2000-05-09PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2000, 7:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
*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.
PAGE
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are
not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon
after the Consent Agenda has been approved.
3. * CONS .ENT AGENDA:
*A.
APPROVE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FROM APRIL 18, 2000 ............................. 1685-1693
*B.
APPROVE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FROM
APRIl. 25, 2000 .................................. 1694-1706
*C.
APPROVE MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS ..................... 1707
Mound City Days
American Legion
Mound Volunteer Fire Department
*D. AWARD BID FOR SEAL COATING .................... 1708-1709
*E. PAYMENT OF BILLS ............................. 1710-1723
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3
MINUTES PER SUBJECT.)
ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY
27 FOOT STATUS ON THE AYAZ DOCK SITE ................. 1724-1740
5. DISCUSSION ON ANTENNA RENTALS .......................... 1741
6. DISCUSSION ON STORM WATER RATES AND RECOMMENDATION
1683
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHA1VIBERS.
TO CALL PUBLIC HEARING ............................. 1742-1758
7. KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES WORKSHOPS FOR CAPITAL NEEDS. 1759-176~2
8. COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUES .......... 1763-1775
9. APPOINTMENT OF OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE MEMBERS ........ 1776-1781
10. MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ................................ 1782-1783
11. CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR SALARIES .................... 1784-1792
12. CITY CLERK'S COMPENSATION ............. ' ............. 1793-1794
REFER TO COUNCIL BRIEFING IMMEDITALY FOLLOWING AGENDA PAGE 1685.
13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
A. Council goals and priorities for the Manager.
B. Communication means.
C. Interest in individual meetings.
14. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Finance Director Businario
1. Annual Report .............................. 1795-1806
2. Revenues & Expenditures Report: March 2000 ........... 1807-1808
3. Investments Report: Apr 18, 2000 ...................... 1809
B. LMC Memo: Board of Directors Vacancies ................. 1810-1817
C. Friday Fax ..................................... 1818-1819
D. AMM Fax ..................................... 1820-1821
E. Suburban Rate Authority Minutes: Apr 19, 2000 .............. 1822-1826
F. Dock and Commons Advisory Board Commission
Minutes: Apr 20, 2000 .............................. 1827-1836
G. LMCD Minutes: Mar 22, 2000 ......................... 1837-1840
H. Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Minutes: Apr 13, 2000. 1841-1847
I. Minnehaha'Creek Watershed District rule revisions ............. 1848-1857
J. We really need a Special Legislative Session, don't we .............. 1858
K. May 2000 Calendar .................................... 1859
1684
COUNCIL BRIEFING
May 9, 2000
#5. Antenna Rentals
The practice of renting space on water towers is becoming a very lucrative form of
revenue for cities. Staff is recommending a proactive approach and systematically
soliciting renters. Thought should be given to possibly earmarking those revenues for
specific purposes. At Kasson they became Water Fund revenues. That approach would
help offset upcoming capital needs in that area (i.e., well, tower, water looping).
#6. Storm Sewer Rates
Please bring your bound version of the Storm Sewer Rate Study for your reference at the
meeting. It has a navy blue plastic spine with a picture of City Hall on the front. To
soften the impact of the implementation of a new charge to the taxpayers, I am
recommending communications in the following forms: 1) a publication in the Laker, 2)
an Open House on the subject, and 3) the Public Hearing. Adoption of the rates can only
take place after the Public Hearing.
#7. Key Financial Strategies
The redevelopment plans and other pressures are making long range planning for capital
needs a necessity. Prosser will discuss the Key Financial Strategies workshops being
proposed, which will facilitate the development of a five-year capital plan that can be
completed in time to be funded in the 2001 Budget.
#8. Communications Plan
The most consistent complaint received to date has been the lack of communication, both
internal and external to the organization. I can make a difference internally, which we
will talk more about later. Jill Schultz, Communications Consultant, will propose a 90
day communications plan that will provide the public with factual information meant to
dispense with some of the rumors and restore confidence in City Hall and Mound local
government. Staff is recommending that the HRA levy be earmarked for communication
costs over the course of the redevelopment. There is currently $203,000 in the fund.
#9. Open Space Task Force
Council members are reminded to contact those persons you consider good candidates for
appointment to the Open Space Task Force for their consensus for involvement. The
committee of five members must be appointed at this meeting to meet their first meeting
date of May 17.
#11. Council & Mayor Salaries
The salary survey contained is an updated version of the one in your last packet. Please
refer to these rates of pay as you consider the content of an amended ordinance to
increase council and mayor rates and methods of pay.
#12. Clerk's Compensation
Minutes reflect discussion by the Council to offer a lump sum payment to the City Clerk,
based on her performance as Interim City Manager. Starting April 17, her compensation
was restored to thc year 2000 rate of pay under thc 2000 Pay Plan, or $56,406, from
$57,076. A decision must be made as the amount ora lump sum award.
#13. City Manager's Report
A. Please prepare discussion points from which will come council consensus for the
work priorities for the City Manager, to ensure we are all in sync. You may wish to
consult the profile set by Mercer Group.
Good communication is key to the effective operations of the City. You may expect
communication means from me in the following forms: identical information via
Council packets, e-mails and mailings. There is an opportunity to receive identical
phone messaging through the system at City Hall. You would dial in from any
location to retrieve messages. Is this form of communication something you are
interested in? The School Board utilizes this form of communication.
Now that there is a City Manager on board, communication from up and down the
Chain of Command needs to pass through the City Manager. This precludes direct
communication between employees and council members. This observance is also in
effect for consultants to the City, at their request. The exception to the above could
occur when I ask an employee or a consultant to communicate directly with you for
the best possible communication on a subject.
To assist in my orientation to the position, Council members are invited to meet with
me individually. Each may set his or her own formats for the meeting (i.e., a lunch, a
tour, a meeting in my office, or other creative or appropriate setting). Please call me
to set up a time.
Thanks for your consideration!
MINUTES - MOUND COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -APRIL 18, 2000
The Committee of the Whole for the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, April 18, 2000, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Workroom at $341
Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah
Weycker. Absent and excused: Mayor Pat Meisel. Also in attendance: City Manager
Kandis Hanson, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City Planner Loren Gordon, Financial
Advisor James Prosser, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. Others present: Peter Meyer.
Acting Mayor Hanus welcomed those present and opened the meeting at 7:33 p.m.
1.0 DETERMINATION OF ROLF$ IN COAST TO COAST (MOUND FAMILY
HARDWARE) PROJECT.
Gordon stated the City is continuing to work on a developer's agreement with the Dodd's for
their new Mound Family Hardware store, and it is now time to address platting issues. He
stated there would be a land swap between the Dodd's and the City. The City will transfer a
portion of existing municipal parking lot to the Dodd's in return for the existing Coast to
Coast store site. To date, staff has a general understanding of where the new property line
should be established and are working to finalize its location.
Gordon stated as a component of the development approval, the property would need to be
replatted through the major subdivision process. He stated because of the City's land
interests in the development, the Council needs to determine its role. One option would be
to have the Dodd's make the application and prepare the platting documents. This would
place the City in a more of a reactive review role to their submittal information. A second
alternative is for the City to be the applicant.
Gordon stated in this case, Staff would suggest that the City assume the role of the applicant.
He stated this is the best approach because of the City's interest in land and the accurate and
available survey information prepared by MFRA last fall, and the ability to better guide the
plat preparation. He stated with either of the two scenarios, he would suggest that the costs
of platting would be shared by the Dodd's and the City based on land area. This would
include all aspects from application, plat preparation and review, to filing.
Councilmember Ahrens asked if there will always an interest in the land in these cases. Mr.
Prosser stated there would be probably an indirect interest at all times. He further stated this
case is much different than most because of the City's ownership of one of the parcels.
CITY OF MOUND - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES- .J. PR1L l& 2000
Councilmember Brown mentioned the people of downtown Mound currently think the City
Council is favoring the Dodds over any other business owner. He is concerned about taking
this project on as the applicant because of the perception.
Acting City Manager stated the upcoming newsletter will be distributed very soon and this
will have information that will answer a lot of questions the business owners may have about
their property and other downtown property. She further stated the Dodd's case is unique
because of the City owning the property it does.
Councilmember Brown mentioned there is a perception by the public that the City Council is
not being fair to ail businesses of Mound.
Councilmember Ahrens asked if the Dodd's approached the City or did the City approach the
Dodd's regarding their property. Gordon stated the City approached the Dodd's because the
Dodd's were proactive and stepped up to negotiate with the City before a developer's
agreement existed. Acting Mayor Hanus stated now there is a preliminary developer's
agreement and the businesses need to approach the developer; and in the people's eyes it
might appear this is not fair.
Councilmember Weycker asked about advantages of the City being the applicant versus the
Dodd's in this case. Gordon stated the materials would be duplicated causing unnecessary
effort and costs on the Dodd's part.
Councilmember Ahrens stated it appears the best option for the City would be to be the
applicant. Gordon agreed.
Mr. Prosser stated it would be also in the City's best interest to wait and plat this property
until all issues have been worked out, such as easement issues and just knowing exactly what
would be situated where.
Councilmember Brown stated at the previous Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission stated they would appreciate getting zoning and variance issues in a timely
manner. Acting Mayor Hanus would like to accommodate the Planning Commission's
request, although the City of Mound does not have this luxury because of timing issues
involved. He further stated if the Planning Commission reviewed everything, this would
slow the process down, thus slowing the entire project.
Mr. Prosser asked what actions would the Planning Commission need to take regarding the
redevelopment. Gordon stated there would be a variance issue and the major subdivision.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated there is an incorrect perception of what the Planning Commission
would like to do versus what the Planning Commission really needs to do in their role. Mr.
2
CITY OF MOUND - COMMITI~EE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES- APRIL 18, 2000
Prosser stated the Planning Commission's role is governed by State Statutes and may need to
be reviewed with the Planning Commission.
The Acting City Manager stated the Dodd's would like to be moved in by November 1,
2000.
Councilmember Brown stated he as well as the other members of the Planning Commission
would appreciate more than one night to look over the proposal. Councilmember Ahrens
stated the City Council has not seen some of the proposals yet either.
Acting Mayor Hanus stated by State Statute the Planning Commission did not need to look
at the post office sites; it was a considerate gesture by the City Council to have the Planning
Commission's input. Acting Mayor Hanus was displeased to hear Mr. Chamberlain received
a lot of grief from the Planning Commission regarding the post office and stated this was
quite inappropriate. He further stated he would like the Planning Commission involved as
much as possible.
Councilmember Brown stated he is concerned that the people of Mound will start getting the
impression the Planning Commission's recommendations are not very effective.
Acting Mayor Hanus further stated the City has made it quite clear we are on a fast track.
The City Council will do everything they can to keep the Planning Commission involved, but
they will not jeopardize the project's schedules.
Councilmember Weycker suggested inviting the Planning Commission when the proposal is
presented to the Council or HRA so both are reviewing it simultaneously.
Mr. Prosser stated the developer's agreement needs a 40-60 day review process before being
approved. He stated during this time the Planning Commission could review it with an
understanding of what their legal responsibilities are according to State Statute. It was
agreed the City Attorney would need to review this issue with Planning Commission.
Mr. Prosser further suggested there could be a format showing statute authority versus input
the City Council may want from the Planning Commission. The City Planner suggested this
would be a better means of communication and felt this process would be a good idea. He
further suggested having it graphed out properly for the Planning Commission with the
scheduled timelines and deadlines.
Mr. Prosser stated it is important to understand that every city goes through the same
frustrations as the City of Mound is encountering. Mr. Prosser stated this is very difficult
time period and it does have an impact on people. He stated the City of Mound needs to
reduce the negative impacts by showing the long-term goal and hopefully the long-term goal
CITY OF MOUND - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES- .APRIL l& 2000
will outweigh the negative impacts. Mr. Prosser suggested using a communications specialist,
like Jill Schultz, who specializes in this type of communications. He further suggested
everything needs to be made quite clear to the public, whether it will make them happy or
not. This way, the public will know the City is being honest about this project even though
they might not agree with all aspects.
Acting Mayor Hanus further suggested another problem the City will encounter would be
with TIF. Citizens and other business owners may find out that some individuals get more
TIF than others and to explain there is no rhyme or reason to determine this result, could
frustrate many persons.
The City Manager stated there is no way to guarantee fairness in these types of projects.
She stated these projects need to be handled on a case-by-case basis and the standards applied
equally as they occur.
The City Manager asked what percent of local contribution is required for the City of Mound
regarding this project. Mr. Prosser stated it would be about 5 percent. Mr. Prosser further
stated the City Council needs to remember two items of expense will include a new well and
the realignment of County Road 15.
The City Manager mentioned the newsletter as a good means of communication to the public
concerning TIF and other concerns.
Mr. Prosser stated a briefing book would be another means of communication.
Councilmember Ahrens suggested since this process has been completed in many cities, why
isn't there not a book that other cities could use when dealing with similar situations.
Mr. Prosser restated Jill Schultz is a good candidate for presenting good communication to
the people of Mound. He further suggested possibly using some of Richfield's information
to help with some problems, but he stated every city is unique and they like to make their
own means of communication.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked about specifics of the swap with Mound Family Hardware The
City Planner provided the Council with a diagram of the project.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked if the City is going to consider land value at this time with the
Dodd's. Mr. Prosser stated this is a waste of time. Mr. Prosser stated, rather, a rate of
return analysis was performed. He stated this is the simplest way of figuring out this issue.
CITY OF MOUND . COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES- APRI~ l& 2000
Acting Mayor Hanus asked what the status of the project is after the developer's agreement
is signed but before the plans are approved. Mr. Prosser stated development is subject to
getting approvals and there is risk involved. He further stated this is a very customary risk.
Councilmember Weycker asked if there are building issues, would these be worked out
appropriately? The City Planner stated yes.
Mr. Prosser stated the Dodd's, for not being developers, have been very conscientious. He
further stated they have performed very well and have done their homework, which include
estimates, going to the bank, putting building plans together, etc.
Mr. Prosser suggested again the filing of the replatting of this property wait, but he would
appreciate the City Council responding tonight if the replatfing process should be done by
the Dodd's or the City. Acting Mayor Hanus suggested this matter be sent to the Planning
Commission for review. Acting Mayor Hanus asked if this replatfing could be done
concurrently with the developer's agreement approval process. Mr. Prosser stated yes.
Acting Mayor Hanus asked about the Mueller property in the downtown redevelopment
location. The City Planner stated the City Attorney has looked at the property and it has been
replatted but it has not been filed. He further stated an extension already occurred once on
the filing of the plat. The City Planner is aware that Mueller, Sr. would probably need to
give up some property for the County Road 15 realignment project.
Councilmember Brown stated according to Mueller, Jr., he is handling Mueller, Sr.'s affairs.
The Acting City Manager suggested getting in touch with Mueller, Sr., regarding his
property in the downtown redevelopment location.
Councilmember Brown suggested the Planning Commission's big concerns regarding the
redevelopment are zoning and the major subdivision, and they are concerned there may not
be enough time to review these materials as detailed as they would like to review them.
Acting Mayor Hanus agreed there might not be enough time, so the Planning Commission
will need to start acting very quickly in the future regarding projects concerning
redevelopment.
Councilmember Ahrens agreed that the City should act as applicant but this process should
not begin quite yet. Mr. Prosser agreed.
Acting Mayor Hanus also suggested creating a timeline for the Planning Commission that
would help them understand the deadlines of the project more and give them a "heads-up"
concept regarding the redevelopment. Mr. Prosser agreed.
CITY OF MOUND - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES- APRIL 18, 2000
The City Manager restated the November 1, 2000, date for the Dodd's to open their store is
a must because it is peak a season for him. She stated the City needs to use November 1,
2000, as the final date and then back up the deadlines from that point. This theory also
applies to the June, 2001, opening of the post office.
Councilmember Brown suggested a recommendation to have the City act as the applicant and
a timeline of the whole visions project created showing a "heads-up" concept for the
Planning Commission that would also assist the City Council as well. Acting Mayor Hanus
suggested a chart of some sort.
1.1 PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH HASBRO VACATION APPLICATION.
The City Planner stated Hasbro has been named in the chain of ownership and is responsible
for this property. He further stated Hasbro appears to be wanting to be a good corporate
citizen by cleaning up this property. As a result, the City Planner mentioned Hasbro needs
to mitigate this property and would like to construct a wetlands.
The City Planner further stated this is the first time their facility is considering this type of
action in any location in the United States. Evidently the Watershed has approved this
process and are being proactive. The City Planner stated in order for Hasbro to consider this
location as a wetland, they are going to need ownership of plated Morton Lane, which the
City owns, and ownership of the channel as well. He stated this wetland would be a pond
that will act on its own.
The City Planner explained the pond Hasbro would like to create would have the chemicals
in the property that are under ground, seep into the pond and rid the ground of the
contaminants.
The City Manager asked how long the test wells have been in place and the City Planner
stated 10 years.
The City Planner stated there is one more concern with this process. He stated the DenBeste
property is linked to this project because it abuts the channel and DenBeste is in the process
of selling this property to Steve Coddon and will close on this property in June. Mr.
Coddon is planning to build twin homes on this property.
The City Planner further stated the attorneys have been working with DenBeste and
encouraging her to sign off on a vacation because Hasbro would need this land next to the
channel at the south end to complete the pond for the mitigation process. Den Beste
evidently does not want to vacate the property because of the purchase agreement, and Mr.
Coddon may want this channel as part of his property for the homes he is planning.
CITY OF MOUND - COMMITIEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES- APRIL 18, ~000
Acting Mayor Hanus asked how much property Hasbro will need to make this pond
workable? Would Hasbro need the channel on the Dan Beste property or is Morton Lane
enough? The City Planner stated the figures are close. Acting Mayor Hanus further stated
he would like to retain some interest or ability to use the pond for storm water in the future.
Councilmember Brown asked if there is a possibility the location of this possible pond could
be made into a local skating pond with a warming house. The City Planner suggested this
would be a park role. He is assured that this Hasbro property does need to be cleaned up.
The City Planner stated a meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 24, 2000, where all
commissions, including City Council, have been invited to an educational meeting presented
by Hasbro and their engineering firm Barr.
The Acting City Manager recommended all members be present on Monday, April 24, 2000,
to discuss this issue further.
1.2 BRUSH AND LEAVES DROP OFF.
The Acting City Manager stated a brush and leave drop-off site has not been picked at this
time so she is suggesting it be the following two weekends after the May 6, 2000, spring
clean-up. She further stated the process of dumping off brush and leaves will be the same
procedure as past years.
The consensus agreed to have the brush and leave drop,off the following two weekends after
the May 6, 2000, clean-up.
1.3 SALARIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
Councilmember Brown recommended the Councilmembers and Mayor receive a $100
increase for the year 2001. The consensus agreed with this direction.
1.4 PREVIEW OF THE UPCOMING NEWSLETTER.
The Acting City Manager mentioned this newsletter is full of great information that will give
the public the questions and answers they are looking for on the redevelopment process.
Peter Meyer noted that the map in the newsletter for the Langdon District is not correct.
Acting Mayor Hanus agreed with Mr. Meyer and stated the map depicts the an area south of
the Langdon District. The Acting City Manager will correct this error.
7
CITY OF MOUND - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES- APRIL 18, 2000
Councilmember Ahrens stated the cable station will be airing Mound's Vision Project this
coming Saturday.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.
1.5 WOODLAND POINT SETTLEMENT. Councilmember Ahrens brought up some
items of concern with the LMCD and the City of Mound regarding Woodland Point
settlement. These would include:
1. The LMCD's attorney and the City's attorney, Karen Cole are from the same
firm;
2. The proposed dock's are set up as"T's"and Greg Nybeck stated the City
would have to open up its entire license if the City were to have "T" docks.
Councilmembers Ahrens stated the attorney conflict can be resolved, the
problem with the t's on the docks would likely to be discussed on the second
Wednesday in May by the LMCD.
Councilmember Ahrens stated there will be a schedule going to all of the Woodland Point
individuals showing the changes that will be occurring and if the above concerns cannot be
resolved, then legal counsel may need to step in.
1.6 PLANNING COMMISSION
Councilmember Brown stated Geoff Michael was displeased because he did not hear a reply
from the City Council regarding his letter he sent regarding the Hewitt case. Acting Mayor
Hanus stated he read the letter in a way that a reply was not needed; but he would be happy
to respond knowing now Mr. Michael does want a response. Acting Mayor Hanus agreed to
give Mr. Michael a telephone call regarding this concern.
Councilmember Weycker did state that the Hewitt case was completely changed and then
approved by the City Council, but it was not approved with the way the case was originally
presented and denied by the Planning Commission.
1.7 PEMBROKE DOCK ISSUE
Councilmember Brown stated he received a phone call from Jon Miller who lives in the
Pembroke neighborhood and has been on the waiting list for quite some time to move
from Centerview Beach to the Pembroke area. Mr. Miller's biggest complaint is that Mr.
Watson has three docks at the Pembroke site.
8
CITY OF MOUND - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES- APRIL 18, 2000
1.8 WESTONKA HEALTHY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE
Councilmember Weycker asked if a Council representative could attend the Collaborative's
meeting. Councilmember Brown stated he would attend as the City's behalf.
Councilmember Weycker will also be in attendance as a representative of the Collaborative.
1.10 AD.IOURNMENT.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn at 9:20 P.M. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0.
Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager
Attest: Council Secretary
9
MINUTFS - CITY COUNCIL -APRIL 2~, 2000
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, 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, City Manager
Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Sue
McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present: Klm Anderson, Alan
Blackwell, Donny Bonnicksen, Jane Carlson, Walter Carlson, Suzanne Claywell, Steve
Coddon, Ken & Sally Custer, Eric Funderburk, Tom Gray, Nancy Start, Lorrie Ham, John
Hubler, Pamela Janisch, Jackie & Peter Meyer, Dorothy & Bill Netka, Angle & Dan
Patterson, and Frank Weiland.
*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 Councilrnember 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
Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 8:06 P.M. and welcomed the people in attendance.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
Mayor Meisel introduced the City Manager, Kandis Hanson. Ms. Hanson stated she is very
pleased to be here tonight. She informed the public this would be her third leadership role in
a local government position; her first, working for a city near Rochester with the population
of about 1,400; her second, working for Kasson with 4,700 people; and her third, the City of
Mound. She stated she lives on the Island and looks forward to working for the City of
Mound.
APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Brown pulled Item A from the consent agenda.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the agenda and consent
agenda with the removal of Item A. The roll eaH vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
CONSENT AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25. 2000
*1.0
*1.1
'1.2
CASE ~)9-36: VARIANCE; JOHN HUBLER, 5816 GRANDVIEW
BOULEVARD, LOT 1, MOUND SHORES; IN ORDER TO INSTALL A
THREE SEASON PORCH ON AN EXISTING DECK; PID# 14-117-24 13 0003.
RESOLUTION//00-43:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD,
SIDE YARD, AND LAKF~IDE VARIANCES
TO CONSTRUCT A LAKESIDE PORCH ON
THE RESIDENCE AT 5816 GRANDVIEW
BOULEVARD, LOT 1, MOUND SHORES
DEVON, PID# 14-117-24 13 0003, P & Z
CASE g99-36.
Ahrens, Brown, unanimously.
CASE//00-10: VARIANCE; DAVE WILLETTE, 5841 GRANDVIEW
BOULEVARD, LOT 14 INCLUDING % ADJACENT VACATED ALLEY,
MOUND ADDITION; IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMH.Y
DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE ON AN UNDERSIZED R-2 ZONE
LOT; PID# 14-11%24 13 0001.
RESOLUTION g00-44:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5841 GRANDVIEW
BOULEVARD, LOT 14 AND THAT
PORTION OF THE ADJOINING VACATED
ALLEY, MOUND, PID # 14.117-24 13 0001, P
& Z CASE #00-10.
Ahrens, Brown, unanimously.
CASE #00-11: VARIANCE; DON BONNICKSEN, 2156 CENTERVIEW LANE,
LOT 8 AND 31, BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO MOUND;
IN ORDER TO FINISH A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION WITH A
NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK; PID# 13-117-24 31 0052.
RESOLUTION//00-45:
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE
TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE
PRINCIPAL SWELLING TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED
GARAGE AND AN ADDITION TO THE
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, AT 2156
CENTERVIEW LAND, LOTS 8 AND 31,
BLOCK 7, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION
2
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25. 2000
TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID~ 13-117-24 31
0052, P & Z CASE/g00-11.
Ahrens, Brown, unanimously.
'1.3 APPROVAL OF MISCELLANEOUS LICENSES.
MOTION.
Ahrens, Brown, unanimously.
'1.4 PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION.
Ahrens, Brown, unanimously.
1.5 APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2000.
Councilmember Brown wanted to note on page 1493 and 1494, where Item K is mentioned,
it states "review by Docks, Parks and Council the dock and beach area" is correct and it is
not a typographical error. He wanted it clarified the Planning Commission would not be
reviewing this process.
Councilmember Hanus stated on page 1497, paragraph 12 should read as follows:
"Councilmember Hanus stated he works very hard to maintain or increase inland slips and
tonight, three slips were removed from the system."
Councilmember Brown stated on page 1495, paragraph 2, the first sentence was a statement
made by Orvin Burma rather than Councilmember Brown.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to accept the minutes of April 11,
2000, as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
5-0.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT SUBJECTS
NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SUBJECT.)
Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Boulevard. She wanted to be assured there would be a
chance for the people to speak with regard to Item 5 on the agenda.
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Boulevard. Mr. Meyer presented to the City Council a book
entitled Landscaping for Wildlife and Water Quality by Carol Henderson. He stated the book
contains information supported by the DNR and the Watershed District with regard to buffers
and storm water management, along with other interesting lake facts.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Councilmember Brown stated Mr. Meyer presented the book to the Planning Commission
last night as well.
Pamela Janisch, 1591 Eagle Lane. Ms. Janisch asked if there was anything the citizens of
Woodland Point could do to speed along the process concerning the docks. She stated she
heard the application was not complete and she would certainly assist in finishing the
application so it can be processed.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is confident the application has now been completed as of
Friday and this matter is on the agenda for the May 10, 2000, LMCD meeting.
Councilmember Ahrens will follow-up with regard to the completion of the application.
The City Manager stated all people involved in the Woodland Point matter would be
receiving a letter concerning the May 10, 2000, meeting as well as other information deemed
appropriate. This letter, evidently, is in its final stages, but it needs to be mailed to the
appropriate people. It was noted this letter should be sent to Ms. Janisch as well.
1.6
REQUEST FROM NANCY AND CONRAD STARR TO RECONSIDER THE
TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED FOR THEIR DETACHED GARAGE
TO ALLOW IT TO REMAIN.
Tom Gray, 1570 Hickory Drive, Maple Plane. Mr. Gray introduced himself as Nancy
Starr's brother and he would be speaking on behalf of the her for property located at 3152
Alexander Lane concerning the detached garage.
Mr. Gray gave a history of the property because it was owned by his deceased Dad and he
lived in it for many years. He stated he recalls when the stone wall was removed by the
City and replaced with something less likeable, as well as with this removal and the widening
of the road, his Dad having lost some of his property. He strongly agrees with the
applicants that they were under duress when they signed the agreement three years ago
stating they could not get a building permit to improve this house without tearing down the
dilapidated garage. Even though they did sign this agreement, they would have probably
done anything just to get a permit to improve their home. Mr. Gray further stated his sister
has incurred a great deal of expenses with the new garage that has been added, and it would
be a hardship to them to tear down the garage and have it hauled away, versus repairing the
garage and making it attractive. He further stated his sister does not want to injure the 100-
year-old maple trees adjacent to the garage. Mr. Gray made is clear he is very frustrated
with this case and will be fighting to save the garage as well as the maple trees. He strongly
suggested legal action would result if the case could not be resolved tonight.
Councilmember Brown stated he disagrees with the statement the applicant was under duress.
He stated the applicant came in for a building permit and was told she could not put up a
new garage until the old one was removed. As a courtesy, the City agreed to allow the
dilapidated garage to stay standing, because they understood the hardship, until the new one
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
was built. Couneilmember Brown stated three years have now gone by and it is time for the
dilapidated garage to be removed.
Councilmember Hanus asked staff about the setback code requirement for a front yard on this
matter. The Building Official stated on page 1641 of the City Council's packets it showed
the setback requirement to be 30 feet.
Councilmember Hanus stated the goal of the City is to bring as many properties as possible
into a conforming nature and this is accomplished when property owners come in for permits
to make improvements to their homes. He stated it would be impossible to police every
house in the City of Mound, unless some type of improvement is being made to the property
or home.
Mr. Gray and Mrs. Starr stated the City should enforce the codes either on all properties in
Mound or none. Councilmember Hanus asked the applicants how they would propose doing
this task and they did not have an answer for Councilmember Hanus.
The applicant gave an example on 4844 Island View Drive where a variance was just granted
that did not comply with the codes of Mound. Councilmember Hanus reminded the applicant
each case is different with different circumstances.
Councilmember Hanus stated he has been in the same situation as the applicant. He was
required to comply with City code even though he wanted to keep his old garage up for
storage which was allowed to stay up for two years, but when his new garage was built, the
old one had to be torn down according to City code.
The applicant had to leave Ohio and stated she felt the ordinance had "lightened up" a lot
since the time she had initially come in for a permit.
Councilmember Hanus stated the City Council mentioned that if the side lot would be
conforming, he would consider approving this case, but it is not. Mr. Gray stated the side
was conforming until the City came in and widened the road. He further stated he does not
want to lose the maple trees.
Mayor Meisel noted the tree fact is that the applicant did sign an agreement to remove the
dilapidated garage within three years of constructing a new garage. She also mentioned she
had a chimney that she did not want to have removed, but according to City code, it needed
to be removed before she could get a building permit.
Councilmember Ahrens stated Ms. Starr thought with streamlining, this could have been
kept, although that would not be the case because it is not conforming. The Building Official
stated this case would have two separate issues. He stated the applicant could have received
the permit to build the garage, but the existing garage would have needed structural repairs.
He further stated if a permit would have been requested to make repairs to the dilapidated
garage, he would have discovered the old garage was not conforming and a permit would not
5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIl. 25. 2000
have been issued but rather passed on for City Council decision. This is a structural matter
with a nonconformity. The Building Official referred to his report on page 1630 where the
setback indicates a 30-foot setback, which was conveyed to the Starrs in 1997. He stated
before any report it presented, it is reviewed with the City Planner and discussions occur
with regard how this fits into the Comprehensive Plan. The Building Official stated the
Comprehensive Plan states it takes a series of very tough decisions to correct the
nonconformance. He stated the City does grant variances in certain circumstances. He
mentioned to Mr. Gray the example on Island View was a good example, but again this case
had special circumstances. The Building Official does sympathize with the applicant, but
each case is resolved on a case-by-case.
Frank Weiland, 6045 Aspen Road. Mr. Weiland is a Planning Commission member. He
stated the City gave the property owners a monetary value for the property they lost when
the road was widened.
Mr. Gray asked the Building Official if the setback has always been 30 feet. The Building
Official stated it changed in 1983 from 20 to 30 feet.
Councilmember Weycker asked to see the record of the original platting done on the
property. She further stated that the City generally has a 10 to 20 foot right-of-way. The
Building Official noted page 164 ! of the packets and it appears 30 feet was represented
correctly as the setback. Furthermore, on page 1636 and 1637 there is a survey showing the
scale of the property.
Councilmember Weycker recalls discussions at previous meetings that there would be a
consideration if the building could be considered an accessory building and would then
comply with the accessory setbacks. The Building Official stated even if the building was
considered an accessory building, the setback would still be 30 feet.
Councilmember Hanus asked about the current extension given to the applicants on this
property. Staff stated the extension was given until June 1, 2000, before the garage needed
to be torn down, with an investigation by staff and the City Attorney to find out if sheds are
allowed in front yards. Staff confirmed that sheds are not allowed on this property in the
front yard because it is not a through lot.
Councilmember Weycker stated if this case been coming to the City Council as a brand new
case, the circumstances may be different. She stated the City Council really cannot go
against what they have already set precedent in previous meetings regarding this case. She
stated she does not want to encourage a lawsuit, but that may be the applicant's only
recourse.
Councilmember Weycker further stated it was agreed at a Planning Commission meeting
three years ago that the applicant would tear down the dilapidated garage after the new one
was constructed, and the three years have now passed. It is time to tear it down.
6
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to deny the variance request for the
detached garage and to keep the June 1, 2000, removal date for the dilapidated
garage. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.7 OPEN SPACE PETITION UPDATE.
Mayor Meisel stated the names on the petition have been validated and it has been verified
there are 982 signatures, 19 more than the 963 required. Mayor Meisel further stated there
are many things to prepare before an election occurs. She also stated there are unknown
answers to ten questions on page 1642 of the packet as outlined by Mr. Prosser before the
referendum occurs. Mayor Meisel suggested an advisory committee be organized to discuss
and answer these questions and then have the answers passed directly to the City Council.
Mayor Meisel would appreciate getting correct information from the committee so it could be
passed on to the pubic accurately.
Councilmember Weycker asked what would be earliest date before an election could occur.
The City Clerk stated 90 to 120 days.
Mayor Meisel suggested the advisory committee meet and spend no more than 30 days
before answers to the questions directed to the committee should be answered.
The City Clerk suggested having the referendum at the same time as the September 12th
Primary Election. She further stated a drop-dead date for the election would be July, 2000,
in order to hold the election in September.
Councilmember Hanus mentioned number 2 of the questions asks how the land would be
used and he strongly urges the Park Commission as well as the advisory committee answer
this question.
Tom Casey, a member of the Park Commission, asked the City Attorney if there are any
statutory deadlines for having an election. The City Attorney stated there are no statutes that
state when an election needs to be held.
Mr. Casey suggested pushing the election sooner than the primary election by having a
special election. He stated by having a special election there would be more invested in the
issue at hand than if it was thrown in with the primary or general election. Mr. Casey would
like this high priority for the City.
Mayor Meisel asked the City Clerk when the new machines would be ready to hold an
election. The City Clerk stated she would be attending a meeting tomorrow to find out when
the new machines would be available.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would appreciate as many people as possible involved at this
point in the referendum and he does not think rushing an election would be an appropriate
decision.
7
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Mayor Meisel is concerned the 10 questions listed in the packet are vital questions that need
to be answered and the information produced needs to be given to the public before the
election occurs. She also mentioned she would like to see this held in conjunction with a
regular election, like the primary election because is would draw a large number of people to
the polls.
Mr. Casey asked if it would be possible to find out what the developer has going on with the
property and to find out what the intentions and plans are for the developer regarding this
property. He wanted it confirmed the price would not be going up any time in the near
future causing more monies to be spent by the taxpayers if the people in favor of the green
space would win the election.
Mayor Meisel mentioned she is aware the developer is proposing housing, although soil tests,
architectural drawings, and such still need to be accomplished, and the closing date has been
set for no sooner than the end of June, 2000.
Mr. Prosser stated he is not speaking on behalf of anybody, including the developer, but his
conversations with the developer reveal to him that no final plans have been made. Metro
Plains is quite aware of the referendum regarding the green space, and would be concerned
about committing any funds to the project until the election has occurred. Mr. Prosser
further stated Metro Plains would probably need some assistance from the City in order to
construct the improvements because of the soil corrections needed. Mr. Prosser does not see
a proposal being presented or approved before the election has occurred.
Mr. Casey asked in the event a plat is submitted, would the City consider a moratorium.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the City has any obligation once a developer comes in and
meets TIF and zoning requirements to react to the proposal being presented. The City
Attorney stated agreeing to a moratorium would defuse this scenario.
Councilmember Weycker asked why would the City need to agree to a moratorium when it
was already stated by staff that the developer cannot build without the assistance of the City,
and the City would not approve any assistance knowing the referendum situation.
Councilmember Hanus stated if the delay were not a long-term commitment, he does not see
why a moratorium would pose a problem.
Councilmember Brown stated the developer has to come before the Planning Commission,
which would also allow more steps the developer would need to include in his development
process, thus allowing enough time for the election.
Mayor Meisel suggested a committee be appointed that could respond to the questions 1-10
listed on page 1642. She would appreciate the Committee being limited to no more than five
or six people.
8
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Peter Meyer suggested the advisory committee, once appointed, would meet at the next Park
Commission meeting in May, 2000.
Mayor Meisel wanted it clarified that there would be only one representative of the Park
Commission on the advisory committee.
Mayor Meisel suggested having the advisory committee meet and then send the answers to
the questions to the Park Commission, which would then forward them on to the City
Council. Councilmember Weycker and Brown agreed.
Mr. Meyer stated answers to these questions could be almost gathered this evening. The
City Attorney begged to differ in that these questions contained fiscal impact information on
the bond itself and ongoing maintenance costs of the City that the public should be made
aware of before voting. He further stated there is an amount that would show the principal
amount of the bond issue and that number has to be taken from the petition to use for the
referendum.
The City Manager suggested a diverse advisory committee be comprised in answering these
questions. She further recommended a representative from the school board be present as
well.
Mr. Meyer mentioned to keep in mind, since there was some concern about too much hard
cover being considered for the downtown redevelopment project, this green space could very
well be used to assist with that issue, if the referendum is passed.
There was discussion to agree to having Kim Anderson, Wayne Ehlebracht, and one Park
Commissioner, one Planning Commission member, and the school board appointee to serve
on the committee. The City Manager will advise Geoff Michael, the Chair of the Planning
Commission, of this advisory committee being formed. Further discussion at the Planning
Commission level would be helpful with the land use questions.
Mayor Meisel stated she would rather have the 5a person from the community that would not
be bias either way to be on the advisory committee. Councilmember Brown suggested Keith
Johnson.
Councilmember Hanus is concerned about making the advisory committee balanced.
balance group the information gathered by the advisory committee would be fair and
unbiased.
With a
Councilmember Hanus asked who would be distributing the data to the public once it is
presented. Mayor Meisel stated the City would be responsible for this distribution. The
City Manager suggested using Jill Schultz, the media specialist.
Councilmember Weycker suggested the City call the fifth person for the committee and also
set the meeting date.
9
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Mayor Meisel stated the advisory committee could not meet until after the Park Commission
meeting held on Thursday, May 11, 2000. She further stated this would allow the City
enough time to locate the 5'~ person on the advisory committee and who would fill the school
board's position on this committee as well.
Mayor Meisel informed those in attendance the meeting date for the advisory committee
would be held on May 17, 2000. She further stated the City Manager would contact the
Planning Commission, and the Park Commission to get their candidates for the committee.
The City Council to bring forward their suggestions on May 9, 2000, of a unbiased Mound
citizen. Mayor Meisel further stated this committee would be only in existence short-term,
approximately one month. Councilmember Brown stated he would contact Keith Johnson.
Mayor Meisel further instructed that the advisory committee to have the answers from these
l0 questions proposed back to the City Council within at least 30 days from the May 17,
2000, meeting.
The consensus agreed to have the referendum put on the primary election ballot in
September, 2000.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she would rather have the referendum on the general election
because this is the time all of the people of Mound would be going to the polls.
Mayor Meisel took a break at 9:50 p.m.
1.8 EXECUTIVE SESSION - POSSIBLE LITIGATION.
The City Attorney stated the City Council would be going into executive session to discuss
possible litigation against the City of Mound.
The City Council went into executive session at 10:00 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 10:35 p.m. from executive session.
The City Attorney stated to the public there were recommendations given by the City
Council to the City Attorney regarding possible litigation.
1.9 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SALARIES.
Mayor Meisel stated previous conversations concerning this topic included to either increase
the pay of the Mayor and Councilmembers or to do a special meeting reimbursement.
Councilmember Brown suggested with the extra meetings the Councilmembers are being
expected to attend, he would suggest having a flat increase of $100 per month for the Mayor
and Councilmembers or a stipend increase for only special meetings.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Couneilmember Hanus stated when looking at what other Couneilmembers receive for
attending meetings in other cities, the amount the Mayor and Councilmembers r~,,~ive is not
out of line. He stated what is out of line is the number of meetings expected to be attended
by the members. Councilmember Hanus stated if the rate of increase was done by stipend, it
would mean the increase of pay would go away once the special meetings would decrease,
causing the normal base salary to not change.
Mayor Meisel suggested getting rid of the COW meetings. Councilmember Hanus stated this
occurred in previous years and it was not a good solution.
Councilmember Ahrens agreed with getting rid of the COW meetings. She stated if an
individual is allowed less meetings, then s/he would obviously be encouraged to get more
work done in less of a timeframe, causing less unneeded discussion at regular meetings. She
basically stated the Councilmembers would become more efficient with the use of their time.
Councilmember Brown agreed the COW meetings are becoming more a public meeting than
what it was intended as a workshop for the Councilmembers.
Councilmember Hanus stated the COW meetings serve a purpose and should be left as a
workshop format.
Councilmember Weycker suggested having the COW meetings not scheduled for every
month. Mayor Meisel agreed.
Mayor Meisel stated the information discussed at the COW could be put as an informational
item at the City Council meetings. Councilmember Ahrens agreed.
Councilmember Weycker stated there are many other cities that are bigger than Mound and
they get more work done in a shorter timeframe.
Councilmember Hanus stated the City Council's plate is full and the need for more
discussion is pertinent.
Councilmember Hanus suggested having the HRA another night because of the recent
meetings that are running into City Council time.
Councilmember Weycker suggested trusting our staff more rather than knit-picking some of
these issues ourselves. She suggested having the City Manager getting more involved, now
that the City of Mound has a permanent City Manager.
Councilmember Brown suggested another way to save time would be to allow the public to
speak but do not debate the issues they bring up when they are presenting. He stated when
all public have presented their concerns it would be brought back to the City Council for
discussion.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Councilmember Weycker suggested switching the HRA and COW meetings.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission has a rule that they will not meet
beyond 11:00 p.m. without a majority vote.
MOTION by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Weycker, to eliminate the COW
meetings and keep the HRA meetings scheduled for 7:00 p.m., but allowing
special circumstances to change the starting time of the HRA's meetings to 6:30
p.m. when deemed appropriate.
Discussion.
Mayor Meisel stated because of the redevelopment projects, the meetings might need to
change to earlier times.
Councilmember Weycker stated the Councilmembers need to rely more on staff.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to reimburse the Mayor and
Councilmembers a rate of $30.00 per special City assigned meetings.
Discussion.
The City Manager stated the City could also do the reverse and keep the salaries as
specified for the normal meetings, but for any special meeting you would be
reimbursed, but there would be a cap of three special meetings per month that
reimbursement would be feasible. The Councilmembers would turn in a report to
payroll and time cards would be used as well.
Councilmember Ahrens is not in favor of the City Manager's suggested method of
reimbursement for attendance at special meetings.
Councilmember Weycker stated she appreciates the City Manager's proposal because
it would be possible once everything is more defined.
Councilmember Brown would like to see the salaries increased.
Councilmember Hanus stated he has no strong opinion with either way on
reimbursement, but he does not know if the term "special meeting" can be defined
adequately.
Councilmember Hanus asked if this would be an ordinance change. The City
Attorney stated it would be an ordinance change.
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Councilmember Brown withdrew hi~ motion because lack of support.
Thc matter was tabled until May 9, 2000, at which time recommendations from s~ff and
Councilmembers would be brought back to the City Council for discussion.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.
1. Financial Report for March, 2000, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
2. Cash & Investment Balances by Fund as of March 31, 2000.
3. LMCD mailings.
4. Copy of the Mound Newsletter which will be completed and out to the public soon.
5. POSC minutes dated April 13, 2000.
The City Attorney stated the Planning Commission met with Hasbro last night. He was
under the impression that at tonight's meeting the City Council would notice a public hearing
on the Morton Lane vacation.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission forwarded an approval of the Hasbro
project onto the City Council.
The City Attorney directed staff to have a public hearing on the Planning Commission's
agenda as soon as possible.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to schedule a public hearing with the
Planning Commission regarding the Morton Lane vacation to be held on June 12,
2000, and brought back to City Council on July 11, 2000. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker, to adjourn the meeting at 11:10
p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Attest: City Clerk
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
13
FOR THE MAY 9, 2000 COUNCIL MEETING
May 4, 2000
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
The following permits are being requested. Please waive the all fees except for the Beer Permit.
Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance etc. being turned in.
Mound City Days - June 16, 17 & 18, 2000.
Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit - Mound Bay Park - June 17, & 18, 2000
Pond Arena - June 16, 2000
Concessions
Craft Show
Entertainment - Pond Arena & Mound Bay Park
Fireworks - June 17, 20000 - Rain date June 18, 2000
Merchant Sales
Parade Permit - June 17, 2000
Public Dance Permit - June 16, 2000 - Pond Arena
Public Gathering - Mound Bay Park
Set-Up Permit - Pond Arena - June 16, 2000
American Le?ion/VFW
Parade Permit-
May 291, 2000 - 10:45 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. - Memorial Day
Parade
Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. requests the following permits for the June, 2000, Fish
Fry.
Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit
Public Dance Permit
Set-Up Permit
printed on recycled paper
May, 5, 2000 g'37AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
No. 4048--?. 2/3
Engineedng · P~nn/ng · Surveying
FRA
May 5, 2000
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
2000 Seal Coat Program
M. FRA #6173
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Wednesday, May 3, 2000, for the 2000 Seal C.~~.
Program. Three bids were received with the low bid of $27,500 submitted by Allied Blacktop,
The other bid amounts were $28,649.75 and $35,250. The Engineer's estimate for this project was
$29,625.
We also requested a price from the contractors to furnish the Class C a$gregate as Alternative A.
The City can save substantial money by providing the material themselves; therefore Public Works
will purchase the aggregate and have it delivered to a stockpile area for use by the contractor.
Public Works is pleased with the work done in the past by Allied Blacktop, Inc.; therefore, we are
recommending that Allied Blacktop, Inc. be awarded a contract in the amount of $27,500.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Ve~ truly yours,
MFRA
JC:pw
Enclosure
$:\main:~lou06173 :\Correspondence\mayorS~
15050 23rd Avenue Nort# · Plymouth, M/nnesota. 55447
phoa, 763/476-6010 · fax 765/476.$532
e.mail: mfra~mfra, com
May, 5, 2000 9' }8A}4 M,,i,C,O},'I~:S, FRANt'( R,:i:,OS, l'l:. ,_41 - ' '
0
PAYMENT BILLS
DATE: ~av 9, 9000
BILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
BATCH #
#0042
#0043
#0044
AMOUNT
$ 69,217.13
$ 7,816.48
$113,114.53
TOTAL BILLS $190,148.14
PAGE 1 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
VENDQL IN¥OICF DUF HOl b
NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS, AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
£~62 2369 224.57 CIISTOM RFFL SJD]J_A_JD_CAR GRAPHICS 01-~1GO-50flO
5/09/00 5/09/00 224.57 JRNL-CD lOlO
ADVANCED GkAPItlX [NC VFNDOR TOTAl 224.57
AO195 6014607 2,415.35 CITY MANAGER MOVE 01-4040-2210
S/09/00 5109100 2,~1S.3S JRNL-CD 1010
ALLIED VAN LINES MOVING CO VENDOR TOTAL 2415.35
A0333 000424 i79.7I THRU 03-31-00 GASOLINE CHARGES 73-7300-2210
5/09/00 5/09/00 I79.71 JRNL-CD
AMOCO OIL COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 179.71
A0403 000420-A 29.00 FMBROIDFRFO ~HIRT~ ¢2~ 0%-2300-0000
43.50 EMBROIDERED SHIRTS (3) 01-2300-0000
5/09/00 5/09/00 72.50 JRNL-CD 10%0
000420-B 8.87 JACKET 01-4280-2200
8.87 JACKET 73-7300-2200
8.88 JACKFT 70-7000-??~
5/09/00 5/09700 26.62 JRNL-CD iO1D
ASPEN EMBROIDERY & DESIGN VENDOR TOTAL 99.12
B0549 3i~08300 I78.24 MIX 71-7100-9540
5/09/00 5/09/00 178.24 JRNL-CD 1010
18748500 728.29 LIQUOR
5/09/00 5/09/00 728.29 JRNL-CD
i8755500 407.50 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
5/09/00 5/09/00 407.50 JRNL-CO ~010
31753300 162.86 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550
5/09/00 5/09/00 162.86 JRNL-CD 1010
1~795600 301.00 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510
5/09/00 5/09/00 301.00 JRNL-CD 1010
18799100 763.65 LIQUOR 7~-7100-9510
5/09/00 5/09/00 763.65 JRNL-CD 1010
BELLBOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 2541.54
B0567 ~57650 34.00 COFFEE 0~-4020-4120
17.00 COFFEE 01-4140-4120
17.00 COFFEE 01-4~40-4120
5/09/00 5/09/00 68.00 JRNL-CD 1010
BERRY COFFEE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 6~.00
C0859 03465i 2?0.90 BEDLINER, CARPET CLEANING ETC 01-4340-3810
5/09/00 5/09/00 270.90 JRNL-CD 1010
PAGE 2
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE- JOURNAL
CITY OF HOUND
INVOICE DUE HOlD
DATE DATE STATUS
5/09100 5109100
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
VENDOR
~ NO. INVOICE NMBR
D35926
!6 CHAMPION AUTO
C0920 000415
I~,; CITY OF MOUND
112
,31 C0930 157002
~ 5/09/00 5/09/00
I's' ~. CITYWIDE WINDOW SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL
i~8 C0939 80628
~ 5/09/00 5/09/00
CLASSIFIEDS VENDOR TOTAl
C0970 61340214
5/09/00 5/09/00
COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
3678
5/09/00 5/09/00
CONCEPT LANDSCAPING, INC. VENDOR TOTAL
CliO4 000501
5/09/00 5/09/00
CHADWICK AND HERTZ, P.A VENDOR TOTAl
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
ClO19 1370
Cl105 000418
CREPEAU DOCKS
ClllO 000506
CRETE WORKS INC
Dli54 64925
657~9
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
J?.O~ TRAIl FR WIRING KIT
17.03 JRNL-CD
287.9~
1~.46 03-00 WATER/SEWER
1~.46 JRNi-CD
i6.46
17.57
17.57
17.57
~4.50 04-15 ~ 04-22 FMP[~YM~NT A~
34.50 JRNL-CO
~4.50
140.32 MIX TAXABLE
140.32 JRNI-CD
I40.32
417.00 INSTALL DOCK AT DEPOT
417.00 JRNL-CD
11,339.00 INSTALL RETAINING WALL
11,339.00 JRNL-CD
11756.00
04-0i THRU 06-30 CLEAN WINDOWS
JRNL-CD
4.~70.17 04-00 PR~FF~SI~NAI ~FRViCFS
4,370.12 JRNL-CD
4~70.12
242.45 MUD PLATES, PIPE, ETC
242.45 JRNI-CD
242.45
2,275.00 SIDEWALK
250.00 APRON
1,160.00 CURB
725.00 COVE CIRCLE APRON AND CURVE
4,410.00 JRNL-CD
4410.00
256100 BEER
256.00 JRNL-CD
418.40 BEER
418.40 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBER
01-4340-3810
1010
71-7100-3740
71-7100-9550
1010
N~-4340-~10
I010
71-7100-9540
101~
81-4350-3800
1010
01-4280-4200
1010
nl-~llO-~12n
1010
01-4340-2330
01-4280-4200
73-7300-4200
7%-7%00-4200
78-7800-4200
1010
71-7100-95~0
1010
71-7100-95~0
1010
PAGE 3
AP-C02-01
VENDOR I N~OI CF DUF HOlD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
65343 7Z.O0
5/09/00 5~09~00 72.00
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING CO VENDOR TOTAL 746.40
Dl172 322422 1,450_03
5/09/00 5/09/00 1,450.03
DANKO EMERGENCY FQUIPMFNT VFNDOR TOTAl 1450.0~
D1200 93123 328.00
5/09/00 5/09/00 32A.00
94428 1,824.60
5/09/00 5/09/00
94429 78.05
5/09/00 5/09/00 78.0~
93587 1,529.75
5/09/00 5/09/00 1,529.75
DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3760.40
E1420 616763 416.00
5/09/00 5/09/00 416.00
617958 257.00
5/09/00 5/09/00 257.00
618637 57.40
5/09/00 5/09/00 57.40
618636 3,675.55
5/09/00 5/09/00 3,675.55
621022 1,984.50
5/09/00 5/09/00 1,984.50
621748 3,889.50
5/09/00 5/09/00 3,889.50
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL 10279.95
F17iO 000425-A 108.79
5/09/00 5/09/00 108.79
000425-B 21.70
5/09/00 5/09/00 21.70
FRANCENE CLARK VENDOR TOTAL --i30.49
F1732 14142 200.00
5/09/00 5/09/00 200.00
PURCHASE J OUR
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
BEER
JRNL-CD
PART ~6080
JRNL-CD
BEER
.JRNI-CD
BEER
IRNI -Cl")
MISCELLANEOUS
.JRNI -CD
BEER
.IRNI -ED
BEER KEGS
JRNL-CD
BEER
JRNL-CD
MISCELLANEOUS
JRNL-CD
BEER
JRNL-CD
BEER
JRNL-CD
BEER
JRNL-CD
N A L
10-99 AND 03-00 CELL PHONE
JRNL-CD
MI LEAG~ZiMEALS REIMBURSE MENT
JRNL-CD
THRU 04-28-00 PROFESS SERVICES
JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBER
71-7100-9530
lOlO
22-4170-2200
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
lOiO
71-7100-9550
71-7100-9530
~OlO
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9530
1010
71-7100-9550
lOlO
71-7100-9530
lOlO
71-7100-9530
lOlO
?i-7100-9530
lOlO
01-4040-3220
1010
01-4060-4~?0
1010
01-4190-3100
1010
PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
AP=C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVDICF DIJF HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
FUTRFLL FIRF CONSUl T &
G1750 326531 15.59 MATS -' ~. 71-7100-4210
5/09/00 5109100 15.5g JRNL-CD 10[0
326429 34.83 MATS 01-4340-2330
5/09/0~ 5/09/00 ~4.~ IRNL-¢D 1010
331034 i0.56 MATS 01-4280-2250
10.%6 MATq 73-7300-2250
10.57 MATS 78-7800-2250
24.26 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240
2&.26 tJN]F~RM% 73-7300-22&0
24.26 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240
104.47 JRNL-CO 1010
5/09/00 5/09/00
335664 22.68 MATS 71-7100-4210
5/09/00 5/09/00 22.68 JRNL-CD 1010
326428 i9.39 MATS 01-4280-2250
19.39 MATS 73-7300-2250
19.40 MATS 7~-7~00-2250
24.26 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240
24.26 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240
24.26 UNIFORMS 7R-7800-2740
5/09/00 5/09/00 130.96 JRNL-CD 1010
SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL 308.53
61770 640?50 792.35
5/09/00 5/09/00 792.~5
GAME TIME VENDOR TOTAL 792.35
G1886 000509 8.20 04-20-00
47.52 MEETINGS
19.83 GASOLINE
3.50 COPIES
5/09/00 5/09/00 79.05 JRNL-CD
GINO BUSINARO VENDOR TOTAL 79.05
G1972 204660 977.33 WINE
5/09/00 5/09/00 97? .33 JRNL-CD
205438 71.98 MIX
5/09/00 5/09/00 71.98 JRNL-CD
205439 633.94 LIQUOR
5/09/00 5/09/00 633.94 JRNL-CD
207428 -~40.83 WINE
5/09/00 5/09/00 340.83 JRNL-CD
GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 2024.08
CHAIN, HANGER, SEAT 01-4340-2310
JRNL-CD lOlO
EDC MEETING
01-4090-4120
01-4090-4120
01-&090-2210
01-4090-2200
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9540
1010
71-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
PAGE 5
AP-C02-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUF HOlD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT
H2010 000412
5/09/00 5/09/00 232.05
HANSON, KANDIS VENDOR TOTAL 232.05
H2075 664658 38.00
5/09/00 5/09/00 ~a.O0
665091 38.00
5/09/00 5/09/00 38.00
HEALTHCOMP EVAULATION SER* VENDOR TOTAL 76.00
H2080 25816 122.78
5/09/00 5/09/00 122.78
25818 9.06
5/09/00 5/09/00 9.06
25821 105.48
5/09/00 5/09/00 105.48
25829 I28.12
5/09/00 5/09/00 128.12
26052 30.89
5/09/00 5/09/00 30.89
26186 20.77
5/09/00 5/09/00 20.77
26273 68.20
5/09/00 5/09/00 68.20
2628? 23.18
5/09/00 5/09/00 23.18
26367 198.58
5/09/00 5/09/00 198.58
HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP VENDOR TOTAL 707.06
H2139 44?00 217.00
5/09/00 5/09/00 217.00
51980 ~59.75
5/09/00 5/09/00 159.75
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF VENDOR TOTAL 376.75
H2160 002681 1,825.49
5/09/00 5/09/00 ~825.49
HENN CO TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL 1825.49
I2309 23~31655 297.50
DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
Mil FAGF CI AIM RFIMBIIRSEMENT {Il-&0&0-2210
JRNL-CD 1010
DRUG TESTS 01-4280-3140
JRNi -CD 1010
DRUG TEST 73-7300-3140
JRNI -CD 1010
E@UIPMENT PARTS 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD lOlO
EQUIPMENT PARTS 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD 1010
EQUIPMENT PARTS 01-4340-2310
JRNL-CD 1010
E~UIPMENT PARTS 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD 10~0
EeUIPMENT PARTS 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD iOiO
E~UIPMENT PARTS 01-4340-2310
JRNL-CD 1010
E~UIPMENT PARTS 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD
E~UIPMENT PARTS 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD 1010
EQUIPMENT PARTS 01-4280-2310
JRNL-CD lOlO
02-08-00 (2)INSTALL UTILITY 26
JRNL-CD 1010
02-28-00 USED KING_CHARGER 72-4170-3B?0
JRNL-CD 1010
03-00 ROOM AND BOARD 01-4110-4250
JRNL-CD 1010
04-i0-00 THRU 05-I0-00 COPIER 01-4320-3800
PRE-
AM
PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND
VFNDOR __ IN~V~3I CE DLJF Hf)LD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
23622311
23623412
5109100
5/09100
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
5/ng/O0 297.50 JRNL-CD 1010
43.40 UPSTAIRS COPIER 01-4320-3800
5/09/00 43.~0 JRNL-CD "~' 1010
33.10 04-12-00 THRU 07-12-00 COPIER 01-4280-21~0
33.10 04-12-00 THRU 07-12-00 COPIER 73-7300-2140
33.I0 04-12-00 THRU 07-12-00 COPIER 78-7800-2140
5/09/00 99.30 JRNL-CD lOlO
1,253.64 MAIN COPIER REPAIRS 01-4320-3800
5/09/00 1,253.64 JRNL-CD iOiO
53.08 MAIN COPIER REPAIRS 01-4320-3800
5/09/00 53.08 JRNL-CD IOlO
99.79 04-24-00 THRU 05-24-00 COPIER 01-4140-2140
5/09/00 99.79 JRNL-CD lOlO
VENDOR TOTAL 1846.71
2.733.90 LIQUOR 71-7100=9510
5/09/00 2,733.90 JRNL-CD lOlO
382.20 WINF 71-?100-05P0
5/09/00 382.20 JRNL-CD lOlO
VENDOR TOTAL 3116.10
23084602
2313052A
23632313
5/09/00
IKON OFFICE
J2579 1105189
1105190
5/09/00
JOHNSON
5/09/00
5/09/00
SOLUTIONS
5/09/00
5/09/00
BROTHERS LIQUOR
J2585 000418
JON SUTHERLAND
L2811 10750
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
LARSON PRINTING &
L2822 1290264
5/09/00 5/09/00
GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL
1297386
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
8.25 BLDG OFFICIAL MEETING 01-4190-4120
6.00 lUNCH WITH FNGINFFR & PI ANNFR 01-&19~-&]20
240.75 CLOTHING EXPENSE 01-4190-2240
255.00 JRNL-CD 1010
255.00
51.99 HANSON, KANDIS BUSINFSS CARDS 01-4040-2200
51.99 MCCAFFREY, TOM BUSINESS CARDS 81-4350-2200
51.99 CLARK, FRAN BUSINESS CARDS 01-4040-2200
51.99 FACKLER, JAMES BUSINFS~ CARDS
207.96 JRNL-CD 1010
207.96
103.98 SEALANT, NON-FLAME OIL 01-4280-2250
103.98 SEALANT, NON-FLAME OIL 73-7300-2250
i03.97 SEALANT, NON-FLAME OIL 78-7800-2250
311.93 JRNL-CD I010
33.i5 HEAT SEAL BUTT CONN 01-4280-2250
33.i5 HEAT SEAL BUTT CONN 73-7300-2250
_ 33.15 HEAT SEAL BUTT CONN 78-7800-2250
99.45 JRNL-CD iOiO
1291281 50.00 AUTO SUPPLIES 01-4140-3810
82.04 AUTO SUPPLIES 01-4280-2250
PAGE 7
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR INVOICF DIJF
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE
HOLD
STATUS
5/09/00 5/09/00
INC. VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
E~UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
LUBES UNLIMITED, INC. VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
LAWSON PRODUCTS,
L2926 010716
LONG LAKE POWER
L2935 10176
M3025 000420
MARK HANUS
5/09/00 5/09/00
~_ 139946
~ 5/09/00 5/09/00
~ DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL
MARK
· = M3080 32289
32290
32276
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
322 77
5/09/00 5/09/00
MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCi~ VENDOR TOTAL
M3169 1516
5/09/00 5/09/00
i533
5/09/00 5/09/00
METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEME VENDOR TOTAL
M3470 39276
5/09/00 5/09/00
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
~?.~4 AIITn ~HPPLIES 7~-7~00-2250
82.03 AUTO SUPPLIES 78-7800-2250
296.i1 JRNL-CD .. ~. 1010
707.49
18.10 CHAIN, WING NIIT, OIL 01-4280-2250
i8.10 CHAIN, WING NUT, OIL 73-7300-2250
I8.10 CHAIN, WING NUT, OIL 78-7800-2250
54.~0 .JRNI-CD ~010
54.30
65.00 USED OIL FILTERS 70-4270-4200
65.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
65.0~
23.10 Mil EAGF FXPFN~F RFIM~UR~FMFNT A)-4~7~-&]~
23.10 JPNL-CD 1010
23.10
337.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
337.00 JRNI-CD 1~1~
2,538.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
2,538.00 JRNL-CD 1010
2875.00
63.00 12-99 MUONIO P~OPERTY 01-2300-i083
63.00 JRNL-CD i010
258.00 12-99 MOUNT OLIVE CNG SERVICES 01-2300-1086
258.00 JRNL-CD 1010
215.00 12-99 CNG SERVICES FOR BLDG 01-4190-3100
215.00 JRNL-CD lOlO
473.00 12-99 CNG SERVICES FOR P/I 01-4190-3100
473.00 JRNL-CD iOlO
i009.00
16.00 04-20-00 LUNCHEON MFFTING 01-4~40-4110
i6.00 JRNL-CD iOiO
45.00 2000 MEMBERSHIP DUFS Ol-40&O-&ll~
45.00 JRNL-CD 1010
- 61.00
72.50 COLIFORM MF-WATER 73-7300-4215
72.50 JRNL-CD 1~10
PAGE 8
AP-C02-Oi
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
MN VALLEY TESTING LABORATO VENDOR TOTAL
M3500 000531
5/09/00 5/09/00
MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL
N3801 82370405
5/09/00 5/09/00
NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN VENDOR TOTAL
03895 35928
5/09/00 5/09/00
OWFNS SFRVICF ONF VFNDOR T~TA~
P3956 000412
$/09/00 5/09/00
PAGENET OF MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL
P4000 43119794
5/09/00 5/09/00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
P4021 599 740
5/09/00 5/09/00
599 741
5/09/00 5/09/00
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS, ~ VFNDOR TOTAL
P4038 29678
5/09/00 5/09/00
29911
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
29910
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL
P4049 603449
5/09/00 5/09/00
PLUNKETT'S, INC VENDOR TOTAL
P4118 2574
5/09/00 5/09/00
PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO VENDOR TOTAL
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
72.50
8,484.17 MAY 2000 FIRE RELIEF _.
~,4R4.17
8484.17
170.34
170.34
170.34
744.37
744_t7
18.89
~8.~9
i8.89
120.96 MIX
120.96 JRNL-CD
i20.96
6S~.h7 LI~IIOR
653.67 JRNL-CD
175.60 WiNF
175.60 JRNL-CD
R29.27
802.95
802.95
32.45
32.45
883.92
883.92
1719.32
92.15
92.15
92.15
RECEIVER HITCH, GLOVES, ETC
JRNL-CD
CLEAN HVAC SYSTEM
JRNL-CD
04-14-00 THRU 05-13-00 PAGERS
IRNI-CD
CIGARETTES
JRNr-CD
MISCELLANEOUS
JRNL-CD
CIGARETTES
JRNL-CD
APRIL,MAY,JUNE 2000 PEST CONTR
JRNL-CD
1~010.69 LIGHT BAR
1,010.69 JRNL-CD
1010.69
ACCOUNT NUMBER
95-9500-1400
1010
01-4340-3810
iOiO
~2-&170-38~0
1010
01-4140-3950
1010
71-7100-9540
1010
7~-7100-9510
1010
71-7100-9520
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
73-7300-9550
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
01-4320-4200
lOlO
01-4140-5000
1010
PAGE 9
AP-C02-O1
SEARS
S439I
P U
R C H A S E J O U R N A L
CITY Of MOUND
VFNDOR INVOICE DIIF HOlD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
04171 ~26974099 9.3~D.59 LIQUOR
5/09/00 5/09/00 5,340.59 JRNL-CD
8272]?-0Q 538.26 WINE
5/09/00 5/09/00 538.26 JRNL-CD
829144-00 ~,163.20 LIQUOR
5/09/00 5/09/00 3,163.20 JRNL-CD
829080-00 $4.~3 MIX
5/09/00 5/09/00 54.53 JRNL-CD
9829347-00 16~.~ LI~UOP
5/09/00 5/09/00 163.50 JRNL-CD
829637~00 29fl.02 WINF
5/09/00 5/09/00 230.92 JRNL-CD
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 9491.00
R4209 1320 130.19 04-00 TRASH SERVICE
5/09/00 5/09/00 130.19 JRNL-CD
RANDY'S SANITATION VENDOR TOTAL 130.19
R4290 58755 121.86 ICE
5/09/00 5/09/00 121.86 JRNL-CD
59336 106.80 ICE
5/09/00 5/09/00 106.80 JRNL-CD
RON'S ICE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 228.66
S4357 000420-A 42.35 MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS
42.35 MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS
42.~4 MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS
5/09/00 5/09/00 127.04 JRNL-CD
000420-B i24.24 TV/VCR
124.24 TV/VCR
124.24 TV/VCR
5/09/00 5/09/00 ~72.72 JRNL-CD
VENDOR TOTAL 499.76
2715 491.00 4860 GLASCOW RFMOVE TREE
5/09/00 5/09/00 491.00 JRNL-CD
2725 931.~8
5/09/00 5/09/00 93i.~8 JRNL-CD
2726 ~5~9.13 2971 CAt~BJ~IDGE REMOVF TREE__
5/09/00 5/09/00 559.13 JRNL-CD
2727 159.75 2906 HIG~I~D_ REMOVF TRFF
5/09/00 5/09/00 i59.75 JRNL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMBER
71-7100-9510
iOlO
71-7100-9520
1010
71-?~00-95~0
1010
71-7~00-9540
iOiO
71-?100-9510
lOlO
71-7100-9520
iOlO
01-4320-3750
71-7100-9550
1010
71-7100-9550
1010
01-4280-2250
73-7300-2250
78-7800-2250
01-4280-2200
73-7300-27~0
70-7800-2200
1010
01-4340-5110
lOiO
01-4340-5110
1010
01-4940-5110
1010
1010
PR~
A
PAGE iO P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICE DUF HOlD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMDER
SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE
S4430 61747
SOS PRINTING
S4600 160904.1
158221.1
160421.1
161205.1
STREICHER'S
S4605 203597
STS CONSULTANTS LTD
S4631 000423
SPEEDWAY
S4645 5125
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5109/00
5/09/00
5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL
SWEEPER SERVICES
14703 000426
831
T-CMEK SYSTEMS LLC
14730 828
830
THE LAKER
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
2141.76
417.00 COMMFNT CARD~
417.00 JRNL-CD 1010
417.00
31.84 TRIDON ALTERNATOR FLASHER 01-4140-3810
31.84 JRNL-CD
255.68 SIREN WITH WAIL AND YELP 01-4140-5000
255.68 JRNL-CD 1G10
11.25 EQUIPMENT INSTALL SQUAD #845 01-4140-3810
41.48 HEADLIGHT FLASHFR 01-4140-~000
52.73 JRNL-CD 1010
254.24 FLASHLIGHT AND CHARGFR 01-4~40-2~00
254.24 JRNL-CD 1010
594.49
3,050.00 THRU 04-15-00 ENGINEERING SERV 55-5880-3100
3,050.00 JRNL-CD 1010
3050.O0
1,435.57 THRU 04-23-00 GAS CHARGES 01-4140-2210
1,435.57 JRNL-CD
I435.57
2,799.44 REPAIR SWEFPFR O1-42RO-~RIO
2,799.44 JRNL-CD 1010
2799.44
25.00 05-00 TRANWEB WEBSITE PUBLICAT 01-4320-3100
25.00 JRNL-CD 1010
25.00
i8.72 NOTICE ON DOG LICENSE 01-4090-3510
i8.72 JRNL-CD 1010
44.94 2000 SEAL COAT ADS FOR BIDS 01-4280-3510
44.94 JRNL-CD 1010
5.i5 MORTON LANE JOINT MEETING 01-4020-3510
5.i5 MORTON LANE JOINT MEETING 01-4190-3510
5.15 MORTON LANE JOINT MEFTING 01-4~40-~510
-- 5.i5 MORTON LANE JOINT MEETING 81-4350-3510
20.60 JRNL-CD 1010
84.26
PAGE 11
AP-C02-O1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR INVOICF DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT
T4770 190664 12.10
5/09/00 5/09/00 12.10
190605 4,003.70
5/09/00 5/09/00 4,003.70
190774 28.00
5/09/00 5/09/00 28.00
163662
5/09/00 5/09/00
164126
5/09/00 5/09/00
191299
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
191 296
5/09/00 5/09/00
191 297
5/09/00 5/09/00
THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
CHEVROLET VENDOR TOTAL
DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550
JRNL-CD - ._ 1010
BEER 71-7100-9530
JRNL-CD iOiO
T4790 39942
39951
THURK BROS
T4808 12566
12579
12595
TIME SAVER OFF
T4965 245327
BEER KEGS 71-7100-9530
JRNL-CD 1010
292.00 BEER 71-7100-9530
292.00 JRNL-CD 1010
104.00 BEER KEGS 71-7100-9530
104.00 JRNL-CD 1010
689.25 BEER 71-7100-9530
689.25 JRNL-CD 1010
434.70 BEER 71-7100-9530
434.70 JRNL-CD i010
147.00 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550
147.00 JRNL-CD 1010
7,905.75 BEER 71-7100-9530
7,905.75 JRNL-CD iOiO
13616.50
i1.86 HINGF 7~-730~-~310
11.86 JRNL-CD 1010
8.11 HINGE 7~-7~00-2~10
8.11 JRNL-CD 1010
19.97
128.50 04-I0-00 PLANNING MEETING 01-4190-4200
401.63 04-11-O0 COUNCIL MFFTING 01-4020-4200
147.13 04-13-00 POSC MEETING 01-4340-4200
5/09/00 5/09/00 677.26 JRNL-CD 1010
139.25 04-i3-00 COW MEETING 01-4020-3100
5/09/00 5/09/00 i39.25 JRNL-CD 1010
5/09/00 5/09/00
SITE SECRE* VENDOR TOTAL ~474.77
i2~.i3 04-20-00 DCAC MEETING 81-4350-4200
238.00 04-24-00 PLANNING MEETING 01-4190-4200
292.13 04-25-00 HRA/COUNCIL MEETING 01-4020-4200
658.26 JRNL-CD 1010
147.92 05-00 ELEVATOR SERVICE 01-4320-4200
5/09/00 5/09/00 147.92 JRNL-ED 1010
'7O4
PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
AP-C02-O]. CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR __.[_,LVOICF DUE HOlD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
THYSqFN i AGFR~JJI~T FI FVATfl VFND~R T~TAL
T4985 253281-0
252738-0
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
253729-0
5/09/00 5/09/00
253374-0
5/09/00 5/09/00
253740-0
25355i-0
TWIN CITY OFFICE
U5030 6305067
US FILTER
VSi60 000315
000320
000412
V & S JEWELERS
W5450 00O509
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5~09100
SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
5/09/00 5/09/00
VENDOR TOTAL
PRE
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER /
147.92
100.18 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200
50.g5 OFFICE SUPPLIES 05-&090-2200
50.95 OFFICE SUPPLIES - ~- 01-4140-2200
50.95 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2200
50.95 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-2200
16.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2200
21.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2200
2~.~7 OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200
25.47 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200
393.76 JRNL-CD 1010
362.10 CHAIR MAT 01-4040-2200
362.10 JRNL-CD lOlO
6.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2100
6.37 JRNL-CD 1010
47.44 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2100
47.44 JRNL-CD 1010
46.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200
46.91 JRNL-CD 1010
7.19 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2200
7.i9 JRNL-CD 1010
863.77
165.07 SMOOTH WALl PIPF 20'
165.07 JRNL-CD 1010
165.07
8.52 NAMEPLATE ENGRAVED 01-4140-4100
8.52 JRNL-£D 1010
4.50 NAME PLATE ENGRAVED 01-4140-4100
4.50 JRNL-CD 1010
28.25 ENGRAVE WALNUT BOARD 01-4140-4100
28.25 JRNL-CD 1010
41.27
5/09/00 5/09/00
WELLS FARGO VENDOR TOTAL 450.44
W5492 000501
50.49 SHOE SCRAPER 01-4140-5000
19.95 EARTHLINK INTERNET MONTHLY 22-4170-4130
190.00 PARKS INTERNE]] ANNUAL _ 01-4340-4130
190.00 CLKER INTERNET ANNUAL 01-4040-4130
450.44 JRNL-CD IOiO
1,126.00 MAY 2000 CL~IiNG 01-4~20-421~
91.33 MAY 2000 CLEANING 01-4280-4200
PAGE 13
AP-C02-Oi
VENDOR I~ICE DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
5/09/00 5/09/00
WEST METRO BUILDING MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL
W5600 5857
5/09/00 5/09/00
WESTONKA SEWER & WATER VENDOR TOTAL
16679 00011183
5/09/00 5/09/00
SOUTH CENTRAL TECH COLLEGE VENDOR TOTAL
16680 22?43
5/09/00 5/09/00
RIDGEWATER COLLEGE VENDOR TOTAL
TOTAL ALL VENDORS
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
91.3]~ MAY 2000 CJ FANING
91.34 MAY 2000 CLEANING 78-}'800-4200
1,400.00 JRNL-CD -- 4. 1010
1400.00
627.10 5123 W'ATFRBURgFPA[R BLOCK
627 .IO JRNL-CD lOiO
627.I0
}'0.00 REGISTRATION STATE FIRE SCHOOL 22-4170-4110
?0.00 JRNL-CD 101o
}'0.00
65.00 03-18 & 03-19 STATE FIRE SCHO0 22-4170-4110
65.00 JRNL-CD 1010
65.00
] 13,114.5'~
PRF
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-16,87
(612) 472-0600
FAX (6'12) 472-0620
Memorandum
May 2, 2000 /
TO: Mayor/City Council (k~'""'[
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: Request from Jorj Ayaz to moo~ a ~7'
designated 18'X 8' slip.
boat in a
Mr. Ayaz was issued a slip location in 1999 at the Devon
Multiple Slip Dock with the understanding that the site was
designated for a 18' boat.
In June of 1999 Mr. Ayaz was given a temporary approval to
moor a 27' boat for the 1999 season, note DCAC minutes from
June 17, 1999.
Mr. Ayaz is asking to extend the temporary use, the DCAC
granted a one year extension, note the DCAC minutes from
April 20, 2000.
The Dock Location Map for 2000 was approved by the City
Council on February 8, 2000 with a addendum denoting slip
sizes for Multiple Slip Docks, note addendum. If this
request is approved by the Council a revision is needed to
the 2000 Dock Location Map.
enclosures:
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 2000
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Gerald Jones, Frank Ahrens, and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent: Commissioner Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
New City Manager Kandis Hanson was introduced and addressed the Commission, briefly
summarizing her work experience and the path that brought her to the City of Mound.
3. REQUEST TO REVIEW: LETTER FROM JORJ AYAZ
Mr. Ayaz, 4844 Island View Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the multiple dock
at the Devon access and his desire to dock his 27 foot boat at his docksite. Mr. Ayaz
stated he has talked to the abutters around this site, all the people who are on the multiple
dock, and there is no opposition to combining the two 18 foot spaces and designating the
site for a 27 foot boat.
Commissioner Eurich questioned what the disadvantages would be to assigning site 1(9)
to Mr. Ayaz with his 27 foot boat.
Park Director Fackler stated that the water depth is an issue. If the City designates these
sites for larger boats, and then the depth does not allow that size boat, the City would be
asked to dredge this area.
Mr. Ayaz responded that there is a storm drain in this area, and there is going to be a need
for dredging there anyway at some time. If he has the privilege of putting his 27 foot boat
there, he would be willing to contribute to the cost of dredging if necessary, to continue this
privilege.
Councilmember Hanus stated if the site was designated for a 27 foot boat, and Mr. Ayaz
then left the dock program, the next site holder would also want a 27 foot site.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
April 20, 2000
Mr. Ayaz questioned why the site cannot be designated for 27 foot for the current user, and
if the site then changes hands, the new person will have to go through the same thing,
asking for exception from the Dock Commission.
Chair Funk stated that once there is a favor given, it sets a precedent and more and more
people will be asking for favors.
Mr. Ayaz stated that each person who comes in should be treated on a case by case basis.
It is not really a favor when the person comes in, states their case, states that they are
willing to work with the Commission and the City in any capacity they are capable of, and
the City considers their request on it's own merits.
Chair Funk questioned whether Mr. Ayaz would be interested in this site on a year by year
basis, so if another larger spot opens up, he could move to that spot and this one could
then be dropped to an 18 foot site.
Mr. Ayaz stated he would be willing, within reason, to move docks. He stated he would
prefer the Amhurst site, as it is closer to his home. He would prefer not to move to a site
where he would have to drive to his boat, as right now he can walk the block to the Devon
site.
Commissioner Ahrens asked what size boat was at the Amhurst site where Mr. Ayaz would
prefer to be.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated it is approximately 20 feet. However, that site holder is
not interested in trading. If he was, it would be a very convenient fix for this problem. This
site holder does not live close, and is driving to his docksite now. Mr. Ayaz would be able
to get the site holders name and phone number, and approach him directly to see if he
would trade.
Park Director Fackler stated he recommends against granting a special request. Sites G,
H, and I should be temporary, and be deleted as soon as possible, as people leave the
dock program.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he would also be uncomfortable granting an exception, and
would rather see the dock holders work things out by finding a suitable trade or some other
compromise by working with Dock Inspector McCaffrey.
Councilmember Hanus also stated that, since this exception was granted for one year, it
is very hard to take it away this year. If the exception was granted for another year, and
another and so on, it would be harder still to retract the exception.
Chair Funk agreed, even though it appears that this site would accommodate the 27 foot
boat right now, the docksite is actually designated as an 18 foot site, and this is what the
City should stick to. Eventually the LMCD will insist that the designation for the docksite
be adhered to.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
Commissioner Eurich stated that this temporary site was issued last year to accommodate
Mr. ^yaz, and there was no better solution. It appears that this year there is also no better
solution. Also, this site could be designated temporary, and as soon as Mr. Ayaz is out of
there, the site is eliminated.
Chair Funk summarized three options, first to make the slip permanent for a 27 foot boat.
Second is to make the slip permanent for an 18 foot boat. Third is to continue with the
temporary site for the 27 foot boat, with the understanding that as soon as Mr. Ayaz moves
his boat out, the site would be eliminated.
Park Director Fackler stated staff recommendation is to enforce the size limitation of 18
feet for this temporary site. Staffwould like to see the commission enforce the limits of the
dock location map and its addendum.
Commissioner Jones questioned whether the LMCD would have input on this problem if
they come in and see that the site is for an 18 foot boat, but there is a 27 foot boat there.
Park Director Fackler stated that eventually the City of Mound will have to answer to the
LMCD site specific, where the limits for the docksites will be absolute. Mound is not there
yet, and right now the City of Mound is striving to comply with the LMCD regulations to
show good faith to the LMCD.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Eurich, to extend the temporary status on
the site for one year, with the stipulation that an attempt will be made to find
an alternate spot for Mr. Ayaz's boat. For the 2001 season, this docksite will
be eliminated.
Mr. Ayaz stated that if his choice is to use the site for his 27 foot boat for one year and then
to lose a site the next year, he would prefer to keep the 18 foot site and stay in the
program, waiting for an upgrade to the 27 foot size. He would prefer not to gamble with
his docksite hoping that he would still have one next year.
Motion amended by Funk, seconded by Jones to extend the temporary 27 foot
status on the site for one year, with the stipulation that an attempt will be
made to find an alternate spot for Mr. Ayaz's boat. For the 2001 season, this
docksite will be enforced as an 18 foot temporary slip. Motion carried 312
(Ahrens, Hanus opposed).
From.'
To'.
Jori Ayaz
4844 Island View Drive
Mound, MN 55364
City of Mound
Dock Committee
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Date: March 26, 2000
Re: Devon access
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to propose a discussion to improve the lay-out for the multiple docks at the
Devon access.
Currently, the shape of the dock allows 7-8 boats, which will remain the same after the
layout change. The change would now cost the city any more than the current cost of the
dock.
This change was brought up in last year's discussion and was temporarily allowed and
used without any problems or complaints. In-fact it was preferred by dock members over
the old layout.
Please include this issue to the agenda on the next dock committee meeting. Thank you
for your immediate attention.
Sincerely,
J ,~Ayaz.U / ~/ '
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
- MINUTES
MARCH 16, 2000
5. DISCUSS: MULTIPLE DOCK SITE LOCATION AT DEVON LANE ACCESS
Commissioner Ahrens stated that the dock is skewed towards one side, making the
property owner on that side very unhappy with the situation.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated he has not been able to get in touch with the Olsons, who
are the property owners on the other side, towards which the dock would be moved. They
are currently residing in Florida for the winter, and may not be back in time to have input
on this issue before the dock goes in for the season.
Commissioner Ahrens stated that the basic problem is the single dock at the site, which
is now a temporary dock. When that dock goes, much of this problem will go with it.
Without input from the Millers and the Olsons there is not much that can be pursued
tonight.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated that he would guess that Mr. Olson would not be happy
with moving the dock closer to his property, any more than Mr. Miller is. Without their
input, it is just guessing.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested moving the stem of the dock to the other side, or right
down the middle so that the foot traffic is moved off of Mr. Miller's property line. This may
alleviate the problem enough until the single dock is gone.
Park Director Fackler stated this suggestion will be considered, and staff will continue to
try to obtain input from the Millers and the Olsons, and make any changes using their best
judgement.
yCommissioner Ahrens stated there is an oversized boat on this site, as the site is for an 18
// foot boat only. Ahrens stated that last year, this individual was told that he could use his
~' site for the larger boat, but no promises were made for this year. It was suggested that
~,~ now may be the time to eliminate this large boat, and then eliminate the single dock.
~Discussion followed to determine if there is a dock site available which would
/'accommodate this large boat. The open site at Excelsior was determined to be able to
handle the boat, and Dock Inspector McCaffrey was asked to contact the site holder to let
him know of this decision.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
1.11 APPROVAL OF TWIN PARK MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP FOR 2000
The Parks Director advised that funding has been included in the budget as a line item for
multiple dock slips. He advised that the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC)
recommends that a City multiple slip dock be installed at the Twin Park access. They have
found by meeting with the current dock site holders and abutting property owners, that an
"H" dock could be installed to accommodate four boats. The site has the size to allow two
more slips and the DCAC will review this addition in the future. The site location has 99.8
linear feet of shoreline of which the dock would use 27.5 feet. The LMCD required a ten-
foot setback to the private properties be allowed for so a boat with a ten-foot beam in slip 1
and 4 would leave 26.15 feet for the setback. The design will be for two 24 foot by ten foot
slips (2 and 3) and two 27.5 foot by ten foot slips (1 and 4).
Councilmember Hanus asked about the dollar estimate. The Parks Director estimated
between $4,000 to $5,000 for each one.
Councilmember Brown commented on a new type of dock material that was displayed at a
boat show and asked if high impact plastic material has been researched. The Parks Director
stated he has not seen that type of dock material. Councilmember Brown stated he will
provide that information to staff.
Councilmember Hanus commented on the need to address durability over winter weather
conditions.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 8, 2000
Councilmember Weycker asked what the cost estimate includes. The Parks Director stated
this is within the estimate for previous docks at about $200 to $250 per section plus in and
out costs, etc. Councilmember Weycker noted she calculated the cost to be $1,050 per slip.
Mayor Meisel asked if there was anyone present wishing to address the Council on the Twin
Park multiple dock site. No comments were made.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to approve the Twin Park multiple
dock slip for 2000 which adds an additional slip at this site, from 3 to 4. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.12 APPROVAL OF WATERBURY ACCESS MULTIPLE DOCK SLIP FOR 2000
The Parks Director advised that the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC)
recommends that a City multiple slip dock be installed at the Waterbury access. They have
found by meeting with the current dock site holders and abutting property owners that an
"H" shaped dock could be installed to accommodate four boats. The site location has 65.3
linear feet of shoreline of which 27.5 feet would be used for the dock. There would be five
foot setbacks required by the LMCD to the private property while allowing for two 24 foot
by eight foot slips, and two 24 foot by ten foot slips at a dock that extends 48 feet into the
lake.
Mayor Meisel asked if there was anyone present wishing to address the Council on the Twin
Park multiple dock site. No comments were made.
Councilmember Hanus advised that in discussion at the DCAC, both of these locations were
well received with a little apprehension.
Councilmember Weycker stated she is pleased they were told they would be limited to one
boat.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to approve the multiple slip dock
configuration for Waterbury Access which adds an additional slip at this site,
from 3 to 4. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.13 APPROVAL OF 2000 DOCK LOCATION MAP WITH CHANGES AS NOTED
IN ITEM 6 & 7 ABOVE
It was noted that the Dock Inspector recommended the following changes to the Dock
Location map:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL M~ -FEBRUA~RY 8, 2000
Remove dock site 61130 at Ridgewood Park. This dock site came open and removing
this site will allow the City to meet LMCD setback requirements.
Add Waterbury multiple slip dock site location.
Add Twin Park multiple slip dock site location.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the revisions to the Dock
Location Map as recommended by staff and indicated above. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
The Parks Director noted the addendum listing all the multiple dock sites which now assigns
a size to eliminate the problem with larger boats coming into a smaller slip.
The Acting City Manager thanked staff for their work in preparing this report which is very
useful.
REC#
Site_# Shore_Type Land~_Name Misc._Info.
Slip_Size-
365
C366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
38O
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
42800F
42800G
42800H
42800I
42931
42961
42990
43020
43080
43120
43180
43235
43300A
43300B
43300C
43300D
43300E
43420
43450
43520
43575
43647
43727
43770
43800
43840
43882
43942
44002
44097
44160
44193
44243
44408
50238A
50238B
50238C
50238D
50400
50430
50460
50490
50520
50550
50580
50610
50640
50670
50700
50730
50760
50790
B Multiple Devon Common
R Multiple Devon Common. ~ul
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Devon Common
B Devon Common
B Devon Common
B Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Multiple Devon Common
B Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
C Devon Common
D Multiple Waterbury Road
D Multiple Waterbury Road
D Multiple Waterbury Road
D Multiple Waterbury Road
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Blvd.
Brighton Common
Temporary Slip
Temporary Slip
Temporary Dock Site
Temporary Slip
27.5 X~O~
18 X 8
27.5 X 10
18 X 8
27.5 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 10
27.5 X 10
18 X 8
24 X 8
24 X 10
24 X 10
24 X 8
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY%NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612} 472-0620
DOCK SiTE #:
TO: Q- O ~-I
.~.-,--,-~--- ~,2 I 9~ ,~-~.~ O~ c~-,,~-~ · '
~,' ~ ..-~
- · - --~ '- .
Tom McCaffrey . ~ ~/~ -
Dock Inspector
prtnted on recycled ~aper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 IGAYWO00
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-O600
FAX (612) 472-0620
February 1, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor/City Council & DCAC
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
SUBJECT: 2000 City Multiple Slip Dock-Sites Configurations.
Listed below are the current design of the existing nine
City Multiple Slip Dock sites:
HIGHLAND END PARK,
Five Slips 24'X 10' (B,C,D,F)
Two Slips 27.5X 10' (A,F)
One Slip 18'X 8' (G) Temporary Site
Two Slips 75 sqft (H,I) Small Watercraft
AVALON PARK,
Two Slips
Six Slips
Four Slips
35.5'X 10' (A,F)
32'X 10' (B,C,D,E,G,H)
75 sqft (I,J,K,L) Small Watercraft
CARLSON P.~RK,
Twelve Slips 24'X 10'
DEVON LANE ACCESS,
Three Slips 27.5'X 10' (A,F,H)
Four Slips 24'X 10' (B,C,D,E)
.Two Slips 18'X 8' (G,I)
Note: H and I are Temporary Sites.
Dock site $42931 is a Temporary Dock Site.
printed an recycled
PEMBROKE PARK,
One Slip
Nine Slips
Two Slips
35.5'X 10' (A)
24'X 10' (B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I)
lS'X 8" (J,K,L)
AMI{URST ACCESS, Two Slips
Two Slips
One Slip
27.5'X 10' (A,D)
24'X 10' (B,C)
18'X 8' (E) Temporals! Site
LAKE BOb~EVARD ACCESS,
Two Slips 27.5'X 10' (A,D)
Two Slips 24'X 10' (B,C)
Two Slips 18'X 8' (E,F)
Note: Slip F is a Temporary Site.
TWIN PAP~K
Two Slips 27.5'X 10' (A,D)
Two Slips 24'X 10' (B,C)
Note: Two Slips Maybe Added In Future.
WATERBURY ACCESS
Two Slips 24'X 8' (A,D)
Two Slips 24'X 10' (B,C)
.I,
, I
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 1999
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Orvin Burma, Frank Ahrens and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent was: Commissioner Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
5. DISCUSS: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON MULTIPLE SLIP DOCKS
Park Director Fackler reported on the subject of dock rules and regulations, stating that this
subject has been discussed superficially at past meetings. Some safety and aesthetic
concerns have been brought to the City recently that may fall under dock rules and
regulations. Especially as it pertains to boat lifts.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey then stated he had contacted various marinas and nearby cities,
and found that they do not allow boat lifts at all.
Commissioner Ahrens pointed out that some City docks could handle lifts, and questioned
whether all lifts should be banned, or if some spots could be permitted to have them.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission June 17, 1999
Commissioner Burma questioned the wisdom of separating the dock sites like that, which
could cause very bad feeling with many slip holders.
Commissioner Ahrens also questioned the acceptance of a hoist for smaller boats and
personal watercraft.
Councilmember Hanus pointed out that the language for the area of personal watercraft
includes the lift. These lifts are much smaller and not as cumbersome to move in and out.
Chair Funk pointed out that the Policy could be no lifts, and a special variance could be
applied for if there is a real need.
~'~orj Ayaz, 4844 Islandview Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the fact that he has
a boat that is deemed too big for the dock. Mr. Ayaz stated his preference to slip his boat
pointing at the shore, as it is easier to dock this way than parallel to the shore.
Commissioner Ahrens brought up the fact that there is one single dock alongside this
multiple, which causes the multiple to be too far in front of someone's house. Ahrens
would like to insist on these single dock holders either joining the multiple dock, or move
them to a different area.
Councilmember Hanus asked how Mr. Ayaz would respond if the water level were to go
down two feet, as his boat may not be able to be kept at that site if that happens.
Mr. Ayaz stated if the lake goes down two feet, no boats will be able to be docked there.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated his concern is that no limitations have been put on the
multiples as yet, so when someone comes up with a larger boat, they fully expect to be
able to use the slip they used for their smaller boat.
Park Director Fackler stated that the LMCD also states boat sizes must be limited.
Mr. Ayaz asked if the dock site allows for a larger boat, why would the City limit the size of
the boat to less than the dock can handle. If the water goes down, that is an act of nature
that Mr. Ayaz himself would expect to deal with.
Park Director Fackler pointed out that additional bumpers would have to be added down
the dock, and Mr. Miller, the abutter on top of the hill, should be approached for his opinion
of any changes.
Commissioner Burma stated this change seems to make sense, as it would be easier and
safer to dock the boat as Mr. Ayaz has requested. Also, having the boat perpendicular to
the shore is more aesthetically pleasing.
Chair Hanus stated it is not the intention that this slip be made a 27 foot slip. This is a
circumstance where Mr. Ayaz is waiting for a different slip when available, which will
accommodate his 27 foot boat.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission
June 17,1999
Commissioner Ahrens stated that when there is a site that is undesirable, at some point,
these back sites should be eliminated, keeping open only the primary sites.
Park Director Fackler stated that for next season, regulation of boat size needs to be set,
as this type of problem, boats coming in larger sizes, will continue to come up, likely more
often. He noted that goals and objectives need to be set for each site an basic rules need
to be put down in writing soon.
Mr. Ayaz asked why slips are limited in size, if there is enough space for a larger boat.
Discussion followed by all pointing out various concerns about larger boats. Consensus
was reached that each site has different concerns, and this question is not easily answered
in a general fashion. Mr. Ayaz understood and appreciated the attempt to explain some
of the various issues to him.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Burma, to approve the request made by
Mr. Ayaz for temporary relocation of his boat, and to direct staff to first talk to
abutting owners for their consent. Motion carried unanimously.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey brought up a phone call he had received from a woman who
uses Pembroke Park, and is very angry about the multiple dock being put at the park,
ruining the view and swimming at the park.
Commissioner Ahrens pointed out that this dock had been in front of an abutters' front
window previously and the Commons area is where the dock belongs.
Park Director Fackler stated that the issue of boat lifts has not been decided and a policy
is needed.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Burma, to disallow boat lifts at City
docks. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ahrens stated that boat size needs to be discussed fairly soon, as issues
are being raised presently. Other cities have fairly strict limitations on boat size, and
Mound is in need of some limits.
Park Director Fackler stated some flexibility is needed to accommodate people coming into
the multiple dock system. However, once the system is established, the limit should be
strictly kept.
Commissioner Ahrens suggested that discussion on boat size be added to the agenda for
July, and asked staff to get the boat size limitations for surrounding communities.
Commissioner Burma pointed out that this information is in the April 27th City Council
minutes.
MEMORANDUM
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Kandis Hansen, City Manager
From: Loren Gordon, City Planner
Date: May 5, 2000
Subject: Antenna leasing of City water towers
Over the past year there has been a heightened interest by wireless phone providers in leasing
antenna space on the City's two water towers. Most of the major providers in the western metro
(US West, Airtouch, Aerial, Nextel, Sprint) are infilling their coverage area with more antennas
as the result of increased call demand and the move from analog to digital phone technology.
Cellular phone companies are also making the shift from building and operating their own
antenna towers to leasing space on buildings and water towers. This shift helps keep their initial
capital costs lower and also benefits municipalities with a source of revenue through lease
agreements. At present, the City has one site lease agreement with Nextel for antennas and
ground equipment at the Chateau water tower site. The City has received inquiries from other
companies interested in the water tower located on Evergreen. This water tower appears to be a
prime location as there are few other tall structures with antennas in a 1 to 2 mile vicinity.
Staff believes the City has an opportunity to capitalize on the water tower "vertical real estate"
by 1) providing a non-intrusive site for companies to locate additional antennas and 2) providing
an on-going revenue source for the City. There are two approaches to go about this, being
passive or being proactive. The proactive approach may be the best approach in the end as it
"optimizes" the amount of space used for antennas and secures the best combinations of lease
agreements for the City. In this scenario, the City would actively solicit space to wireless
companies. Those showing an interest would provide details on operational and space needs to
the City. The City would then arrange and organize this data and prepare a plan for how to best
utilize the available water tower space for the "best and highest use." The costs of preparing this
study would be past on to each company that ultimately locates on the site.
The passive approach would be a "plan as you go" and may limit opportunities/arrangements for
the number of spots for antennas and the revenues available for the City. The upside is the City
wouldn't be out staff time and the few hundred dollars for the study the soliciting approach
would require.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
Ehlers & Associates
Key Financial Strategies
Financial Foundation Descriptions
Item
Capital Improvement Plan
Pavement Management System
Non-Annual Recurring Maintenance
Facility Replacement
Information Technologies
Economic Development
Housing Development
Debt Management
Budget Option Analysis
Description
A five to ten year projection of anticipated
capital expenditures. The plan should cover
all funds of the city and should be updated at
least once every two years. Plan should
include revenue sources.
A long term maintenance and capital
improvement plan detailing the techniques
(seal coating, crack filling, routing,
resurfacing and replacement and annual cost
for maintaining and replacing roadway
systems (pavement, curb, gutter and impacted
utilities as required). Ideally this plan is
incorpoarated into the CIP.
The periodic cost to maintain physical
facilities such as HVAC, roof systems and
parking lots.
The cost to upgrade or replace major facilities
such as city hall, public work facilities, fire
stations, water plants, wastewater treatment
plants, recreation buildings
The cost to purchase, support and maintain
computers, telephones, radios etc.
City/HRA/EDA cost to retain and attract
residential and commercial tax base to
community.
The cost to replace or upgrade substandard
housing and to develop new types of housing.
A summary of existing debt service
commitments
An analysis of the impact of potential budget
reductions at specified levels.
Council Goals and Objectives
Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Plan
Five Year Budget Projection
Last Credit Rating Report
The cost and schedule assigned to council
goals and objectives.
An inventory of vehicles and equipment for
all departments and proposed replacemem
schedule including net cost to replace. An
option to this plan is a vehicle enterprise fund
which "leases" vehicles to departments.
Lease cost may include maintenance costs.
A projection of revenues and expenditures for
major funds including new or previously
deferred programs and services.
N:\General~Products\foundation.descriptions.wpd
Ehlers & Associates
Key Financial Strategies
Process Outline
Session
One
Two
Objectives
1. Explain KFS process.
2. Review KFS
objectives.
3. Identify and discuss
financial foundation
items.
4. Provide financial status
overview.
5. Compare and contrast
with other cities.
6. Review
financing/revenue
options.
1. Review costing of
foundation items.
2. Review scheduling of
investment/capital
improvement items.
3. Discuss gap financing
options.
Exhibits
1. KFS process guide.
2. KFS objectives.
2. Financial checklist.
3. Overview.
4. Comparison. (Tax base
mix/growth/
allocation/growth
factors/population/socio-
economic mix/housing
type age)
5. Budget comparison for
last 5-10 years.
6. Bond rating agency
criteria.
7. Debt ratios.
8. Comparable cities-
typical residential tax
bill/mix of tax capacity.
1. Foundation items cost.
2. Schedule of capital
improvements.
3. Gap financing options.
4. List of revenue options.
Outcomes
1. Identify areas of
concern as identified by
council and staff.
2. Identify foundation
areas which required
development or updating.
1. Agreement on
foundation costs.
2. Agreement on capital
improvements and
schedule.
3. Direction regarding
gap financing options.
4. Identify any remaining
potential funding needs or
revenues.
Three
Four
1. Review preliminary
plan including
expenditures, schedule
and revenues.
2. Review funding
alternative impacts.
3. Provide financial
revenue forecast model.
4. Review preliminary
gap analysis.
1.Review final plan.
2. Review policies and
schedule required to
implement final plan.
1. Preliminary plan.
2. Alternative impact
analysis.
3. Revenue forecast
model
4. Sources and uses
summary.
1. Final plan.
2. Schedule.
3. Policies.
1. Agreement on
financing options,
schedule and costs.
1. Final action plan.
2. Schedule.
3. Policies.
N:\General\Products\KFS.omline.wpd
FROM : JMS Communicattons & Research PHONE NO. : 715 755 3334 May. 05 2000 10:35AM P2
MOUND REDEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS
JMS COMMUNICATIONS & RESEARCH PROPOSAL
May 5, 2000
Upcoming Projects
1) Coast-to-Coast News Release
Description - A news release on the Coast to Coast/True Value redevelopment
project for the Mound Laker. Copy provided to Mound and City prints news release
on its own letterhead,
Cost Estimate: $500 to $700
2) Business Q&A
Description - A brief question and answer piece (one-page or two-page double sided)
providing the perspective of a business owner in the redevelopment area. The purpose
of the Q&A is to help to forecast information and address concerns of businesses
within the redevelopment area. The Q&A will be an interview with business owner
Mark Brewer who will need to move, but also understands the project importance to
the community. J-MS will interview, write, edit. PBS Graphic Art & Design will
provide final layout, any graphic treatment. Printing costs not included.
Cost Estimate : JMS interview, write, revision -- $500 to $700.
PBS layout/design $300 m $600
3) Open House
Description - An initial open house in the coming month to inform and to answer the
questions of residents and business owners about Mound redevelopment. Mound
City staff will need to meet and plan the open house with Hoisington Koegler and
Ehlers, outlining the areas of information needed and developing stations and
displays. To promote the open house and notify residents, Mound should consider an
ad in the paper, a mailer to residents, an article in the city newsletter (if timing
coincides), and a news release in advance of the open house explaining what it is, is
not and providing quotes from the mayor giving context and encouraging
participation.
Cost Estimate: Planning assistance provided from Hoisington Koegler and Ehlers.
Material costs - see estimates for "Fact Sheet", add an additional "News Release"
etc. Services can be provided as needed for others items not costed Out in the proposal
on an as-needed basis,
FROM : SMS Communications & Research PHONE NO. : 715 755 S334 May. 85 2008 10:35RM P3
Open House Q&A
Description - A summer Q&A which answers latest questions, prepared in
anticipation of the open house. Either one-page or two-page double-sided, depending
on number of issues that need to be addressed. Distributed at the open house and
potentially included in city newsletter, if timing coincides. Printing costs not
included.
Cost£stimate: JMS interview, write, revisions. -- $500 to $700
PBS layout/design - $300 to $600
Project Fact Sheet
Description-- "Project facts-at-glance" - a one-page double-sided summary of the
project with bullets and headers that helps community members and others
understand the what, why, when, where, how and who.
Cost Estimate: JMS write and revise -- $300 to $500
PBS layout/design -- $300 to $600
6) Briefing Book
7)
Description - The policymaker's "Bible" on this redevelopment proj cci, about a
dozen pages in length. Text is presented in bullets and brief summary form. Content
deals with typical redevelopment overview, Mound project background, proj ecl
financing, schedule, and addressing identified redevelopment concerns/issues,
collateral issues, and dealing with questions that have no answer.
Cost Estimate: JMS development --$2000 to $2500
Hotline
Description - The City sets up an unstaffed 24-hour telephone hotline on which
Mound community members can leave questions/concerns along with their name
and phone number. City staff will screen calls and have appropriate staff and
consultants make callbacks.
Cost Estimate : To be determined by City, cost of phone line and voice mail.
This is an estimate of expenses and services based on specifications provided by the
client. ~S Communications fir Research bills at $100 per hour. If changes and additions
are made which wouM affect the overall cost of this project, the additional expense will
be passed along, to the client. Conversely, ifa savings in expense or services should
re.mit, the saving., will alxo be passed along to the client.
Mound Redevelopment
Communications Plan
FINAL DRAFT
May 2000
JMS Communications & Research
484A 267th Street
Osceola, WI 54020
(715)755-3331
Mound Redevelopment
Communications Plan
Table of Contents
Page
1. Framework for Redevelopment Communications ............................ 1
2. Mound Project Background ..................................................... 2
3. Purpose for Communications Plan ............................................. 3
4. Target Audiences ................................................................. 4
5. Communications Goals ........................................................... 4
6. Key Messages ...................................................................... 5
7. Tools List ........................................................................... 5
8. Tactics and Strategies ............................................................. 6
9. Communications Timetable/Schedule ............................................ 8
Mound Redevelopment
Communications l~lan
1. The Framework for Redevelopment Communications
Redevelopment is always difficult because it involves change and change is difficult for
people. They love the results, but hate the process. There are basically three different
phases of the redevelopment process. Each has its own set of concerns and issues for the
public. An effective communications component to a redevelopment project moves the
public through all three phases to the results.
Redevelopment Project Phases
Redevelopment can basically be divided into three phases:
Phase 1 - Initial Planning
A planning process has taken place and a developer consultant may be on board,
but not the final project developer. The public may have some awareness ora
planning process and/or its outcome. But little is known or understood about the
planned redevelopment or need for it and few people believe it will really happen.
Phase 2 - Final Negotiations
Most of the planning is completed, but the project is still months from construction
because of issues such as final negotiations on the development agreement or final
negotiations by a master developer to secure the finances of the development. The
public already has some knowledge that a project has begun and is supposed to be
moving forward, but there is little or no visible proof of redevelopment. Opponents
continue to resist change. Supporters don't understand what is taking so long.
Phase 3 - Implementation
All development agreements are final, acquisition may have begun and even some
initial demolition of existing properties. Many early opponents have accepted that
the redevelopment is taking place, but the new development is still not up and
visible to the public. Public concern has shifted from the pre-existing businesses
and homes to the new development that will replace the old properties. There are
concerns about the impacts of those new businesses and housing developments on
the community.
Commonly Asked Questions
While every redevelopment project has its own specific issues that need to be addressed,
there are many questions that are commonly asked in every redevelopment project. Here is
a brief list of some of the most commonly asked questions during each project phase.
Phase 1
· What is planned?
· Why redevelop?
· Why is a developer involved?
o How will the developer be selected?
· How will the redevelopment be financed and what will it cost?
° How does tax increment finance work?
· Why are some businesses included in the redevelopment and some excluded?
· When will the redevelopment occur?
· Why do we have to do anything?
· How will the public participate and be kept informed?
· Who can I contact with questions?
Phase
· What
2
is happening with the redevelopment?
Why is taking so long?
When will construction begin?
When will properties be acquired?
Why are we losing long-time businesses (or residences)?
Why are we losing so many single-family homes ?
Can businesses/residences remain in the redevelopment area?
How much notice will businesses and homeowners have of a need to move?
Will I get a fair price for my home or business?
How is fair market value determined?
Will I be reimbursed for moving expenses?
Will the value of my home/business go down if I am across from redevelopment?
Why do we need any more multi-unit housing?
Aren't crime rates higher in multi-unit housing?
How will the redevelopment impact traffic?
Why do we have to change?
How can I keep informed?
Phase 3
· What is happening with the redevelopment?
· What new businesses are coming to the community?
· What is the plan for new housing?
· When will housing be available for lease/purchase?
· Will anyone from our community be moving into the new housing?
· How will we replace the lost single family housing?
· How does tax increment finance work?
· How will TIF impact my taxes? Will the new businesses pay any taxes?
· Why are we building new multi-unit housing instead of single family homes?
· Why do we have to change?
· How can I find out more?
2. Mound Project Background
In 1991, the Mound City Council spearheaded a downtown revitalization effort and
gathered a large group of community volunteers to work with the City's Economic
Development Commission to look at strategies for revitalizing downtown. The
Mound Visions Concept Plan was introduced in 1992. Much progress has been
made since that time. On December 14, 1999, the Mound Housing &
Redevelopment Authority voted to approve a redevelopment plan for Downtown
Mound, based on the concept plan.
2
The redevelopment area takes in about 100 acres of downtown. It would reorient
downtown toward Lost Lake and Lake Langdon. It would feature new commercial
development, housing, a transit station, a public greenway, pedestrian walkways
and opening the Lost Lake Canal to boats. It contains four redevelopment project
districts:
Langdon District - Six acres in the core of downtown bounded by
Commerce Boulevard, Lake Langdon, Our Lady of the Lake Church and the
railroad line. Plans are that the development would include 15,000 square feet
of retail, 14 for-sale townhomes, 40 rental townhomes, and 34 rental
apartments.
Time Frame: Construction expected to begin in the fall 2000.
Coast to Coast/True Value District - Four acres in the core of downtown
bounded by Lynwood Boulevard, Commerce Boulevard, Belmont Avenue and
the railroad line. Plans are to develop a total of about 23,000 square feet of retail
and 8,000 square feet of office space. The project will be split into two phases.
Time Frame: Construction of Phase 1, 15,000 square feet of retail, will begin
in summer 2000. Construction of Phase 2, 8,000 square feet of retail and 8,000
square feet of office across the roadway from Coast to Coast, will begin in
2002.
Auditors Road District - Six acres in the core of downtown bounded by
Commerce Boulevard, Auditors Road, County Road 15 and the railroad line.
Plans are that the development would include 40,000 square feet of retail and 85
condominiums/apartments.
Time Frame: Acquisition will occur in 2001 and relocation of County Road
15 and construction will occur in 2002.
ltotel District - Five acres in the core of downtown bounded by County
Road 15, the Super America site and Lost Lake. Plans are that the development
would include a 60-room hotel, and the site would be used for a banquet facility
and farmer's market.
Time Frame: A developer has not yet been identified for this development.
The entire redevelopment will cost about $23 million. It will be financed by land
sales, developer fees and tax increment finance (TIF). The City will also use a
federal ISTEA grant to help pay for the rehabilitation of Lost Lake Canal and gas
tax dollars to reconstruct Auditors Road and County Road 15.
3. Purpose for the Communications Plan
The purpose of this communications plan is to help the City of Mound organize its
communications and outreach efforts with the public and with other important groups, also
called "target audiences". This plan identifies a set of target audiences, goals, key
messages, tools, tactics and strategies to accomplish that communications effort. This
communications plan looks out through 2000 and should be updated annually.
4. Tsrget Audiences
All Mound Residents
Residents and Business within the Redevelopment
City opinion leaders
-- Council, board and commission members
-- Civic organizations
-- Community groups
-- City staff
News Media
-- Mound Laker
-- Lakeshore News
5. Communications Goals
The plan's communications goals correspond to the target audiences. Each
communications tactics and strategies listed in this plan are built from these goals.
of the
Goal No.1
All Residents
To keep all Mound residents informed about the Mound redevelopment, the
reasons for it and the progress with it.
Goal No.2
Residents and Businesses in the Redevelopment Area
To keep residents and business owners in the redevelopment area informed
of what is happening in the redevelopment project area and why, and the
timing of future activities, especially those dealing with acquisition and
relocation.
Goal No. 3
City Opinion Leaders
To keep City opinion leaders informed about the redevelopment and provide
them with the information they need to inform community members and
answer questions.
Goal No. 4 News Media
To provide the news media with accurate and timely information on Mound
downtown redevelopment, enabling the news media to assist the City in
keeping community members informed.
4
This is a general set of key messages to be used in communication about the Mound
redevelopment plan. The set of key messages will grow and evolve as the project develops.
The City of Mound is moving forward with a plan to revitalize and redevelop
downtown.
The plan is based on the community's 1992 Mound Visions Concept Plan which
found that a big reason for the decline of downtown is that it doesn't work well as
a district.
The redevelopment plan calls for reorienting downtown to the lakes and includes
new housing, new commercial development, a transitway, a public greenway,
pedestrian walkways and opening Lost Lake Canal to boats.
The redevelopment will occur over the next three to five years and will be
financed through land sales, developer fees, tax increment finance (TIF), a federal
ISTEA grant and state gas tax funds.
Revitalization will create a distinct community identity, making downtown more
pedestrian-friendly, providing more retail parking, increasing convenience, and
providing opportunities for retail services and businesses, and new housing
options.
Redevelopment will ensure that Mound has the type of shopping, services and
housing options that today's residents want.
7. Tools List
Q&As - Quarterly Q&As included in the community newsletter to update and
answer questions about the redevelopment. Responsibility: JMS in cooperation
with Ehlers & Hoisington Koegler. Timing: April, June, Sept., Dec.
Briefing Book - A tool for policymakers - City Council, HRA and Planning
Commission - which summarizes important information about the redevelopment
and equips them to answer commonly asked questions. Responsibility: JMS in
cooperation with Ehlers & Hoisington Koegler. Timing: May.
Public Information Meeting/Open House - A public information
meeting/open house would be held for community members after the development
agreement is approved for the Langdon District. Also, once plans have been
developed for a school site, an open can be held for community input prior to any
City reviews. Responsibility: Langdon open house -- Beard, in cooperation with
Ehlers & Hoisington Koegler. Timing: June. School site open house -
responsibility and timing to be determined.
Overhead Presentation - Simple, summary overhead presentation explaining:
key information about the redevelopment including purpose, timing, schedule,
expected results, how people can stay informed. Responsibility: Creation -- JMS in
cooperation with Ehlers and Hoisington Koegler. The presentation would be
delivered by project consultants. Timing: June.
News Releases - News releases would be provided at critical points in the
redevelopment to ensure the media understands not only what is happening but can
put it into the context of the bigger picture. Responsibility: JMS in cooperation with
Ehlers and Hoisington Koegler. 7~ming: May/June.
Fact Sheet -- One page that describes project facts at a glance, that can be used
with a variety of target audiences. Responsibility: JMS in cooperation with Ehlers
& Hoisington Koegler. Timing: May.
Display Boards- Boards that include an elevation that provides a vision for the
Langdon District, a board with a map of the entire redevelopment area and a board
with the project schedule. These would be displayed in the bank or in other
prominent areas in the community. Responsibility: Beard and Hoisington Koegler.
Timing: May.
Project Signs - At redevelopment sites, the developer would post a which would
show a concept of the development, name of development and "coming soon" or
other schedule information. Responsibility: Developers. Timing: Summer for True
Value and Langdon.
8. Tactics and Strategies
A) City Information Effort
Summary:. During the summer, prior to work on the Langdon development, information
such as the vision boards, fact sheet and Q&As/newsletters would be provided in the bank
for everyone to see and read. Q&As will continue to be sent quarterly in the City
newsletter. Once the development agreement has been approved for the Langdon District, a
public information meeting/open house can be held. Once plans have been developed for
the school site, an open house can be held for community input, prior to any City reviews.
Tools: Q&As/newsletters, fact sheet, display boards at bank, public information
meetings/open houses, project signs.
Goals: 1 and 2
Timing: Ongoing
B) Presentations to City Opinion Leaders
Summary: Ongoing, periodic presentations will be made to City opinion leaders as the
redevelopment progresses. In addition to presentations to policymaking bodies -- such as
the Economic Development Commission, Planning Commission, City Council and
Housing Redevelopment Authority, -- presentations will be made periodically to civic
groups and community organizations such as the Jaycees, Lions, American Legion and
VFW. (Special overhead presentation to community groups by consultants begins in
summer 2000.) Periodic City staff briefings will be scheduled for the third Tuesday of each
month.
Tools: Overhead presentation, fact sheet, Q&A/newsletters, display boards and other
written materials as needed.
Goals: 3 and 1.
Timing: Ongoing
C) Business Community Coffees
Summary: An ongoing communications effort with the business community will ensure
that those who will be most impacted by the redevelopment are kept informed. Hoisington
Koegler will continue to hold early morning coffees at City Hall with the business
community. In addition, the quarterly community newsletter will address upcoming
activities and the schedule for the redevelopment.
Tools: Display boards, Q&As/newsletters, fact sheet, overhead presentation.
Goals: 2.
Timing: Quarterly
D) News Media Briefing Sessions
Summary: At the time of important events and milestones in the redevelopment, the news
media would be briefed by the city manager/mayor, enabling the media to do a news story
or feature on the redevelopment. For example, a briefing could be held for reporters once
the development agreement is signed with Beard but prior to the beginning of work in the
Langdon project area in the fall, enabling the media to forecast information about the work
that will take place in the fall.
Tools: News Release, fact sheet, vision boards on computer file or print out, and other
written information as pertinent.
Goals': 4.
Timing: May/June and in the future as needed.
9. Tentative Communications Timetable/Schedule -- 2000
May
Project Activity
Development_Agreements Finalized - Langdon and True Value
Ci~~ - Downtown Redevelopment District Zoning Ordinance changes
presented resented to Planning Commission.
Project Communications
]51e.~s3kelease/I~ews MediaBriefing - The story is the completion of development
agreements, projected time frames, key messages.
Display Boards - Completed for display at bank, along with project fact sheet.
Fact Sheet -- Completed for use with news media, public, etc.
Rriefing Rook - Completed and distributed to members of the City Council, HRA,
Planning Commission.
June
Project Activity
City Zoning Ordinance - Final approval by the City Council.
School Site -- Developer proposal for school site presented to planning commission.
Project Communications
Bl~s Release/Ne~s Media Rriefing - Story is that the approval of the ordinance
gives the green light for the redevelopment to begin.
Public Information Meeting - Held on Lake Langdon and redevelopment in general.
Develop conducts public information session about what his plans are.
Developer Meetings -- Developer meets with impacted businesses. Langdon.
Overhead Presentation - Completed for use in presentations to city opinion leaders.
Q&A- Included in quarterly city newsletter.
July
Project Communications
Presentations to City Opinion I Jeaders - Presentations begin to groups as identified
by consultants, City Council.
Business Community Coffee - Update on redevelopment.
Project Signs_- Placed at redevelopment sites by developers.
August
Project Communications
Presentationsto~ity Opinion l,eaders
identified by consultants, City Council.
- Presentations
continue to
groups
as
September
Project Communications
Q&A- Included in quarterly city newsletter.
~ - Update schedule on board in bank, as necessary.
October
Project Communications
Business_Community Coffee - Update on redevelopment.
HisloficalSx)r,/~g - Update on redevelopment.
November
Project Communications
No additional communications activities scheduled at this time.
December
Project Communications
Q_&A- Included in quarterly newsletter.
9
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
1.7 OPEN SPACE PETITION UPDATE.
Mayor Meisel stated the names on the petition have been validated and it has been verified
there are 982 signatures, 19 more than the 963 required. Mayor Meisel further stated there
are many things to prepare before an election occurs. She also stated there are unknown
answers to ten questions on page 1642 of the packet as outlined by Mr. Prosser before the
referendum occurs. Mayor Meisel suggested an advisory committee be organized to discuss
and answer these questions and then have the answers passed directly to the City Council.
Mayor Meisel would appreciate getting correct information from the committee so it could be
passed on to the pubic accurately.
Councilmember Weycker asked what would be earliest date before an election could occur.
The City Clerk stated 90 to 120 days.
Mayor Meisel suggested the advisory committee meet and spend no more than 30 days
before answers to the questions directed to the committee should be answered.
The City Clerk suggested having the referendum at the same time as the September 12th
Primary Election. She further stated a drop-dead date for the election would be July, 2000,
in order to hold the election in September.
Councilmember Hanus mentioned number 2 of the questions asks how the land would be
used and he strongly urges the Park Commission as well as the advisory committee answer
this question.
Tom Casey, a member of the Park Commission, asked the City Attorney if there are any
statutory deadlines for having an election. The City Attorney stated there are no statutes that
state when an election needs to be held.
Mr. Casey suggested pushing the election sooner than the primary election by having a
special election. He stated by having a special election there would be more invested in the
issue at hand than if it was thrown in with the primary or general election. Mr. Casey would
like this high priority for the City.
Mayor Meisel asked the City Clerk when the new machines would be ready to hold an
election. The City Clerk stated she would be attending a meeting tomorrow to find out when
the new machines would be available.
Councilmember Hanus stated he would appreciate as many people as possible involved at this
point in the referendum and he does not think rushing an election would be an appropriate
decision.
7
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Mayor Meigel is concerned the 10 questions listed in the packet are vital questions that need
to be answered and the information produced needs to be given to the public before the
election occurs. She also mentioned she would like to see this held in conjunction with a
regular election, like the primary election because is would draw a large number of people to
the polls.
Mr. Casey asked if it would be possible to find out what the developer has going on with the
property and to find out what the intentions and plans are for the developer regarding this
property. He wanted it confirmed the price would not be going up any time in the near
future causing more monies to be spent by the taxpayers if the people in favor of the green
space would win the election.
Mayor Meisel mentioned she is aware the developer is proposing housing, although soil tests,
architectural drawings, and such still need to be accomplished, and the closing date has been
set for no sooner than the end of June, 2000.
Mr. Presser stated he is not speaking on behalf of anybody, including the developer, but his
conversations with the developer reveal to him that no final plans have been made. Metro
Plains is quite aware of the referendum regarding the green space, and would be concerned
about committing any funds to the project until the election has occurred. Mr. Presser
further stated Metro Plains would probably need some assistance from the City in order to
construct the improvements because of the soil corrections needed. Mr. Presser does not see
a proposal being presented or approved before the election has occurred.
Mr. Casey asked in the event a plat is submitted, would the City consider a moratorium.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the City has any obligation once a developer comes in and
meets TIF and zoning requirements to react to the proposal being presented. The City
Attorney stated agreeing to a moratorium would defuse this scenario.
Councilmember Weycker asked why would the City need to agree to a moratorium when it
was already stated by staff that the developer cannot build without the assistance of the City,
and the City would not approve any assistance knowing the referendum situation.
Councilmember Hanus stated if the delay were not a long-term commitment, he does not see
why a moratorium would pose a problem.
Councilmember Brown stated the developer has to come before the Planning Commission,
which would also allow more steps the developer would need to include in his development
process, thus allowing enough time for the election.
Mayor Meisel suggested a committee be appointed that could respond to the questions 1-10
listed on page 1642. She would appreciate the Committee being limited to no more than five
or six people.
8
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Peter Meyer suggested the advisory committee, once appointed, would meet at the next Park
Commission meeting in May, 2000.
Mayor Meisel wanted it clarified that there would be only one representative of the Park
Commission on the advisory committee.
Mayor Meisel suggested having the advisory committee meet and then send the answers to
the questions to the Park Commission, which would then forward them on to the City
Council. Councilmember Weycker and Brown agreed.
Mr. Meyer stated answers to these questions could be almost gathered this evening. The
City Attorney begged to differ in that these questions contained fiscal impact information on
the bond itself and ongoing maintenance costs of the City that the public should be made
aware of before voting. He further stated there is an amount that would show the principal
amount of the bond issue and that number has to be taken from the petition to use for the
referendum.
The City Manager suggested a diverse advisory committee be comprised in answering these
questions. She further recommended a representative from the school board be present as
well.
Mr. Meyer mentioned to keep in mind, since there was some concern about too much hard
cover being considered for the downtown redevelopment project, this green space could very
well be used to assist with that issue, if the referendum is passed.
There was discussion to agree to having Kim Anderson, Wayne Ehlebracht, and one Park
Commissioner, one Planning Commission member, and the school board appointee to serve
on the committee. The City Manager will advise Geoff Michael, the Chair of the Planning
Commission, of this advisory committee being formed. Further discussion at the Planning
Commission level would be helpful with the land use questions.
Mayor Meisel stated she would rather have the 5~ person from the community that would not
be bias either way to be on the advisory committee. Councilmember Brown suggested Keith
Johnson.
Councilmember Hanus is concerned about making the advisory committee balanced.
balance group the information gathered by the advisory committee would be fair and
unbiased.
With a
Councilmember Hanus asked who would be distributing the data to the public once it is
presented. Mayor Meisel stated the City would be responsible for this distribution. The
City Manager suggested using Jill Schultz, the media specialist.
Councilmember Weycker suggested the City call the fifth person for the committee and also
set the meeting date.
9
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Mayor Meisel stated the advisory committee could not meet until after the Park Commission
meeting held on Thursday~ May 11~ 2000. She further stated this would allow the City
enough time to locate the 5a person on the advisory committee and who would fill the school
board's position on this committee as well.
Mayor Meisel informed those in attendance the meeting date for the advisory committee
would be held on May 17, 2000. She further stated the City Manager would contact the
Planning Commission, and the Park Commission to get their candidates for the committee.
The City Council to bring forward their suggestions on May 9, 2000, of a unbiased Mound
citizen. Mayor Meisel further stated this committee would be only in existence short-term,
approximately one month. Councilmember Brown stated he would contact Keith Johnson.
Mayor Meisel further instructed that the advisory committee to have the answers from these
10 questions proposed back to the City Council within at least 30 days from the May 17,
2000, meeting.
The consensus agreed to have the referendum put on the primary election ballot in
September, 2000.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she would rather have the referendum on the general election
because this is the time all of the people of Mound would be going to the polls.
10
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and Council Members; City of Mound
Jim Prosser
Open Space Issues
4/18/00
The City of Mound has been presented with a petition to conduct a referendum on the
question of whether to purchase athletic fields currently owned by the Westonka School District.
If a referendum is conducted it would be important for the following issues to be resolved prior
to the referendum election.
9
Identify parcel size and specific location. While those active on the issue may be in
agreement regarding what land is being considered, the general public may not. The last
outcome you want is confusion over what land is under consideration for purchase or
exactly how much of the school parcel is included in the referendum question.
Determine how the space will be used, i.e. soccer fields, baseball fields or open space. If
the rel'erendum is successful, this will help avoid misunderstanding regarding how the
land will be used. In addition the public will be asking this question.
Recommend preliminary design, based on agreed upon use. Will there be any changes in
current design? If so what will thc changes be?
Identify improvement costs, i.e. additional landscaping, turf, drainage, parking,
irrigation, bleachers, fencing, lighting, concessions, toilets, sanitary sewer, water. Some
improvements may be required per code or change in use. A decision on the funding of
these cost should be made prior to the referendum election.
Develop maintenance budget, i.e. mowing, fertilizing, aeration, irrigation, structure
maintenance, garbage pickup, field slriping, nets, general field preparation, utilities,
insurance. The maintenance cost for a facility such as this should be addressed up lront.
Recommend funding source for operational costs.
Recommend administrative structure, i.e. field scheduling, maintenance supervision, use
regulations and fees. This can be a rather complex task. If there is a strong need for
athletic facilities then there will likely be some scheduling conflict.
Determine how information on the referendum question will be conveyed to the public.
It's expected that there will be a group supporting the question, the question is how will
the basic general (neutral) information be communicated with the public. It's customary
for the city to send a mailer out which accomplishes this purposes..
Develop an estimate for the bond referendum amount. This would include land purchase
price, improvement cost (if any) and cost of issuance.
Determine cost estimates for extraneous costs, i.e., attorney fees,
condemnation costs, appraisals, etc. ~
Page 2
April 19, 20O0
Given the nature of this matter it would be useful for the City to appoint an advisory committee
to assist with developing responses to these questions. Once advisory committee reports to the
City Council a date could be set to hold the referendum.
APR-14-O0 FRI
15:29JOHN BEISE Flq× NO, 612 472 2888
2001
Park and Open Space
Capital Outlay & Line Item Request
To be discussed at the 4/I 8/2000 C.O.W. meeting with the P.O.S.C.
P, UZ
IP Hall Restoration Phase 1 $50,000 ?
1 Need for "Packs andRecreat/on Center"
2 Historical Preservation
3 Income producinq rental facility
$133,250 C.O.
2
3
4
5
6
Playground Equipment (Swenson Park) $30,000 C.O.
1 Safety concern of ci,y insurance agent due to the age of equip.
2 I~equest from neighborhood
3 One of Mounds "Showcase Parks", Centrally located on the Zsland.
Depot/Mound Bay Park Information Sign
1 Communication to the community
2 Hiqh visibility
3 City promotion
$2,500 C.O.
Winter Skating Rink (Outdoor)
I Wintertime family activity
2 No cost to user
3 Jointly funded
$5,000 L.I.
Crescent Park Improvements
1 Natural area in need of protection
2 Neighborhood request
3 _ Unique features
$3,500
C.I.
Music in the Parks
1 Community promotion event
2 Well attended, successful event
3 Promotes thearts
$2,500
C.I.
APR-14-O0 FRI 15:29 JOHN BEISE
F~× NO. 612 472 2888
?. 03
7
Adopt-A-Green Space I Beautifies Mound
2 Encourages citizen participation
I~,ecoqni+ion of volunteeri~m
$1,000 L.I.
8
Basketball Court Resurfacing/Line Painting
I Hiqhly used
2 Aesthetics
3 Encourages youth activity
$2,000 L.I.
9
Sorbo & Highland Parks Grounds Improvements
1 Safety
2 Neighborhood requests
3 Aesthetics
$20,000
10
Tree Plantings
I Matching funds from MNReleaf
2 Aesthetics and added value
3 Replacement of damaged trees
$1,000 L.I.
11
Park and Open Space Planning
1 Park planninq and long term visioning
2 Inventow
3 Prioritizing and categorizing
$5,000 L.I.
Additional Comments;
ORDINANCE NO. -2000
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 155:35 OF
THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING
SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 155:35 of the Mound Code of Ordinances establishing salaries for the Mayor and Council
Members is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 155:35. Salaries of Mayor and Council Members. Effective January 2, 1995, the Salary
of the Mayor shall be $375 per month and the salary for each Council Member shall be $250 per
month. In addition, effective January 2, 2001, the Mayor and Council Members shall each receive
$25 for attending each special meeting authorized by the Council, but not to exceed $75 per month.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
JBD- 179946v 1
MU220-1
Section 155:35. Salaries of Mayor and Council Members. Effective JaNua~ 2, 1995,
the salary of the Mayor shah be $375 per month and the salm'y of each Council Member shall
be $250 per month. (ORD. g70-1994, 8-29-94)
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
1.9 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SALARIES.
Mayor Meisel stated previous conversations concerning this topic included to either increase
the pay of the Mayor and Councilmembers or to do a special meeting reimbursement.
Councilmember Brown suggested with the extra meetings the Councilmembers are being
expected to attend, he would suggest having a flat increase of $100 per month for the Mayor
and Councilmembers or a stipend increase for only special meetings.
10
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Couneilmember I4anug stated when looking at what other Councilmembers receive for
attcncling meetings in other cities, thc amount thc Mayor and Councilmcmbers receive is not
out of line. He stated what is out of line is the number of meetings expected to be attended
by the members. Councilmember Hanus stated if the rate of increase was done by stipend, it
would mean the increase of pay would go away once the special meetings would decrease,
causing the normal base salary to not change.
Mayor Meisel suggested getting rid of the COW meetings. Councilmember Hanus stated this
occurred in previous years and it was not a good solution.
Councilmember Ahrens agreed with getting rid of the COW meetings. She stated if an
individual is allowed less meetings, then s/he would obviously be encouraged to get more
work done in less of a timeframe, causing less unneeded discussion at regular meetings. She
basically stated the Councilmembers would become more efficient with the use of their time.
Councilmember Brown agreed the COW meetings are becoming more a public meeting than
what it was intended as a workshop for the Councilmembers.
Councilmember Hanus stated the COW meetings serve a purpose and should be left as a
workshop format.
Councilmember Weycker suggested having the COW meetings not scheduled for every
month. Mayor Meisel agreed.
Mayor Meisel stated the information discussed at the COW could be put as an informational
item at the City Council meetings. Councilmember Ahrens agreed.
Councilmember Weycker stated there are many other cities that are bigger than Mound and
they get more work done in a shorter timeframe.
Councilmember Hanus stated the City Council's plate is full and the need for more
discussion is pertinent.
Councilmember Hanus suggested having the HRA another night because of the recent
meetings that are running into City Council time.
Councilmember Weycker suggested trusting our staff more rather than knit-picking some of
these issues ourselves. She suggested having the City Manager getting more involved, now
that the City of Mound has a permanent City Manager.
Councilmember Brown suggested another way to save time would be to allow the public to
speak but do not debate the issues they bring up when they are presenting. He stated when
all public have presented their concerns it would be brought back to the City Council for
discussion.
11
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Couneilmember Weyelrer suggested switching the I-IRA and COW meetings.
Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission has a rule that they will not meet
beyond 11:00 p.m. without a majority vote.
MOTION by Mayor Meisel, seconded by Weycker, to eliminate the COW
meetings and keep the HRA meetings scheduled for 7:00 p.m., but allowing
special circumstances to change the starting time of the HRA's meetings to 6:30
p.m. when deemed appropriate.
Discussion.
Mayor Meisel stated because of the redevelopment projects, the meetings might need
to change to earlier times.
Councilmember Weycker stated the Councilmembers need to rely more on staff.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to reimburse the Mayor and
Councilmembers a rate of $30.00 per special City assigned meetings.
Discussion.
The City Manager stated the City could also do the reverse and keep the salaries as
specified for the normal meetings, but for any special meeting you would be
reimbursed, but there would be a cap of three special meetings per month that
reimbursement would be feasible. The Councilmembers would turn in a report to
payroll and time cards would be used as well.
Councilmember Ahrens is not in favor of the City Manager's suggested method of
reimbursement for attendance at special meetings.
Councilmember Weycker stated she appreciates the City Manager's proposal because
it would be possible once everything is more defined.
Councilmember Brown would like to see the salaries increased.
Councilmember Hanus stated he has no strong opinion with either way on
reimbursement, but he does not know if the term "special meeting" can be defined
adequately.
Councilmember Hanus asked if this would be an ordinance change. The City
Attorney stated it would be an ordinance change.
12
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2000
Couneilmambar Brown withdrew his motion because lack of support.
The matter was tabled until May 9, 2000, at which time recommendations from staff and
Councilmembers would be brought back to the City Council for discussion.
13
--tmO
"'-4 O Z m ~
~ cD m c) ~ cz) ~ cD cz) , * C~ CZ) O
C)
CD O O'~ O CD CD CE~ C) ~ O O
C~ O CO CZ) O
O CD O O O
* O O C) CD O
O O C~ O O~ CD O ~- ~- CD O · O O ~- O O
O O O O C)
CD CD ~ C) C) CD C} ~ C} CZ}
CD CD C~ CZ) C~ O r.E C} n~ C) CZ}
ho r,o ~ N)
-.~ 4~ N.~ ~ 00
O O CD O O
* O O O O O
C~ OJ GO O'1 e,.,"l CO GO O O'} O 4~. 4::,. ~,~ O -'.-4
O -',4 O O O CD O C) O O O O C) O O
CZ) O'~ CD C) CD CD C) ~. CD CD C} C) CD C. CZ) ~- C~
"-4 ~
O {DO O
O O O
~ i'~
CO O
O O
CO O
O O
z
Z
0
Z
<
0 0 0
0 ¢4D .~. 0 ~ 0'~ ~ 4:~ 0 CO
(.0 bO GO O3 0'3 r4D (.0 03 ~ 0')
0 * 0 CD
m 0
;;U
0
0
i'~ I'O C~ GO i'~ O'~ ~ 4:~
4~ --4 O OO '-4 ~D O~ ~ O
O O O Oq O ~ O O O
O O O * O O Ob O O O
FO ~ 0'3 C~ Oo ~
~4~ --4 0 0 Go '--4
0 0 0 0 0 0
C) 0 0 0 0 0
0 '-4 0 0 0
0 r,53 0 0 0
4:~ 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~'O 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O~ 0 0 0
0 ~ 0 0 0
Go ~ 60 ..~
cO 0 (.~ 0
0 ~5 0 0
0 C:D 0 0
· -Irn0
m C) + ~ CD
0
O3
0
0
z
Z
0
Z
0
0
~ .,.D Z
Z
o ~~
o N3 ,.(
o o
Mound Committee of the Whole ReguFar Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
Skinner stated that he would talk with Minnetrista tomorrow and make it clear that there was a
contingency between the water and the recycling site.
The Council gave Skinner the okay to move forward with Y2K issues.
The Council was notified that letters on the Seton Bluff variance for LMCD had been sent. This
waived the right to notice of Public Hearing for the City and allows for minimum crossing of
cattails.
There was a letter from Mr. Albrecht regarding his dock costs to the Council. If the City
purchased the dock for his cost, there would be an additional out of pocket expense for the City
of $445 between his cost and the appraised cost from Fackler. After discussion, the Council
members suggested offering the appraised amount of $1650 or suggesting that Mr. Albrecht sell
the dock on his own.
The Council discussed personnel issues for Clark, Harnell, and Joel Krumme. After a lengthy
discussion minus these people and others, the Council gave the following proposals. The Mayor
prefaced the proposals with the remark that legal opinion had to be sought on the proposals and
the money found to fund them.
Clark; raise base pay to $50,376 plus 10%. Enable a bonus system to be paid out at the
end of her term as "Acting City Manager." This system would be based on four elements:
~ public relations, supervision, communication and organizational skills and would be from
$2000 - $5000. If she meets ail the criteria, the full bonus would be awarded.
April 26, 2000
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
I have enclosed the 1999 Annual Report of the Finance Department.
The purpose of the report is to point out the financial condition
of the City of Mound to the City Council, which sets the policies
that direct the future of the City. The financial recaps included
in this report provide you with a preliminary summary of the City
of Mound's financial position for 1999.
The year 1999 was a productive one in the Finance Department. I
would like to thank the staff of the department, Joyce, Collette
and Sue, for their hard work during this challenging year. I look
forward to a productive year in 2000.
Respectfully,
Gino Businaro
Finance Director
!
printed on recycled paper
My first responsibility is the supervision of the Finance Staff.
The current personnel in the Finance Department is as follows:
NAME TITLE
STARTING DATE
Sue Schwalbe
Collette Roberts
Joyce Nelson
Gino Businaro
Accounts Payable Clerk 09-15-99
Accounting Clerk/Payroll 03-12-99
Utility Billing Clerk 05-31-77
Finance Director 11-23-92
The finance staff should be commended for the teamwork and
cooperation they have demonstrated in 1999.
JOYCE NELSON
Joyce handles the water and sewer billing process. We have
approximately 3,400 residential accounts that are billed quarterly
on a cyclical basis (the City is divided into three billing
districts). In addition, there are 126 commercial accounts that
receive a bill every month. With this many customers to serve
Joyce is kept quite busy.
At the same time Joyce coordinates the various recycling programs.
As an example of participation, for the month of October, out of
13,532 households, 5,744 had their recyclable set out. That is a
42% participation. The total materials collected for the year was
963.74 tons.
Joyce also continues to assist Greg Skinner in public works with
some of the paperwork and computer data entry as time allows.
Sue Schwalbe
Sue does the special assessment searches of properties as requested
by Realtors, title companies or residents when a house in Mound is
purchased.
Sue receipts any prepayments of special assessments and she
notifies the County of the prepayment. Any money collected is
invested to pay off the special assessment bonds when they become
due.
Sue's major responsibility is the processing of payments to city
vendors (the accounts payable function). She codes and enters into
the computer all the invoices and pays city vendors for purchases
of goods or services. In 1999 over 3,000 checks were issued for a
total of $5,728,746.
Collette Roberts
Collette, as the Payroll Clerk, is responsible for all functions
related to payments and benefits to city employees. She maintains
and processes payroll every two weeks. In 1999 over 1,500 payroll
checks were issued to employees and over 300 checks were issued for
other payroll related purposes for a total of over 2.5 million
dollars. Some of these payments are made by phone with a direct
debit to the city bank account. She works with and maintains all
documentation for each employee from the hiring date to termination
2
and post retirement.
As the General Ledger Clerk, Collette works in the following areas:
Data entry for the computerized financial system and monthly
reports' distribution to departments
Computer back up's and year end closing of Finance and payroll
applications
Miscellaneous receipts and receivables
Employees benefit enrollment, changes to benefits and related
requirements
Miscellaneous billing and reports to other agencies
Reports for the Liquor Store: monthly sales tax reports, NSF
checks
Preparation of monthly, quarterly, and yearly reports to
various federal and state agencies
Bank reconciliation
Issuance of merchant and dog licenses and assistance at the
main counter when needed.
Depot Rental
The Depot rental income over the last six years was as follows:
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
$2,100 $2,450 $1,825 $2,322 $2,550 2,975
INVESTMENTS
Cash management and investment of City funds are an important
aspect of my job. The first objective in investing City funds is
safety, legal constraints, and liquidity. Taking safety and
liquidity into account, I look for the best market rate of return,
normally within a 3-6 month range. I continue to follow a policy
of investing only with broker/dealers in this state from the list
approved by the City Council at their first meeting in January.
The following is a breakdown of investments as of December 31,
1999:
Commercial Paper
Money Market
3,993,936
522,983
TOTAL $ 4,516,919
3
A comparison of interest earned for the City on all funds is as
follows:
1993 335,667
1994 318,235
1995 249,700
1996 214,868
1997 219,401
1998 207,285
1999 204,247
Interest income in 1995-99 is down from 1993-94. This is due
primarily to the decrease of cash balances available for investment
and the interest fluctuation in the financial markets.
Ail interest income is accumulated in the Investment Trust Account
and distributed to the funds in proportion to the average balance
during the year. For example, during 1999, the General Fund was
allocated $53,577 in interest (26.2% of all interest earned) while
the Capital Improvements Fund was allocated $10,548 in interest
(5.16% of total interest).
BUDGET
Preparing the data for the annual budget document that is submitted
to the Council is another important function of my job. During
June, I estimate the revenues for the current year and also work on
an estimate of the expenditures for the current year. I work
closely with the City Manager in budgeting revenue amounts and
salary projections for the following year.
The Finance Department budget is my responsibility, along with
portions of the City Property, the Special Revenue Funds and the
debt service requirements.
Once the City Manager reviews the expenditure budgets with each of
the department heads, the budget is compiled, analyzed and
adjustments are made. The document is then prepared and presented
to the Council for approval. The Water and Sewer Funds are
examined during the budget process. The projected revenues and
expenses are used to determine the adequacy of the rates. The
Enterprise Funds (Liquor, Water, Sewer, and Recycling) are
presented to the Council along with the General Fund for Council
approval.
OUTSTANDING DEBT
The total outstanding debt as of 12-31-99 is $2,260,000, with
$1,090,000 in refunding bonds. The following details the
outstanding debt:
COMMERCE PLACE DEBT SERVICE BONDS
This fund accounts for principal and interest payments on the 20
years' bonds sold in 1985. The bonds will be paid for from the tax
increment from the Commerce Place Development. The increment from
the development is sufficient to make the principal and interest
payments. With the developers' letter of credit and the Mound
Clinic and Thrifty White as corner stores, Commerce place is
meeting all of its financial obligations. The City made principal
payraents of $165,000 during 1999, and has an outstanding balance of
$945,000 at December 31, 1999. In 1993 TIF Refunding Bonds in the
amount of $795,000 were issued and are outstanding as of December
31, 1999.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS
Special Assessment Funds are used to account for the construction
and financing of certain public improvements such as streets,
sidewalks, street lighting and storm sewers. Bonds are issued and
are paid for in full or in part from the special assessments levied
against benefitted properties. No new bonds were issued during
1999. The City has a zero outstanding balance of special
assessments bonds payable.
WATER/SEWER REVENUE BONDS
The principal and interest on water revenue bonds are paid out of
the revenue generated from the water and sewer bills. The City
made principal payments of $100,000 during 1999, and has an
outstanding balance of $1,020,000 at December 31, 1999.
In 1993 bonds were issued in the amount of $1,350,000 with 45%
allocated to the Water Fund and 55% to the Sewer Fund.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY DEBT SERVICE
This fund accounts for the principal and interest on bonds issued
in 1988. The principal revenue source is a property tax levy. The
City made principal payments of $65,000 during 1999 and has an
outstanding balance in building refunding bonds of $295,000 at
December 31, 1999.
The following shows the total outstanding debt for the City of
Mound over the past 10 years:
Year G.O.
G.O. Refunding
1990 7,680,000
1991 6,790,000
1992 5,835,000
1993 5,500,000 $ 1,335,000
1994 4,845,000 1,335,000
1995 4,270,000 1,335,000
1996 3,570,000 1,275,000
1997 2,920,000 1,215,000
1998 2,590,000 1,155,000
1999 2,260,000 1,090,000
Using the 1990 census population of 9,634, the total debt per
capita decreased from $938 in 1989 to $235 in 1999.
This decrease in total outstanding debt illustrates the fact that
Mound is a mature suburb and has not had to issue debt to develop
new streets and new water mains.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIES
The general property tax levy is discussed every year during the
budget process. The other significant item on the tax statement
for Mound residents are the various special assessment levies. The
following is the annual special assessments levied on Mound
taxpayers during the past ten years and for 2000:
1991 544,000
1992 513,000
1993 482,500
1994 413,177
1995 330,903
1996 213,644
1997 74,844
1998 81,972
1999 91,380
2000 88,009 (Estimate)
The major street projects were completed in 1978-1980. The total
assessments on the taxpayers increased dramatically once these
projects were assessed. Since 1982, the annual assessments have
consistently declined.
The corresponding Special Assessment bonds payable has decreased
from $8,450,000 in 1986 to zero in 1998.
A good portion of the remaining assessments consists of delinquent
utility bills certified to the county for one installment payment.
AUDIT
Preparing for the annual audit is another important responsibility
of my job. I prepare all the statements, schedules and notes to
the financial statements for the annual audit. Our audit costs are
reduced since all the statements and notes are done in house.
The 1998 audit report received the National GFOA award "Certificate
of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting". The
certificate program judges an audit report on various criteria,
including clarity, comparability and completeness. This is the
eleventh consecutive year the City of Mound has received this
award. I plan on updating the audit report annually and submit
future years' reports for this award.
INSURANCE
We have the majority of our insurance coverage with the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. They have provided the City with
good coverage and the costs for insurance have stabilized in the
6
last few years. Our agent of record is Carl Bennetsen of R.L.
Youngdahl & Associates, Inc.
I have the responsibility of coordinating the City's insurance
activity. I file all claims that are made against our insurance
policies for the City automobiles, property damage, general
liability, and workers compensation.
COMPUTER OPERATIONS
It is my job to supervise the overall computer operation. We have
an on-site mini-computer processor with software purchased from
National Independent Billing, Inc. The following software programs
are currently operating on our system: utility billing, financial,
accounts payable, payroll, special assessments and water meter
reading. The finance staff does an excellent job working on the
computer operations.
The finance department has available four personal computers. The
use of the PC enables me to work efficiently with many
spreadsheets for cash flow analysis, investment need projections,
fixed assets inventory, budget projections and various other
applications. At the same time Collette, Sue, and Joyce have the
opportunity to use the PC and maintain various files in the payroll
area, accounts payable, and the utility services area.
City employees have a strong interest in learning to work with PCs,
which help them to be more efficient with their tasks.
FUND STRUCTURE
The following is a description of the funds of the City of Mound:
GENERAL FUND
The General Fund accounts for the Revenues and Expenditures to
carry out the basic governmental activities of the City, such as
administration, police, inspections, streets, economic development,
and parks. General Fund expenditures are made primarily for
current day to day operating expenses. Major sources of revenue
are the property tax and local government aid.
FUND BALANCE
The total fund balance of the General Fund is projected to be
$1,375,224 for the year ended 1999. It is important for the City
to maintain the current fund balance. This reserve is necessary to
meet expenses in the General Fund until tax money and local
government aid are remitted to the City in June/July. For cash flow
purposes the city would be required to issue tax anticipation
bonds if the fund balance is reduced considerably or eliminated.
7
The following table shows previous year end General Fund balances,
compared to adopted expenditures budget for the past ten years:
GENERAL FUND TOTAL FUND BALANCE
BUDGET BEGINNING OF YEAR %
1991 2,264,150 642,934
1992 2,249,350 593,155
1993 2,325,780 626,361
1994 2,366,950 644,522
1995 2,418,030 843,561
1996 2,443,830 934,470
1997 2,591,760 1,173,651
1998 2,776,950 1,413,993
1999 2,893,580 1,388,104
2000 3,084,750 1,375,224
28 4
26 4
26 9
27 2
34 9
38 2
45 3
50 9
48 0
44 6
REVENUES/EXPENDITURES
In 1999 Revenues received for general governmental operations were
$2,889,355 and Expenditures for general government operations were
$2,889,639. A detail statement with budget and actual comparisons
will be presented to the Council once the Audit of the 1999
financial position and activities is completed. An analysis of
major increases or decreases from the prior year will be included
in the audited comprehensive annual financial report.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Special Revenue Funds are used to account for certain tax levies
and other earmarked revenue. The following is a list of the City's
Special Revenue Funds and Fund balances as of 12-31-99:
Cemetery
Area Fire Serv.
Dock
Park Dedication Fees
5,034
195,745
237,657
115,693
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
Capital project funds have been established to segregate funds to
be used for various types of capital outlay expenditures.
The following is the 1999 activity of this fund:
Balance 1-1-99
Revenues
Transfer from Liquor Fund
275,019
70,520
210,940
Total Available
556,479
Expenditures
Professional Services
Fire Capital Reserve
Capital Outlay
36,798
14,360
236,199
Total Expenditures
287,357
Balance Remaining
269,122
The Capital Improvements Fund has been an important one-time
revenue source for the City of Mound. It has allowed the City to
undertake projects that benefitted the City without having to issue
debt to finance them. In the past, revenues for this fund were
obtained with equity transfers from debt service funds that were
used to account for bonds that had been recalled or that had
expired. No additional debt service funds are left to replenish
this fund. The $269,122 balance represents transfers from the
Liquor Store fund.
SEALCOAT
This fund is used to account for the five-year rotation to sealcoat
the streets in Mound. The total cost of the project for 1999 was
$37,767, which was financed by the Liquor Store profits.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Enterprise Funds are used to account for the financing of services
to the general public in which all or most of the revenues are
generated from user charges.
LIOUOR FUND
The year 1999 was again an excellent one for the Liquor Store. The
operating income for the year was $200,721. A condensed summary for
the liquor operations for the years ended December 31, 1999 was
published in the Laker early this year and the audited statements
will be presented to the Council later in May.
WATER FUND
The total net income for the year 1999 was $54,592. This amount is
less than projected due to a combination of decreases in revenues
and increases in expenditures. A full set of statements will be
presented to you after the audit is completed. The cash balance in
the water fund increased from $732,690 to $769,504.
SEWER FUND
The total net income for the year 1999 was $107,599. This amount is
more than projected due to a combination of increases in revenues
and decreases in expenditures. The Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission disposal charge went down by $131,4989 (from $624,513 to
$493,015.) This represents a significant reduction. In addition to
the lower rates charged to us by the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, it appears that the sump pump program implementation
had a positive effect. For the year 2000, according to the
Commission, the sewage flow has increased considerably and we are
not sure if our total charge will remain at the 1999 level.
The cash balance in the sewer fund increased from $488,173 to
$662,471. A full set of statements for this fund will be presented
to you after the audit is completed.
RECYCLING
The revenues for the year 1999 was $123,340. This amount is similar
to the prior year. The fund balance in the recycling fund increased
from $59,779 to $76,353. The higher amount is due to the rate
increase implemented in 1999 (from $1.75 to $2.00/month.) A full
set of statements for this fund will be presented to you after the
audit is completed.
In 1994 Hennepin County reduced the reimbursement to $.80 per
household from the $1.75 reimbursement in 1993. The estimated
grant from the County in 2000 will be $30,800 and the City
household charge $76,800.
ORGANIZATIONS
I am a member of the Minnesota Government Finance Officers
Association (MGFOA) . There are currently 550/600 members. Monthly
meetings are held in the metro area, with an annual conference held
in the fall of the year.
One of the requirements for keeping current my CPA certificate is
that I maintain a continuing education program each year.
Continuing education and training is a high priority in my
professional development. I obtain the vast majority of my
education credits through MGFOA.
As an ex-officio member of the Economic Development Commission I
attend all their meetings.
I am also the Treasurer of the Mound Crime Prevention Association.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 1999
Specific accomplishments are as follows:
Accounts Payable Clerk
As you know, Deloris Schwalbe retired earlier in 1998 and then
Katie Hoff resigned in 1999. We are very happy that Sue Schwalbe
10
accepted the position to replace her. The transition time was
somewhat difficult, but Sue has been able to learn [~st and to
our vendors in a timely manner.
Early in 1999 Gayle Bethke retired from her position of Accounting
Clerk/payroll. Collette has replaced her and is doing an excellent
job in learning and getting the job done. Here again the transition
was somewhat difficult.
As you know, the budget process was somewhat different last year,
but, with everybody's help, we were succesful in setting the levy
and the budget for the year 2000. It was an educational process for
the Council and the department heads.
Reporting to the Federal, the State and the public has increased
and it is becoming a challange given the diverse needs.
Issuance of the 1998 Comprehensive Annual Financial ReDort
The report received an unqualified opinion from
independent auditor and the Certificate of Excellence
Financial Reporting from the GFOA.
the
in
Insurance Claims Activity
In 1999 we had again a number of claims in the general
liability, auto, and workers compensation areas. We also
reviewed the present insurance coverage.
Pre-Tax Plans
The City employees were offered a Pre-Tax Plan in May of 1993.
The plan was set up, maintained and extended into 2000. Almost
all employees joined the plan, which benefits both the
employees and the City in reducing Social Security, Federal
and State tax payments.
Computer supDort and Year 2000 Readiness
City employees are using the computer for many applications.
I enjoy helping, time permitting, with the inevitable problems that
arise. Most of the time we deal with software issues, but at times
the hardware needs repairs or upgrades. A major effort in 1999 was
channeled toward the year 2000 issues. I am happy to report that so
far no problems related to the year 2000 have been found. As far as
I know, with the exception of the computer software upgrades, no
other issue was reported as a true year 2000 problem.
GOALS FOR 2000
Work in the Finance Department will continue at a steady pace in
2000. The normal cycle calls for the staff to meet their deadlines
in the payroll, accounts payable, and utility billing areas. The
Finance Director will continue to cover the investments, the audit,
the insurance claims, the preparation of reports, and all the other
responsibilities in the financial, insurance, data processing, and
supervision areas.
Special challenges in 2000 will be related to the new TIF district
and other related projects. In addition, my efforts will be to work
with the new City Manager as she will direct.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for having given me the opportunity to point out the
areas of special note in the operation of the Finance Department.
The year 1999 was a productive one for the City in the financial
area. The direction provided by you, the City Council, made it
happen.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
March 2000
25.00%
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Business Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Other Revenue
Transfers
from Other Funds
Charges to Other
Departments
March 2000 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
1,344,330 0 0 (1,344,330) 0.00%
4,210 300 430 (3,780) 10.21%
116,200 14,260 29,421 (86,779) 25.32%
963,800 0 38,284 (925,516) 3.97%
85,700 24,161 28,259 (57,441) 32.97%
100,000 11,931 21,842 (78,158) 21.84%
63,500 1,301 1,511 (61,989) 2.38%
44,500 0 0 (44,500) 0.00%
13,000 929 3,062 (9,938) 23.55%
TOTAL REVENUE
2,735,240 52,882 122,809 (2,612.431 ) 4.49%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCK FUND
377,470 42,055 129,890 (247,580) 34.41%
115,600 6,838 20,388 (95,212) 17.64%
1,750,000 131,877 359,664 (1,390,336) 20.55%
500,000 29,511 98,600 (401,400) 19.72%
960,000 78,962 239,651 (720,349) 24.96%
6,200 575 1,375 (4,825) 22.18%
86,000 (1,135) 65,347 (20,653) 75.98%
04/18~2000
rev00
Gino
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
March 2000
25.00%
GENERAL FUND
Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Streets
City Property
Parks
Summer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
March 2000 YTD
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE
77,620 4,767 27,685
4,000 0 0
26,000 237 366
198,750 10,064 37,547
12,450 0 0
68,000 133 141
175,400 13,793 39,295
22,100 280 4,750
146,980 3,124 17,246
1,049,650 133,751 282,602
12,150 122 910
208,250 22,951 53,899
485,990 43,840 155,677
76,890 5,450 18,807
208,050 11,303 40,134
39,570 0 0
106,780 0 86
166,120 13,843 41,530
VARIANCE
49,935
4,000
25,634
161,203
12,450
67,859
136,105
17.350
129 734
767 048
11 240
154 351
330 313
58 083
167 916
39 570
106 694
124 590
PERCENT
EXPENDED
35.67%
0.00%
1.41%
18.89%
0.00%
0.21%
22.4O%
21.49%
11.73%
26.92%
7.49%
25.88%
32.03%
24.46%
19.29%
O.O0%
0.08%
25.00%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,084,750
263,658 720,675 2,364,075 23.36%
Area Fire
Service Fund 411,520
TIF 1-2 0
Recycling Fund 124,980
Liquor Fund 238,920
Water Fund 441,360
Sewer Fund 939,410
Cemetery Fund 8,190
Dock Fund 80,640
8,397 50,640 360,880 12.31%
14,818 34,980 (34,980)
7,463 22,495 102,485 18.00%
16,414 58,958 179,962 24.68%
43,958 117,214 324,146 26.56%
49,552 241,988 697,422 25.76%
0 1,003 7,187 12.25%
2,984 13,453 67,187 16.68%
Exp-00
04/18/2000
Gino
~o ~o
League of Minnesota Cities
Cities promoting excellence
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Phone: (651) 281-1200 - (800) 925-1122
TDD (651) 281-1290
LMC Fax: (651) 281-1299 ' LMCIT Fax: (651) 281-1298
Web Site: http://www.lmnc.org
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Clerks, Administrators, and Managers
Jim Miller, Executive Director ~t~ /~
April 20, 2000
SUBJECT: Board of Directors Vacancies
At the Annual Meeting in St. Cloud on June 15th, the membership will elect five new
Board members. These officials will replace: Minneapolis City Council Member Joan
Campbell; New Brighton City Council Member Arlyn Gunderman; Mankato City
Council Member Kathleen Sheran; and former Mounds View City Administrator Chuck
Whiting, all of whose three-year terms expire. Also, the membership will elect a
replacement for the one year remaining in the term of retiring Fergus Falls City
Administrator Jim Nitchals.
As you will see from the accompanying Nominating Committee guidelines, the Board
has commitments to the City of Minneapolis (Joan Campbell's position) and the
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cites (Jim Nitchal's position). People meeting those
specific criteria will likely fill these two vacancies, although that ultimately is a
membership decision. Nominations to fill the remaining three vacancies will probably be
based on other, more general guidelines, such as gender and geographic balance.
The League's strength has always been rooted in the Board's outstanding leadership.
Continuing that tradition is critical as the League looks to meeting the ever-changing
challenges facing our cities. If you or someone on your Council has an interest in serving
on the Board, please apply now. Terms are for three years and service involves
attendance at monthly Board meetings and two, two-day retreats. The League pays for
most expenses, including mileage.
A roster of current Board members and the application form are enclosed. I would be
most happy to answer any questions and can be reached at 651-281-1205.
Thank you for your help in this very important matter.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Board Nominating Process and Selection Criteria
I. Board nomination process.
A. Nominating Committee Appointment and Orientation Process.
Beginning in April of every year the League will solicit individuals
interested in serving on the nominating committee. Notice of
solicitation of interest shall be placed in Cities Bulletin at least
twice. When necessary in order to get a sufficient number on the
committee, or to achieve appropriate balance, the Executive
Director may directly solicit city officials to be on the committee.
o
On or before May 1 of each year the League President shall
appoint a nominating committee of 8 to 12 city officials, consisting
of both elected and appointed officials with appropriate attention
paid to issues such as gender, city size, and geography. The
immediate past president of the Board of Directors will sit as an
ex-officio member of the Committee and shall be its Chair.
o
At least one week prior to the annual conference, the Executive
Director shall hold an orientation meeting of the nominating
committee in order to explain the nominating committee process
and to explain the Board selection criteria.
B. Recruitment and Nomination Process
Beginning in April of each year the League will solicit Minnesota
city officials interested in serving on the League of Minnesota
Cities Board of Directors. Notice of Board openings and
solicitation of interest shall be placed in the April Minnesota Cities
Magazine and shall run at least twice in the Cities Bulletin. In
addition, prior to May 1 of each year, the Executive Director shall
mail to the chief administrative officer of each member city a letter
soliciting Board candidates and explaining the process and
selection criteria.
All candidates who wish to be considered by the nominating
committee, must submit an appropriate written expression of
interest by June 1. Additional material in support of particular
candidates may be submitted up to the date of the nominating
committee meeting.
°
Once the list of Board candidates has been compiled, the Executive
Director in conjunction with the nominating committee chair shall
develop an agenda and a schedule of interview times.
After considering the presentations of the various candidates, the
nominating committee shall make its reconunendations based on
the requirements of the League Constitution, Board Commitments,
and the Guidelines set out herein.
In order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest,
nominating committee members should refrain from participating
in discussion involving candidates from cities that they represent.
Notice of the nominating committee's recommendations shall be
posted at a predetermined time in at least two locations at the
annual conference site. The location of the postings shall be
included in the material provided to conference attendees and shall
be directly communicated to prospective candidates.
The Chair of the nominating committee shall be responsible for
presenting the report of the nominating committee at the Annual
business meeting.
II. Board selection requirements and guidelines.
A. Constitutional Requirements.
The League Constitution requires that the Board of Directors shall
consist of an "elected president, an elected first vice president, an
elected second vice president, the immediate past president ex-
officio, the president of the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities ex-officio, the president or vice president of the
National League of Cities if a Minnesota City official ex-officio,
and twelve directors.
"To be eligible to be elected to serve, or to continue to serve as an
elective officer of the League, a person shall be an elected official
[or], an appointed official... ," who is not an independent
contractor.
B. Board Commitments
The Board has made a commitment that representatives of the
following organizations and entities will have a seat on the Board
Co
of Directors, if they desire and if the nominating committee
believes that a qualified individual has been recommended by the
particular organization or entity:
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities
Minnesota Association of Small Cities
City of Minneapolis
City of St. Paul
Non-binding Guidelines for the Nominating Committee to Consider
1. Geography
ao
Co
The nominating committee will attempt to respect an
appropriate balance of representation between Greater
Minnesota and the Metropolitan area.
In this same regard, the Committee will strive to maintain a
similar balance when making recommendations for the
President, first vice-president, and second vice-president
positions.
No particular importance will be placed on where within
Greater Minnesota or the Metropolitan area a given
candidate comes from.
2. Popul~ion.
a. Board members should come from cities of differing size.
3. Gender
°
o
ao
Every effort should be made to ensure gender equity on the
Board.
Position (Appointed v. Elected)
a. A majority of the Board should be elected city officials.
TerlI1
ao
Where there are other qualified candidates, Board members
should generally serve only one term.
An individual appointed to fill an unexpired Board term
will not be prejudiced by this guideline so long as the
unexpired term was for one year or less.
LMC Board of Directors and Officers
June, 1999 - June, 2000
President
First Vice
President
Second Vice
President
Directors:
Gary Doty, Mayor, Duluth
Completing Term of Susan Hoyt
Term expires: June, 2000
Lester Heitke, Mayor, Willmar
Completing Term of Gary Doty
Term expires: June, 2000
Term expires: June, 2000
Kathleen Sheran, Council member, Mankato
Elected by Membership: June, 1996 to complete unexpired term of Del Haag
Elected by Membership: June, 1997
Term expires: June, 2000
Arlyn Gunderman, Council member, New Brighton
Elected by Membership: June, 1997
Term expires: June, 2000
Joan Campbell, Council member, Minneapolis
Elected by Membership: June, 1997
Term expires: June, 2000
Robert Erickson, City Administrator, Lakeville
Appointed to fill vacancy created by 2/17/00 resignation of Chuck Whiting who
was elected by Membership: June 1999 to complete unexpired term of Les
Heitke
Term Expires: June, 2000
Jerry Blakey, Council member, St. Paul
Elected by Membership: June, 1998
Term expires: June, 2001
Chuck (Charles) Lucken, Clerk/Administrator, Fosston
Elected by Membership: June, 1998
Term expires: June, 2001
Marcia Marcoux, Council member, Rochester
Elected by Membership: June 1998
Term expires: June 2001
Jim (James) Nitchals, Administrator, Fergus Falls
Elected by Membership: June 1998
Term expires: June 2001
(Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities representative)
Ronald Jabs, Mayor, Jordan
Elected by Membership: June 1999
Term expires: June 2002
Judy Johnson, Council member, Plymouth
Elected by Membership: June 1999
Term expires: June 2002
Mark Voxland, Council member, Moorhead
Elected by Membership: June 1999
Term expires: June 2002
Joel Young, Clerk, Chatfield
Appointed by MAOSC to fill unexpired term of Gail Lippert: January, 1999
Term Expires: June, 1999
Elected by Membership: June, 1999
Term Expires: June, 2002
(Minnesota Association of Small Cities representative)
Ex-officio seat:
Past President Del (Delvin) Haag, Council member, City of Buffalo
Elected by Membership: June, 1998
Term expired: June, 1999
Larry Bakken, NLC Board of Directors
Elected by NLC: Dec. 1998
Karen Anderson, NLC 2~ Vice President
Elected by NLC: Dec. 1999
John Weaver, AMM President
Elected by AMM: May 1999
4/20/00
Application for
2000-01 LMC Board of Directors or
2000-01 LMC Officer Positions
All candidates for LMC Board of Directors or LMC Officer
(President, First Vice President, Second Vice President) positions are
asked to submit the following items by June 1, 2000:
1) A cover letter stating your intent to run for an LMC Board or Officer
position, addressing the following points:
· Why you are interested in serving in this position;
· What specific attributes or experiences you would contribute to the Board or
Executive Committee (made up of the LMC Officers); and
· Whether you will be able to make the time commitment necessary to fulfill your
Board or Officer duties (monthly Board meetings, as well as two, two-day
retreats).
2)
3)
A completed "Nomination Form for LMC Board of Directors / LMC Officers
Positions" (attached).
Optional: A resume that provides an overview of your municipal/professional
experience and accomplishments.
4) Optionah Letters of reference.
Please return these materials by June 1, 2000 to:
Jim Miller
League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Ave., West
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Nomination Form - LMC Board of Directors
PLEASE COMPLETE THE NOMINATION FORM PROVIDING AS MANY DETAILS AS
POSSIBLE. You are encouraged to attach other material that may be useful to the Nominating
Committee during its deliberations, such as your resume and a letter stating your reasons for
seeking a League office.
Name:
Organization:
Address:
Home Phone: ( )
1.
2.
Title:
City/Zip:
Work Phone: ( )
Length of service in your present position:
E-mail
years
Other municipal or related position(s) you have held and the number of years:
3. Previous League experience (e.g. committees, conferences, affiliate organizations, etc.)
Are you applying for (Please select one)
President ~ 1 st Vice President ~ 2nd Vice President Director
If you are applying for Director, can you complete a full three-year term as a board
member?
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM BY JUNE 1, 2000 TO:
Jim Miller
League of Minnesota Cities
145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
Apr Z1 2888 14:ZZ:88 ~ia Fax
-> fldeinistrator
FRIDAYFAX
A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities
881 0£ 881
Number 12
April 21, 2000
Governor signs local
purchasing bill
Last week, the governor signed
into law Chapter 328, which
increases the competitive bid
threshold for cities and counties.
Last year, a similar bill was vetoed
by the governor based on his
concerns that the $50,000 thresh-
old was too big an increase/or the
state's smallest cities.
Under Chapter 328, cities under
2,500 population will have the
competitive bid threshold increased
to $35,000, while larger cities will
have the threshold increased to
$50,000. The bill, S.F. 2905/H.F.
3152, was authored by Sen. Steve
Kelley (DFL-Hopkins) and Rep. Bill
Kuisle (R-Rochester). The effective
date is Aug. 1.
The act includes two other provi-
sions. Cities and counties may
contract for the purchase of sup-
plies, materials or equipment with-
out regard to the competitive
bidding requirements il the pur-
chase is through a national munici-
pal association's purchasing alli-
ance, or a cooperative created by a
joint-powers agreement that pur-
chases items from more than one
source on the basis ol competitive
bids or competitive quotations.
The act also allows a county board
[o authorize the use of a credit card
by any county officer or employee
otherwise authorized to make a
purchase on behalf of the county.
Cities were not included in this
provision.
Reminder: Data Practices
Teleconference
Training Starts Next
Week
LMC is co-sponsoring a series of
satellite teleconference [raining
sessions on data practices with the
Information Policy Analysis Division
of the Minnesota Department oi'
Administration. The first of five
teleconferences is to be held from
10 to 11:30 a.m., Thursday, April
27. Announcements of the telecon-
ferences were sent to all cities
within [he last month.
The teleconference next Thursday
will focus on data practices compli-
ance issues/or local government
administration including land
records management, inlorma[ion
systems, tax records, personnel
and financial management, and
other general government functions.
There is no charge for at[ending
the teleconference. Just contact
the county administrator, coordina-
tor, auditor or extension office to
verify availability and access to
their site for the teleconference,
and availability of space to at[end
the session at your local county
courthouse. For additional informa-
tion, call (6.51) 221-1438. (Contact
the nearest state college or univer-
sity campus to verify availability
and access to their site for the
June 15 teleconference on educa-
tion-related topics. See below.)
Additional [eleconferences on data
practices topics of interest to city
law enforcement officials and
others with public safety responsi-
bilities are scheduled from 12:30 to
2 p.m., Thursday, May 4 (Public
Safety/Enforcement).
The following other data practices-
related topics will be covered at
other teleconference sessions:
Human services-
10-11:30a.m., May4
Public health -
10- 11:30 a.m., June 15
Education -
12:30 p.m. - 2 p.m., June 15
Molasses
The 2000 session is going nowhere
fast. The House and Senate have
recessed until Tuesday, April 25.
As a result, we have liEle to report
in this edition of the FridayFax and
we will not publish an edition of the
Cities Bulletin next week. Assuming
the Legislature reconvenes and
assuming we have something to
report, we will resume publication
of the Bulletin the week of May 1.
For more lnformatton on cry legislative issues, contact any member of the League of Mtnnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team.
(651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122
Itpr 28 2888 16'.26:37 Via Fax
-> fldministrator Page 881 Of 882
FRIDAYFAX
A weekly legisfattve update from the League of M¢nnesota C¢ttes
Number 13
Aprd28 2000
Session sputters on
Seemingly to spite each other, the
House and Senate met on alternat-
ing days Wednesday, Thursday
and Friday, effectively burning
three more business days in the
process. The Legislature has only
six total legislative days remaining to
reach final compromises on most ol
[he major conference committee
bills and [o pass [he bills on the
House and Senate floors. A legisla-
tive day is constituted by a meeting
o1 either the House or [he Senate.
-Iqme is running short.
None of the major conference
committees me[ this week and none
are scheduled this weekend. The
House and Senate will reconvene
Monday to take floor action on the
ever-shorter list of bills
Municipal corporate creation
compromise passes, awaits
governor's signature
Although the week featured little
progress on the major [ax and
spending issues, [he Senate and
House did act on the compromise
corporate creation bill authored by
Rep. Ann Rest (DFL-New Hope)
and Sen. Jim Vickerman (DFL-Tracy).
The final conference committee
report represents a compromise
among a wide variety ol groups
including the secretary of state, the
attorney general, the state auditor,
the Minnesota Newspaper Associa-
tion and local government associa-
tions, including [he League. The bill
ratifies existing local government-
cma[ed corpora[ions and creates a
process/or exemptions 1rom certain
laws [hat apply to local govern-
men[s. The bill does no[ allow for
the creation of new corpora[ions
without special legislation.
LMC Transportation Summit: May 19
When and Where:
Friday, May 19
9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Minnetonka Community Center
14600 Minnetonka Boulevard,
Minne[onka
Please distribute the following
Information to all city officials
Interested In transportation
Infrastructure Issues. We are
hoping for a high turn-out to assist
us in preparing a transportation
strategy. Even sending just one
person from your city would be
greatly appreciated.
Transportation has been one ct the
mos[ visible and contentious issues
during [he 2000 legislative session
Resolution of the transportation
issue is complicated by strongly
held values about appropriate
levels of taxation, the relative
merits of transit versus roads, and
meeting the competing needs of
central cities, suburbs, regional
centers, and rural Minnesota.
While the House, Senate, and
Ven[ura Administration may agree
on a short-term funding program
to meet the mos[ pressing needs,
much work will remain on devising a
long-range transportation program.
The League will kick off its 2001
legislative policy development
process with a proactive experi-
ment in broad participation around
this challenging issue. All cities are
encouraged to send at least one
representative [o a Transportation
Summit on May 19 at [he Minne-
tonka Community Center
The all-day meeting will feature
interactive morning discussions
with Transportation Commissioner
Elwyn Tinklenberg, key legislators,
and transportation advocates.
Participants will spend the after-
noon discussing and sharing
alternative transportation needs
while brainstorming possible
solutions The work wilt De docu-
mented in a report and g~ven to
LMC's Improving Local Economies
Committee for use in the League's
policy development process this
summer and fall.
For more Information
See the Transportation Summit
flyer on the following page. To
register/or [he May 19 Transporta-
tion Summit. please lax the regis-
[ration form on second page [o
(651) 281-1296. Box lunch will be
$10, payable when you check in.
Registrations will be confirmed via
phone or e-mail by Friday, May 5.
For more tn formation on city legislative lssues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team.
or 92 -n2
AMM FAX
lie
April 17-21,2000 {no. 2)
Page 001 0£ 001,~ ~,
,,~~~'~,~
A $ociation or
Hetropolitan
unicipalitiel
Corporate Creations Bill is approved
Legislature has recessed but will reconvene on April 25
The bill (SF 2521/HF 2673) that
authorizes the continuation of
public non-profit corporations has
been approved by a conference
committee and should be reported to
the floor of each body early next
week.
The bill requires legislative approval
for the establishment of new corpora-
tions and subjects existing corpora-
tions to the provisions of the Open
Meeting and Data Practices acts.
MET COUNCIL BILL DEBATED
Yesterday, the House debated SF
2827, the Metropolitan Council's
housekeeping bill. The bill authorized
the Metropolitan Council to consolidate
annual reports and permit the use of
facsimile signatures on documents.
At least fouramendments were
prepared to be amended onto the bill.
Of the four, one relating to light rail
contracting was approved and one that
would have required metropolitan
significance reviews for amphitheaters
was defeated. The elected Metropoli-
tan Council amendment was not
offered and an amendment to clarify
the charge of the legislative task force
was withdrawn.
After two hours of debate the bill
was continued and it is doubtful if it will
be heard again this session.
LEGISLATIVE RECESS
As of yesterday, legislative leaders
have not agreed to spending targets.
Therefore the Tax, Bonding and Appro-
priations conference committees have
not been able to complete their work.
At this time the Tax Conference
Committee has not agreed on such
issues as Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
and levy limits.
The Business Subsidy Bill, which is
part of the House Tax Bill, will be heard
as a separate bill on the House floor
next week. The Senate file has passed
the full Senate. The differences between
the two bills will be resolved in a confer-
ence committee.
SLUC
The Sensible Land Use Coalition
(SLUC) and the AMM are co-
sponsoring a discussion of the impact
of regulations on land use on Wednes-
day, April 26.
The discussion will inolude a
presentation by David Jensen, who is
a nationally known land planner and
hosts land use regulations talk
community designer. Based in Denver,
Jensen has been involved in over 600
developments throughout the country.
The meeting is scheduled from
7:30-10 a.m., at the Double Tree Park
Place in St. Louis Park. To register
call Pat Arnst at (612-474-3302).
AMM ]Vews Fax is faxed to aX AMM city
managers and administrators, legislative
contacts and Board members, Please share
this fax with your mayors, councilmembers
and staff to keep them abreast of impor-
tant metro city issues.
~Copyright 2000 AMM
145 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55105-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000
Fax: (651) 281-1299
E-mail; amm~amm145, org
Call now to attend
AMM Annual Meeting
The AMM Annual Meeting is set for
Thursday, May 18 at the Sheraton
Midway in St. Paul.
A social hour will begin the evening
at `5:30 p.m., with dinner at 6:30 and
the business meeting at 7:30 p.m.
If you plan to attend, please call
Laurie Jennings (651-21,5-4000) by
Friday, May 12.
New Metro Council
task forces proposed
Metropolitan Council Chair Ted
Mondale has proposed the
formation of three new task forces
related to rapid transit, aggregate
resources and southwest transit.
Metropolitan Council members
would serve on the task forces and
work with local officials to study the
issues and __ _
offer - -'.--=~-~
recommen- ~.:g
dations. The ~x~j
task forces will ;;:: ....
not be a Council
standing committee.
Action on the proposal could occur
within the next few weeks.
Xau 8Z ZBB8 89:51:ZG V{a Fax
AMM FAX
lie
May 1-5, 2000
-> gandis Hanson
Page 801 Of 081
Hetropolitan
Hunicipalities
UPCOMING MEETINGS
TUESDAY, MAY 16
The University of Minnesota will
sponsor a public forum entitled,
"Public Problems, Quality Solu-
tions.'' The forum will include a
discussion of applying quality
principles to public issues.
Presenters include Paul O'Neill, who
is the chair and CEO of the Alcoa
Corporation, U of M President Mark
Yudof, Humphrey School Dean
John Brandl and Minnesota Plan-
ning Director Dean Barkley.
For more information call Robin
Anderson at 612-624-3492.
FRIDAY, MAY 19
The League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC) is sponsoring a Trans-
portation Summit at the Minnetonka
Community Center. Call Kevin
Frazell at 651-281-1215.
THURSDAY, MAY 25
The AMM and LMC are co-
sponsoring a Legislative Review
Session atthe LMC building. To
register, call the LMC at 651-281-
1200 or complete the registration
form in the April 19 edition of the
(LMC) Cities Bulletin
AMM News Fax is faxed to aH AMM city
managers and administrators, legislative
contacts and Board members. Please share
this fax with ),our mayors, councilmembers
and staff to keep them abreast of impor-
tant metro city issues.
~Copyright 2000 AMM
145 University Avenue Wes!
St. Paul, .44N 55103-2044
Phone: (651) 215-4000
Fax: (651) 281-1299
E-mail: amm~amm145, org
AMM hosts comp plan forum
The Metropolitan Council is dev-
eloping a process to measure a
city's progress in meeting goals
outlined in a city's comprehensive
plan. The AMM is sponsoring a
meeting for members to discuss the
process with the Met Council
The meeting will be held on Tues-
day, May 16 from 8:15-9 30 a.m. in
the St. Croix Room of League of
Minnesota Cities (LMC) building.
Met Council staff will begin the
meeting by explaining the proposed
process, followed by a discussion
period.
The process, which is described as
a shod-term solution, would collect
data from cities projecting significant
growth over the next ten years. It is
estimated that approximately 15 cities
would be involved in the voluntary
program.
For the long-term the Council envi-
sions that the geographic information
system (GIS) will provide the needed
data
Prior to the implementation of the GIS
supported process, the Council will
collect data from approved plat. The
needed information such as the number
of acres and number of proposed units
is contained on the plat data.
If you are interested in attending,
please contact the AMM at 651-215-
4000 by Friday. May 12 Coffee rolls
and juice will be served
Public Finance Bill in conference committee
The Public Finance Bill (SF 3730
and HF 4090) is in conference
committee at the moment.
The bills contain amendments to
various laws related to public finance.
For example, both bills extend the
sunset to June 30, 2005 for the
special service and housing improve-
ment districts
The bills also include authority for a
metro city to opt-out of the transit
district, issue bonds under joint
powers for airport improvements and
to finance Internet improvements
under certain conditions.
BUSINESS SUBSIDY BILL
The Business Subsidy Bill has
passed the Senate as a separate bill
while the House bill is on the floor. The
latter was amended in the Rules
Committee to include the non-appro-
priation economic development
amendments contained in the Omni-
bus Finance Bill
The House amendments ~nclude
changes to the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA)
state law, the Board of Boxing and
numerous other economic develop-
ment programs.
Legislature approves Public Corporations Bill
The House approved the confer-
ence committee repod on the
Public Corporations Bill on April 27
The bill authorizes the continuation
of existing public corporations but
requires new corporation to be
authorized by the passage of a special
law
The bill also requires the existing
corporations to be subject to the Open
Meeting, Financial Repoding and Data
Practices acts.
MINUTEg OF TIIE QUARTERLY
MEETING OF THE
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
April 19, 2000
Pursuant to due call and notice, the quarterly meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority was
held at the New Brighton Family Services Center, City of New Brighton, on April 19, 2000,
commencing at 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Executive Committee
Chair, Pon Case.
2. ROLL CALL:
Bloomington
Columbia Heights
Eden Prairie
Edina
Fridley
Maple Grove
Maplewood
Minnetonka
Mound
New Brighton
Plymouth
Roseville
Jim Gates
Kevin Hansen
Ron Case
Gene Dietz
John Wallin
Jon Haukaas
Gerald Butcher
Marvin Koppen
Desyl Peterson
Mark Hanus
Matt Fulton
Fred Moore
Ed Savage
Also present was general counsel for the Suburban Rate Authority, Jim Strommen of
Kennedy & Graven. It was determined that a quorum was present.
3. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Gates moved approval
of the Minutes from the Annual Meeting. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which passed
unanimously.
4. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: Mr. Wallin reported on the financial status of the
SRA as of March 31, 2000. (Report is available upon request). He noted that the reserve had
increased by $14,000 over last year at the same time. He noted that the SRA membership was
substantially current with assessments having paid the first half of the year 2000. Mr. Burrell
moved to accept the Treasurer's Report. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion which passed
unanimously.
5. METRICOM UPDATE: Mr. ~ffommen reportecl on comments he had received
and issues raised regarding the Mc~ricom Agreement that had b~n circulated to SRA cities and
other cities in the metropolitan area. Metricom has approached a number of cities and signed
agreements with them. There were a number of cities represented that had not yet entered into an
agreement with Metricom, including some large suburbs in the western Minneapolis area. There
was discussion regarding the terms and conditions and exchange of information regarding
Metricom's technology and that of potential competitors who would seek to use the right-of-way or
other spots for operation within a city.
Mr. Strommen reported that no significant problems had been identified with the agreement
but there were cities that expressed the intent to use a city-drafted encroachment agreement with
Metricom. Mr. Strommen noted that cities needed to use what they were comfortable with and the
most important consideration was the retention of right-of-way management authority. Cities are in
a position to negotiate favorable terms at this point.
6. NSP UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROCEEDING: Mr. Strommen reported
that a PUC hearing was held on the undergrounding tariff issue, attended by new interested parties,
Minneapolis, St. Paul and the Metropolitan Council. They noted disagreement with the same issues
the SRA has contested with NSP: expansion of this tariff into an attempt to surcharge city
ratepayers for location and relocation of standard facilities for various types of projects, as a break
with past practice and in potential limitation of normal police power prerogatives. The PUC
continued the hearing to allow Minneapolis, St. Paul and the Met Council to comment. Mr.
Strommen reported that a meeting would be held at NSP the following morning. (The meeting at
NSP resulted in the cities and other public bodies reaffirming their objection to tariff provisions that
imposed a surcharge on cities for location and relocation of standard facilities whether in connection
with routine matters or large projects such as light rail). It does not appear that NSP and the cities
will come to terms on this issue. The PUC will then be called upon to decide the extent of
surcharging authority under the tariffs. Mr. Strommen noted that the most significant concern if
surcharges were utilized to the extend NSP requests is a chilling of police power decisions by
surcharging the city rate pairs.
7. TOWER AND ANTENNA SITING DEVELOPMENTS: Mr. Strommen
reported that there has been significant caselaw development under the Telecommunications Act
regarding zoning authority of cities in considering conditional use permit and variance applications
for tower construction for wireless services. Cities are becoming more empowered by these
decisions to consider issues such as aesthetics, the level of service available in the city, the level of
residential opposition, the need for the site and alternative sites available. So long as the city makes
a proper record of these matters, often through its own expert, it is in a better position to sustain a
denial if appropriate.
The delegates also discussed developments in the price for water tower leases and terms and
conditions. An issue was raised regarding the accumulation of support buildings, platforms and
wall lockers for providers on water towers. It was agreed that this was a helpful discussion for those
present and Mr. Strommen reiterated the use of SRA to exchange information on water tower leases
and other matters among members.
JMS-179440vl 2
SU160-3
7. US WEST GEOGRAPItIC DEAVERAGINC: Mr. gtrommen reported that the
PUC had recently held a hearing on the number of rate zones that would be employed for wholesale
rates to competitors &the incumbent telephone provider (e.g., what AT & T would pay US West to
provide local service on US West facilities). The PUC deferred the decision because of the strong
objection to some of the proposals. The one proposal that appears to have close to a consensus is a
four zone approach, the metro calling area, cities such as Duluth and Rochester, smaller cities and
rural areas. It is likely that if this zone approach is used for wholesale rates that the same would be
used for retail rates. This would result in all SRA cities remaining in the same rate zone for
residential and business service. The local service competitors would be free to undercut other
providers in price however.
It was noted that given the wide disparity between cost of service from metro to sparsely
populated rural areas and the subsidies that will accrue, there may not be a highly significant change
in local telephone rates when this process is completed. The fact that a customer can choose from
two or three local service providers, however, may begin the process of reducing service for basic
telephone.
8. US WEST TARIFF SURCHARGE: Mr. Strommen reported that the PUC
reversed itself on the issue of US West's collection of a $0.43 per month surcharge under a federal
tariff.for the cost &providing local number portability. The SRA had supported the Department of
Commerce's claim against US West for this charge as falling outside the terms of the AFOR plan.
The Department and SRA had initially obtained a favorable ruling from the PUC on a matter that
was a complex issue of contract interpretation and federal-state tariff.ed rates. Mr. Strommen
reported that the PUC found that the plan ultimately did contemplate the recovery of this surcharge
and decided to allow its continued collection rather than refer the matter to a contested case as it had
done earlier. The matter is now closed.
9. GAS/ELECTRIC/TELECOM LEGISLATION: Mr. Strommen referred the
Board to the memorandum prepared on the subject. With the removal of Steve Minn as
Commissioner of Commerce, these legislative initiatives were placed on the back burner during this
legislative session. They promise to be more prominent during the 2001 session.
10. UPDATE OF MODEL GAS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISE: Mr. Strommen
reported that the League of Cities has tentatively agreed to participate with the SRA in updating the
1995 model gas and electric franchise. It was observed that certain provisions should be modified
in light of the passage of the 1997 Right-Of-Way Act and PUC Right-Of-Way Rules. This should
not be a significant undertaking and will be partially reimbursed by the League. Mr. Strommen
estimated that his time would not likely exceed $1,000. Mr. Fulton moved to authorize counsel to
participate in this effort under the above described conditions. Mr. Butcher seconded the motion
which passed unanimously.
11. 2001 PROPOSED BUDGET: The Board discussed the proposed budget, up for a
Board approval and member review for final approval at the July meeting. It was agreed that the
2001 estimates were difficult to make with any accuracy and the practice has been to shift funds into
those subject areas that become more significant. In an effort to maintain an equal or greater reserve
at the end of 2001, Mr. Strommen proposed to reduce the $20,000 allocation to geographic
JMS- 179440vl 3
SU160-3
deaveraging to $15,000 A digeu~fion ensued about the proper level of cash reserve and level of
assessment of members. The consensus goal reserve amount ranged fi.om $40,000 to $50,000. This
would allow cash flow throughout the year and the ability to address pressing issues as they arise,
without creating an unnecessary accumulation. It was agreed that the level of assessment, which is
not being increased, could be reevaluated during the year 2000. While Mr. Strommen predicted that
year 2001 will be very active in the utility area, it is possible that the amount will be lower. The
result could be a decision by the Board to lower the assessment, particularly if there is greater
membership. Mr. Butcher moved to accept the proposed budget as modified. Mr. Dietz seconded
the motion which passed unanimously. The SRA ddegates are urged to discuss the proposed
budget with their respective councils so that final approval can be obtained at the July 19, 2000
meeting. (Budget attached recommended).
12. PROSPECTIVE MEMBER LIST, LETTER: A broad discussion of the
proposed letter to prospective members was held. A number of helpful suggestions were raised
regarding highlighting the benefits of the SRA and answering questions city representatives and
elected officials would logically have in reading the letter. It was agreed that the letter should be
sent to the Mayor, City Manager/Administrator and Public Works Director. The Board agreed that
the letter should take on more of a marketing approach. Counsel was directed to revise the letter
and highlight the benefit of the communication lines between and among other cities on the many
utility issues facing cities today. Mr. Strommen will redraft the letter and share it with the
Executive Committee as well as Mr. Hanus, Mr. Dietz and Mr. Moore.
13. TIME AND LOCATION OF JULY MEETING: It was agreed that Maplewood
would be the site of the July 19, 2000 meeting. Six o'clock was agreed to be an appropriate time.
The possibility of a guest speaker was discussed, in the area of aggregation of electric services. The
purpose would be to educate the SRA to the issues facing aggregators. The Board agreed that the
October meeting might be a better time for such a presentation. It was suggested that such a speaker
and topic would be of interest to prospective SRA members in October.
14. CLAIMS: Mr. Wallin circulated a claim of Kennedy & Graven for legal fees and
costs totaling $13,781.61. Mr. Gates moved to accept the claim. Mr. Hanus seconded the motion
which passed unanimously.
15. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
J~S-179440vl
SU160-3
4
2001 ~U]~URI~AN RATE AUTHORITY PROPOSED BUDGET
20O0
Assets:
Cash and Investments (12/31/99)
Membership Assessments~
TOTAL
$21,484
67,600
$89,084
Anticipated 2000 Expenses:
Utility Undergrounding TafiffProceeding
Telephone Rate Geographic Deaveraging
612/952/763 Area Code Cost Recovery Proceeding
US West Alternative Form of Regulation
Gas/Electric/Telecom Legislation Proceedings
Metricom/Right-of-Way Use
General (incl. costs and disbursements)
TOTAL
15,000
5,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
5,000
18,000
($55.000)
Reserve at December 31, 2000:
$34.084
2001
Assets:
Carryover from 2000
Membership Assessments2
TOTAL
$34,084
74.800
$108,884
Anticipated 2001 Expenses Gas/Electric/Telecom Leg[4ation
Telephone Rate Geographic Deaveraging (inc. expert)
Right-of-Way Use Wireless Service Issues
Utility Undergrounding Issues
US West Area Code Municipal Boundary Cost Recovery
General Matters (incl. costs and disbursements)
TOTAL
$10,000
15,000
15,000
5,000
10,000
18,000
($73,000)
Estimated Reserve at December 31,2001:
$35,884
This is calculated at $400 per vote established in 1995 (for every 5,000 in population or fraction
thereof). This calculation is based on full year assessments from the 36 SRA members using
the 1990 U.S. Census Data.
This is calculated at the $400 per vote based on the Met Council 1998 Population Data.
JMS-179440vl 5
SU160-3
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 2000
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Gerald Jones, Frank Ahrens, and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent: Commissioner Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
New City Manager Candace Hanson was introduced and addressed the Commission,
briefly summarizing her work experience and the path that brought her to the City of
Mound.
1. MINUTES
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the minutes of the
March 16, 2000 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Jones to accept the agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST TO REVIEW: LETTER FROM JORJ AYAZ
Mr. Ayaz, 4844 Island View Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the multiple dock
at the Devon access and his desire to dock his 27 foot boat at his docksite. Mr. Ayaz
stated he has talked to the abutters around this site, all the people who are on the multiple
dock, and there is no opposition to combining the two 24 foot spaces and designating the
site for a 27 foot boat.
Commissioner Eurich questioned what the disadvantages would be to assigning site 1(9)
to Mr. Ayaz with his 27 foot boat.
Park Director Fackler stated that the water depth is an issue. If the City designates these
sites for larger boats, and then the depth does not allow that size boat, the City would be
responsible for dredging this area.
Mr. Ayaz responded that there is a storm drain in this area, and there is going to be a need
for dredging there anyway at some time. If he has the privilege of putting his 27 foot boat
there, he would be willing to contribute to the cost of dredging if necessary, to continue this
privilege.
Councilmember Hanus stated if the site was designated for a 27 foot boat, and Mr. Ayaz
then left the dock program, the next site holder would also want a 27 foot site.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
Mr. Ayaz questioned why the site cannot be designated for 27 foot for the current user, and
if the site then changes hands, the new person will have to go through the same thing,
asking for exception from the Dock Commission.
Chair Funk stated that once there is a favor given, it sets a precedent and more and more
people will be asking for favors.
Mr. Ayaz stated that each person who comes in should be treated on a case by case basis.
It is not really a favor when the person comes in, states their case, states that they are
willing to work with the Commission and the City in any capacity they are capable of, and
the City considers their request on it's own merits.
Chair Funk questioned whether Mr. Ayaz would be interested in this site on a year by year
basis, so if another larger spot opens up, he could move to that spot and this one could
then be dropped to an 18 foot site.
Mr. Ayaz stated he would be willing, within reason, to move docks. He stated he would
prefer the Amhurst site, as it is closer to his home. He would prefer not to move to a site
where he would have to drive to his boat, as right now he can walk the block to the Devon
site.
Commissioner Ahrens asked what size boat was at the Amhurst site where Mr. Ayaz would
prefer to be.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated it is approximately 20 feet. However, that site holder is
not interested in trading. If he was, it would be a very convenient fix for this problem. This
site holder does not live close, and is driving to his docksite now. Mr. Ayaz would be able
to get the site holders name and phone number, and approach him directly to see if he
would trade.
Park Director Fackler stated he is against granting a special request. Sites G, H, and I
should be temporary, and be deleted as soon as possible, as people leave the dock
program.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he would also be uncomfortable granting an exception, and
would rather see the dock holders work things out by finding a suitable trade or some other
compromise by working with Dock Inspector McCaffrey.
Councilmember Hanus also stated that, since this exception was granted for one year, it
is very hard to take it away this year. If the exception was granted for another year, and
another and so on, it would be harder still to retract the exception.
Chair Funk agreed, even though it appears that this site would accommodate the 27 foot
boat right now, the docksite is actually designated as an 18 foot site, and this is what the
City should stick to. Eventually the LMCD will insist that the designation for the docksite
be adhered to.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
Commissioner I=urich stated that this temporary site was issued last year to accommodate
Mr. Ayaz, and there was no better solution. It appears that this year there is also no better
solution. Also, this site could be designated temporary, and as soon as Mr. Ayaz is out of
there, the site is eliminated.
Chair Funk summarized three options, first to make the slip permanent for a 27 foot boat.
Second is to make the slip permanent for an 18 foot boat. Third is to continue with the
temporary site for the 27 foot boat, with the understanding that as soon as Mr. Ayaz moves
his boat out, the site would be eliminated.
Park Director Fackler stated staff recommendation is to enforce the size limitation of 18
feet for this temporary site. Staff would like to see the dock location map be held to, and
the limits to be set.
Commissioner Jones questioned whether the LMCD would have input on this problem if
they come in and see that the site is for an 18 foot boat, but there is a 27 foot boat there.
Park Director Fackler stated that eventually the City of Mound will have to answer to the
LMCD site specific, where the limits for the docksites will be absolute. Mound is not there
yet, and right now the City of Mound is striving to comply with the LMCD regulations to
show good faith to the LMCD.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Eurich, to extend the temporary status on
the site for one year, with the stipulation that an attempt will be made to find
an alternate spot for Mr. Ayaz's boat. For the 2001 season, this docksite will
be eliminated.
Mr. Ayaz stated that if his choice is to use the site for his 27 foot boat for one year and
then to lose a site the next year, he would prefer to keep the 18 foot site and stay in the
program, waiting for an upgrade to the 27 foot size. He would prefer not to gamble with
his docksite hoping that he would still have one next year.
Motion amended by Funk, seconded by Jones to extend the temporary 27 foot
status on the site for one year, with the stipulation that an attempt will be
made to find an altemate spot for Mr. Ayaz's boat. For the 2001 season, this
docksite will be enforced as an 18 foot temporary slip. Motion carried 312
(Ahrens, Hanus opposed).
4. REVIEW: SHORELINE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Park Director Fackler stated that there is still no settlement regarding Woodland Point,
which is why this item was to be revisited this month. Some of these items such as rip rap
could possibly be discussed before a this issue is settled. The stairways would likely have
to wait until the Woodland Point issue is settled. Dredges will have to be addressed
through the storm water plan, as each of the listed areas have a storm drain which carries
sand into the lake.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
{~omrnissJoner Ahrens questioned whether the street department has any financial
responsibility for the dredges which are at the end of the storm drains.
Park Director Fackler stated that the street department has paid for dredges in the past
which are at the end of storm drains, however the storm water management plan will
address these issues. Staff recommendation is as follows: $22,000 for rip rap, $5,000 for
stairways, $20,000 for dredges and $16,000 for new docks to be allotted for the 2001
season.
10:00 p.m. Chair Funk tabled the discussion.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens, to extend the meeting for an
additional 30 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he would like to receive some additional information
regarding materials and cost comparisons for the different projects.
Councilmember Hanus added he would like to see some specs on the projects as well,
particularly the stairways in order to avoid all the City build stairways looking the same
which tends to become a "welcome" sign of sorts, for people to pass through the
neighborhoods. Hanus also stated that there is another commons that is gearing up to file
suit when the Woodland Point issue is settled. Hanus advised caution regarding using too
much of the Dock fund at this point in time.
Councilmember Hanus stated that his recommendation would be to keep the budget for
the rip rap and the stairway. When more information is available on the financial issues,
projects such as new docks and dredging (if needed by then) can be added.
10:30 p.m. Chair Funk tabled the discussion.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens, to extend the meeting for an
additional $ minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk to budget $22,000 for rip rap, and
$5,000 for stairways. As a secondary priority budget $16,000 for new docks
and $20,000 for dredging. Motion carried unanimously.
5. UPDATE: MINNETONKA BOAT RENTAL STATUS
Park Director Fackler stated that Minnetonka Boat Rental has been sold, but the
paperwork and finalization of sale is still pending.
6. DISCUSS: JOINT OWNERSHIP OF BOATS IN THE MOUND DOCK PROGRAM
To be discussed in May.
7. UPDATE: 2001 DOCK COMMISSION CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST
Discussed in item #.4.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
8. UPDATE: THE PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMITS
Park Director Fackler stated there is no new information as yet.
9. REVIEW: 2000 CALENDAR WITH CHANGES
To be discussed in May.
10. DISCUSS: MAY DCAC AGENDA
To be included on the May agenda are: 1. Discuss: Joint Ownership of boats in the Mound dock program
2. Review: 2000 Calendar with changes
11. FYI
A)
12.
10.
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 9TH, AND CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MARCH 14TH.
B) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C) PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES
D) MONTHLY CALENDAR
E) LMCD INFORMATION
F) LETTER AND INFORMATION TO FRAN CLARK FROM HASBRO, INC.
G) REVISED MULTIPLE-SLIP DOCK PROGRAM INSERT
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.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Jones, to adjourn the meeting at 10:40
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
APRIL 201 2000
Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Gerald Jones, Frank Ahrens, and Greg
Eurich, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim
Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Absent: Commissioner Mark Goldberg
Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
New City Manager Candace Hanson was introduced and addressed the Commission,
briefly summarizing her work experience and the path that brought her to the City of
Mound.
1. MINUTES
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the minutes of the
March 16, 2000 DCAC meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Jones to accept the agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST TO REVIEW: LETTER FROM JORJ AYAZ
Mr. Ayaz, 4844 Island View Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the multiple dock
at the Devon access and his desire to dock his 27 foot boat at his docksite. Mr. Ayaz
stated he has talked to the abutters around this site, all the people who are on the multiple
dock, and there is no opposition to combining the two 24 foot spaces and designating the
site for a 27 foot boat.
Commissioner Eurich questioned what the disadvantages would be to assigning site 1(9)
to Mr. Ayaz with his 27 foot boat.
Park Director Fackler stated that the water depth is an issue. If the City designates these
sites for larger boats, and then the depth does not allow that size boat, the City would be
responsible for dredging this area.
Mr. Ayaz responded that there is a storm drain in this area, and there is going to be a need
for dredging there anyway at some time. If he has the privilege of putting his 27 foot boat
there, he would be willing to contribute to the cost of dredging if necessary, to continue this
privilege.
Councilmember Hanus stated if the site was designated for a 27 foot boat, and Mr. Ayaz
then left the dock program, the next site holder would also want a 27 foot site.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
Mr. Ayaz questioned why the site cannot be designated for 27 foot for the current user, and
if the site then changes hands, the new person will have to go through the same thing,
asking for exception from the Dock Commission.
Chair Funk stated that once there is a favor given, it sets a precedent and more and more
people will be asking for favors.
Mr. Ayaz stated that each person who comes in should be treated on a case by case basis.
It is not really a favor when the person comes in, states their case, states that they are
willing to work with the Commission and the City in any capacity they are capable of, and
the City considers their request on it's own merits.
Chair Funk questioned whether Mr. Ayaz would be interested in this site on a year by year
basis, so if another larger spot opens up, he could move to that spot and this one could
then be dropped to an 18 foot site.
Mr. Ayaz stated he would be willing, within reason, to move docks. He stated he would
prefer the Amhurst site, as it is closer to his home. He would prefer not to move to a site
where he would have to drive to his boat, as right now he can walk the block to the Devon
site.
Commissioner Ahrens asked what size boat was at the Amhurst site where Mr. Ayaz would
prefer to be.
Dock Inspector McCaffrey stated it is approximately 20 feet. However, that site holder is
not interested in trading. If he was, it would be a very convenient fix for this problem. This
site holder does not live close, and is driving to his docksite now. Mr. Ayaz would be able
to get the site holders name and phone number, and approach him directly to see if he
would trade.
Park Director Fackler stated he is against granting a special request. Sites G, H, and I
should be temporary, and be deleted as soon as possible, as people leave the dock
program.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he would also be uncomfortable granting an exception, and
would rather see the dock holders work things out by finding a suitable trade or some other
compromise by working with Dock Inspector McCaffrey.
Councilmember Hanus also stated that, since this exception was granted for one year, it
is very hard to take it away this year. If the exception was granted for another year, and
another and so on, it would be harder still to retract the exception.
Chair Funk agreed, even though it appears that this site would accommodate the 27 foot
boat right now, the docksite is actually designated as an 18 foot site, and this is what the
City should stick to. Eventually the LMCD will insist that the designation for the docksite
be adhered to.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
{~ommissJoner I~urJch stated that this temporary site was issued last year to accommodate
Mr. Ayaz, and there was no better solution. It appears that this year there is also no better
solution. Also, this site could be designated temporary, and as soon as Mr. Ayaz is out of
there, the site is eliminated.
Chair Funk summarized three options, first to make the slip permanent for a 27 foot boat.
Second is to make the slip permanent for an 18 foot boat. Third is to continue with the
temporary site for the 27 foot boat, with the understanding that as soon as Mr. Ayaz moves
his boat out, the site would be eliminated.
Park Director Fackler stated staff recommendation is to enforce the size limitation of 18
feet for this temporary site. Staff would like to see the dock location map be held to, and
the limits to be set.
Commissioner Jones questioned whether the LMCD would have input on this problem if
they come in and see that the site is for an 18 foot boat, but there is a 27 foot boat there.
Park Director Fackler stated that eventually the City of Mound will have to answer to the
LMCD site specific, where the limits for the docksites will be absolute. Mound is not there
yet, and right now the City of Mound is striving to comply with the LMCD regulations to
show good faith to the LMCD.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Eurich, to extend the temporary status on
the site for one year, with the stipulation that an attempt will be made to find
an alternate spot for Mr. Ayaz's boat. For the 2001 season, this docksite will
be eliminated.
Mr. Ayaz stated that if his choice is to use the site for his 27 foot boat for one year and
then to lose a site the next year, he would prefer to keep the 18 foot site and stay in the
program, waiting for an upgrade to the 27 foot size. He would prefer not to gamble with
his docksite hoping that he would still have one next year.
Motion amended by Funk, seconded by Jones to extend the temporary 27 foot
status on the site for one year, with the stipulation that an attempt will be
made to find an alternate spot for Mr. Ayaz's boat. For the 2001 season, this
docksite will be enforced as an 18 foot temporary slip. Motion carried 312
(Ahrens, Hanus opposed).
4. REVIEW: SHORELINE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Park Director Fackler stated that there is still no settlement regarding Woodland Point,
which is why this item was to be revisited this month. Some of these items such as rip rap
could possibly be discussed before a this issue is settled. The stairways would likely have
to wait until the Woodland Point issue is settled. Dredges will have to be addressed
through the storm water plan, as each of the listed areas have a storm drain which carries
sand into the lake.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
(~ommissloner Ahrens questioned whether the street department has any financial
responsibility for the dredges which are at the end of the storm drains.
Park Director Fackler stated that the street department has paid for dredges in the past
which are at the end of storm drains, however the storm water management plan will
address these issues. Staff recommendation is as follows: $22,000 for rip rap, $5,000 for
stairways, $20,000 for dredges and $16,000 for new docks to be allotted for the 2001
season.
10:00 p.m. Chair Funk tabled the discussion.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens, to extend the meeting for an
additional 30 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ahrens stated he would like to receive some additional information
regarding materials and cost comparisons for the different projects.
Councilmember Hanus added he would like to see some specs on the projects as well,
particularly the stairways in order to avoid all the City build stairways looking the same
which tends to become a "welcome" sign of sorts, for people to pass through the
neighborhoods. Hanus also stated that them is another commons that is gearing up to file
suit when the Woodland Point issue is settled. Hanus advised caution regarding using too
much of the Dock fund at this point in time.
Councilmember Hanus stated that his recommendation would be to keep the budget for
the rip rap and the stairway. When more information is available on the financial issues,
projects such as new docks and dredging (if needed by then) can be added.
10:30 p.m. Chair Funk tabled the discussion.
Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens, to extend the meeting for an
additional 5 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk to budget $22,000 for rip rap, and
$5,000 for stairways. As a secondary priority budget $16,000 for new docks
and $20,000 for dredging. Motion carried unanimously.
$. UPDATE: MINNETONKA BOAT RENTAL STATUS
Park Director Fackler stated that Minnetonka Boat Rental has been sold, but the
paperwork and finalization of sale is still pending.
6. DISCUSS: JOINT OWNERSHIP OF BOATS IN THE MOUND DOCK PROGRAM
To be discussed in May.
7. UPDATE: 2001 DOCK COMMISSION CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUEST
Discussed in item #~.
Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission April 20, 2000
UPDATE: THE PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC LAND PERMITS
Park Director Fackler stated there is no new information as yet.
9. REVIEW: 2000 CALENDAR WITH CHANGES
To be discussed in May.
10. DISCUSS: MAY DCAC AGENDA
To be
included on the May agenda are:
1. Discuss: Joint Ownership of boats in the Mound dock program
2. Review: 2000 Calendar with changes
11.
FYI
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
G)
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 9TH, AND CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MARCH 14TH.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES
MONTHLY CALENDAR
LMCD INFORMATION
LETTER AND INFORMATION TO FRAN CLARK FROM HASBRO, INC.
REVISED MULTIPLE-SLIP DOCK PROGRAM INSERT
12. REPORTS
A) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
No report at this time.
B) PARK DIRECTOR
No report at this time.
C) DOCKINSPECTOR
No report at this time.
10. ADJOURN
Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Jones, to adjourn the meeting at 10:40
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DI~iTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 22, 2000
Tonka Bay City Hall
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM.
ROLL CALL
Members pesent: Douglas Babcock, Tonka Bay; Bed Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Greg Kitchak,
Uinnetonka; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present:
Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director.
Members absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers,
Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Lili McMilan, Orono; Gene Padyka, Minnetrista.
Babcock noted that a quorum was not present at the meeting. He moved agenda item lA, review of the 1999 Water
Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report, to this part of the meeting.
lA. Hennepin Parks, 1999 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report.
Mr. John Baden, representing Hennepin Parks, provided an overview of the Report for 1999. He
summarized the key highlights and stated that they had conducted some preliminary trend analysis
based on the data collected over the past five years.
Members of the Board and the public asked Barten questions on the 1999 Report, the trend analysis conducted,
and phosphorous concems on Lake Uinnetonka.
PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (5 min.).
Mr. Paul Pedersen, owner of Grays Bay Marina, stated that the construction of the new bridge on the County Road
101 had begun. He expressed concern for safety to the public because of the early ice-out and because boaters are
driving under the bridge while it is being taken down. He suggested it might be appropriate for Hennepin County
officials to place buoys in the water informing them of potential dangers in this area.
Nybeck stated that he had placed a call into Hennepin County and that he believed the concem expressed by
Pedersen was being addressed.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no quorum, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 7:50 PM.
Douglas Babcock, Chairman
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 12, 2000
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES - 3/8/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
3/22/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion
unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from
the consent agenda.
Seanote Cruises, Inc., new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor License application for the charter boat,
Halfnote.
1. Public Hearing
2. Discussion and/or Consideration.
Trillium Bay HOA, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a conforming facility. 1. Public Hearing
2. Discussion and/or Consideration
Seton View Association, new multiple dock license and variance applications to increase Boat
Storage Units (BSU's) at a conforming facility from seven to eight. 1. Public Hearing
2. Discussion and/or consideration
1. WATER STRUCTURES
A) Excel Marina, consideration of new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-
conforming structure (previously tabled by the Board on 2/24/99);
B) (*) 2000 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2000 multiple dock
license applications as outlined in 4/7/00 staff memo;
c)
Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance relating to the density of
watercraft storage on Lake Minnetonka; amending LMCD Code Section 2.11 by adding new
Subd. 6;
D) Additional Business;
2. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance prohibiting anchoring and rafting in
public safety lanes; adding new Subd. 25 to LMCD Code Section 3.01 (consideration of LMCD
Resolution 97);
B) Henn. Co. Environmental Division, consideration of request for $2,500 in 2000 for the
placement, removal, and cleaning of regulatory buoys in Cruiser's Cove;
C) Review of draft policy relating to the issuance of Intoxicating Liquor license for charter boats on
Lake Minnetonka;
D) (*) 2000 Liquor Licenses, staff recommends approval of renewal Liquor/Wine/Beer license
applications as outlined 3/17/00 staff memo;
E) (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report;
F) Minnesota Lakes Association (MLA), update on MIA proposal to revise Minnesota Statutes
86b, "Surface Water Use Policy";
G) Additional Business;
3. FINANCIAL
A) Audit of vouchers (3/15/00 - 3/31/00) & (4/1/00 -4/15/00);
B) February financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Additional Business;
4. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) (*) Minutes from the 3/10/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting;
B) 3110/00 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting report;
C) 2000 EWM Harvesting Program, staff overview of project;
D) Additional Business;
5. ADMINISTRATION
A) Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment part-time
Administrative Clerk Jan Briner;
B) Staff update on vacant Administrative Technician position;
C) Additional Business;
6. SAVE THE LAKE
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 2000
DRAFT
Present were: Commissioners Peter Meyer, Tom Casey, Norman Domholt, John Beise,
Christina Cooper; and City Council Representative Leah Weycker. Also present were Park
Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Kristine Kitzman.
Chair Domholt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 9, 2000 POSC MINUTES
Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Casey to approve the minutes of the
March 9, 2000 Park and Open Space Commission (POSC) meeting, as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. AGENDA CHANGES
The agenda was approved as presented.
3. PRESENTATION: ALLAN OLSON, DNR FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
Chair Domholt introduced Allan Olson, Forester with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources since 1981.
Mr. Olson then addressed the Commission regarding their interest in the health and
welfare of the trees and other natural resources in the Mound area. He presented many
informational videos, books, and other media resources that are available to the public in
order to provide information on the natural resources in this area. He also presented some
information on Minnesota Relief (MnRelief), which is a grant program for reaching the goals
in the City regarding forestry. The first step would be an inventory.
Park Director Fackler stated that some trees will be planted this spring or fall, and this
project may be eligible for funds from MnRelief.
Commissioner Beise questioned if Mound had the maximum funds from MnRelief currently,
and if this amount was renewable annually.
Park Director Fackler stated right now, $5000 has been requested.
Mr. Olson urged Fackler to issue a new request, as that amount would probably be
increased. Also, the amounts granted are based on merit. There is no time limit between
requests.
Commissioner Casey requested information regarding any Big Woods habitat.
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission April 13, 2000
DRAFT
Mr. Olson stated that right now, legislation referred to as "Heritage Forest" is being
considered to set aside and protect the areas that are left of the Big Woods.
Commissioner Casey questioned the fragmentation issue. What acreage is too small to
be considered a working forest.
Mr. Olson responded that he has people call with 3 acre parcels who are interested in
planting trees, and he is willing to help them. In his opinion however, for a working forest,
about 10 acres is really needed.
Commissioner Casey asked about clustering when planning new developments.
Mr. Olson stated that he does push for that, clustering the houses in the already open
areas, and leaving the forested areas for greenspace, with the older trees intact.
Councilmember Weycker mentioned a 23 acre piece which was part of the Big Woods, but
the owner could not afford the taxes anymore. Does the DNR help out in this case, to keep
the area forested rather than developed.
Mr. Olson responded that this is a common problem in this area, one possible solution is
Minnesota Land Trust, who hold land in trust and preserve it, and at some point they would
turn it over to a government agency such as the DNR, to turn into a natural area. Other
programs such as this exist, but there is no current tax relief directly right now.
Chair Domholt asked for the minimum requirements to be come a Tree City USA.
Mr. Olson stated you need a committee, a proclamation from the City Council saying you
want to become a Tree City, and you need to have an Arbor Day presentation, and $2.00
per capita of tree plantings.
Chair Domholt asked if there is a community nearby that can be contacted that made a
successful attempt at replanting trees.
Mr. Olson stated Maple Grove is the best community in that respect nearby. Medina is
another that is doing a very good job.
Commissioner Casey asked for suggestions on marketing, how to sell the importance of
the trees to the rest of the community.
Mr. Olson stated one of the biggest issues is aesthetics, and the impact on the
environment which is a big issue now, and being talked about in schools. Financial issues
include natural air conditioning, energy saving in the winter in the form of windbreaks and
so on. The most impact would be to make sure that someone understands what they are
losing when a 150 year old tree is cut down. This is something that cannot be replaced.
2
Mound Advisow Park and Open Space Commission
A good step forward would be to simply get to the point where when people are planning
new development, to question why when there are areas of trees that are going to be
obliterated, and look for alternatives.
Commissioner Casey stated that in Mound, there is not much more than 10 acre parcels
of forest left. At this point, many people would have the opinion that it's not really worth
keeping.
Mr. Olson stated that even single trees add value to a lot, especially a large, old tree. This
may be a place to start in marketing the importance of the trees.
Councilmember Weycker questioned how to start, as Mound has no plan in place right now
to save the trees.
Mr. Olson stated the first place may be some type of ordinance to preserve the forested
areas that still do exist. Also a plan on what the goal is for the City, such as trying to
preserve what is here already, or possibly trying to increase the number of trees a certain
percentage over the years. Another goal could be to examine the different species in the
community, and concentrate on balancing the variety of trees.
4. DISCUSS: KELLEE OMLID SUMMER PARKS AND BEACH PROGRAM
Kellee Omlid, Representative of the Westonka Community Education and Services,
addressed the Commission regarding some of their plans for the summer, some of the
challenges faced by the Parks Playground Program, and some solutions. Ms. Omlid
presented a handout for the Commissioners laying out these issues.
Some discussion took place over each of the issues, but no consensus was reached on
any specific issue.
Commissioner Meyer stated that the Park Commission is behind this program, and urged
Ms. Omlid to continue to communicate the wants and needs of the program to the
Commission, who will continue to present these items to the City Council.
Commissioner Beise questioned why the Westonka School District could not be
approached for some funding of this program.
Discussion followed regarding the setup of the program, who funds the program (City of
Mound) and that Westonka School District provides the management and staffing. One
specific point is that the program is for events and locations only in Mound, which is why
the City is responsible for the funding.
Councilmember Weycker added that at the last Council meeting there was a request for
a lifeguard at Pembroke Beach. That would be an additional dollar amount for this
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
DRAFT^. i, ooo
program, as it would add another beach that lifeguards would be needed. The agreement
was that it would be observed this year, to see how many kids swim there and to gauge
the necessity for a lifeguard.
5. DISCUSS: 2001 POSAC CAPITAL OUTLAY
Park Director Fackler presented the 04-06-00 revision of the Park and Open Space Capital
Outlay and Line Item Request for 2001, and summarized his responses as printed on this
revision.
Commissioner Beise then presented worksheets for the Commission so each person could
come up with three reasons for each item, why each is necessary. This will provide brief
information for the City Council and promote dialogue with the Council.
Chair Domholt suggested presenting the information in the same manner as Ms. Omlid did
in the previous discussion. Present challenges, solutions, and future wants and needs.
Following are the items on this list:
IP Hall Restoration
a. Need for Parks and Recreation center
b. Historical preservation
c. Income producing rental facility
Playground Equipment (Swenson Park)
a. Safety concern for the City insurance agent due to the age of equipment
b. Request from neighborhood
c. One of Mound's showcase parks, centrally located on the island
Depot/Mound Bay Park Information Sign
a. Communication to community
b. High visibility
c. City promotion
Winter Skating Rink (Outdoor)
a. Wintertime family activity
b. No cost to user
c. Jointly funded
Crescent Park Improvements
a. Natural area in need of protection
b. Neighborhood request
lO:OOp.m. Chair Domholt tabled the meeting.
4
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
DRAFT
Motion by Domholt, seconded by Meyer to continue
additional 30 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Unique features
Music in the Parks
a. Community promotion event
b. Well attended, successful event
c. Promotes the Arts
Adopt-A-Green Space
a. Beautifies Mound
b. Encourages citizen participation
c. Recognition ofvolunteerism
Basketball Court Resurfacing/Line Painting
a. Highly used
b. Aesthetics
c. Encourages youth activity
Sorbo
a.
b.
C.
& Highland Parks Grounds Improvements
Safety
Neighborhood requests
Aesthetics
10.
Tree
a.
b.
C.
Plantings
Matching funds from MnRelief
Aesthetics and added value
Replacement of damaged trees
11.
Park
a.
b.
C.
and Open Space Planning
Park planning and long term visioning
Inventory
Prioritizing and categorizing
6. DISCUSS: PARKS PUBLIC RELATIONS/PROMOTIONS
This item moved to May.
7. POSC MAY AGENDA
Some items for the May POSC agenda are: 1. Discuss: Parks Public Relations/Promotions
2. Discuss: Arbor Day
the meeting for an
5
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
DRAFT April 13, 2000
3. Discuss: Fall Planting Day
4. Follow Up on DNR Forestry Program
8. APRIL CALENDAR
Some events discussed, but determined that it was too late to have much of a organized,
advertised event.
9. FOR YOUR INFORMATION
a=
City Council Special Meeting March 9th & City Council Meeting March
14th
Planning Commission Minutes
Dock & Commons Advisory Commission Minutes
Thank You Card from Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation
News letter Minnesota Department of Agriculture/Community Forestry
Letter to Leah Weycker from Kaboom Getting Started Kit
Letter and information to Fran Clark from Hasbro, Inc.
Pembroke Dock Configuration
9. REPORTS:
a. City Council Representative
Councilmember Weycker reported that the Planning Commission on April 24th will have
a speaker on soil processing. This would be a good meeting for the Park Commissioners
to attend. Also, the Comprehensive Plan passed on Tuesday. The main issue was that
green space on the Community Center site was reclassified as "residential density to be
determined" which leaves it open to be rezoned easier. Also, a "swamp plan" was passed.
10:30 p.m. Chair Domholt tabled the meeting.
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Domholt to extend the meeting for an
additional 5 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
This plan adds the swamp areas to the parkland, in the quantity of 21 acres, which
changes the ratio of parkland in Mound, so it shows that Mound has sufficient parkland for
the population.
Chair Domholt suggested additional budgeting for Staff, as this newly "acquired" parkland
will need upkeep by staff.
Councilmember Weycher reported that Pembroke passed on a 3-2 vote to eliminate the
3 docksites, and give the neighborhood back more of their beach, to be revisited in one
year.
6
Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission
b. Park Director
No report at this time.
Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Weycker to adjourn the meeting at
10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (952) 471-0590
Fax: (952) 471-0682
Email:
admin@minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www. minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers
Pamela G. Blixt
James Calkins
Lance Fisher
Monica Gross
Scott Thomas
Malcolm Reid
Robert Schroeder
i~ Printed cn recycled paper containing
at least 30% post consumer waste,
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 30, 2000
Interested Parties
Eric Evenson, MC~.~~istrator
MCWD Rule Revisions
Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the April 30, 2000
Proposed Rules Revisions of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(Proposed Rule O -- Groundwater Resource Protection), with the
accompanying Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) of the
same date. On April 10, 2000, the MCWD distributed for public
comment proposed rules modifying a number of provisions of the
MCWD's existing rules. Among the proposed modifications is
language that would be added to existing Rule N (Stormwater
Management) governing protection of groundwater flows. The
enclosed Rule O proposes to place the proposed groundwater
language instead in a separate rule and to provide more guidance on
information submittal requirements and how proposed activities
subject to the rule would be reviewed. Also, whereas the proposed
rule in the April 10, 2000 rulemaking document would require
preservation of both groundwater flow and quality, the enclosed Rule
O would apply only to groundwater flow.
Comments are invited on the need for and reasonableness of the
proposed revisions; any compliance burdens or costs that they would
impose; their impact on water resource protection; and whether the
purpose for the change may be better achieved by a means other than
that proposed. On the basis of public comments received, the Board
will make appropriate revisions to the proposed changes before they
are adopted.
As noted in the April 10, 2000 memorandum accompanying public
distribution of the proposed rule, written public comment on the
proposed rule will be received at the MCWD offices until 4:30 P.M. on
May 18, 2000. Comments may be mailed, faxed or delivered. In
addition, a public hearing will be held at the May 11, 2000, MCWD
Board of Managers' meeting in the City Council Chambers at the
Minnetonka Community Center, Minnetonka, Minnesota, at 6:45 P.M.
At that time, all interested persons will have an opportunity to
address the Board directly on the proposed changes. On the basis of
a timely request, the Board may extend the comment period.
Please address all comments and inquiries to:
Jim Hafner, Senior Technician
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior MN 55331
Voice: (612} 471-0590 x282 Facsimile: (612) 471-6290
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS
Proposed Rule O of the Watershed District
April 30, 2000
{Supplement to Proposed Rule of April 10, 2000)
This Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) summarizes and
explains a proposed new Rule O of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD). Section §103D.341, subdivision 1, Minnesota Statutes,
states: "The managers must adopt rules to accomplish the purposes of
[the] chapter." Among the watershed district purposes of chapter 103D
and its companion, chapter 103B, are to promote groundwater recharge,
preserve groundwater storage and flows, protect groundwater quality and
provide for beneficial groundwater use. Minnesota Statutes §§ 103B.201,
103D.201. The purpose of the rule is to provide for review of certain
activities within the watershed that may affect groundwater flows in
order to preserve those flows and the beneficial uses they support.
On April 10, 2000, the MCWD distributed proposed rules modifying a
number of provisions throughout the MCWD's Rules. Among those
proposed modifications is language added to present Rule N governing
stormwater management. The proposed language includes explicit
reference to groundwater protection as among MCWD policies and sets
forth a permit requirement related to preservation of groundwater flow:
"Where the activity subject to this rule will or reasonably may
disturb competent bedrock or place an impervious structure in
contact with the surface of competent bedrock, the plan shall
provide for preservation of groundwater flows and quality."
The present rule text starts from the standard enunciated in the April 10,
2000 proposed rule but places it in a separate MCWD rule, proposed
Rule O, and offers further detail on information submittal requirements
and how proposed activity would be reviewed. For reasons noted below,
the Rule O language refers only to flow preservation and not to
groundwater quality. Absent any compelling basis communicated to the
MCWD during the public review process, any groundwater rule that is
adopted will not pertain to groundwater quality.
The language provided here specifically seeks to articulate what
constitutes a material impact that an applicant must take steps to avoid.
Finally, this supplemental text proposes language for an exception to the
general requirement stated above, applicable to borings, well, and
smaller-diameter conduits. It is the intention of the MCWD to review this
text in conjunction with the April 10, 2000 proposed rule document.
A public hearing and comment period is provided for public review of the
proposed rule. The MCWD will carefully consider all comments received
in deciding whether to adopt a new Rule O and in making any
modifications to the proposed rule.
The proposed rule is not intended to encompass all potential
groundwater impacts. First, the rule does not address groundwater
quality. State agencies, including the Pollution Control Authority, the
Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), the Department of Health, the Board of Water and Soil Resources
and the Environmental Quality Board, have substantial responsibility for
protecting groundwater quality. Minn. Stat. §103A.204. Within the Twin
Cities metropolitan area, the counties are given specific authority to
prepare groundwater plans that serve to coordinate the efforts of political
subdivisions. Minn. Stat. §103B.255. A program of careful groundwater
quality protection involves management of both point and non-point
source discharges of pollutants, contaminated site management, and the
planning and regulation of land use. The MCWD is not undertaking to
regulate in this area independent of this established framework and
within the limited time frame that the present rulemaking process allows.
With respect to the groundwater flow regime, however, the DNR is the
only governmental agency that implements a regulatory program to
preserve groundwater flows. Minn. Stat. §§103G.255-103G.297.
Further, the DNR program applies only to groundwater appropriation,
whereas other types of activities may adversely affect groundwater flows.
It is the purpose of this rule to ensure that such actions are effectively
reviewed for their impacts before they are undertaken.
The proposed rule arises from recent MCWD experience in reviewing the
Minnesota Department of Transportation {MnDOT} Hiawatha Avenue
reconstruction project within the City of Minneapolis. In that instance,
the project involved excavation into bedrock for the construction of storm
sewers and grit chambers and, to a limited extent, for road subgrade. In
addition, continuous footings for retaining walls were to be placed on or
directly proximate to bedrock. The construction was very near to the
Minnehaha Creek gorge at its confluence with the Mississippi River,
where a number of rare natural communities are supported by seeps and
2
springs that emerge from within the bluff. Although it was generally
known that groundwater flows tended easterly toward the bluff and the
river, very little information existed to confirm the directions and
quantities of localized groundwater flow within the alluvial and bedrock
layers feeding the seeps.
In that case, the MCWD approved the permit but included conditions
allowing for project modification in the event that MCWD groundwater
investigation revealed that construction could potentially divert
groundwater from the seeps. The investigation revealed that water tables
affected by the construction did appear in part to support the seeps.
One grit chamber was located in proximity to an inferred vertical bedrock
fracture and intercepted substantial flows. As a result, in cooperation
with the MCWD, MnDOT revised permeability specifications in the field
for backfill material around the grit chambers, storm sewer lines and
retaining wall footings to preserve routes of groundwater flow to the
bluffs.
The fact that the MCWD dad not at that time have a groundwater rule in
place was unfortunate in three respects. First, in order to ensure
protection of the groundwater resource, watershed residents were forced
to bear the costs of groundwater study, a large part of which MnDOT
otherwise would have borne as a part of its environmental review and
permit application preparation. Second, rather than preceding permit
approval and construction, the investigation of groundwater concerns
occurred after permit issuance and contemporaneous to construction.
With a clearer advance awareness of the potential concerns to be
addressed, MnDOT would have completed its review of potential impacts
before its application came before the Board. Fortunately, the concerns
that did arise after construction commenced could be addressed easily in
the field. Had the hydrogeology of the site been such as to raise more
thoroughgoing concerns, the difficulty in addressing them effectively, and
the expense of doing so, might have been substantial.
Finally, although MnDOT complied with the permit conditions and took
actions requested by the MCWD to minimize groundwater impacts, it
also challenged in a lawsuit the authority of the MCWD to impose the
conditions. In early April 2000, after the protective actions described
above were taken and much of the intrusive construction work was
completed, a judge of the Hennepin County District Court ruled that the
conditions were not enforceable. The judge confirmed the MCWD's
statutory authority to impose conditions for groundwater protection, but
stated that the MCWD could implement that authority only through
3
adopted rules. Order (April 5, 2000) (Court File No. MC 99-01316).
Therefore, it is appropriate at this time for the MCWD to adopt regulatory
language to implement its statutory authority and clarify when that
authority may be exercised.
The proposed rule would provide that where competent bedrock will be
disturbed or an impervious structure will be placed in contact with the
surface of competent bedrock, the Board will review the project and
include permit conditions to preserve groundwater recharge, flow
patterns and quality for beneficial use and resource protection.
Competent bedrock is defined consistent with Minnesota Department of
Transportation specifications, as solid intact rock such as limestone,
large boulders, and thick layers of limestone floats that are larger than
0.4 cubic meter and cannot be excavated with typical equipment used for
excavating soil on a project of larger scale.
Review for bedrock impacts or structures in contact with bedrock is
proposed specifically in light of the MCWD's experience with the MnDOT
road construction project. While surficial flows through unconsolidated
material may be generally homogenous over a fairly wide cross-sectional
area, groundwater flows through limestone or other well-cemented
bedrock will follow horizontal or vertical partings that will tend to be very
narrow or localized. Creating new pathways by bedrock fracturing or
blocking existing pathways (particularly flows through unconsolidated
material directly above bedrock) with impervious structures may
materially change groundwater flows.
In the experience of the MCWD, it is extremely unusual for construction
to involve bedrock disturbance or the placing of structures against
bedrock. Throughout the watershed, bedrock lies under significant
depths of glacial materials. Only in the area of the Minnehaha Creek
gorge and the Mississippi River bluffs is bedrock sufficiently shallow that
surface construction activity may come into contact with it. The MCWD
suspects that some deeper utility work throughout the watershed, such
as storm sewer construction, may in the past have required bedrock
penetration without the awareness of the groundwater concerns that it
may have posed and without being brought to the attention of the
MCWD. Under the proposed rule, this work now would be reviewed by
the MCWD.
Nonetheless, because of the watershed geology and the limited area
where bedrock is likely to be disturbed by construction, the MCWD
expects that this element of the rule will be applied very rarely. The rule
4
would apply to the next phases of the MnDOT Hiawatha Avenue
reconstruction project. Resources at risk from construction will include
Camp Coldwater Springs, a protected cultural resource and unusual,
groundwater-supported natural community, and other natural
communities fed by bluff seeps. This proposed rule follows the direction
of the District Court judge that the MCWD adopt a groundwater rule in
order to review MnDOT's further proposed work and carry out its
responsibility to manage and protect groundwater-supported resources.
Other activities, beyond bedrock disturbance and the obstruction of
basal flows, can affect groundwater flow patterns. These include the
creation of impervious surface, land contouring or diversion of surface
flows away from or toward groundwater recharge areas, and the
replacement of excavated materials with fill or structures of a different
permeability than the materials removed. Adopting rules to address
these activities, however, involves determinations as to the scale of
activity that should be subject to MCWD review and the standards that
would be applied to that activity to determine when conditions would be
required to mitigate potential impacts. The MCWD has not had a
sufficient opportunity to review these activities and make reasonable
determinations for the purpose of this proposed rule.
Accordingly, the MCWD is limiting the proposed rule largely to the issues
that will arise in the imminent MnDOT construction activity and similar
activity affecting bedrock that any other party may wish to undertake.
The MCWD has gained specific familiarity with these types of potential
impacts. It is the MCWD's intent to continue its examination of other
activities that may affect groundwater flows and when that examination
is completed, to review the management and regulatory activity of other
bodies in this area, and thereafter as appropriate to supplement Rule O
as it may be adopted in the present proceedings.
To assess groundwater impacts, an applicant would need information
concerning:
· Surface water resources and plant and animal communities
near the activity;
· The role that groundwater underlying the site plays with regard
to those surface water resources and natural communities; and
· The likely impacts of the proposed activity on groundwater
flows.
5
The rule expressly would limit the list of required submittals to minimize
the compliance burden on more moderate development activities and
others that appear plainly not to raise concerns. It is expected that
applicants will consult with MCWD staff before application to allow the
MCWD staff to clarify application needs in the given case.
For many development activities, MCWD staff may agree, without further
investigation, that no substantial impacts are foreseeable. For others,
the applicant's burden may be met with existing resource and project
design information. During the comment period, the MCWD will be
reviewing existing resource inventory and groundwater data for the
watershed in order to consider whether the final rule should specify
certain available data that may be used to meet submission
requirements. Public comment on this subject is particularly
encouraged. It is expected that only a very few projects of substantial
scale would encounter the need for significant independent resource
inventories, groundwater studies or construction impact analyses.
The proposed rule sets forth two criteria for permit issuance.
First, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity is
reasonably necessary for structural or site design reasons or to avoid
substantial added construction expense. This is intended as an
avoidance analysis. The MCWD does not intend to second-guess an
applicant's design plans or require an extensive analysis of project
alternatives. However, the fact is that hydrogeological knowledge in
particular always is incomplete and inferential, and that even where care
is taken and risks of impacts minimized, a potential for harm will
remain. Accordingly, the MCWD believes it is appropriate to require
some demonstration that the proposed activity, whether bedrock
disturbance or the obstruction of basal flows, cannot reasonably be
avoided. The applicant may meet this burden by providing a reasonable
justification for the action on structural, design or economic grounds.
Second, the applicant must show that the activity will not alter
groundwater flows to the material detriment of beneficial groundwater
use, surface water resources or valued plant and animal communities.
Under the rule, what constitutes a material impact will be determined by
weighing the nature and value of the potentially affected resources,
whether the damage is irreversible, the cost to repair the damage, and
the likely effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. If the work
as designed would present a reasonable possibility of impacts, options
6
that would be considered, separately and together, would include design
changes, field responses to potential problems, and monitoring.
The MCWD is soliciting comments on the need for and reasonableness of
the proposed rule. In particular, the rule would provide an exception for
bedrock disturbance or potential obstruction of basal flows from borings
or wells for site investigation and from the installation of a pipe or other
conduit with a diameter of one foot or smaller. This exception would
apply, for instance, to the installation of electric and telecommunications
facilities and similar small-diameter intrusions. Comments are
requested on this language, whether it is overly broad or, conversely,
whether there are other activities that should be excepted from the rule
when the potential groundwater impacts are weighed against the
compliance and administrative costs of regulation.
Comments are requested as well on whether the rule as a whole
encompasses the proper range of activities that may affect groundwater
and on the need for and reasonableness of the rule. Although, as noted,
groundwater flow impacts from impervious surface, land contouring,
diversion of flows, or altered permeability by filling will not be addressed
in this rule, comment on the need for review of these activities, and on
the appropriate sort of review, is invited. Comments that are specific and
that contain factual information that helps to refine the rule language are
most useful.
7
PROPOSED RULES REVISIONS
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
April 30, 2000
(Supplement to Proposed Rule of April 10, 2000)
RULE 0
GROUNDWATER RESOURCE PROTECTION
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to preserve groundwater
recharge and flow patterns to maintain beneficial uses of groundwater and the
integrity of groundwater-supported surface water resources and plant and animal
communities.
2. REGULATIONS. A permit shall be required from the District before
engaging in:
a. Fracturing or excavation of competent bedrock.
b. Placing an impervious structure in contact with the surface of competent
bedrock.
3. EXCEPTION. A permit is not required for activity specified at section 2 that
consists of a boring or well for site investigation or the installation of a pipe or
other conduit with a diameter of one foot or smaller.
4. GENERAL STANDARDS. A permit shall be issued on a demonstration by
the applicant:
a. That the activity specified at section 2 is necessary for structural or site
design reasons or to avoid substantial additional construction expense for
an otherwise permitted use of the property; and
b. That the activity will not alter groundwater recharge, flow or quality so
as to materially affect beneficial uses of the groundwater or the integrity of
a groundwater-supported surface water resource or plant or animal
community.
c. In determining the potential for a material effect, the Board of Managers
shall consider the extent of the possible alteration; the nature and value of
the potentially affected beneficial uses, surface water resources and plant
and animal communities; the irreversibility of or cost to undo the potential
damage; and the effectiveness of proposed measures to prevent, mitigate
or remedy the damage.
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS. The applicant shall submit information on
water resources, and plant and animal communities, hydrogeology, impacts of the
proposed activity on recharge and groundwater flows, and such other information,
as needed to demonstrate that the standards of paragraph 4 are met.
Session Weekl~
Hotdish haven
Legislators celebrate new law by indulging in long-standing
Minnesota dining tradition
With plate in hand and a sea of delec-
table hotdishes before them, dozens of leg-
islators and staff commemorated the
signing ora law that will loosen restrictions
on such potlucks.
They gathered April 25 in the Capitol's
Great Hall to sample tasty, items such as
baked beans, tuna casserole, potato and
taco salads, and
an array of
chocolate and
sugarcoated
goodies.
Rep. A1 Juhnke
(DFL-Willmar)
and Sen. Dean
Johnson (DFL-
W'fllmar), spon-
sors of the
legislation, dined
with those who
attended the
noontime meal.
luhnke said
the idea to draft the "hotdish bill" surfaced
after he had attended a DFL bean feed at
the American Legion Hail in his hometown
and was told that health regulations pre-
vented outsiders from bringing prepared
food into community, potlucks.
Aggie Leitheiser, assistant commissioner
of the state's Health Protection Bureau, said
such restrictions have existed to prevent
outbreaks of food-borne disease. Over the
past four years, Leitheiser said, 16 percent
of the confirmed food-borne disease out-
breaks in the state were traced to privately
prepared food.
So, following regulations to the letter, or-
ganizers of the event in Willmar politely
told Juhnke he could stay but he had to take
his beans back to the car.
After the experience, Juhnke said he felt
all people should be allowed to attend com-
muni~ potlucks and share their food with-
out being subject to health inspection. Gov.
Jesse Ventura agreed. He signed the bill into
law April 13.
Effective ,hug. 1, 2000, the law will allow
any person attending a potluck event-- not
F ~7:-(.i~~.~~~~ just members of
the organization
sponsoring the
' event w to bring
,~, _~ individually pre-
· , ,,, '.7 ~. '~ paredfood for
~11 , consumption. It
i~,-'~'- ~ ! also allows an or-
· ' , soring potluck
~--~~ events to adver-
,a~ rise the events and
Rep. Al Juhnke makes his way down a long table of permit people
hotdishes, salads, breads, and desserts as an honored who are not
guest at the Senate-sponsored "Great Minnesota Pot-
luck" held April 25 in the Great Hall of the Capitol. members of the
organization to
attend the event and eat the food.
The hill had once contained language
that would have required signs at a potluck
event stating that the food was not pre-
pared in a licensed kitchen and is not sub-
ject to Health Department regulation. But
the provision was dropped before the bill
won final passage.
Organizers of the Capitol potluck
thought it would be humorous to post
signs, an,vway. Tucked away in a corner by
the plates and napkins stood the tongue-
in-cheek disclaimer. It read, "Welcome to
the Great Minnesota Potluck. Warning:
This food was not prepared in a commer-
cial facility. Eat at your own risk."
SF3348*/HF2707/CH378
(M. DE I.ARCO)
m~
0
oo 0
~ m
~o~