2000-01-11AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2000, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALleGIANCE.
PAGE
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are
considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a
roll call vote. There wilt be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the
item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
in normal sequence.
APPROVE AGENDA.
*CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
*B.
*C.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
NOVEMBER 23, 1999, REGULAR MEETING ............... 4-16
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 14, 1999, ------ 03 Oc')'~ ~
REGULAR MEETING .............................. 17-27
RESOLUTION APPOINTING FRAN CLARK , CITY CLERK,
ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2000 ..................... 28
*D.
*E.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER AS THE
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2000 ....................... 29
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT
LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK ............. 30
*F.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT
LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY
TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR ...................... 31
*G.
*H.
*I.
RF_SOLU~ON DESIGNATING TI-IE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES
FOR 2000 ....................................... 32
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK HANUS AS ACTING MAYOR FOR
2000.(By consensus of the Council the Acting Mayor term runs concurrent ~
with the Mayor) ff3.~. ~~ ....... ~ .?g-':~. 33
RESOLU ON APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBERS AS COUNCXL
REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2000 ......................... 34
*J.
*K.
CASE 99-42: MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO
(2) PARCELS FROM THE EXISTING ONE; ROGER MUONIO,
5947 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, BLOCK 61 LOTS 5-6,
THE HIGHLANDS, 61610/2410 PID//23-117-24-43-0024 ........ 35-43
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT
AGREEMENT ................................... 44-64
*L.
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION OF LMCD MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE
APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING: .................. 65-80
1. SETON VIEW ASSOCIATION
2. SEAHORSE CONDOMINIUMS
3. PELICAN POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
4. CITY OF MOUND (LOST LAKE CHANNEL
5. CITY OF MOUND (ALL DOCKS IN COMMONS DOCK
PROGRAM) - 590 BSU'S
MINNETONKA BOAT RENTAL
LAKEWINDS ASSOCIATION
HARRISON HARBOR TWINHOME ASSOC.
HALSTEAD ACRES IMPROVEMENT ASSOC.
DRIFTWOOD SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB
SETON TWIN HOMES
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
*M~' PAYMENT OF BILLS .............................. 81-110
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CONVERSION OF THE DAKOTA
RAIL RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO A REGIONAL RECREATIONAL J<"t~
TRAIL ............................................ 111-116 C)~)'
INFORMATION & MISCELLANEOUS
Letter from City Planner, Loren Gordon, regarding the Rex Alwin
property ......................................... 117
2
Bo
Do
E.
F.
G.
H.
Jo
Letter from Rex Alwin regarding his property that was received
January 7, 2000 ................................. 118-120
Letter from POSC Commissioner, Tom Casey, regarding the
proposed new municipal well ......................... 121-127
POSC Minutes of December 9, 1999 .................... 128-132
DCAC Minutes of December 16, 1999 ................... 133-138
EDC Minutes of November 18, 1999 .................... 139-140
//DC Minutes of December 16, 1999 .................... 141-144
Thank-you letter from Jim Fackler to the VFW for their donation
to the City of $500.00 for park benches .................. 145-147
Letter from Westonka School District to the Planning Commission regarding
the sale of their land on Lynwood & Commerce ................ 148
Letter from Mediacom regarding the upgrade of the cable T.V. system.149-151
2000 League of Minnesota Cities legislative policies ........... 152-203
Notice from the National League of Cities about the 2000 NLC
Congressional City Conference in Washington, D.C.,
March 10-14, 2000. Please let me know before the end of
January if you intend on attending because the deadline for ~,.0~
registration is February 4, 2000 .......................... 204
REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, 7:00 P.M.
Planning Commission Minutes, December 13, 1999 ..........
205-220
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL -NOVEMBER 23, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting
City Manager Fran Clark, City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The
following interested citizens were also present: Kim Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Martin
Carlsen, Jane Carlsen, Tom Casey, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Peter Johnson, Jo Longpre, Peter
C. Meyer, Pat Murphy, William Netka, Dorothy Netlat, Randy Moe, Sheila Murphy, Tom
Murphy, Sandy Moen, David Osmek, Thomas Stokes, Sarah Tyrand.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be
removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor opened the meeting at 8:10 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
Mayor apologized for the late start and explained it was due to the fact the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority meeting was extended. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
The Acting City Manager stated she would like to add to the Consent Agenda Item D, which
is a resolution approving a gambling permit for the Northwest Tonka Lions. Councilmember
Hanus stated he would like to remove Item A.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker, to approve the Agenda and Consent
Agenda with the addition of Item D and the removal of Item A. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 FINAL PAYMENT REQUF~T. HALSTEAD LANE/WESTEDGE BOULEVARD
STORM SEWER IMPLEMENT: F.F. JEDLICKI - $52,615.00.
MOTION.
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.1 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
'1.2
MOTION.
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS AT LAKE MINNETONKA BOWL.
RESOLUTION//99-103.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A GAMBLING
PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE NORTHWEST
TONKA LIONS AT LAKE MINNETONKA BOWL.
Hanus, Weycker, unanimously.
1.3
CASE//99-39: VARIANCE; TO CONSTRUCT A NONCONFORMING
LAKESIDE DECK AT 2660 LAKEWOOD LANE; RICHARD WOOD~ LOTS 1.
2. AND PART OF 3. SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "G". RICHARD WOOD, 62070;
PID# 24-117-24 14 0034
Councilmember Hanus stated Item A is a planning issue. Councilmember Hanus stated he
went to the applicant's property and visited the site where the deck in question is being built.
He explained the deck was a gift situation from family members to the applicant and a permit
was not properly obtained before construction of the deck had been started. Councilmember
Hanus further stated the applicant's deck aligns up with the neighbor's deck and looks very
appropriate. Councilmember Hanus questioned whether it was practical to have the City
make the applicant cut the deck back four feet at this point. He referred to a similar case
that he handed out which showed the permit requested from the City to build the structure
was not built exactly as the permit stated and, in that case, the applicant's structure was
permitted. Councilmember Hanus stated both the Planning Commission and the City Council
should pass this deck structure because of the similar case at hand and.
Councilmember Hanus stated if the City Council does pass this case, he has some suggested
wording for the resolution.
Councilmember Brown stated this deck was a gift to the applicant and it was not built
intentionally to by-pass any City code. Furthermore, the applicant was not aware the deck
was even being built.
Councilmember Hanus stated the deck does not cut off the view of lake by either home in
this location.
The applicant stated he appreciated the time and effort given to his case by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. He had no further comments.
Councilmember Hanus recommended adding to the resolution after the sixth whereas the
following:
WHEREAS, the deck as constructed remains within a line drawn between the
2
.... MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
neighboring buildings on either side of this property; and,
WHEREAS, there are prior case approvals that support the applicant's request; and,
Councilmember Hanus recommended the last whereas read as follows: "WHEREAS, the
Staff and Planning Commission have reviewed the request and recommended that the Council
approve the variance with conditions."
Finally, Councilmember Hanus recommended under the NOW, THEREFORE clause to have
number 1 read as follows: "The City does hereby approve the variance as requested by the
applicant." Number 1.a. also should be changed to read as follows: "The deck be limited
to a setback of 38.9 feet."
Hanus moved and seconded Brown, the following resolution with the changes as stated
above:
RESOLUTION # 99-104:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LAKESIDE
AND DETACHED GARAGE SETBACK
VARIANCES AT LOT 1, 2 AND PART OF 3,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "G", PID# 24-117-24
14 0034, P & Z CASE//99-39, 620707.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.4 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would appreciate an update from staff regarding the
Comprehensive Plan. He also stated the Councilmembers received a copy of the minutes
from the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1999, and would appreciate staff's
comments regarding that item also.
Councilmember Hanus questioned whether the Surface Water Management Plan was a part of
the Comprehensive Plan or a separate document. The City Planner stated it is a component
of the Comprehensive Plan but can be dealth with separately.
Councilmember Hanus noted the Planning Commission tabled the Surface Water
Management Plan. He agreed with this direction. He stated the Comprehensive Plan is a
Plan that involves more policy decisions, but the Surface Water Management Plan is looked
at as a type of zoning document which presently does not read well at all according to the
Planning Commission and Councilmember Hanus.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the City Council will be reviewing only the Comprehensive
Plan tonight and at a later date, the Surface Water Management Plan will be discussed.
Gordon stated the Planning Commission would appreciate more time to review the Surface
Water Management Plan, although the City Council could approve it without further review
by the Planning Commission.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Councilmember Hanus stated if we allow more time, the Surface Water Management Plan
will not be approved with the Comprehensive Plan.
The City Planner stated it is acceptable to have the Surface Water Management Plan come in
at a later date than projected by the Metropolitan Council. He stated there are no
ramifications if the plan is not presented with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner
stated there are a number of cities that are still scrambling to get their Comprehensive Plan
and Surface Water Management Plan completed.
Councilmember Weycker asked if a Capital Improvements Plan has been included in the
Comprehensive Plan and the City Planner stated there was a section in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Councilmember Brown stated the huge problem the Planning Commission has already dealt
with in the Surface Water Management Plan is the buffer zone. The Planning Commission is
totally against buffers. Councilmember Brown stated there might be other ways to
supplement the effect buffers give.
The City Planner presented the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council and the public. He
started in the Land Use section. He noted changes would be occurring with the Mound
visions plan project. He stated the downtown by will show more density for some sort of
apartments/townhomes. There will also be redevelopment near Commerce and Shoreline.
The City Planner stated in the Housing section there is a summary showing Mound has a
large inventory of single-family housing and the plan suggests that be complimented with
other housing mixes.
The City Planner explained there were no changes in the Transportation section of the Plan,
except the rerouting of County Road 15 for the downtown project.
The City Planner stated the Cultural and Natural Resources section would be a protection of
the wetland areas and parks and school district property.
The City Planner stated the Park and Recreation section showed existing parks and major
conservation areas for the City of Mound. He stated the School District ballfields are a part
of the this. He stated there are bikeways and trails planned, including the possibility of the
Dakota railway having some sort of regional trail connection. The City Planner mentioned
the loop trail around Lost Lake and noted the existing parks are staying. The Plan does
show if there is a need for additional park facilities they will be examined as they arise.
The City Planner stated the Public Facility and Resources section showed no anticipated
improvements to the buildings at this time. He stated there is a Capital Improvements Plan
noted in the Plan that does show storm sewer pipe and road maintenance issues that will be
dealt with in an appropriate timeframe.
The City Planner stated this is a policy document and a decision-making tool. He stated the
City Council could revise sections over time. He stated it should be kept updated regularly,
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
but will not have to be officially reviewed for another 10 years.
The City Planner reviewed the motions the Planning Commission made regarding the
Comprehensive Plan on November 22, 1999. They are listed as follows:
Mueller recommended the following changes to the Goals and Polices section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mueller stated under l_atnd Use on page 8, number 9 at the top of page should read:
"City Council, Planning Commission and Park and Open Space Commission shall
review and analyze publicly owned land to ensure that it is needed for public
purposes."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma, to approve the amendment to
the Land Use section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Recreation on page 10, number 6 should read: "Promote a
balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, nature
conservation areas, special use facilities, schools and private developments.'
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the amendment to the
Recreation section noted above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Public Communication/Information Access section the words
"continue to" where noted in two locations should be removed.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to approve the amendment to the
Public Communication/Information Access section noted above. MOTION
CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated under Public Communications/Information Access number 3 should
read as follows: "Ensure that elected and appointed officials are provided timely and
accurate information to assist with decision making through adequate staff and resources."
MOTION by MueHer, seconded by Glister, to approve the amendment to
the Public Communications/Information Access section amended above.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Voss noted that concludes the Goals and Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Goals and Policies Section of the
Comprehensive Plan with the amended changes above. MOTION
CARRIED. 6-1, Voss voting nay.
Voss reiterated the reason for him voting nay is he does not believe there is sufficient
information of the financial impact on the city this Plan will have, it does not show
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
how this Plan will effect property rights, and does not demonstrate the impact to local
government.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Natural and Cultural Resources
section of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Socio-Economic Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land Use section be changed to read: "Land by deed restrictions
or plat dedications is identified for use principally by owners of specific
subdivisions."
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to approve the omendment to
the Land Use section as amended above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Land use section under pedestrian district should read as follows:
"It is an intense downtown area with a mix of retail office and attached residential
housing.,
Clapsaddle is concerned the whole downtown area will become totally multi-family
residential construction because of the financial gain with the above noted change in
the 1.and Use section. Gordon stated this may be a valid concern.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Pedestrian District of the Land Use section as amended
above. MOTION CARRIED. 5-2, Hasse and Clapsaddle voting nay.
Mueller stated changing the Land Use Map coloration on page 37. Mueller stated the
green area regarding the Lost Lake area should be recolored and the south 90 percent
of it be white and the top portion be green.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map at amended above.
Gordon suggested stating the Lost Lake area be noted as a conservation area on the
Land Use Map. Mueller suggested to have the map show green and white checkered
for the Lost Lake area, except the area above the ordinary high water mark which
should be green.
AMENDED MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the
amendment to the Land Use Map stated above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-
0.
6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Mueller suggested on the Land Use Map for the property located on the corner of
Lynwood and Commerce which is a public institution to have the comer two pieces
remain red and the remainder change to blue.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment
to the Land Use Map involving the property located at Lynwood and
Commerce as stated above. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by MueHer, seconded by Chair Michael, to move for approval
or disapproval by the City Council the Land Use Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Clapsaddle voting nay.
Clapsaddle voted nay because of the change noted to the pedestrian district section of
Land Use.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Housing Section of the Comprehensive
Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated to make no changes to the Park and Recreation Section, but allow the
Park and Open Space Commission to make recommended changes to the Park and
Recreation Section at the City Council meeting on November 23, 1999.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Park and Recreation Section with
additions noted above on the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED.
7-0.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to change Contents of the
Park and Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan as noted above.
MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Public Facilities and Services Section
of the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hasse, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Transportation Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 6-1, Mueller voting nay.
Voss made the motion to pass the Transportation Section because he was not
concerned about the impact of the comments suggested in the Goals and Policies
Section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mueller opposed this motion because neighborhood roadways should not be
considered "municipal state aid streets.' He stated this would increase traffic flow at
a higher speed and a requirement by another governmental body.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss, to move for approval or
disapproval by the City Council the Implementation Section of the
Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED. 7-0.
Mueller stated the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council the
Parks and Recreation portion of the Comprehensive Plan should include input from
the Park and Open Space Committee regarding an immediate potential loss of activity
type-park areas and the immediate potential acquisition of property to replace the loss.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the amendment
to the Park and Recreation section as noted above. MOTION CARRIEI~.
6-1, Voss voting nay.
Councilmember Hanus stated the Land Use Map does not reflect the zoning properly,
specifically the Maple Manors. The City Planner stated the change can be included in the
final draft of the Land Use Map.
Councilmember Hanus stated Tyrone Park does not appear to be on the Land Use Map.
Gordon stated this park will be added back in the final draft of the Land Use Map.
Councilmember Ahrens asked the City Planner if the City Council finds mistakes in the
Comprehensive Plan after it is turned into Metropolitan Council, can it be changed. The
City Planner stated changes could be made that are minor. Any major change may not be as
easy to change. The City Planner also stated the Land Use section of the Comprehensive
Plan should be kept updated to accommodate zoning changes as they occur.
Councilmember Weycker stated the Transportation section specifically needed some changes
made. She stated Dial-a-Ride is a transportation service for ali individuals and not just the
elderly or disabled. Also, it should be noted in the Comprehensive Plan the bus routes are
only available for citizens of Mound at rush hour times and not on an all day basis as
mentioned.
Councilmember Weycker stated there are some discrepancies with the Lost Lake area. She
stated the map should indicate it as an NCA or a lake marsh.
Councilmember Weycker mentioned in the Parks and Recreation section under the
Specialized Areas the fourth paragraph should exclude part of the first sentence up until the
Commerce part.
Councilmember Weycker was concerned how the park and recreation space for the citizens
of Mound was calculated. She questioned including Lost lake as usable land. Gordon
stated this section would need to be recalculated if the school district property is changed
from its current park listing.
Councilmember Brown stated he recommends changes to the Comprehensive Plan according
to what the Planning Commission recommended at its November 22, 1999, meeting.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
Tom Stokes, 4636 Wilshire Boulevard. He is a part of the Brenshell Company. Mr. Stokes
would like to know why the sea green color from the original Land Use 'Map has changed to
yellow in the proposed I_and Use Map. The City Planner stated this yellow area will be
considered vacant and could be subdivided some day.
Tom Casey, 2845 Cambridge Lane. Mr. Casey submitted for the record a memo with
recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Casey would like to see the final
Comprehensive Plan at a public hearing when it has been completed.
Mr. Casey restated a statute which cites specific property which could be included in a
Comprehensive Plan, such as the Rex Alwin property and the school district property if it
seems appropriate. Mr. Casey stated it would make good sense to include this property in
the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney stated it is possible to point out specific
property in the Comprehensive Plan, but he does not recommend it.
Mr. Casey restated he would recommend having strong language in Comprehensive Plan that
includes a friendly acquisition of the Rex Alwin property and the school district property.
Mr. Casey stated the Surface Water Management Plan is a required Plan and commends the
City and Mr. Parks for taking the appropriate time to create a well-written Plan. Mr. Casey
submitted his recommended changes of the Surface Water Management Plan to the City
Engineer.
Mr. Casey stated the buffer zones should be included in the Surface Water Management Plan
because it is a good code to have for a city like Mound and also it is mandated by the
watershed district.
Mr. Casey mentioned the two resolutions submitted to the Planning Commission which
include the Rex Alwin property and the School District property. He stated the Parks
Commission only approved the two resolutions and the memorandum he submitted was his
thoughts only. Mr. Casey stated the big woods is an "echo system" and Mr. Alwin's
property is one of those remnant parcels.
Tom Stokes stated he has an interest in Rex Alwin property. He stated he would like to
have this property put into a park and other development. Mr. Stokes would like to know
the impact it would be on him, a developer, if the city would put this property into its
Comprehensive Plan as parkland.
The City Attorney stated the property would stay zoned as it currently is zoned. He stated if
was a proposal to develop the property by a developer, it would need a conditional use
permit from the City of Mound.
Mr. Casey clarified by no means is he trying to impede Mr. Alwin's plans in anyway.
I&
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Peter Meyer, 5848 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer is the Chairman of the Park & Open
Space Commission. He is in favor of keeping the bailfields. Mr. Meyer did a comparison
of other cities regarding bailfields available to the public. The five cities he cited, with
various populations, of having more ballfields than Mound include Chanhassen, Chaska,
Shorewood, Watertown, and Saint Bonnifacius. Mr. Meyer wants the City of Mound
visions project to include an appropriate number of ballfields.
Councilmember Brown stated the five cities Mr. Meyer mentioned are ail cities that are
growing and have a large amount of land yet to be developed. Councilmember Brown
corrected Mr. Meyer and stated the City of Mound has three little league fields and three
softball fields. He aiso stated Mr. Meyer failed to mention the Swenson Park and the Shirley
Hills Park as community fields currently being utilized by the public.
Councilmember Hanus asked if all of the fields listed from each of the five cities were ail
city maintained property and Mr. Meyer stated they were. Councilmember Hanus stated
these cities are blossoming and have large tax revenue to help support these fields and
Mound does not.
Councilmember Hanus suggested to Mr. Meyer he would support a generic listing of certain
types of parks to be included in the Comprehensive Plan and to have the City work towards
achieving those standards for the community; but to be include site specific parcels would be
inappropriate.
Councilmember Brown mentioned another correction in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated
in the Goals and Polices section under Recreation the first sentence should read as follows:
"Promote recreationai opportunities to meet the needs of the Mound residents."
Councilmember Weycker stated it would be inappropriate to be site specific in any area of
the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception to the parks and the school district property.
Mr. Stokes questioned what will prevent the school district from selling off more of its
property, or bailfield~, to other developers as the years go by. Mr. Stokes stated the City
may need to put some kind of stop in preventing this from happening again.
Councilmember Weycker agreed and would like to see the City purchase more fields in the
future.
Mr. Meyer suggested having a joint powers agreement between the school district and the
City where it would state if the school district decides to sell off any of its property, the City
would have the first right of refusal to purchase the site. Councilmember Hanus stated there
is room for discussion regarding this suggestion by Mr. Meyer but rezoning each acquired
piece of property obtained by the City would not be appropriate.
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood. Ms. Anderson supported Mr. Meyer's caiculations of other
cities regarding percentages of green space for ballfields that surrounding cities provide for
the citizens. She would like the City of Mound to be more aggressive about this matter.
10
.................. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Mr. Casey suggested a possible better way to accomplish completing a project like the
Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan would include having all
interested citizens, all commission members and all consultants at one big round table
discussion and meet'a common understanding and a common ground by all. He would
recommend this planning process as a vision for Mound.
Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would recommend the Comprehensive Plan be brought back
for discussion by the City Council at the next available date in December, 1999, so the City
of Mound could still meet the deadline of December, 1999. He stated the Surface Water
Management Plan would not be included in the Comprehensive Plan presented to the
Metropolitan Council, but instead it would go back to the Planning Commission for more
discussion and then forwarded back to the City Council at the end of January, 2000. He
stated he would encourage special Planning Commission Meetings to accomplish this goal.
The Acting City Manager stated the next Council meeting would be December 14~ , and
already on the agenda is the public hearing on tax increment financing district.
There was discussion about having a special meeting, along with the HRA, at the end of
November which has already been scheduled.
There was discussion abbout any ramifications of not having the Comprehensive Plan or the
Surface Water Management Plan turned into to the Metropolitan Council by the end of the
year. The City Planner stated the Metropolitan Council would probably be swamped with
other Comprehensive Plans. The City Planner stated he would notify the Metropolitan
Council that the City of Mound is actively working on its Comprehensive Plan and Surface
Water Management Plan and they are making progress, but it will not be turned in by the
end of 1999 as expected.
Mayor Meisel stated the Planning Commission would require at least two meetings to
complete the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan and get its
recommendations to the City Council. A consensus noted the Planning Commission should
be able to have its finished product to the City Council by January 24, 2000. The City
Planner did remind the City Council that the Planning Commission will be reviewing the
downtown visions project and this will consume quite a bit time.
Councilmember Ahrens suggested strongly the City should not have been put in this type of
rush position to get such an important Plan done in such a short amount of time.
Mayor Meisel suggested a joint meeting at a Committee of the Whole Meeting where many
issues can be addressed in an unofficial way. She stated the biggest issue would be the green
space and how it should be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Casey commended the City Council if they have a Committee of the Whole meeting to
include discussions of the Comprehensive Plan in an informal environment.
11
,4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MI]qUTES - NOVEMBER 23, 1999
John Parker, real estate agent with Rex Alwin, stated to identify every place in Mound that
could be park property would be designating every single lot in Mound.
Mayor Meisel stated there will be a Committee of the Whole meeting on scheduled for
January 18, 2000. Councilmember Hanus recommended that staff to invite the Park
Commission to attend the Committee of the Whole meeting on January 18, 2000.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to continue discussions of the
Comprehensive Plan and to allow the Planning Commi~ion a deadline of January
24, 2000, to complete the Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water
Management Plan and have it submitted to the City Council in its entirety. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to continue the public hearing of the
Comprehensive Plan until February 8, 2000. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried. 5-0.
The City Planner agreed to prepare an appropriate ad notifying the public of the continuation
of the hearing until February 8, 2000.
1.5
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. (PLEASE
LIMIT THIS TO 3 MINUTES PER PERSON}.
Mayor Meisel updated the public on the progress of the Petition. She stated next Wednesday
there will be an individual hired to start verifying the signatures on the Petition.
Mr. Casey asked if the City Attorney verified the statutory timeline of 40 days for the
petition. The City Attorney stated the timeline is 45 days meaning by statute the petition
cannot be accomplished any quicker than 45 days. The City attorney reminded the public of
the time involved in printing the ballots 30 days before the election and the programming of
the machines. Realistically, the time required may be 49 days.
The Acting City Manager stated to get a referendum organized could take 60 to 90 days from
the time the names have been verified.
Tom Stokes stated he supports the downtown visions project but is disturbed with the process
of having the visions project passed as a concept plan by the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, thus bypassing the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Hanus restated the Housing and Redevelopment Authority only approved a
concept plan and nothing else.
Marshall Anderson asked if the City would like a computer donated for inputting names from
the petition. Mayor Meisel stated the City does not need Mr. Anderson's assistance at this
time but appreciates his offer.
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES = NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Councilmember Brown thanked Mr. Casey for all his efforts and involvement in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan.
The City Attorney also thanked Mr. Casey and Marshall Anderson for their input and time.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.
1. Planning Commission minutes of November 8, 1999.
2. Dock & Commons Advisory Commission minutes of October 21, 1999.
3. POSC minutes of November 10, 1999.
4. LMCD mailings.
5. Letter from Mediacom on their acquisition of Triax.
6. Memo from Bruce Chamberlain - Downtown Fact Sheet.
ADJOURNMENT.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Leah, to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Manager
Francene C. Clark, Acting City
Attest: Council Secretary
13
MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 14, 1999
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown,
Mark Hanus,. and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting
City Manager Fran Clark, City Planner Loren Gordon, Finance Director Gino Businaro, and
Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present: Brace
Chamberlain, Ken Custer, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Laura Ham, Sid Inman, Peter C. Meyer,
Randy Moe, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, James Prosser.
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Councilrnernber or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be
rernoved frorn the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:31 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance. The
pledge of allegiance was recited.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Weycker removed Item C and Councilmember Hanus removed Item D of the
Consent Agenda.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the Agenda and Consent
Agenda with the removal of Items C and D. The roll call vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1.0 MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1. 1999, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING.
MOTION.
Brown, Weycker, unanimously.
*1.1 MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 9. 1999. REGULAR MEETING.
t'7
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
MOTION.
Brown, Weycker, unanimously.
· 1.2 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION.
Brown, Weycker, unanimously.
1.3
CASE # 99-40. MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO READJUST PROPERTY LINE TO
ADD 10 FEET TO 1583 BLUEBIRD LANE FROM 1587 BLUEBIRD LANE;
LOTS 15, 16, 21, AND 22, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT; RUTH KILBY,
BOB AND CAROL LIEN, 62200; PID # 12-117-24 43 0047.
Councilmember Weycker stated the City Attorney would present this issue.
The alt A rn "~ ~ "
· y tto ey stated on page 3940, p.ara~ underlying fee ownership should be
replaced with the words "title ownership.~l~he City Attorney stated the difference between
the two definitions is underlying fee ownership is more specific in nature than title
ownership.
Councilmember Hanus stated on page 3941, subd. 1.a is appreciated and is a result of the
Planning Commission's work. However, the 1.a is inconsistent with the current subdivision
code. The code currently states the lot of record status is lost if a subdivision does occur.
Councilmember Hanus stated to help support this change and to clarify any
misunderstandings, subd. 1.a should read as follows: "Both parcels retain lot of record with
no new parcels or nonconformities created."
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Weycker, to accept the resolution of minor subdivision
with the above-recorded changes.
RESOLUTION//99-105
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR
SUBDIVISION TO ADJUST PROPERTY LINES
BETWEEN 2 EXISTING LOT OF RECORD AT 1583
AND 1587 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 14 AND 23
BLOCK 6 WOODLAND POINT AND LOTS 14, 22
AND THE NORTHERLY HALF OF LOTS 16 AND
21 BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT, PID #'S 12-117-
24 43 0046 AND 12-117-24 43 0047, P & Z CASE #
99-40.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Councilmember Ahrens suggested, and Councilmember Hanus agreed, to have the Planning
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
Commission review the lot of record code and assist staff to have it written properly for use
in the future.
Councilmember Brown stated he would mention at the next Planning Commission meeting to
the Commissioners the suggestion of having the lot of record code clarified by the Planning
Commission and staff.
1.4 APPROVAL OF TWO YEAR LIOUOR STORE LEASE.
Councilmember Hanus directed councilmembers to page 3952 of the packet. Councilmember
Hanus questioned a previous bill paid by the City of Mound for a repair, which he thought,
should have been paid by the landlord. He also questioned the rate of increase and if this
was an appropriate amount. The Acting City Manager stated, and Councilmember Ahrens
agreed, the rate was appropriate. The Acting City Manager will investigate further the lease
regarding repair responsibilities of the City of Mound and the landlord.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the lease as presented. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.5
1-2
PUBLIC HEARING: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.
Mr. Sid Inman of Ehlers and Associates, Inc. presented this case. He stated the public
hearing tonight is being held to approve the geographical area that the tax increment
financing district includes. He stated any development approvals in the tax increment district
will come at a later date and time and be presented to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and/or City Council for consideration and approval.
Mr. Inman presented the modification of the tax increment financing plan which had been
thoroughly reviewed by the City Council previous to this date and was approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority tonight. He stated there were no additions by the
school district, although there was a letter dated December 6, 1999, from the county
administrator which was entered into the record as presented.
Mr. Inman stated with this plan the City is expanding the old district and now making a new
district called a redevelopment. Mr. Inman noted the Planning Commission wanted to add
two additional properties to the plan, but statutorily this cannot be done now and needs to be
considered at a later date.
Mr. Inman stated upon completion the estimate tax increment will be about $900,000. He
stated this amount seems high, but if the development occurs at a slower rate this amount
will be less. He stated, along with the budget, this sets the maximum amount that can be
spent.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
Mr. Inman stated the financing part will be a "pay as you go' scenario, which states the
developer will pay all of the expenses. Another option of financing is to do self-financing of
administrative costs and general obligations bonds. Mr. haman stated this district has a
redevelopment duration with a maximum of 25 years from the date of the first increment.
Mr. Inman stated the fiscal disparities election will help spread the costs outside the district.
The options would be to keep it outside the district and then reverse that decision, but the
City cannot say they would like to keep everything within the district and then change and
say they would like to go out of the district for funds. Mr. Inman stated the fiscal disparities
are currently going to be spread among the taxpayers.
Mr. Inman stated if the resolution is approved tonight by the City Council, there will be four
findings adopted. (1) This is a redevelopment district, (2) the proposed development would
not reasonably occur without the tax increment financing, (3) the plan conforms to the
general plan of the City, and (4) provide the plan maximum opportunity for the City with
regard to development and redevelopment of the City.
Mr. Inman restated the City Council would be approving the geographical area of the tax
increment financing plan by authorizing the resolution presented tonight.
Councilmember Brown referred to page 3976 of the agenda packet and stated the residential
property south of Bartlett Boulevard and the swamp parcel owned by the City was
inadvertently put in the tax increment financing plan and he would request that parcel be
removed. Councilmember ^hrens stated these two parcels were already removed by the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority at tonight's meeting. Brown realized this statement,
but wanted to make sure it was noted at the City Council meeting this removal would take
place.
Councilmember Brown stated at the Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 1999, it
was voted to include the Green Tee and Phillip 66 property in the tax increment financing
district. Brown stated he is aware at this time this addition cannot statutorily be considered,
but he would like to have it made clear it would be added at a later date and time. Mr.
Inman stated these properties would have to be qualified, but at this point, he would consider
these parcels not a problem to get them qualified.
Councilmember Brown stated strongly the Commissioners at the December 13, 1999,
meeting wanted the Phillip 66 and Green Tee properties to be included in TIF.
Councilmember Hanus stated for the record that just because a certain property is not
included in the district, does not preclude it from using increment funding for those projects.
Councilmember Ahrens asked if the Planning Commission understood by placing these
properties in now the whole qualification process would have to be started completely over.
Councilmember Brown stated this was not discussed at the December 13, 1999, meeting, but
there were discussions these properties could be included by the end of the year, which now
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
will not happen from the information received tonight from Mr. Inman.
Councilmember Weycker stated even if there are properties within the district, this does not
necessarily mean they qualify for the TIF financing or will be granted.
Mayor Meisel opened the public heating at 7:50 p.m.
Ken Custer, 5533 Shoreline/5310 Bartlett. Mr. Custer asked if the Randy Automotive
Building in being considered for the tax increment financing district.
Councilmember Brown stated this building is not considered part of the tax increment
financing district but it would be considered part of the 25 percent.
Mr. Custer stated if this piece of property would be included at some point in the tax
increment financing district, could he be notified in some fashion because of future plans for
Randy's. This seemed doable to the councilmembers.
Councilmember Hanus restated if these properties were to be included in the tax increment
financing district, the properties would have to go through the complete qualifying process at
that time.
Wayne E. Ehlebracht, 4873 Shoreline drive. Mr. Ehlebracht stated he would appreciate the
councilmembers not considering the green space as part of the tax increment financing
district according to the reasons set forth in Mr. Casey's most recent correspondence dated
December 10, 1999, addressed to the councilmembers and the City Attorney.
The City Attorney stated another letter came out today dated December 14, 1999, from Mr.
Casey restating his concerns. This correspondence was not timely and has not been
presented to the councilmembers.
Mayor Meisel stated she did not receive a copy of Mr. Casey's first letter dated December
10, 1999, and she would appreciate a copy. The Acting City Manager made a copy for
Mayor Meisel.
Councilmember Weycker stated Mr. Casey also presented a resolution passed by the park
commission that councilmember Weycker would like to add into the record tonight. This
resolution restated why the green space should not be included in the tax increment financing
district. Councilmember Weycker wanted to mention again that even though property is
included in the tax increment financing district, that does not mean it qualifies for any sort of
funding. She stated the green space would appear to need to be included in the tax increment
financing district at this point.
Councilmember Brown restated he, as well as the Planning Commission, believed the green
space should be included in the tax increment financing district, along with the Phillip 66 and
Green Tee buildings. Councilmember Brown stated again that a developer of that property
5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
will not be guaranteed they will receive tax increment financing.
Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Further discussions of the tax increment financing plan will cease until Mayor Meisel and all
councilmembers have reviewed Mr. Casey's letter dated December 14, 1999. The Acting
City Manager presented appropriate copies to all councilmembers for their review.
The City Attorney summarized Mr. Casey's letter. He stated the information raised is to
exclude the green space at this point and consider having it qualified as a soil district or a
low moderate district later. The City Attorney stated this property may qualify as a low and
moderate district and it may qualify as a soil district. He stated there is evidence of unstable
soils but not a pollution control problem.
It was agreed by councilmembers and the City Attorney the newly presented information
from Mr. Casey's letter would be helpful in the future when a developer is being considered
for a specific piece of property.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the resolution as presented.
RESOLUTION # 99-106
RESOLUTION MODIFYING
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND
ADOPTING THE MODIFICATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THEREFOR;
AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2 THEREIN
AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
Discussion:
Councilmember Brown stated strongly he would expect to see the Phillip 66 and the Green
Tee properties included in the tax increment district at a later but near date and time.
Mayor Meisel stated, and Councilmember Hanus agreed, if someone comes in with a plan,
the City Council will consider these properties for the tax increment financing district.
Councilmember Hanus stated these properties are still eligible for monies whether they are
included or excluded from the tax increment district.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 5-0.
1.6
PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SUBSIDIES CRITERIA.
James Prosser presented the Business Subsidies Criteria to the councilmembers. The
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
Business Subsidies Criteria is required by law. It provides a plan which states when the City
will provide assistance to a business, such as tax increment financing. Secondly, it provides
the criteria that will be used to support a plan.
The information provided in the Business Subsidies Criteria packet complies with the
statutory requirements by providing specific criteria and an appropriate process for review.
There are specific tests to be used to accomplish this project.
Councilmember Ahrens confirmed the information presented now is information that has
been discussed thoroughly with all councilmembers in the past and also just approved at the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting tonight. The consensus by the members is
many hours have already been spent discussing this document and getting it in a final form.
Councilmember Weycker asked what the process involves when an application goes through
the proper procedures.
Mr. Prosser stated the test process includes having Ehlers and Associates taking a careful
look at the proposed development and understands the components of cost included in the
land acquisition. After that point, Ehlers would determine the rate of return and compare it
with the market value and see if the development would be competitive. Other efforts by
Ehlers would include to ensure the numbers given are accurate and to examine the developer
fees. This process would also include a review by the City Attorney before any action is
taken. After this point, the information will be passed on to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority and/or the City Council for their review.
Councilmember Weycker asked how many years this process could continue. Mr. Prosser
stated the term of the district is 25 years.
Mr. Prosser stated the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has not approved the Business
Subsidy Criteria so appropriate action would be taken at the time of the development
agreement process.
Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Mayor Meisel closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m.
Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g99-107
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BUSINESS
SUBSIDY cRITERIA AS PRESENTED
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Hanus mentioned information citizens had concerning the Mound main street
and who would be involved. Evidently there are multiple investors at this point. Beard
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
Group was presented with this information but stated this cannot be disclosed at this point.
Councilmember Hanus would like the City Attorney to further discuss if this information is
optional for the developer and where does the City stand with respect to this thought.
The City Attorney stated at this point the developer can refrain from disclosing too much
information, but when the developer is going through the qualification he will need to
express his economic strength and at that point appropriate information will be disclosed.
Councilmember Hanus stated the main concern by the citizens is knowing who the developers
are that will be involved in the Mound main street and does the public have a right to
demand this information at this point.
The City Attorney stated at this point the information is not relevant. When the specific
plans and firm obligations are be set out by the developer, then that information can be
demanded by the City which then be passed on to the public. The City Attorney also stated
at this point the developer may not know its business entity at this time anyway.
Councilmember Hanus stated there are business owners at this point that are concerned about
what their future is with the City of Mound. They are concerned about the type of developer
and what future development may or may not occur.
Councilmember Brown stated a question also being proposed by the public is the timeline.
The City Attorney stated the development is progressing on schedule and shortly serious
development discussions will start generating, which at that point the tax increment financing
applications will begin. The City Attorney stated March may be a possible timeline for
information to start being generated that would interest the public.
Mr. Prosser asked what form of public communication should they use to provide
information to the public as the public can be notified.
Ken Custer, being a concerned business owner, asked if the appraisals on the properties are
public information at this point. The City Attorney stated this is not public information at
this time. When the property is presented at commission heatings in condemnation hearings
this will then be public information.
Mr. Custer wanted to know if Langdon would be developed then Auditor's. The City
Attorney stated this is the plan, but it is not finalized yet according to the City Attorney.
Councilmember Weycker wanted to assure the public that the City is not condemning all
properties in question. The condemnation part occurs after negotiations have been
thoroughly completed, o~ a~- ~ ~ }~ qoe~~
Mr. Custer wanted to know by examination of other appraisals, what his property is worth.
The City Attorney stated if there is a purchase price on some property, then at that time that
information is public.
MOUND CITY COUNC/L MINLrFES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
1.7
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL 2000 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN
TIlE AMOUNT OF $3.084.750: SETTING THE LEVY AT $1.975.330 LESS
THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT OtACA) OF $502.790,
RESULTING IN A FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1~472,540: APPROVING
TIlE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2000.
The Finance Director presented the final budget and levy for the year 2000. He stated the
levy will amount to about $1,472,540 and the general fund will total about $3,084,750. He
stated there will be an increase of about 8 percent to taxpayers.
Councilmember Ahrens stated even though the tax notices show an increase, the amount the
City has now certified is about $90,000 lower.
Councilmember Brown thanked all the councilmembers and the Finance Director for their
hard work in creating an honest budget.
Mayor Meisel thanked everyone involved with the budget as well.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the resolution as presented.
RESOLUTION g99-108
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL 2000
GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,084,750; SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,975,330
LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL
CREDIT (FIACA) OF $502,790, RESULTING IN A
FINAL CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,472,540;
APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2000.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.8
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOTTERY SYSTEMS FOR THE MOUND
COMMONS DOCK APPLICATION FOR NEW APPLICANTS FOR
NONABUTTING USE.
The Acting City Manager stated the proposed new ordinance will be submitted to the public
on Friday after being approved tonight.
Councilmember Weycker stated to change No. 4 of the resolution to read as follows: "The
first year applicants will be separated into groups based on number of consecutive years they
have applied as follows: Group 1, four years or more; Group 2, two or three years; and
Group 3, one year. The lottery drawing will begin with Group 1 until all openings are filled
or there are no more applicants remaining in the group. Once all names have been drawn
from Group 1, then the drawing will move to Group 2 and finally Group 3.
Councilmember Weycker stated to add a new No. 5 to read as follows: "After the first year
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MI]~rl~,S -DECEMBER 14, 1999
of the lottery, each returning applicant will reapply or be dropped from the list. All new
applicants will be drawn by lottery and added to the bottom of the existing list."
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the resolution with the above-noted
changes.
RESOLUTION//99-109
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LOTTERY
SYSTEM FOR THE MOUND COMMONS DOCK
APPLICATION FOR NEW APPLICANTS FOR
NONABUTTING USE.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.9
CANCEL LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN DECEMBER.
Mayor Meisel stated since it is the Christmas season and there are no items to complete
another agenda for December and, precedent has been to cancel the second City Council
meeting of December, she proposed that tonight. Also, she stated staff has directed her there
appears to be nothing for discussion at the next committee of the whole meeting, so she
proposed canceling that meeting also.
Councilmember Weycker questioned canceling both meetings, but rather to keep them
scheduled. The Acting City Manager restated items that are to come up for discussion by
the committee of the whole and City Council can wait until January, 2000.
The Acting City Manager also stated the Housing and Redevelopment Director has agreed to
this cancellation and stated the policy information she was going to present in December can
wait until January as well.
Mayor Meisel asked councilmember Brown if the Planning Commission would find it
inconvenient if these two meetings were cancelled and Councilmember Brown stated this
would not be an inconvenience for the Commissioners.
Councilmember Weycker restated she would like to have one more meeting scheduled to
invite the park commission and to discuss issues from Mercer. The Acting City Manager
stated there is nothing to discuss with regards to Mercer at this point.
The Finance Director stated if the meetings get cancelled, he will make sure the bills are
paid in a timely manner. Mayor Meisel thanked him for that notation.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to cancel the upcoming Committee of
the Whole meeting scheduled for December 21 and the upcoming City Council
meeting scheduled for December 28. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried. 5-0.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 14, 1999
1.10 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT REGARDING
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT THIS TO 3 MINUTES PER
PERSON).
There were no comments or suggestions from citizens present.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.
1. Financial Report for November as prepared by Finance Director, Gino Businaro.
2. DCAC Minutes from October 21, 1999.
3. DCAC Minutes from November 18, 1999.
4. Planning Commission Minutes from November 22, 1999.
5. Planning Commission Minutes from December 6, 1999.
6. POSC Minutes from November 10, 1999.
7. Public Works schedule for December 31, 1999.
8. LMCD Minutes from November 17, 1999.
Mayor Meisel stated the public works and police department have scheduled their work times
for December 31, 1999, and it appears they have gone through some extra lengths to keep the
City of Mound safe.
ADJOURNMENT.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Itanus, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Manager
Francene C. Clark, Acting City
Attest: Council Secretary
11
January II, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2000
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby appoint Fran Clark, City Clerk as the Acting City Manager for the year 2000, if
the City Manager is disabled, 'incapacitated, away on city business or away on vacation. If both
the City Manager and the Acting City Manager are disabled, incapacitated, away on city
business or away on vacation then Len Harrell, Police Chief, is hereby appointed as Acting City
Manager.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
January 11, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER
THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2000
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby designate The Laker the official newspaper for the City of Mound for 2000.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
January 11, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF
AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does
hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Clerk, Francene C.
Clark-Leisinger.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following voted in the affirmative
The following voted in the negative:
Mayor
ATTEST: City Clerk
: - January 11, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A
$20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Treasurer/Finance
Director, Gino Businaro.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following voted in the affirmative
The following voted in the negative:
Mayor
ATTEST: City Clerk
31
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
January II, 2000
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL
DEPOSITORIF$ FOR 2000
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does
hereby designate the following banks and financial institutions as official depositories for the
City of Mound in 2000:
Marquette Bank (Bank Services)
First Banks
Firstar
Norwest Banks
Dain Bosworth, Inc.
Smith Barney
Minnesota Municipal Money Market Funds
Crow River Bank
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City's deposits shall be protected by
Federal Deposit Insurance and/or collateral in accordance with MSA Chapter 118.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized to
open or continue an account or accounts with said institutions on such terms as required by said
institutions in the names of the City, and to deposit, or cause to be deposited in such account
or accounts, any monies, checks, drafts, orders, notes or other instruments for the payment of
money, upon compliance by said depository with this resolution and the law in such case
provided.
BE IT FURTHER R~OLVED, that the designation shall continue in force until
December 31, 2000 or until written notice of its revision or modification has been received by
said institution.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember
and seconded by
The following voted in the affirmative:
The following voted in the negative:
ATTEST: City Clerk
Mayor
January 11, 2000
RESOLUTION//2000-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK HANUS
ACTING MAYOR FOR 2000
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby appoint Mark Hanus Acting Mayor for the year 2000.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Cncilmember
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
January 11, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING
TO THE PARK COMMISSION (POSC);
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION;
TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC); AND
TO THE DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION (DCAC)
AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2000
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby appoint the following Councilmembers as Council Representatives to the following
City Commissions for 2000.
to the Park Commission
to the Planning Commission
to the Economic Development Commission
to the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission -'~'~
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
and seconded
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
January 1~, 2000
RESOLUTION # 99-
RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE PURPOSES OF
CREATING A NEW PARCEL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5947 RIDGEWOOD
ROAD, LOTS 5 AND 6 BLOCK 6 OF THE HIGHLANDS,
PID # 23-117-24 43 0024
P & Z CASE # 99-42
WHEREAS, the applicant, Roger Muonio, has applied for a minor subdivision to
create a new parcel on the property located at 5947 Ridgewood Road; and,
WHEREAS, the subject properties are located within the R-lA Single Family
Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of
6,000 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, As proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Parcel A
would remain for the existing home and would conform to all lot area, width, and
structure setbacks for the R-lA district. Total lot area as proposed is 13,252 sq. ft. With
the minor subdivision, the status of the property as a lot of record changes to a non lot
of record, reducing the allowable hardcover to 30% of the lot area. The total hardcover
for parcel A is under that requirement by 181.6 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, Parcel B as proposed, would consist of the south half of lots 5 and
6. Total lot area as proposed is 11,282 square feet with over 120 feet of frontage on
Highland Blvd. The new parcel would also be subject to non lot of record hardcover
provisions of 30% impervious surface; and,
WHEREAS, although Parcel B appears to be steep, its slope does not qualify as
a bluff. The grade is approximately 22% as measured from the front property line to just
north of the rear lot line. The grade is very level over this distance and does not have
any area where it is a significantly steeper. Other than the grade, there are no features
on the site that would hinder home construction; and,
WHEREAS, Highland Boulevard ends at the west property edge, abutting
Highland Park. Additional roadway easement is needed for Highland Boulevard as the
roadway extends outside of the right-of-way; and,
WHEREAS, the major issue with this subdivision is water and sewer main
extensions. The existing sanitary sewer line is located 3 lots east of the site. Each of
the homes has a separate service stub from this line. A connection to and extension of
the water main will also be needed; and,
FRA
Engineedng
· Planning ° Surveying
RECEIVE['
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
December 2, 1999
TO:
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Minor Subdivision - Muonia Property
Lots 5 and 6, Block 6, The Highlands
Case No. 99-42
MFRA #12711
Comments
The survey submitted with the application does not show a proposed dwelling on the vacant
parcel to be created by the minor subdivision and has very limited information on existing
elevations. It appears this area would not qualify as a bluff. A final grading and drainage plan
will be required when application is made for a building permit.
The north right-of-way line for Highland Boulevard adjacent to Lot 6 curves to the south
resulting in an encroachment of the improved street onto Lot 6. Additional street right-of-
way should be dedicated to the City in the form of a permanent easement.
o
This is also one of the older plats in Mound, which typically did not provide drainage
easements along the lot lines. Drainage and utility easements should be required as a
condition of the minor subdivision.
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota . 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com
! I
Jon Sutherland
December 2, 1999
Page 2
RECEIVEr'
The proposed vacant parcel B is not presently served by sanitary sewer. The last three (3)
homes on the north side of Highland Boulevard are served by a six line located in the
boulevard between the curb and right-of-way line. This 6-inch main connects to a manhole in
Highland Boulevard approximately 300 feet east of the subject property. Greg Skinner and
myself are recommending that the applicant be responsible for extending this 6-inch main to
serve his property and installing a manhole with a service stub for Parcel B. This will give
the City access to the 6-inch main for better maintenance.
o
It appears there is not an existing water service for Parcel B; therefore it will be the
applicant's responsibility to install one. The City 6-inch main is located in the 18 foot
unimproved right-of-way adjacent to the subject property which could be used as a
connection point, thereby eliminating the need to excavate in Highland Boulevard.
We recommend the following conditions be included in any subdivision approval.
Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time
of building permit application.
°
Dedicate permanent easement for street purposes, which will provide a minimum 25 foot
right-of-way as measured from the center of the improved street to the easement line on
Parcel B.
°
Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines on both parcels, five (5) feet
wide on side and rear lot lines and ten (10) feet in width along the street side.
The sanitary sewer main extension with service stub and the water service for Parcel B either
installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance
bond.
cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group
s:\main:LMou 12711 :\correspondence\memo I 1-22
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval as recommended by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota as follows:
The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property pursuant to
Section 330:20, Subdivision 1.B. with the following conditions:
a. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the
City Engineer at the time of building permit application.
b. Dedicate permanent easement for roadway purposes, which will provide
a minimum 25 foot right-of-way as measured from the center of the
improved street to the easement line on Parcel B.
c. Provide utility and drainage easements along all new lot lines on both
parcels, 5 feet wide on the side and rear lot lines and 10 feet in width
along the street side.
d. The sanitary sewer main extension with service stub and the water
service for Parcel B either be installed or some type of financial
guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond.
e. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the time of building permit
issuance.
o
This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described
property:
5947 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, LOTS 5 AND 6 BLOCK 6 OF THE HIGHLANDS,
PID # 23-117-24 43 0024, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with
Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
[MN
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 11, 1999
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
OV~'NER: Roger Muonio
CASE NUMBER: 99-42
HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5
LOCATION: 5947 Ridgewood Road
ZONING: Residential District R-IA
COMPREHENSIVE PL.adxl: Residential
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a request for a minor subdivision
to create one additional lot fi.om an existing lot of record. The property consists of lots 5 and 6
Block 6 of the Hi,lands. The lot has approximately 24,534 square feet of area as is currently
held. The existing home fronts on Ridgewood Road on the "top" of the parcel.
As proposed, the property would be split into m'o lots. Parcel A would remain for the existing
home and would conform to all lot area, width, and structure setbacks for the R-IA district. Total
lot area as proposed is 13,252 sq. ft. With the minor subdivision, the status of the property as a
lot of record changes to a non lot of record, reducing the allowable hardcover to 30% of the lot
area. The total hardcover for parcel A is under that requirement by 181.6 square feet.
Parcel B as proposed, would consist of the south half of lots 5 and 6. Total lot area as proposed is
11,282 square feet with over 120 feet of frontage on Highland Blvd. The new parcel would also
be subject to non lot of record hardcover provisions of 30% impervious surface. Although a
house plan is not sited on the survey, all applicable R-lA district bulk provisions would be
applicable. Given the dimensions of the lot, there appears to be ample area for a new home to
meet all district requirements.
Although Parcel B appear to be steep, its slope does not qualify as a bluff. The ~ade is
approximately 22% as measured fi.om the front property line to just north of the rear lot line. The
grade is very level over this distance and does not have any area where it is a significantly
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#99- 42 Muonio Minor Subdivision
December 13, 1999
steeper. Other than the grade, there are no features on the site that would hinder home
construction.
Highland Boulevard ends at the west property edge, abutting Highland Park. As indicated in the
City Engineer's report, additional roadway easement is needed for Highland Boulevard.
Typically, it has not been the City's policy to require additional dedication on dead-end streets
such as this that don't have a 50 feet right-of-way radius. This would probably be difficult to
obtain in this case without major roadway reconstruction due to the grade.
The major issue with this subdMsion is water and sewer main extensions. The existing sanita~
sewer line is located 3 lots east of the site. Each of the homes has a separate service stub from
this line. The problem with this arrangement is there is not a way to access the line for cleaning.
A connection to and extension of the water main will also be needed.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the minor subdivision as requested with the following conditions.
Final gading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City Engineer
at the time of building permit application.
Dedicate permanent easement for street purposes, which will provide a minimum
25 foot right-of-way as measured from the center of the improved street to the
easement line on Parcel B.
Provide utility and drainage easements along all new lot lines on both parcels, 5
feet wide on the side and rear lot lines and 10 feet in width along the street side.
The sanitary, sewer main extension with sen, ice stub and the water ser~,ice for
Parcel B either be installed or some .type of financial guarantee provided, such as
cash escrow or performance bond.
Park dedication fee of S500 be paid at the time of building permit issuance.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Rev. 12-30-98
Application for
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date: '~.~. l"~
City Council Date:
I
Distribution:
I1-~¢ -, ~ City Planner ' ~"-
'Il.-' I,~ -/-,i(i Public Works Other
t~-! ..~-0,'.i City Engineer
Case No.
Application Fee:
Escrow Deposit:
Deficient Unit Char§es?
Delinquent Ta×es?~
CffY 0F
$75.00
Sr .000
VARIANCE REQUIRED?
Please type or print the following information:
INFORMATION ~ '%1 '//'' '"'
EXISTING Lot
LEGAL - ..~ i "
ZONING ~
DISTRICT Circle: R-~(' R-lA R-2 R-3 B-" B-2 ~-3
APPLICANT
The applicant is: k~owner other:
OWNER
(if other than
applicant) Acdress
Phone :H) (W~ (M'~
SURVEYOR,/ H/~ --, . 7.,..~, .... /
I
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditionai use permit, or other zoning procedure for this propem/? { ) yes.
no. If yes. list date(s) of application action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
This ap~p. lication must b.e signed by all owners of the subject"property, or an explanation given why this is not the case.
Owner/'¥s Sig'cCatu re'~')~''~ Date
Owner's Signature
Date
1999
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
CiTY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
SQ. FT. X 30,%
SQ. FT. X 40%
SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have ¢0 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. g. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HCUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE:SHED)
Drt~V.,NAY, PAP, KING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
LENGTH WIDTH SC. F'F
DECKS Open decks [1/z~" min.
o~enin~ between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
¢ x /,::; =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DR,V:¢V~,,, ETC
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
P R E PA R E D B Y '/~'¢-.~¢,~),,~L'-----~ DATE
NOV 0 119S9
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA I i,~_~. SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED RLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, S;DEWALKS,
ETC.
LENGTH WIDTH SO. FT
DECKS Open decks [1/~-" min.
opening between boards) with a
peP~ious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS
X =
X
X :
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL' HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... ~
SLIRVF..Y ¢)N FII.E? YES I NO
l.o'r OF RE('ORD?~YE$)
NO
V ARI) '--"-- J~ ~'~ I)IRE('rI(~N j
FRONT S E W
FRONT N~E W
SIDE N S(~)w~
SIDE N S
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP oF BI l IFF
RI
JR1A
R2
R3
RKOI qREI}
2o
15'
50'
10' OR 30'
ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE:
10,000/60 B1 "7,500/0 LOTWIDIH:
6,000/40~ B2 20,000/80
6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
14,000/80 LOT DEP1 H:
SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
J F, XISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE
GARAGE, ,RILED ..... I)I:TACIIED BIJILI)IN(;S
FRON'F N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E w
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N ,q I:. W
FOP ()l: Ill III:F
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4'
10' OR 30'
.}
Thim 7.oni.g }nlb, malion She¢! tmiv summarizes a portion o{ the requirements oull}n,~d in the Chy of Mound Zoning Ordinance. {:or further information, contac! the Chy of Mounu
January 11, 2000
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has been given a grant by the U.S.
Department of Transportation under the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness
(HMEP) Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has applied in good faith for HMEP monies
for a PLNG.
NOW THEREFORE, BY IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, fully agrees to the terms of the grant, and, with the passage of
this resolution, officially requests the Division of Emergency Management to enforce the
contract in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Manager be and
hereby are authorized to execute the agreement and thereby assume for and on behalf of the
City of Mound all of the contractual obligations contained therein.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following voted in the affirmative
The following voted in the negative:
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Response Commission
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-6223
Phone: 651/296-2233 FAX:,651.296.0459 TTY: 651/282-6555
Internet: http://www, d ps.state, m n. u s
December 3, 1999
Alcohol &
Gambling
Enforcement
Bureau of
Criminal
Apprehension
Capitol Security
Driver & Vehicle
Services
Emergency
Management/
Emergency
Response
Commission
State Fire
Marshal/
Pipeline Safety
State Patrol
Traffic Safety
· MINNESOTA
Leonard Harrell
City of Mound
5341 Ma~vwood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Chief Harrell:
I am pleased to confirm that your application for a Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness (HMEP) Grant for the activities of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency
Preparedness Planning and Review Committee in City of Mound has been approved in the
sum of $1,500.00.
Enclosed you will find an agreement between your jurisdiction and the State of Minnesota.
Please ensure, at the bottom of the first page, that you include your jurisdiction's Minnesota
Tax I.D. Number and Federal Employer I.D. Number. Person(s) signing the agreement and
obligating your jurisdiction to the conditions of this agreement must be authorized. A
certified copy of the resolution which authorizes the jurisdiction to enter into this agreement
and which designates person(s) to execute this agreement must be attached to the agreement.
A sample resolution is enclosed for your reference. Please have the authorized person(s)
sign all copies of the agreement on pages 6 and C-1. Return all copies of the agreement to:
Mr. Erny Mattila, Division of Emergency Management. 444 Cedar Street. Suite 223, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55101-6223.
Also enclosed is a form for your use in billing the State of Minnesota to obtain
reimbursement for expenses. Please note the reporting requirements listed on pages 3 and 4
of the grant agreement. If your funded activity is an exercise, the enclosed FEMA Form 95-
44, Emergency Management Exercise Reporting System. must be completed and returned
with your billing.
As always, it is a pleasure working with you. If you have any questions, please contact
Erny Mattila at (651) 215-6939.
Sincerely.
Kevin C. Leuer
Director
Enclosures
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Division of Emergency Management
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-6223
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (HMEP) GRANT BILLING FORM
GRANT PERIOD October 1, 1999 - September 30, 2000 (Federal Fiscal Year 1999 Funds)
SECTION I - APPLICANT INFORMATION
Leonard Harrell
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SECTION II - AWARD INFORMATION
TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT: $1,500.00
SECTION III - EXPENDITURES
CATEGORY
EXPENDITURES
(Please report all expenditures)
THIS BILLING IS FOR: (CHECK ONLY ONE)
Partial Final
Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant for a PLNG
(FOR STATE USE ONLS~
(FOR STATE USE ONLY)
PERSONNEL
TRAVEL
ALL OTHER
TOTALS
CERTIFICATION
I ceftin, the above data is correct based on the grantees' official accounting system and records, consistently applied and maintained, and that expenditures shown
have been made for the purpose of and in accordance ~ith applicable grant terms and conditions. I also certify that appropriate documentation to support these
authorized costs and expenditures is available.
(Authorized Signature) (Date)
FOR STATE USE ONLY
Vendor#: 036811001-00 DOC. ~: 2000-4501
Invoice #: HMEP GRANT Dept.: P07
I
FY: 2000 ] Fund: 300 Orgn: 2281 Appr: 226 Object: 5B00
Amount: Date: Fed Rptg Cat: PLNG Task:
I hereby ceni~ that the goods or material covered by this claim have been inspected and recei,,ed or the services have been performed, and arc in accordance with
specifications and are in proper form. kind. amount and quality, and payment, therefore, is recommended:
System Assign. Ref. No.
Dept. Authorized Signature
STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANT CONTRACT
ORI61NAL
ACCOUNTING INFORMATION: PROVIDING aGENCY'S Seller Fund
Seller Agency
Agency: P07 I Fiscal Year: 2000 I Vendor Number: 036811001-00
Total Amount of Contract: $1,500.00 [ Amount of Contract First Pt': $1,500.00
Accounting Distribution 1: Accounting Distribution 2: Accounting Distribution 3:
Fiscal Year: 2000
Fiscal Year: Fiscal Year:
Object Code: 5B00
Object Code: Object Code:
Fund: 300
Fund: Fund:
Appr.: 226
Appr. Appr.
Org./Sub.:2281
Org./Sub. Org/Sub.
Rept. Catg.: PLNG
Rept. Catg.: Re pt. Catg.:
Amount: $1,500.00
Amount: ,Amount:
Processing Information: (Some entries may not apply)
Requisition: 2000-941 Line 3
Number/Date/Entry Initials
Solicitation:
Number/Date/Entry Initials
Contract: Order:
Number/Date/Entry Initials
2000-4501
Number/Date/Signatures
(Individual signing certifies that funds have been encumbered
as required by Minn. Stat. 3~16A15 and 16C05.)
NOTICE TO GRANTEE: You are required by Minnesota Statutes. Section 270.66 to provide your social security number or Federal employer tax identification
number and Minnesota tax identification number if you do business with the State of Mirmesota. This information may be used in the enforcement of federal and state
tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities. This ~rant contract will not be
approved unless these numbers are provided. These numbers will be available to federal and state tax authorities and state personnel involved in approving the ~ant
contract and the payment of state obligations.
Grantee Name and Address: City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Soc. Sec. or Federal Employer I.D. No. Minnesota Tax I.D. No. (if applicable)
THIS PAGE OF THE GRANT CONTRACT CONTAINS PRIVATE INFORMATION.
EXCEPT AS DEFINED ABOVE, THIS PAGE SHOULD NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
EXTERNALLY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE GRANTEE
Chapter A If you circulate this grant contr act internally, only offices that require access to the tax identification number
AND all individuals/offices signing this grant contract should have access to this page.
ADMIN 1051 ~c.doc (07-01-98)
Grant Contract
Department of Public Safety/Emergency Management &City of Mound)
Page 0
THIS grant contract, and amendments and supplements thereto, between the State of Minnesota, acting through
its Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management (hereinafter SIATE) and City of Mound,
:an independent contractor, not an employee of the State of Minnesota, address 5341 Mavwood Road. Mound,
55364 (hereinafter GRANTEE), witnesseth that:
WHEREAS, the STATE, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes {}12.22, is empowered to allocate and disburse federal
aid made available through the United States Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grant Program, Catalog
of Domestic Assistance No. 20.703, is to reimburse expenses of organizations and local units of government
associated with the start-up, improvement and implementation of local planning advisory committees, the
exercising of emergency response plans, and conferences relating to hazardous materials planning and response;
and
WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and willing to perform the services set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed:
GRANTEE'S DUTIES (Attach additional page if necessary which is incorporated by reference and
made a part of this agreement.) GRANTEE shall perform the services and tasks for the activities of
the Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency Preparedness Planning and Review Committee, as
submitted and approved by the STATE in G1LSaNTEE'S grant application, which is hereby
incorporated by reference, labeled Attachment A, and made a part of this agreement.
II. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT
A. Consideration for all services performed by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract shall be
paid by the STATE as follows:
1. Compensation shall not exceed One Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($1.500.00), and shall be in
compliance with itemized categories approved by the STATE in G1L{NTEE'S grant application.
If additional Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) funds become available
and/or are reallocated to the STATE during the federal fiscal year, the STATE may increase the
GRANTEE'S grant reimbursement under this grant contract by encumbrance. This shall be done
using the Grant Adjustment Notice Re-obligation form: a sample of this form is attached to this
agreement and labeled Attachment D. Any additional funds will be governed by this grant
contract and any amendments to this grant contract.
2. Matching Requirements. (If Applicable) G1L~.NTEE certifies that the following matching
requirement, for the grant, will be met by GRANTEE: None
3. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by
GRANTEE in performance of this grant contract in an amount not to exceed
ADMIN 1051 grc.doc (07-01-98)
Grant Contract
Department of Public Safety/Emergency Management &City of Mound)
Page 1
III.
IV.
N/A dollars ($ N/A ); provided,
that GRANTEE shall be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and
in no greater amount than provided in the current "Non-managerial Unrepresented Employees
Plan" promulgated by the Commissioner of Employee Relations. GRANTEE shall not be
reimbursed for travel and subsistence expense incurred outside the State of Minnesota unless it
has received prior written approval for such out of state travel from the STATE.
The total obligation of the STATE for all compensation and reimbursements to GRANTEE shall not
exceed One Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($1,500.00).
B. Terms of Pavment
Payments shall be made by the STATE promptly after G1L~NTEE'S presentation of invoices for
services performed and acceptance of such services by the STATE'S authorized representative
pursuant to Clause VI. Invoices shall be submitted in a form prescribed by the STATE and
according to the following schedule:
GRANTEE shall submit itemized invoices in arrears at least quarterly but not more often than
monthly, and within 30 days of the period covered by the invoice, for work satisfactorily
performed. Final invoice shall be received no later than October 31, 2000. Payment to
GRANTEE by the STATE shall be made following the submittal, by the GRANTEE to the
STATE, of the required financial documents and quarterly reports.
(When applicable) Payments are to be made from federal funds obtained by the STATE through
the Federal Hazardous Material Transportation Law (49 U.S.C. Section 5101 et. seq. and
amendments thereto). If at any time such funds become unavailable, this grant contract shall be
terminated immediately upon written notice of such fact by the STATE to the GRANTEE. In
the event of such termination, GRANTE.E shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata
basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
If the grant application involves the formation of a planning advisory committee, the applicant
may request that up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the grant award be advanced to help offset
start-up costs. The balance of the funds would be due upon report completion.
CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT All services provided by GRANTEE pursuant to this grant contract
shall be performed to the satisfaction of the STATE, as determined at the sole discretion of its
authorized representative, and in accord with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations. GRANTEE shall not receive payment for work found by the STATE to be
unsatisfactory, or performed in violation of federal, state or local law, ordinance, rule or regulation.
TERMS OF CONTRACT This grant contract shall be effective on October 1, 1999, or upon the date
that the final required signature is obtained by the STATE, pursuant to MS § 16C.05, Subd 2, whichever
occurs later, and shall remain in effect until September 30, 2000, or until all obligations set forth in this
grant contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. _.
ADMIN 1051 gtc.doc (07-01-98)
Grant Contract
Department of Public SafeLy/Emergency Management &City of Mound)
Page 2
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Xo
CANCELLATION This grant contract may be cancelled by the STATE or GRANTEE at any time,
with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such a
cancellation, GRANTEE shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or
services satisfactorily performed.
STATE may cancel grant immediately if the STATE finds that there has been a failure to comply with
the provisions of this agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made, or that the purposes for
which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled, the STATE may take action to
protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and
requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed.
STATE'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE The STATE'S authorized representative for the
purposes of administration of this grant contract is Erny Mattila, Grants Specialist. Such representative
shall have final authority for acceptance of GtL&NTEE'S services and if such services are accepted as
satisfactory, shall so certify on each invoice submitted pursuant to Clause II, paragraph B. The
GRANTEE'S authorized representative for purposes of administration of this grant contract is Leonard
Harretl. The GRANTEE'S authorized representative shall have full authority to represent G~NTEE in
its fulfillment of the terms, conditions and requirements of this grant contract.
ASSIGNMENT GRANTEE shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant
contract without the prior written consent of the STATE.
AMENDMENTS Any amendments to this grant contract shall be in writing, and shall be executed by
the same parties who executed the original grant contract, or their successors in office.
LIABILITY GRANTEE agrees to indemnify and save and hold the STATE, its representatives and
employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action, including all attorney's fees incurred by
the STATE, arising from the performance of this grant contract by GRANTEE or GRANTEE'S agents
or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies GRANTEE may have for the
STATE'S failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this grant contract.
STATE AUDITS The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the
GRANTEE relevant to this grant contract shall be subject to examination by the contracting department
and the Legislative Auditor for a minimum of six years from the end of this contract.
XI. REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS REOUIRED FROM THE GRANTEE
A. Federally-mandated steps required for compliance with the drug-free workplace and lobbying
restrictions must be met by all grantees.
Plannine Advisory Committee Proo_ress Report. If the grant is for the start-up, improvement or
implementation of a planning advisory committee, a progress report will be submitted to the
Division of Emergency Management with each request for payment, and will describe the
performance oh or accomplishment of, objectives/activities stated in the GRANTEE'S grant
application.
ADMIN 1051 gtc.doc (07-01-98)
Grant Contract
Department of Public Safety/Emergency Management &City of Mound)
Page 3
XlI.
XIII.
Co
mo
Exercise Evaluation Report. If the grant is for the exercising of emergency response plans, an
evaluation report based on the Federal Hazardous Materials Exercise Evaluation Methodology must
be submitted to the Division of Emergency Management with each request for payment.
Conference Evaluation Report. If the grant is for a conference relating to hazardous materials
planning and/or response, a conference evaluation report will be submitted to the Division of
Emergency Management with each request for payment, and will describe the performance of, or
accomplishment of. objectives/activities stated in the GRANTEE'S grant application.
Financial Reporting. To obtain financial information concerning the use of federal funds, the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act requires that recipients of these funds submit timely
financial documents for review. Documentation may follow GRANTEE'S normal accounting
procedures, but must show and document work completed as specified in the grant application. The
GRANTEE also agrees to keep records that support these expenses and make these records available
upon request by the STATE. Financial reports will be submitted with each invoice.
DATA PRACTICES ACT The GRANTEE must comply with the Minnesota Data Practices Act,
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 13, as it applies to all data provided by the STATE in accordance with this
Grant Contract and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored,; used, maintained or
disseminated by the GRANTEE in accordance with this Grant Contract. The civil remedies of
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this Article by either
the GRANTEE or the STATE.
In the event the GRANTEE receives a request to release the data referred to in this Article, the
GRANTEE, must immediately notify the STATE. The STATE will give the GRANTEE instructions
concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released.
OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
mo
The STATE shall own all rights, title and interest in all of the MATERIALS conceived or created by
the GRANTEE, or its employees or subgrantees, either individually or jointly with others and which
arise out of the performance of this grant contract, including any inventions, reports, studies,
designs, drawings, specifications, notes, documents, software and documentation, computer based
training modules, electronically, magnetically or digitally recorded material, and other work in
whatever form ("the MATERIALS").
The GRANTEE hereby assigns to the STATE all rights, title and interest to the MATERIALS.
GRANTEE shall, upon request of the STATE, execute all papers and perform all other acts
necessary to assist the STATE to obtain and register copyrights, patents or other forms of protection
provided by law' for the MATERIALS. The MATERIALS created under this grant contract by the
GRANTEE, its employees or subgrantees, individually or jointly with others, shall be considered
"works made for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act. All of the MATERIALS, whether in
paper, electronic, or other form, shall be remitted to the STATE by the GRANTEE, its employees
and any subgrantees, shall not copy. reproduce, allow or cause to have the MATERIALS copied,
reproduced ~)r used for any purpose other than performance of the GRANTEE'S obligations under
this grant contract without the prior written consent of the STATE'S authorized representative.
ADMIN 1051 grc.doc (07-01-98)
Grant Contract
Department of Public Safety/Emergency Management &City. of Mound)
Page4
XIV.
XVI.
XVIII.
XlX.
GRANTEE represents and warrants that MATERIALS produced or used under this grant contract do
not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of another, including but not limited to
patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, and service marks and names. GRANTEE will
indemnify and defend the STATE at GRANTEE'S expense from any action or claim brought against
the STATE to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of the MATERIALS infringe upon
the intellectual property rights of another. GRANTEE shall be responsible for payment of any and
all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages including, but not limited to,
reasonable attorney fees arising out of this grant contract, amendments and supplements thereto,
which are attributable to such claims or actions.
If such a claim or action arises, or in GRANTEE'S or the STATE'S opinion is likely to arise,
GRANTEE shall at the STATE'S discretion either procure for the STATE the right or license to
continue using the MATERIALS at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing
MATERIALS. This remedy shall be in addition to and shall not be exclusive to other remedies
provided by law.
PUBLICITY Any publicity given to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this
grant contract, including, but not limited to, notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research,
reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the GRANTEE or its employees individually
or jointly with others, or any subgrantees shall identif,v the STATE as the sponsoring agency and shall
not be released, unless such release is a specific part of an approved work plan included in this grant
contract prior to its approval by the STATE'S authorized representative.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (When applicable) GRANTEE certifies that it has received a certificate of
compliance from the commissioner of Human Rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 363.073.
It is hereby agreed between the parties that Mi~mesota Statutes, Section 363.073 is incorporated into this
contract by reference.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION (When applicable) In accordance with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 176.182, the STATE affirms that GtLa, NTEE has provided acceptable evidence of
compliance with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirement of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 176.181 Subdivision '~
ANTITRUST GIL~.NTEE hereby assigns to the State of Minnesota any and all claims for overcharges
as to goods and/or services provided in connection with this contract resulting from antitrust violations
which arise under the antitrust laws of the United States and the antitrust laws of the State of
1Minnesota.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE This grant contract, and amendments and supplements thereto, shall
be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this
grant contract, or breach thereof, shall be in the state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
OTHER PROVISIONS (Attach additional pages as necessary):
A. FEDERAL AUDIT REQUIREMENTS, which are hereby incorporated by reference, labeled
Attachment B, and made a part of this agreement.
ADMIN 1051 gtc.doc (07-01-98)
Grant Contract
Department of Public Safety/Emergency Management &City of Mound)
Page 5
B. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT-WIDE GUIDANCE ON
LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS (31 U.S.C. 1352), which is hereby incorporated by reference,
labeled Attachment C, and made a part of this agreement.
C. ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,
which is hereby incorporated by reference, labeled Appendix B, and made a part of this
agreement.
GRANTEE shall comply with Attachments A, B, and C, and Appendix B, which are hereby
incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this grant contract to be duly executed intending to be bound
thereby.
APPROVED:
1. GRANTEE: City of Mound
2. STATE AGENCY:
GPoMNTEE certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract
on behalf of the GRANTEE as required by applicable articles, by-laws.
resolutions, or ordinances.
By' (authorized signature)
By
Title
Title
Date
Date
By
Title
Date
Distribution:
Agency - Original (fully executed) contract
Grantee
State Authorized Representative
ADMIN 1051 grc.doc (07-01-98)
Grant Contract
Department of Public Safety/Emergency Management &City of Mound)
Page 6
MINNESOTA
Public Safety
ATTACHMENT A
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PU.BUC SAFETY
DM$ION OF EMERGENCY .MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT RESPO.NSE PROGRAM
-' 44'. CEDAR STREEr, SUITE 22~
ST. PAUL; MINNESOTA 55101-6223
PHONE: (6Sl) 2~-2233
Hazardous .Materials
Emergency Preparedness (HMEP)
Grant Application for a
Planning Advisory Committee
GR~NT$ AREAVA]LABLE FOR THE DEvELDPMEN'~, IMPROVEMENT, AND
IMPLEMENTATION' OF A PLANNING ADVISORY COMMFI'TEE.
?
Organization/Agency Name'
Organization Address
City Mound
(Lake Minnetonka Regional Emergency
City of Mound Preparedness Planning & Review Committe~)
5341Maywood Road
State MN ZIP 55364
Organization/agency must be eli~, ible.to receive federal grant monies.
Name Leonard O.
&~aiBng Addmss 5341
City. Mound
Phone~12) 472-0621
W~ Is the contact person?
Ha rrel 1 TitJe
Mayw-ood Road
State ': MN
Police Chief
ZIP
55364
Name Leonard
Mailing Address
City Mound
Who is the local emergency management director?
0. Harrell T~Je Police CBief
5341 Maywood Road
Stats 'MN ZIP
Phone (612) 472-0621
55364
_- -_~ceiv.,e_a Tirn-e
A-1
Nov. 12. 3:347M
NI3t~12-1999 15: 49._ P,I~'I~
PUBLIC WORKS 612 478 4881
DeaCRiaE YOUR PL N NO A ORY, ,rn {PA¢);
DESCRIBE HOW THIS PAC WILL WORK IN COORDINATION WITH THE'LOCAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR: ~ '
The, q,rg~ni?~tinn {.q m~rle ~lp of local emergency m~na~ement directors from the communities
nrn~nrl tN. T =Ir. 'M'~lal'~t~tnrl'~r~ r~Ot)n 'Pl~.~e ~.e ~,nclnsecl li~ of member jurisdictiojas. The
LIST NUMBER OF MEETINGS HELD OR PLANNED:
TI~c Lake gianctonka Rcgio:~[ ?tcpat'cd~ess ?]~nn{~g and Review Committee meet every
~o~Lh {n thc 1~OC o£onc o'fthc rncmbc~' commu~tJes.
MAJOR OBJECTIVES (Must Include prevention of, response to, and recovery from hazardous
materials incidents):
Thc basic objective of this committee is to dcvclop and maintain a regional emergency
operations plan and resource manual, implement a review pr_ocess for those documents and
coordinatepu_blic safety training. Thc plan and resource roan'ual are :i. nte~ded to assist k?y
city 6f. ficial$ and emergC~-cy org;ni?ations within the region to coordinate and carry om-their
responsibilities for the protection of life and property under a wide range of emergency
conditions.
Attach copy of any formal operating procedures adopted by the committee, including bylaws,
memberships, and dues, and any resolutions of the local poi~ subdivision which recognize the
o A-2
Rec'eived Time Nov, 12. 3:34PM
K~3U-12--1997 15:49 PUBLIC WORKS 61~ 4?8 4~al
~I]~P~TED RE$~LT~BENEFWS:
Thc ~ef~ ~f'th~ 6r~{z, at'ion {ncktd¢ t~¢'~il~tw to dcvclop ~ coordinated e~ort to
,'~.~p~nd to and recover from disaster situstions. This effort will be effectiw aud
c£ficicnt. This organization will be able to coordinate with private or§anlzations xwi. th~
i~s ;c, fion to mom com~rchcnsivcl¥ rcs'pond to and recover from disaster situation.
Currently thc committee is workin~ with th~ Met COtmcil and NSP ot~. s bcttc; w~y to
coordinate response/recovery from power outages' duc to natural disasters.
UST PERSONS INVITED TO PARTICIPA:rEoN THE COMMR'rEE (indicate with an ' those persons
who are active members):
NAME DISCIPUNF
See enclosed list
A-3
-' Received -Tim~'- -No< 12, 3:34PM
PUBL'I C ~ 612
· BUDGET
(For ,do,~ m?ntation purposes,~ please list all
Facility Rental
Office-Sup~lles-
NumberA-lours
Mailing
Pri_~ng/Copying-
Meeting Expenses
Food
Refreshments
Other P~JY'rhR~:~ nf nnt~hool~ and r'nm.p~J'l'or' rt~k fn~
~esource Manual
4?8 4~1
P. {~/{36
0
100
150
1,000
180
20
SUB-TOTAL
LESS FUNDS RECENED/EXPECTED FROM OTHER SOURCES
TOTAL :
*Grant may not cover a~! costs.
A-4
1
ReceEved Time
Nov, 12.
_hlarlan Jobuson -
Phon~' 575"~755~- -
F~;_ 47~564
Excelsior
B~n L~cy
~onc: 47~3261
~'m~ 47~
C~nwoo~
Phone: 47~3261
F~ 474~77
Independence
L~
Phone: 479-0500
F~: 479~504
Lon~ Lake
G~ ~cswi~
Phone: 249~7~
F~ 47~3028
Ed BeU~
Maple
~ B~cy - --
Phone:479~500:
F~X: 479-0504-
M~a
Ed Beard
Phonc: 473-9209
F~: 473-6939
Mi~etonka Beach
Ga~ ~s~ck
Phone: 24947~
F~: 47~3028
M~nc~s;~
~g ~son
Phone: ~1
Fax: 446-1623
Mound
Leon'ad Harrell
Phone: 472-0621
Police Chief
Policc .Chicf'
Polic~ ~hief
Police Chief
Pollcc Cki~f
Pollcc Ch/cf
Police Ckief
Police Chief
Police Chief
Polic~ ~
Fax: 472-0651
Or,no
Gary Cheswick - Police Chief
Ph'on~: 2494~00
Fax: 476-3028-
St. Bordfacit~s
Craig Anderson Police C.h/ef
Phone: 446-1131
Fax: 446,1623
Shorcwood
BD'an Lits~ Police Chief
Phone: 474-3261
Fax: 474-4477
Spring Park
Gary Chesv. dck Police C'h/ef
Phon~: 249-4700
Fax: 476-3028
Tonka l~av
Bryan Litsey Poi/cc Chief
Phone: 474-3261
Fax: 474- 4477
Wi!_vzata r
Kcvin Kelleh~ Police Chief
Phoae: 404-5340
Fax: 473-8833
Woodland
Harlan Joh~on Polic~ C_.l~icf
Phone: 474-7555
Fax: 474-4564
Suburban Henncpin P~ Dcpt of Public Safety
Don Davis Publii~ Safety
Phone: 47g-I 172'
Fax: 479-6090
~Iennepin CoanW Sheriffs Office
winiam C~.~: Patrol
Phoae: 391-5110
Fax: 391-5108
Henn. Cx~. Emer¢. Prep.
Stmervisor
Tim Tumbull
Phone: 745-7621
Fax: 478-4001
BASIC ?I.~u~l
I<I~VISION: 0
i
ed Time
N0v112.
3:34PM
A-5
TOTAL P. ~
ATTACHMENT B
FEDERAL AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
1. For subrecipients who are state (includes Indian tribes) or local governments
If the grantee expends total direct and indirect federal assistance of:
Equal to or in excess of $300,000 or more per year, the grantee agrees to obtain a financial and compliance
audit made in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-502) and the federal Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133. The law and circular provide that the audit shall cover the
entire operations of the grantee government or, at the option of the grantee government, it may cover
departments, agencies or establishments that received, expended, or otherwise administered federal financial
assistance during the year.
Audits shall be made annually unless the State or local government has, by January I, 1987, a constitutional or
statutory requirement for less frequent audits. For those governments, the cognizant agency shall permit biennial
audits, covering both years, if the government so requests. It shall also honor requests for biennial audits by
governments that have an administrative policy calling for audits less frequent than annual, but only for fiscal years
beginning before January 1, 1987.
2. For subrecipients who are institutions of higher education, hospitals, or other nonprofit organizations
o
°
o
If the grantee expends total direct and indirect federal assistance of $300,000 or more per year, the grantee
agrees to obtain a financial and compliance audit made in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. The audit
mu§t be organization wide audit, unless it is a coordinated audit in accordance with OMB Circular A-133.
However, when the $300,000 or more was expended under only one program, the subrecipient may have an
audit of that one program.
Audits shall usually be made annually, but not less frequently than every two years.
All audits shall be made by an independent auditor. An independent auditor is a state or local government auditor or
a public accountant who meets the independence standards specified in the General Accounting Office's Standards
for Audit of Governmental Organizations. Programs. ActMties. and Functions.
Audit reports shall state that the audit was performed in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133, as
applicable.
The reporting requirements for audit reports shall be in accordance with the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants' (AICPA) Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) 58, "Reports on Audited Financial Statements" or,
SAS 62, "Special Reports", as applicable.
The reporting requirements for audit reports on compliance and internal controls shall be in accordance with
AICPA's SAS 63, "Compliance Auditing Applicable to Governmental Entities and Other Recipients of
Governmental Financial Assistance" and Statement of Position (SOP) 89-6, "Auditors' Reports in Audits of State
and Local Governmental Units."
In addition to the audit report, the recipient shall provide comments on the findings and recommendations in the
report, including a plan for corrective action taken or planned and comments on the status of corrective action taken
on prior findings. If corrective action is not necessary a statement describing the reason it is not should accompany
the audit report.
The grantee agrees that the grantor, the Legislative Auditor, the State Auditor and any independent auditor
designated by the grantor shall have such access to grantee's records and financial statements as may be necessary
for the grantor to comply with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133, as applicable.
B-1
Grantees of federal financial assistance from subrecipients are also required to comply with the Single Audit Act and
the OMB Circular A-133, as applicable.
The grantee agrees to retain documentation to support the schedule of federal assistance.
Required audit reports must be filed with the Office of the State Auditor, Single Audit Division and with the
Department of Public Safety, within 30 days after the completion of the audit, but no later than one year after the end
of the audit period.
The Department of Public Safety's audit report should be addressed to:
Minnesota Department of Public Safety
Office of Fiscal and Administrative Services
444 Cedar Street, Suite 126, Town Square
St. Paul, MN 55101-5126
Recipients expending more than $300,000 in federal funds are to submit one copy of the audit report within 30 days
after issuance to the clearinghouse at the following address:
Bureau of the Census, Data Preparation Division
1201 East 10th Street
Jeffersonville, Indiana 47132
Attn: Single Audit Clearinghouse
B-2
Anti-Lobbying Certification
ATTACHMENT C
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT-WIDE
GUIDANCE ON LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS
(31 U.S.C. 1352)
The undersigned Grant Recipient certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Grant Recipient, to
any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection
with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal
loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan,
or cooperative agreement.
o
If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an
officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the Grant Recipient shall complete and submit Standard
Form LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
o
The Grant Recipient shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents
for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and
cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certi~' and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was
made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this
transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for such failure.
GRANTEE: City of Mound
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
C-1
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itsel£ its assignees and successors in interest
(hereinafter referred to as the "contractor" agrees as follows:
Compliance with Regulations: The contractor shall comply with the Regulations relative to
nondiscrimination in Federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter "DOT")
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter
referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract.
Nondiscrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, shall not
discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin in the selection and retention of
subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall not
participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations,
including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the
Regulations.
Solicitation for Subcontracts. Includina Procurement of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations
either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the contractor for work to be performed under a
subcontract, including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or
supplier shall be notified by the contractor of the contractor's obligations under this contract and the
Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin.
Information and Reports: The contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the
Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts,
other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the State of Minnesota or the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such
Regulations, orders and instructions. Where any information required of a contractor is in the exclusive
possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information the contractor shall so certify to the
State of Minnesota or the Research and Special Programs Administration as appropriate, and shall set forth
xvhat efforts it has made to obtain the information.
Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with nondiscrimination
provisions of this contract, the State of Minnesota shall impose contract sanctions as it or the Research and
Special Programs Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
(a) withholding of payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies; and/or
(b) cancellation, termination, or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.
APPENDIX B - PAGE 1
Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6) in
every subcontract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the
Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any
subc6ntract or procurement as the State of Minnesota or the Research and Special Programs
Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance;
provided, however, that in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with
a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the contractor may request the State of Minnesota
to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, and in addition, the contractor
may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
APPENDIX B - PAGE 2
ATTACHMENT D
STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Division of Emergency Management
444 Cedar Street, Suite 223
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-6223
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (HMEP) GRANT
REOBLIGATION FORM
GRANT PERIOD October 1, 1999 - September 30, 2000
SECTION I - APPLICANT INFORMATION
Leonard Harrell
City of Mound
5341 Ma.vwood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SECTION II - GRANT AWARD ADJUSTMENT REOBLIGATION
GRANT AWARD AMOUNT: $
REOBLIGATION AMOUNT: $
TOTAL GRANT AWARD AMOUNT: $
FOR STATE USE ONLY
Vendor #: 036811001-00 r~oc. ~: 2000-4501
invoice #: HMEP GRANT Dept.: P07
FY: 00 Fund: 300 Orgn: 2281 Appr: 226 Object:
Amount: Date: Fed Rptg Cat: PLNG Task:
I hereby certif2: that the goods or material covered by this claim have been inspected and received or the sen, ices have been performed, and are in accordance with
specifications and are in proper form. kind. amount and qualit2,'. and payment, therefore, is recommended:
System Assign. Re£ No.
Dept. Authorized Signature
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair. Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deept~aven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound -
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Danlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig E~ers
Victona
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitcna~
Minnetonka
Lili McMiilan
Orono
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wed
Greenwood
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
December 6,1999
Ms. Fran Clark
City of Mound
5341Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Fran:
The Lake ~Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has received renewal
applications for 2000 Multiple Dock and/or District Mooring 3a'ea (DMA)
licenses as described on the attached certificates.
It is the policy of the LMCD that all dock and DMA license applications be
referred to the appropriate city for review. A certificate indicating compliance
with local regulations must be received from the city before final action is
taken by the LMCD Board on these renewal applications.
If a certificate or a request for delay of certificate is not received within 45
days of this mailed notice, the LMCD will proceed in the processing of these
applications. We will forward any additional certificates upon the receipt of
the remaining applications.
Please review the enclosed certificates and return them at your earliest
convenience. This will allow us time to process them in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Winbe;
Administrative Technician
Enclosures
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Consumer Waste
Web Page Address: h;tp://www.winternet.com/~ mcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Compliance with other laws. The issuance of a license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooring area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Ms. Jan Trapp
Seton View Association
4869 Bartlett Blvd.
Mound, MN 55.364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
4869 Bartlett Blvd.
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 7
MA/b'~ M M~VVW~MM/~/~MM~AMAMM/~M~?B~B/~ M/~MMMMMAMM/~
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000.
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Compliance with other laws. The issuance ora license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person fi-om the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission fi-om any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD.hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooring area.
NAM-E & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Ms. Edythe Koenig
Seahorse Condominium Assoc.
5440 Three Points Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
5440 Three Points Blvd.
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 77
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Comoliance with other laws. The issuance of a license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooting area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. John Boyer
Pelican Point Homeowners Assoc.
18283A Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
LOCATION OF DOCKS
Pelican Point
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 40
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Comoliance with other laws. The issuance of a license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person fi-om the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooring area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. Jim Fackler
City of Mound (Lost Lake Channel)
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
Lost Lake Channel
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 16
MA/V~ MM/~ MM M/~/~MAM.,'~/~M/~MMM/~MMM/~/~M/~MAMMMMM~
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonl~a Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Comoliance with other laws. The issuance ora license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooting area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLIC.a~NT
Mr. Jim Fackler
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, _-MN 55364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
See map
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 590
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Comoliance with other laws. The issuance of a license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooting area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. Charles Burmeister
Minnetonka Boat Rental
P.O. Box 23406
Richfield, MN 55423
LOCATION OF DOCKS
4850 Edgewater
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 44
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Compliance with other laws. The issuance of a license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooring area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. ~Michael Koch
Lakewinds Assoc.
1600 University Ave., Suite 310
St. Paul, MN 55104
LOCATION OF DOCKS
4379 Wilshire Blvd.
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 59
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Comoliance with other laws. The issuance of a license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person fi.om the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission fi.om any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock md/or
mooring area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. Dave Beede
Harrison Harbor Twinhome ,~soc.
1816 Commerce Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
Commerce Blvd.
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 7
MA/~ M/~M/~/~MMMMM,~MMMMM~M/V~MMM/gM,~?'~?~MMM/~AMMA
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Com[fliance with other laws. The issuance of a license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock ancL/or
mooring area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. Robert Bittle
Halstead Acres Improvement Assoc.
2927 Halstead Lane
Mound, MN 55364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
County Rd. 44
Number of Boat Storage Units 0tSU's): 7
/~MMMMMAMMM/~M~M~MMMMM~MM/~M/~
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Comvliance with other laws. The issuance ora license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooring area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. Jim Welbourn
Driftwood Shores Homeowners Assoc.
1772 Lafayette Lane
Mound, MN 55364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
Outlot 2 Dri~wood Shores
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 10
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requkements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Comvliance with other laws. The issuance ora license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooting area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Ms. Merrirt Geyen
A1 & Alma's Supper Club
5201 Piper Road
Mound, MN 55364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
5201 Piper Rd.
Number of Boat Storage Units 0tSU's): 24
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Lili McMillan
Orono
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wert
Greenwood
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
December13,1999
To:
From:
Fra~_City of Mound
Rog~r'E. Winberg, LMCD
Subject: Municipal Certifications
The attached Multiple Dock or District Mooring Area Municipal Certification
is enclosed for your review and action. Please return it at your earliest
convenience. Thank you.
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Consumer Waste
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/~lmcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)Code
provides:
Compliance with other laws. The issuance of a license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooring area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. Tammy Jorgensen
Chapman Place Marina
175 Gamefarm Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
I,OCATION OF DOCKS
2670 Commerce Blvd.
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 27
A/',A AA A/\ AAAAAA/X,\,^,AA/',AAA AAAAAAAAA AA/~AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/~/~A AAA
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
BOARD MEMBERS
Douglas E. Babcock
Chair, Tonka Bay
Bert Foster
Vice Chair, Deephaven
Eugene Partyka
Secretary, Minnetrista
Craig Nelson
Treasurer, Spring Park
Andrea Ahrens
Mound
Bob Ambrose
Wayzata
Kent Dahlen
Minnetonka Beach
Craig Eggers
Victoria
Tom Gilman
Excelsior
Greg Kitchak
Minnetonka
Lili McMillan
Orono
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Herb J. Suerth
Woodland
Sheldon Wert
Greenwood
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085
Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
December 30, 1999
To:
From:
Fran~City of Mound
Roger L. Winberg, LMCD
Subject: Municipal Certifications
The attached Multiple Dock or District Mooring Area Municipal Certification
is enclosed for your review and action. Please return it at your earliest
convenience. Thank you.
50% Recycled Content
20% Post Consumer Waste
Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/~lmcd/
E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION
MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPROVAL FOR 2000
Section 1.06, Subd. 11 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code
provides:
Comr}liance with other laws. The issuance ora license or permit by the
district does not relieve any person from the responsibility of obtaining
required licenses, permits or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having jurisdiction over
the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/firm/
organization has applied for a new/renewal license for a multiple dock and/or
mooring area.
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Mr. Robert Sandom
Seton Twin Homes
4842 Wilshire Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
LOCATION OF DOCKS
4838-4852 Wilshire Blvd.
Number of Boat Storage Units (BSU's): 6
I certify that the above license applicant has met the zoning ordinance and any other city
permit or license requirements of the City of Mound for the facility described for 2000.
Authorized Signature
Date
PAYMi'~NI' I~llA~S
DATE:
JANUARY 11, 2000
BII,LS
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCIItt
#9121
#9123
AMOUNT
$184,807.31
$ 86,880.67
TOTAL BILLS
$271,687.98
991 220
AKdC'J OIL CO"iPA!,Y
b 054'! i,~L, 353 J 0
P U t~ C H *~ S E J 0 U k N A L C ] 1Y rlF
PRE
iNVO!Cr ~UE HOLD
DATE bATE bTATuS A*' ;j {Ii~,T DESC.-<IFT I 3N ACCOUNT NU~!UER
5s.3s li4:,,J Ik-z0-'~9 C~LL PriO~ 01-41~0-3220
AIRTDUCh CELLULAK/~ELL{VUE VENaOR TOTAL 55.38
123.v7 T;4~U 12-22-O9 GAS CHA~365 73-7300-2210
i/~C {,0 !/u4/O0 323.1o J~ ,,L-Cu lOl0
~{NuOR TOTAL 3Z3.16
5ELkbOY_L;)~Pd::AII
50572 00~0403Z~5
63.65 90 ,~iINUTES AUDIO CASSETTES (5)
1/0Al00 1Z~A/00 ........... 63.65_ JENL--_CD
v £ k'D98 _T¢~.L ...... 2,~2£.. 05 .......................................................
01-4140-4100
1.OlO ....
63.&5 93 'ilNuTES Ad3IU CASSFTTES (S)
1/04/00_
bUY
9V122~
01-4140-4100
~ .....
v L t,'.D3 k TOTAL 127.7C
9]5.32 S~';;D CJ~ SALT KIX 01-42~0-2340
,'L, 4/O~ I/~/00 915.32 JZ '.:L-CD l(tO
4,i.02 Ti:::',: ~'-~...r'(V _:;~__4 %IT,~UJ (C%2) .......... 7.~.OJ
4o' .02 J: ;L-C~ ICl~
,JLYA,,, ,RL)CK P -,
V-7_ NCOF lL.l AL .... 461.02 ............................................
1,5ag.ol ~"LK !CF CjulF:9L 01-42Br-2340
./O~/Ou :/[,~/UC s,~4a.01 _J' ' c,"~ -.'~_..~__ ...................................
.l /04 / rjd
I/ ~/00
i,¢1Z.07 DLIL~ ICE CUqT~:3L dl-4280-Z3&O
i,~!2.07 JEkL-C~ ........................... LOlO ........
3~c.35 bULK lC:: CcUlkOL C'!-42d0-234u
;/UO ..... 5go.3K_. J]!,L-C.~' _ .................. !0!0 .
AF-C02-01
CEhDOR
NO. IxVD1CE
COAST TO COAST
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOU','D
ih'VOICE DuE hOLD PR
UATE D~lE STATdS Ar.'O UNT 9ESCRIPTIgN ~CCOUNT NUttiER
O~.SZ DEC 99 SUPPLIES 75-7500-2250
..................... ?.5.5!_
97.70 DEC 99 SUPPLIES 01-4340-2200
22.55 PEC V9 SU:)PLIES 73-7300-2300
................ 7.55_
0.35
i10~/00 1/04/00 70i. 6.~ Jf '~L-CD lOlO
...... F~qT~i-T~ X~ ......... ~';-S ............................................
Cq970 64~52106
4 o. 5 O_ _ ri ii. ................................... Zi -_7 l.O D -P 5.4.11
~/04/00 1/94/00 aO.5O Ja.~L-CD 1010
.... C O C6 .COLA _5 ~T TL i :;G-b I DYE S_T_ __Vi_. !¢ D,.,'-~ ,q _7_(LT_A_.L ......... !_O ..5..0
Cfi30 7555
CUSTOM FIRE APP,~AT,J5 VENDOR TOTAL 42o.31
Ul15~ 58519
1/04/00 1/04/00
DA,LHEI~im~. D1STFI~o{i~'~G CO VENDOR TOTAL 452.00
426.31 IAIL~OA~D, CLI P[~ OARD dOLD£RS
42 S. 31._ .JSNLr_CD
22-4170-2200
452.00 BEER 71-710.0-9530
~,~.OO JRNL-CD 1010
2/04/00 1/04/00 132.72 JPNL-CD
1010
UAN,<U £Mi;,l,SE.,C¥ EC'dlP~ENT V.F.:::DO~ T,OIAL 13_2._72_
Pl2DO c17C3
4i0.40
O0 I/P,~/00 _ 41_0.4 O_ _J_-%'IL_-£=
71-7100 ~ v
-,5..,0
IP l.O ......
1,12=,.25
00_ l/j~q KO0 ....... 1,i2o.i5
:3E i'< 71-7100-95%0
J? '~L- C 7: _ ..................................
0145~ az.Z.~ >;lA ,,O;,~-T-' A AbLE 71-7100-9540
.Iu4/UO _. i/_C,_4../_ O> ............ i/. 25____J-=:~L t%i'_ .......... l-Ol~ .......
DAY ,JISTr~IbijTIhG CO Vr..NDOR TOTAL 1571.d0
~lko3 P'i;7-,',',~,SZZ£[ ~3u.u~ TIU'S Ar~2 CO~,I~ECTION CHAKCE
i/0~/9~ 2/54/00 c3~.~ JgaL-fP 1010
J[P'Ak7JF''T ....... "'; ~.iC" ~AF'- ~T VLND3F. ?OT~L ~38.00
P!32;" U9~193 ........... ?5.uO
1104100 i1(,4./00 75 .OO
JUNALL r~zllz vL':Dt';*: TC!TAL 75.uO
aqu.! ": C L U.'A.h Cf ......................... 01r. 42AO'_224_P
F1420 557179 579.00 m£LF~ KECS 7ii7100-o53u
1104/00 1104100 .... 370.00
, EA31 31Pi '¢~vEr:-'or- v~."D(;,: TOI-~.L
rAGE 3 P u R C B A 5 E J O U k N A L
Ak-Co2-01 CITY OF hgjND
CENDOR ixVOICE ;;u£ HOLD p~
,NO. ],,:~OICF k':'=R DATE DATE STATUS M',dUNT DFSCkIPT13N ACCOUI~T NUddE~
F1710 00o104
70.4,6 "' bEPT,g
A,_,o, CT.99 CELL PHONE 01-~040-~220
F ~^;,C f_Ni CLAxK
Fi?19 00~103
v; NDOR TOIAL 7U.48
01-42~0-22 0
i C,~/Oa I/C~/O0 75.00 Jq'~L-CD lOIO
V£NDOR TOTAL 75.00
Fi72u
........................... 3LO.uD_ T~FJJ. 12-31~99_ERO SEF~VIC£S ..... 01-4399.-4100_
1/0410'3 1/04100 350.00 ., r
J~ ,~-.b 1J1O
Fi725 25c9o641 5C4.16 ~30456 [CALM lIIX ORGANIZER
01-4140-4100
: FF, At;KLIw COVEY COIIPAqY VEND0k TOIAL 304.16
F172o 6708
~/o~/oo ~/o4/oo
FkDiTYEi~-'P~dS FiRE S R~SC VENDOR TOTAL
FINE HuSES 22-4170-2200
J~dL-CD 1010
7.5O 25_247.5 ................................. 2 ~ ..L5___,y,_A3_S __
2/04100 1104/00 ~.95 JFNL-CD
252476
................... !~.o2_. .~g_!% ................................. 71-7180-421£_ .
1104100 1/0~/00 ]v.o2 J;;"~L-C3 !010
. 252 .,73 i 5.55 ___,~1_5 .................................... ,~.~'~L'-_=2.JN ..........
]~.35 MA'fS 73-7300-2250
25.70 U:jF
............... :u ........................... 0i--4280.220.;2
' ~ Z:' U,iF~'::''~ '~3-730(.-2200
23 .~;, df i F 0~- ..',5
..... i/04/_00_ _ 1/_5 ~_/_O0 ....... 1~ 7 ..13_ _J~'_:M. - C2_ ............................ 2.~.10 ....
· ,S ~ k SEF.,/IChS VENDOR TOTAL 157.:/5
,3io0 u ~91t30
o~9~ ~9i231
....... 7.o3 k iA T E ,~_ _ C (; 0 L i~__P_: N ! &L.. A F:;LW A ~fJF_i{ ...... DJ.-- ~ 02 ~-22 0.0 __ .
?.00 ¢,',TEw COOL!!:: ~,£',TAL Af4O ~,'ATE~ 01-~140-4100
2.00 .4ATER COOLER RFNTAL ANO wATER 01-4320-2200
PAGE 4 P U k C H A S E J 0 U k N A L
AP-C02-£1 CiTY OF K3dND
VENDOR I ~WC, I CE DUE dOLD
NO. i~<VOICF- N~':Ur~ DATE mATE STATdS A"OUI,T D~SC~IPTIDN ~CCuUNT NUMBER
2.52 ~'~TEk COOLER PENTAL AND wATER
PRE
A
............................. 2,$2.._ ,,AIER_..CD0££_R SLF~'.'J]AL_A;JD_~/LTJER-- 7,¢-?A0C-2200
1/04/00 1/04/00 2~.40 J~NL-CD 1010
91970 992250
$ .... 0
............ 153267__
2/04/00 i/O~/O0
v £ ;40.3,~ 10TAL ........ 2~.40 ....................................
85.99 CLoTHIh6 ALLUWANC~ 01-42b0-2240
........................... ~5~9~_ C~ .' :.T~-ZN G .-~ L LO-,,M.N £ CE-- .................... 73-7300-224¢
86.00 CLuTHING ALLOWANCE 78-7&00-2240
$/0~/0o !/04/00 257.98 Jm,~L-CD ]0]0
vEt, DDR ~C'f ~L 257.93
A64._7~ .... ~_~ ................................ 2~7~-9520
1104/00 L/34/00
~64.73 J=¢I,L-CD 1GlO
__~5_4~22___.LJ_N: U D.R__ 2&.-~710~ -~510 ......
454.22 J;NL-Cu i010
l&6.&7 TW~<U 12-~3-99 LONG DISTANCE
18o.07 IH~<U 12-13-99 LONG DISIAN~E 01-4340-3220
i~6.&6 IHNU 12-13-99 LONG DISIAN~E
301.92 I~RU 12-13-99 LONG DISTANCE 01-42b0-3220
364.47 IHRU 12-13-99 LONG DISTANCE 73-7300-3220
755.89 I~RU 12-13-99 LONG
i/04/00 1/04/00 2,768.52 J-~L-CD 1010
G T E ."~:
, , ,.~,_SJTA viNDOR TOTAL 276~.52
Hi99-_. 0452i7 ~0.%6 v-PLJW 01-.230-2310
I/u4/00 1/04/00 1!0.75
d2Ob3 25~41
2559~ 205.17
2570~ 231.90
niC!~oiL ":AC'~i';~ ~HvF V=nuD~ TCT~L 511.o7
hEN:. CL~ -b riCi<t F F~
l':C. v E :,DO.~. T.OT AL ....... ii o ..7.(.. ...................................................
74.00 T~U 12-3!-09 SUPPLIES 01-4340-2300
1104/00 1/0~/00 . . _ 74.60. JENL-CD ...................... l~-o
T':~'t,. ]~-3i~ -O? ~;=PLILS C1-~4~'-23~0-
1~{~ 12-3!-9~ SUPDLIn$ 6i-4~40-2~00
J~:~L-CD . lOlO
7,534.12 l'~v9 ~,4':UAL RA~IC LEASE_ ei-4140-3950
1/04/00 1/6,4/00 7,334.i2 JqNL-CD 1010
Ptr'f ~rhi)Or; l['i AL 7534.12
PAGE 5 P U R C H A S E J 0 U i{ ~ A L
AF-Cu2-Ci C]TY DF ~3UND
NO. i~;VDICE I,~R DA~E DAlE STATUS AKOlJNT D[SCRIPTIDN ACCuUNT NdM~ER
~Zlo0 002526 g3.75 N~V 79 ROOH A~'D BOARD 01-411J-4250
~2253 ~912i& . _ . 3O.S0 WIRE ......................... ~S~Y305-23~0 ..
~i0i-/O0 Z/04/OC 30.30 J~.. WL-C~ 1010
_C{.?~E_D~POILG:CF ....... V£!~O~ TgTAL ..... 3u.OO
12309 2353365g
iKON OFFICE 5fiLU1 IONS V:~<O~.!< TOTAL 00.72
I2400 4300 27.99 OIL CHAN~E
2/04/00 1/04/U0 27.99 JPNL-CD
4444 ~15.07 RSk CAO. LE SET
~/04/00 lZ04/00 115.07 JS ~L-CD
.............................
4290 545.81
l/0L/0O t/04/00 545.61 JPWL-CD
90.72 12-,~ CSPY ~AC~I',~E KAI;,;'fEt'ANCE 01-4!4C'-2140
1/04/00 99~72_ d£,,~L.CD .......................... 1~10 - -
01-4340-3~10
lO10
01-4340-3510
1010
FUEL PUMP, ETC gl-434S-3~]0
10t0
.JZ4~?g_ 0031US _
J257'~ iC'u4~5l
2/04/00 ;1/04/o0 ]_5 .b4 JP.':L-CD .1010
...... VE~'jD03 .TOT ~L ....... 15
195.75
l/O~./O.O l/C..,tO:! _ .. Z-~5.73. _J~-':<L-C.'S
71-710U-~510
eld .
1,d{5.4:. ,.i {~{ 71-71~;3-~520
JOnhSOi~ : Fij5 LI,~d3[< C0 ~LI-;3,}~, itl AL
1104/00 ./,)~/00 74.55
PUbL I CAi I I 'JNS 01-4240-4170
JPNL-CU 1010
JUbILEL F tJ['S
LASEK ~JiPT
L2S5i
17~
YE t4[;gR. _T ~ T_AL 47.91 ...........................
Vr._;4bOk Tr, TAL ~62.04
!15.O[; 02-51-:,'-~ TO 07-01-00 COVEi;A6[ 01-4025-3o10
PAGE 6
· AP-C02-CZ
~ENDOR
NO. I:,VCiEE N~bR
i734
]ATE
PURCHASE JOURNAL CiTY ,OF MOUND
.",'dE dOLD PR[
~ATE 3TATdS A~.: U di~T 'J[bCR IF'T IDN ACCOUNT ,'w bM b E k
20.50 02-01-99 TO 02-01-;'9 CDVERAGE 01-4020-3510
............. t.ZT___ 02r31_-9.9_~0_ 0.i~ 0ir3.9- CDV~FiAGE ......... £'1-4~4C.-3o!0 .........
- ~dV~
~.20 02 01-99 TO 02-01-99 r.. ~' AGE 01-4090-3~10
1.5~ 02-01-99 TO 02-01-99 COVE[:AGE 01-41!0-3610
.03 02-01-99 TO 02-01-99 COVE~AGE 01-4150-3o10
d.20 02-01-99 TO 02-01-99 COVERAGE 01-4190-3010
3.31 02-01-9~ TO 02-01-99 COVERAGE 01-4320-3610
13.04 02-01-99 TU 02-01-99 COVERAGE 01-4340-3o10
~7.39 02-01-~_T.~ 02~O~v~ C6VEFiAGE-- 22-~17~-3.610
c~i.36 02-3i-9~ TO 02-01-99 COVERAGE 71-7100-3610
4~.b3 U2-01-9~ TO 02-01-?9 COVERAGE 73-7300-3610
1/04/00 1/0~/00 ~i.00 J~NL-CD 1010
._LE6GQ[_OF_m~_ C1TIE5. I~5 _T~ VC~DU.E IO_TAL .......... 4~4~0.0
5-2859~I 50.2~ D!3K PA~ S~T 22-4170-3~20
5-285401 57.03 BU' ~c ~iRE, iTC 22-4170-2200
LOWELL'S AOTO~OTIVL/ZI~CO~',: VEf~DOR TOTAL 107.51
2000~32 37~.65 HEATER COPE 01-4280-2310
2/04/00 1/O~/O0 3%2.05 J~ 4L-CO 1ClO
l/O4/OU I10~/00 17C .30 JF ;~L-CD !OlO
01o2 ......................... ~' '
i/04/00 !/04/00 21.70 j*,;~-rO~ 1010
,4ARLiN'S T~*UCKI~;G ViND:Jk TCTAL 35~.90 ...............
95~'~57 2,5~.25 71'71U'~-°530
VII ~iSTi",IkdlUk V~%~O~ T3TAL 2544.25
14C22~3 2,535.23 ;]I ;,TEe:', ] X 73-73U3-2~40
110¢100 ~/0~1~0 2,535.23 J:';L-CD 1010
AF -CJ2-O&
VEXDJF,
P d k C h A S E J 0 U r~ N A L CITY OF
I*';VO] CE SUE HOL? PRF.
DATE ~TE STATUS A~;d UNT DESCRIPTIDN ACCOUf~T NU~DER A
:.,iD.'mS1 ,,SPdALI COkP VS,~JODR TOTAL 2535.23
M344j 9;,010i i~0.u0 CERTIFICATION ~ESTS (~) 22-4170-4110
2/04/00 1/0~/00 140.00 J~NL-C~ lOlO
STATE FiF'.E Cr!IEF'~-AS~N V;q~Ok TOTAL 140.00
..................... Lb,CD_ .~ hkf,_ l.k¢.l.;~ ~2:G ....................... 01-4140-411.0 .........
L/C, 4/O0 1/O,k./O0 ~O.oO JPNL-[5 1010
,~ORTn
,~3~30 9~1251
ri~ALTH CAKE v£_'.;bOn, fOTAL
5,025.7S O~C Ye SIREET LI6¢IS 01-42c0-3710
1/04/00
,,,OkTmEf:h, SIATES POWER CO V£1,;DDR TOIAL 5025.7S
.,,3 &2 i 991 i76,:;G llV.2g
1/04/OG l/O~t0O 119.25
NCr, M~LcT .... ~ POWER P C VEt;DOR TOTAL llV.2~
REPAIR TO CLA-VAL DIAPHRAG~ 73-7300-4200
JF'-,,~- C D 1010
870 0~52~0756 ......................... 50.65_ OZ.FJ££ SDRP%iFq ..... 2_2. r417.0rZlOP .......
~-~D i010
1/04/00 1/04/00 50.65 J~'' e
_OFFICE SE~OT
27.26 ~] 5CELL ~,t, EOUS ITEMS 71-7100-2200
l/O'*lO0 1104100 27..26 .J7 ~.rCu ........................................ ~Ei.O .........
...... 2,27_2-. o.0 ... ~] ', E 7_l=.7_LO_C'_- 9J2/,_ ...........
1104/00 2,272 .oS J'?' K L-C U 1010
PHILLIPS ,~1~;- ~, SPI:{iTS, :~ V:ND:),, T.DIAL 7272.00 ................................
r4JSc 5'~1 ~49 0;25.55 CIGAH{TTE5 71-7!03-95~0
P4lll u$~ilC
l/u4/O0 ll¢~lO0
PF, OTECTIu;, O~E VshD]~ TOTAL
5,~5.55
!qc'.OS il-2'?-V~, -~RVICE CALL 71-7100-3320
19L,.Oq J: ,h-C.
10b UO
~4i7i. 7_q'C~73-00
071.06_ _ LI ,~"0c' _ 7~ r ?~. O 9__- 25.LO
2/04/00 1/2~/00 c, 71.05 J'-' NL-C2 10!0
F^GE ~ P U R C n A S E J O d P,, N A L
AF-C02-01 CITY OF Mnd'~D
vE~JR I~VO1CE DdE ~()LD PRE
ND. i:,VUiCE !,q~R ~ATE DAlE 3TATUS AMOUNT DESC~IPTIDH ACCuUNT NUHbER
1104100 lift,lO0 1,25~.43
abALITY ~INE ~ SPIRITS ~EkDOR TOTAL 2125.4~
:~ 41_97 ~?i 227
1104100 1/04/00 280.~5 JmNL-CD lOlO
~,i.C. L-LECN,'ICe ]~,C .... ¢c~,'Od~-,_TO_T~L ...... 4.CZ.d.$ ........................................................
R4240 i~,,5277
............. 21041.0~ _llO~ZO/J .......
o72.~0 T~U 12-19-99 SECRtTAFIAL SE,~V 01-~190-3100
..... ~7~.~_ _J£~L_-E-D ................................... -1 O 1J~ ........
REMEDY S1 AFFING FEr,'DOP; TOTAL o72.~0
~UN'S ICE COI. iPAr:Y VEXDOE TOTAL 67.71
1/04/00 1/0~/00 62.~3 JRkL-CD
bCH~'~AS. IRC. v'~J~O~ TOTAL
71-7100-7550
1010
lo10
8,;.00 i2-i0-)~ .--_DC PTG SECRETARIAL Ol-&O20-31nO
i/o41C'.,
TOTAL CC.O0
175.77 POLORIO[? ~30KI'.;G FILM 01-4140-2100
i/:':./JO 173.77 J:,,L-CD ]310
17C.77
1104100 1104100 13,773.50 J~:',L-C D
1010
STSC O¢;_SdLi A:,TS
TOTAL _ i ZTZ.3._5% ...........
1.503.42 T~,U 12-2F-99 3AS CHARGED 01-4140-2210
....
l/o4/(;O 1/G.10C 1,3. S3.42
1473J cs! ........................ ZY.96_ 5,%C~;_i~,,?,].i_CL,'CJ~L£SAL No_Ti_CE ....... 21-435~.3510
1104100 1104100 29.96 J:! ',iL- C [) 1010
rAGE 9 P ~J R C h A $ E J 0 b ~ N A L
AP-Cu2-31 CITY OF
VENDOR i~,;vgi CE DUE fiOLD PRE
NO. IqVOICE Ng~R DAT~ bATE gTATdS A','GU;,T DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT t~dH>~R A
o'~5 14.95 MOdNT OLIVE C~ORCH CUP 01-~190-3510
1/04/00 1/64/00 !~.98 dONL-CD 1glo
THE LAKER VE~DOK IOIAL 44.94
T477U I'21610
..... 1~16i1_
............. 165.9.5_ N!~C£LLANEDUS._TAXA~L5 ........... 71-7102-9550 ...
1/04/00 1/04/00 165.95 J~NL-CD 1olO
................................ 5¢.35 g .4' __ ='- ,L .................................. 71"- 71 gO.-953~
1/04/00 1/04/00 5,350.40 J;I~L-CD 1010
Tr~;,JP, BE DISTRIg,JTit,~G C.O ...... VEl!bOA TOTAL__. 5510.35 ..................................
T4952 9g47 43.07 ~ITCE, nlt', CLIP, ETC 22-4170-2200
................... 1/D A/DO _ _ILO 6J0_0 ............ 43 ~f~7__
9~46 364.54 ~f £,L I t,'EP, ETC.
TRUXSTOR ViNL)OR TOTAL 407.oi
T4985 236993-0 0.57 OFFICE SUPPLIES
6.57 OFFICE SUOPLIE$
5.57 OFFICE SUPPLIES
6.57 OFFICE SLI~PLiES
2.19 OFFICE SdOPLIE$
3.29 OFFICE SUoPLIE$
22-4170-2200
........................ fOlD .......
01-4040-2200
O1-414D-22D~ ............
01-4199-2200
01-4340-2290
..... 21~42~0_~22Dg
71-7100-2200
73-7300-2200
........................... 3.29__ GEE LC£__5 W~P L1. ES .................... 7 g_" 7 gi)D - 2.2 ,qJ __
1.07 oFF]CF SU:-'PL I ES 01-41 ;~0-2200
1104100 1104/00 44.~8 J'~';< L- C g, 1Ol0
· 237355-0 V.~5 OFPIC~ cU;)PLI~S 01-4040-2200
~.4~
........................ 3. I~___ o%~.6~_5 O.2~ LiEi .....
3.16 OFFICE 5~PPLI¢S 71-7100-2200
4.7L OrF~CE_,cU)PL[ES 73-7300-2200
~5.0~ P~Er: 3LdSSV, P~C)TO Oi-424q-22qu
1.05 L~2ELS OZ-4I'¢O-2ZOO
237013-0 024.09
/04/00 1/g4/00 024.0° ....... g:"' -C' _ ........ 1010
I;1:4 Cll~ oFfiCE 30"~LY CC '.'i~',¢;),~ T':!AL 75o.~1
U"50J~ 5~3Z?44 -' 030.94 6"XI2 3~A~I~. ,. ' CLAMPS 7,'~-730.-_~00r ~-,
1104/00 1/04/00 030.~4 J~NL-{O 1010
dS F]LT~ Vt~;DU~, TOTAL o30.94
PAGE iD P u R C H A S E. J 0 b R r,' A L
AP-CO2-C.Z CITY OF r;3UND
--~EI~DOR iNvoICE DUE HOLD PRE
NO. INVOI{E N"!~R DATE DAlE STATUS AYUUI,,T u:._SCRIPTI.qN ACCUUNT NU~!bER A
JSOSO 305500 15.25 bLACK T-[-~:-CK, dARRELL 01-,140-224U
1/04100 llO41uO 15 .25 Jr';<L-Cb 1010
uKIFORM5 UI~Li~'",ITED VE'!O5R IOTAL 15.25
V51o0 ~91229
............ 155.26 R£_II_RE].iEHI ~,'ATCH FUR SnANL£¥ _ 01-4C20-41~30
i)O~)O0 1/04/00 ~.,'":5.?a J,:r,;L-C~ lnlO.
_V ~.b JEwELE;<S ........ V':_[;DDF'..IO. TAL .............. 155.76 .............................................................
~5690 lglg9
794.24
1104100 .......... 7~4.24
£O:~£R5IE 01-4280-2340
J2 >,L-CD ...................... 1GLO, ..
5n2.i9 ~LACKTDP 73-7300-2340
1./_'0 ~./OD ............ ~ LL2_. 13_ _ _JR. ,L- CD ................................ 10
13605 2g~ .5g BLACKTOP
1436o ..t., 54 5.22 CO~CRETE
~ :<JELLER g SONS VENDUR TOTAL 3356.33
· , 16605 991228
~/04/00 1/04/00
~ELOCAIICN CL~'~IER VENDOR T01 AL
73-7300-2340
................. ~010 ......
01-42b0-2340
...................... _1. OlD
51.5~ ~A?ER ~EFUND 79-3895-0000
51.56 J~'~;L-CD !010
51.55
T{~TAL ALL _VENDORS ..... ~,550.6_7 .........................................................
PAGE 1
AOill 991225
7
20 .b7
20
20.87
34 .i5
· 27.26
27.26
12/26/99 .12/2 &/~_9_ ........ 357.59
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF d,gUND
DUE HOLD PRE-
DA1 E STATdS A'~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NU~-JER AM
14.i2 UTILITY P~KTS 7~-7~00-2310
12/2~/99 14 .12 JPNL-CD 1010
VENDO~ TOTAL 14.12
295-90~8 NOV 9.9 F
554-5520 NOV o; p/w 7~-7300-Z220
5g0-4351 NOV ~9 P/w 01-42~0-3220
590-~351 ~OV 99 P/W 7~-7800-32~0
965-6769 NOV 99 P/I 01-4190-3220
5~]-2!10 NO~ 99 PATRuL
5ml-a40I ~;OV ~9 CHIEF dARRELL 01-q140-3220
27.26 581-o~04 NDV 99 ~LAZER 01-~140-3220
27.26 58i-O4~1 NOV ~9 S~UAD ;84i 01-~140-3220
27.26 581-o4~2 NUV o9 S~UAD N842 01-~140-3220
27.26 5~1-o444 NOV 99 S~UAD ~844 01-4140-3220
.39 723-7560 NOV 99 MOUND FIRE 22-4173-3220
10.24 751-3573 NOV 99 MOUND FIRE 22-4170-3220
7.65 875-4502 NOV 99 RESCUE T~dCK 22-~170-3220
~Ol0
OUCH CELLULAK/bELLEVUE vENDOR TOTAL 357.59
_ JRNL.CD
11-19-99 POLICE PARTY 01-4140-4100
JRNL-CD 1010
A'L ~; NLr':~'S SUPPER CLU~ VEt;WOk lgTAL 54q]26
AC33~ 6~23 ............... ~25.50 m~JTERY ~II~i]!~...iJ ................ 22~4]_Z~,.3_2D~ ...........
' - 12/2~/99 1212~/99 228.50 J~NL-CD 1ClO
ABC0:'. (.Oh,!utJiCATI~,~,,,,..,,:c I."~C. vENDOR T"'TAL. ..~.)g~ 50
ANIHL)NYr.. FLORAL
Vt_ Nb, Ok TOTAL
971213
i2/2%/~9 12/2~/90
2:,.00 FLvWERS FDR 6ALY FAULSuN 01-~.02C'-4100
25.u9~ _JF!NL_,CD ..................................... ~O1O ......
25.00
35.00 EMBROIDER SHI~,:TS, SKI~;i~ER, G.
35.00 E".r~ROI'dER SHIqTS, SKIN;,E~, G.
35.00
105.00 JDN[-CD
0i-~2g0-2240
73-7303-2240
7~-7.BDD-2240
1010
ASPE;, E';~qUiJEr:Y S J/S1GN
VEh, POK TOTAL iC5.0e
..o C 54 v 17931/-.'J C
310~5~ ~
12/2k/9~ i212L/99
12/2B/99 12/2~/90
1,332.50
1,03=.50 J;~ ,L-CD
15g.54 MIX
160.5~ JmNL-CD
7i-7100-951g
.............
71-7100-9550
!910
3,752.43 LluUOR
71-7100-9510
PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
vENDJR I~VO]CE DUE HOLD PR;.
NO. I~'VOICE N~'oR DATE vAlE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
...... 12/28/9V 12~ ~-&-~9~ ...... 3,752.43 JRNL-CD 1010
......
................................... 4Z2.00_ LI.~UOR
'~2/23/99 12/28/99 432.00 J~NL-CD
........... 71-YlOD-9510 ..........
1010
mELLaOY COKPORATION
vFNDOR_ TOTAL 5355.47
50000 34049g 31.66 NOV 99 GAPSACE PICKUP CMgO120 01-4280-3750
.......................... 31.66_. NO~ ~.9_ GAR~AG£ Pi_CKUR.£~ROi.2~ ........ Z3-7300-3750
31.67 NOV 99 GARBAGE PICKUP C~tRO120 78-7800-3750
12/28/99 12/26/99 94.99 JRNL-CD lOlO
340500 67.01 NOV 9g EARbAGE PICKUP CRi~O121 22-4170-3750
12/2B/99 12126/99 ~7.01 JRNL-CD 1010
' -~40'~24-' 67.07 NOV 99 GARgAGE PICKUP CHPO045 01-4280-3750
12/28/99 12/2g/99 67.07 JRNL-CD 1010
340552 39.45 NOv 99 GARBAGE PICKUP 01-4340-3750
12/25/99 12/28/99 39.45 JRNL-CD lOlO
'~LAC~OW1AK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 268.52
12/28/99 12/2g/99 2C1.81 JRNL-CD 101~
~_~6~ ~ND. SuN (ROLL~ VENPOR TOTAl 2_0~_.~
~06ll 991214 493.15 CONCRETE SAND TO ~IX W/SALT 01-4280-2340
!2/~5/_~9 12/2.~/~? ........... &~3..i~_ _J~ LrCD ...........................................
991215 ~91.57 COqCRETE SAND TO MIX w/SALT 01-c280-2340
_ .......... 1 ~ / 2 ~/_99~12 ~2~ ~_ 4~. 5 ~ .__J~!~ L~ ~_ 1~]._.0 .....
~Ob ;IRKLE~ VEt4DO~ TOTAL 984.72
~O0~i 907~9297 ~.02 LAHDS 0t-4320-2300
1~/2~/°9 12/2c/9~ 92.02 JPNL-{D !010
~O~bLR-gTAlES ELECT~I£ Sd~ VEN'OOR TOTA-L ..... 92.02 ................................................................
~0730 4426 759.07 3(4 MINUS (CL 2) .......... 73-7300-234.0
!Z/~6/99 i2/2&/99 759.07 J=NL-CD lOIO
c, kYA:,, ROCK P,(OUUCTS
VENDOR. TOTAL _ 759.07 .......................................
bU~PL~< To
_ {OgZO 99114146
............ 99115404
16.36 FILTER 0i-4299-2310
12/28/99.i2/2c~99 ...... 16.30 J~NLrCD ................................................... 1010 _
VENOOh TOTAL 16.36
929.04 529~0 LBS SAL~ 01-~289-2340
1~12bl99 12/2~/99 929.04 JRNL-CD 1010
958.30 53720 LBS SALI 01-4280-2340
.... :: . · ., .-- :.,, :: - ,2.:%-..~:~':'~'~:T~¢-&,;~]:;:,-.~-".,=.,L'~.':.: ~;- :.,.:. · L. .' .'":-'
N0. !NVOiCE
CARSILL SALT
CiTY OF
PURCHASE .JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND
INVOICE DUE ,~OLD PR
DATE DATE STATUS A°OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT Nd~BER
[)IVISION ~LNDOR TOTAL 1~L7.34
17~7~ w/T~R AND SE~ER 71-7100-37~0
CGY7O 646351.L60
12/29/9~ ~2/2[/99 69.30 JRNL-CD 1Ol0
64543306
12/2&/gv i2/28/¥9
155.90 ~IX.T_AXAEL£
155.90 J~NL-CD 1310
CCC& COLA bOTTLI4G-,'IID,~'EST VLNHOFC IUTAL ..... 225_..2_0 ........................................................
C09~0 99Z222
COLLETTE R05ZkTS
3029
99i209-A
13.02
12 / 28/9_9 _12Z2 blgR ......... !3.~02_
VENDOR TOTAL 13.02
1,080 .gO iNSTALL
12/28/99 12/2~/99 1,O?g.OO JRNL-CD
572.50 ~h'STALL
12/2~,/99 12/2~/99 572.50
MILEAGE/EXPENSE REIMmURSE~,IENT 01-4090-3340
................. ID10 ........
RETAINING
RETAINING
WALL HANOVER 01-42~0-4200
1010
WALL SHORELI 01-4280-4200
!010
....... 3~3.~__~£.EE ................................ 7]mZl.0Em~SZ9 .........
t2/29/99 i2/2B/~9 393.65 J~NL-CD 1010
DAHLHEIqER DISTP]EuTING CO VENDOF 1OTAL _. 552.05
~)llSu 9Jlla% 750.0S ~E~G r, ESPONS[ DHIvI,~G CUUHSE 22-q170-41!~
12/2~/99 12/2S/y9 ...... 750.00_ JRNLmCO
DA~0iA Cog:~lY TECf!NICAL C~ V~[(~O~ TOTAL 750.00
oilTk £i13a7 ...... i',73£.40 FLOATING
!~/25/~ 12/2~/V~ i,?02.~0 3mNLoCD lul0
'- -;r ~ WRENCH
£12511 164.76 Rz~=U~ 22-4170-2200
12/~h/99 1~/2~/9~ 164.76 3PNL-CD 1010
-5~Z577 ...... 4~C.05 ~ ]-~E%L} I-P "A~i~F [7× - 6'' 22-4170'2200
1~12:17~ ~212cl9¢' 460.05 J~ '~L-CD lOlO
200 1 125.25 . O0
.-'AGE 4 P d R C H A S E J
AP-CO2-Ol CITY OF MOUND
NO. IqVOiCE NW, SR DATE uATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION
;ANt, O E~LRGE:~CY Ef~uIP~EhT VE~DOR TOTAL 2533.21
79~,45
80983 30.40 HI 5CELLANEOU5
12/2~/99 12/2E/99 3~.4G JRNL-CD
12/25/99 12/28/99 1,273.05 JRNL-CD
DAY ~T~'~'UT~-~%-co V~'~DOR TOTAL 3603.65
~2/28/99 ~2/2b/99 4~.00 JRNL-CD
;_ j..).U A ti [_'$_ 6..6 S£~V]CE
Ei42u 559021
559954
560665
503026
564656
554657
55700]
EAST SIDE dEcEt<AGE
i1450 15¢, 17
16818
0 U R I~ A L
PR
ACCOUNT NUMBER
12/28/99 12128/99 543.30 J'~ NL-CD 1010
195 .00 B.r' E R 71-7100-9530
12128/99 !2/2b/99 195.00 JRr~L-CD 1010
1,561.90 ~E~-R 71-7:~0'0-95-~0-
12/2~/99 12/26/99 1,561.90 JqNL-CD ~OlO
71-7100-0550
!010
71-7100-9530
1010
.... V_E N DO R_ TQTAL ............ 4 &_..O0 ......................
~1.---4- ~ 0 - ? 2~L--
1010
,<3.00 uEER KEGS
7i-7100-~530
............................... l_O.!O ......
553.00 BEER
1 Z./_ 2 ~/.O 9 i ~/.26/_9.9_ ........... 5_5.3.. u 0 .__J%N L-~C D .................
71-7100-9530
....................... 1.0_10
51.45 KI SCELLAN_~OUS 71-7100-9550
51.~5, _J.~ N L_-_C b~ ................................... 1OlO .
12/2&/_99 _12/__2`_8=/99__
t2/2~ /.99
I,~,95.05 ~EER 71-7100-9530
_ _ _l ,_~.9 i- 05 J_R.~_~ L-_CD_ 1010
1,236.20 BEER
1,2~0 ,~,I- ?
...... 20 J. ,_:~_. zC~J_ .........
7i-7100-9530
3,~62.25 ~EER 71-7100-9530
1Z/2F,/99_ ~L Z / 2~/_ V9 ........... 5,b62.25
63.60 BEER
12/_2 g 1__9 v _i Z 42_ ~/99 63.60__J~ u L_=_C~) .....
12/2t/99 12120/99
VE:~DOR TOTAL
12/28/9'/ 12/26/v9
1,939.05
1,939.05
9263.60
JRNL~CD ............................... lOlO
71-7100-9530
l~l~
BEER 71-7100-9530
.JR~L-CD ....... 1010 .
3,76t.15 mOV 99 PRO SEPIVCES DOWNTOWN 55-5880-3100
3,761.25 JPNL-CD 1010
1,540.00 NOV 99 PRO SERVICES PRUJ HANAG 55-5880-3100
12/2g/99 12126199 1.540.00 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 5 ' P U R C H A S E J 0 U P,' N A l
AF-C02-~i CITY OF MOd','D
VEhDOR I t~VOl CE DUE HOLD
PR_
NO. [';VOICF [,~,'*:~R DATE DATE STATUS A~DUNT DESCR]pT]3N ACCOUNT NUHDER
EHLERS t, ASSUCIAIES INC VENDOR TOTAL 5301.25
F'"~7 3025 323.14 ENGINE !6 PUMP TEST 22-4170-2200
12/28/99 12/2~/99 323.14 JRNL-CD 1010
30i6 396.28 Er:GINE 24 PUHP TEST 22-4170-2200
12/2t/99 i2/2~/99 3~).23 JRNL-CD 1010
30i? 323.14 ENGINE 11 PUMP TEST 22-4170-2200
12/28/99 12/28/99 323.14 JPNL-CD 1010
31d6 1,814.,~4 LADDER li kEPAIRED VALVE 22-4'17-0:3~20
t2/2&/99 12/26/99 1,814.~.4 JRNL-CD 1010
E :'.ER ,.q E F.C Y HAI';I EhAh*CE V'E i; ~O R-~ O 1~,[. ~ 8-5-~-./~ 0
E1485 S~C344/12399 ............................... 21. ~ 8__.C BAN GED ~ZLT_SL_FiJ_ T_Er~S_ FT C ......... ~21.-.4.3 20 -,3.B,30 ........
-. 12/2g/99 12/2~/99 21.28 JRNL-CD 1010
........ 185031 ................
12/28/99 12/2g/~9
_~63~___~EPAJj~ED (2) FU_~LACFS
165.00 JRNL-CD
gUIPHEt~T SUPBLY INC .... yEt,,;p_O~R_]~!AL ....... 186.2_8
..... 30_.-_~JlO O._-JfL 0_0
i010
b731 180.00 11110/99-!i/30/99 PRo SERVICES 55-58~50-3100
............... 12/2~/g9 i2/2~/99 __
................. 1PO.~O
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO VENDOR lOl~.t 180.00
70-4270-4200
i2/28/9~ 12/2g/99 6,779.35 JR ~L-CD lOlO
E-:Z-~CYCLI~,~G INC .......... VENi~OR TOTAL 6779.35
Fi041 12559
FLA~:£RTY' S
61750 224791
23h547
...... 1 f 3. O.O__ _~_I_5 Cf L.LAI~-~G U S .................. Zi_-7iOOrP540
iz/25/9~, 1212c,/99 153.60 J:Vi,.L-Cb lOlO
.. 155.6(.
14.39 MATS 01-4280-2250
~ 39 mATS ? - .
..................................................... 3 7300.-2250
14.38 HATS 7~-7800-2250
21.30 UN1FO~M5 0!-42g0-2200
........................... 21_. 3~. __ .~ f:bL F_OEj-LS ..................... 73- 7300- 220_~ .........
21.30 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2200
12/2b/99 12/20/99 t07.06 JF';,L-C D !o10
o.21 ;iAT~ .... O1-~2B0:22~0' -
0.21 M;TS 73-7300-2250
0.20 M~S Y~-Z~OO..2.25.u
23.70 UI:IFORMS 01-4280-2200
23.70 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2200
........................... 23-tO__UNI~OR~S ........................... 78~7800.2200_ _
12/2~/9~ 12/2~/99 &9.72 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 6
· AP-C02-O1
VENDOR
t NO. iXVOICE ~;~R
234025
2~43.27.9
16.9E
........................ 16.93_
23.72
23.70
...................... 23.70
1~/2E/99 12/28/99 ... 122.04
..................... 15.36_
15.36
t5.36
............ 23.70.
23.70
23.70
12/28/99._12/2C.L~ ............ 117.15.
23~3a2 19.82 MATS
.................... 12128{9_9 12/2£L~ ............ 19.52_ JRNL~C_D
247396 10o.44 14ATS
243281 20.95 MATS
243280 35.09 M~TS
247895
GARY'S DIESEL
G18gO 991208
~I£SE, LE~OY
Glbb~ ~9!220
Y91216
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
INVOICE DUE HOLD
DATE DAVE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUt~BER
lo~8 MATS 01-4280-2250
MATS 73-73~0-2250
r~]$ ........................................ ~780~-2250
U~IFORKS 01-4260-2200
UNIFORMS 73-7300-2200
UNIFORMS ......................... 78-75~0-2200
JRNL-CD 10!0
MATS .............................. 0~-42~0-2250
M~TS 73-7300-2250
~ATS 75-7800-2250
UNIFORMS ........................ 01-4280-2200 ......
U'.JI FORMS 73-7 300-2200
UN I FORMS 78-7800-2200
71-7100-9550
lOlO
01-432G-4210
l~O .......
22-4170-2230
22-4170-2230
__ lo10
6.21 MATS 01-4280-2250
................. 0..21 ..MAT.$ ........................... 7~7309~2230 .......
o.20 r~ATS 78-7800-2250
23.70 U~:I~OPMS 01-~280-2200
~ 70._ _Ur'~ICO~MS _73r~_~ 0~220.0 _.
23.70 ULIFOR~S 75-7800-220U
b9.72 J~L-CD 1010
710.02
12/2c/99 12/28/99
VENDOR TSTA~
.................... 1,_750.1~_ ~i~_E~!T_E~D__~_O~qZ_K .....
12/28/99 i2/28/99 1,750.10 JRNL-CD
1010
VENDOR_ TO1AL _ __ 1750.i0 ...................................................
SEkV I CE
75.00 UNIFORM N£ I NBUqSEMENT 73-7300-2240
iL/Z~lg'_v_12/2~/~9_ ........... 75. C.o__ Jk NL-C3_ .................................... ].010 .......
VENDOR TOTAL 75.00
12/2L/99 12/.2~.? .....
3~.00 ~ AS3ES ~EI ,~U,,S ..... I 01-~090-3140
O.3g N:JLL '~ODE~' FOP CO~PUIER 01-4095-22~0
4i.3~ _;F'NL-Cb .................................. 10!.0 ....
56.97 MILEAGE EXPENSE REIMbURSEmENT 01-4090-4120
56.97 JRNL~C~ ................................... !01~
~ GINO 5USINARO
VENDOR TOIAL 96.35
AF-CC2-Ol
NO. Ir,~VOICE NFSR
P u K C HA S E J O U R N A L CITY OF MOUND
It;voICE DUE HOLD PRE
DATE DATE STATUS A~;oUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NU"'b E R A
G!905 9!10~95 91.00 NOV 99 LOCATES 75-7300-3125
. _ _ 91.u9 NOV 99 LOCT~TES ........... 7S-7800-~125
~2/2&/99 ~2/28/99 182.00 JRNL-CD 1010
GOPH,-~ SLATE O;',E-CALL, ]i,~C ','ENUOR TOTAL .... 192.00
61912 059340
21~.08 SIO TIRES. HENNE, G. 73-7300-2310
12/2&/99 12/2~/99 ....... 215 0~ ;"~ ~"
GOGbYEAR TIRE ~ISTRImUTION VENDOR TOTAL 21S.08
,31937 991129 247.59 500 LRS LINEAR ACTUATOR 01-4280-2310
i2/2~/99 12126/99 2~7.59 JF:NL-CD 1010
GRAI;~G£PS IRC vENDOR TOTAL 247.59
..................... 106.93_ Li_~UOR
12/28/99 12/2~/99 I06.95 JRNL-CD
!010
-7. ...... i4(~60 ............................ lP~..Sg___WlJi.E_.
12/28/99 12/28/99 104.50 JRNL-CD
_71-7.fL0~-~520
1010
1463~9
12/2~/99 12/2~/99
__ 5~ 9.2 L_ '.'I L,~ E 2£_-_7_l Q 0_-_o52D
549.t7 JRNL-CD 1010
_. i,~71UO ............ i,~5a.31_ L!,~UQP 7ir2i0~_-9510
-- !~128/99 i2/2b/99 1,85~.31 JRNL-CD 1010
149939
1,633.26
iL/2~199 12/2b/99
LI ,~UOR ....................... 71m Z_lDD.9510 .........
J;~NL-CD I010
14995,R
.................. 201.76_ _~I~
12/28/0Y 12/26/99 201.76 J~NL-CD 1010
'5c051
15u33C ........... _S~2.51 .... ~J .I,_E .... Li -_Z.iO D_-_ 9_52,0 ..........
.......... 12 / 2'& / 99-'-i 2'/2 ~/99 552.31 J~NL-CD 1010
15102o .............. 57.18
t2/2&/m9 12128199 57.18 Jr* NL-CD
...................... 7.1-716_0-9510
1010
.152722
....... 300
"2/2t/99 12/2~/99
.~.0 LI,¢uo~ ........................ 7J. -_Z.Zg_g '- 9510
.60 JP, NL-{D 1010
155170 .... 15b.95 LIQUOR 71-7100.9510
t~/2t/a9 i2/2&/99 ' 15~.95 Jr':~L-Cb 1010
155276 ~4.50_ wI~E ......... 71-7100-9520
i~25/99 i 2/2 ~-/99 - g4.50 JR::L-CD 1010
155275 170.21_ -'ZNE ............................ 71-7.100-9520
12/2R/99 i2/2E;/99 170.21 JqNL-CD 1010
PA6E 8 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-Cu2-OZ CITY OF HOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DOE flOLD PR~
NO. IWVOICE NM3R DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NdMbER
153127 715.03 ~I:~E 71-7100-9520
I~/25/99 12/2C/99 715.03 J~NL-CD 1010
SRIS65 COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 6769.93
Gl~7 991231-& ........................... 197.25_ ~D~_9_9_4.12_~3555 -.22-41.7~-3220
1212g1~9 12/2~/99 197.25 JR NL-CU
9912Ol-B 1~0.76 . ND V__99__ ~ Z-_3g.93 .................. 71~.7i0~-~22D
12/2E/99 12/28/99 180.76 JRNL-CD 1U~O
99~201-C ........................ 2i.39 _NO~ 99_~2~_646 ...................... 01-43~0-3220
12/2~,/9~ 12/2:/99 21.39 JRNL-CD 10t0
01-42~0-2310
10.1~) ....
&_ 7_._E IJl,NNES. L'TA ....... VENDOR_ T_O!AL .......... 399.40_
Hi998 043175 63.03 PLOW BOLT UITH NUT
M ~ L HESABI, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 63.63
d2003 991215 1,348.06
' 12/28/99 12/28/99 1,348.06
~2p61. DES. 3i 06
. dA..u~IC4S_ wATEff
H21~U 991227
NOV 99 CONSTRUCTION ADHIN/INSP 30-5615-3100
JRNL-CD
.............................. 39.~%__CPr~IALNER_C~AB~_E__F~_ C.YL ......... 73=Z30..Or226D ......
12/2~/99 12/20/99 30.00 JRNL-CD 1010
TREATMEfLT .... V E NDO~R_ T.~T.A L ........... ~_0, Oq ................................................
99.00 START-UP CriARGE 01-~.095-4175
12/28/o9 12/26/99 .......... 99.u0 Jk";L-CO ............................................. _.1.010 .
HZ2z, I 9~72 2t '9- ~
HOiSI,:GTDN KJEGLER
VEND3R TOTAL og.UO
,J.,.4b NOV 99 LOST LAKE GREENwAY 30-5640-3100
12/28/99 12/2~/99 9,3~3.46
'9~ iZ~-b .........................................5,o~a.26 NOV 9g~OUND VIS~ON 55-5880- 3i00
12/25/99 !2/28/99 5,~88.26 JRNL-CD 1010
~9i2U9-C 1,700.00 NOV 99 TIF RELATED WORK 55-5880-3100
12/2g/99 12/2~/99 1,700.00 JR NL-CU lOlO
9912~9-D 1,~6~.7~ NOV 99 ~ISCELLANEOUS PLAN~:ING 01-4190-3100
12/28/99 i2/28/99 1,866.78 JRNL-CD 1010
290.00 N~V 99 PLANNING CASES 01-4190~3~-~
12/18/99 12/2~/9c 200.00 J~ NL-CD lOlO
GROUP,~ VENDOR TOIA'L 1~58.50
23524340 43.40
12/26/99 i2/26i'99 .... 43.40
PAGE 9 P U N C H A S E J 0 U R t,l A L
^P-C02-01 CiTY OF MDUND
~/ENDOR ' INVOICE lillE' -~t'~LD- .................................... PRE.
NO. iNVOiCE N~;SR DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER A!
23524303 297.50 i]AH5~,W4~500 HAIN OFFICE COPI 81-~320-3800
12/28/99 12/2c/99 2~7.50 JR ~L-CD 10!0
-~KON O~FICE SOLUTIUNS VEND~R--'TO¥~ ...... $~$~
12335 991471
iNFF>^TECH
i2384 130746
_ . 349.95 GAS MONITOR & SERVICE UPGRADE. 75-7800-4200
12/28/99 12'/~/99 3~9.98 JPNL-CD 1010
V£NS_OR TOIAL .... 3~9.9~
103.59 BAITER]ES (4) 01-4250-2310
......... 103.59 BATTERIES (4~ ............... 73-7330-2310
1C3.59 BATTERIES (4) 7~-7800-2310
12128199 12/2~/99 310.77 JR~L-CD 1010
-~NTER~E--BA-TTER]ES' - - ~EN~--i~-~[ ........ ~7~
_!2400 4155
140.0?__HISC_~UBLJ£~ORF~5 0&-42~0-3810
140.07 MISC PUBLIC WORKS 73-7300-3810
140.06 MISC PUBLIC NORK$ 78-7800-3&i0
~20.2_Q J~NL-C~ ................................... ~OlO ......
4222 67.00
................. ~2/28/~ i~/2b!99 ............. 67.00
4176 2&.O0
............. 12/21~.i~2/2~/99 ............... 2&..00___
4248
4239
iSLANd. PARK SKELLY
J24,~ ~9.. 2!3
159.99
12128/99 i 2/2319_? ..... 159.99
17.37
t~/2h/~9 12 / 2 c_,~_?~_ ...... 17.&7
v£NDgk TOTAL 693.05
12/23/99 12/2c/99
MOUNT & BALANCE TIRES
J~.NL~CD
73-7300-3810
..................
FLAT TIPE REPAIR
J_~NL-CD_ ........
01-4140-3810
........................... 1010
BRAKES, TIRES, ETC 01-4!40-3810
JRNLr~E .......................... !010
OIL CHANGE 01-4140-3810
JF:4L%CFz .............................. _!OJ._O
~ILEAGE EXPENSES PEIM£JRSEME~T 01-,,3,,0-4120
JRNL-CD 1010
J2573 249985
120435
991210
991220
12/2~/99 12/2&/9g
12/2~/99 12/2~/99
12/26/99
12/2~i/99 ~2/26/99
W p__H ;_, s_ _v_ A ~ I ~ TZ_ ~_ P E I S_ ......... V~_E_,N_¢_O_~_T ql A L _ . _
1i2.00 25,LIGdT STRINGS ............. 01-2300-0_500 ~ .
112.u0 J~NL-Cb lOlO
64.00 ~I!L?5 ......................... 0~-2S30-0500
64.00 JRNL-CD 1010
42.60 FRAMING . - 22-4270-2200
~2.00 J~NL-CD 1010
20&.O0 JRNL-CD iUIO
426.60 .........................................................
71-7100-9510
PAGE 10 P L; ~ C H A $ E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND
PRE:
]--{~-E}~ ~ 6 R- ..... Ih'VOICE DUE HOLD
ND. INVOICE N'~R DATE DATE STATUS A,OUNI' DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUHOER
12/2~/99 12/2~/99 4,281.00 JPNL-CD 1010
10557~,2
......... 3,~04.22_ WihE ...................... 71-7100-9520
12/2~/~ 12126199 3,304.22 JPNL-CD lulO
1058581
.............. 1~239.71 Li~UDR ..................... 71-7100-9510
12/28/99 i2/26/99 1,239.71 JRNL-CD 1010
.... 1058550.
........... §~4.~ .WINE .................................. 71-710~-9520
!2/2~/99 12/2~/99 ~9~.d5 JPNL-CD 1010
105~53~
............... 1,406.95 WIi~E .................................. 71-7100-9520
12/28/99 12/2g/99 1,400.95 JRNL-CD 1010
12/28/99 12/28/99 150.00 JRNL-CD
71~71.00~952-0
1010
: J2555 991227 31.74 MILEAGE/EXPENSE REIM-3IIRSE",ENT 01-4190-4120
JON 5UIHERLAND VENDOR TOTAL 31.74
~-2~{]0-~9'~2'~5 ................................ !3.02 HILEAGE EXPENSES REIHPURSEMENT 70-4270-4120
, 12/28/99 12/2a/v9 !3.02 JFINL-CD 1010
....... ~i"22 ~ ...................... 90.63 mILEAGE/EXPENSE REIMSURSEMENT 01-4090-3340
12/21/99 12/26/99 90.63 JONL-CD 1010
~2b~9 30~11
V£NDOR TOI~L 103.E5
IZ/2~/99 12/26/99 30.00
NOv_9; _gAILEY L3 AL V_.% CiTY
01-4110.3100
10!0
3OVlO _ .
121181~ i2/2~/99
30912
4,014.63_ ~:..~(._9._9___ y_2)r__EL,.)_PMENT AREA ..... 55-5880.310.0 ....
4,614 .63 JRNL-CD !010
............. 997.Q0 _ N D. %. _9__9 _~ X E C_LLTi_V £ .................... Olr 411O-~J 10 O ..............
250.60 NOv 99 ADMINISTRATIVE 01-4110-3100
145.00 N~V 99 PUBLIC ~ORKS 01-4280-3100
...... ]___ ._ ..... ._ .~ ..... i, 3iD. 55 _NOV_ 9~ .PLANN 1 t<~ _AND_.~OJ~iL~/5 ...... OJ.- 4%9~-_3].D]). .......
36.00 NOV 90 PA~K RECREATION 01-4340-3100
12/_2~/V9 2,745.15 J~L-CD lOlO
............................................................................
VENDOR TOTAL 7389.98
_~ 2_70_c 02~._7~ 0299e,
!2/2~,/99 12/2b/v9
8.25 NOV. 99 HU".TH$ PU~<CHAb£~ 01-4340-2200
0.25 J~NL-CD !01~
KNOX LUMbEh
L2811 iOz40
10310
COMPANy ........... VEND~B_~OTAL ....... 8.25 ...................................
11.18 ENVELOPES 22-4170-2100
235.35 INVENTORY SHEETS 71-7100-2200
PAGE 11 P U R C h A S E J O U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND
~EN~OR 1NV01CE DUE HOLD PRE-
1'40. It.~VOICE i4Y. bR DATE DATE STATUS A~OLINT DFSCRIPTION ACCUUNT NUHbER
12/23/99 i2/2b/99 235.35 JONL-CD 1010
L2822 1208004
1210460
1216549
GRAPdICS
12125199 1212~/99
............... 161.21__
161.21
1~1.22
12/28/99 i2/2~/99. __ 4~3.64
TOTAL _ 246.53 ............................................
37.43 PILLOW ~ACK MIRROR HEAD 73-7300-2310
37.43 PILLOW_ ~ACK MIRROR_ HEA~ _ _ 7~-75C0-2310
74.56 JRNL-CD lulO
ELECIPJCALSURRLi£S-- -- 01~42&0~2250
ELECTRICAL SUPPL1ES 73-7300-2250
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 78-?~00-2250
JRNL-CD ............... lOlO._
CIRCUIT T~ANSISTER, SATTERIES 01-4280-2250
CI~CUIT_IRANSIST£F~_.bAII~RiES- 73~7300~2250
CIRCUIT TRANSISTER, ~ATTERIE5 7~-7800-2250
JRNL-CD iOiO
~i=.4~£0_r2310
1010
30.57
............ 30.5Z
30.57
12/2g/99 i2/28/99 91.71
L'A "'-S J,": PRODUCTS, INCo
L 2~.2 o 00~_~56 ............................ 41.6 O_ _MA_ ~1D L LB_~RR_ K_iff__AND.~d FA:_ER
12/26/99 12/25/99 41.o0 JRNL-CD
L.ONG L.A_KE_ PO, ER EgUIPMEN1.
~30 5-284~i7 5~.02 WAIERPUMP V-BET
........... 12./28/99 .I 2 / 2 o/_9~ ....... 5 ~_ ._02__ JFPLL_- C D
5-28.5436 1.28 bdLSS
01-4280-2310
iOl_O
01-4280-2310
5-2~b636 13.74 T~I~ ADHESIVE 01-4280-2310
LO.E~L'S AuTOVOTiV[/jII£O~ vEI~DSK TOTAL 65.04
~-13~10 6~1 1C~.20 12-0~-V0 i~ELIVERY {HAR6E 7i-7100-9600
12/2~/~9 i2/2b/9C 139.20
095~ Z.~.60
12/25/99 i2/2~/99 33.00
69~0 171.50
12/26/99 '~ ~ 171.50
6993
11/2~/V9 12/2~/99 9.10
~i~'R~]I;'S Ti, UCKI:,G V:KoOR T~TAL 323.40
J~ h~L-CD 1Ol0
~ELIVERY CHAR3E 7!-7100-9600
JPNL-CD lOlO
12-09-9~ DELIVERY CHAPGE 71-7i00-9o00
J-'q, NL- CD lOiO
Jk;;t-CD !010
i'.303u 97~43b 0~1.40 bE£R
12/26/99 12)26/V9 091.40 J~;;L-CD
.......... 71-7100-9530
lOlO
98i~16 1,50~.70 B~ER ..... 71-7105-9530
12/25/99 12/20/90 1,508.70 JR~L-CD I010
PAOE 12
AP-C02-01
ND. IqVO1CE N~'6R
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND
It~VOICE DOE HOLD PRE
DATE DAlE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
763.40 BEER 71-7100-9530
!2/28/99 12/2E/99 763.~,0 JRNL-CD 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 2963.50
.............. 267.55_ DEC 99_PC/ENFONMS MAINT£NANCE ...... 01-4140-3800 ...........
12/28/99 12/2&/99 287.55 JmNL-CD 1010
~ VENDOr,_. 1O_TAL ....... 287.55 ...........................................................
4,195.00 10/09/99-12/31/99 CONNECT FEE 73-3590-0000
12/28/99 i212BI99 ...... 4~i95..G.0 JRNL-CD ....................................... 101~
VENDUR TOTAL 4195.00
185.00 COLLECTION SYSTEM SEHINAR 78-7800-4110
12/28/99 i2/28/99 185.00 JRNL-CD 1010
MN PJLLUTION COI:TRUL AGENC VE~.~DOR TOTAL
12/2&/99 12/2~/99
~.~N_yALLEY TESTING LASORATO VENDO~_IOIAL
H3471 991209
~1~,, $.A$tE~ATSR OPERATORS AS VENOOR TOTAL
~13502 9712~7
12/2E/gV ~2/2E/99
~3737 ~'9Z21 E
185.00
70.00 JR NL-CD
ZD_.
25.00 hEMBERSHIP DUES FOP, TWO YEARS 73-7300-4130
~5 ._~.0_ ....J~_,NL_- C,~_ 10_1
25.00
l~,OOO.O0 1079 TAX LEVEY BALANCE DUE
14,000.00 J~'~L-CO
96-9600-4120
1~10
12-1~.-99 0812 EACKLER ..... 01-~,340~3220_ .......
12-12-q~9 6813 TO;~ 81-4350-3220
12-18-99 6811 SKINNER,G 01-4280-3950
78.00 THRU
7O.uO IHffU
23.33 THRU
.................
23.34 THRU
i2/2S/99 12/2c/99
12-1~-99 6811 SKINNER,G 78-7800-3950
38.63 THRU 12-1~-99 6814 HEITZ, D. 01-4280-3950
38.63 T~RU 12-18-99 6815 JOHNSON .... 01-4280-39~9
38.03 IHWU 12-i~-99 6816 HENCE, G. 73-7300-3950
38.c3 TYNU 12-i~-09 6gi7 SHA,~LEY, R 73-7300-3950
3b.o3 T~RjJ %~-l.~_6~J~..~A~i~_ _ 76-7800-3950~
38.63 i~RU 12-18-Q9 6819 KIVISTO 78-7800-3950
30.63 THRU 12-17-99 6820 GRADY, D. 01-4280-3960
38.63 TNRU 12-1g-~9 Og21 H~iTZ F
i2.m7 THRU 12-i~-g9 0822 ~ELSON, J. 01-4280-3950
12.b7 Iw,~U 12-iZ-99 ~22 NELSON, J. 73-7300-3950
557.64 J~NL-CD lOIO
NEXTEL C_OMraUNICATIO~ IRC VENDOR TOTAL ........... 557.64.
N3740 TI-0039137 124.70
STREET SIGNS 01-4280-2560
/03
PAGE 13
AP-CO2-01
NO. I~vO1CE
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF F, OUND
i,~vo~ cE DUE ''oLD P~E
DATE DATE STATUS A'IOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUN~ER J-
!2/2~/09 12/2~/99 124.70 JRNL-C) i0io-
SIGNS
TOTAL · 124.70.
N375f log4
140.00 : ',r NOV 09. TAC 01-4140-4110
S.P,- FALL P TRAININ
12/2S/99 !2/2~./99 140.00 JRNL-CD ................. 1GlO
NOHTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE VENDOR TOTAL 140.o0
_.N3601 c:2184336 11.70 PICKUP ANCHORS 6-PAC& DELUXE 01-4280-2300
12/23/99 !2/2b/99 11.70 JRNL-CD 1010
NORIHERN TOOL A~'D E(~JIP~EN VEhDSR TOTAL ii.70
i~3_~_22 _ 991 11 $ ............................... J9. ~_ _ LN I. iR N£I _5 L~ V_I C~ ................. 2-2-4120-4130
12/2g/99 12/2~/99 19.95 JRNL-CD 1010
;j O~ w £_S]___.,~ U S I d E S S CARL) ...... V E NDO.~ ID_T AL_
L
P3952 991215
............. 12/_ 2 ,g / 9__9__j._2__/
21.24 t'lI SCELLANE OUS ITEMS
____21.2_6___ J_FLJN L ~D_
PETTY CASH VENDOR TOTAL 21.24
71-7100-2200
5V57 XP9966 33.80 FILTERS 01-4280-2310
33.80 FILTERS 73-7300-2310
12/25/99 12/28/99 101.40 JRNL-CD lOlO
PAJ,~ C O,~;PA NI ES
· vENDO~ .TO!AL ...... lOi.4q
121659 135.00 bEER 71-7100-9530
12/2&/99 12/28/99 ........ t35.00_._J~NLr_Ch 1DiO ....
i2i655
~9.00 WINE
12/2&109 L2LFLLO.? ........... 8~.~o JgNL~CD
71-7100-~570
.................. !blO
r~AdSl IS (, 53:,S ~,iNE CUMPA,~ v:-t:~OF: iOTAL
...................... ~7-~ 80 MIX TAXABLE 71-7100-P540
12/25/99 12/25/99 97.~;0 JPNL-CD 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 97.80
FEPSi-COLA
P402i 560272
............ 6g5.1S_.LI_~U_OP~ ................................. 31~7~00~93~_0
12/2B/99 12/2~/99 088.15 JRNL-CD 1010
560752
...................... 2~g..0~__~INE ............................... 7i~7100..9.52g ..
12/25/99 12126/99 245.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
5{,253&
........ 95_5.3~ W_iJiE ............ 7i-7100-0520
12120/99 955.30 J~NL-CD 1010
562537 542.65 LIQUOR 71-7100-951G
i2/2~/99 i2/2~/99 542.05 JR NL-CD lOlO
C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-cos-gl
U
R
-LT--~:;.-_-_ ........... CITY OF MO~INm
ACCOUNT
PAGE 14 P U R C H A S E J 0 U ~ Iw A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF HOUND
NO. IRVOICE N;'!OR DATE bATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
~403~ 5~092
~5'~ER t
12/28/99 12/28/99 816.51 JRNL-CD lOlO
_ _ 591292 ................... ~g5.55_. C. IGAR£T~ES
1~/2~/99 12/2~/99 6~5.55 JRNL-CD lOlO
..... 591.~4 ........................... 032.4~_. CIGA~£.ITF~ ....................... ~-ZlO0-P550
12/2~/99 12/28/99 632.41 JRNL-CD 1010
PINNACLE DIST~lboTING ....... V~NOQ~__~O~AL
P4tO1 50198 192.58 (2) CASES WALNoT ~/OUT MAILE~S 01-4140-2200
........... 12/2.g/9_~ ~2~28/9~ ......... 192.58_ _~JL-EJ.) ........... lOlO___
5,o20.88 L]DUOR 71-7100-9510
5,020.88 JRNL-CD 1010
PRESENIA PLA~dE CORPURATIO VENDOR TOTAL 192.58
LIQUOR 71-7700-9570
_ 12/28/99 12/2b/99 5,173.97 JRNL-CD lOlO
__ 7~3~18-00 710.49 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
. 12/28/99 12/2~/99 710.49 3PNL-CD
2,066.15 NINE 71-7100-9~20
~' 12/2&/99 12/2~/99 2,066.15 J~NL-CD 1010
' 78o4ol-00 1,371.78 LIQUOR 71-7100-~510
:2/2&/99 22/2~/99 4Z0.93 JRI4L-CD 1010
~..C. ELECTRIC, INC.
~4209 1221
RANDY'S SANITATION
k4240 1547~2
159652
........................ ~_~ . 26___R.E P_.L A C E ~..~ LL_A__S_T~P_A R K~LN_G_LO_T_ .....
12/28/99 12/28/99 323.26 JRNL-CD
v ,t ~ o O_R___"I'_O_T _A L ...... 323.. 26
101.;'6 12-99 TRASH SERVICE
12/2~;/99 12/2g/99 .......
__ __0 I~ ~_32£'-_3 b ~0 ...............
1010
01-4320-3750
...... lOlO
VENOOR TOTAL 101.26
072.50 WS£K E;.4DIr!G 12-05-V9 01-4190-3100
12/2~/99 1212~,/99 672.~0 J~NL-C~ lOlO
672.g0 WEEK ENDING 12-I2-99 01-4190-3100
12/28/99 12/28/99 672.60 JRNL-CD lOlO
~,-, V,F.. N DOR TOTAL 1345.60
............................................. ---------- -- , '., .':';7' ~...-r 7,~;-~,~.--i-7;~-'7'-i:: -; -
~.-
lC6
~ 15 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
· AP-C02-O1 CITY OF ~DUND
-'~t~'o-R ........ INvoIcE DuE HOLD PRE
· NO. lk~OICE NM~R DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER A
R4Z?~ 53185 59.18 t~ISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-71U0-9550
12/28/99 12/2b/99 59.?B JRNL-CD 1010
12/28/99 i2/28/99 112.68 JRNL-CD 1010
RON'S ICE
.54351 99!215 ............... 99..9Z
i~/28/99 1212b/99 99.97 J~NL-CD 1010
~COTI t~IVISTO VEN~Ok TOTAL ............ 99.97
54z,~0 o1375 253.26 ICR ;~1 INITIAL CALL REFORT 01-~140-2120
12125/99 !21281~9 ........ 253.26 JR NL-C9 ..............................
61432 72.53 PRINT DOCK LICENSE APF FORMS ~1-4350-3100
12/28/99 12~2~ ........ F2.53 JE~L-CD .....................................
SOS PRINTING VE~OR IOIAL 325.79
S4580 '6~' 91.28 FJS, HOLDER 01-2300-0500
12/25/99 ~2/2~/99 91.28 J~NL-CD ~0~0
S46~0__14i153.1 .................................. llG...9_4__S.~ROBE ~U~ W/T~SF
12/28/99 12/26/99 116.94 JRNL-CD 1010
...... ;40370.1 ..................... ~ ~. ~5__B.UL B_ ST_I NGER_ RE RkA~MEN I
16.93 6dLB SLINGER REPLACEME;~I 73-7300-2200
1~.94 bt'Cd. STINGER REPLACEMENT 7a-7gO0-2200
12,/2g/99 12/2b/9~ ........... 5 O.~I~ JPNL-CD ................................
145402.1 2, o.21 FLASHLIGHT ~']Tn CHA~GER 73-7300-2200
g6.21_. _FLASHLIGdI. uITH CHARGER .......... 7~-7800-2200
111.63
lil.~3 Jq~L-CD ioio
~ S~oO5
VENDOR TOTCL 45!.9o
9~w150
3,8g).46 I~F~U 11/13/99 PRE GED EVALUATI 55-58~0-3100
STS [ONSuLTA,T$ LTD
T473o- '9gz2i4
iHE ~AEEk
V~!<OOE TOTAL 3~95.46
629.70
~2/2~:/~ ~2/25/9g 029.70
CRLOR HOLIDAY AD 7i-7100-3500
JkNL-CD 1010
laT~i 97'2227
SFPT,OCT,'~,,..~ZC 99 MILE~G£_ RE
JE!,L-CD
i7~}ilO0
3,752.~3
L I ,~gOR 71-7100-9510
It, l-,
PAGE 16
AP-C02-01
VENDOR
NO. I~VOICE
¥~ ~.i'A ~ ~CCAFFREY
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF HDUND
INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE
DATE DATE STATUS A~OUNT DESCkIPTIDN ACCOUNT ,NU~!B E R A
VENDOR 10TAL 51.46
T4770 17V52Q
..... 12.10. ~] SCELLANE bUS ................ 71-7100-9550
12/28/99 12/28/99 12.10 JRNL-CD !010
179821 ....................... 2,699.0~_
12128/99 12126/99 2,699.00 JRNL-CD
71r-Z1D.O-9530 ..........
1010
152505_
.................. 306.50__ ~EER
12/28/99 12/2E/99 30~.50 JRNL-CD 1010
........ 179522 ..................... 497_.50~_ BEER ....................... 7%-7g00,9530
12/28/99 12/28/99 497.50 JPNL-CD lOlO
__ ..... 180451
; ........ 180450
-- 12/28/99 12/28/99 12.10 JRNL-CD
· 12/28/99 12/28/99 1,037.60 JP.4L-CD
; 14.37~4 ............................. 9.9_0_ bEEP,
12/28/99 12/28/99 9.90 JPNL-CD
12/28/99 12/2~/99 3,354.90 JRNL-CD
...................... 2,63~.?~ _.BEEP,__ ............................. ZI-7100-_9~3~ ...........
12/28/99 12/26/99 2,639.70 J~NL-CD !010
............................... 12..1.~_ HLSCELLANEDU_S.~AXABIF .............. 71~2100..9550 ..........
10!0
71r 710.0~353 I} _. 101¢
Zi-~-l~.OD_--.9530 ____ i ....
1010
1010
181063
24.20_. 6Ei~ ........................... 71 mZlO 0 -_95.3 O
24.20 JRNL-CD 10t0
991221
....... 19.o0 _bEE~ ....................................... 71m7LO0~310 ........
!2/2~/09 i2/2b/99' 19.~0 J=NL-CD 1010
i91415
.......... 989.30.. bEER ....................... 71r?100-953D
12/28/99 12/2b/99 939.50 Jr:NL-CD 1010
_T_HO~.PE DIST~:IBUTi.%G CQ. ._v.Ek'DO~_T_OJA_L ..... l!60k.o0_ ............................
1480g 12249
12/2E/99 12120/99
132.75 PLANNIhGESPECIAL COUNCIL HTG 01-4190-4200
~2.75 ..... JF'NL-CD ..................... lO1g
1225c
12/25/99 12/2.&/~? .
i2z.eO POSC ,EETIhG 12-00-99 01-4340-4200
122.00 JR~;L,Cb .............................. IOlO
12267 220.25 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG 12/1~ 01-4190-4200
1~/2&/99 12128/99 220.25 J;~L-CD I010
12270 30.50 H;.:A ~.EFTIqC 11-30-99 01-4020-3100
............ 1~0.25 H=A/COU~(.!L tlEEl'II~6_ i2-1_4~-93 .......... 01,4020,312D
125.25 DCAC ~EETING 12-16-99 81-4350-4200
12/28/99 12/2~/99 336.00 J,°. NL- CD 1010
-sA'vER OFF SiTE JECRT*' VENDO~ ~-OTA~. -- -~11.00 .....................................................
'i_'t':','-I~='~'' "7''=; ..... ~l. '.: ....... ...--~,~,.,..~,~.~,,..,-~,-. ....................... , . ~,.,,-,,~. ..... · ....
-~=-~ .............. q ....... . ........... : ........ . .... :.-:-7_--...=~-~,y...-f:.,;.fL?:: =; .... .: - .
PAGE 17
AP-C02-01
-V E i~-b-0 R
NO. I',~VOiCE NM~R
1-7495i
..... 451540'
05259§
- ' 052664
052954
l~O~ VALUE
-14985 ~35152-0
P U R C H A S E J 0 U K N A L CITY OF MOUND
IHvOICE DUE ~OLD PR~
DATE DATE STATUS Atto UNT D~SC~IPTIDN ACCUUNT Nu"dER
~2/2~/99 12/2b/99 ~9.67 JFNL-CD !010
12.76 EXTENSION CORD 01-2~00-0500
12/2~/99 12/2~/99 12.76 J~NL-CD ~0t0
42.;9 5ATTERIES 7~-7~00-2200
~2/2~/99 12/28/99 42.49 JRNL-CD 1010
~/~/99 ~/~/9~ ~o.~; ~L-CD ~o~o
.........................................................
12.~3 BATTER]ES 7b-TOO0-2200
~2/2&/99 12/26/99 Z2.S~ JR;4L-CD 1010
VENDOR TOTAL 9~.09
............................ 26.02_ O.F_E.IC£ SURPLi.ES ..........................
20.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-~090-2100
20.02 oFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2100
2 ~ OZ__OJ?J_CE __SJJ~iE_5 ....... DJ.-_42_912 - P 1_ n o
26.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-2100
8.67 OFFICE SU~PLI ES 01-4280-2100
....... ~. 6Z_~E~__iCE_.S U~? L ]FS Z1'~31_02 _-_2~0 O
13.00 OFFICE SUOPLIES 73-7300-2100
13.00 OFFICE SU~PLiES 7~-7800-2100
....... DJ.-4_1_.4_0_- ? 10Jl
01-4190-2200
1010
...................................... ~.gG__COZ&F~C~]~:%__ELU..U)_
29.73 CALENDAR
12/26/99 207.23 dPNL-CD
2~337g-0
....... ~351s~-o
l.i:, CITY
iZ/2&/99 12/2~/99 ~2.92 J~NL-CD lOlO
12/25/99 12/2&/99 4.04 J~NL-CD lOlO
.................................................
SuN~LY CO VE~:DOR TOT~.L 254.!~
4000
1~7
12/2&/99 12/2~/99 187
.~0 J~Nt-CD 1010
59~1233
12/2b/~9 12120/99
693.03 GATE VALVES, RESTPAINER ETC ...... 73-7300.230D_ ..
693.03 J:~qt-Cb !olO
__ 194 ._5_7_._CLA.~?~S, ELC .~_t-33_0 ~_0~- 230 n
194.57 J:. r~L-CD 1010
dS F1LTER
_TOTAL ..... 1075.00 __
dSO5b 305500
15.
!2/2S/g9 12/2bf79 _. !5.
25 :,LACK 1-NFCK FOR HARRELL 01-~143-2240
25 . jo ';L-CD ......................... !L'lO .........
uNIFuRMS UNLIMITED
'v51o6 991211
VENDOR TOI&L
12/2o/9~; 12/2o/99
15.25
12C.L~O it:3RAVlt~G 22-4170-2200
120 .~q J: qL-CD 1~10
?AGE 18
AP-C02-O1
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND
INVOICE DL.E HOLD PR
DATE DATE STATUS AtqUUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N'Jt~bER
V & S JE~ELEKS VENDOR TOTAL 120.80
~5297 107147~ 115~ WARNING/SAFETY LIGHTS 73-7300-4200
12/28/99 12/28/99 1!5.$3 JRNL-CD 1010
_ .'5571 27~05
wESTONKA H£CHANICAL
.................. 12q.20._ (12). 3/421 .LPS. 5AL£ .YALV£ ................. 73-7300-2300
12/25/99 12/2~/99 124.20 JRNL-CD 1010
CONTR:~ VENDOR _IDTAL .... 124.20
~5572 991214 233.00 E,PLOY~,FNT EXAM GIESE. L. 73-73~0-3100
12/28/99_,..l. 2/2_&/_99 ........... 283.00. _JP~NL, CD .............................................
wESTONKA '!EDICAL GROdP VENDOR TOTAL 233.00
',]-'~"S-~-~'~--~'~S a96.00 BACKHOE AND LABOR 7~-7300-3~00
· 12/2~/99 12/28/99 ~96.00 JRNL-CD 1glo
;'- ...... ~0'~ ........................... ~.g% wATERMAIN BREAK 73-7300-3800
12/28/99 12/28/99 474.00 JRNL-CD 1010
~ID~ER INC YFNDOR TOFAL 1370.00
12/2~/99 12/2~/~/9 47.50 JP, NL-CD ~010
. ~3153
12/28/99 12/2~/9g 70.00 JRNL-CD 1010
WILLIAMS TOWING
Vi qDOR .. T.CT,~L .... 1t~.$0_ .....................................
12012 o48.24 5~NK FILL
1212E;/99 i2125/97 . 64~.24 JO NL-CI)
73-7300-2340
.......................... !010 ._
12380
........ 12/28/g9 12/2g/9~
226.11 OANK FILL
22~.11__ JP NL ;C~_
73-7300-2340
.......... 1Qlfl .....
i'2~76 230.58 BANK FILL
12/2g/99 12/2b/9o 230.58 . JPNL-CD
73-7300-238g
...................... ~ 0]0
13262
26~,.09 5LACKTOP 73-7300-2340
wP rUELL:'R g SONS
ZbJTi ~, 912;' 3
DANIEL GR~DY
VEI,DOR TOIAL 1369.02
g5.49 R[IHbU~SEqENT .ORK BO[~T5 01-42~0-2240
12/25~/9v ~2/2a/99 ~5.4g J=NL-CD 1010
12128/99 12/26/99
........... 20.00~ R~ACTICAL._~B~ ........... 22-4!70~4110
20.00 JRNL-£D 1010
PAGF 19
AF-C02-0i
VENDOR
· NO. IN'vOl CE
Eb~RD VA~iEcEK
PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND
~v~c~ .... ~[- -~-6 L ~- ......................................................... ~-~
DATE DAlE STATUS AF~OUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
VEUDOk TOTAL 20.00
ZQ494 991231
................. 200.OO__.PODIU~ ZiCROP~ON£ ......
i2/2&/99 12/28/99 200.00 JRNL-CD
.......... 01-4020-4100 ......
1010
PREFERr<SD SOUND SERVICE VEt, DOR IOTAL .... 200.00 ..........................
ZOEP, 3 61040 195.76 FIRE FIGHTER COURSE (2) 22-4170-4110
12/25/99 12/2b/9~ ........ 1~5~76 JENL.-CD ..................... ~OlO__.
HENNEPiN TECHNICAL COLLEGE vENDOR TOTAL 195.76
'£65~0'"~91227 47.75 COUNCIL MTG VIDEO 12-14-~9 01-4030-3100
12/28/99 !2/28/99 47.75 JR!iL-CD 1010
_ IOTAL ~L L_ ~.E. NQo.~ ...... i 8_4..~ ~&~.. ~
Iio
(~reatlve $olut;ons for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Kocgler Group Inc.
MEMO
December 2, 1999
To: Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
From: Bruce Chamberlain, Mound Visions Coordinator
Re: Dakota Rail Corridor
As you know, ',.he future use of the Dakota Rail line for rail transport is in question. The City of
Orono sent me the enclosed resolution they recently passed supporting abandonment of the rail
and conversion of th6 corridor to a regional trail.
On several accounts, the railroad poses challenges to downtown redevelopment; it makes the
future CSAI-I 15 crossing more expensive and it limits the possibility ora driveway conaection
between the Auditors Road and Coast to Coast Districts. If the corridor were converted to a trail,
not only would challenges be eliminated, opportunities would be created for recreation-oriented
retail, greater integration of the corridor into dowatown functions, and trail connections between
do~town and outlying neighborhoods.
Trail proponents (obviously including the Ci~' of Orono) are beginning to organize. Given the
potential benefits to the City of Mound, it seems appropriate for the City. Council to consider a
resolution similar to the one passed by Orono. The bes~ approach may be to take the issue to all
three Commissions this month for *.heir recommendation to the Council and put a draft resoltrtion
on the Council agenda in January.
When you get a chance, give me a ealI and we can discuss it.
M: ~MOUK*Dlgg.2 4;DOC.~lRail_2.doc
123 North Third Street, Suite 100. Minneapolis, M31 55401-1659
Ph (~12) 3~g-0800 Fx (6t2) 33g-683g
RESOLUTION//99-
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
THE COI~TVERSION OF THE DAKOTA RAIL
RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO A REGIONAL
RECREATIONAL TRAIL
WI-IEREAS, the Dakota Railroad runs through some of the most
environmentally sensitive, densely populated, and scenic area of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad is in a state, of severe deterioration, such
that even at very slow speeds there is a substantial probability of derailment; and
WItEREAS, the owner of the railroad had indicated the railroad will be shut
down unless they receive financial assistance in the amount of several million dollars from
the State and Federal government to upgrade the line; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota Rail line serves a very small number of shippers; and
WHEREAS, an upgrade of the railroad would result in a dramatic increase in
impacts of the railroad on the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the railroad; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the railroad to a regional recreational trail
would eliminate the adverse impacts of the railroad use on the most environmentally sensitive
and densely populated areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the rail corridor to a trail would provide a trail
through some of the most scenic areas of Mound; and
WltEREAS, Hennepin Par'ks has indicated that if the cities along the trail are
supportive of the conversion, Hennepin Parks would be interested in working with the cities
to make the trail a reality, x..U) ~ - x0 ~-o-?,~'~ ~~.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound City Council
does hereby indicate its support for the conversion of the Dakota Rail Railroad corridor to a
regional recreational trail.
POSC RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
THE CONVERSION OF THE DAKOTA RAIL
RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO A REGIONAL
RECREATIONAL TRAIL
WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad runs through some of the most
environmentally sensitive, densely populated, and scenic area of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad is in a state of severe deterioration, such
that even at very slow speeds there is a substantial probability of derailment; and
WHEREAS, RailAmerica, owner of Dakota Rail Railroad, is a coporate
holding company which which owns four short line reailroads in Minnesota and equity
interests in 47 other railroads in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Austrailia;
and
WHEREAS, RailAmerican has has indicated that Dakota Rail will be shut
down unless they receive financial assistance in the amount of several million dollars from
the State and Federal government to upgrade the line; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota Rail line serves a very small number of shippers; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the Dakota Rail railroad to a regional
recreational trail would eliminate the adverse impact of the railroad use on the most
environmentally sensitive and densely populated areas of the City of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the Dakota Rail railroad line to a trail would
provide a trail through some of the most scenic areas of Mound; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin Parks has indicated that if the cities along the trail are
supportive of the conversion, Hennepin Parks would be interested in working with the cities
to make the trail a reality; and
WHEREAS, the trails would be a positive addition to the Mound Downtown
Vis~on program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound Park & Open
Space Commission:
Supports the conversion of the Dakota Rail Railroad corridor to a regional
recreational trail.
Recommends that the Mound City Council adopt the language in this
resolution at its January 11, 1999, Meeting.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 9, 1999
7. DISCUSS: DAKOTA RAIL CORRIDOR
Mr. Peter Johnson addressed the Commission, stating that this land would be very good
for a trail. Mr. Johnson gave a brief history of the line, culminating in the fact that the rail
is substandard, and the owner of the line, RailAmerica, is seriously considering
discontinuing service.
Mr. Johnson stated he has met with representatives from Hennepin Parks, who have
stated that this line would be a very good site for a regional trail. Mr. Johnson suggested
that Mound and the neighboring communities invite Hennepin Parks in to make an offer
to RailAmedca.
2
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 9, 1999
Commissioner Casey summarized his proposed resolution for consideration.
Commissioner Beise and Councilmember Weycker both expressed concern about "non-
motorized use." Weycker stated she would prefer to leave this out initially so that
snowmobile use could be discussed, rather than stating it is not allowed at the outset.
Beise suggested the language "non-motorized use in the downtown area."
Debate followed citing the pros and cons of motorized use. No consensus was reached
at this time, and Chair Meyer suggested separating the issues.
10:30 p.m. Chair Meyer tabled the discussion.
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Domholt to extend the meeting for 30 minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Johnson suggested that the City include the language "significant local control on
issues" in any agreement reached with Hennepin Parks. Then issues such as
snowmobiling and so on will remain within the power of the City.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Weycker, to recommend acceptance of
Casey's proposed Resolution with the following amendments:
1. Add "WHEREAS, the trails would be a positive addition to the
Mound Downtown Vision program.
2. Change Item 1, strike "for non-motorized use"
Motion carried unanimously.
POSC RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
THE CONVERSION OF THE DAKOTA RAIL
RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO A REGIONAL
RECREATIONAL TRAIL
WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad runs through some of the most environmentally
sensitive, densely populated, and scenic area of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad is in a state of severe deterioration, such that
even at very slow speeds there is a substantial probability of derailment; and
WHEREAS, RailAmerica, owner of Dakota Rail Railroad, is a corporate holding
company which owns four short line railroads in Minnesota and equity interests in 47 other
railroads in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Australia; and
WHEREAS, RailAmerica has indicated that Dakota Rail will be shut down unless
they receive financial assistance in the amount of several million dollars from the State and
Federal government to upgrade the line; and
3
Mound Advisory Park and Open ,?,pace Commission December g, lggg
WHEREAS, the Dakota Rail line serves a very small number of shippers; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the Dakota Rail railroad to a regional recreational
trail would eliminate the adverse impact of the railroad use on the most environmentally sensitive
and densely populated areas of the City of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the Dakota Rail railroad line to a trail would
provide a trail through some of the most scenic areas of Mound; and
WItEREAS, Hennepin Parks has indicated that if the cities along the trail are
supportive of the conversion, Hennepin Parks would be interested in working with the cities to
make the trail a reality; and
WItEREAS, the trails would be a positive addition to the Mound Downtown
Vision program.
NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound Park & Open Space
Commission:
1. Supports the conversion of the Dakota Rail Railroad corridor to a regional
recreational trail.
Recommends that the Mound City Council adopt the language in this resolution
at its January 11, 1999, Meeting.
4
MEMORANDUM
. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
inlr
To: Mound Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Loren Gordon, AICP
Date: December 15, 1999
Subject: Visit to Rex Alwin property
As most of you are aware, there has been increasing interest regarding the potential sale of the
Rex Alwin property over the past few months. The property is the largest tract of undeveloped
land let~ in the community encompassing about 27 acres. I have received phone calls from at least
a half dozen prospective buyers since the property went on the market a couple months ago. Most
of the calls are developers seeking to find out more about the property and what development
potential exists. Fran Clark, Jon Sutherland and I took the opportunity to meet with Rex at his
home to visit about the inquiries that were starting to come in. We communicated to Rex that the
purpose of the visit as City representatives was twofold: to understand his intentions and to get a
better familiarization of the property.
It does appear that the sale of the property is immanent. Rex is looking to transition into
retirement and the property is too much for him at this point in his life. His attachment to the land
is strong, but faced with increasing taxes and seeing development surround him, he feels it is time
to let go and move on. Rex made it clear that he was seeking out someone to purchase the
property that could appreciate and preserve many of its natural features incorporating them into
some type of development. Rex was insistent, not due to our asking but his prompting, that he
would not consider selling any portion to the City for park/open space purposes. He felt he could
find the right purchaser for the property that would manage it in an appropriate manner.
During the visit, we had the opportunity walked much of the property which is characterized by
large maple and basswoods, wetlands, and varied topography. Over the years Rex and his family
were involved in a number of unique hobbies and business ventures in the property including a
nursery, harvesting of maple syrup, row cropping, and the designation of the property as a Tree
Farm. The property has just the one homestead with outbuildings which were built in the 1910's
when Rex's father owned the property. The buildings are Arts and Cratis movement design, and
appear to be in relatively good condition.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
LeRoy V. "Rex" Alwin
1000 Robin Lane, P.0 Box 126,
Mound, Minnesota 55364
CITY OF MOUND
5341Maywood Road,
Mound, Minnesota 55364
January 07, 2000
Attention: Mound City Council, Park Board, Planning Commission:
Subject:
LeRoy Alwin Homestead Property,
Lots 1 & 2~ Property I.D. No.s
County Aud. Subdiv. 231
14-117-24 33 0001
14-117-24 34 0002
To Whom it may Concern:
At the November Council Meeting the Park Commission suggested that
the above property be shown as a "Potential Park" on the City Planning
Map.
I am an the process of selling the entire property and have entered
into a purchase agreement with a Builder- developer.
My concern is that the "Potential Park" designation could have an
adverse effect on the sale and cause the Developer and Myself a great
deal of "red tape", etc.
My Family has been a part of the Mound Community for 88 years.
The property is Zoned R-1 Residential at this time. Please do not
encumber my home and property with any new regulations that may come
about due to this site being designated as a "Potential Park Site"
as I believe there is little or no Public Interest by the Community in
Mound for a large scale Park and certainly no funding to carry it out.
As some of you may know, During the 60's and early 70's I spent over
10 years on the Mound Park Commission and was Chairman for 3 years.
Dur±n~ that time I worked with the Commission to prepare a Mound Parks
Inventory of already "Park Land" as well as a study of potential commun-
ity needs as well as future needs. We spen~ countless hours developing
this comprehensive report to be kept on file as a reference and instrum=
ent for future planning. In the course of less than a year the document
was lost or scuttled.
When the City of Minnetrista established their Park Commission I was
active is helping them set up a similar comprehensive plan for their City
and was active in proposing a 190 acre park system in the Saunders Lake
area as a "Joint Park" to serve both Mound and Minnestrista Communities.
As it turned out, I was not able to gain any interest or participation by
the City of Mound and became the only one in Mound to serve on the "Ad Hoc"
Committee. The City of Minnestrista maintained the area as a Potential
Park site for nearly 20 years until recently when it is now a major res-
idential development.
Mound maintains a portion of the Western end of Lake Langdon just east
of the Sewer Plant as a potential park site. In September of 1990 I invit-
ed the Mound Park Commission to review a trail system I developed over the
summer which started on City property just east of my Lot-2 (Co. Aud.
Subdv 231), passed along the north shore of the lake through the City
property which includes the marsh past the Sewer effluent aeration pond
Alwin Property
Park, etc.
Page 2.
terminating at the Indian Mound which is just outside the Mound bound-
ary into Minnetrista. As I recall, I had suggested that the trail be
extended along the east side of the effluent pond into the already
designated park area east of the Sewer plant. I remember that the
group was pleased with the project but so far as I know they~ never.
pursued it or made any inroads to its development. The plan was to
maintain a hiking trail on the Sewer Right-of-way from Mound business
district north the railroad tracks to the north side of Lake Langdon
and then serve to access the proposed park. There is already a large
park site on the sever plant property but nothing has been done with
it so far as park development.
In July, 1988, The northern 3.3 acre site (now the Steve Homola
homestead) and an extension of the sewer plant acreage set up in 1962
just adjacent to the S.W. corner of my property was placed for sale by
the City of Mound. I circulated a petition which was signed by 26
neighboring residents who requested that the property be set aside and
maintained as a park (or "green area") in keeping with the entire
neighborhood at that time. The petition was ignored and the sale pro-
ceeded.
Please understand that there has been no-one in Mound more dedicated
to a quality park system that would serve each and every aspect of out-
door recreational needs.., swimming beaches, hiking trails, ball parks,
kiddy parks, etc.., than myself. But, there is no apparent interest by
the Community to do so.
Yours very truly
L. V. "Rex" Alwin
Residents favor keeping
Westedge area 'green'
By Lorrle Ham
A decision on the sale of property
on Westedge Boulevard owned by
the City of Mound was delayed un-
til park and planning commissioners
can make their recommendations.
The three acre site, once consi-
dered for a new public works facili-
ty. already has a buyer but a petition
presented at the July 12 Mound City
Council meeting prompted the coun-
cil to send the issue to its park and
planning commissions for further
review.
The 26 petitioners object to the
sale of the property, because they
feel it should be left as a "green
area" that could be set aside' for pub-
lic use and enjoyment.
Rex Alwin, who owns property
adjacent, to. the sim.circulated the pe-
tit:ion in the immediate vicinity of the
property and says everyone-he talked
to signed the petition.
"Mound is unique," said Alwin.
"We are not a mainstream comrnu-
rfity." He added that some people he
talked with had moved to the area
specifically because of the nearby
wilderness.
Counci}member Phyllis ]essen
pointed out that the buyer of the
property was only interested in
building a single-family home on the
property which would preserve
much of the green area.
Alwin reiterated that the issue was
to preserve the property as public
land for everyone to appreciate.
Upon closer examination, Coun-
cilmember Liz Jensen noted that a
variance was probably needed to
build on the site because the lot does
not front on a public right-of-way.
"It appears that some planning and
paxk issues have not been thorough-
ly looked at in this matter," said
Jensen.
Access to the property has been
one issue in selling the property, said
City Manager Ed Shukle. There is
a city right-of-way planed, but there
is not a road.
City Attorney Curt Pearson said
that the city would be responsible for
[ putting in a road if the property was
sold.
City Engineer John Cameron es-
timated the cost of the road at less
than $1000.
The issue will come back before
the council for a final decision.
In the comments and suggestions
portion of the meeting, Sim $cruton
of Bartlett Boulevard expressed his
concern for the necessary removal of
weeds in Lake Minnetonka.
According to Scruton, the heat,
sun and Iow water level of the lake
have resulted in prolific weed
grovah that he says must be con-
trolled.
Scruton and some neighbors con-
tracted with a weed harvesting com-
pany to remove their weeds in Cooks
Bay, but ran into a problem when the.
contractor attempted to haul the
weeds out of the lake at the Mound
Bay Park boat landing an the Fourth
of July weekend.
The contractor '~;as instructed by
the Mound Police Department to re-'
move his equipment on the advice of
Mound Park Director Jim Faclder.
Fackler's reasoning was that the
equipment was wing up the boat
launch on a holiday weekend, the
con~xactor was using public property
without the city's approval, the
stacked weeds were unsightly and
smelled and Fackler felt that the
operation would disturb park visitors
and nearby residents.
According to Scruton, Faclder is
agressively addressing the issue. In
a memo to City Manager Ed Shulde,
Faclder outlined the things he felt
were necessary to allow the access
over city property for such activity.
The first was that all contractors
have a DNR license for the area, the
work should not conflict with daily
park use, the city should be notified
of new strains of weeds that are be-
ing harvested and that the shoreline
being cleared should fall within
Mound city limits.
$cruton says that harvesting the
weeds is "absolutely necessary,"
because if the vegetation is allowed
to rot and is washed back into the
lake it provides fertilizer for more
weed growth.
Although no action was taken on
the issue, Scruton said he wanted to
bring visibility and a higher level of
attention to the problem.
January 3, 2000
TO: Jim Fackler
FROM: Tom Casey
RE: Park and Open Space Commission Agenda - Wellhead
Protection Plan
The last City of Mound newsletter stated, "The City of Mound
is in the planning stages of one new well and storage tank
for the year 2000." (See enclosure.) Presumably, this well
will be located on City of Mound open space. Therefore, the
Park and Open Space Commission may wish to be part of the
planning process. I cite the following for your review and
comment:
Minnesota Rule 4720.5120 (Minnesota Department of
Health) states in part, "Wellhead protection
measures for the inner wellhead management zone of a
public water supply must be initiated: (A) at the
time a new public water supply well is constructed
Note: Minnesota Rule 4720.5100, Subpart 19 defines
the inner wellhead management zone (IWMZ) as
land within a 200-foot radius of the water
supply well.
Question: What "protection measures" are being
or should be contemplated?
Minnesota Rule 4720.5130 (Minnesota Department of
Health) sets forth other requirements, including a
provision that a wellhead protection plan must be
submitted to the Department of Health within 2
years after an additional well is connected to a
municipal water supply. (A 6-month extension is
allowed under certain circumstances.)
Question: To what extent is the City of Mound
already in the planning stages?
Question: How best can the Park and Open Space
Commission be involved in this process?
The Minnesota Department of Health has published
a 62-page booklet entitled, Guidance Pertaining to
Wellhead Protection Requirements For Public Water
Supply Wells. (A complete copy of this document can
be obtained by writing to: Minnesota Department of
Health, Division of Environmental Health, Source
-1-
Jim Fackler
0110312000
Water Protection Unit, P.O. Box 64975, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55164-0975.) Pages 13-14 refer to a
recommended public participation process. Please
note the language, "It is a better strategy to
actively involve members of the public at the
beginning of the WHP [Wellhead Protection] planning
process rather than waiting until the public
hearing which is required once the plan is ready
for submittal to the MDH [Minnesota Department of
Health] ..."
Also, please place this memo with attachments into the POSC
January 13, 2000 agenda packet as an information item. At
our January 13th meeting, I would like to ask the
Commissioners if they are interested in scheduling this
matter for discussion at our February 10, 2000 meeting. In
the interim, it would be helpful if you could answer the
enclosed questions if you have time.
Jim, thanks for your help!
cc: Pete Meyer (Chair)
file
Encl.
-2-
Testing shows that City drinking water meets all
federal requirements
In compliance with the
Minnesota Department of Health
requirements, the City of Mound has
issued the results of monitoring done
on its drinking water for 1998. The
report was prepared to increase
consumer understanding and
awareness of drinking water issues
and the need to protect water
resources.
The City of Mound provides
drinking water from a groundwater
source. There are four wells that
provide water. The depth of these
wells range from 175 to 317 feet.
Theses wells draw water from the
Quaternary Buried Artesian aquifer
and the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan
aquifer. The City of Mound is in the
planning stages of one new well and
storage tank for the year 2000.
I he City of Mound monitors and
tests daily for chlorine and fluoride
levels, monthly for bacteria, and the
Minnesota Department of Health
inspects the water system. For the
year of 1998, no contaminants were
detected at levels that exceeded
federal standards set for the city.
However, some contaminants were
detected in trace amounts that were
below the legal limits.
The City of Mound has and is
still testing for copper and lead in
drinking water as required by the
Env!ronmental Protection Agency.
Infants and children are typically
more vulnerable to lead in drinking
water than the general population.
Lead levels in the City of Mound's
water system were found to be in
compliance with drinking standards.
It is possible that the lead levels in
cer~in homes may be higher than
other homes as a result of the
materials used in your home's
plumbing. If you are concerned
about possible high levels of lead in
your drinking water, have your
water tested. To be on the safe side,
flush your tap by running the water
for 30 to 90 seconds before using
the water. Additional information is
available from the Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at (800) 426-479 I.
In order to ensure that tap
water is safe to drink, the EPA
prescribes regulationswhich limit
the amount of certain contaminants
in the water provided by public
water systems. Some people may
be more vulnerable to contaminants
in drinking water than the general
population. People undergoing
chemotherapy, organ transplants,
immune system disorders, the elderly
and infants can be particularly at risk
from infections. These people should
seek advice from their health
provider.
If you would like a copy of the
most current water tests for City of
Mound drinking water, please call
472-0635.
Thanks to the greenest
thumbs in Mound
Many thanks to all of the Mound Adopt-A-Green-Space volunteers of
1999. The downtown planters, city parks and other areas in the City looked
great all year because of the planting, weeding and watering volunteers did
through the summer and fall.
The efforts of everyone listed below are greatly appreciated. We ar~
already looking forward to your return in the spring of 2000.
V&S Jewelry
Marsha Wulf
Penny & Steve Sexton
Susan Magraw, DDS
Westonka Sports
Savannah
John's Variety
Phil Haugen
Adie & Jan Mewissen
Joan Jokinen
Brownie Troop # 1284
Vandenberg Family
Falness Barber
Koening Law Offices
Wiser Insurance
Lee & Ken Patz
Westonka Travel
Kan'ina Wolf
Sharon Coilings
Pat Good fellow
Teresa McMillan
Mound Coast to Coast
Joan Koehnen
Indian Knoll Manor
Craig Okins, Pack 297
Jan Saunders
Murva Jacobsen
Ralph & Kris Bauer
Larson Printing
Charissa G rover
Jeanne Stortz
Deb Tessman
Marjorie Rines
Green T Accounting
Joyce Nelson
Mary Lou Vanderhoef
G itl Scout Troop # 1802
Alison Doppelhammer
CliffSchmidt Family
Mound Auto Service
Kathy & Steve Philbrook
Mohawk Jaycees
Marion Tomalka
Westonka Senior Center
Harold & Shelby Pellet
Lollie& Mick Mader
Karen Hibbs
Westonka Adventure Club
3's Company
Eagle Gardens Group Home
Phyllis Jessen
Mark Anderson
VFW
Teresa Lee
Pat~y Hules
Doris Birtle
Sue Cathers
Steve Cathers
Brian Cathers
Tom Cathers
Stacy Cathers
Peg Dalgue
Jean Leidig
Ken Keukircher
Carrie Conkey
Al & Alma's
Randy Engelhart family
Mound Fire Dept. Auxiliary
}03
Subp. 45. Wellhead protection plan or plan. "Wellhead protection plan" or "plan" means a
document that provides for the protection of a public water supply, is sub~tted to the department,
is implemented by the public water supplier, and complies with:
A. the wellhead protection elements specified in the 1986 amendments to the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act, United States Code, fire 42, chapter 6A, subchapter XII, part C, section 300h-7
(1986 and as subsequently amended); and
B. parts 4720.5200 to 4720.5290.
4720.5110 APPLICABILITY.
Subpart 1. Inner wellhead management zone. A public water supplier must:
A. maintain the isolation distances for new contaminant sources specified in parts 4725.4450
and 4725.5850 for potential contamination sources located around the public water supply well
following the schedule specified in part 4720.5120;
B. monitor potential contaminant sources that were in existence, recorded, or authorized
before May 10, 1993, and that are not in compliance with parts 4725.4450 and 4725.5850; and
C. implement wellhead protection measures for potential conta_m.inant sources with.in the
inner wellhead management zone.
Subp. 2. Wellhead protection area. For a community public water supply well and a
nontransient noncommunity public water supply well, the public water supplier must:
A. delineate the wellhead protection area and the drinking water supply management area;
B. prepare a wellhead protection plan for the drinking water supply management area; and
C. implement a wellhead protection plan for the drinking water supply management area.
4720.5120 SCHEDULE; INNER WELLHEAD MANAGEMENT ZONE.
Wellhead protection measures for the inner wellhead management zone of a public wa~er supply
well must be initiated:
A. at the time a new public water supply well is constructed;
B. before June 1, 1999, for an existing community water supply well;
C. before June 1, 1999, for an existing nontransient noncommunity water supply well serving
a child care center regulated under chapter 9503 or a school;
D. before June 1, 2000, for any other existing nontransient noncommunity water supply well;
E. before June 1, 2001, for an existing transient noncommuniry water supply well ser,,'ing a
facility licensed by the department;
F. before June 1, 2002, for an existing transient noncommunity water supply well serving a
facility licensed by the department that is covered by a community health service delegation
a~eement entered under Minnesota Statutes, section 145A.07; and
G. before June 1, 2003, for any other existing transient noncommunity water supply well.
4720.5130 WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN; PRELIMINARY REQUIREMZENTS;
SCHEDL~E.
Subpart 1. New municipal public water supply well. In addition to the requirements of part
4720.0010, a well construction plan for a new municipal public water supply well must have:
A. a prel/rninary delineation of a wellhead protection area based on available information; and
B. an assessment of the impacts that existing land use and existing water use in the
preliminary wellhead protection area, as described in subpart 2, may have on the movement of
contaminants resulting from human activity to the aquifer serving the proposed municipal public water
supply well.
-40-
Subp. 2. Criteria; preliminary wellhead protection area delineation. A preliminary wel/head
protection area must be delineated using the criteria in this subpart.
A. The criteria described in part 4720.5510, subparts 2 and 4, must be identified.
B. For a well to be constructed in an unconfined aquifer, the preliminary wellhead protection
area must be extended 0ne-half mile in aa upgradient direction from the proposed well site, it' the
delineation method used does not incorporate the criteria specified in part 4720.5510, subpart 5.
Subp. 3. Schedule. An inith/we//head protection plan must be completed and submitted by the
public water supplier for all the wells in a public water supply system within two years after: A. an additional well is connected to a municipal public water supply system; or
B. the public water supplier receives notification from the department as specified in part
4720.5550 for:
(I) a community well not included under item A; or
(2) a nontransient noncommunity public water supply.
Subp. 4. Additional time. In addition to the two years allowed in subpart 3, the public water
supplier has an additional six months to submit the plan:
A. for each two ex/sting or new wells, up to six wells;
B. if the public water supply is not owned by a federal, state, or local unit of government;
C. if funds are not available to support plan development or implementation;
D. if the wellhead protection area lies in more than two governmental jurisdictions; or
E. if pun~ing of a well that is not a part of the water supply system influences the boundaries
of the wellhead protection area being delineated.
CONTENT OF WELLHE~AD PROTECTION PLAN
4720.5200 DATA ELEMENTS; ASSESSMENT.
Subpart 1. Required data elements. The data elements identified in the scoping decision notice
under parts 4720.5310, subpart 2, and 4720.5340, subpart 2, must be assessed by the public water
supplier.
Subp. 2. Assessment of data elements. A wellhead protection plan must assess the present and
future implications of the data elements required in subpart 1 on: A. the use of the well;
B. the wellhead protection area delineation criteria specified in part 4720.5510;
C. the' quality and quantity of water supplying the public water supply well; and
D. the land and groundwater uses in the drinking water supply management area.
4720.5205 WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLY
MANAGE1VIENT AREA DELINEATION.
Subpart 1.. Boundaries; wellhead protection area. A wellhead protection plan must have a
map showing the boundaries of the wellhead protection area that were determined using the criteria
in part 4720.5510.
Subp. 2. Documentation. A wellhead protection plan must document the delineation of the
wellhead protection area. The documentation must:
A. describe the hydrogeologic setting used to characterize the aquifer;
B. identify the five delineation criteria described in part 4720.5510, subparts 2 to 6;
CR~I~R 3
GETTING STARTED AND INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
To ensure development of an effective WI-IP plan that meets the rule requirements, there arc a
number of initial steps which must be followed.
Identify a WHP Plan Manager - The lust step that a public water supplier must take to ensure
the success of the development and implementation of a WHP plan is to identify a person to
coordinate plan development and implementation (part 4720.5300, subpart 2). This person will
serve as the principal contact for MDH regarding the preparation and submittal of a W'HP plan. The
principal duties of this position may include:
· coordinating the technical, policy, and educational aspects of WHP plan development and
implementation;
· serving as liaison with MDH and local units of government;
· writing the W~rP plan;
· scheduling and conducting meetings;
· chairing workgroups; and
· overseeing data management and reporting.
Smffof local traits of government, such as cities, townships, counties, and soil and water conservation
districts, should also be looked to for assistance. An important benefit of WHP planning is the
development of a cooperative effort between the public water supplier and local staff to ensure a
broad examination of Wl-tP~related issues.
State, and some federal agencies, can assist with data needs and interpretation. Public water suppliers
could reduce the costs of WHP planning by drawing on staff resources from agencies and the public
to provide valuable expertise. Often, their participation will be at minimal or no cost to the public
water supplier.
Develop a Public Participation Process - Involving all interested parties in the WHP planning
process is critical to its success. No group which could be significantly affected by WHP planning
should be denied an opportunity to participate or at least comment. Public water suppliers are
required to ensure there is a process for public participation during the development and 'unplemen-
-13-
tation of a WHP plan (part 4720.5300, subpart 6). Also, the public water supplier is required to
conduct a public information meeting about the approved WI-IPA and DWSMA delineations and
vulnerability assessments (part 4720.5330, subpart 7). However, the scope and extent of public
participation is left to the discretion of the public water supplier. It is a better strategy to actively
.olve members of the public at the beginning of the WHP planning process rather than waiting until
public hearing which is required once the plan is ready for submittal to MDH (part 4720.5350,
subpart 4). Problems, conflicts, and opportunities of interest to the public should be identified early
in the process so that they are addressed as much as possible. This helps ensure that decisions are
based on shared information and perceptions, and helps educate the public about water-related issues
and options available to protect their drinking water supply.
Include Iocal Units of Government - The public water supplier may use many methods to enlist
the participation and involvement by local governments. However, informational meetings with local
governments and opportunities for them to comment are required at several times during WHP plan
development and review:
· notification of local governments within the DWSMA of intent to develop a WHP plan
(part 4720.5300, subpart 3);
· meeting with local governments at least once during WHP plan development (part 4720.5300,
subpart 5);
· submit copy of the WHPA, the DWSMA, and the vulnerability assessment approved by the MDH
(part 4720.5330, subpart 6); and
· local government review of the second part of Wt-IP plan before submittal to MDH
(part 4720.5350, subpart 1).
S~RY
The WHP planning and implementation process must include measures to involve the general public
and local units of government. Public involvement with developing and implementing WHP plans
helps ensure that 1) land and water use issues are identified during WHP plan development and 2) a
process for implementing priority contaminant source management controls within the DWSMA are
implemznted. Local governments may offer much support or advice regarding WHP plan develop-
ment and implementation and may be able to integrate local WHP goals with those of county
groundwater plans.
-14-
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
DECEMBER 9~ 1999
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Norman Domholt, Tom Casey, John Beise,
Christina Cooper (arrived at 8:00 p.m.); and City Council Representative Leah Weycker.
Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
1. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 10, 1999 POSC MINUTES
Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Beise to approve the minutes of the
November 10, 1999 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
The agenda was approved with the following amendment:
1. Add #12, Report by Commissioner Casey
3. REVIEW: REGISTRY PROGRAM
Commissioner Casey asked if anyone found anything in the samples of programs which
would not be suitable for the City of Mound, and stated that due to time constraints, he
did not have the opportunity to draft a program specific to Mound.
Chair Meyer suggested a work session where other Commissioners could aid Casey.
Commissioner Casey stated he could try to get it done for the January meeting, but
stressed his interest in receiving suggestions from all other commissioners at any time.
4. UPDATE: THE REX ALWIN PROPERTY
Park Director Fackler reported that he had heard that approximately 70 homes are
planned for this property, but that is an unofficial report.
Discussion followed regarding Park Dedication for this land, but no consensus was
reached, or any action taken as yet. To be discussed further in January.
5. UPDATE: 2000 BUDGET FOR PARKS AND RECREATION
Park Director Fackler reported that the general budget was up 8%. Fackler then
summarized the budget cuts made this year. No Park Commission line items were
approved.
Commissioner Domholt expressed extreme dissatisfaction that the Park Commission got
absolutely nothing budgeted. As Commissioners, they give time and effort to the
Community, and to get no support back from the Council seems very insulting.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 9, 1999
Commissioner Beise expressed strong agreement with Commissioner Domholt's
comments.
Park Director Fackler pointed out that there was a small budget increase, whereas there
was no increase in the past 3 years. Also, while it is frustrating to get nothing at this
point, the budget is now moving in the right direction.
Commissioner Beise conceded that the Park Program did get funding, as evidenced in
the trucks and so on for maintenance. However, as many as 5 meetings, and many
hours, were spent on producing and prioritizing a list which was completely disregarded.
Councilmember Weycker suggested changing the budget process so the Commission
meets with the Council to discuss the issues.
Commissioner Casey stated that the entire Commission was formally invited to a
Committee of the Whole meeting on January 18, 2000 which is where these subjects
need to be discussed.
Discussion followed regarding whether the POSC was a necessary, useful commission.
Many members expressed frustration that there seems to be no communication between
the Commission and the Council, and if the acts of the Commission are not valued, what
use is the Commission to the City. No consensus was reached, or action taken.
6. UPDATE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Motion by Casey, seconded by Meyer requesting that the Capital
Improvement Plan proposal come first to the POSC for review prior to
submission to the Met Council. Motion carried unanimously.
10:00 p.m. Chair Meyer tabled the discussion.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Cooper to continue the meeting for 30
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
7. DISCUSS: DAKOTA RAIL CORRIDOR
Mr. Peter Johnson addressed the Commission, stating that this land would be very good
for a trail. Mr. Johnson gave a brief history of the line, culminating in the fact that the rail
is substandard, and the owner of the line, RailAmerica, is seriously considering
discontinuing service.
Mr. Johnson stated he has met with representatives from Hennepin Parks, who have
stated that this line would be a very good site for a regional trail. Mr. Johnson suggested
that Mound and the neighboring communities invite Hennepin Parks in to make an offer
to RailAmerica.
2
Mound Advisory Park and Open ,?,pace Commission December 9, 1999
Commissioner Casey summarized his proposed resolution for consideration.
Commissioner Beise and Councilmember Weycker both expressed concern about "non-
motorized use." Weycker stated she would prefer to leave this out initially so that
snowmobile use could be discussed, rather than stating it is not allowed at the outset.
Beise suggested the language "non-motorized use in the downtown area."
Debate followed citing the pros and cons of motorized use. No consensus was reached
at this time, and Chair Meyer suggested separating the issues.
10:30 p.m. Chair Meyer tabled the discussion.
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Domholt to extend the meeting for 30 minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Johnson suggested that the City include the language "significant local control on
issues" in any agreement reached with Hennepin Parks. Then issues such as
snowmobiling and so on will remain within the power of the City.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Weycker, to recommend acceptance of
Casey's proposed Resolution with the following amendments:
1. Add "WHEREAS, the trails would be a positive addition to the
Mound Downtown Vision program.
2. Change Item 1, strike "for non-motorized use"
Motion carried unanimously.
POSC RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE
THE CONVERSION OF THE DAKOTA RAIL
RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO A REGIONAL
RECREATIONAL TRAIL
WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad runs through some of the most environmentally
sensitive, densely populated, and scenic area of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad is in a state of severe deterioration, such that
even at very slow speeds there is a substantial probability of derailment; and
WHEREAS, RailAmerica, owner of Dakota Rail Railroad, is a corporate holding
company which owns four short line railroads in Minnesota and equity interests in 47 other
railroads in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Australia; and
WHEREAS, RailAmerica has indicated that Dakota Rail will be shut down unless
they receive financial assistance in the amount of several million dollars from the State and
Federal government to upgrade the line; and
3
13o
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 9, 1999
WHEREAS, the Dakota Rail line serves a very small number of shippers; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the Dakota Rail railroad to a regional recreational
trail would eliminate the adverse impact of the railroad use on the most environmentally sensitive
and densely populated areas of the City of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the conversion of the Dakota Rail railroad line to a trail would
provide a trail through some of the most scenic areas of Mound; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin Parks has indicated that if the cities along the trail are
supportive of the conversion, Hennepin Parks would be interested in working with the cities to
make the trail a reality; and
WHEREAS, the trails would be a positive addition to the Mound Downtown
Vision program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound Park & Open Space
Commission:
1. Supports the conversion of the Dakota Rail Railroad corridor to a regional
recreational trail.
o
Recommends that the Mound City Council adopt the language in this resolution
at its January 11, 1999, Meeting.
8. REVIEW: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Commissioner Casey summarized the draft of the Resolution he had distributed for this meeting.
Commissioner Beise raised concerns about taking this land out of the TIF district, then having
the bond referendum fail. Beise questioned what is entailed in returning the land to the TIF
district, and would this incur additional cost to the City.
Councilmember Weycker answered it would cost additional funds, but a TIF district is a very
confusing plan, and consulting the City Attorney would be the best way to get answers.
Motion made by Casey to accept the Resolution as drafted. Motion died due to lack
of a second.
Motion by Meyer, seconded by Domholt to narrow down the Resolution to include
the greenspace only. Motion passed 4/1/1. Weycker voting nay due to the fact that
it will cost the City to add the land back to the TIF District. Cooper abstained
because she felt she was not knowledgeable enough about a TIF District to make an
informed decision.
4
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission December 9, 1999
9. REVIEW: STORM MANAGEMENT PLAN
This item was moved to January.
9a. POSC JANUARY AGENDA
Some items for the January POSC agenda are:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Review: Capital Improvements Plan
Review: 2000 Work Calendar
Elect Officers
Review: Work Rules
Update on Community Center and Rex Alwin Properties
Review: Storm Management Plan
Review: Registry Program
10.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
City Council Minutes
DCAC Minutes
LMCD Information
Shoreline Boat Count
Shade Tree Advocate
11. REPORTS:
a. City Council Representative
No report at this time.
b. Park Director
No report at this time.
12. REPORT BY COMMISSIONER CASEY
Commissioner Casey distributed a handout regarding the Minneapolis Park System for
informational purposes.
Chair Meyer presented a letter from the American Legion regarding the funding request,
which basically stated they have no additional funding this year.
Motion made by Cooper, seconded by Beise to adjourn the meeting at 10:55
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
5
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
DECEMBER 16, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, Orvin Burma
and Greg Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1. MINUTES
Motion was made by Burma, seconded by Funk, to approve the minutes of the
November 18, 1999 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Agenda approved as presented.
3. REVIEW: EXISTING MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATIONS
Park Director Fackler stated that primarily boat size and temporary sites should be the
main focus of this discussion.
Commissioner Ahrens stated that most sites are current on these issues, as listed in the
October 1, 1999 memorandum from Jim Fackler. There are only a few changes to that
memo:
· Highland End Park; Add 2 "temporary, secondary small craft" sites.
· Avalon Park; Change 2 of the "temporary, secondary small craft" sites to
permanent, and keep 2 as temporary. Also, the 2 35.5' x 10' slips are 1 & 6,
not 1 & 5.
· Carlson Park; no change.
· Devon Lane Access; to be discussed further at a later date.
· Pembroke Park; Change the 35.5' x 10' site (1), to a 27 %'x 10' site.
· Amhurst Access; no change.
· Fairview access; no change.
Consensus was reached that transitional boats which are too large for the permanent
designations are allowed to stay until the owner no longer renews the docksite. Then the
site will revert to the permanent designation as listed.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission December 16, 1999
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens, to approve slip size limitations
as noted on the October 1, 1999 memorandum from Park Director Fackler,
with the above changes. Motion carried unanimously.
4. REVIEW: EXISTING MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK LOCATION AT DEVON LANE
ACCESS
Park Director Fackler summarized the issue of the storm drain, and the one single dock
still existing at the site.
Councilmember Hanus suggested switching the location of the single and the multiple,
centering the multiple more on the street.
Commissioner Ahrens asked if the single dock holder could be approached regarding
moving to a multiple or an alternative docksite.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated he has been approached several times and will not
agree.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested eliminating a temporary site and moving the stem of the
multiple to the center of the dock.
Commissioner Burma suggested moving the stem all the way to the other side so it is not
in front of the residence but, rather, in front of the Lane.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested having staff research this problem a little more, and
consider the options mentioned tonight. Staff can then bring back some replies to these
ideas, because right now without answers on whether or not the ideas can be
implemented, the discussion Is redundant.
Park Director Fackler suggested meeting with the property owners to get their input as
well, since any change will primarily affect them.
Consensus was reached to direct staff to research the possibility of moving the single or
multiple dock, or the multiple dock stem, and present findings to the DCAC in April, 2000.
5. DISCUSS: MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK
a. Multiple slip dock objectives & transition
Commissioner Goldberg questioned to what extent transition onto a multiple dock is
voluntary. For instance, if all dock holders in the area want a multiple except one or two,
at what point is it pushed through.
Commissioner Ahrens quoted Item D-8, specifically the part stating "majority will rule."
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission December 16, 1999
Councilmember Hanus suggested adding an opening statement to the effect that these are
only guidelines, not hard and fast rules. The DCAC is still in a learning process, so these
guidelines need to be flexible enough to allow for some trial and error.
Commissioner Goldberg stated that any forcing of participation is very uncomfortable for
him. Regarding the transition problems, he suggested that the best course may be to keep
in mind that eventually all slip holders will leave the program. However, as long as the
sites are designated correctly, the transition problems will be solved in time.
Commissioner Burma stated that forcing participation may sometimes be a necessity. For
instance, if the situation at Devon came up now, with ten people for and one against, he
would support offering the one dissenter the choice of going on the multiple, or receiving
an alternate docksite. Allowing these transitions cause problems with most of the other
dock holders who are concerned with the problems now and would like to see them taken
care of, not told to wait until it corrects itself.
Park Director Fackler stated that if the Ordinance is firm, and written to be clearly
understood, it will help staff with many of the issues that are brought up. Fackler stated
he is in agreement with Commissioner Goldberg as far as taking away docksites, and
stressed the importance of having intentions clearly stated so when the dock holder leaves
the program, there is no question what happens to the dock site.
Commissioner Goldberg suggested stating that no one will be forced to participate in a
multiple dock.
Commissioner Burma agreed with that statement.
Commissioner Ahrens then summarized that docksite 42931 will be designated as part of
the multiple dock when the current site holder leaves the program. On the dock site map,
the location of this site now will be labeled as temporary.
Consensus was reached to make the following changes to the Multiple Slip Dock Program
Guidelines:
Item C-1: Keep first sentence, strike remainder of paragraph.
Item C-6 (addition): To alleviate setback non-conformities.
Item D-3: Delete entire paragraph.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to reconsider the dock location
map which was approved in an earlier motion, with the addition of boat sizes
listed on the memo dated October 1, 1999. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to designate, on the dock
location map, that docksite 42931, Devon Lane Access, be temporary, and at
the point that the current docksite holder leaves the program, this docksite
3
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission December 16, 1999
be moved to the Devon Lane Access multiple dock as a permanent slip,
changing the number of permanent sites from 7 to 8. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chair Funk then questioned whether the Ordinance is adequate to support the changes
made in the guidelines tonight.
Park Director Fackler stated the ordinance is fine, and the above changes will be made in
the guidelines.
b. Boat size limitations on multiple slip docks
Consensus was reached that the issue of slip sizes be resolved with the addition of the
information on the memorandum dated October 1, 1999 and the changes made earlier
tonight. Now the discussion should center on what size boat can go into the slips.
Park Director Fackler stated that the LMCD regulations regarding overhang are already
in existence, and Mound could simply state that these regulations need to be met.
Councilmember Hanus suggested having a standard size, and then adjusting the dock fees
relative to the square footage of the designated dock site.
Park Director Fackler stated this discussion should take place when discussing dock fees.
Regarding the boat size, the LMCD rules can be supplied for discussion in January.
c. Personal water craft on multiple slip docks
Consensus was reached that this issue has been resolved in that the sites have been
designated, and further sites will be considered on a request basis.
d. Boat lifts at multiple slip docks
Consensus was reached that this issue has been resolved in previous meetings.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested that additional short surveys may be wise, in order to
gauge satisfaction in the program, as one of the guidelines is to "measure the outcome."
Commissioner Goldberg agreed, and stated he would like to see people invited to the
DCAC meetings, especially based upon responses to these surveys.
Commissioner Burma suggested an informal but highly publicized "dock party." Possibly
providing ice cream and coffee, to discuss individual concerns.
Councilmember Hanus stated he believed turnout would be poor for this kind of gathering.
4
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
December 16, 1999
Commissioner Ahrens stated turnout might be poor, but it would be very good public
relations.
6. DISCUSS: ORDINANCE CHANGE REGARDING LMCD FEE
Park Director Fackler summarized the memorandum of December 6, 1999 regarding the
LMCD boat fee which the City has to pay to the LMCD, whether a docksite holder registers
a boat or not.
Consensus was reached that this fee should be charged to all docksite holders, boat or
not, since the City pays the LMCD under those criteria.
Park Director Fackler suggested discussing this issue further along with the dock fee
changes next year, so all fee structure discussion takes place at the same time.
7. DISCUSS: DOCK PROGRAM REPAIR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Park Director Fackler stated the issue to be discussed is the 2001 budget for repair and
maintenance.
Commissioner Goldberg asked if anything could be done this winter.
Park Director Fackler stated that about 1,300 linear feet could be done this winter, but
there are still some variables that need to be assessed.
Consensus was reached that this issue will be discussed further in February, 2000.
10:00 p.m. Motion made by Burma, seconded by Funk to extend the meeting
an additional 10 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
8. REVIEW: 2000 BUDGET
Park Director Fackler presented the budget, stating that there are no new issues at this
time.
9. DISCUSS: JANUARY 2000 DCAC AGENDA
To be
included on the January agenda are:
1. Discuss: Pembroke Issues
2. Discuss: Multiple slip dock objectives & transition
3. Discuss: LMCD boat size limitations in slips
4. Election of officers
5. Review 2000 calendar
6. Review work rules
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission December 16, 1999
For February: Discuss: Dock program repair maintenance program
For April: Review: Existing multiple slip dock location at Devon lane access.
FYI
A) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
B) PARK & OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES
C) 1999 LAKE MINNETONKA SHORELINE BOAT COUNT
D) LMCD INFORMATION
11. REPORTS
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
C) DOCK INSPECTOR
No report at this time.
Commissioner Goldberg noted that the encroachment Ordinance is not yet complete and
requested an update on that project.
Commissioner Burma addressed the Commission, stating that he has been serving on two
Commissions for a year now, and has decided to resign from the DCAC, either effective
tonight or when a replacement is found, at the whim of the Commission.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would prefer Burma remain until a replacement is found.
Commissioner Burma agreed, and stated he would send an official letter of resignation to
the City right away.
10. ADJOURN
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
10.
MINUTES - EDC - NOVEMBER 18, 1999
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:10 a.m. by Paul
Meisel. Members present: Stan Drahos, Bob Brown, Jerry
Pietrowski, Paul Meisel, Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Mark Brewer, Lonnie
Weber. Others present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Linda Kohl, Sue
Magraw, Kathy Rockvam, Rita Blackowiak, Patty Guttormson, Gino
Businaro, Bill Beard and Paul
Bill Beard gave a presentation On the redevelopment project. Phase
1 will be the Langdon area. It was have a mix of up-scale
townhomes for sale, rental townhomes, an apartment building and
retail stores. Our priority is to not displace the businesses we
now have. The second phase will be Auditors Road.
Ail the discussion on the presentation was very positive.
We are looking at a near $50,000,000 improvement for Mound.
Motion: Mark Brewer made a motion that the EDC Commission
fully and enthusiastically endorse the initial conceptual plan
as presented by the Beard Group. Lonnie Weber seconded the
motion and it was unanimously approved. There was no
discussion.
This conceptual plan will go to the HP~A on Tuesday and then be
forwarded to the City Council on November 23, 1999.
Mayor Pat Meisel explained that she will not be participating in
the discussion regarding this subject at the council meeting due to
a conflict of interest perception of some citizens. This is due to
her ownership of property involved in the project.
It was discussed the need to encourage citizens and to keep a
positive attitude regarding this project. This concept has been
going on for ten years and it is exciting that we are finally going
ahead with the redevelopment of Mound.
Bill Beard submitted a fact sheet showing the timing, costs, etc.
of the redevelopment project.
Bob Brown stated he was approached by the Veterans requesting we
rename Auditors Road to Veterans Drive or Veterans Way. In return
they would put up a lighted flagpole as a monument to all veterans
that have served in the area. It was pointed out that during the
last meeting a motion was made to table the renaming of Auditors
Road until after the area has been redeveloped.
Lonnie stated the Lions would like to contribute a Christmas tree
and flowers for landscaping the new Greenway area. We would like
a large tree, possibly up to 30 feet tall. The contractor will
probably install the tree, but the Lions would fund the project.
There was a discussion of possibly smaller trees to also be
planted. This project could then be taken over by another group
that would maintain the flowers and trees along the trail. There
was also a discussion of the Lions Club possibly donating cement
for the trail instead of having a tar trail as planned.
Old Business
Bob Brown stated he would like to nominate Mark Winter to be part
of the EDC Commission. He has been interviewed and shows an
interest. John Royer's name was also mentioned as a possible
candidate. It was brought up that during the ilast meeting it was
decided the position would be posted in the paper. The candidate
would then be interviewed for the position.
New Business
Gabriel Jabore who owns the Tonka Bay Marina had a 60 foot wood
boat with a 9 foot beam and a running diesel engine. It is
believed the boat was built in 1936 and trailered here from New
York 7 or 8 years ago with plans to restore it as an excursion
boat. The name is S.S. Corinna. It was owned by a partnership
which dissolved and is now owned solely by Gabriel. It was kept at
the Tonka Bay Marina but has been moved to private property as he
no longer wants it. If the boat was to be restored, it would have
to be done privately, as was done with the Minnehaha. A building
would be needed to house the boat while the restoration took place.
There was a discussion on whether we are interested in the boat
restoration or not.
Build a Brick Proqram
At a meeting with Bruce last Friday it was discussed the need to
become very aggressive with this program. The deadline for the
first order is March 30, 2000. There will be an article in the
City Newsletter regarding this program and how to order the bricks.
We are also going to be posting information regarding the Build-A-
Brick program in local businesses. The more bricks we have this
first time, the less expensive will be the cost for installation.
There was also a discussion of possibly putting information
regarding this program on a web site.
Adjournment
Lonnie Weber made a motion to adjourn the meeting and it was
seconded by Mark Brewer. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be December 16, 1999.
will bring rolls.
Sharon McMenamy-Cook
MINUTES - EDC - DECEMBER 16, 1999
The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:10 a.m. by Paul Meisel. Members
'present: Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Mark Brewer, Jerry Pietrowsld, and Paul Meisel.
Others present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Fran Clark, and Peter Johnson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION made by McMenamy-Cook and seconded by Pietrowski to approve the
November 18, 1999, minutes as presented. The motion was unanimously
approved.
EDC RESOLUTION
A memo from Bruce Chamberlain and a proposed resolution was presented in the packet,
.explaining the benefits of abandoning the Dakota Rail railroad line and converting the
corridor to a Regional Trail.
MOTION made by Brewer , seconded by Pietrowski to recommend that
the City Council fully support the resolution that supports the conversion
of'the Dakota Rail Railroad Corridor to a Regional Recreational Trail.
Discussion: Paul Meisel stated the City Council would like the EDC Commission to give an
opinion regarding the proposed resolution. Peter Johnson explained some concerns in
continuing to allow Dakota Rail use the railroad through Mound. The rail is used to ship
hazardous material by train mainly to one company in Hutchinson and one in Lester Prairie.
Due to the severe deterioration of the railroad over the years, this track has had 24
derailments in the last three years. This is 1500 times the national average by rail car
miles. Last month there was a derailment in Spring Park that tore out approximately 350 to
400 feet of track, which means that when the train came off the track, it continued on for
that many feet.
In May of 1999, the railroad met with the shippers organizations who issued them an
ultimatum to get the line brought up to safety standards by government funding. Rail
America stated they would maintain the rail service indefinitely so as not to have the line
abandoned and sold as real estate.
Hennepin Parks has had this line identified since 1995 and integrated it into their Regional
Plan in 1998, as a trail. They stated they were interested in purchasing the land without
federal financing. Hennepin Parks stated that if there was a demonstration of a public desire
to come in and do this, they would purchase the line and develop it as a trail. They have
maintained a reputation in working with communities on local control, which was their key
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 1999
to obtaining approval by Minnetrista. They also stated that if the DNR were to come in and
develop the land, they would have a "cookie cutter" approach for the length of the line,
which would be ~one rule'. Hennepin Parks are willing to work more closely with the local
municipalities.
The line originally was abandoned by Burlington Northern. MNDOT stepped in with 1 1/2
million dollars and acquired the line. They sold the line to McCloud County Regional Rail
Authority, which is the Hutchinson Business Shippers group with a 0 interest, 0 payment
basis. (MNDOT had the money, Regional Rail Authority had control). It was then resold to
Dakota Rail on a 0 interest 0 payment basis, but the line has been under public control since
1988 when Dakota Rail went bankrupt and almost lost the line. In June of this year Rail
America offered to pay MNDOT half the balance outstanding on this loan, but was turned
down. If they did continue to operate until 2008, the loan would be satisfied.
MNDOT and the Regional Rail Authority have indicated their primary objective is to
maintain rail service but if that cannot be done, public ownership of the right-of-way is their
next objective. MNDOT has been asked about selling this property to Hennepin Parks but
their response was probably not, but they would be willing to do a 50 year lease with them
or a sale with a buy-back arrangement. One reason MNDOT got into this in the first place
is that it is also identified as a light rail corridor - long term. Mound is number 18, which
means it will probably be 50 years at the earliest before there would be any light rail to
Mound. '
The City of Minnetrista is favorable with turning the line into a recreational trail. The City
of Minnetonka Beach is concerned having the trail so close to residences and their fear of
increased crime. The Mayor of Minnetonka Beach stated he would have to convince his
citizens of the positive side of such a trail in their community. Peter Johnson stated that in
talking with the Hennepin Parks they did not need unanimous approval. Lack of unanimous
approval will create at least one technical hurdle that being Hennepin Parks does not have
condemnation authority. They would have to get municipal approval to acquire within a
municipality or have special legislative action taken, however, if it is a 50 year lease with
MNDOT, there is no need to get an acquisition.
Peter stated that Hennepin Parks will develop the trail, which will include taking out the old
rails, etc. He stated there may be some financial concerns for the cities, such as the trestle
over Westedge. Peter also stated that in talking with Bruce Chamberlain, there could be a
considerable savings on the County Rd. /715 reroute if the railroad wasn't there.
Peter Johnson suggested the best strategy would be to be pro-active and have Hennepin Parks
meet with the railroad, letting them know they have an alternative to trying to patch this
railroad together for another eight years. His concern is that Rail America may wish to
continue using the line. Even if they lost $150,000 a year for the next eight years, they
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 1999
would still be ahead by being able to acquire the property for 1 1/2 million dollars cheaper.
If they did this the health and safety issues would become more and more pronounced as the
years go by. The only inspection on the line would be by a licensed engineer inspecting the
line once a week and certifying that it is passable by rail. Passable by rail means the
engineer driving the train believes he can get over the section of track.
Fran Clark pointed out that we should possibly involve the legislature regarding the condition of the
line due to the health and safety issues. Peter again stated that his main desire is to have the rail
corridor abandoned and converted into a recreational trail.
There was no further discussion. Mark
Brewer stated his motion still stands. Paul Meisei called for a vote and it was passed
unanimously.
Pat Meisel stated the resolution will be presented to the Council at their next meeting.
TIF UPDATE
Pat Meisel stated that the City Council approved TIF for the district on Tuesday. The Park and Open
Space Commission wanted us to exclude the Green Space in the former Community Center site. The
Council chose not to do this and left it in the TIF District. In mm, the Planning Commission
requested the Council to add two pieces of property but because the entire TIF process would have to
start all over to include those properties, the Council decided not to do that. If the property owners of
the two parcels are interested in doing something with their given areas, we can set up a new TIF
District. Also, as the project is now set up, there is 25% of the dollars that can be spent outside of a
given TIF District, so they may be eligible for some funding. The two properties are Green T
Accounting and the old Phillips 66 Station. Pat Meisel stated we are moving forward with the
implementation of TIF.
Jerry Pietrowski asked about the Johnson property on Commerce Blvd. Pat Meisel pointed out that
there could not be any negotiations until TIF was approved. There has always been a preliminary
developers agreement, but now that TIF is established, a final development agreement is in the
process of being finalized. The next process will be to talk with the building owners. Bill Beard will
be getting back to us in March with his definite plan. If Bill Beard's refined plan meets Council
approval, bonds could be sold shortly thereafter.
UPDATE ON THE COMMUNITY CENTER SITE
Pat Meisel stated that Bill Pineger was very evasive yesterday as to what the school district was going
to do. However, he did say that according to the purchase agreement, the land was to be cleaned and
the hole filled, so the developer would be buying open land. Because it is not cleaned up, the
developer may not want to close on the property and the closing date may be extended.
3
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 1999
OLD BUSINESS
Pat Meisel stated that the boat will most likely not be restored because there is no historical
significance in it, It was a very difficult boat to steer and could not come down the channel. Paul
stated they may try to either sell the entire boat or just the engine and destroy the boat itself.
BUY A BRICK PROGRAM
A list was presented of citizens that have already purchased a brick Gino stated he has received
questions on whether or not logos can be put on the brick and if abbreviations can be used. It was
pointed out that abbreviations can be used but to remind the purchaser that a period is considered a
letter. Also, logos can be used but it needs to be on a larger brick and it would cost more than just
letters.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION made by Brewer, seconded by Shirley McMenamy-Cook to adjourn the
meeting. The motion was passed unanimously.
The next meeting will be January 13, 2000. Jerry Pietrowski will bring rolls to the next meeting.
4
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
December 16, 1999
V.F.W. Post No. 5113
2544 Commerce Blvd.
Mound, FfN 55364
Dear V.F.W. Members,
I would like to thank you for your donation of $500.00 to
the City of Mound for park benches.
Just within the last week I had a request from a resident
for benches at one of the city parks.
I will present this gift to the Park and Open Space Advisory
Committee at their next meeting on January 13, 2000 and
notify the Mayor/City Council of your organizations
generosity.
When I have the locations of bench placements I will update
you with that information.
cc: Mayor/City Council
Park and Open Space Advisory Committee
printed on recycled paper
PAY
TO TH E
ORDER OF
MEMO
CHAMBERLAIN - GOUDY
V.F.W. POST NO. 5113
GAMBLING ACCOUNT LIC. NO. 00469
2544 COMMERCE BLVD. / 472-1621
MOUND, MN 55364-1430
MARQUETTE BANK 6 2 9 5
2220 COMMERCE BOULEVARD
MOUND, MN 55364 62 9 5
12 / 15 / 19 9 9
75-1664/910
CITY OF MOUND
FIVE HUNDRED AND
CITY REQUESTED AiD
$ ****500.00
********************************************************
'I-
LG503
Minnesota Lawful Gambling
Request by a Gove,*nment to Sl end Ga:: bling Funds
Narn~ of Governrnen~ R~ums~/ng Funds
CITY 0I:
~4~ MAYWOOn RO~ MOUND
Che~ ~pe al government m~ing request:
~ Stale of Uinneso~a, Oepa~ment ot
~ Un~e~ ~lates, Department of
~ ~he/~vemment~ Enfi~ -
iPhone Number
( 472~620
State Z~p Code
MN 55364-1687
r-~ School District No.
, Division of
· Divisi~ 3f
OrganizaL'on Phone Numcer I..men~ Hum:er
V;WPORT5143 (612 )472-1621 A00469
2544 COMMERCE RLVD. MOUND MN 55364.1420
Ina aDore-named g(~vernment r~uasts tabu] gamcting pmhts ~or ~ha fol~wing pu~s~:
(explain axpend~ure - a~a~h ~d~icnal ~heets if necassart. Amcunt
$ S00.00
PRRK¢ F~JHDING DONATlnW
By completing zncl s~gning this form, the government's agent confirms that the r~uest,d funds will be ~pent lo~ a/awful
purpose. T'ni~ requ~t expires one year from the date below and may be renewed at the request or,he ~:al ~c~vemi~g bccly.
Usa of Form:
1. il an orgardzation wishes to c~ribute gambling funds to & governing b<xfy, the governing body must complete this form.
2. Aooroval ol' the Gamblln~ Control Board ia not resulted.
3. The Iorm should be kept on fiie by the licensed organtzatbn.
4. Attach a co~v of this form to your Schedule C R~ort for the month In which iht funds are soenL
Partnerl for Lifelong
I. earning
12/15/99
TO: Planning Commission, City of Mound
FROM: Pamela J. Myers, Ph.D.. Superintendent, W__estonka. Public Schools
~ '- ', 7!;, .,
RE: M.S. 46_.o>6 ~_i '- ...... _~,-' ~<--~
Pursuant to M.S. 46_..256. Subd. 2, the Westonka Public Schools hereby' notifies the City
of Mound Planning Commission of the school district's intention to sell approximately 19
acres at the comer of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard in Mound, .:MN',
(also 'l, mown as the "old high school" property) to Trail Head Land Development Corp.,
with a closing date of February, 1, 2000.
Mike Beach, Attorney, Faegre & Benson
Pat Meisel, Mayor, City of Mound
Bill Pinegar, Chair, Westonka School Board
Lynwood site 12/99
Independent lchool Diltrict z77
Administrative Offices · 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A · Mound MN 55364 · p: 612/491-8007 · f: 612/491-8012 · www. westonka.kl2.mn.us
.! o" m
Med ac
Mediacom LLC
14162 Commerce Ave.
Suite 100
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 440-968
FAX: (612) 440-9661
Tom Bordwell
Director of GoYernment Relations
December 29, 1999
Mr. Pat Meisel, Mayor
Mound City Hall
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Meisel,
On behalf of Mediacom, I would like to wish you a Happy New Year and take the opportunity
to update you about our service to your community!
It has been a very busy year, and our employees have accomplished many tasks. We have
worked hard to continue making progress in customer service, continued our rebuild and
upgrade programs, added additional programming when possible, and begun the rollout of
new digital television services and Internet services. We have also completed the purchase
of Triax and have spent the last several weeks getting ready for exciting new services in
2000!
New programming choices for your community!
Mediacom is happy to announce the new programming choices available to our customers!
The enclosed page outlines the new channels and/or changes to the programming channel
line up. These new services and prices will be effective beginning in February!
Customers wiii be receiving cllrect notification of the programming changes as well.
Mediacom is pleased to be your new cable television service provider! We will be rolling out
our 'new look' early next year and are committed to providing your community with excellent
products and services!
IFX)
Mediacom ~
1504 2nd Street SE?, Waseca, MN 56093
PRESORTED
FIRST CLASS MAIL
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT ~447
DAYTONA BEACH,
FLORIDA
Important Customer Service Information
Notification of Rate Adjustment
Mound, ~conia & Waysata
151
League of )4innesota Cities
145 t'nivcrsity Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (65l) 281-1200 . (800) 925-1122
Fax: (651) 281-1299 . TDD (651) 28t-1290
Web Site: w-ww.lmnc.or~
December !4, !999
TO:
FROM:
RE:
City Administrator/>Ianager/C!erk
Gar',', Carlson ~
Director., Ime,t "5-oxe. nm,-ntA~ '- '~ ~ Relations
2000 City Policies
Enclosed is a cop,,,' of the final 2000 League of Minnesota Cities legislative policies as amended
and approved by the membership at the November Policy Adoption Conference. I would like to
personally thank each city official who dedicated a significant amount of their summer and fall
schedules to the League's policy development process. Their input was instrumental in shaping
and directing the League's legislative agenda.
The League's IGR staff will begin the process of drafting these policies into legislation for the
upcoming session. However, simply drafting and introducing legislation will not guarantee that
our concerns will be addressed. During the session, we may call upon you to testify or contact
your legislators on issues of concern to cities. Although your League Intergovernmental
Relations staff will work hard to represent city interests during the session, our greatest strength
is you and >,our continued involvement.
If you have an5, questions, comments, or need assistance on these issues, please feel free to
contact any member of the League's Intergovernmental Relations Department.
GNC:mjd
Enc.
L:mdiedric/policies/cities 2000 polic.,, mailing
AN EQUAL OP. ORTUNITY,'AFFIRMATIV2 ACTION EMPLOYER
CONTENTS
League Staff ........................................................................................................................ iv
Legislative Policy Committee Members .............................................................................. v
Policy Development Process ................................................................................................ viii
General Policy Statement ..................................................................................................... ix
Advisory Committee on Improving Community Life Policy Guideline ...
X
2000 CITY POLICIES
Improving Fiscal Futures .................................................................................... 1
FF-i.
FF-2.
FF-3.
FF-4.
FF-5.
FF-6.
FF-7.
FF-8.
FF-9.
FF- 10.
FF-I 1.
FF-12.
FF-13.
FF-14.
FF-15.
FF-16.
FF-17.
State-Local Fiscal Relations .................................................................................. !
State Shared R~.'~'~'~,.n ues' ......................................................................................... 2
Taxation of Municipal Bond Nteresr ................................................................... 2
City Fiscal Year .................................................................................................... 2
Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases ......................................................... 2
Payments for Services to Tax-Exempt Property .................................................. 3
Truth-in-Taxation ................................................................................................. 3
State Administrative Deductions from State Aid ................................................. 3
Reporting Requirements ........................................................................................ 3
Federal Budget Cutbacks ....................................................................................... 3
Price of Government ............................................................................................. 3
Capital Improvement Fees ..................................................................................... 4
Deferred Assessments for Roads .......................................................................... 4
Taxation of Electronic Commerce ....................................................................... 4
Local Option Sales Tax ........................................................................................ 5
Limited Market Value ........................................................................................... 5
State Charges for Administrative Services ........................................................... 5
Improving Local Economies ........................................................................ 6
LE-1.
LE-2.
LE-3.
LE -4.
LE-5.
LE-6.
LE-7.
LE-8.
LE-9.
LE-10.
LE-11.
LE-12.
Tax Incement Financing ....................................................................................... 6
Tff: Reform ........................................................................................................... 6
Impact of Property Tax Reform on Existing TIF Districts ................................... 7
Business Subsidies ............................................................................................... 7
Economic Development Programs ....................................................................... 8
Redevelopment Programs ..................................................................................... 8
Property Tax Abatement Authority ....................................................................... 8
Brownfields .......................................................................................................... 8
OSA Response Timelines ...................................................................................... 9
OSA Time Limitations .......................................................................................... 10
Growth Management and Annexation ................................................................. 10
State and/or County Licensed Residential Facilities ............................................. 11
2000 City Policies
LE-13.
LE-14.
LE-15.
LE- 16.
LE-17.
LE-18.
LE-19.
LE-20.
LE-21.
LE-22.
LE-23.
LE-24.
LE-25.
LE-26.
LE-2$.
Housing and Economic Viability ..........................................................................
Housing Preservation ............................................................................................
City Role in Telecommunications .........................................................................
Adequate Funding for Transportation ...................................................................
State Aid for Urban Road Systems ........................................................................
Turnbacks of County and State Roads ..................................................................
Road Funding for Cities Under 5,000 ...................................................................
Railroad-Related Projects .....................................................................................
Access Management & Plat Approval ..................................................................
Right of Way Management ..................................................................................
Effective Telecommunications Competition .........................................................
Local Zoning of Telecommunications Facilities ...................................................
Workforce Readiness ............................................................................................
Platting Law Recodification ..................................................................................
Economic Development Authorities .....................................................................
,~:ast~ucture r-una,,ng O?tions .............................................................................
11
12
13
!3
13
14
!4
!4
15
t5
!5
16
16
~6
Improving Service Delivery ...........................................................................
SD-1.
SD-2.
SD-3.
SD-4.
SD-5.
SD-6.
SD-7.
SD-8.
SD-9.
SD-10.
SD-!I.
SD-12.
SD-13.
SD-14.
SD-15.
SD-16.
SD-17.
SD-18.
SD-19.
SD-20.
SD-21.
SD-22.
SD-23.
SD-24.
SD-25.
SD-26.
SD-27.
SD-28.
Redesigning and R,~,n,,,n .... = Government ..........................................................
Unfunded Mandates .............................................................................................
Civil Liability of Local Governments ..................................................................
Environmental Protection .....................................................................................
Election Issues ......................................................................................................
Local Election Authority .......................................................................................
City Costs for Enforcing State and Local Laws ...................................................
Access to Information Technology and Services .................................................
Design-Build .........................................................................................................
Providing Lnformation to '~i '"
~ [1z,~ns .........................................................................
Creating a Minnesota GIS Program .....................................................................
State Regulation of Massage Therapists ...............................................................
Private Property Rights and Takings .....................................................................
Construction Codes ...............................................................................................
Fees for Service ....................................................................................................
Board of Firefighter Training ...............................................................................
Witness Fees .........................................................................................................
State Appropriation for Government Training Service ........................................
Year 2000 Issues ...................................................................................................
New Public Safety Spectrum Needs ......................................................................
Joint & Several Liability Reform ..........................................................................
Official Newspaper Designation ...........................................................................
Competitive Bid Threshold ..................................................................................
Membership in Watershed Management Organizations .......................................
Legalization of Fireworks .....................................................................................
Election Judge Appointment .................................................................................
Election Judge Compensation ...............................................................................
Counting Write-in Votes .......................................................................................
17
i7
18
18
2O
20
20
20
21
21
21
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
ii
League of Minnesota Cities
SD-29. Telecommunications Restructuring .......................................................................
SD-30. 911 Funding ...........................................................................................................
Human Resources & Data Practices ............................................................
Human Resources
HR-1.
HR-2.
HR-3.
HR-4.
HR-5.
HR-6.
HR-7.
HR-8.
HR-9.
HR-10.
HR-i t.
HR-!2.
Veterans Preference .............................................................................................
Discipline and Discharge .......................................................................................
Compensation Limits ............................................................................................
PELRA ..................................................................................................................
Essential Employees ..............................................................................................
Pensions .................................................................................................................
Age Certificates / I-9 Forms ..................................................................................
Employer Reference Immunity .............................................................................
State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance .......................................................
Breathalyzers .........................................................................................................
Preservation of Local Decision-Making Authority on Empioym. ent
Related Issues ........................................................................................................
Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation ..........................................................................
Data Practices
DP-I.
DP-2.
DP-3.
DP-4.
DP-5.
DP-6
DP-7.
Public Access to Information ................................................................................
State Model Policies and Training ........................................................................
Tennessen Warning ...............................................................................................
Government Data Practices Act Recodification and Conformance ......................
Alternative Dispute Resolution for Violations of Government
Data Practices Act .................................................................................................
GDPA Compliance for Contracting ......................................................................
Acquisition of Electronic Surveillance Devices ....................................................
Federal
FED- 1.
FED-2.
FED-3.
Employment Law
FLS.&'Overtime Compensation .............................................................................
Peace Officer Bill of Rights ..................................................................................
Portability of Deferred Compensation ..................................................................
Electric Deregulation .... .............
Adequate Supply and Demand .............................................................................................
Consumer Protection ............................................................................................................
Environmental Concerns ......................................................................................................
Fair Market Competition ......................................................................................................
Local Authority ....................................................................................................................
Stranded Cost Recovery ......................................................................................................
Property Tax .........................................................................................................................
28
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
3!
3!
3!
32
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
2000 City Policies
111
LEAGUE STAFF WORKING WITH STATE AND FEDERAL ISSUES
Jim Miller, Executive Director
Mandates, telecommunications
Gary Carlson, Director of Intergovernmental Relations
Aid to cities, electric utility restructuring, general revenue sources for cities,
personnel, property tax system, tax increment financing, transportation
Kevin Frazetl, Director of Member Services
Government innovation and cooperation, electric utility restructuring
Tom Grundhoefer, General Counsel
General munic,.'pal governance, telecommunications
Ann Higgins, Intergovernmental Relations Representative
Elections and ethics, housing, information policy, telecommunications, utility
service districts, year 2000
Andrea Stearns, Intergovernmental Relations Representative
Civil liability and criminal justice, economic development and redevelopment,
general government, local/tribal relations, tax increment financing, business
subsidies
Remi
Stone, Intergovernmental Relations Representative
Cb'ii liability, environment, general government, housing and building codes,
labor relations, land use/annexation, personnel, transportation and transit
Eric Willette, Intergovernmental Relations Representative
Aid to cities, general revenue sources for cities, pensions, property tax system,
public safety
iv
League of Minnesota Cities
Legislative Policy Committee Members
Improving Fiscal Futures
Dan Vogt, Chair. City Administrator, Brainerd
Terri Heaton, Vice Chair, Chief Financial Officer,
Bloomington
Richard Abraham, City Administrator, Lake City
Karen Anderson, Mayor, Minnetonka
Bill Barnhart, Intergovernmental Relations,
Minneapolis
Tom Butt, City Administrator, Rosemount
Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Mound
Gerald Butcher, Public Works Director, Maple Grove
Mike Campbell. Intergovernmental Relations Director.
St. Paul
Jane Chambers, Assistant City Manager, Brooklyn
Center
Tom Cram Budget Office. St. Paul
John Erar, City Administrator, Farmington
Jerrry Faust. Councilmember, St. Anthony
Bob Filson. City Administrator, Worthington
Roger Fraser, City Manager. Blaine
Jeff Haubrich, Assistant Council Adminstrator. Red
Wing
Steve Helget. City Administrator, Eagle Lake
Pat Hentges, City Manager, Mankato
Greg [saackson. Clerk-Administrator. Cottonwood
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney. Lindstrom
Larry Juhl, Mayor, Next' London
Elizabeth Kautz. Mayor. Burnsvilte
James Keinath, City Administrator. Circle Pines
Dennis Kraft, City Manager. Robbinsdale
Bob Larson. City Administrator, Deephaven
Tom Lawel!. City Administrator. Apple Valley
Joe Lynch. City Administrator, Long Lake
Paul McLaughlin. Counciimember, International Falls
Tom Melena, City Administrator, Oak Park Heights
Steve Mielke, City Manager, Hopkins
David Minke. City Administrator, Glenwood
John Moir, Finance Director, Minneapolis
Gary Neumann, Assistant Administrator, Rochester
Steve O'Malley, Deputy Manager, Burnsville (alternate)
Steve Okins, Finance Director, Willmar
Roger Peterson, Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities
Douglas Reeder, City Administrator, South St. Paul
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator, Cottage Grove
Alfred Schumann, Mayor, Eyota
Jennifer Schwinn, Finance Director, Big Lake
Jim Smith. Councilmember, Independence
Gerald Sorenson, Administrative Services Director,
Moorhead
David Stutelberg, Treasurer, North Branch
Joy Tierney, Mayor, Plymouth
David Mark Urbia. City Administrator, Blue Earth
Gene VanOverbeke, Finance Director, Eagan
Chuck Whiting, City Administrator, Mounds View
Jim Willis, City Administrator, Inver Grove Heights
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, Monticello
Improving Local Economies
Duane Zaun, Chair, Mayor, Lakeville
Leo W. Eidred, Vice Chair, Councilmember, Moorhead
David Beaudet. Councihnember, Oak Park Heights
Robert Benke, Mayor, New Brighton
Steve Bjork, City Planner/Coordinator, St. Francis
' _ . C ~r~. Avon
Caroi,.n Bloniznn, City "~ '
Curt Boganey, City Manager. Brooklyn Park
Jerry Bohnsack, City Administrator. New Prague
Lavonne Bowman. ,..ouncnmembe,. Fairmont
Gerald Brever. City Administrator, Staples
Mike Campbe?~ lntergovermental Reiations Director,
St. Paul
Ke:'in Carroll. Economic Development Coordinator,
Mounds View
David Childs, City Manager. Minnetonka
Grant Ferne!ius, Housing Coordinator, Fridley
John Flora. PuNic Works Director. Fridley
Keith Ford, Community Development Agency,
Minneapolis
Matt Fulton, City Manager, New Brighton
Richard Fursman, City Administrator, Andover
Tom Goodwin. Counciimember, Apple Valley
Mary Gover, Councilmember, St. Peter
Robert Haeussinger, Cit.',' Administrator, Dodge Center
Tom Harmening, Community Development Director,
St. Louis Park
Jon Hohenstein, City Administrator, Mahtomedi
Susan Hoyt, City Administrator, Falcon Heights
Curtis Jacobsen, City Administrator, Big Lake
Brenda Johnson, Councilmember, Chatfield
Marvin Johnson, Mayo, Independence
Andrea Hart Kajer, Intergovernmental Relations
Director, Minneapolis (alternate)
Sandra Krebsbach, Councilmember, Mendota Heights
Larry Les, Community Development Director,
Bloomington
Marcia Marcoux, Councilmember, Rochester
Michael McGuire, City Manager, Maplewood
Peter Meintsma, Mayor, Crystal
Mark Nagel, City Manager, Anoka
Dennis Nelson, City Administrator, Windom
Steve O'Malley, Deputy Manager, Burnsville
16"/
2000 City Policies
v
David Olson, Community Development Director,
Farmington
Bruce Peterson, Director Planning & Development
Services, Willmar
Roger Peterson, Association of Metropolitan
Muncipalities
Gene Ranieri, Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities
Mike Reardon, Cable .Administrator, Burnsville
Dan Rogness, Community Development Director,
Rosemount
Joe Rudberg, City Administrator, Becker
Nancy Rys-Nicol. Management Assistant. Shoreview
Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake
David Schaaf, Mayor. Oak Park Heights
Terry Schneider, Councilmember. Minnetonka
Terry Spaeth. Administrati;e Assistant, Rochester
Klm Sullivan, Mayor, Lino Lakes
Daniel Tempei. Housing Coordinator, Maple Grove
Robert Therres. City Administrator, Sartell
Craig Waidron, City Administrator. Oakdaie
Jeff We!don. City Administrator, Redwood Falls
Julia Whalen. Councilmember. Champlin
Myron White. Port Authority Director. Red Wing
Denny Wiide. City Administrator. Paynesville
Betty Zac~,m_ann, Clerk-Treasurer. Winsted
Improving Service Delivery
Mark Karnowski, Chair, City .Administrator, Lindstrom
Judd Mowry. Councilmember, Tonka Bay
Beverly Aplikowski. Councilmember, Arden Hills
Mike Campbell. Intergovernmental Relations Director.
St. Paul
Diane Carlson, Mayor. Mantorville
Pat Crawford. Clerk-Treasurer, Motley
Jerry Dulgar. City Manager, Crystal
Steve Gatlin, Public Works Director. Coon Rapids
Theresa GoNe, Finance Director, Brainerd
Tom Hanson. Deputy Manager, Burnsville
Joel Hanson, City Administrator, Little Canada
Kay Kuhlmann, Council Administrator, Red Wing
Desyl Peterson, City Attorney, Minnetonak
Gene Ranieri, Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities
David School, Mayor, Oak Park Heights
David Senjem, Councilmember, Rochester
Chad Shryock, City Administrator, Wabasha
Joyce Twistol. Clerk/Personnel Director, Blaine
Korea Lowery Wagner, Intergovernmental Relations,
~Iinneapolis
Rena Weber, Clerk/Coordinator, Cold Spring
Phil Zietlow. Councihnember, Medina
Human Resources & Data Practices
Joyce Twistol, Chair, Clerk/Personnel Director, Blaine
Geralyn Barone, Assistant City Manager, Minnetonka
Patricia Crawford, Clerk, Morley
Holly Duffy, Assistant to Manager, Crystal
Jerry Dulgar, City Manager, Crystal
Christina Frankenfield, City Administrator, Howard
Lake
Jean Gramling, City Administrator, Savage
Terry Haltiner, Risk Analyst, St. Paul
Ken Hartung, City Administrator, Bayport
Kay Kuh!mann, Council Administrator. Red Wing
Korea Kurt. Personnel Manager, Roseville
Ed Larson. Cit>, Manager, Morris
Ko:' McAlonev. Personnel Director. Ano!-:a
Tim Madigan. City Administrator, Faribault
Ceil Smith. Assistant to Manager. Edina
Jerry Splinter. City Manager, Coon Rapids
Elizabeth Wi',eeier. Human Resources/T. isk Man::g~:.
Norrh~eid
Harold Windschitl. Councilmember. Sleep>' Eve
Electric Deregulation Task Force
Kathleen Shoran. Chair, Councilmember, Mankato
Brvan Adams. General Manager, Elk River Munici=al
Utilities
Jim Aspiund. Flaherty & Associates, St. Paul
Korea Baker. House Research
Larry Bakken, Councilmember, Golden Valle>,
Mike Bash. Councilmember, Long Lake
David Berg, RW Beck, Minneapolis
Troy Bonkowske, Community Development Director,
Caledonia
Jim Brimeyer, Councilmember. St. Louis Park
Chuck Canfield, Mayor, Rochester
A1 Crowser, Director. Alexandria Public Utilities
Jim E!mquist, City Administrator, Mora
Robert Filson, City Administrator, Worthington
Paul Grabitske, City Administrator, Janesville
James Gromberg, City Administator, Isanti
Delvin Haag, Councilmember, Buffalo
Ken Hartung, City Administrator, Bayport
Jeffry Haubrich, Asst. to Council Administrator, Red
Wing
Richard Johnson, Metropolitan Council
Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor, Burnsville
Ivlark Larson, Clerk-Administrator, Glencoe
Rebecca Law, Minneapolis
Para Marshall, Energy Cents Coalition
Kevin Maynard, General Manager, Austin Utilities
Charles Mertensotto, Mayor. Mendota Heights
vi
League of Minnesota Cities
Robert Museus, City Administrator, Hugo
Mark Nagel, City Manager, Anoka
Mike Nitchals, General Manager, Willmar Municipal
Utilities
Paul Ostrow, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Greg Oxley, MN Municipal Utilities Association
John Remkus, Finance Director, West St. Paul
Joe Rudberg, City Administrator, Becker
Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake
Jerry Splinter, City Manager, Coon Rapids
Jim Willis, City Administrator, Inver Grove Heights
Representative Ken Wolf, Minnesota House of
Representatives
Wally Wysopal, City Manager-Clerk, North St. Paul
2000 City Policies
vii
League of Minnesota Cities
Policy Development Process
The League's policy development process has taken place over the past six months. The process
began with a member survey of priority issues facing city officials. The process will not end with the
Policy Adoption Conference. The committees will schedule additional meetings during the
upcoming legislative session to discuss additional issues, develop alternative solutions, and discuss
strategies to implement the League's policies.
Listed below is a brief chronology of the major events in the policy development process. At each
step, members have the opportunity to participate in the development process.
April/May
The League solicits members for ideas and problems. A survey at the Annual
Conference allows members ro forma!!:' suggest topics.
.June
The League President accepts applications i-'or committees and appoints policy
committee members.
The policy committees are:
Improving Fiscal Futures
Improving Local Economies
Improving Service Delive~
Personnel, Pensions. Labor Reiations& Data
Practices
Electric Dereguiation
July
Committees meet to discuss issues raised in the member survey. Committees can also
form task c ~
~orc,s to more thoroughly stud.,,' specific issues. Task forces can include
noncity members with a knowledge of the focus issue.
August
through
September
Committees and task forces meet to discuss issues and problems, accept
testimony and develop policy statements.
October
The League Board of Directors meets with the chairs of the policy committees to
review policies.
November
Policy Adoption Conference. Members have the opportunity to discuss the draft
policies, propose changes, and suggest additional policies for member consideration.
January
through
May
Legislative session. During the session, the policy committees and task forces
will continue to meet on issues and strategies. Members can assist the League's
legisl&ive efforts by volunteering to contact legislators on a variety of issues of
interest to our cities.
VIII
League of Minnesota Cities
General Policy Statement
The League of Minnesota Cities serves as a forum for cities to define Common problems and develop
policies and proposals to solve those problems.
The League of Minnesota Cities represents 815 of Minnesota's 853 cities as well as 12 urban towns
and 27 special districts. All sizes of communities are represented among the League's members (the
largest nonmember city has a population of 167) and all regions of the state are represented.
The policies that follow are directed at specific city issues. Two principles guide the development of
all League policies:
There is a need for a governmental system that allows flexibility and authority for cities to
" ' · r-, the
meet the challenges of governing and providing citizens w~tn services whn,~ at same
rime - '~ ~' Z .......
p,ot~.c,~n_ cities tlom unfunded or underfunded mandates, liabiiiry or other f;,',nc:ai
risk, and restrictions on local control: and,
The financial and technical requirements for governing and providing services necessitate a
continuing and strengthened partnership with federal, state, and local governments. This
partnership, particularly in the areas of finance, development, housing, environment and
transportation, is critical for the successful operation of Minnesota's cities and the well-
being of residents.
2000 City Policies
ix
IMPROVING COMMUNITY LIFE
CL-1. Healthy Communities
To the greatest extent possible, legislation affecting communiues at the state and federal leve! should
enhance, not diminish, the ability of citizens, businesses, and local governments to work together in
partnership to make every community "livable."
ISSUE: Cities in Minnesota are at various stages in meeting the goal of being "livable healthy
communities.
RESPONSE: The definition of a "livable healthy community" below will be used to evaluate
proposed legislation to determine whether or not it advances the goal of enabling all Minnesota
cities to become livable healthy communities. It should also be used by cities to evaluate their
progress toward the goal of becoming livable healthy communities.
A L~ ABLE HEALTHY COMMUNITY iS:
WHERE PEOPLE OF ALL AGES
· share a core of common values including valuing diversity, respect for each other, and good
citizenship
feel:
* safe
* a sense of belonging
* welcome
,.ne.=.. in life-long learning activities that:
* promote responsible citizenship
* enhance the enjoyment of life
* prepare them for changing job markets
· participate in the decision-making process with community leaders
· celebrate community
· want to make their home
have access to:
* good paying jobs
* adequate and affordable housing
* choice of efficient transportation systems including transit, pedestrians, and bicycles
* gathering places
League of Minnesota Cities
* desired information
* choice of cultural and recreational activities
* affordable goods and services, including health care
are involved in the nurturing of youth
care about their homes, community, and the environment
get to know each other
have the benefit of strong family support and nurturing adults
WHERE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
· is responsive to the needs of its citizens
· is acri,.'e!y supported by enthusiastic volunteers
· is open and user friendly
· encourages and implements cooperation and collaboration
· provides and maintains an adequate physical infrastructure and promotes social infrastructure to
meet local needs
· educates citizens of ail ages on local, regional, and state issues and government processes
· informs and communicates with citizens to foster participation in public policy decision-making
· participates in youth development
2000 City Policies
xi
2000 C~?Y POLICIES
IMPROVING FISCAL FUTURES
FF-1. State-Local Fiscal Relations
Issue: Minnesota's state and local
government finance system is complex and
intertwined. While cities rely on their
partnership with the state to provide local
services, they also must respond to the
needs and desires of their residents. To that
end, cities need discretion and flexibility in
determining how to ~.nance needed .,ocal
services.
In each of the past three years, the
M,,nnesota
le~islature~made ch'~,~oe< to '
property tax system that will impact the
ability of local governments to fund
necessao' services. The reimposition of
levy limits, significant class rate
compression, and changes in state funding
of schools all may have unintended
consequences. Now the Governor has
initiated a study of the property tax system
with the intention of proposing additional
ma.ior property tax reforms in 2001.
Response: As the Governor and
legislators consider additional property
tax changes, they should:
· Carefully analsze the combined
impacts of the 1997, 1998, and 1999
tax bills and changing economic
circumstances on the taxpayer and
on local governments so that policy
makers can better understand where
the system ma)' need further
changes;
· Diversify available city revenue
sources by generally authorizing
cities to impose a local option sales
tax with voter approval; and
· Reduce the property tax burden for
all classes of property by increasing
the state share of school funding.
Any increase in the state share of
school funding must guarantee a
permanent reduction in the local
property tax burden. The League
supports paying for the increased
state costs through income and sales
taxes.
The Legislature should not:
· Extend levy limits, which are
inefficient, ineffective, interfere with
local accountability, and ignore local
circumstances;
Impose reverse referenda
requirements, which undermine the
decisions of local elected officials,
divert focus and resources from
daily operations, and can disrupt the
local budget process;
· Replace all or part of LGA or HACA
with state-mandated categorical aid
programs, or local option taxing
authority;
· Switch from the classification system
to a market value based system,
which would cause tremendous shifts
of tax burden between classes of
property. The League also opposes
applying all future levy increases to
market value because this would
further complicate the property tax
system;
· Expand the limited market value law
or enact an acquisition value law;
· Interfere in local decision-making
regarding service delivery;
· Impose a state-levied property tax;
nor
· Cut LGA or HACA to finance an
increased state role in school finance.
2000 City Policies
FF-2. State Shared Revenues
Issue: State revenue sharing programs
address at least three problems with a stand-
alone local government finance system. First,
the property tax base available to communities
can vapy dramatically. These programs use
state resources to equalize the
ability of communities to provide essential
services without undue property tax burdens
for local residents.
Second, nonresidents can take advantage
o£ iocal services or create additional demands
for services without contributing to the taxes
that support these services. LGA and HACA
help address the flee rider problem where
non?a:,'ing individuals consume services
witheut contributing to the local tax base.
Third, allowing local units of government
in Minnesota to levy only the property tax has
created an over-reliance on the property tax.
LGA and HACA can reduce the overall
reliance of local governments on the property
tax.
Although historically the legislature has
generally supported LGA and HACA
programs, the 1981 legislature reduced the
number of LGA and HACA payments and the
1986 legislature delayed the payments. Under
current law, the first payment of LGA and
HACA is made in July--fully 7 months into
each city's fiscal year. These changes have
created cash flow problems for some cities.
Response: LGA and HACA, or similar
replacement revenues, must be continued
and additional state resources greater than
the rate of inflation must be allocated to
prevent rapid future property tax increases.
In addition, the HACA household growth
factor for cities should be reinstated.
The legislature should adjust the LGA and
HACA payment schedule to provide cities
access to LGA and HACA earlier in their
fiscal year.
FF-3. Taxation of Municipal Bond
Interest
Issue: The state law that grants a tax
exemption for municipal bond interest lowers
borrowing costs for cities and reduces
property tax levies.
Response: The state should maintain
the tax exemption for municipal bond
interest ':ncome.
FY-4. City Fiscal Year
Issue: The c: ,
,iSCal ','ear for
.... ..s and
counties currently corr, esponds to the ?ro?erty
tax cycle.
Response: The state should maintain
current law and not change the city fiscal
year to coincide with the state fiscal year.
FF-5. Sales Tax on Local
Government Purchases
Issue: In 1992 when the state was
experiencing a budget shortfall, the
Legislature repealed the sales tax exemption
for local government purchases. Local
governments now pa)' state sales tax on
purchases like road maintenance supplies and
equipment, wastewater treatment facilities,
and building materials for affordable housing.
This action cu~ently costs local property
taxpayers and ratepayers an estimated $90
million annually. Because no additional state
aids were added to offset the additional cost,
this repeal has effectively increased local
property taxes to finance state operations.
Response: The state should reinstate
the sales tax exemption for all local
League of Minnesota Cities
government purchases. The exemption
must not be coupled with cuts in LGA or
HACA.
FF-6. PaYments for Services to Tax-
Exempt Property
Issue: Taxable property in many cities is
being acquired by nonprofit and government
entities. Converting the property to tax-
exempt status can lead to a serious tax base
erosion without any corresponding reduction
in the service needs created by the property.
Response: CRies should be allowed to
collect special assessments or other
payments in lieu of property taxes (or
special assessments) from statutorily
exempt property owners to cover costs of
service.
FF-7. Truth-in-Taxation Process
Issue: Cities must set a preliminary levy
by September 15 which, by law, becomes the
maximum that cities can levy for the
following year. In recent years, cities have not
received complete tax base and aid
information in a timely manner. As a result,
cities often either set a prelimina~ levy that is
artificially high or they are unable to budget
for unforeseen needs that arise after
September 15.
Response: The League supports changes
to the Truth-in-Taxation process to provide
more meaningful information to citizens.
Cities should have the authority to increase
the final levy from the preliminary levy to
meet unforeseen and uncontrollable needs.
FF-8. State Administrative
Deductions from State Aid
Issue: State administrative costs are
deducted from the LGA appropriation. This
2000 City Policies
reduces the property tax relief provided by
LGA and creates hidden appropriations for
state agencies.
Response: All appropriations from
LGA resources that fund state operations
should be repealed.
FF-9. Reporting Requirements
Issue: Budget and financial reporting
requirements imposed on cities by the state
often result in duplication and additional cests.
Response: Requirements for reporting
and advertising financial and budget
information should be carefully weighed to
balance the validity of the state's need for
additional information with the costs and
burdens of compiling and submitting this
information. In addition, all state agencies
should be aware of the information already
required by others to avoid duplication of
reporting requirements.
FF-10. Federal Budget Cutbacks
Issue: Congressional actions to balance
the federal budget or to cut taxes will reduce
federal assistance to the state and to local
governments.
Response: The state should not reduce
aids or increase fees to local governments as
a means for dealing with cutbacks in
federal revenues. The state should take
responsibility for reductions in federal
revenues rather than placing the burden on
cities and their property taxpayers.
FF-11. Price of Government
Issue: The price of government legislation
enacted in 1994 was intended to measure the
overall effect of state and local taxation over a
long period of time. The targets measure
government revenues as a percent of personal
income. Unfortunately, the targets have been
misinterpreted and used unfairly to criticize
city tax and budget decisions.
Response: The price of government
statutes as they apply to local governments
should be repealed. If the price of
government law is to continue to be applied
to local governments, price of government
calculations should be:
based on the sum of levv and state aid.
not just levy; and
based on long-term trends, not sing!e-
year events.
FY-12. Capital Improvement Fees
Issue: New develooment and the
resulting growth create an increased demand
for public infrastructure and other public
fac,im,s. Severe constraints on local fiscal
resources and dramatic forecasts for
population growth have prompted cities to
critically reconsider ways to pay for the
inevitable costs associated with new
development. Traditional financSng methods
tend to subsidize new development at the
expense of the existing community,
discourag~ sound land use planning, place
inefficient pressures on public facilities, and
allow underutilization of existing
infrastructure. Consequently, local
communities are exploring methods to ensure
that new development pays its fair share of the
true costs of growth. Given the existing
authorization to impose fees on new
development for water, sanit~ and storm
sewer, and park pu~oses, it is reasonable to
extend the concept to additional public
infrastructure and facilities improvement also
necessitated by new development.
Response: The Legislature should
authorize cities to impose capital
4
improvement fees so new development pays
its fair share of the off-site, as well as the
on-site, costs of public infrastructure and
other public facilities needed to adequately
serve new development.
FF-13. Deferred Assessments for
Roads
Issue: Current law allows a city to recoup
the costs for water, storm sewer, or sanita~
sewer improvements by levying additional
assessments on the property benefiting from
the improvement, but not previously assessed.
This authority for deferred assessment has not
been extended to :other infrastructure, such as
road improvements, even though properties
are benefiting from the improvements.
Response: Cities should be abie to assess
the cost of infrastructure improvements for
roads. Cities should be allowed to defer
assessments against property located
outside the city for road improvements
benefiting property abutting the
improvement but not previously assessed
for the improvement. For example, if a city
makes road improvements to a road that
benefits city residents and township
residents, the city may defer the
assessments to the township property until
the property is brought into the city. Once
the township property is brought into the
city, the city may assess that newly
acquired property for road improvements
previously done but not assessed at the time
of the improvements.
FF-14. Taxation of Electronic
Commerce
Issue: Sales over the Internet and through'
other electronic means are projected to
increase exponentially over the next several
years. Because of the difficulty of assigning a
League of Minnesota Cities
I-/0
location to electronic sales, because many
Internet "goods" are not tangible property, and
due to potential federal intervention, electronic
transactions pose significant tax policy
challenges.
Response: Federal tax policy must not
put main street businesses at a competitive
disadvantage to electronic retailers, must
not jeopardize repayment of bonds backed
by state and local sales tax revenues, and
should ensure stability in state and local
revenues.
FF-15. Local Option Sales Taxes
Issue: Last ,.,ear. the Legislature
authorized local sales taxes to fund regional
projects in two greater Minnesota regional
centers.
Most Minnesota cities would benefit from
diversification of the revenue sources
available to them to relieve the local property
tax burden.
Response: The Legislature should
generally authorize local sales taxes for
cities upon local approval.
onto all other properties.
Over the long-term, similar properties
would be taxed at widely different rates
merely due to when the properties were
last sold.
· It could discourage the sale of property
because sales would return the property to
full market value for tax purposes.
· It would discourage improvements to
property, which would trigger a return to
full market value for tax purposes. This
could lead to degradation of housing and
other types of property.
· It could adversely affect the ability of
cities to bond for infrastructure
improvements or for tax increment
financing since iocal tax bases would not
reflect the growth in property values.
· Once implemented, limited market value
provisions are politically difficult to sunse:
due to the potential for large one-year tax
shifts onto properties whose values were
artificially capped by the program.
Response: The League opposes any
expansion of the limited market value law.
FF-17. State Charges for
Administrative Services
FF-16. Limited Market Value
Issue: Rapidly rising property values in
some parts of the state have fueled legislative
proposals to expand the current limited market
value law. One proposal would establish the
consumer price index as the maximum annual
market value increase and extend the limit to
all classes of property.
Further restricting market value increases
would have several negative consequences:
· It would unfairly shift taxes from
properties experiencing growth in value
Issue: Currently, some state agencies have
wide discretion in setting the fees for special
services they provide to local governments.
For example, the Minnesota Department of
Revenue recently increased the fee for
administering local sales taxes by 80 percent
in the middle of a budget year with less than
six weeks notice. The increase had no
apparent relationship to increased cost of
providing the service.
Response: State agencies should be
required to demonstrate the need for
increases in service fees, and should give
adequate notice of increases to allow local
2000 City Policies
governments to budget for the increases.
State agencies should set administrative
service fees as close as possible to the
marginal cost of providing the service.
Local government should be given the
option to self-administer or contract with
the private sector for the service if the state
cannot provide the service at a reasonable
cost.
IMPROVING LOCAL ECONOMIES
LE-1. Tax Increment Financing
(TIF)
Issue: The state has effectively delegated
the responsibility for economic development
and redevelopment to cities. Unfortunately,
nei~hborina states have .~;ven their cities more
development tools and, therefore, cities in
these states have a competitive advantage over
Minnesota cities. In Minnesota, tax increment
financing is the most viable tool available to
all cities in their economic development and
redevelopment efforts. Additionally, tax
increment allows cities to address the
changing needs of their evolving
communities. The state, whether based on a
lack of information or misinformation, has
been critical of cities' use of the tool and has
implemented a series of restrictions over the
past several years, rather than partnering with
cities and encouraging their endeavors to
improve and enhance the economic well-being
of Minnesota and the growth and
redevelopment of its cities. Critics often
claim that TIF is overused. Some of these
critics have proposed TIF freezes or caps.
This view fails to recognize the benefits
received by counties and school districts, as
well as cities, upon district expiration while
only cities are required to assume the financial
risks associated with development
decisions. Cities have used tax increment
financing responsibly and examples of these
positive uses abound.
Response: To effectively compete with
other states, Minnesota must provide its
cities greater flexibility in the use of tax
increment financing and other economic
development programs. The state should
parmer with cities in economic
development and redevelopment activities.
and encourage cities' use of tax increment
in achieving the laudable goals of long-term
tax base stabilization and growth, job
creation, development of Iow-to-moderate
income housing, remediation of pollution,
elimination of blight, recycling and
redevelopment of the infrastructure, and
redevelopment of its communities. The
League opposes proposals for TIF freezes
or caps. Counties and school districts are
appropriately invoh'ed in cities'
development decisions through current
"review and comment" requirements and
should recognize the benefits they receive,
without assuming an}' of the risk, due to
cities' prudent uses of TIF.
LE-2. TIF Reform
Issue: It is likely that proposals to reform
the tax increment financing laws will continue
to be identified and debated during upcoming
legislative sessions.
Response: As part of any TIF reform
debates, the Legislature should consider:
Authorizing any tax increment districts
League of Minnesota Cities
I'10.
approved after April 1, 1990, to pool
increments in the same manner as
districts certified prior to April 1, 1990;
· In light of levy limits, eliminating the
LGA/HACA penalty currently imposed
on districts or allow an exception from
levy limits. If the penalty is not
eliminated, the restrictions on the
source of payment should be removed;
· Expanding the use of tax increment
financing to assist in the development of
technological infrastructure, workforce
readiness, transit-oriented development,
the restoration of historic structures,
and for nonretail commercial projects
(e.g., software companies, banks, and
insurance companies);
· Exempting redevelopment districts
from the "five year rule";
· Modifying the housing district income
quaiification level requirements to allow
the levels to vary according to those
specific to individual communities;
· Authorizing the use of federal grants
and other funds for local contributions;
· Removing the LGMHACA penalty
imposed on housing districts established
between the penalty years of 1990 and
1993;
· Making any necessary statutory
changes to allow the Office of the State
Auditor to simplify its TIF reporting
forms in consultation with those
required to complete the forms; and
· Authorizing TIF financial information
to be published in a more simplified
format so it provides the average
taxpayer with useful information.
LE-3. Impact of Property Tax
Reform on Existing TIF Districts
Issue: The 1997, 1998, and 1999
Legislatures have compressed property tax
class rates which, in turn, has jeopardized the
repayment of outstanding debt or other
obligations in existing TIF districts. Given the
long-term nature of property tax reform, cities
could not have anticipated the impact of these
class rate changes, nor can cities project the
impact of future changes. The Legislature has
recognized its responsibility for the impacts of
its actions by creating a TIF grant program to
address situations where the class rate changes
cause T[F district deficits. The T[F grant
program, currently funded at $6 million and
scheduled to expire in 2002, is likely to be
insufficient to cover every deficit. Some of
the worst deficit situations may not surface for
a number of years. Additional pooling and
special :axing district authority might be
useful in cexain cities but are only partial
solutions.
Response: The Legislature should
provide additional state resources to the
TIF grant program and extend the
program indefinitely so that TIF
obligations can be met and third party
bondholders are protected if the TIF grant
program is insufficient to cover deficits
caused by the 1997 through 1999 class rate
changes. The Legislature should also
explore additional options to address
deficits such as district duration extensions
and eliminating or adjusting the original
tax capacity rates.
LE-4. Business Subsidies
Issue: Cities support the concepts of
public notice, participation, and accountability
in the use of public funds contained in the
business subsidies legislation enacted in 1999.
However, some areas of the new law need
clarification and modification.
Response: The Legislature should
clarify and modify the business subsidies
law so that effective-implementation is
achieved. For example, cities that do not
award any business subsidies in a given
2000 City Policies
year should not be required to submit
reports.
LE-5. Economic Development
Programs
Issue: The Minnesota Investment Fund
is not adequately funded. Local governments
do not have an adequate slate of tools to assist
job creation, redevelop blighted and decaying
properties, and provide adequate housing
choices. Consequently, cities are not well
equipped to compete nationally and
internationally for business development.
Response:
More state resources should continue to
be contributed to the Minnesota
Investment Fund.
Congress should remove the caps that
have been placed on Industrial
Development Bonds and acknowledge
that the extensive eligibility
requirements now adequately limit their
use.
LE-6. Redevelopment Programs
Issue: Communities across Minnesota are
faced with the unique circumstances of
deteriorating, obsolete, and vacant structures
in neighborhoods and downtowns and a lack
of land for development. Redevelopment
activities usually require large, up-front funds
to address multi-phase projects of extensive
duration where site assemblage, demolition,
relocation, or pollution clean-up must occur
before private-sector interest can be generated.
Additionally, deterioration threatens historic
structures in cities across the state. While the
redevelopment account administered by the
Department of Trade and Economic
Development is a critical component in
establishing a coherent statewide policy for
redevelopment, cities do not have sufficient
8
tools to utilize in local historic preser,:ation
efforts.
Response: In recognition of the unique
needs of redevelopment projects, the state
should continue its commitment to reinvest
in its communities by increasing and
committing to permanent base budget
funding for the redevelopment account
administered by the Department of Trade
and Economic Development._ Additionally,
as part of a comprehensive approach to
redevelopment needs, the_Legislature
should consider the state income tax credit
legislation pursued by the Preservation
Alliance of Minnesota, TIP subdistricts,
and other tax incentives for local historic
preservation efforts.
LE-7. Property Tax Abatement
Authority
Issue: In an effort to increase the number
of development tools available, the !997
Legislature authorized local units of
government to grant property tax abatements.
Although TIF continues to be the primaU,
financing mechanism for local development
projects, tax abatements provide a good
addition to a needed list of economic
development tools. In order to provide
maximum benefits, tax abatements should be
less restrictive in terms of funding caps and
financing terms. Property tax abatements
should not be considered a replacement for tax
increment financing.
Response: TIF is still the primary viable
development tool available for cities.
Abatement authority should continue to be
available, but not offered as a rationale to
eliminate TIP.
LE-8. Brownfields
Issue: Brownfields are lands unsuitable
for development due to the presence of
League of Minnesota Cities
chemical or other contaminants. Brownfields
are a major cause of blight within
communities across the state through loss of
local tax base, jobs, housing quality, public
safety, and community confidence.
Revitalizing this land is costly and requires the
cooperation of city, county, school, regional,
state, and federal governments and the
assistance of local economic development
organizations and citizens. As :ye move into
an era where the mass creation of jobs is a
necessity and where increased tax base is a
requirement for local governments to
adequately face growing financial pressures,
efforts to revitalize brown fields must not only
continue but be~c,,~'~ ~'~,'",,..,.,,tea' in the uscoming
years. Currently, S7 million exists in the
Department of Trade and Econon',.ic
Development's (DTED) base for the
contaminated site clean-up fund.
Additionally, $6.2 million is appropriated
annually from the Petrofund to DTED to clean
up sites which contain at least some
petroleum-related contamination.
Response: A comprehensive set of
economic development programs must be
maintained for cities and other
development agencies. The Legislature
should:
· Increase funding for the Department of
Trade and Economic Development's
contaminated site clean-up fund and
redevelopment account;
· Strengthen enforcement and collection
of revenues for the state contamination
tax;
· Continue support for and funding of
local and regional programs to assist in
the efforts to remediate brownfields;
· Establish a fully-funded program to
allow cities and other development
authorities to gain control of and
reclaim and revitalize brownfields;
· Protect existing tax increment financing
provisions that provide for the
2000 City Policies
remediation of brownfields, and modify
restrictions to allow the pooling of
district revenues to assist in the
financing of remediation of
brownfields;
· Establish an indemnification fund to
provide financial security for
institutions and individuals as they
invest in efforts to recycle brownfields
in order to leverage private investment
in cities' efforts to increase their tax
base and create jobs; and
· Continue financing mechanisms for
cleaning contaminated sites.
LE-9. OSA Response Timetines
Issue: The Office of the Stare Auditor
(OSA) is responsible for TIF oversight. As
part of their review of TIF districts, they
identify alleged violations of the TIF iaws and
issue non-compliance notices to TIF
authorities. After responding to these non-
compliance notices within the required 60-day
period, authorities often do not receive timely
responses on the matter from the OSA.
Additionally, TIF authorities are often unciear
about the final disposition of the matter upon
receipt of a final non-compliance notice.
Response: In the event that the OSA
determines to issue a final non-compliance
notice to a TIF authority, the Legislature
should require the OSA to issue the notice
within 60 days of receiving the authority's
response. Any final non-compliance notice
should contain the OSA's final position on
the matter, the date upon which they
forward the matter to the county attorney,
and the next steps that are required to be
taken according to state law. Upon
expiration of the 60-day period, the
authority should be deemed to be in
compliance with the TIF laws if no final
non-compliance notice is received.
LE-IO. OSA Time Limitations
Issue: Thc Office of the State Auditor
(OSA) has the authority to issue non-
compliance notices for every existing TIF
district in the state for alleged violations of the
TIF laws going all the way back to the
inception of the district. Accordingly, TIF
authorities can receive non-compliance notices
for alleged violations that occurred twenty or
more years ago. Often, staff and record-
keeping procedures have changed and TIF
authorities find it exceedingly difficult to
reconstruct the past in order to identify and
reined,: these situations. Similarly, the OSA
claims *.he authority, based on the state's
records retention schedule, to audit TIF
districts for up to ten years after
decertification which requires cities to expend
staff resources to maintain files and a working
knowledge of old districts for an unreasonable
period of time.
Response: A reasonable timeframe
within which alleged violations are
identified should be established. The
Legislature should restrict the OSA's
ability to issue non-compliance notices to
the six-year period prior to the notice's
issuance date. The Legislature should also
require the OSA to conduct an}' audits on
decertified districts within one year of
decertification.
LE-11. Growth Management and
Annexation
Issue: Unplanned and uncontrolled urban
growth has a negative environmental, fiscal,
and governmental impact for cities, counties,
and state governments because it increases the
cost of providing government services, and
results in the loss of natural resource areas and
prime agricultural land.
Response: The League believes the
existing framework for guiding growth and
10
development primarily through local plans
and controls adopted by local governments
should form the basis of a statewide
planning policy, and that the state should
not adopt a mandatory comprehensive
statewide planning process. Rather, the
state should:
· Provide additional financial and
technical assistance to local
governments for cooperative planning
and growth management issues,
particularly where new comprehensive
plans have been mandated by the
Legislature;
· Clearly establish the public purposes
ser'~'ed by existing statewide controls
such as shore!and zoning and wetlands
conservation; clarify, simpiify, and
streamline these controls; eliminate
duplication in their administration;
and, fully defend and hold harmless any
local government sued for a "taking" as
a result of executing state land use
policies;
· Give cities broader authority to extend
their zoning, subdivision, and other
land use controls up to two miles
outside the city's boundaries, regardless
of the existence of count}' or township
controls, to ensure conformance with
city facilities and services;
· Clearly define and differentiate between
urban and rural development and
restrict urban growth outside city
boundaries;
· Require the Metropolitan Council to
seek cooperation from the state of
Wisconsin and counties (both
Minnesota and Wisconsin) surrounding
the metropolitan area to ensure
responsible and controlled
development; study expansion of
Metropolitan Council authority in
surrounding counties; and, examine the
positive and negative impacts of
League of Minnesota Cities
mandatory regional or local land use
controls and state-imposed development
standards;
Facilitate the annexation of urban land
to cities by amending state 'statutes that
regulate annexation to make it easier for
cities to annex developed or developing
land within unincorporated areas;
Oppose legislation that would reinstate
the election requirement in contested
annexations; and
Encourage ideas consistent with the
long-term goal of allowing urban
development only in urban areas.
Density incentives such as sprawl
reduction aid programs are more
straightforward methods of rewarding
and encouraging compact urban
development than using LGA or HACA
for another new purpose.
LE -12. State and/or County
Licensed Residential Facilities
(group homes)
Issue: As the need for more residential-
based care facilities increases, sufficient
funding is also needed to ensure residents
~x m= in group homes and licensed facilities
have appropriate care and supervision. In
view of cities' responsibilities to
accommodate group homes and residential-
based facilities, it is important that state and
county government work with local officials
to address residential care and public safety
issues. Cities have reasonable concerns for
special care necessary for group home
residents, particularly in case of public safety
emergencies. Since operators of certain
residential facilities and services are not
required to notify cities when they intend to
purchase housing for group homes, cities do
not have opportunity to raise concerns and
requirements regarding the special care and
public safety measures these residences may
expect.
2000 City Policies
Response: The Legislature should
provide sufficient funding for such
residential-based services and require state
and county agencies that manage those
facilities or companies licensed to operate
group homes to notify cities in a timely
manner when licensed facility operators
request to operate such facilities or to
renew their license and allow cities to
require such agencies and licensed
operators to identify and take appropriate
measures to respond to the special care
residents need in case of emergencies.
Legislation should also require
establishment of nonconcentration
standards for state or county-issued
requests for proposals (RFPs) and direction
to avoid clustering residential facilities.
Licensing authorities must also be
responsible for removing any residents
incapable of living in such an environment,
particularly if they become a danger to
themselves or others.
LE -13. Housing and Economic
Vitality
Issue: City officials increasingly
recognize that housing shortages threaten
strong neighborhoods, healthy communities,
and local economic vitality. Decreased federal
housing assistance and insufficient state
resources for housing production place
statewide economic expansion at risk.
Changes in social services and family support,
along with welfare-to-work requirements,
make it paramount for the Legislature to re-
allocate state resources to strengthen family
stability, improve workforce availability, and
improve children's school performance.
Response: The Legislature must
maintain state investment in housing
production, at least doubling the current
biennial housing budget, to help leverage
private and local resources as well as
federal funds. The Legislature should
11
continue to make additional investment
outside the metropolitan area for
production of single-family housing
affordable to working families, along with
affordable rental units. In the metropolitan
area, investing over the next biennium to
carry out the goals of the Livable
Communities Act will help meet the needs
of many households in which working
adults must now travel long distances to get
to work.
LE-14. Housing Preservation
Issue: Loss of federally-assisted housing
in communities throughout the state remains a
serious threat to the v:e!! being ot
residents as well as other vulnerabie
populations. Few cities have sufficient local
resources to purchase or provide equity take-
out loans to owners of subsidized rental units
who are considering mortgage prepayment
and conversion to market-rate rentals for
properties originally built to provide housing
for low-income residents.
Cities and neighborhood organization
community development projects sometimes
require demolition of substandard housing,
which can compound housin_o shortages and
alspl,.~, occupants.
Response: The Legislature must
continue to appropriate funds for
preservation of federally-subsidized
housing throughout the state to provide
additional resources for the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency and community-
based nonprofit housing organizations to
buy units or make equity take-out loans to
property owners in return for maintaining
rents affordable to low-income residents
and agreeing to maintain the federally
subsidized mortgage to term.
The Legislature should also continue to
provide incentives to lower housing
construction costs and selling prices to
12
encourage local government, builders,
developers, housing agencies, and
organizations to address housing design
and construction costs, land use regulation,
and other factors that could reduce housing
development costs.
LE-15. City Role in
Telecommunications
Issue: As cities seek the benefits of
information
te,.,no..o=.',., they face a number et
critical issues, particularly availability and
competition for providing advanced
community-based telecommunications
services. Cities recognize the importance
t .~-- ' for ' heahh
pro,,'idi,,,, &,.>,. serv:cas educauen.
care, business, and residents in their homes
and work places.
Cities also pla5' an integral role in the
e .... r_,.nc,, of local competition, the zoning of
wireless communications facilities, and
preserving cable operator support for public,
education, and government ~PEG) access and
institutional networks ~I-Nets), and upholding
federal requirements to treat all providers in a
neutral and nondiscriminatory manner.
Response: State and federal government
should encourage cities and
telecommunications service providers to
collaborate to take advantage of planning
opportunities for the development of
telecommunications infrastructure and
services to strengthen local and regional
economies. Federal and state government
must also strengthen city authority to:
· Provide telecommunications services
either in partnership with other public
entities, the private sector, or as a sole
provider;
· Grant additional cable TV franchises to
provide the benefits of competition to
subscribers;
League of .Minnesota Cities
· Require all multichannel providers of
video programming services that use
public rights of way to comply with
local PEG access and I-Net
requirements;"
· Exercise effective local zoning controls
over the siting of wireless
communications facilities; and
· Reserve spectrum for cities to make
increased use of wireless
communications.
LE-16. Adequate Funding for
Transportation
Issue: Current funding for roads and
transit systems across all government levels in
The state is not adequate. The_T eao,,e:..
acknewledges that -all Minnesota communities
benefit from a sound and adequately funded
transportation system.
Response: More resources must be
dedicated to the state's transportation
system. The League supports
constitutionally dedicating a portion of the
sales tax on motor vehicles (also referred to
as MVET) or other new revenue sources to
a transportation fund, which would fund
both highway and transit projects. The
League also supports an increase in the gas
tax that would be dedicated under the
existing highway user trust fund formula.
Vehicle registration taxes (known as tab
fees) should not be reduced unless
replacement revenues are constitutionally
dedicated to the highway user trust fund. If
funding does not come from the state, cities
should have funding options available to
them to raise the necessary dollars to
adequately fund roads and transit.
All nontransportation programs should
be funded from sources other than the
highway user distribution fund or other
funds dedicated to transportation.
LE-17. State Aid for Urban Road
Systems
Issue: Current rules governing municipal
state aid expenditures are restricting the
efficient use of these funds, and do not
adequately acknowledge the constraints of
road systems in urban city environments.
Response: Rules affecting the
municipal state aid system need to be
changed to acknowledge the technical and
practical restrictions on construction and
reconstruction of urban road systems. New
municipal state aid design standards should
not apply to reconstruction of existing state
aid streets originally constructed under
different standards. Future changes to
state aid rules should ensure the
involvement of elected officials and
engineering professionals in the decision-
making process.
LE-18. Turnbacks of County and
State Roads
Issue: As road funding becomes
increasingly inadequate, more roads are being
"turned back" to cities from counties and the
state.
Response: Turnbacks should not occur
without direct funding or transfer of a
funding source. A process of negotiation
and mediation should govern the timing,
funding, and condition of turned-back
roads. City taxpayers should receive the
same treatment as township taxpayers. The
requirement for a public hearing,
standards about the conditions of
turnbacks, and temporary maintenance
funding should also apply to county
turnbacks to cities. At a minimum, roads
proposed to be turned back to a lower
government level should be brought up to
the standards of the receiving government
2000 City Policies
13
or should be compensated with a direct
payment. Direct funding should be
provided for smaller cities that are not
provided with turnback financing through
the municipal state aid system.
LE-19. Road Funding for Cities
Under 5,000
Issue: Cities under 5,000 population do
not receive any nonproperty tax funds for their
collector and arterial streets.
Response: Cities under 5,000 population
that are not eligible for Municipal State Aid
(M.S.A.) should be able to use county
municipal accounts and the 5 percent
account of the highway user distribution
fund.
Uses of county municipal accounts
should be statutorily modified so counties
can dedicate these funds for local arterials
and collector streets within cities under
5,000 population. In addition, the 5 percent
set-aside account in the highway user
distribution fund should be used to meet
this funding gap.
LE-20. Railroad-Related Projects
Issue: Cities are being presented with far-
reaching and long-term effects when railroad
expansion and related projects enter their
communities. Along with the concerns related
to safety, environmental effects, and noise
impacts on the communities, several issues
have greater reaching effects. They are:
· The cost-share ratio related to roadway
crossing improvements will be borne by
the public sector to a substantial degree,
some estimates are 80 percent public to 20
percent private funding;
· The financial burden faced by the public
sector to deal with mitigation
improvements, a cost that the Surface
Transportation Board (STB) is not
requiring the private sector to pay;
· The issues associated with the length of
trains moving through communities;
· Liability associated with whistlebiowing
ordinances; and
· Pre-emption of local authority to regulate
railroad activities.
Response: The private sector mu_st be
required to pay a greater share of the
improvements that benefit their industry.
The public sector should not be expected to
underwrite the costs of improvements
sought by the private sector. The state and
federal government must participate in
adequately funding the mitigation of the
negative impact of railroads on local
government and its citizens. The federal
government must exercise greater oversight
of the STB to ensure that fair and equitable
solutions are reached when dealing with
cities in Minnesota.
LE-21. Access Management & Plat
Approval
Issue: Increasingly, the state and some
counties express a desire to exercise more
control over state and county roads that lie
within city boundaries. Sorne counties have
introduced legislative proposals requiring
county plat approval before projects may
move forward. The Department of
Transportation has studied the issue of access
management, and is developing a guidance
document to establish minimum standards
before new access points onto roads will be
allowed. The League has published
educational articles designed to highlight the
importance of county and state involvement
when cities are involved in planning decisions
that will allow new dex'elopment to access
roadways.
14
League of Minnesota Cities
Response: Cities support maintaining
plat approval authority with each
municipality for all plats located within
cities. Cities do not support extending
county or state authority over plat
approval. However, significant advantages
can be gained by using a coordinated
review process, already existing in state
law, between cities and other affected units
of government. Such advantages include
better overall land use planning, site
designs, and traffic management. In
addition, cities support the concept of
statewide access management guidelines
that can be used in a coordinated review
process.
LE-22. Right-of-Way Management
Issue: Cities have fundamental
responsibility for managing the safe and
convenient use of public rights-of-way. Cities
hold local rights-of-way in trust for the public
as a limited and valuable asset. As demand
for right-of-way use increases, cities must
continue to have clear authority to allocate and
coordinate that resource among competing
uses. Local management responsibilities vary
and are site specific, underscoring the
importance of upholding local authority to
establish fees and standards and to obtain fair
and reasonable compensation by
telecommunications right-of-way users.
Response: State government must:
Uphold local authority to manage and
protect public rights-of-way, including
reasonable zoning and subdivision
regulation and the exercise of local
police powers;
· Recognize that municipal engineering
has a paramount role in development
and implementation of construction and
safety standards;
· Support local authority to require full
recovery of actual costs of managing use
2000 City Policies
of public rights-of-way;
· Continue existing local authority to
collect franchise fees and capital
support for public, education and
government (PEG) access and
programming and to require provision
of institutional networks (I-Nets) from
providers of multi-channel video
programming; and
· Maintain the courts as the primary
forum for resolving allegations b..y
telecommunications service providers of
arbitrary or capricious city
management policies and practices.
LE-23. Effective
Telecommunications Competition
Issue: Consumers need arotection in ,'.he
transition to a competitive marketplace for
telecommunications services. Local
economies can be strengthened by competitive
provision of services to enhance business
participation in the global economy.
Response: Federal, state, and local
government should coordinate policies to
protect consumers and encourage
emergence of local competition.
LE-24. Local Zoning of
Telecommunications Facilities
Issue: Federal intervention and restrictions
on city zoning authority over the
use of property by telecommunications service
providers threaten to pre-empt basic local
land-use regulation.
Response: Federal and state government
must uphold the fundamental right of local
government to adopt and enforce zoning
regulations reaffirmed in the federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
15
LE-2g. Workforce Readiness
Issue: State and federal welfare reform
efforts have focused on the importance of the
welfare-to-work transition, and have
recognized the challenge of ensuring
individuals are qualified to work. Cities have
an interest in the availability of qualified
workers as part. of their economic
development efforts, and can serve as a
catalyst with other public entities and the
private sector to address workforce readiness
issues.
Respo~se: The Legislature should
continue to fully fund the job skills
partnership and pathways programs
administered by the Department of Trade
and Economic Development. Flexibility
should be provided to accommodate small
companies' needs and provide alternatives
to the public training systems.
LE-26. Platting Law Recodification
Issue: The Minnesota Association of
County Surveyors (MACS) is seeking to
recodifv Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505.
Two issues raised by MACS that will likely
impact cities are the subdivision plat
requirements, and the creation and amendment
of road right-of-way acquisition maps.
Response: The Legislature should
preserve local authority over plat approval
and include language in the recodification
legislation that will allow for pedestrian
easements or thoroughfares to be dedicated
by plat (for sidewalks, public trails, etc.).
LE-27. Economic Development
Authorities
Issue~ The state's policy regarding
economic development authorities (EDAs) has
been to limit the specific authority and powers
of EDAs to city governments. The state has
already determined that city government most
efficiently provides governmental services in
areas intensively developed for residential,
industrial, and governmental purposes.
However, in certain areas of the state, cities
within a county may ~vish to participate in the
formation of a county EDA.
Response: The state should continue to
recognize the importance of using and
preserving the existing infrastructure in
cities, and should continue to find that
urban development, and all related
authority, remain within cities and
managed by city government. The
Legislature should continue its decision to
limit EDA authority to cities as the primary
local government responsible for the
organizational and financial coordination
of development and redevelopment unless
the cities wishing to participate in a county
EDA jointly determine and individually
approve the county's provision of economic
development services and cities not wishing
to participate in the county EDA are not
subject to the count}, EDA's tax levy.
LE-28. Infrastructure Funding
Options
Issue: Current infrastructure funding
options available to cities are inadequate.
Existing special assessment law, Chapter 429,
does not meet cities' financing needs because
of the benefit requirement. The lax,,' requires a
minimum of 20 percent of such a project to be
specially assessed against affected properties.
In practice, however, proof of increased
property value to this degree of benefit can
rarely be proven from regular repair or
replacement of existing infrastructure, such as
streets or sidewalks. Alternatives to the
Chapter 429 methods for financing
infrastructure improvements are nearly
nonexistent.
16
League of Minnesota Cities
The Legislature has given cities the
authority to operate utilities for waterworks,
sanitary sewers, and storm sewers. The storm
sewer authority, established in 1983, set the
precedent for a workable process of charging a
use fee on a utility bill for a city service
infrastructure that is of value to all those in a
city. Similar to the storm sewer authority, a
transportation or sidewalk utility would use
technical, well-founded measurements, and
would equitably distribute the costs of local
infrastructure services.
Response: The Legislature should
authorize cities to create, as a local option,
additional utilities such as a transportation
or sidewalk utility. Such authority would
acknowledge: the effects of repeated levy
limits and the general funding shift from
the state to local governments for building
and maintaining necessary infrastructure;
the benefits to all taxpayers of a properly
maintained public infrastructure; and the
limitations of existing special assessment
authority.
IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY
SD-1. Redesigning and Reinventing
Government
Issue: Every level of government is
reevaluating, reprioritizing, redesigning, and
renewing its organizational structure and
programs in response to financial realities and
citizens' needs and problems. Reforms,
however, must be more than change for the
sake of change, or a reshuffling of existing
programs to appease the electorate. To be
meaningful, reorganization and reassignments
of governmental entities and services should
save money where feasible, deliver improved
services, serve essential needs, and be
equitably structured. Cities have and will
continue to pursue the use of cooperative
agreements, the reevaluation of city programs
and services, and changes to organizational
structures.
Response: The federal, state, and
county governments should:
Ensure that in redesigning, reinventing,
or reassigning government services and
programs that the appropriate level of
service to citizens is evaluated, and
citizen demands and expectations are
adequately addressed;
Promote local efforts through
incentives, rather than mandates;
· Communicate and establish a process of
negotiation before shifting
responsibility for delivering services
from one level of government to
another, or seeking to reduce service
duplication;
· Transfer authority for use of revenues
dedicated to such programs, or provide
appropriate and adequate alternatives;
· Identify and repeal programs or
discontinue services that are no longer
necessary, or which can readily and
fairly be provided by the private sector;
and
· Employ existing government entities in
redesign efforts rather than create new
agencies or units.
SD-2. Unfunded Mandates
Issue: The cost of federal and state
mandated programs substitute the judgment of
Congress, the President, the Legislature, and
the governor for local budget priorities. These
mandates force cities to reduce funding for
other basic services or to increase taxes and
2000 City Policies
17
service charges. The passage by the
Legislature of reporting requirements for new
state mandates, and the passage by Congress
of legislation restraining new federal
mandates, should help address the problem,
but other steps are necessary.
Response:
· Existing unfunded mandates should be
reviewed and modified or repealed
where possible.
· No additional statewide mandates
should be enacted, unless full funding
for the mandate is provided by the level
of government imposing it or a
permanent stable rev'enue source is
established.
· Cities should not be forced to comply
with unfunded mandates.
* Cities should be given the greatest
flexibility possible in implementing
mandates to ensure their cost is
minimized.
SD-3. Civil Liability of Local
Governments
Issue: One of the barriers to the delivery'
of governmental serx'ices and programs is the
exposure of local governments and their
officials to civil damage claims. The state has
acted to protect itself and its local
governments by enacting exceptions and
limitations to liability suits, and authorizing
self-insurance and other mechanisms to deal
with claims allowed by law. Additionally,
the current laxv, which requires district court
approval of settlements of claims against
municipalities that exceed $10,000, has
become burdensome for cities.
Response: The Leagflesupports:
· Creating an exception to municipal tort
indemnification law (MN Stat. §
466.07) where an employee is defended
and indemnified for claims under a
contract of insurance carried by the
employee.
Extending the protection of the state
and municipal tort claims act to quasi-
governmental entities when performing
public services such as firefighting;
Existing constitutional safeguards for
protecting public and private property
interests without any statutory
expansion of property rights;
Eliminating the district court approval
of settlements requirement or, in the
alternative, increasing the threshold
amount for distr:,ct court approval of
settlements to $100,000; and
Clarifying and maintaining the
applicability of municipal immunity in
various areas including, but not limited
to, park and recreational immunity,
including the extension to entities
providing a public service that have not
traditionally been included within the
immunity re ,, state trails over
municipal utility easements) and
vicarious official immunity, and seeking
immunity from claims related to
providing and distributing information
from geographic information systems
(GIS) pursuant to the Minnesota Data
Practices Act.
SD-4. Environmental Protection
Issue: State and federal environmental
programs are improperly designed to meet
their stated goals, and impose an undue burden
on local governments because of a lack of
federal or state financial assistance. The
refusal to finance these programs by the
governments that pass them has eliminated an
essential restraining feature in program design
18
League of Minnesota Cities
and implementation. In addition, cities face
emerging issues in the areas of drainage, bio-
solids, wellhead protection, and feedlots.
Specific problems include the following:
· New programs or standards are continually
adopted without regard to the existence,
attainability, or cost of existing programs
and standards.
· Regulatory, bodies fail to consistently use
good science and the most current and
accurate data when establishing water
quality standards.
· Fragmented program adoption and
implementation does not ensure
prioritization of environmental matters or
the establishment of comprehensive
environmental protection strategies.
· "One size fits all" implementation of
programs forces remedial efforts by local
governments for nonexistent
environmental problems.
· Permit fees and other cost transfer
elements of federal and state programs do
not provide an incentive for environmental
agency efficiency, policy prioritization, or
risk assessment.
Response:
· State agencies must be required to
provide local governments with more
flexibility in achieving environmental
goals, such as endorsing performance-
based outcomes and best-management
practices, and these agencies must
provide faster approval of waivers in
order to allow municipalities to benefit
from greater flexibility.
· Alternative wastewater treatment and
cooperative service systems should be
prohibited from operating in areas that
can reasonably and effectively be served
by existing municipal systems unless:
· The municipal system is proven to
be:
· substantially less cost-effective
and
· substantially less beneficial to the
environment; and
· The operation of these systems will
not create a stranded public
investment in the existing system.
A comprehensive effort to consolidate,
reorganize, and manage state and
federal environmental agencies and
programs should be undertaken, and a
partial or full moratorium on new
programs or requirements should be
considered.
Permit fees should be limited to 50
percent of the agency's direct operating
costs in order to promote efficient
agency operation and sufficient
legislative oversight.
Sufficient state and federal financial
assistance should be provided to comply
with state and federal infrastructure
requirements, particularly with regard
to wastewater, stormwater, and
drinking water facilities.
MN Stat. § 115A.32-39 should be
amended to reinstate the administrative
procedure used for the resolution of bio-
solids disputes, a procedure whose
function was inadvertently deleted
during a re-codification of the statutes.
In addition, local governments in
Greater Minnesota should be allowed to
dispose of bio-solids in manners
consistent with the MPCA's permits and
rules and be prohibited from imposing
blanket moratoriums on land
application of bio-solids. This authority
would be similar to the statutory
protection enjoyed by metropolitan area
communities ~'IN Stat. § 473.516).
2000 City Policies
19
SD-5. Election Issues
Issue: Delays and lack of funding at the
state level have prolonged the wait for cities to
have direct access to the statewide voter
registration system. Lack of access increases
the time and cost to process new voter
registrations, update voter files and verify
voter information in a timely manner.
Response: The Legislature should
provide funding to allow more cities direct
access to the statewide voter registration
system.
SD-6. Local Election Authority
Isxue: Previous legislatures restricted city
authority to schedule city elections and
establish terms of office for local elected
officials thereby diminishing regard for the
role of local se~f-oovernment,. = particularly.
when state policy preempts home rule
authority governing city elections.
Response: The Legislature should
oppose further limits on either the number
or the length of terms city elected officials
may serve, particularly when those terms
have been established by voters in home
rule charter cities. State policy on uniform
elections should continue to recognize and
uphold local authority to schedule city
elections in November of either even- or
odd-numbered years.
SD-7. City Costs for Enforcing State
and Local Laws
Issue: Cities experience substantial costs
enforcing state and local laws, particularly
those related to traffic, controlled substances,
and incarceration of prisoners. The curr~nt
method in our criminal justice system of
recovering costs for law enforcement and
prosecution through fines is insufficient to
meet the costs incurred by local governments.
Response: The Legislature should
review this issue and adopt measures that
provide for complete reimbursement of the
costs incurred by local governments in
enforcing state and local laws. Solutions
that should be considered include the
following: ..
· Increasing fine amounts;
· Removing or modifying county and
state surcharges that conflict with cost
recovery principles; and
· Requiring the defendant to pay the full
costs of enforcement and prosecution as
part of any sentence.
SD-8. Access to Information
Technology and Services
Issue: Cities recognize the importance of
achieving world class standards and universal
service in order to provide quality education
and opportunities for local businesses and
industu, to engage successfully in global
competition.
Response: The Legislature should:
Expand and ensure the public's access
to government meetings and
information through electronic means;
and
Provide technical and financial
assistance to make advanced
technologies available and encourage
collaboration among cities, schools, and
libraries, health care, nonprofit
organizations and businesses in its
effective use.
20
League of Minnesota Cities
It-/
SD-9. Design-build
Issue: The standard bid procedure cities
are required to use in selecting contractors for
municipal buildings can be quite costly.
Private sector development uses a process
known as "design-build" in which various
firms submit project proposals that include
both a design and the construction costs for
that design. The selection is then based on the
total package. By granting specific statutory
authority to use the design-build alternative to
the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission
and state agencies, including the Department
of Revenue, the Legislature has recognized the
financial savings it can provide. In
documented instances, cities have saved
taxpayers up to 10 percent of the total project
cost by using the design-build alternative.
The design-build process also permits
improved project management and oversight.
However, absent statutoo' authorization to use
this alternative, cities are vulnerable to
lawsuits from unsuccessful bidders. In
addition, the design-build process for
playground equipment can encourage greater
creativity while maintaining cost controls.
Special legislation was enacted for the city of
Chanhassen in 1995 to experiment using this
process for purchasing playground equipment.
Response: The Legislature should
authorize an extension of the design-build
procedure to cities as a less expensive
alternative to the standard bid procedure.
SD-10. Providing Information to
Citizens
Issue: To keep the public updated and
informed, state law requires local units of
government to publish various notification
-' documents in newspapers, and often dictates
which newspapers receive cities' publication
business. The number and variety of
documents required to be published and the
2000 City Policies
costs of publication are burdensome.
Technological advancements have expanded
the ways government can provide information
to citizens. In many cases, these new
technologies are more efficient and cost
effective.
Response: Cities should be authorized
to take advantage of new technologies to
increase the dissemination of information to
citizens and potentially lower the as}ociated
costs. Specifically, the Legislature should
authorize local units of government to
designate an appropriate daily/weekly
publication, elect alternative means of
communication such as city newsletters,
cable television, and :he Internet, and
expand the use of summaries where
information is technical or lengthy.
Additionally, the Legislature should
eliminate outdated or unnecessary
publication requirements.
SD-11. Creating a Minnesota GIS
Program
Issue: Local governments are finding
geographic information systems (GIS) an
essential tool for comprehensive land use, real
estate, environmental, and other land
management information. In many counties,
maintenance of official land records has not
been automated, creating a barrier to GIS
development. In addition, the start-up costs of
GIS implementation can be prohibitive.
Response: The Legislature should
encourage local government
implementation of GIS through grants
and/or the dedication of a revenue source
such as real estate transaction fees. In
addition, cities should be involved in the
development of county land records
modernization plans.
21
SD-12. State Regulation of Massage
Therapists
Issue: The state does not currently
regulate massage therapy, an emerging and
rapidly growing profession. In order to
control prostitution and to provide for health
and sanitation standards, several cities have
entered the traditional state domain of health-
care licensure by enacting ordinances that
require all massage therapists to obtain a local
professional license. These ordinances allow
local taw enforcement officers to differentiate
between legitimate massage therapists, who
have a city license, and prostitution businesses
fronting as massage therapy establishments.
The !ack of statewide regulation of
massage therapists has hampered !aw
enforcement techniques, and has caused
problems for cities attempting to regulate an
entire health-care profession without any
statewide standards. Currently, 25 states
regulate massage therapists on a statewide
level. Statewide regulation of massage
therapists would provide a clear set of
educational standards that massage therapists
must meet, and would provide !ocai !aw
enforcement agencies with an easy tool to
distinguish between prostitution and
legitimate massage therapy. Statewide
regulation would not disturb traditional
powers over land use and business licensure.
Response: The League supports the
statewide regulation of massage therapists
in order to aid local law enforcement efforts
at controlling prostitution and other
criminal activity.
SD-13. Private Property Rights and
Takings
Issue: The Legislature has been
introducing an increasing number of bills
designed to diminish or control local
O' '
,overnments ability to exercise traditional
planning and zoning authority. Legislation to
control cities' abilities to perform regulatoo'
acts such as shooting range zoning and
amortization received strong support from
legislators. In addition, bills have been
introduced to codify the property rights
section of Minnesota's Constitution.
The Federal Swamp Buster/Sod Buster
programs, the Army Corm of
dredge and fill programs, and the State's
Wetlands Conservation Act and Community
Based Planning Act, appear to be the nexus
for much of the property rishts and takings
le~isiation proponents.
The League supports local governments'
ability to balance the rights of private
landowners with the interest of the public.
However, the League is concerned various
legislative initiatives will adversely impact
cities in two ways. First, such legislative
initiatives undermine the fundamental
authority of cities to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare of its citizens. Second, if
the Legislature acts to codify part of the
Minnesota Constitution, an argument may be
made that the Legislature intended to create
new causes of action against cities. This
would encourage more lawsuits and expose
cities to the expense of defending those cases.
Response: The League encourages the
state and federal governments to improve
their regulatory programs by eliminating
property rights issues that were caused by
the adoption of such laws as the Wetlands
Conservation Act or Swamp Buster/Sod
Buster. The League opposes legislation
that diminishes the ability of cities to act in
the best interests of the health, safety, and
welfare of its citizens or that creates the
possibility of additional lawsuits against
cities.
22
League of Minnesota Cities
SD-14. Construction Codes
Issue: Each year the Legislature addresses
construction codes issues that have some
impact on local governments. The Legislature
mandated bleacher safety legislation and is
exploring the idea of having both the fire and
building officials approve building permits.
in addition, the Construction Codes
Advisory, Council has indicated it may be
recommending legislation to institute an
appeals process for disagreements over the
application or interpretation of various
construction codes and to establish a starewide
building code. The International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) has been evaluating
Minnesota's building codes and enforcement.
There is some expectation on the part of
council members that ISO will act as the
catalyst for a statewide building code.
.... While all cities must enforce certain codes,
such as the accessibility code, the electrical
code and the bleacher safety code, the state's
building code remains a local option for cities
outside the metropolitan area. Many Greater
Minnesota cities have adopted the state
building code and all cities within the seven-
county metropolitan area are required to
adhere to the state building code.
Response: A building code provides
many benefits including uniformity of
construction standards in the building
industry, consistency in code interpretation
and enforcement, and life safety guidance.
A statewide-enforced building code may
have benefits, but requiring it would result
in an unfunded mandate. The enforcement
of a building code can be cost prohibitive
for many cities due to the expenses and
overhead related to staffing vs. the limited
building activity occurring in some
communities.
2000 City Policies
The League supports adoption of a state
building code so long as there is not
mandatory enforcement at the local level.
The adoption of an enforced state building
code should remain a local option for
municipalities outside the seven-county
metropolitan area, unless the state fully
funds the costs of enforcement and
inspection services necessary to enforce a
statewide building code. In the event the
Legislature requires an enforced statewide
building code, local governments must have
the option to hire or select a building
official of their choice and set the
appropriate level of service~ e;'en if the state
fully funds code enforcement activities.
An appeals process would provide an
excellent forum to resolve code disputes.
To the extent the insurance industry is
concerned about insuring structures not
built to code, the industry should drive code
compliance by issuing policies or setting
rates based on whether the structure meets
various code requirements.
SD-15. Fees for Service
Issue: Interest is increasing at the
Legislature and among interest groups to
mandate to local governments specific fee
limitations for various municipal services.
Examples of legislation include building
permit fee legislation and coin operated
amusement machine license fee legislation,
both designed to rigorously control local fee
setting authority. This stems, in part, from a
belief of some that plan check fees, license
fees, and other municipal fees for service do
not reflect the actual benefits received.
Additionally, other groups have begun
discussing the value of fees for providing
services. Recently, the Citizens Jury explored
the value of fees for service and gave limited
23
acknowledgment of the value fees may have
in providing core municipal services. The
media has entered the discussion, as well,
urging the public and policy makers to
monitor fee-setting processes.
Response:
While the state' has a role in providing a
general statewide funding policy, the state
should not interfere in the simple
budgetary decision-making functions
performed by cities.
The League supporB the Legislature
endorsing local government authority to
charge fees that are reasonably related to
the cost of providing the service, permit, or
license and acknowledging there are other
associated costs inherent in the provision of
those services, permits, or licenses.
However, cities oppose any move to
legislate specific methods to pay for
municipal services or place caps on license
fees or other fees. General services such as
permitting, inspections, or enforcement are
best funded out of a city's general fund.
Cities are better prepared than the state to
make local budgetary decisions when
providing local services.
SD-16. Board of Firefighter
Training
Issue: The quality, availability, and
affordability of firefighter training varies
greatly across the state. After several years of
discussion, the fire service has endorsed a
proposal to create a state board of firefighter
training to ensure the quality of training and
oversee state reimbursement of a portion of
training costs. The board would not be given
authority to mandate specific training
requirements or to certify firefighters.
24
Response: The League supports the fire
service proposal so long as local
governments are fairly represented on the
board; the powers and duties of the board
are not expanded in a way that would
undermine local management authority;
and the appropriation comes from the state
general fund.
SD-17. Witness Fees
Issue: Court administrators are proposing.
that the Legislature shift the costs attributable
to calling witnesses from counties to cities.
The m.o~,le ,_,,..m:~ :his proposal is that,.it,, ~' ·
presecutors have no incentive to limit the
witnesses called only to those that will
actually testify. Most counties currently
receive one-third of the fines collected at the
city level.
Response: Cities oppose the shifting of
costs attributable to calling witnesses from
counties to cities. City prosecutors
responsibly call only those witnesses they
expect to testiS'. Under certain
circumstances, witnesses may not
ultimately provide testimony for a variety
of reasons. The fine revenue counties
receive adequately funds the costs
attributable to calling witnesses.
SD-18. State Appropriation for
Government Training Service (GTS)
Issue: In 1977, the Government Training
Service was created in order to provide a
coordinated response to the training needs of
state and local governments. GTS was
charged with coordinating the needs of the
state, cities, counties, townships, and school
districts, with the delivery capability of the
state's institutions-of higher learning and other
continuing education service providers.
State financial support of GTS is
League of Minnesota Cities
important. Many cities and other local
governments find it difficult to adequately
fund official and staff training. GTS provides
a cost-effective mechanism for taking
advantage of the efficiencies of cooperation.
Response: The League supports the
state general fund appropriation for the
Government Training Service.
SD-19. Year 2000 Issues
Issue: Despite cities' best efforts to take
reasonable actions to address threats to vital
services, local officials need to be able to rely
on the readiness of state government to
respond with additional resources and
financial assistance, if necessary, to limit
threats to local public health and safety or to
local economies where unexpected Y2k-
related problems cause serious disruptions.
Cities have worked to resolve complex Y2k
problems over the last year, but some cities
have found it necessary to expend substantial
additional resources to convert or modify
critical service &liveD' systems to overcome
potential Y2k-related emergencies. Cities that
have borrowed extensively or issued debt to
meet those needs may find that such
obligations place significant fiscal strains on
local tax resources.
Response: State agencies and the
legislature should be prepared to grant
cities additional emergency financial
assistance and other resources during the
coming year to help local officials restore
vital public services or to assist the
community in overcoming the loss of
critically needed business, health care,
educational or other functions.
SD-20. New Public Safety Spectrum
Needs
Issue: Cities have benefited from
2000 City Policies
successful efforts at the federal level to gain
access to exclusive radio and wireless
communications capacity for state and local
public safety spectrum. Cities can now take
advantage of the new radio and wireless
communications space set aside by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) at the
upper end of the UHF television band for
public safety. For future interoperability,
cities will need additional spectrum to ensure
public safety agencies can communicate with
each other and with surrounding jurisdictions.
The U.S. Department of Commerce and
the FCC Public Safety Wireless Advisor':
Committee have recommended reallocation ,of
3 MHz of radio spectrum in the range of 135-
144 MHz radio band be made available
exclusively for state and local public safety
interoperability. This spectrum is currently
assigned for military, use and is not currently
in use. Unless secured for public safety
purposes, it is likely to be auctioned off to the
highest bidder for private use. The radio band
available is adjacent to the current MHz band
used for fire, police, and other public safety
communications and would provide
particularly good frequencies for
mobile/portable radio system
communications.
New spectrum in the 800 MHz range
requires many more sites to cover the same
geographic range and uses more expensive
radio equipment. Although many public
safety agencies are moving to new 800 MHz
systems, others will need to remain in lower
frequency bands. Equipment in 800 MHz
range will not communicate with many of the
existing public safety systems that operate at
lower frequencies.
Response: The federal government
must make additional spectrum available to
allow public safety agencies that require
multi-agency communications to respond to
25
accidents, disasters, and criminal activity
that cross jurisdictional boundaries. So
that it will not be auctioned, the 3 MHz
available for reallocation for public safety
should be reserved to relieve congestion on
nearby public safety frequencies.
Immediate action must be taken to
secure this additional radio spectrum to
advance the interoperability of public
safety communications systems.
SD-21. Joint & Several Liability
Reform
Issue: Underjeint and several
liability, a party named in a lawsuit can be
held liable for an entire damage award even if
they are not found to be substantially at fault.
Accordingly, cities as "deep pockets" often are
brought into iawsuits where it is likely that
other named defendants are uninsured or
otherwise unable to pay. Cities will often
settle these cases due to the high degree of
exposure and, at minimum, are almost always
responsible for their defense attorney's fees.
Joint and several liability results in cities
paying for others' negligence.
Response: The Legislature should
eliminate or severely restrict the
application of joint and several liability to
situations where private and public entities
are substantially at fault for the damages
incurred.
SD-22. Official Newspaper
Designation
Issue: State statutes currently provide
a hierarchy that governs which newspaper a
city annually may designate as its official
newspaper for legal publication. After
designation, the city has no ability to change
its designation to a newspaper lower in that
hierarchy if the selected newspaper makes
errors. Errors in publication can adversely
affect the city's compliance with the law. For
example, if ordinances are not published
according to law, they are likely invalid.
Response: The Legislature should
authorize cities to designate an alternative
official newspaper if their current official
newspaper makes significant errors, in
publication.
SD-23. Competitive Bid Threshold
Increase
Issue: Under the uniform municipal
contracting law, a citv must bid out all
purchases of supplies, materials, equip:v, ent.
rental of equipment, as well as construction,
alteration, repair or maintenance of real of
personal property when the estimated amount
of the contract exceeds S25,000. The law also
requires that purchases between S 10,000 and
S25.000 be let with either sealed bids or
through direct negotiation by obtaining two or
more quotations.
This law has not been adjusted since
1992 when the competitive bid threshold was
raised from $15,000. In ! 999, the House and
the Senate approved and sent to the governor a
bill that would have increased the competitive
bid threshold to $50,000. However, the bill
was vetoed by the governor based on concerns
that the threshold increase could increase the
risk of unethical conduct and favoritism.
Response: Raising the threshold will
not increase unethical conduct and
favoritism. Raising the threshold will result
in better use of tax dollars by allowing
more negotiation in the purchasing process.
Therefore, to provide greater flexibility and
to streamline the purchasing process, the
26
League of Minnesota Cities
Legislature should increase the competitive
bid threshold.
SD-24. Membership in Watershed
Management Organizations
Issue: In 1999, the Legislature enacted
a restriction that will prevent city employees
from serving on watershed management
organization boards. The restriction will
prevent city staff, who may have an interest
and expertise in watershed management issues
from serving on a watershed management
board.
Response: Elected city councils have
ultimate oversight of the functions of
watershed management organizations. The
state should repeal the membership
restrictions for watershed management
organization boards. In addition, the state
should provide an exception to the
watershed district law to allow cities to
recommend individuals who do not live in
the watershed to serve on the watershed
district boards when a portion of the
watershed is located in the city but no one
lives in that area.
SD-25. Legalization of Fireworks
Issue: Fireworks products can cause
serious injuries and fire loss. Fireworks have
been illegal in Minnesota since 1941, and
legalizing them would undermine fire
prevention efforts. Legalizing fireworks would
increase public safety enforcement, emergency
response, and fire-suppression costs.
Response: The League opposes the
legalization of fireworks.
SD-26. Election Judge Appointment
Issue: It is increasingly difficult for
local election officials to comply with
2000 City Policies
statutory requirements that election judges
serving at precinct polling places be persons
identified as members of major political
parties. The requirement presents a growing
concern in obtaining qualified election judges
and a serious obstacle to efficient election
administration at the local level.
Response: The legislature should
eliminate election judge appointmen..t
criteria requiring persons seeking
appointment as local election judges to
designate a political party.
SD-27. Election Judge
Compensation
Issue: People willing to serve as
election judges are often discouraged from
doing so because the city is not authorized to
accept their service as a volunteer or ,~o
contribute their compensation to local
charities or community non-profit
organizations.
Response: The legislature should
authorize cities to allow election judges to
direct that their pay be donated to a local
charity or community non-profit
organization of their choice.
SD-28. Counting Write-In Votes
Issue: Requirements for recording and
reporting votes cast for fictitious and
undeclared write-in candidates are
unproductive, time-consuming and do not
serve to increase voter confidence in the
outcome of the election.
Response: There should be no
requirement to tabulate or report write-in
votes cast for fictional or celebrity write-in
candidates who have not officially declared
their interest in seeking office. Election
judges should be required only to list the
27
name of each undeclared write-in candidate
unless votes cast in that precinct for that
candidate total more than 5 percent of votes
cast in the precinct for that office.
SD-29. Telecommunications
Restructuring
Issue: Cities have a unique perspective
and role in shaping the deliver5' of
telecommunications services. While city
officials recognize the significance of
convergence in the provision of these services,
proposals currently under consideration at the
state ieve! to restructure telecommunications
rezulation ..... ~
ux ,..,oo..,. critical functions that
cities can more effectively perform. Cities
have a fundamental role in guaranteeing
public access to communications media,
fostering a sense of community through the
use of telecommunications, and protecting
consumer interests.
In an era of convergence, it is also
essential that cities, along with local
consumers, educational and health care
institutions, non-profit organizations and
businesses be assured that all
telecommunications service providers are held
accountable for agreements to provide those
services? uphold service quality and respond to
community needs wherever they do business.
Response: In redesigning state
telecommunications policy to address the
convergence in delivery of
telecommunications services, state agencies
and lawmakers should uphold local
authority in the following areas:
Cable Issues
· Control over cable franchise provisions
such as the collection, retention and use
of cable franchise fee revenue; public,
educational and government (PEG)
28
access and institutional network (I-Net)
commitments and capital funding to
support those activities;
· Carry out responsibilities and provide
for resources to handle customer
complaints in a timely manner;
· Agreements with local cable operators
to make services available responsive to
local policies and subject to local
oversight and governance, including
municipal programming and access to
analog and digital channel capacity;
· Direct unfettered access to video
channels and bandwidth free of charge
to offer public, educational and
community-based information.
programming and service delivery; and
· In the absence of federal regulations
that override local decision-making
authority, recognition that dties retain
control over whether to require local
cable operators to provide
nondiscriminatory access to unaffiliated
Internet service providers (ISPs) when
offering telephony, cable modem or
information services, including Internet
access.
General Telecommunications Issues
State policy should assure that
telecommunications service providers
operating in Minnesota are required to
meet service quality and performance
standards that treat all areas of the state
equitably in the delivery and quality of
services. That policy should include:
· Encouraging competition and broad
deployment of high-speed broadband,
cable tv, wireless, and Internet services;
· Authorizing cities to provide a full
range of telecommunications services
either in public-private partnerships,
through joint powers agreements or as
sole providers;
· Addressing the particular importance of
telecommunications service delivery
League of Minnesota Cities
issues in rural areas such as the
provision of extended local call service
areas, consolidated school district
communications needs, and
strengthening the network of health
care delivery service providers
including local clinics, pharmacies and
hospitals;
Directly involving local government in
determining strategies for and any
reallocation of resources; and
Bringing together state and local
government officials on a regular basis
to recommend changes and
improvements to regulation to respond
to changes in competition, technology
and delivery of telecommunications
services.
SD-30. 911 Funding
Issue: As cities struggle to afford to
maintain and improve the hardware, software,
and training to provide 911 services, costs
continue to rise and many cities are forced to
choose between bearing all costs or making
incremental improvements to their systems.
Response: The League supports an
adequate state funding source for the
upgrades and modifications of 911 and
related systems that will allow cities to
provide effective, reliable emergency
communications services.
Human Resources & Data Practices
Human Resources
Issue: Many state la~vs increase the
cost of providing city setwices to residents by
requiring city governments to provide certain
levels of compensation or benefits to public
employees, by specifying certain working
conditions, or bv limiting city governments'
ability to effectively manage their personnel
resources. For instance, existing state laws
limit :,overnments ability to effectively
address incompetence or misconduct of city
employees specifying certain procedures to be
followed or standards of conduct.
Response: The state government
should refrain from passing laws that
regulate the public sector workplace, and
should repeal or modify problematic
existing laws and regulations to encourage
full local accountability.
The League of Minnesota Cities
proposes the following initiatives and
reforms:
HR-1. Veterans' Preference
The Legislature should conduct a study
of Minnesota's veterans' preference law
to determine its effectiveness and
efficiency in light of today's
employment laws, statutes, and
regulations. Minnesota's veterans'
preference protections were enacted a
century ago. These protections were
designed to assist veteran employees at
a time when Minnesota's and the
federal government's labor and
personnel laws were in their infancy. It
is likely the Legislature will find parts
of the law need modernization.
2000 City Policies
29
HR-2. Discipline and Discharge HR-4. PELRA
Veterans' Preference. The state should
modify veterans' preference and civil
service laws that restrict the ability of
local governments to effectively
discipline public employees. The
Legislature should amend the law to:
· remove the right to multiple,
duplicative disciplinary proceedings;
· limit any back-pay claims to a
maximum of $100,000;
limit the period .~n which to request a
hear:'.ng to !4 days (from the current
60 days);
· exclude probationary period
employees from veterans preference
termination law protections;
· require parties to select their
hearing panel representative within
10 days after notice has been given
to the employer that the veteran
employee is seeking a veterans'
preference hearing; and
· require the panel to hear the petition
within 30 da3rs after the third panel
representative is selected and issue a
decision within 30 days following the
hearing.
HR-3. Compensation limits
The state should acknowledge that all
local governments, not just schools
districts, must be competitive in
recruiting and retaining upper level
management employees. Therefore, the
state should repeal laws limiting the
compensation of a person employed by
a statutory or home rule charter city to
the governor's salary. If repeal is not
possible, the limit should be amended to
be based upon the governor's total
compensation level.
30
· The state should modify the definition
of public employee under PELRA by
removing the existing 14-hour / 67 day
requirement and replace it with a
definition in which employees must
work more than an annual average of
20 hours per week. Temporary or
seasonal employees should not be
included in this definition.
· The state should change public sector
bargaining laws to require arbitrators
to ,~dhere to the pay equity law with
regard ~o consideration of internal class
comparisons.
HR-5. Essential Employees
Cities must balance the health, welfare,
and safety of the public with the costs
to taxpayers. Therefore, the
Legislature should carefully examine
requests from interest groups seeking
essential employee status under MN
Stat. § 179A (PELIL-k). The League
opposes legislation that mandates
arbitration that increases costs and
removes local decision-making
authority.
HR-6. Pensions
The state should revise public employee
pension laws to facilitate consolidation
of local pension plans.
The state should study initiatives to
reform and make uniform pension
plans for local government employees
without increasing public employer
contribution levels or causing the public
employer contribution level to exceed
the contribution level required from
employees.
League of Minnesota Cities
t%
when giving accurate written disclosure
of information regarding employment
related references. This legislation
should not undermine the immunity
found in the Data Practices Act.
· The state should adjust the eligibility
thresholds for public pensions to
reflect inflation and adopt a process
for automatic future adjustments.
· The League opposes special legislation
for individual employee pension benefit
increases unless they are initiated and
approved by the city council of the
impacted city.
· The state should carefully scrutinize the
proposal to increase maximum benefits
for volunteer firefighter pension plans
to ensure that the higher benefits
appropriately compare to the benefits
of full-time city employees and are
necessary to attract and retain
qualified firefighters.
HR-7. Age Certificates / 1-9 Forms
The federal I-9 form requires employers
and employees to report the same
information required by Minnesota's
age certificate. The state should repeal
MN Stat. § 181A.06 and endorse the
federal 1-9 form to verify age
information, and eliminate redundancy
for employers and employees when
reporting information.
HR-9. State Paid Police and Fire
Medical Insurance
· The state should fully fund programs
that pay for health insurance for police
and fire employees required under MN
Stat. § 299A.465, as amended in 1997,
for police and fire employees hurt or
killed in the line of duty.
* The Legislature should clarify whether
MN Stat. § 299A.465 applies to injuries
incurred prior to June 1, 1997 (the
effective date of the law).
· The Legislature should clarify the
amount of an employer's contribution
under MN Stat. § 299A.465 and
whether it changes over time.
HR-10. Breathalyzers
MN Stat. § 181.950-.957 should be
amended to permit the use of
breathalyzers as an acceptable
technology for determining alcohol use.
Currently, breathalyzer use is
permitted under federal and state
commercial drivers' laws.
HR-ii. Preservation of Local
Decision-Making Authority on
Employment Related Issues
HR-8. Employer Reference
Immunity
· The Legislature should enact legislation
that provides limited immunity to cities
The League supports local decision-
making authority, and opposes
legislation intended to interfere in local
decisions.
2000 City Policies
31
HR-12. Drug and Alcohol
Rehabilitation
Issue: UnderMN Stat. § 181.953,
subd. 10(b), an employer cannot terminate an
employee for a positive controlled substance
test without first providing the employee a
chance for rehabilitation and treatment.
Recently, some cities have been advised that
this law applies to "probationary," employees
as well as permanent employees.
Response: The League supports a
legislative change to clariS, that the state
!aw on drug and alcohol rehabilitation and
treatment does not apply to probationary
employees.
Data Practices
DP-1. Public Access to Information
Issue: As a result of 1999 legislation,
cities (and other state and local units of
government) are required to establish policies
and make clear to the public procedures for
obtaining access to data classified as
government public data.
Response: These requirements must
accord local officials flexibility to establish
policies and procedures that reflect the
a'vailability of resources and existing
formats in which information is maintained
and organized.
DP-2. State Model Policies and
Training
Issue: The 1999 Legislature provided
funding and directed the Department of
Administration to provide model policies and
training assistance to cities in complying with
the Government Data Practices Act (GDPA).
Response: The Legislature must
continue to fully fund the on-going costs of
GPDA compliance training and education
because there are limited resources at the
local level. The Legislature should also
require that local officials be directly
involved in the development and
implementation of training activities.
DP-3. Tennessen Warning
Issue: The 1998 information Policy
Task Force recommended changes to existing
~overnment responsibilit:' to :ive
notice of circumstances in which they ma,.' be
required to provide information :~',at max' be
pertinent to subsequent disciplinap:' or
management decisions that arfe,~ them.
Changes enacted in 1999 addressed only a
portion of the issues facing local government
employers.
Response: The Legislature should
limit compliance with notice requirement to
initial hiring procedures. The initial hiring
notice will cover subsequent disciplinary or
other personnel-related actions that are
likely to adversely affect the individual's
employment status.
DP-4. Government Data Practices
Act Recodification and Conformance
Issue: The 1998 Information Policy
Task Force recommended that the Legislature
eliminate statutes inconsistent with the
nomenclature and philosophy of the
Government Data Practices Act (GDPA);
however, the 1999 Legislature did not act on
those recommendations.
Response: The Legislature should
examine statutes inconsistent with the
32
League of Minnesota Cities
Government Data Practices Act and
require the input of local government
before eliminating or modifying provisions
to conform to state information policy.
DP-5. Alternative Dispute
Resolution for Violations of
Government Data Practices Act
Issue: In some circumstances, local
government compliance with the Government
Data Practices Act is hampered by fears of
punitive legal action against public employees
responsible for responding to requests for
information while also protecting data
classified as private or non-public.
Response: The Legislature should
limit current damage award requirements
for willful violations of the GDPA. Public
employees and employers should be
encouraged but not limited to using
alternative dispute resolution in resolving
such disputes.
DP-6. GDPA Compliance in
Contracting
Issue: The 1999 Legislature imposed
requirements on the private sector to comply
with the Government Data Practices Act when
under contract. Despite assurances to the
contrary,, testimony in support of these new
requirements generally supported imposing
these obligations whenever government
contracts with the private sector to provide
public services.
Response: The Legislature should
clarify that the 1999 changes in GDPA
requirements for access to public
government data pertain solely to the
contract product delivered by the private
sector.
DP-7. Acquisition of Electronic
Surveillance Devices
Issue: The 1998 Information Policy
Task Force recommended that cities (and
other local units of government) be required to
report to the State when acquiring electronic
devices that improve the capacity to conduct
surveillance - other than for compelling public
safety reasons.
Response: The Legislature should
require the involvement of local units of
government in the development of
recommendations for modifying current
state policy.
IN ADDITION TO THESE STATE
REFORMS AND INITIATIVES~ THE
LEAGUE SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING
POLICIES REGARDING FEDERAL
EMPLOYMENT LAW:
FED-1. FLSA/Overtime
Compensation
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
was designed for private employer -
employee relations. Government
employees were exempt for over 100
years. Through a series of court
decisions, this statute is now applied to
local governments. The exception for
state and local government employees
should be reinstated by statute.
2000 City Policies
33
FED-2. Peace Officer Bill of Rights
· Congress should oppose a federal peace
officer bill of rights because it will only
compound the difficulties with internal
investigations, local enforcement and
diminish local accountability.
FED-3. Portability of Deferred
Compensation
Public sector employees are increasingly
changing jobs between the private
sectors. Congress should enact
legislation that would permit tax
deferred rollovers between public
and/or private deferred compensation
plans to improve the portability of
funds.
Electric Deregulation
hztroduction: Cities have a strong
interest in the public policy debate about
electric restructuring or deregulation.
Minnesota already enjoys some of the lowest
average electric rates in the nation. The case
has yet to be made that deregulation will result
in either lower rates or improved service
consumers.
Issue: For manx, decades, electric
service to Minnesota citizens has been
delivered through a combination of investor-
owned utilities (IOUs), municipal utilities, and
rural electric cooperatives. This system has
served Minnesota well, deiivering reliabie,
unNersal service at rates among the lowest in
the countw.
In recent years, man3, have begun to
promote "deregulation" or "restructuring"
of the industry, meaning that electric service
would no longer be a franchised monopoly. A
number of states, primarily those with high
electric rates, have taken steps to move toward
such restructuring. In most of these cases,
transmission and distribution remain
regulated, with retail competition allowed for
generation source.
Advocates of restructurfnz argue that
such competition will lead ~o lower rates.
However, estimates bv the federal Energy
Information Agency* are that whiie the upper
Midwest, including Minnesota, will
experience slightly lower rates in zhe
short-term, longer-term rates may actually be
higher under deregulation. Concerns
have also been expressed as to whether
residential customers, and those in rural and
other harder-to-serve areas will actually
experience decreased reliability and increased
rate s.
Local elected officials have the
primary responsibility to the citizens of their
cities to make certain restructuring that allows
retail competition is as beneficial to the
citizens as it is to the industry. Beneficial to
the citizen means that all Minnesotans
experience the same reliable, high-quality,
universal, and low-cost service they
experience under the current system of electric
power delivery.
City residents have a strong interest in
the outcome of this important public policy
* EIA is the nonpartisan research arm of the
U.S. Department of Energy
34
League of Minnesota Cities
debate. Cities are substantial consumers of
· electric power. Over 180 cities have 10
percent or more of their property tax base in
electric industry property, while others collect
franchise fees and/or sales taxes on electric
purchases within their boundaries. Citizens
in 126 Minnesota communities currently
receive economical electric service from
municipal utilities, which make payments-in-
lieu of taxes to help support city services.
Significant increases in the cost of electric
power for city operations or losses of these
traditional sources of revenue will result in
property tax increases.
Response: The federal government
should not mandate restructuring; the
decision should be left to the states.
The Legislature should follow a
slow, deliberative approach, taking time to
consider how alternative models for
delivering electric power will affect the
state's traditional benefits of reliable,
universal, high-quality and !ow-cost service.
The public policy discussion should be
focused on actual benefits to citizens, rather
than on ideological arguments, stakeholder
interests, and over-reliance on simplistic
objectives like "consumer choice." Those
advocating a change should bear the
burden of proof to demonstrate that
restructuring and deregulation will, at a
minimum, maintain Minnesota's high-
quality, low-cost, and reliable service. Only
when that burden of proof has been met
should restructuring occur.
The following public policy goals
should be incorporated into any legislation
restructuring the electric industry:
Adequate Supply and Demand
The states's current generation and
transmission capacity is inadequate to meet
projected future needs. No new significant
capacity has been built since the 1980's
(Sherco 3). Current regulatory and other
governmental policies serve as a
disincentive to meet customer demand. The
state should review and amend these
policies as necessary to encourage
development of adequate capacity and
reliability.
Consumer Protection
Consumer interests must continue to
be protected, especially for the most
vulnerable popuiations. Reliable service
must be universally available and programs
such as cold-weather shut-off rules should
be continued either as requirements for all
market participants or as separate state
programs.
Environmental Concerns
The environment must be
adequately protected, with conservation
and renewable energy efforts maintained.
The federal government must review the
appropriateness of current environmental
regulations and their effect in a deregulated
market; for example, exemptions from the
Clean Air Act for some generation facilities.
Fair Market Competition
To ensure fair market competition,
the federal and state governments must
have the authority to review mergers to
prevent abuse of market power.
2000 City Policies
35
Cities must remain viable
competitors in the electric market.
Municipal utilities must be granted
exemptions from rules like the open
meeting law and data practices
requirements where they hamper the
ability to effectively compete with private
companies. To ensure adequate service to
every citizen, cities and other local
governments must maintain their ability to
issue tax-exempt bonds for construction of
electric infrastructure, and be given explicit
authority to aggregate or municipalize
provision of electricity.
Local Authority
Cities must maintain their
traditional authority over land use, zoning,
rights-of-way management and cost
recovery, as well as the ability to franchise
providers and to receive payments-in-lieu
of taxes from municipal utilities. Cities'
authority to negotiate siting fees and
agreements for proposed generating
facilities should be enhanced.
To avoid unnecessary demand for
the limited space in public rights of way,
open access to transmission and
distribution facilities should be maintained
through regulation.
As the electric market is opened to
interstate competition, the federal
government must preserve the application
of Minnesota's state and local sales taxes to
the sale of electricity, regardless of the place
of origin.
Stranded Cost Recovery
Issue: Regulated utilities have
traditionally made operating decisions based
on needs of consumers within their service
36
territories. Many decisions, therefore, have
been based more on need than on economics.
In the transition from a regulated to a
restructured competitive environment, electric
generators' investments in fixed assets and
other obligations may or may not remain as
economically viable. Estimates of these
"stranded costs" va~ greatly, with some
indicating no stranded costs or possibly even
negative stranded costs resulting from
increased prices after deregulation in
Minnesota.
Resgonse: if regulatory actions have
contributed to investment by existing
regulated utilities that are not economically
viable in a competitive market, and if
restructuring occurs, the League supports
transition mechanisms that will allow
utilities to collect revenues for those
particular stranded costs. However, these
charges must be carefully monitored to
ensure that only eligible and verifiable costs
are covered and that over-collections do not
occur. Taxpayers and ratepayers should
not be expected to cover the cost of
investments that were made for business
reasons, apart from the requirement to
serve under the regulated system.
If negative stranded costs for the
regulated utility as a whole can be
established, and are solely the result of
transition to a restructured environment,
these regulated utilities should be required
to contribute some limited percentage of
established amounts to offset tax breaks
given to these utilities as a result of
restructuring.
Property Tax
Issue: Part of the discussion regarding
possible deregulation of the electric power
industry, has centered on electric utility
taxation. Proponents of deregulation assert
League of Minnesota Cities
that if effective free market competition is to
policy must be changed. The main focus of
the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) so far has
been removal of the attached machinery or
personal property tax. Utilities subject to the
tax argue it places them at a competitive
disadvantage to non-Minnesota companies,
rural electric cooperatives (co-ops), and
municipals. However, accurate comparisons
of tax burden are difficult, as other states use
completely different taxing systems.
Additionally, co-ops and municipals do pay
direct taxes on some of their property and
indirectly when they purchase wholesale
power from sources that are taxed, such as
IOUs. Municipals make substantial payments-
in-lieu of taxes.
replace governmental regulation, state tax
school districts, and other local taxing
jurisdictions is a stated goal of the IOUs;
however, the mechanics and funding sources
of such a replacement revenue would be
difficult to develop and administer, and could
be subject to reductions or elimination over
time. Furthermore, replacement revenues or
aids may not fully address the problems
created by a large tax base reduction.
Response: Cities oppose proposals
for exempting the IOUs from the personal
property tax, apart from the decision to
restructure the electric industry in
Minnesota.
Utility personal property can be a
significant portion of the local tax base in all
cities. Most obviously affected are cities that
have power plants; however, transmission and
distribution equipment account for over haif of
the personal property taxes paid by the IOUs
and exist in nearly every city. Replacing the
revenue that would be lost to cities, counties,
If and when deregulation occurs, a
truly independent review of the overall tax
burden should be conducted to determine
whether Minnesota utilities are at a
competitive disadvantage. If an overall tax
disadvantage is identified, the state should
correct it. Under no circumstances should
local units of government or their citizens
be required to shoulder the burden of tax
relief for IOUs.
2000 City Policies
37
League of Minnesota Cities
Cities promoting excellence
145 University Avenue West, St. Pa~l, MN 55103-2044
Ph .... (651) 281-12OO ° (800) 925-1122
TDD (651) 281-1290
I.,MC Fax: (651) 281-1299 ° LMCIT Fax: (651) 281-1298
Web Site: http://www.lmnc.org
December, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayors; Managers, Administrators or Clerks
James F. Miller, Executive Director
2000 NLC Congressional City Conference
Registration and Conference Program
Enclosed is the program brochure and registration form for the 2000 NLC Congressional City
Conference, to be held in Washington, D.C. March 10-14. The League of Minnesota Cities
encourages city officials to attend and take part in developing an action plan to gain support for
critical budget and policy issues facing cities during the 106th Congress.
As in previous years, the League is planning an opportunity to meet with the Minnesota
Congressional delegation. We are currently attempting to schedule one meeting with the entire
delegation, most likely from 9:00 - 10:00 a.m., on Tuesday, March 14, 2000 on Capitol Hill. If
that is not possible, we will schedule individual meetings with each Member. Watch the Cities
Bulletin for details.
For those of you from cities which are not currently Direct Members of NLC, please note the
revised dues schedule intended to encourage membership from smaller cities. This is an
excellent time to join NLC! Of course, you may attend the Congressional City Conference
whether or not your city is a direct member. The new dues schedule is:
Popul~ion Ranee 2000 Dues
Underl,000 $200
1,000-2,500 $407
2,500-5,000 $614
5,000-10,000 $849
The deadline for advance registration is Friday, February 4, 2000. After that date, on-site
registration will be necessary. Room reservations should be made immediately as they are at a
premium at and near the Washington Hilton.
Enc.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACT1ON EMPLOYER
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; CommissiOner's: Crv Burma, Becky Glister, Cklair
, . . ~? ~ , . .
Hasse, M~chael Mueller, B~II Voss, Frank We~lanfl¢Counc~l L~a~son Bob Brown. Absent
~¢. ~'~'~ . ·
and excused: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff preseot: ~ity~Planner Loren Gordon, Building
Official Jon Sutherland, and Secreta~ Sue:~C~llo~.
The followi.~ public were ,resent;~o~ G~s4; Mark ,anus, Ku~ Kronor, ~eter C.
Meyer, Victoria ~olton, ~ames ~ms~er,Robe~a Rice.
Chair Michael welcomed the pubiic'~and"* '" called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 6, 1999, MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to accept the December 6, 1999,
Planning Commission meeting minutes as submitted. MOTION CARRIED:
8-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Chair Michael stated having received the agenda packets today for tonight's meeting
because of the slow mail service, he would suggest a possible continuance of the
Board of Appeals cases so further and adequate review by the Commissioners Can be
accomplished. The Commissioners agreed with the assistance of staff these cases
could be heard tonight; although, Weiland stated if he chooses to vote nay on either
case, it will be due to the late receipt of his packet which did not allow him efficient time
to review the applicants' properties.
CASE #99-42: MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS FROM THE
EXISTING ONE; ROGER MUONIO, 5947 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, BLOCK 6, LOTS 5-6,
THE HIGH LANDS, 61610/2410 PID #23-117-24-43-0024.
Gordon stated the applicant submitted a request for a minor subdivision to create one
additional lot from an existing lot of record. The property consists of lots 5 and 6, Block
6 of the Highlands. The lot has approximately 24,534 square feet of area as is currently
held. The existing home fronts on Ridgewood Road on the "top" of the parcel.
As proposed, the property would be split into two lots. Parcel A would remain for the
existing home an would conform to all lot area, width, and structure setbacks for the R-
lA district. Total lot area as proposed is 13,252 square feet. With the minor
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. Oecernber 13. 1999
subdivision, the status of the property as a lot of record changes to a non lot of record,
reducing the allowable hardcover to 30 percent of the lot area. The total hardcover for
parcel A is under that requirement by 181.6 square feet.
Parcel B as proposed, would consist of the south half of lots 5 and 6. Total lot area as
proposed is 11,282 square feet with over 120 fe~t ot~ frontage on Highland Boulevard.
The new parcel would also be subject to nori~lot :Df record hardcover provisions of 30
percent ~mperv~ous surface. Although ¢:ho.us,~ p!,an ~s not s~ted on the survey, all
applicable R-lA district bulk provisid~woL~id b~"applicable. Given the dimensions of
the lot, there appears to be ampleareafor:a new home to meet all district
requirements, i~ ;;;",~::~' ''~'
Although Parcel B appears to be steep, its slope does not quali~ as a bluff· The grade
is approximately 22 percent as measured from the front propeAy line to just no~h of the
rear lot line. The grade is vew level over this distance and does not have any area
where it is significantly steeper. Other than the grade, there are no features on the site
that would hinder home construction.
Highland Boulevard ends at the west property edge, abutting Highland Park. As
indicated in the city Engineer's report, additional roadway easement is needed for
Highland Boulevard. Typically, it has not been the City's policy to require additional
dedication on dead-end streets such as this that do not have a 50 feet right-of-way
radius. This would probably be difficult to obtain in this case without major roadway
reconstruction due to the grade.
The major issue with this subdivision is water and sewer main extensions. The existing
sanita~ sewer line is located 3 lots east of the site. Each of the homes has a separate
service stub from this line. The problem with this arrangement is there is not a way to
access the line for cleaning. A connection to and extension of the water main will also
be needed.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor
subdivision as requested with the following conditions:
Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan be approved by the City
Engineer at the time of building permit application.
Dedicate permanent easement for street purposes, which will provide a
minimum 25 foot right-of-way as measured from the center of the improved
street to the easement line on Parcel B.
Provide utility and drainage easements along all new lot lines on both parcels,
5 feet wide on the side and rear lot lines and 10 feet in width along the
street side.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. December 13, 1999
4. The sanitary sewer main extension with service stub and the water service
for Parcel B either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided,
such as cash escrow or performance bond.
5. Park dedication fee of $500 be paid at the t~me of building permit issuance.
Brown asked staff if when a buyer h~s PU.r~h~se~ t~e lots, is there going to be a need
to extend the water main down to a~y~ri~...t5caJion and will there be a need to
increase the size of the p~pe. Gordon'Stated,~th~ question may be premature at this
· . ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ . .
point but ,t w,II need be addresse~ '~ t~e ~,~ Eng,neer ,n the future. A fire hydrant
exists on the south s~de of H~ghland which prowdes coverage to this area.
Weiland was concerned if the sewer is at a correct depth and will there be a normal flow
or will it have to be pumped. Gordon stated the flow is downhill and heads in an
easterly direction.
Weiland asked if the three other property owners in the neighboring vicinity should also
be assessed for the water and sewer improvements, as well as the new owner,
because it appears all of these property owners would benefit and not just the owner of
the applicant's property. Gordon stated the lots are currently set up with their own
access to the main and because of that situation, it would be the new property owner's
responsibility to extend the main to the site. Gordon stated to guarantee payment of
this project, there should be a bond issued or cash escrow posted upfront.
Weiland asked if the 4.9 feet on the certificate survey for the garage which is located
next to the fire lane is correct. Gordon stated this is correct and the requirement is 4
feet.
Weiland was concsrned about the applicant's covered walkway. Gordon stated the
garage is considered detached so this is not a concern at this time for the applicant.
Hasse asked if there is a better and closer location for water access. Gordon stated the
distance from Island View is shorter than the distance from the fire lane by Ridgewood.
Voss asked if the location of the three other property owners in this location were
hooked up by Island View and Gordon stated they were.
Mueller was concerned about the covered walkway. He asked if in order for a new
owner to come in and finish off the house, a building permit would be needed and, at
that time, a variance would also be issued. Suthedand stated after the subdivision the
property would be considered a nonconforming structure. Mueller asked if a variance
would be required at that time. Sutherland stated the code states an owner can expand
a nonconforming structure as long as the expansion is conforming without a variance.
3
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. December 13. 1999
Mueller stated with the addition of the covered walkway on the applicant's property, the
garage is now considered attached rather than detached because there is a roof on the
walkway. Sutherland assured Mueller the City Att.o.~!'ney has reviewed this issue and
stated the current nonconforming condition does.ri~'t' create a variance.
Mueller asked if the code stated the City is requir, ed to allow nonconformities when a
subdivision occurs. Gordon stated it is not~a~eq~ir%.rnent by City code.
Mueller stated there are three othe.~.~ip~bpe~Y b~ners on this platted area. He stated the
new property owner, as well as tb.e {~r~? e~i's'ting property owners, will benefit from the
sewer and water upgrades and, .t.~uS~ Sh~ould have to be assessed for this improvement
also. Gordon stated the existing!~r6~erty owners are already benefiting from the sewer
line because they are connected. The extension of the sewer main only benefits the
new lot. There is no reason to assess the properties already connected to the main for
the extension.
Mueller stated he will move this case on to the City Council with the understanding that
whomever benefits from the sewer and water upgrade should be assessed for the cost
of the upgrade.
Gordon stated the manner the pipes are attached is unclear at this time. Gordon stated
the cost of the sewer and water upgrade could be as great as $15,000.
Sutherland stated in order to move the case to the City Council, he suggested to
capture Mueller's comments and have the City Engineer write a memorandum to the
City Council explaining the Planning Commission's recommendations and the need to
assess all individual property owners who would benefit from the upgrades.
Brown stated at this point the applicant is required to pay for the assessments of the
sewer and water hookups that will result from the subdivision of this property. Brown
stated if the City Engineer noted this upgrade would benefit more than the new property
owner, then changes in the property owners who would be assessed for the upgrade
would need to be made.
Sutherland stated it could be noted that if the hookup changes from what currently is
being proposed by the City Engineer, then the other property owners could also be held
accountable for the assessments.
Mueller asked what is the impact of having one more property owner added to the main
that currently exists. Gordon stated he has presented what the City Engineer deems
appropriate.
Sutherland stated the applicant does understand the expenses that may result with this
subdivision and the applicant evidently is willing to pay the costs attributed to this
project.
4
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, December 13. 1999
Burma questioned the side yard setback. Burma asked if the subdivision of this
property is creating a nonconformity. Sutherland cited Cherrywood as an example that
is comparable to this property. He stated conformitibs are not created; they already
exist. Sutherland stated the side yard setback w'~ul~'~i~e nonconforming because the
garage and house are connected by a roof. Sut~rl~nd also stated the Planning
Commission could suggest the bree~eway~rOgf ¢~0m~ off. He stated he does not know
the history of the garage. '~ ,,.:~' ~,~!~~.. ~ ~
Burma stated his concern with ca~e~, like this one, where the applicants do not go
through the proper channels to c,!ea!~,~bnformities. Instead, they create
nonconformities on their propertY,~;ljk'e the roof on the walkway, which may now cause a
variance.
Sutherland now suggested at this point the garage is considered attached rather than
what the report had showed it being detached. Gordon considers the garage detached
because of the manner the breezeway is constructed but although he acknowledges it
rests on a very fine line. Although the breezeway may touch the garage it is not integral
to either structure. At the point where it would become enclosed, it would be considered
attached. Regardless of if the garage is attached or detached, the condition exists
today and has no direct bearing on the subdivision request which is being considered.
Roger Muonio, 5947 Ridgewood Road. Mueller asked the applicant if he was able to
get a definite answer from the City regarding how the pipes are currently set up in the
property located next to the subdivision at hand. The applicant said he was not given
an exact explanation. The applicant stated the line would run into the existing line. He
stated the connection would not interfere with the other two lines. The applicant also
stated another option may be to change the line and have it going up instead.
Muelier asked the applicant if the City stated the sewer line was not going to be
extended. The applicant stated he understood that the project would consist of
extending the sewer main and stubbing off the main,
Mueller restated this will be a great expense and does not consider this only the
applicant's expense. Mueller recommends this case be tabled until the City Engineer's
report be stated more clearly for the applicant and the Planning Commission.
Gordon noticed the City Engineer's repo~ was absent from the Commissioners'
packets. Sutherland went to retrieve the report.
Brown asked the applicant if he was going to sell the property after it is subdivided.
The applicant stated he would. Brown then suggested that even though the cost does
seem outrageous for one property owner to pay, this cost will be assessed into the cost
of the property and the applicant would get his money back after it sells.
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes, December 13, 1999
Mueller stated it appears the Planning Commission is not planning ahead if a decision
has not been made before the City goes digging and finds a lot of disarray and cost at
that point.
Brown stated it seems appropriate to have the C(~.,~art the upgrade project of the
sewer and if it appears as the project is moving ~ior~g the pipe installation will benefit
more than just the applicant, then at that tim8 th~; other lots can be assessed for the
pipe to get a sewer connection f~r~ t~e~,.~.la~. He stated it will not provide additional benefit
to the other three lots. He stated;.i~ t~e main e~ension does affect the other prope~y
owners' pipes, the connections would need to be fixed and the cost would be assumed
by the applicant.
Mueller stated this is a poor setup and stated this subdivision requirement would benefit
the whole plat and neighborhood, thus allowing everyone getting assessed for the pipe.
He stated without seeing the City Engineer's report (which Sutherland could not locate),
he would like to table this case.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to recommend approval to City
Council according to staff recommendations if applicant has no further
questions for staff.
The applicant stated he would like to see this matter approved for City Council review
and not have it tabled.
MOTION CARRIED. 6-2, Mueller and Burma voting nay.
Mueller stated he did not get a chance to review the City Engineer's report and he is
unsure what will happen with the other three hookups and the cost that will incur from
the new owner's hookup resulting from the subdivision.
Burma stated he does not agree with the nonconformity that currently exists and the
confusion from staff of whether this is an attached or detached garage.
Brown stated he will have this item pulled from the Consent Agenda on January 11,
2000, at which time the City Engineer's report and questions regarding the sewer
hookup could be addressed by staff.
CASE #99-43: VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT X 10 FOOT SHED IN
A FRONT YARD SETBACK; ROBERTA RICE, 4760 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK
8, LOT 5 AND W 18' OF LOT 4, DEVON, 37870, PID #30-117-23-22-0084.
Mound Planninq Commission Minutes, December 13. 1999
Gordon stated the applicant has submitted a variance request to allow a 8 feet by 10
feet shed in a front yard setback. The request is as follows:
Ex~st~ng/Proposed Requ~red~Var~ance~;
Front yard shed 4 ft 20 ft ~,~ 16 ft
· ~,· i!~ ~, . .
The shed would be located ~n the rear of thepro~e~, w~th~n the front yard setback from
unimproved Hanover Road. As shown,.a~.,~eet setback would be maintained from the
rear and side lot hnes. The setback~ a~e ~.pi~! of those for interior lots, but due to the
pla~ed road nght-of-way, a 20 f~et ~et~ack.~s required.
There are 3 undeveloped parcel~t~g'the unimproved potion of Hanover that could
be developed as single family lots· In this situation, the roadway would be improved to
City street standards and the shed would look out of place·
There is the opportunity to locate the shed in a conforming location on the property.
Given the circumstances, staff cannot recommend approval of the request.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the variance
request.
Mueller asked staff if this is a through lot. A through lot states attached structures
require 40 feet from the side but not the rear and detached structures require 20 feet
from the road. Mueller stated the proposed shed probably could not be placed in the
back of the house and be conforming.
Chair Michael stated it appears the City does not allow a shed to be placed in the
location the applicant is requesting.
Roberta Rice, 4760 Island View Drive, the applicant, stated she has lived on the
property in question for six years. She stated she had made a lot of improvements.
She stated she does not have a garage and needs a shed for storage. She stated she
would prefer not to have it in the northeast corner as recommended by staff. The
applicant stated if the shed would be put in the northeast corner there would not be an
appropriate area for the lawn mower to mow around. She also stated it would look
overcrowded. The applicant stated if the commissioners would drive down Island View
and look at the location of the garages near her, the shed would be much better placed
and looked much better where she is proposing.
Chair Michael stated he would not allow the shed to be placed where the applicant is
considering without having a look at the property line to see how it would blend in with
her neighbors. Chair Michael suggested tabling this case until the Commissioners have
a chance to review the property in person. Chair Michael strongly stated how can we
make a vote when we have not visited the property.
Mound Plannine Commission Minutes, December 13, 1999
The applicant agreed with Chair Michael and would like the case tabled until the
Commissioners reviewed her property line.
Burma stated the mail service did not get the pacl(~§ to Commissioners in an
appropriate amount of time to allow each one of,~em to review her property before
tonight's meeting. ~ ,~
MOTION by Voss, seconded by;:HAs"$e,,;;to table this case until January 10,
2000, to allow the Commmswoner§ a;',thorough review the applicant's
property. MOTION CARRIED.~8.~!?
Sutherland stated to the applicant,t0 identify her property line and stake out her
property with four stakes the best she can showing the location of the proposed shed
so when the Commissioners come out to her property, they will have the information
they need to assist with her case.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION:
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO
THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 1-2 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
Chair Michael stated this item is considered an open meeting for the public's
information so he will entertain comments, but this is not a public hearing.
Gordon stated this item is a continuance from the December 6, 1999, agenda. He
stated there are no new materials to present to the Commissioners and the Resolution
for discussion tonight is in the agenda packet. Gordon stated there were two minor
changes to the maps regarding property ownership. He stated the Comprehensive
Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plan have consistency, and he would like to see
the above noted Resolution moved for City Council approval.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown, to move the Resolution onto City
Council for approval according to staff recommendation.
Discussion'
Jim Prosser stated he was directed to respond to two questions raised by the
Commissioners at the December 6, 1999, meeting. The first question was with regard
to administrative costs. The question asked related to the provision which would allow
up to 25 percent of the tax increment financing to be used for costs outside the district.
Prosser stated the actual question was whether administrative costs that are less than
10 percent can they be included in the 25 percent, and Mr. Prosser stated these costs
8
Mound Plannina Commission Minutes. December 13, 1999
would be considered part of the 25 percent.
Mueller asked, and Mr. Prosser agreed, if we did s~end 10 percent on administrative
costs, then we would have only 15 percent left to:.s~nd outside.
The second question related to the fact even thd~gl~ithe City Council has not approved
the revised Comprehensive Plan, ca,~ the. ~l~ni~g ~6mmission consider the
Comprehensive Plan standards as they. ar~.t~ date. Mr. Prosser stated this is possible.
He further stated state law wants thetax nCrement financ ng plan to be consistent with
not specifically the Comprehensiyb Blah, b'~t the City's general plans. He stated the
real issue is whether the Planning cgmmission sees what is being planned for
redevelopment is appropriate in [~'~"Specific location. He stated it is important that the
Planning Commission provided comments and then these comments will be forwarded
on the City Council for an approval of a Resolution.
Brown restated the City of Mound does have a Comprehensive Plan in use at this time,
and the City is reviewing a new proposed one.
Mueller was concerned if it is substantive at all if the Planning Commission reviews the
proposed tax increment financing plan. Mr. Prosser stated it is important because of
the substance that has been presented by the Planning Commission. He stated the
comments of the Planning Commission will help guide the City Council to make a
flexible Plan for the City.
Brown stated when the City Council will consider completing the Comprehensive. Plan,
the input of the Planning Commission will be included. He stated there has been
public information that has been mentioned to be put in the Comprehensive Plan which
is too specific and this cannot be allowed. The Plans for the City need to be in general
form with regard to zoning.
Mueller stated he was not aware the meeting of December 6, 1999, was scheduled only
for one hour and apologized for using all of the time with his questions.
Mueller and Brown discussed the county's plans for upgrading roads and it was noted
the county has included the cost of upgrading into its budget.
Mueller questioned the two map changes that resulted from the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority meeting.
Gordon stated the map changes include excluding the parcel owned by the City that is
jagged and part of marsh and underneath water. The second change is excluding the
location of the wheelchair repair store.
Bruce Chamberlain stated these two changes to the map were an oversight and it really
does not make sense to have these properties included.
9
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. December 13. 1999
Mueller asked about' the area south of Highway 110 and why this area was not included
in the tax increment financing plan. Mr. Chamberlain stated this area was not included
because there is no proposal for redevelopment ir~'that location. Mr. Chamberlain said
to keep in mind that properties can always be ad',~..e~back in if there is a need.
Mueller asked a question of why the parkland haS b~n included in the tax increment
financing district given Mr. Casey s.r~ecent letter ¢.December regarding changes of the
law and the decision by the Planning Cbmmis~i6n to have the color of the parkland
changed.
Brown stated if the project is conti~pUbus and the City feels they want to change the tax
increment financing plan at a later date, we can then add in the Green Tee space and
the Phillip 66 space at that time.
Voss stated at a later date and time if the City wants to remove parcels from the tax
increment financing plan, then at that point it can be done, but it is currently in the best
interest of the people to leave it in now. Mueller disagreed strongly with Voss'
statement.
Mueller asked Mr. Prosser regarding changes in the statute according to Mr. Casey's
new information regarding the but-4 requirement concerning the school district property.
Again, because of the slow mail service, all Commissioners, except Glister, received
Mr. Casey's letter.
Prosser would disagree with Mr. Casey's comments because the school district
property has not been purchased at this time.
Mueller asked Mr. Prosser if an individual wanted to come and build in the TIF location
but does not need the TIF money to support his construction, would this developer be
denied TIF according to the but-4 requirement. Mr. Prosser stated this was a true
statement.
Mueller asked which body reviews the tax increment financing agreements. Mr.
Prosser stated the City Attorney and Ehlers and Associates, Inc. would review the
agreements and they would then be forwarded on to the City Council for approval.
Tom Casey apologized for all the Commissioners not having received his new
December letter regarding statute changes, which was distributed to the City Attorney
as well.
Mr. Casey stated at the present time the school district property does not satisfy the
but-4 test in his opinion. Brown stated that no tax increment financing would be used
on this property which would allow a developer to come in and bid against the City, and
then the end result would be them using our monies. Brown stated the school district
10
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, December 13, 1999
property was not suppose to be included initially in the tax increment financing plan so
the developer could not bid against the City.
Mr. Chamberlain stated the reason the school dist~"~,property has now been included
into the tax increment financing plan ~s for legitimate development costs on the property
but would not used to underwrite any acquisitions. ~i
Mr. Casey stated including the parkfAnd.~iht0 ~e tax increment financing plan would
seem to benefit the developer at thLS~ti~e ~:'.h~ould like that parcel removed.
Mr. Casey commented regardingthb.¢0'nformity to the current Comprehensive Plan and
any other generic plans. He statb~ this prope~y is still noted as public propeAy without
the intention to have it privately developed, so it would be premature to say this paA of
the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms with the current Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Casey commented the statute currently states that tax increment financing cannot
be used for park or public buildings, and therefore to put this property into the tax
increment financing plan would not be a benefit.
Mr. Casey stated it is premature to put this property in as tax increment financing with
the referendum approaching.
Burma asked if there is an agreement that restricts the Usage of tax increment funds
from being used as part of the purchase price of a specific land use area. Mr.
Chamberlain stated it does not restrict, but the City made it clear to the school district
that if there were bids that were higher than the appraisal completed, the City would
consider a policy on the property to now allow tax increment funds to be used to
underwrite additional acquisition costs on the property.
Burma responded by saying if this situation were eliminated by excluding this property
in the TIF district, but possibly added later for purchase or redevelopment, it would
eliminate at this point putting the City in a position where it would seem to have less
control.
Mr. Chamberlain stated the City has control of the tax increment funds because of the
process required when any developer comes in with a project for approval.
Mr. Prosser stated prospective purchases that may be coming forward by developers
will be informed there is no guarantee TIF money will be provided. Mr. Prosser stated if
you take out property now and later want to qualify it, there may be a problem with
qualifying it independently. He stated it is much wiser to keep the parcel included at
this point.
Brown stated now is the time to keep this property in the TIF program because once the
building comes down on the property, it will no longer qualify as a substandard building
11
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, December 13. 1999
and may then not get qualified for TIF.
Mueller confirmed the purpose of TIF is toencourage the property to be developed
differently than what currently exists. He stated tli~chool district has already done this
process. He stated the City has to leave the schOol:district prOperty in now because of
the building, but saying to a developer there is np guarantee TIF will be administered.
Mr. Prosser stated the applicabon f~ a¢~S~staffce~by any property owner is very specific
~n showing whether or not assistance ~s:needed to get the development completed. He
stated this control we want regar~n~` rb';de~i~)pment which also requires the developer
an approval by the but-4 test.
Mueller asked if the City can be sued over not administering tax increment financing.
Mr. Prosser has never heard of anyone suing on the basis of getting no increment tax
financing from a city, although, he will do further research to get an exact answer.
Mr. Chamberlain stated this parcel has always been in the proposed tax increment
financing district. He stated the ballfields, football field and track qualify the property as
an improved district.
Mueller asked if by taking out the ballfields, would that change in any way, shape or
form the City's qualifications for tax increment financing. Mr. Prosser stated that it
would affect it because there has to be a certain portion that has to be substandard. He
stated this is a large parcei with substandard buildings and this helps the City qualify for
TIF.
Mueller suggested a friendly amended to the motion with regard to changing the maps
to exclude the school district property but include the Phillip 66 and Green Tee area.
Brown stated it has been made very clear to the developer that tax increment funding
will not be offered to him. Brown also stated if we take it out now, there is a possibility it
will not qualify as a later point in time.
Mr. Prosser stated it is appropriate to include those suggestions and recommendations
and to allow the public policy issue to rest with the City Council. Mr. Prosser also stated
if you because the school district property in as TIF there will be more flexibility in the
City's plan and that ultimately would be a benefit to the City.
Voss stated he will not amend his motion and believes the tax increment financing plan
as presented is in the best interest of the community as a whole.
Brown stated he will continue his second to the motion and is in agreement that the
Commissioners should always have input.
Chair Michael invited Peter Meyer to speak but stressed he will need to cover different
12
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, December 13, 1999
issues than what Mr. Casey has presented that are related to the tax increment
financing plan.
Peter Meyer restated the goals of the recreation secuu, from the Comprehensive Plan
that stated the plan should be for "all Mound residents." Mr. Meyer proposed
...... ~L¢¢,~' ~ ,
presenbng ~nformabon regarding the ~ce skat~ng,'gnk's ~n Mound.
Chair M~chael stated the group tomcil~t ~s.wor~n~'::on the tax ~ncrement financing plan
,, ~ ~ ~ ,~;.~ ~ . , ,
and all c~t~zens need to stay focused~on that ~ssue and not ~ce skating nnks.
Brown stated Mr. Meyer has already~x~'ressed his concerns regarding the ice skating
rinks in town.
Mr. Meyer continues to mention the ice skating rinks sited as public and private and
mentioned the parkland space and its significance over the past 50 years.
Chair Michael stated he cannot allow Mr. Meyer to read his 15 page packet tonight
because it does not appear to be addressing the TIF plan and the Commissioners have
not had a chance to review this in a timely manner.
Mueller asked Mr. Meyer what issue he specifically is addressing in the tax increment
financing plan. Mr. Meyer stated he is addressing the green space being considered as
tax increment financing. Mr. Meyer stated he would like to inform the Commissioners
the 15 groups that want to retain the green space for skating rinks.
Voss stated this is not point of order.
Brown stated to Mr. Meyer the information he presents tonight needs to involve the tax
increment financing plan and not the parks.
Chair Michael stated to Mr. Meyer the Commissioners have questioned his point of
order and will call the question. Chair Michael stated he will allow Mr. Meyer to speak
for five minutes and then he will be asked to sit down. Mr. Meyer agreed but felt
pressured.
Chair Michael allowed Mr. Meyer to start speaking at 9:43 p.m.
Mr. Meyer stated the parklands have been public property for over 50 years. He stated
there is inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Tax Increment Financing
Plan in the parkland section. Mr. Meyer stated the parkland is a great area of land that
should be kept for park use. Mr. Meyer stated there are several cities in the vicinity that
provide appropriate skating rinks and warming houses. He would like to see this in
Mound. Mr. Meyer presented letters from ECFE, Grandview, Shirley Hills, Mr. Cold,
and others stating the need to keep the green space for park use.
13
Mound Planning Commission Minutes, December 13. 1999
Chair Michael asked Mr. Meyer to be seated at 9:48 p.m.
Victoria Nolton, 2923 Dickson Lane. Ms. Nolton is in favor of keeping the green space
for park use for the future of the kids in the City o,f'~ound. -.
Mueller stated strongly to urge the Commissioners tb vote against the motion at hand
and take the green space out of the tax ~ncre~en~ fin~ancing plan. He also stated to be
consistent the Phillip 66 and the Grebn~o~d be included as TIF
Weiland asked will the financing ~f t~e ",gelespy money" have an affect on the TIF funds
or will it be acceptable and used in ~bnj'Snction with TIF.
Brown stated the "gelespy money" is a grant to the senior citizens and does not relate
to tax increment financing.
Mueller asked if the senior citizens would like to present a development, can this be
done with tax increment financing.
Councilmember Mark Hanus stated the potential senior citizens center is tax exempt
which would make them not eligible for tax increment financing.
Mr. Prosser stated the senior citizens can apply, but if there is no tax benefit, the tax
increment funding would not be allowed.
Voss called the question.
MOTION DENIED. 3-4. Glister, Brown, Voss voting aye; Mueller, Burma,
Hasse, Weiland, voting nay.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Chair Michael, to exclude the parkland on
the west side of Belaire but to include the Phillip 66 and the Green Tee
area as part of the tax increment financing district.
Discussion:
Brown stated he would accept the additions of the Phillip 66 building and Green Tee,
but to exclude the school district property at this point would not benefit the whole
visions project as a whole.
Mueller stated by adding Phillip 66 and the Green Tee, which would be considered
substandard buildings, the City would be trading the school district property for the two
parcels above.
Glister questioned again the flexibility of requalifying parcels.
14
Mound Plannino Commission Minutes, December 13. 1999
Mr. Prosser restated it could be difficult to get back the school district property into the
tax increment financing plan by qualifying it independently. He stated qualifications
include a certain substandard buildings amount to cover a certain percentage of your
district. ~ ~.~ ~
Glister stated the only gain to take the school district' property out at this point would be
to not give the developer the perception there is ;tax increment funding available.
Mueller stated strongly the school di§tfi'~t p.'~r~l'should be taken out at this time. If
after the referendum the property;is ~t~!!.,iava~lable, then it can be put back in to the tax
increment financing plan at that ~m~ ,~
Brown stated strongly to include the school district parcel at this time because if it has
to be requalified independently at a later date, it may not get included as TIF.
Mr. Prosser stated to keep in mind the approval or comments relating to the tax
increment plan, the plan as a whole does not change the land use or provides property
rights in terms of increased value to the property owners.
Chair Michael asked if the school district property was added back in at a later date,
would there be a public hearing. Mr. Prosser stated the City would have to go through
the whole process which would include a public hearing.
MOTION DENIED. 3-5. Mueller, Burma, Hasse voting aye; Brown, Voss,
Glister, Michael, Weiland voting nay.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Glister, to include the Phillip 66 and Green
Tee to the tax increment financing plan, as well as the school district
property.
Discussion'
Mueller asked why Brown thinks this is consistent with the plan we passed with leaving
the school district property as parkland in the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Michael stated he reviewed the minutes and does not recall voting for leaving that
space as parkland. Chair Michael is not willing to allow the land to be vacant.
Mueller restated to only allow the Phillip 66 and Green Tee area to be included in TIF,
but not to include the school district property.
Brown questioned the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. 5-3. Brown, Voss, Weiland, Michael, Glister voting aye;
Mueller, Burma, Hasse voting nay.
15
Mound Planning Commission Minutes. December 13. 1999
DISCUSSION:
DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBLE CONVERSlO?~F THE DAKOTA RAIL
CORRIDOR INTO A REGIONAL RECREATIONAE'TRAIL.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by V'6s~j to approve the proposed
· ~ , ~;~,,2. ~ ~" , -- ,-- ,
resolution of Dakota Rad CorncFor into ~Regmnal RecreatIonal Tra,I.
Voss was concerned where the trail:wo'uld,:run through with the proposed downtown
area. Brown suggested havingt~e {,fii~run parallel to Highway 15 and then come back
along Lake Langdon. ~
Tom Casey stated the park commission just recently approved a similar resolution and
in support of the Planning Commissions motion regarding this topic.
MOTION CARRIED. 8-0.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting· MOTION
CARRIED: 8-0,
Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
16
DRAFT
' Mound 2°wn:own ?eCeve2oomen:
:ues:lons .,nswers
· MOUND VISIONS -- BUILDING A BETTER COMMUNITY ·
tn ] 99I, an e~brt to rs~dtalize Downtown
~ade sinc~ that ~' ' ..... '.
T&s Q&,4 provides some answers to frequently
asked questions about rms project,
Q. What can you tell me about plans to
redevelop Downtown Mound?
A. The Mound Housing & Redevelopment .~¥.[~oritV
voted at its meet. in~ Tue.~dav, December 14, to approve
a redevdopment plan for Downtown Mound based
the Mound Visions Concept Plan first introduced m
1992. The plan calls for reorienting downtown towards
Lost Lake and Lake Langdon and featuring new com-
mercial development, new housing, a transit stariotl,
public greemvay, peOesman walkways and opening
Lost LaKe Canal to boats. The redevelopment area
encomoasses aoout i00 acres of downtown (See me
map on b~ck page).
Q. Why is downtown being redeveloped?
.t:~' A. Mound's down-
town once was a
central commercial
district and heart of
the community
where people met,
dined, gathered,
shopped and did
business. However,
over the years the
downtown has
Dmv;,,toun todd,' suffered frorn a lack
of' reinvestment and
new investment, in 1991, the Ciq/Council spear-
headed a downtown revitalization effort and gathered
a large group of community volunteer~ to work with
the City's Economic De~'elopment Con=nismon to
look at strategies for revitalizing downtov.'n. They .
determined that a big reason for the decline of down-
town was that it didn't work well as a district because
of irs layout and ~:~entation.
CITY OF MOUND
The downtown is chopped up by railroad and county
roads that provide no on-street parking. Retail store-
fronts ara disconnected and do not form continuous
shopping loops. The beautiful lakes that ~urround
downtown and that historically played an important
role in the community are hidden. The area is not
pedestrian friendly, Redeveiopment would reorient
downtown to the lakes, relocate County Road ! 5,
bring new investment into Mound and provide public
i~cilitie~ such as a small recreational harbor, boat docks,
a greenway along the Lost Lake shore and a transit
station, Lost Lake Canal has already been restored as
part of this project,
Q, How will the redevelopment be financed
and what u, ill it cost?
A. The redevelopment will cost about $23 million and
ir ~vlll be financed by land sales, developer fees, and tax
increment finance (TIP), The City has also received a
federal iSTEA grant to help pay to rehabilitate the
Lost Lake Canal, The Ci~' has abe mod gas tax dollars
to reconstruct Auditors Road and will use the same to
reconswuo' County Road 15,
Q. What is tax increment finance (TIF)?
A. Tax increment is a tool that Minnesota communities
use to attract residential and commercial development
that would not normally come to a community be-
cause of the costs to build there. When a new develop-
ment is built, the property taxes from the increased
value go to pay site costa such as acquisition, demoli-
tion, utilities and transportation improvements. Mean-
while, a steady stream of property tax revenue equiva-
lent to what the previous property had been paying
continues to the city and alt other taxingjurisdictions,
The Commerce Place development in Mound was
financed using TiF.
Q. When will the redevelopment occur?
A. The entire redevelopment is expected to occur o~er
the next three to five years. This type of redevelop-
ment is dependent upon a number of factors outside of
city control, such as market conditions. Therefore, it is
' 00 08:45RI','1 EHLERS :~ RSSOC:~.ATE'5
DRAF'r
possible that the tedevel0pment may take longer than
ortgtnaiIy prqiected. Work is currently un..qer~,a? to
compter_e dredging and tmprovernen~.s to the channel
and harbor. The 8reenwa% delayed slig/tdy because of
the relocation of the post office, ts expected to be
t.,ountv Roaa i ?o w',il be reio-
compieted late 200 i. "- '
ca[ed m 2002 and o~er commerciai and residenuai
redevelopment will occtlr in 2000 and a£cer.
Q. What can you tell me about the future of the old
high school athletic fields in me redevelopment area'?
&. This property is part of a larger s~te curremty
owned and controlled ~v the Wesronka Schom Dismct.
The School District no ionger has a need ~or this
property and is in the process o£ selling d~e land for
potential development, in ad~ricn, there !.s commu-
nit,,' interest in determ',ning whether:,' h~.~ aubti::,
_ a .h.eJ ~
would st~pport acquisition of the property for r' i ~'r.
purposes. It is expected that more reformat, ion about
this issue ;viii be avaflable in the next 60 to 90 days,
Q. How can I find our more information?
A. The C!ty will be oroviding periodic updates on the
redevelopment project in the City's newsletter, City
Contact. and in the weekly newspaper. The Laker.
you have questions, please feel free to cml any of the
~'cllowing for more information:
Mayor. Par Met~el ..................................................... 611-472-2097
Coundl Member, Andrea Ahren~ ............................. §12-472-1520
Council Member. Bob Brown ...................................
Council Member, Mark Hanu$ ................................. ~12-472-5480
Council Member, Leah Weycker .............................. ¢12-47~-4187
Mound Reaevelopmenr Consul[an[.
jim Prosser ............................................................... 651-697-8503
Mound Visions Coordinator,
Bruce Chamberlain .................................................. ~ 12-338-9860
0 o°
d o
LEGEND
A. Langdon District
B. Coast-to-Coast District
C. Audi[ods Road District
D. Lost Lake District
2000
AMM fAX
Jan. 10-14., 2000
A ociation of
['letropolitan
lunidpaliti¢
AMM Fax News is faxed periodically
to all AMM city managers and
administrators. The information is in-
tended to be shared with mayors,
councilmembers and staff in order to
keep officials abreast of important
metro city issues.
Copyright 1999 AMM
145 University Avenue F~est
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000
Fax: (651) 281-1299
E-mail: amm~ammI 4 5. org
Ventura unveils his 'Moving
Minnesota' transportation plan
Gov. Jesse Ventura announced
today his "Moving Minnesota"
transportation investment strategy.
The proposal, which is state-
wide, long-term and multi-modal,
establishes:
· A $75 maximum license tab fee
effective July 1, 2000.
e An estimated $275 million
onetime General Fund transfer to
the Trunk Highway Fund to replace
the lost license tab revenue in
fiscal year 2001.
· A 100 percent transfer of the
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET)
for transportation purposes to start
in fiscal year 2002.
The plan includes a constitu-
tional amendment to dedicate a
portion of MVET revenue annually
to the highway User Tax Distribu-
tion Fund to replace lost license tab
revenues.
Also, the remainder of the annual
MVET revenue will be statutorily
dedicated to create a Multimodal
Transportation Fund.
According to Transportation
Commissioner El Tinklenberg, "The
funding proposal calls for approxi-
mately a quarter of a billion dollars
per year in new money for trans-
portation and transit. This is be-
tween $2.4 and $3 billion over the
next 10 years."
The Moving Minnesota plan,
which is a ten-year strategy, fo-
cuses on three funding initiatives
called the ABCs.
A - ADVANTAGES FOR TRANSIT
The aim is to increase transit
advantages over driving alone
including a significant increase in
Twin Cities bus service, light rail,
commuter rail and busway transit
connections and transit service to
all Minnesota counties.
B - BOTTLENECK REMOVAL
The aim is to remove traffic
bottlenecks on urban highways and
bridges and improve mobility and
safety.
C - CORRIDOR CONNECTIONS
The aim is to improve and protect
the important connections between
regional trade centers in order to
enhance the competitiveness and
economic vitality of the state.
Seventy-five percent of the
Mulimodal Transportation Fund will
be transferred to Mn/DOT to help
implement the statewide transporta-
tion initiatives and 25 percent will go
to the Metropolitan Council for
metro area transit purposes (bus
capital and service expansion,
busway and LET operations).
The proposal represents a 35
percent increase in transit services
for the metro area.
If you have questions or to re-
quest a fact sheet outlining the
governor's plan, contact AMM
Legislative Affairs Director Roger
Peterson at (651) 215-4000.