Excelsior
Bay. 84-67
The Engineer reviewed the application for rip-rap placement
and construction of two steel sheet pile supports for erosion
control and structural stability for in-place footings. The
Engineer recommended approval subject to the conditions in his
memorandum. It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Lehman that the
application be approved subject to the conditions recommended by
the Engineer. Upon vote the motfon carried.
Tony Christianson- floodplain development for a single-family
residence, C~ty of Wayzata, Sec. 6DCA, Shady Lane at Gleason
Creek and Wayzata Bay. 84-68
The Engineer reviewed the application and indicated that a
similar project was approved by the Managers at this location in
1982. The Engineer recommended approval subject to conditions
numbered 1 through 4 in his memorandum which were contained in the
previous approval. It was moved by Cochran, seconded by McWethy
that the application.be approved subject to the,conditions 1
through 4 in the Engineer's memorandum. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Hennepin County Park Reserve District - grading and drainage
plan for a campground and shoreline improvement for placement
of a beach sand blanket, Laketown Township, Sec. 10DA, east
shore of the western portion of Lake Auburn. 84-71
The Engineer reviewed the project as submitted by the
Hennepin County Park Reserve District and recommended approval as
submitted on the basis that the project would not affect local
runoff characteristics. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by
Carroll that the application be approved as recommended, by the
Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried.
Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. - grading and drainage
plan for a residential subdivision referred to as
"Steeplechase", City of Plymouth, Sec. 29AC, east of Dunkirk
Lane and north of 18th Avenue North. 84-79
The Engineer reviewed the application and advised the
Managers that the project in question is a portion of a larger
project for which concept approval was granted under Permit No.
83-92. The Engineer recommended approval of grading and
drainage plans subject to the condition tha~ the permit be
-8-
issued upon receipt of information showing that treatment of
runoff is provided for one year and more frequent rainfall
events. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas that the
application be approved subject to the foregoing condition.
Upon vote the motion carried.
St. Paul Bible College - grading and drainage plan for student
housing referred to as "Faith Village", Laketown Township, Sec.
5BD, west of Parley Lake on College Road. 84-80
The Engineer reviewed the application and recommended
approval subject to conditions numbered 1 and 2 in his written
memorandum. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Carroll that
the application be approved subject to the foregoing conditions
numbered 1 and 2 in the Engineer's memorandum. Upon vote the
motion carried.
City of St. Louis Park - road and bridge construction for
improvement of Highway 100 at 36th Street, City of St. Louis
Park, Sec. 6CC, intersection of Highway 100 and 36th Street.
84-83
The Engineer reviewed the application for drainage
facilities associated with road and bridge construction at
Highway 100 and 36th Street in the City of St. Louis Park. The
Engineer advised the Managers that the project met applicable
district criteria and recommended approval as submitted. It
was moved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas that the application be
approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Citizen Presentation
Chairman Cochran noted that a member of the public was now
present in connection w~th non-permit matters and called upon Mr.
James von Lorenz. Mr. von Lorenz explained that the Creekside
Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, as a part of the National
Izaak Walton League Save Our Streams Program, adopted Minnehaha
Creek from Grays Bay to France Avenue as its local project. Mr.
yon Lorenz presented the Board of Managers with a list of projects
that members of the Creekside Chapter felt that the Board should
investigate. These included creation of the creek maintenance
fund to be used specifically for Minnehaha Creek maintenance; a
suggestion that the Engineer make an annual inspection trip of the
creek to identify necessary maintenance projects; placing of mile
post markers along the creek; removal of cattails between
Louisiana Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard; removal of a dead tree
overhanging the creek between Louisiana Avenue and Excelsior
Boulevard; creek maintenance and dredging through Meadowbrook
-9-
Golf Course. Mr. yon Lorenz stated that members of his
organization feel that Minnehaha Creek is not being adequately
attended to by the Board and money is being spent on projects
which some members consider to be of lower priority, such as the
raising of bridge obstruction and channel improvements in the
Cascade Lane area of the City of Edina.
Mr. von Lorenz submitted the copy of suggested projects to the
Board. The Board members thanked Mr. yon Lorenz for his
presentation.
Maple Plain Treatment Plant/Interceptor
Chairman Cochran then called upon the Engineer to review
matters relating to the request of the City of Orono to support
Orono's position concerning phaseout of the Maple Plain Treatment
Plant and construction of a proposed interceptor. The Engineer
summarized the matter for the Board. The Engineer explained that
the basis o'f the City'~ position is that construction of an
interceptor will induce urbanization and increase non-point source
pollution that will ultimately outweigh the beneficial effects of
eliminating the present point discharge into Lake Minnetonka. The
Engineer advised that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
has approved construction of the interceptor and that the MPCA
supports the project. The Engineer advised the Board that the
MPCA has also taken the position that the completed EAW sdequately
identifies sufficient existing land use controls to prevent long
term adverse environmental changes suggested by the City.
John Shardlow, Land Planning Consultant for the City of
Orono appeared and addressed the Board and submitted a memorandum
to the Board dated May 18, 1984. Mr. Shardlow stated that because
of the location of the metropolitan sewer service region line, SAC
charges have been made against lands which are not scheduled for
development under the City of Orono comprehensive plan. Mr.
Shardlow expressed concern that the City could legally deny
hookups to properties which have paid SAC charges and which are
totally within the MSSR line.
Secondly, Mr. Shardlow suggested the calculations prepared
for the City of Orono indicate that, with an average density
residential development of approximately four units per acre, this
area would contribute an additional 7,000 to 9,000 pounds of
phosphorus to the lake annually. Mr. Shardlow stressed that all
of this potential contribution to the lake could be eliminated if
the interceptor were not constructed.
-10-
On behalf of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Margaret Velky reviewed the present status of the matter. She
indicated that the MPCA has prepared a proposed permit both for
the treatment plant phaseout and the interceptor construction and
that both permits contain language which the staff views as
adequate to prohibit future hookups to the interceptor. Ms. Velky
distributed a copy of the proposed permit terms for review by the
Board of Managers. Craig Affelt of the MPCA ssaff reviewed the
matter and stressed that it was the original policy of the MPCA as
well as the district's Board of Managers, to remove all point
sources of phosphorus from the lake and that the only method that
would accomplish that goal would be the phaseout of the Maple
Plain Treatment Plant as proposed. Mr. Affett also indicated tha~
the Blue Lake Treatment Plant was designed to handle flows from
the Maple Plain sewer service area and that that capacity was
presently available.
The Board discussed the issues, Chairman Cochran expressing
concern regarding the effectiveness of the proposed permit
limitations on future connections to the proposed interceptor and
expressing the need to look at the urbanization issue in full as
suggested by the City of Orono. Following further discussion it
was approved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman that the Board support
Orono's request for a public hearing on the proposed permit to
provide a full airing of all relevant issues. Upon vote the
motion carried, Manager Carroll voting no.
Treasurer's ReDort
The Treasurer distributed his monthly report dated May 17,
1984, a copy of which is attached. The Managers noted tha~ on
page 2 of 5, the sum of $2,768.00 entered for the line item HD4
for the current month should appear on the line item A4 for the
current month. Following further review of the statements as
submitted by the Treasurer and discussion of the balances
available for investment, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by
McWethy that the Treasurer's Report dated May 17, 1984, be
approved with the foregoing modification on page 2 of 5, and the
bills be paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Correspondence
Board noted receipt of correspondence from Kay Mitchell,
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County and Herbert
Klossner, Director of the Department of Transportation responding
to the letter from Chairman Cochran of April 16, 1984 regarding
Hennepin County State Aid Highway 73 at Minnehaha Creek. The
letter from Mr. Klossner indicated the County is investigating the
situation and considering the feasibility of various
reconstruction alternatives to the culverts at that location.
Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements/CP-8
The Engineer reviewed a proposed contract amendment with
Julian M. Johnson Construction Co. which had been negotiated
following submission of billings from the contractor for the
dewatering costs encountered in attempting to perform the work in
the winter of 1984. The Engineer explained the contract amendment
would pay a portion of the costs requested by the contractor and
commit the contractor to perform the work in the fall/winter of
1984-85 at the same contract price. The Engineer stated that in
his opinion the proposed compensation to the contractor was more
than fair and was based on the premise that the Board of Managers
did not want to terminate the contract and complete the work under
the contractor's performance bond. Following review and
modification of the language on completion date, it was moved by
Carroll, seconded by Lehman that the amended contract be approved
and the president authorized to execute the amended agreement on
behalf of the District. Upon vote the motion carried.
1984 Water M~intenance and Repair Fund Status
The Board reviewed a memorandum from the Engineer dated May
8, 1984, summarizing the current status of the water maintenance
and repair fund. The Engineer's memorandum indicated that
approximately $14,000 remained unencumbered in the fund but that
approximately $9,600. of that amount would be committed to the CP-8
project under the amended agreement. The Managers discussed
priorities for the remaining funds. Following discussion it was
moved by Carroll, seconded by Lehman that the remaining balance in
the 1984 Water Maintenance and Repair Fund should be committed to
modification and repair of canoe landings on Minnehaha Creek in
the order of need and that the City of St. Louis Park project
request for vegatation removal should be deferred until next
year. Upon vote the motion carried.
509/Watershed Manaqement Planninq
The Engineer advised the Board that the City of Richfield
has requested a meeting regarding Chapter 509 planning. The
Engineer advised the Board that a meeting with staff has been set
for May 21, 1984 at the City of Richfield City Offices to be
followed by a work session with the Managers and the City Council
members on June 11, 1984.
The Engineer also stated that the series of Technical
Advisory Committee meetings, which are open to all interested
persons, have been scheduled for May 31, June 7, and June 14,
1984, in three areas of the Watershed District. The purpose of
these meetings is to secure comments on the policy statement
drafts. -
-12-
Headwaters Control Structure
The Engineer advised the Managers that Lake Minnetonka as of
May 17, 1984, was at elevation 930.04 and that the discharge
through the control structure was 175 CFS.
CP-5/Painter Creek Status Report
The Engineer distributed the project completion schedule and
stated that the topographic maps being prepared from the aerial
photography recently taken should be available by the June meeting.
MCWD Canoe Trip
The Engineer confirmed that arrangements had been made for
all members of the District's Board, Staff and other persons who
wish to attend a canoe trip on Minnehaha Creek to be held on
Saturday, May 19, 1984, commencing at 10:00 a.m. in Utley Park in
the City of Edina.
Rice Creek Watershed District/Lonq Lake Sediment Treatment Tour
The Engineer distributed information on a clean lakes
project underway in the Rice Creek Watershed District for the
information of the Managers.
Metropolitan Association of Watershed District Chapter 509 Members
Chairman Cochran distributed a communication from Howard
Peterson of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District Board of
Managers regarding possible legislative activities which might be
undertaken by the Metropolitan area watershed districts. The
Chairman requested the attorney to distribute copies of the
communication to the Managers for discussion by the Board at the
next regular meeting.
Petition for Boundary Amendment/Chapter 509
The Chairman executed on behalf of the Board a joint
petition with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the
Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District to amend joint boundaries
between those districts in conformity with the requirements of
Chapter 509.
-13-
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the regular
meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at
12:10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John E. Thomas, Secretary
2661n
-14-
June 26, 1984
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
Enclosed is an article that was published on Saturday in the Tribune.
Somehow, the word got out that if cities could pass a resolution by
last Friday that all those I.R.B.'s listed in the resolution would be
exempt from coverage under the new Federal Tax Bill.
Unfortunately, the people who monitor that kind of stuff for the
City didn't call us and the one bond opportunity that we could go
with, "Town Square" was potentially missed.
That wouldn't be the end of the world, but when you see the IRB
bond inventory that Minneapolis, St. Paul and Bloomington have, it
is not surprising that this City is not very competitive with those
Cities. i.e.
Hennepin County
Minneapolis
Bloomington
St. Paul Port Authority
TOTAL
$ 390.0 M
1.500.0 M
500.0 M
59.0 M
$ 2.449.0 Billion
Minnesota, in 1983, sold $1.3 billion dollars worth of bonds. The
new Tax Bill caps the annual lid at $600.0 million. Thus, the four
groups listed above total nearly 4 years of exclusive use. Where
all this leaves Mound is outlined in greater detail in the attached
article.
JE:fc
eric.
Deadline on bonds
produces a rush 1
on resolutions
By Jim Adams
Staff Writer
Officials of the metropolitan area's
three biggest cities and its biggest
county gathered Friday in hastily
called meetings to pass resolutions
they hope will save millions of dol-
lars on low-interest bonds sold to
finance development projects.
But they may have done so in vain.
Th~ officials city council mem-
'hers from Minneapolis and Bloom-
ington, port authority members in SL
Paul, and Hennepin County Commis-
sioners -- are hoping to take advan-
tage of a loophole which was being
discussed in Washington yesterday
by a Congressional conference com-
mittee.
Congress might exempt certain gov-
'erament bodies from new, restric-
tive legislation that would sharply
~¥.~urtall the use of tax-exempt indus-
trial development bonds. Congress
wants to cut their use ,in order to
help reduce the federal deficit.
WaShington lobbyists told officials
that the conference committee was
considering setting yesterday aS the
deadline for government bodies to
de~lar~ their intentions to use indus-
trial development bonds.
'~ment bodies passing resolu-
lions' by yesterday --- or whatever
date on which the committee agrees
-- would be covered by a previous
law which allows unlimited use of
industrial development bonds, said
Maureen Warren, an aide to St. Paul
Mayor George_Latimer. The confer-
ence committee previously had dis-
cussed a deadline of May 1983, War-
rea said.
Cutting back on the bonds is intend-
ed to save the U.S. Treasury about $5
billion over five years, according tO
congressional estimates.
The resolutions .lmSSed by Twin Ctt-
les officials say that they intend to
sell tax-exempt, industrial develop-
ment bonds for specified projects,
including a county, garbage-burning
system, Metropolitan Stadium site
development a.nd a Minneapolis con-
vention center.
But Dave Rosenauer, chief legisla-
tive assistant for U.S. Rep. Bill Fren-
zel, IR-Third District, said it ap-
peared late yesterday afternoon that
the conference committee would
agree on a measure that makes the
toeal resolutions meaningless.
Speaking from WaShington, Rosen-
auer said that any "grandfather"
clause probably will stipulate that
government bodies ~take action be-
fore Friday in order to bo allowed
unlimited bonding.
One House bill being considered by
the conference committee would re-
strict the amount of industrial devel-
opment bonds, that' could be issued in
each state to $150 per capita. That
would limit the total bonding amount
to about $600 million in Minnesota,
said Jimmie Powell, legislative di-
rector for Sen. Dave Durenberger,
IR-Minn.
'In 1983, $1.3 billion worth of bonds
were issued in Minnesota, according
the the Minnesota Department of
Energy and Economic Development.
Hennepin County taxpayers would
save more than $100 million if the
county sells industrial development
bonds instead of taxable bonds for its
proposed solid-waste burning system,
said John Holten, a legal consultant
Bonds continued on page 7B
r.~unu~-£ontlnned from Pa,
to the ~enn~Pln County board. The
board unanimously passed a resolu-
tion ~ying it inten~ to sell about
$390 million wo~ of bon~ for the
project
If Con~e~ limi~'the bon~ ~ued in
~ch ~te, Holten ~id, s~te officia~
are likely W all.ate them b~
pa~Y on gove~ment bodies' h~tor-
ic u~ of the bon~. '.
The county haS not used industrial
development bonds very muc. h, said
Commissioner Jeff Spartz. That
means "we would probably fall very
short on the totem pole of priorities,"
he said.
Minneapolis ,City Council members
spent about two hours yesterday
identifying more than 125 wish-list
projects with a total cost of more
than $1.5 billion before passing a
resolution saying they intend to issue
bonds to finance the projects, said
Steve Yanisch, city finance project
manager.
The city bell?~es.~c_h~.p_rojects _.as___
the proposed neW'convention center
would either be killed or delayed
without low-interest financing, he
said.
The Bloomington City Council resolu-
lion said it intends to sell up to $500
million worth of industrial develop-
ment bonds to develop the Metropol-
itan Stadium site. Mayor Jim Lindau
said that if the city cannot use indus-
trial development bonds for the pro-
ject, private developers would have
to find more expensive conventional
financing. That could hinder the pro-
]ect and delay an .increase in the
site's taxable value, he said.
Warren said the' St. Paul Port Au-
thority was to meet laSt night to pass
a resolution saying it intends to issue
industrial development bonds for $55
million worth of projects. She said St,
Paul was notified, about conference
committee deliberations by a lobby.
1st for the National League of Cities.
Legislation ra ses
' ofgarbage..,
price
..~ Jim Adams. ....... ;.~;~ ~{,~.,..'".-,-~.:... ~,;~';~ ~?~;-' a-. ~. lobbyist; for:. ,~e ~Natlonal
~en~ePia [Cou~W. ~a~ appar~.~ .Th&' ~nfe - itt =a~ion ,
ently will. pay millio~
mo~ for a pro~ ~rba~bu~.;,: sire d~ion ~f~,ytb~:~T~i~n~ of
ing system because ,of legislation
passed Saturday by-a.ccngressiona~;~-
The new la~' would greatly restrict':'.-*
tax-tree industrial .' development'
bonds, which' bad been unlimited.'
The new law is an attempt to reduce
the federal' deficit. The legislation is
Hennepln County in terms of sha/'ply
increasing .. ou r,,garbage,~ d. isposal
cdSts,? ~said -'.'ChromiC-Ii, neff_ Ra.ndy
Johnson.
lie *s~ld the county stair *estimates
that it may cost at least $8-i~illion ..
'per year more during the' 20-Year
term of bonds .issued fora ,$200.mii-
-.expected to be passed by Congress. It.' lion garbage-burning sYstem,
must be signed by Presldent~-Reagan , -
before it can take effect, .i:?The ne~...Jegislation **.would- limi( ln-
A:'~.:2 ;i.:-'~:t:;~ .~-:-': ;~': '~ '~!~;;¢:-~.::',~ :.'-?. dustrtal, dev.elopm, ent~boncLs ~saue.d ih
-,-Minneapolis and,-Bloomington.~roj~: .'eacb~.state3:0 $150.per.capita~.'.which
gets. would, be :affected .by'-fbe?new? meanS about. $611:. million, would be
law, but St. Paui would'have no:dlffi-;s'~, available.' fok; Minnesota.f~ offic[ials
culty, officials of the cities said: ~ .;: .*said...$tate Jegislators haye..passed a
· ..,;.~- ~. .... ::%~.. .... law stating that if Congress. {trailed
The three cities and the county the amount of industrial develop-
board of commisslooers pa~s~.~O ~r~ '~ment bondS, most~&vailable'*b6nding
lutioas Friday Iff h0~:~S of'me, ting ~ "~would go* tO-'government units that
deadline ~ rumored to be Friday ~ have been large' USers of the bonds.
gor:.exemp{i0n Cfr~rdTthe~' new .taw. Under state gui~Jel~ne~;'l~fino~apolis
<The* resoluU0i~ stated ar/ intent to'? would. ~laalify' Jor' aboi~t $45~mlllion
'. use'th6 low-i/~t6rest bOnds 't6.bulld :4n:b0nds,* BlOOmingtoh, $10 milliori,
' the gai-bige~6ur~lng system;'develop*. '-'*and st. Paul, $85 million, their
the vacant Metropolitan' $tadlu~ site · cials said.' ~'": ~ .: ..... ~-. *, .." :-.
.,,...' * "..*.~.; ?. 5 .
and finance scores of other projects
"in Min~eal~011S and St: Paul:' .5 :'~ St. Paul olflcials say/. their allotment.
· * ~ .' '~ ....... : :'-' :*,;.i,' "~ ' ~ ' Would ' be ~ enough~:,'to*' cover~ their
But 't lie r'esdlutlons: bec~ii~ ~futlle:' ~. needs: Minneapolis: exPeCts~;:to ~ be
h'ours later when the congressiOnal q'~about ,10 pe~ent short of the bond-
confer~'n~e 'c~ommittee set the di~ad- ,"lng power it would riced thlg year
"line ~s"lak~t.Tuesday lor~proj~ct'pro- and have even less boadin~ available
· '--posals'*to r~cetve'the'tax4ree bOnds;q: neXt: year, sale Steve: Yafil~;ch, fi-
· -The cbngressional'committee decid-', *' nance project maa~ger' for the Min-
ed 'that go,,;&rnmeht units that met>: neap01is Commtinlty Dev~lepmleat
that deadline must issu~ the bonds .'-'Agency.' ~ - .... - ':; "'': "-;" · .
before January, said Frank
June 26, 1984
CIi FY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
C.P.I. (Consumer Price Index)
Enclosed is a follow-up to my memo regarding the letter Steve Smith
sent out on the cost of living.
In 1983, it says, the C.P.I. increased 3.8%. In 1984, so far, it has
risen 4.6%, close to the 5.0% we had projected when we did the 1984
Budget back in August of 1983.
JE:fc
enc.
· Consumer Price Index
P~cent change from previous month
May
J J AS ON D JFMAMJ J A SON JFMAM
1982 1983 1964
Star and Tribune chart-- Sourcl/U.S. Department of Labo~
May,consumer price
climb restrained by
drop in food costs
Associated Press
Washington, D.C.
The sharpest decline in food costs in
almost a year held the May increase
in consumer prices to two-tenths of 1
percent, the government said Priday.
The Labor Department's report was
the second this week dispelling
fears that the. economy's strong
growth was relgnltlng inflation.
The Commerce Department report-
ed Wednesday that the economy is
growing at an unexpectedly strong
5.7 percent annual rate in the second
quarter. Still, inflation is rising at an
annual rate of less than 3 percent in
the still unfinished quarter, accord-
ing to the Commerce estimates.
"There's been more hype about in'
flation than there has been infla-
tion,'' economist Jerry Jasinowski
said yesterday.
At the White Hou/e, spokesman Lar-
ry Speakes said, "Inflation' remains.
under control at the shopping
counter... We're on the right course
of sustainable growth and low infla-
tion.''
· orders to factories for durable
goods rose 3.3 percent in May,
reversing a sharp 6.5 percent
drop in April. Page 7B.
So far this year, the Consumer Price
Index has risen at an annual rate of
a bit under most aha-
rations of a 5 percent
gain for the year.
m, e the
,smartest gain since me price-con-
trolled years of 1971-72.
In the May inflation report, the La-
bor Department said cheaper prices
for beef, poultry,' vegetables and
eggs in May contributed to a two-
tenths of 1. percent drop in food
costs. Food prices were steady in
April and fell one-tenth of 1 percent
in March.
A two-tenths of 1 percent increase in
gasoline prices also restrained con-
sumer costs last month, the Labor
Department report said. Normally,
gasoline prices climb quite a bit
Economy continued on' page 7B