The URL can be used to link to this page

86-10-28 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TgESDAX, OCTOBER 28, 1986 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes - October 14, 1986, Regular Meeting 2. PUBLIC HFA~ING: Delinquent Utility Bills 3. Operations Permit - Balboa Corporation - Resolution Granting an Operations Permit for the Toro Company/ Home Improvement Division at 5340 Shoreline Blvd. Resolution Denying the Request of Charles Weed, Case #86-549, to Relooate a Struoture from Spring Park to Mound. 5. Request from Ken Larson & Bonnie Cornell to revise the requirements in Resolution #85-121. 6. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to Execute Scenic Easement - Cobblestone Cove 7. Resolution Approving Hennepin County Preliminary Improvement Plan for CSAH 15. pg. 2252-2259 pg. 2260-2261 pg. 2262 pg. 2263-2273 pg. 2274-2279 pg. 2280-228~ pg. 2285-2287 pg. 2288 8. Mound City Days Celebration 75th Year 9. Set Public Hearing on Subdivision of Land Located West of Inverness Lane and South of Paisley Road pg. 2289 10. Payment Request #4 - Lynwood Blvd /Tuxedo Blvd. Improve- . pg. 2290-2301 ment Project pg. 2302-2304 11. Proposed Changes in Dock Program 12.Petition for Traffic Signal at COmmerce Blvd. and Three Points Blvd. (Petition has been filed with 230 names. Police Dept. has done radar checks and a report on this will be distributed Tuesday evening.) 13. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present pg. 2B05-2316 14. Payment of Bills 15. ~NFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMY) will be holding .its annual Legislative Policy Page 2250 Ce Adoption Meeting on De F® Thursday,~November 6, in Sr. Paul. If you are interested in attending, please advise. I have copies of the proposed policies if you are interested in reviewing them. The Westonka Lions Club has donated $1,000 to the City for Beautification of the City. This donation was a surprise and I expressed our appreciation to them. It will be discussed at the Park Commission Meeting, November 13, 1986. I have implemented an employee evaluation program or performance appraisal system for all full-time employees. Department Heads will be required to evaluate their employees in several areas. Following a written evaluation, the employee will sit down and discuss the evaluation with the Department Head. I believe an evaluation system is very important in the development and growth of an employee. It is important that supervisors formally analyze and appraise the performance of each employee so that the organization can derive the most benefit it can from the employees. In turn, the employee grows and benefits from the process and makes them a better employee. I will evaluate the Department Heads using the same process. The evaluation program will be done annually and will be a useful management tool in measuring the performance levels of all employees. September 1986 Monthly Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director pg. 2317-2319 ~ Information Meeting on Public Works Facility sponsored by the Westonka Senior Citizens to be held Thursday, October 30, 1986, at 9:30 A.M; at the Westonka Senior Center. Attached is an invitation to attend a tour of the MWCC Treatment Plant (Pig's Eye) on Monday, November 1~ 1986, at 3:00 P.M. Please advise if you wish to attend. pg. 2320-2321 Page 2251 157 October 14, 1986 MINUTES - MOUND CIT! COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1~I, 1986 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 14, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Russ Peterson, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Steve Smith. Mayor Polston was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, Officer John McKinley, and Officer Rex: and the following interested citizens: Donald Schmidt, Herb Wolner, Bob Shanley, Lloyd Gronberg, Cole Bothern, Shirley and Richard Hawks, Russ Bothern, Mary Hilke, Kerri Bothern, Sandy Bothern, Dan and Phyllis Martin, Kim Zitzloff, Kay Dunn, Nancy and Mike Myers, Nancy Clough, Harold Meeker, Barry and Karen Rettke, Mark Hayes, Doug Timm, Mike Edwards, Morris and Marcia Meyer, Dick and Karen Lueders, Loren and Deanna Erhart, Wm. Peglow, James Kruse, Michael Beinert, Dick Carton, Scott Brickley, Bert Norman. PRESENTATION TO OFFICER JOHN MCKINLEY & OFFICER REX Acting Mayor Peterson presented Officer McKinley and Officer Rex with a plaque from the City in honor of their finishing in first place in the National Canine Trials. Officer McKinley explained the trophys that they had won. The Mayor and Officer McKinley thanked the Mound American Legion Post ~395, Mound VFW Post t5113, Harold Meeker of Mound City Days Celebration, and Ernie & Linda Strong of the Around Mound 5 Mile Run for their contributions. The Mayor ope.ned the meeting and welcomed the'people in attendance. The Minutes from the September 30, 1986 Budget Hearing, the September 30, 1986, Regular Meeting, and the October 1, 1986, Budget Hearing were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Paulsen to approve the Minutes of the September 30, 1986, Budget Hearing, the September 30, 1986, Regular Meeting and the October 1, 1986, Budget Hearing, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 158 October 1~ 1986 SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR VACATION OF CERTAIN STREET £ASEMENT LYING BETWEEN LOTS q~ AND qq? KO£HI-EReS ADDITIOP MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to set November 12, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the vacation of certain street easement lying between Lots ~3 and qq, Koehler*s Addition. CASE #85-6~1 & 5q2. FINAl. PLAT APPROVAl. AND LOT NIDTH VARIANCE~ SHADY1~OOD POINT 2ND ADDITION The City Engineer explained the two resolutions. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolutions: RESOLUTION #86-1q2 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 9, AND THAT PART OF VACATED IVY LANE LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTER LINE THEREOF AND EXTENDING FRON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LAKESIDE ROAD TO THE SHORE OF LAKE MINNETONKA, SHADYWOOD POINT, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THERE, PID ~18-117-23 32 0015 RESOLUTION ~86-1~3 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF SHADYWOOD POINT 2ND ADDITION, PID ~'S 18- 117-23 32 0015 AND 18-117-23 32 0016, LOTS I TO 6, BLOCK 10, AND VACATED IVY LANE, SHADYWOOD POINT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPLICATION FOR .OPERATIONS PERMIT - BALBOA CORPORATION The City Planner explained that Unit 2 and part of Unit 3 have now been leased to the Toro Co. (Home Improvements Division) and they are requesting an Operations Permit. The previous approval for an Operations Permit was Resolution ~85-89. He suggested amending that resolution by adding and changing the following: - The square footage will increase from 63,000 to 1qS,qS0 square feet. - There will be 150 parking stalls of on-site parking allocated to this business. An increase from 125. - Toro will encourage their employees to use the on-site parking instead of public streets. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen directing Staff to prepare an amendment to Resolution ~85-89 incorporating the above listed conditions and bring back to the Couflcil at the 159 October lq, 1986 next meeting for consideration. favor. Motion carried. The vote was unanimously in CASE ~86-526: RECONSIDERATION OF VARTANCE FOR H.E. WOLNER. 2660 LAKEWOOD LANE The Building Official explained that Mr. Wolner has requested a 20 foot setback variance to the south property line. The Council discussed this variance to the public right-of-way. Mr. Wolner was present and also asked that the garage size be increased from 22' x 26' to 2q' x 26'. Councilmember Paulsen stated that he feels Mr. Wolner's lot is of sufficient size not to require a variance. Peterson moved and Smith seconded the following amendment to Resolution #86-111: RESOLUTION #g~-lqq RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #86-111 TO INCLUDE A 20 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE The vote was 3 in favor with Paulsen voting nay. Motion carried. CASE ~86-5q6: BERRY RETTKE. 17q2 RESTRAVEN. LOT 22. BLOCK 5~ ~RADlndOOD POINT~ PID #~2-~?-~ ~ 0022. FINAL SUBDIVISION The City Building Official explained the background of this request and the Planning Commission's recommendations. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-1q5 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVAL A FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 2~, 2q, AND 25, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #'S 13-117-2q 11 0033/003q/0.035, (17q2 RESTHAVEN LANE) - P & Z CASE NO. 86-5q6 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. GARE ~86-5q7: HENRY & JUNE RADINTZ. q89q EDGE"dATER DRIVE~ LOT 10~ SKARP & LINDOUIST'S RAVENSWOOD? PID 117-2q ql 0008. FRONT YARD SETBACK The Building Official explained the Planning Co'mmission recommendations and that the2 chose not to recognize the existing nonconforming accessory structure and fence. Paulsen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-1q6 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK, RECONSTRUCT A GARAGE WITH A 6 160 October lq, 1986 FOOT VARIANCE FOR LOT 10, SKARP & LINDQUIST*S RAVENSNOOD, PID ~1.3-117-24 4 1 0008, (4894 EDGEWATER DRIYE), P & Z CASE 86-547 The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. CASE ~86-54q: CHARLES WEED The Council moved this item to the end of the Agenda. APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING CONNIS~ION Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-147 RESOLUTION APPOINTING VERN ANDERSON TO THE PLANNING COMNISSION TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERN OF BOB BYRNES - TERN EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 1986 The' vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET BID DATE OPENINGS: SKIDSTEER LOADER. 1~ ~/q TON, 2 WHEEL DRIVE PICE-UP. AND 2. ~/4 TON. 4 WHEEL DRIVE PICE-UpS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by. Jessen to set November 7, 1986, at 10:00 A.M. for a bid opening for one (1), nee 1987 model, one-half yard skidsteer loader. The vote cas unanimously in favor. Motion carried. NOTION made by Smith, seconded by Paulsen to set November 7, 1986, at 10:00 A.N. for bid openings for one (1), nee 1987 model, 3/4 ton, 2 eheel drive, pick-up trucks and teo, (2), nee 1987 models, 3/4 ton, 4 eheel drive, pick-up trucks. The vote vas unanimously in favor. Notion carried. HENNEPIN COUNTY'ROAD 15 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City Manager explained that Hennepin County has notified the City of Mound that the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation has given a variance to the County for certain areas of County Road 15 to be 44' in width. They are asking however, that the City approve a 52' right-of-way from Commerce Blvd. to Wilshire Blvd. The City Engineer saw no problem with this action. NOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson directing the Staff to prepare a resolution to concur with the letter received from the Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation, da~ed October 7, 1986. Staff to bring the resolution back to the Council at the next meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. October 14, 1986 APPOINTMENT TO PARK COMMISSION Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-1~8 RESOLUTION APPOINTING SHIRLEY M. ANDERSON TO THE PARK COMMISSION TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF ROBIN MICHAEL - TERM EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 1986 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPOINTMENT TO H.R.A. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-149 RESOLUTION TO REAPPOINT JIM REGAN TO THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - TERM EXPIRES AUGUST 29, 1991 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION Smith moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-150 RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 4, 1986 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DISCUSSION: 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CITY OF MOUND The City Manager informed the Council that 1987 is the City of Mound's 75th Anniversary as a City. He has spoken with Harold Meeker of Mound City Days and would like to incorporate a celebration with that event. Harold Meeker was present and presented some of his ideas, ie. incorporating the celebration with the Fireman's Fish Fry as they did last year. The City Manager asked if the Council had any ideas. They decided to think about this and discuss it further at the next meeting. RESOLUTION REOUESTING CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN EASEMENTS ON TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY (LOT 6, BLOCK ~47 WYCHWOOD) The City Clerk explained this request. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-151 RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN EASEMENTS ON TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 162 October 1~, 1986 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Acting Mayor Peterson asked if there was anyone present who had a comment or suggestion for the Council. No one responded. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. NOTION made by Paulsen, seo°nded bY Jessen to approve the. payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $$75,771.79, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #86-q2. RELATING TO SIGNS AT THE MUELLER/ LANSING BUILDING (OLD SUPER VALU BUILDING) The Building Inspector explained that Brickley's Market (sign ~2) has requested a sign 3 feet x 16 feet instead of the 3 feet b2 12 feet. sign that was approved in Resolution 886-92. This sign would still be within the legal requirements for this building. Smith moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-152 RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION 886-92, ALLOWING SIGN ~2 TO BE 3 FEET BY 16 FEET IN SIZE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. September 1986 Department Head Monthly Reports. State Auditor's Report on Municipal Liquor Store for 1985 and the City of Mound's.'1985 Breakdown for the Municipal Liquor Store. C. REMINDER: Hennepin County Public Hearing RE: Waste Source Separation Ordinance. Proposed Solid D. REMINDER: Information Meeting on Public Works Facility sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Also a reminder that there will be another meeting similar to the League's Meeting at the Westonka Senior Center on October 30, 1986, at 9:30 A.M. CASE #86-5qq: CHARLES WEED. LOT 1. BLOCK 8~ WOODCREST? RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE AT q519 SHORELINE DRIVE~ SPRING PARK The Building Official reported on the background of th~s request and the condition of the home to be moved. There were 1,8 persons 163 October 14, 1986 present at the meeting and many spoke in opposition to the relocation of this home because it would not be in conformance with other homes in the area as it relates to building, plumbing, heating, electrical and other construction regulations of the City of Mound. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith directing the City- Attorney to prepare a resolution of denial for the request of Charles Weed to move the home at ~519 Shoreline Drive into the City of Mound. This resolution to be brought back to the Council at the next meeting for consideration. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Paulsen to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS OCTOBER 14, 1986 Batch 864094 .... Computer Batch 864095 .... Computer Run dated 10/4/86 Run dated 10/10/86 15,893.72 59,027.63 74,921.35 Unimin Corp ..... sand Boyum Equip ..... hose Contel Tele Ser¥---$ervice Call 56.56 738.14 55.74 Total Bills 75,771.79 33 406 2700 32 33 424 4759 Ol 33 439 2431 61 33~439 4400 91 33 439 4446 21 42 404 5569 32 33 463 4840 61 33 472 4548 61 33 475 4650 31 33 475 4679 21 33 484 3113 51 33 484 4821 23 33 484 4905 33 33 484 5109 13 33 487 4873 61 33 500 4455 21 33 506 3135 82 33 515 3073 21 33 518 4660 92 33 518 4717 72 33 545 4821 03 33 545 4823 65 33 554 3073 13 33 563 3021 11 33 563 32Ol 91 33 563 3225 81 33 569 4876 41 Delinquent water qnd sewer $ 86.32 81.56 )75.56 128.08 187.25 110.32 113.45 103.11 78.45 171.36 194.98 243.99 85.64 71.33 116.96 142.07 147.025 95.73 51.25 118.79 96.52 119.51 106.64 64.78 132.14 56.27 117.27 10:24-86 33 581 2933 O1 33 587 2933 O1 33 587 3061 61 33 587 4951 71 33 608 3207 91 33 590 5147 52 33 608 3105 O1 33 620 4556 32 33 620 4925 O1 33 620 4884 93 125.68 279.30 116.'00 98.25 116.63 'i81.56 106.96 '103.'98 102.24 90.'08 $45~7.03 33'.406 2700 32 33 424 4759 O1 33 439 2431 61 33 439.4400~91 · 33 439 4446 21 42'404 5569 32 33 463 4840 61 33 472 4548 61 33 475 4650 31 33 475 4679 21 33 ~%4' 3113 51 33 484 ~821 23 33 484 4905 33 ~Delinquent water qnd seweF $ 86,32 Sharon Austin Carol Grande Pd. $40.00· .i'~ 81.56 James Lassek !75.56 f' 128.08 Morgan & Ward V Brandenburg 1'87,25 Wm, Alexander 110,32 S. Hofschu'lt Pd by Chris.tian Ser~13.45 Paid Paid R. Johnson David'Miller Ron. Goodman Robert Wagstrom Robert Forrest Joe Fiedler 33 48~ 5109 13 Robert Al,len 33 ~87 4873 61 Jerry Olsen 33 ~00 4455 21 Donna Luguar 33 ~ 6 3135 82 T.J,Williams 33 515 3073 21 Mike Jacobs 33 ~18 4660 92 David. Lindgren 33 '518 4717 72 Charles Ham 33 545 4821 03 Steve Myers P~id Paid~ Pd. $50.00 33 545 4823 65 Brian Erickson 33 554 3073 13 Sandy Adeny ~~ 2~*~'~ 33 563 3021'~ 11 John Bohnen ~.~ ~z~ 33 363 3201 91 Keith Cook Pai~-' : 33 363 3225 81.Paul Jerecyek 33 569 4876 41 Gary Snyder Paid 103.11 78.45 171.36 194,98 85.64 71.33 116.96 142.07 147.027 95,73 ~51'.25 1'~ 8.79 96.52 119.51 106.64 64.78 132.14 56.27 ·117.27 .10-24-86 2700 Tyrone Ln. 4759 Galway. Rd. 2,431W'ilshire Blvd. 4400 Wilshire Blvd. 4446 Wilshire. Blvd. 556~ Shoreline Blvd. 4840 Bedford Ln. 4548 'Dorchester Rd. 4650 Manchester Rd. 4679 ManChester ,Rdt 3113' Tuxedo B!iVd. 4821WilshiFs'.Blvd. 4905 Tdx$~ B l~d. 5109 Tuxedo Blvd. 4873 Cumberland Rd. 4455 Radnor Rd. 3135 Ayr Ln, 3073 Inverness Rd. 4660 Hamptom Rd. 4717 Hampton Rd.~. 4821 Lanark Rd·. 4823 Lanark Rd. 3073 Dundee Ln. 3021 Devon Ln. 3201 Devon. Ln.' 3225 Devon Ln. 4876 Leslie Rd. 33 581 2933 01 Philiip Prbuty 33 587.2933' 01 Pat Barthel · 33 587 3061 61 33 587 4951· 7'1 '3~,~08 3207 91 Stan H~ 11 Gary ' Schleif Keith Johnson 33 590.514'7 52 Blake Ver¥il'le 33 608 3105.01 James Brown 33 620 4356 32 Scott Berglund 33 C{0 ~925 O1 Holmes Empson 33 620 4884 93 Fred Denn Paid Pard Pa i-d 125.68 279.30 '98.25 '1'06/96 '1~02.24 '90.'08 $3196.75 2933 Cambridge Ln. 2933 Brighton Blvd. 3061 Brighton Blvd. 4951 Brighton Blvd. 3207 Amhu'rst Ln. 5147 Windsor Rd. 3105 Amhurst Ln. 4556 I§'land View Dr. 4925 Island. View Dr. 5313 Piper Rd. RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOL~I~ GRANTING AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR THE TORO COMPANY/HOME IMPROVEMENT DIVISION AT 5340 SHORELINE BLVD. WHEREAS, Toro Company/Home Improvement Division (applicant) has applied for an Operations Permit to produce low voltage lighting, power outlet centers, electric trimmers and snowblowers which will occupy a total of 148,450 square feet (13,928 sq. ft. office, 33,500 sq. ft. manufacturing and 101,022 sq. ft. warehouse); and WHEREAS, electrical assembly operations are allowed by Operations Permit in Planned Industrial Areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. It is hereby determined that the Toro Company/Home Improvement Division electrical assembly operation is consistent with the criteria for granting Operations Permits found in Section 23.650.7 of the Mound zoning Code. 2. The Operations Permit is granted in accordance with the following conditions: Based upon an employment estimate of 150 per shift, Toro Company/Home Improvement Division is hereby assigned a total of 150 of the spaces in the Tonkawest Business Center's parking facilities. Outside storage including but not limited to raw materials, goods, delivery vehicles and trucks excluding those involved in loading or unloading is expressly prohibited. Ail off-street loading and unloading areas shall conform to the requirements of Section 23.717 of the Mound Zoning Code. The Toro Company/Home Improvement Division shall encourage its employees to utilize on-site surface lot parking. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk A. THOIVlAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A PEARSON, P.A. OANE$ D. I-ARSON, P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. ROGER ~1. FELLOWS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540;~ October 22, 1986 TELEI~HONE Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re.: Charles Weed - Relocation Request Dear Ed: You will recall that at the Council meeting on October 14, the City Council directed me to prepare a resolution of denial on the Charles Weed case. I have reviewed the documents presented by the Building Inspector and my notes from the various statements made by Council members who spoke in opposition to the request, and I have done my best to put together what I think our findings were for denying the request. I am sending a copy to Jan Bertrand and asking that she carefully review it, and then the two of you can make whatever corrections are deemed necessary, and when it is ready for presentation you can enclose it with the Council packet for their next meeting. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. CAP:Ih Enclosure cc: Ms. Jan Bertrand Ver~ruly yoursL Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF CHARLES WEED, CASE NO. 86-549 TO RELOCATE A STRUCTURE FROM SPRING PARK TO MOUND WHEREAS, Sections 26.161 through 26.167 of the Mound Code establish and set forth the requirements for moving a structure from one lot or parcel to another lot or parcel or from a point outside the City to a spot inside the City without City Council's approval of a permit to move such structure, and WHEREAS, Charles Weed has requested that a structure located at 4519 Shoreline Boulevard, Spring Park, Minnesota, be relocated to a proposed location at 2835 Halstead Lane, Lot 1, Block 8, Woodcrest, Mound, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, after the application was filed the City Building Inspector has on two occasions traveled to Spring Park, Minnesota, and has examined the structure on the 28th of August, 1986, and on the 10th of September, 1986, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector informed Mr. Weed that the structure had numerous problems and that any structure moved or relocated into the City of Mound would have to meet all provisions of the Building Code, and her report in part read as follows: "The exterior of the dwelling would require new stoops and entry stairways, the existing attached garage would be removed, the existing hardboard siding is in fair to poor condition and would be removed from the structure, the existing roof covering is in poor condition with the second floor indicating signs of water leakage, the brick chimney is deteriorated and would need to be removed at least to the roof line. The existing structure has aluminum combination storms and screens in poor condition with the windows being approximately 25 years of old, in need of putty,'paint, and some signs of rot deterioration. The exterior doors are in poor condition with the frames and storms needing replacement and repair. The rafters are 2 x 4 inches, 16 inch on center, with evidence of water penetration from the roofing and there is a sag in the roof from undetermined causes which sag is evident at the time of my inspection, possibly from improper ties to the dormer portion which was not visible at the time of my inspection. "The upper level sleeping rooms and bath were acoustical tile ceilings showing signs of water stain, panelling throughout hallway, bedrooms, with all painted woodwork needing repair. The windows in the upper level had no hardware handles nor locks. Interior doors and hardware were in poor condition throughout the upper level. The second floor floor joists were 2 by 10, 16 inches on center." After commenting on all other portions of the structure, the Building Inspector informed the applicant that it would be her recommendation that the City Council not allow the structure to be relocated into Mound, and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decision of the Building Inspector and asked to have the matter referred to the Planning Commission, which body considered the case on October 6, 1986, and the Planning Commission during its discussion with Mr. Weed brought out that the Building Inspector had pointed out to him that he would have to meet the Energy Code by conforming with the R-38 minimum and with the old construction it was very difficult to remodel and to meet that standard, and the Building Inspector thought the building would have to be resided to put in more insulation. The Planning Commission asked why the applicant would not put the money into a new structure rather than bringing an old structure from another community, and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated to the Planning Commission and to the City Council that he feels he can save a substantial amount of money if he can relocate the old home, even if he is required to make extensive repairs, and WHEREAS, Section 26.163 of the City Code requires that any building or structure being moved to the City must conform with the building, plumbing, heating, electrical, and other construction regulations of the City relating to new structures, and also provides in part as follows: "No such building or structure shall be moved to a location within the City unless it will conform to the zoning regulations of the City, will conform to the front yard and other setback and lot area requirements, and will be a building or structure of the same general character and appearance as other buildings and structures in the vicinity. The City Council shall determine whether or not such a building or structure will be permitted at the proposed location., and WHEREAS, 34 residents of Woodcrest in Mound have appeared before the City Council and have pointed out that this is a new subdivision which has all new construction located within the subdivision except one lot which contains a structure that was moved into the neighborhood from outside places, and it is their belief that said structure is not compatible with the general character and appearance of other buildings or structures in the neighborhood and that a number of the residents have gone and inspected the old structure which is being proposed to be brought into the City, and they feel that it is totally out of character with the City and would need such extensive repairs that it would not make sense to allow it to be relocated into Mound, and WHEREAS, the matter was referred to the Mound Planning Commission on October 6 who heard the various arguments and recommended to the Council that the relocation be allowed but that a performance bond in the amount of $100,000 be required to guarantee that all the repairs that are necessary would be completed, and WHEREAS, the City Council heard this matter on October 14, 1986, and heard from residents in the area and the applicant was not present at the time of the meeting, although the Council is advised that he did appear after the Council had adjourned, and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the findings of the Building Inspector were correct and that the structure proposed to be relocated was totally incompatible with the neighborhood and the construction of the area, and they directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution containing the findings of the City Council and the Building Inspector as it relates to a denial of this permit, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The application of Charles Weed, who resides at 600 North Lilac, Apartment 100, Golden Valley, MN 55446, to relocate a structure from 4519 Shoreline Boulevard, Spring Park, Minnesota, to the City of Mound, proposing to locate said structure at a property located at 2835 Halstead Lane, which is legally described as Lot 1, Block 8, Woodcrest, Mound, is hereby denied for the following reasons: a. The structure in its present state has substantial evidence of structural defects of a considerable magnitude. Water damage in the upstairs area and in other areas of the house indicates substantial problems as it relates to its condition, and the evidence of water penetration from the water and from a sag in the roof from undetermined cause indicates a substanCially deteriorated structure. b. The requirement that all the hardboard siding be removed and that the property be brought to energy efficiency conforming with an R-38 minimum is very difficult to accomplish with old construction, and that this would require residing and insulating the structure, all of which would be extremely expensive and time consuming and disruptive to the neighborhood. c. The existing structure has aluminim combination windows which are old and require a substantial amount of work and also show rotting around the windows creating again the impression that this is a substandard structure, that the exterior doors are in poor condition with the frames and storms needing replacement and repair, and indicates that this structure has been poorly maintained over the years and that any remodeling or revisions at this time would require extremely large amounts of time on the part of the Building Inspection Department and others to assure that all the codes and other things are met. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.163 of the City Code, it is hereby determined by the City Council that the proposed relocation of this structure would result in creating a situation in a neighborhood which would not be compatible and that the proposed structure would not meet the general character or appearance of this subdivision, and that the property should not be allowed to be constructed or reconstructed at this location. 3. No hardship has been shown by the owner of this property other than the economics to justify the issuance of this relocation, and that is not determined to be a hardship under the- terms of the ordinance. The Council therefore finds that no showing was made that a hardship exists and the property owner can construct a new structure on the property in a manner which is consistent with the building ordinances applicable to all other properties in the area and all other construction in the area. 4. It is hereby determined that the granting of this permit would be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and of abutting properties, and would affect the property rights of current and future residents of the community who are to be protected by the uniform set of building standards applicable to all other properties in the community. The Council further finds the requested permit is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Building Code and the relocation provisions of the City Code. Attest: Mayor City Clerk CASE NO. 86-54~ TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Agenda of October 6, CASE NO. 86-549 APPLICANT: Charles Weed LOCATION: LEGAL DESC.: SUBJECT: EXISTING ZONING: The applicant, Charles Weed, is requesting that the structure at 4519 Shoreline Boulevard, Spring Park, be relocated into the City of Mound. I have attached the Ordinance Provision 26.163 which requires Planning Commission and City Council approYal for house relocation into the City of Mound. I am forwarding the inspection report which I had previously given to Mr. Charles Weed. I would suggest that the contractor provide a performance bond in the amount of $80,000. if the Planning Commission and City Council allow the home to be re- located into the City. of Mound. The performance bond would be to cover the remodeling necessary, the site grading, and general utility improvements to the structure. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 1986 Case No. 86-549 Request'to'.move.structure from 4519 Shoreline Boulevard, Spring Park into the City ofHound - Proposed location 2835 Halstead Lane, Lot ), Block 8, Woodcrest of. Mound Charles Weed was present. ~ The Building Official, Jan Bertrand,.stated that she has reviewed the site where home is.to be moved and-ta)ked with Mr. Weed about the proposal after looking at the structure. In her Inspection 'Letter, some of the items listed are common to every house (.Items .l through 7); then she got into the structural part of the review. The house would have to meet the current building code. Because of the amount of work involved, her feeling was that it was not economically feasible to move the house and her recom- mendation is that home not be allowed to be 'relocated into Mound. She ad¥ised..MK. Weed that he could appeal that decision. She stated that if the Planning Commission 'did recommend bringing in the home, she would 'recommend that a performance bond be required for site grading, utility Improvements, necessary remodeling, etc. ' Hr. Weed exP)ained his plans; outside is much the same as it is now except the back of the home would be even with the second floor. He would put dormers on the front to break up the roof llne. He plans 'sometime in future to brick the front and would put in a brick ledge. House with a finished basement would be about 4100 square feet. Kitchen and familyroom were com- pletely remodeled in )977; also master bedroom was enlarged with a new bath. For now, the basement would not be finished. One first floor bath would be gutted out and used for storage area for his office. Commission questioned, with all of the work and costs, why not build brand neW2 Weed stated his estimates run $70,000 and he believes a new same sized home would cost over $50,000 more. The Building Offic|al stated he~d have to meet. the energy code by conforming with the R-38 minimum and with the old construction, it was really difficult to remodel and meet that; her thought in re-siding was to put in more in- sulation. The Commission discussed the home,.that the cost of total repairs was not their concePn except that they need a bond to cover costs., and whether or hot it would fit into the neighborhood, it was noted that no neighbors were present. .~eed stated that he'plans to'live in the home. Hichael moved and Ken Smith seconded a motion to approve the relocation of the house into the City providing it meets code and there is a per- formance bond in the amount of $100,000. The vote was unanimously in favor. ~Hotion carried. This will be on the Council Agenda of October 14, 1986. of MOUND CITY (612) 472-1155 TO: FROH: DATE= SUBJECT~ Charles ~eed,'600 North Lilac, Apt. 100, Golden Val'le¥, MN.' 55qq6 Jan Bertrand, Buildl.ng 0fflcial~o. 521-1322 · September 12, 1986 ~ ' Inspection of home at q51~ Sh°r~line Orive, Sp~ng Park, Hinnesota, to be moved Into the City of Hound When a structure is moved o.r relocated, it must conform to the requirements for a new struCtUre under the provisions of the Uniform Building.Code, State of Hlnnesota,~ Section lOq. ! have made an inspection on September loth and August 28th of the structure and I have found the following alterations, replace- ments and repairs which'must be made to thls structure, if relocated into the City of Hound. 1. A moving permit for the Clty of Hound would be obtained by a State licensed house mover in the amount of $$0.00 plus proof of insurance and cash deposit or bond to move structures over CiXy streets. 2. Yard grading including sodding, Sidewalks, new house entry'stoops are to be provided. 3. A new foundation would be required under thls structure with beam and sup- port system in compliance with the Building Code; the structure would be properly anchored, damp proofing applied, and foundation insulation properly placed where necessary. q.' Construction blueprints would be required to permit approval of the alter- ations to floor plan, heating layout, survey, information as per attached; a cross section, foundation, energy calculations as per new construction information is attached for your convenience. 5. The new site would require 2 off street parking stalls (650 square feet of area minimum); the survey would require an indication of the future garage if an accessory building were not planned at the time of the building re- location. 6, Provide a new basement stairways and handrails to code. 7- Insulation of the structure must met model energy code, 1~82 Edition of the State Building Code (see attached energy calculation worksheet). Due to the amount of work required to bring the inspected structure up to current building code requirement, it is my recommendation that the building not be relocated into the City of Hound. Ar, euual o[~portun=ty' Em~,ovef lhat Ooes not ~scr~rn. inate on the basis o! face. color, national origin, or hand~cappeCl status . ' .......... ,_ ~. ,.~t~,~, ~, =rn~lnvrn~nf in ~!s =roarams and activities. LETTER TO: Charles.Weed September 12, 1~86 - Page The exterior, of. the dwel 1 ing ~'~uld' recju] ~e.new Stoops..and,entry~ stal nvays, the existing attached garage .~'ould. be removed, .the.existing hardboard'siding Is In'falr..to.poor condition and ~vouid-.b.e removed' from the. structure~-.the exl st Ing ' roof. coveri ng I s l.n :poop ~'.~:ondl t io.n..wi th ' the second floor i'ndlcat~ ng ~lgns of water leakage, the brlck.ch.imne¥ Is' deteriorated-andwould, need to be removed at':least, to the roof line,. The.ex.lstlng structure, has aluminum · combination stohns and .screens In poor ~ondlt]on wLth the'.windo~s:. being approxi- mately 25 years,.otd In 'need of putt¥,,',pa'l, nt~:and.~o.me .signs of rot:..deterloratlon, exter]'or'doors are' In poor' .condition'-wi'th th.e frames and storms..needlng .repl.ace- ment and repal:r, :The' rafters .ar~ 2 .by ~,. 16 Inch'o~ center; w.lth.evidence ot~. water penetrat.lon? from. the roofl:ng .arld'.a-. sag~..l..n the .roof- from. undetermined cause IS evident, at' the'tlme of'..my'.:l.nspe~ti-on-, posslbly',.from improper'"ties tO the dormer' portion that was.not":.vlslble at .the time. of my ins. pectlon. The upper level' sleepl.ng'.roe.ms an.d..:l~ath ~vere acous'ti'ca'l tl.4e cel l~gs..showlng signs of water'sta!n,"pane!.!.ng thro. ughout:.ha! 1way, bedrooms.,' ~lth .ail painted woodwork .needlng'.r&palr,. The wlndows:-!i~ .the upper level .had .no hardware handles nor locks.' Interior doors and hardware'were. In poor ~6ndi:tlon throughout' the upper level, The second floOr fl')or Joists ~vere. 2 by 10, .1~. inch'on center'. ~/aste 'and' vent :Piping, water Piping, .~ater heater and .existing. gas piping were in good to. fait condition. .All .sewer. and: ~a'ter connectlons'.lnto .the .home. must meet Nlnnesota'Plumbl.ng Code mtn~mum'"stan~lard' for rie~ ~onstructlon. Al 1 elect'fica! .wi ring' must-, meet 'current -1~8Zl Nat[onai..~.lect~lci'Code'; lnsta.11 ground fault i'nterrup.t~o~.where requ'i red, 20' amp. kitchen c1 rcu! t, 3 e~ectrical ly wired'smoke aiarms adjacent tO sleeping areas"and .Tn basement wlth interconnec- ti'on, etc. The forced air gas furnace,.'alr ConditiOning, ~um. ldifier and .air cleaner are approxlmatel.y;)O .years old. 13~BTU furnace ~vould-require testing of. the' heat exchanger' by a l lcensed contractor: to assure the heat exchanger is in good conditlon as ~ve11 'as' a11- safety contro'ls on the heating plant for .proper opera- tion of the' furnace 'Including installatlonof a combustion air. duct from the outside,T/'The.;flrst floor.bathroom toward the nort. h bedroom ~vould require corn-' plete removal'.and' reno~ation, The'floor coverings are In. good to fair condi- tion. The.k|tchen.cupl~oa'rds and appliances are in good condition. The wood- work and doors-would need to be sanded, varnished and/or pain.ted tw~ coats. The fireplace was fire damaged in ~977. A permit ~vas obtained for repair. The structure had .an addition put on. in 1~77 according to Spring Park permit records. During my last Inspect]on.of September'lOth, I mentioned to you that my decision would be not to allow the home to'be relocated into.Hound. However, you would have the option of appealing my decision to the City Council. If you choose to go before the City Councll with your request, please contact our City Hanager~s office, Hr. Ed Shukle. He will arrange for you to hav~ a hearing before the City Counc!l. If I can be of any further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at my office, ~72-1155. Division 2. Chapter 26 - Part A Page 3f app~o, vea ~y the Commissioner of Natural 'Resources prlor to ~.doption. Changes in.' th~ Official Zoning Map relating to flood plain also require prior approval. b~ .th~ Federal Ihsur-~-Dce Aami'nistration. · (Ordj 386 9-27-78) "'- SECTION 26,0.7., Bu'~]din.q Permit~; 'Fees· Each appl';catlon shall be accompanied b,~ a fee in the amount set forth in-Eectlon 303 of the Un. lform Building Cod-_. Speclal inspections upon a request not covered by permit va]u'ations as termlned under Section 303 of the UBC are to be charged at a rate of $Z5.00 per man per inspection or at a rate determined by the Building Inspector to cover any cost incurred by the City's Building Inspection Department. In addition to the aforementioned fees the City sha]l co]leer a Plan Check.Fee ~n the amount of one-half (1/2) of the Building Permit Fee. The app-licunt shall also pay to the City, for remittance to the State of Minnesota, ;:~l 'surcharges as required pursuant to Hinnesota Statutes, ·Section 16.866 other State laws or regulations. A11 fees ~hal] be payab, le to the. Cir'. Treasurer.' (Ord ~82' 6-28-78) ' SECTION 26.08 Building Permlts, Expiratlon. Repealed by Ord. ~3~ -6/19/75} SECTION 26.10 SECTION '26.15 Certi'f'icate 'of Occupancy, Required. ~Repealed by Ord. 3~6 - 6/19/75 Special Inspection, ~'alver. Repealed by Ord. ~'~6 - 6/19/75 · SECTION 26.16'1 ]~.ermit 'reou{red~ Building Moving - Fee_ lawful l'o~ an~ person, f~rm or corporation to move arc' building or s%ruc~ ' tur~ ~nto the_Village of Nounal from ar~ ~lace outside the Village of Mound, or wholly within the Village of l.lound fro~ .one lot or pa.rc&l 'to another,.. or from the Village to a point outside the Village w.ithout first making' : application to the Building InspectOr and securing a permit therefor as hereinafter provided. .Upon .making application for a p.ermit to move sdch building, there shall be .paid a fee of $5.O0 for garages and small out · . buildings without living quarters' and of $50.00 for all other buildings · or structures. Said fee 'shalI be refunded if the permit is re~used. SECTION 26.162. permit. Requirement, ExcePt.ion- },'o moving permit 'Shall be' 'required for the movin~ of"a~ building or ~tructure smaller in' size tbmn .. the following dimensions: .8 feet. high, 10 feet wide:and 15 feet. . .long;. sEcTION 26[16% C.onformit,¥ of B~ilding or ~tructure to Buildin~ Code ' Required - Whe~ther or riot's permit is required, no building or st'~cture ~hal'l b~ moved to a location within this village unless it conforms the. buildi~g, plumbing, heating, electrical and other construction regula- · tions' of this village relating to new struct%~res. In addition to 'con formity wi~h the applicable code or codes, as minimum requirement, plx~mbing for such building or .structure shall l~e by. a li.c~nsed master, ..... pluz~ber, and residential buildinu8, shall have a 100 ampere settee. If · construction, alterations or repair work on such build.lng or stl-uctucce ': 9ill b~ necessary to make it, conform, to such regulation, s~ permits for s~ch Chapter 25 - Part A Page 3g york. shall be obtained before such bui~din& or st~ctu:e is moved, .v~ich pe~ts s)~all make provision for the doi~ of ~ch ~or~ ~ithin 90 days after such b~l~ing o~ st~,cture ~a located in this V~llage. Faille to ~e such buil~in~ or st~ct~e co~o~ to such const~ction ~e~lations ~ith~ such ~O-day periqd shall ~onstitute a violatAon of thi4 ordinance, · a~d each day that s~zch ~iolation Ja continue~ afte~ such ~0-day ~hall constitute a moparate of~cnse. )~o such pe~it shall be ~anted except upon order of the Village Oo~cil after favorable reco~endatiom ' upom the applAcation ~y the Village Pla~t~ 0o~ssion. ~e Village Co~cil ~y, at its discretion, require a public heari~ together adver~is~ notice of hea~i~g for its consideration towa~ the ~antJng denial of ~ch pe~i~. ~o such buil~ o~ stickle shall ~e'moved ~ a loca~ within the Village ~less it will confo~ to the zoning re~a- ~ions of the Village, will confo~ to the fron~yar~ an~ o~he~ setback an~ lot area requirements, an~ will be a buildi~ o~ st~ct~e of the same general character and' appear~ce as otbe~ ~ildi~s o~ s~ct~es in the vlcJni~y. ~e Village Oo~cil s~ll demesne whe~be~ or no~ such ~uil~- lng or st~c~u~e will be per, fred at the propose~ location. SECTION 26.164 Application,- Insurance, Inspection, Cond/tions~ Bond In the application required by this ordinance, the applicant shall' furnish the ~uilding Inspector with such information as he may require concerning the size, location, method of construction, type of building or structure, proposed location, the equipment proposed to be used in th~ moving, the proposed route, the proposed length of time that the building will be upon the Village streets, the days and hours when such moving 'is to be made, the financial responsibility of the applicant and the insurance protection '- carried by the applicant. The application shall be accompanied by ~ proposed route and timetable of the move approved by the Village Chief of Police, Village ~ngineer, and gas, electric, and telephone utility companies as at such time are doing business within the Village. The application shall alAo be accompanied by a copy of an insurance policy insuring against liability'for personal in- jury or death occurring .in the course of such moving with limits of lia- bility not less than ~150~000.O0 for each individual and $3.00,000.00 for each o~currence and against liability for property damage with limits of liability no.t less than $~O,000.00 each occurrence. The aPPlication shall be required to be' accompanied by a plat of the proposed location showing the proposed location with reference to the property lines and building in' the vicinity. (Ord. 3~'5 - 4-11-74) The applicant shall give access to said building or structure to the Build- ing Inspector for the purpose of inspection and shall permit the Building Inspector to inspect the equipment .to be used in SUC.h moving. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-11,55 TO: .Edward Shukle, City Manager FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official DATE: October 23, 1986 SUBJECT: 1959 Shorewood Lane Ken Larson and Bonnie Cornell I have attached a request from Ken Larson and Bonnie Cornell to revise the requirements under the attached Resolution 85-121, Item 8, requiring that the structures be brought up to current Building Code. The schedule for the extension is on their letter. Possibly the City could require a performance bond or an agreement letter requiring these improvements or the City could remove the structure. Curt Pearson could advise the City Council on the matter. Please forward to the City Council. JB/ms Attachments An equal o pp~,rtuni!y E m~'!oyer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to. or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. SonCor Investments - Ke~ Larson & Bonnie Cornell 16508 Hidden Valley Rd. Minnetonka, Mn. 55345 " TO: FROM: Mound City Council SonCor Investments RE: Request to Amend Resolution 85-121, dated 10/7/85 Proposed repair of house,,at' 1959 Shorewood Lanet Mound; Mn? Up grade electric service to 100 AMPS.~~~~~c~. Replace furnace and have proper duct work installed. Bring plumbing up to code. Patch existing footings and foundation. ~'~~, Shingle garage roof, replace garage windows and ,z Remove dead tree and debris' from lot. ~0~°~ Fill in hole under sidewalk and repair. sheet rock garage'wall. propose 3 year extenstion to: PUt 4 foot frost footings under house, which would also level floor. Repair roof structure. October ?, 1985 RESOLOTION NO. 85-1.21. ~. requirements contained --. filed with the City of RESOLUTION TO CONCUR Wi'TH THE PLANNING COMMI'SSTON TO APPROVE THE LOT SUBD~ISION ~D LOT ~IZE VARI~CE LOT~ ~5~ 16~ AND ~7~ BLOC~ ~ SH~OOD POINT~ P~ 18-1!7-23 23 00~0 A~ 00~1 (1959 SHOR~OOD LANE) WHEREAS, Cre~h and Cheryl Thompson, appl~can~ and owners of the propert~ desoribed as Lots ~5, ~6, and ~7,_Block ~hadywood Point, have applied for subd~vision of Lot ~6 and lot. size variances in order to construct a new dwe11~n~ for ~/~ of Lot ]6 and Lot ~5 and ~/~ of.Lo~ ~6. and Lo~ ~?; and .. NHEREA3~ Exhibit '"A" has also been' submitted ~o indEca~e. the requested subdiv~s~on and lot s~ze .variances;. and ' WHEREAS, ~he C~ty' Code requires a lot size of ~0,000 square feet of a~.ea in the R-~ Zonin~ Distr~ct; and WHEREAS, an appl~cation to waEv~~ the subd~vis~on in Section ~R.00 of the City Co~e has been Mound b~ the. applicant~ Crei~h and Sher~l Thompson; and -~' - '- .. WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the Planning.. commission, and...the City Council;. . and · ._ .] ~/HEREAS, it:is here~y dete~ined that there are special -- circumstances effecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive' the owner .of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver, is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right;. and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious .to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ci.ty. Council of' the City of Mound, .Minnesota: i. The request of the'City of Mound for a waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less that 5 acres, described as follows:- Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point, is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner; Parcel A. Lot 15 and 1/2 of Lot 16, Block 7, Shadywood Point and Parcel B. Lot 17 and 1/'2 of Lot 16, Block ?, Shadywood Point; upon the condition that: A survey be submitted of the boundaries, area and' legal description of the newly created parcels plus utility connections for the existing structure and the newly created site. October 17~ 1~85 2. The and subdivided Lot, 16, 1/2 to .Lot 17. be combined 1/2 to Lot 15 The lot size variance be limited to 2,668 square feet (plus or minus) for Parcel B and 1.965 square feet (plus or minus) for Parcel A shown on Exhibit "A". 0 Any deficient unit charges be paid or assessed to the newly created site. No park dedication fees be assessed against the newly created site. The subdivision must be filed with the County RecOrder or the Hennepin Register within 180 days. · Variance approval is valid for one year. Hennepin of Titles The existing accessory building shown on Lot. 15 code. building and-. principal be brought up to current It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute development and ;t d;;irable and stable community in harmony with the adjacent properties- The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy' of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles of Henne~in County to show compliant with the subdivision regulations of the City. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and se'oonded by Mayor Polston. : 'The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Peterson abstained. Mayor Attest: City Clerk n:l. o o I ' " 77 Hay 27~ 1986 PUBLIC HEARING: D£LINOUENT UTILITY' BILLS The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was 'anyone present who wished to address the Council regarding a delinquent utility bill. No one responded.. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council then moved to item ~4 on the Agenda. -CASE #8~-~27: CREIGH & CHERTL THOMPSON. CLARIFICATION OF RES. · 8~-1R1. SUBDIVISION & LOT SIZE VARIANCE. LOTS 16. & 17. BLOCK 7. SHADI~/OOD POINT "- shown on Lot 15 be brought up to current building code." correction will be made to the resolution. The Council then moved to item #6 on the Agenda. .. CASE ~86-~1~:: RICHARD J. WILLIAMS. LOTS ~. 1~ &']~. BLOCK ~. The Building Official stated that ~8 in Resolution ~85-121 reads as follows: "The existing accessory building and principal building shown on Lot 15 be brought up to current code." The applicants and the staff are asking for clarification on whether the Council ~eant "zoning code or building code". After discussion the Council stated that item 88 should .Fead as roi.lows: "The existing accessory building and principal building The " ' : W~IPPLE; MINOR LOT SPLIT/SUBDI¥ISION.-~I~ WIND'OK The Building Official explained that the applicant has requested a lot split/subdivision as shown on Exhibit "A" or "B"i Staff and the Planning Commission are recommendin~ the plan Exhibit "A" which would brin~ one parcel to 5,930 square fee~ (within 10~ of the required 6,000 square feet) and would require .' the existing home on Lot 14 to be ·removed ~o allow the division line .through. the west portion of the house. The topography on Lbt 13 has a'n approximate slope of 10 to 12~ and this ~ould no~ be allowed, to increase. The Buildin~ Official also reoommended that the driveway entrance for Lot 13 be restrieted-.to Windsor Road. The o~her recommendations are in .the proposed resolution on Pages 1024 and 1025 of the paoket. M~. Reuben Hartman asked i~ ~here would only be one drivway for the two pareels. The Buildint Official answered ihat ~here would be 2 separate driveways, one on eaeh Pe~erson moved and Smith seconded the followin~ resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-58 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMHISSION RECOMMENDATON AND APPROVE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 13, AND 15, BLOCK 1~, WHIPPLE, PUD ~25-117-2~ 21 0151 (5144 WINDSOR ROAD) PLANNING COMMISSION CASE ~86-515 A. 'rHOHA$ ~VuFIST, P.A. CURTIS A. PI='AR$ON, P.A. ~,IAIME:5 O. L.AR$ON, P.A. THOMAS F'. UNDE:I~WOO0, P.A. RO~lrlq ~. F'II'LLOWS LAW OIr F'ICr $ WURST, PEARSON, I.ARSON & UNDERWOOD MINN~_APOLI$, MINNI='.~C)TA S$,4.O2 October 22, 1986 (6l~) 338-4~O0 Mr. John Cameron McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55441 Re: Cobblestone Cove Dear John: I have reviewed the scenic easement you have presented for Cobblestone Cove. I am sending a copy to Ed Shukle, and so far as I am concerned if this carries out your recommendations for this sensitive environmental area, then the City should agree to the terms of the easement. The way it is drafted, they in effect ask the City to authorize accepting the easement with these terms included, and I am therefore recommending to Mr. Shukle that this be on the agenda for the Council meeting on October 28 with a motion to approve the scenic easement and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute said easement as a part of the Cobblestone Cove subdivision. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. City Attorney CAP:Ih cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager SCENIC EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE made this day of , 1986 by and betweenDunkley Investments, a Minnesota Partnership comp- osed of William M. Dunkley and Byron J. Dunkley, owners, and ASHco Partners, a Minnesota Partnership composed of Hans G. Wald- enstrom and Orvi. n B. AskeIand, contract purchaser, and .Park Nat- ional Bank, a federally chartered Savings Bank, a United States of America Corporation, mortgagee of the following described pro~ petty, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," and the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City." WHEREAS, Grantor is the fee owner of the real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as That part of Block I lying North of aiine 22.00 feet North and parallel with the North line of Block 2, and extending from the West line of Block 1 to the shore of Lake Minnetonka,"Minne- sota Baptist Summer Assembly". WHEREAS, Grantor has platted said property into a subdivis- ion entitled COBBLESTONE COVE; and WHEREAS, Grantor and City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to City a scenic easement for conservation and preservation of the terrain and vegetation, and to prohibit cer- tain acts destructive thereof, over a portion of the plat legally described as: That part of Lots 1-6, Block 1, C°bblestone Cove, lying East- erly of a;~line~t~5~O~feet,~:eas.~!:o~ to and parallel with the westerly line of said Cobblestone Cove. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises ¢o~t~ned herein, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. Grantor hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys tO City and its successors and assigns an easement in, under on and over the easement area, hereinafter referred to as the -Scenic Easement,:' and City hereby.accepts the Scenic Easement. 2. The Scenic Easement is granted and accepted subject to the following terms and conditions: A. The easement area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be planted upon the easement area, and no trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be removed from the easement area without the prior written consent of City. B. No building, road, sign, billboard, utility or other man-made structure shall be placed ~n the easement area without the prior written consent of City. C. Grantor assumes the obligation of maintaining the easement area, subject to the provisions hereof. D. No trash, waste or other offensive material, soil or landfill shall be placed upon or within the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. E. No change in the general topo.graphy of the easement area landscape, including but not limited to excavation, dredging, movement or -2- Fe removal of soil, shall be made without the prior written consent of the City, except that construction of stairs 48" in width maximum will be permitted. ' The duration of the Scenic Easement is perpetual. 3. This agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties their successors and assigns. ' 4. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of City now held or hereafter acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the ease- ment area. CITY OF MOUND DUNKLEY INVESTMENTS' By By.__ Its By By Its Its Its ASHco PARl~NERS By (. "Its By Its PARK NATIONAL BANK By Its By Its -3- STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986, by and , respectively the and of Dunkley Investments~ ...." a part- nership, on behalf ot the partnership. Notary Pub! STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986, by and , respectively the and of ASHco Partners, a partnership, on behalf of the partnership. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Notary PubllC The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986, by and , respectively the and of Park National Bank,a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986, by and , respectively the and of City of Mound, a Minnesota municipa! corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Publlc -4- October 28, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION APPROVING HENNEPIN COUN~ PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR CSAH NO. 15 WHEREAS, Hennepin County has presented a preliminary layout of CSAH 15 improvement reflecting the City Council,s resolution passed on January 24, 1984; and WHEREAS, the County intends to seek County State Aid- funding for this project, which would require a variance from State Aid standards from the Minnesota Department of Transportaion; and WHEREAS, it is understood that since January 24, 1984, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has approved the improvement project, stipulating that the street width be 44 feet between CSAH 110 and CSAH 19, except for the area between Commerce Blvd. and Wilshire Blvd. where the street width, must be 52 feet; and WHEREAS, it is also understood that no parking will be permitted on either side of the roadway between CSAH 110 and CSAH 19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approves the preliminary plan for the improvement of CSAH 15. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The foil.owing Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 TTY935-6433 October ?, 1986 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 53 41Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota, 55364 CSAH 15 FROM CSAH 110 TO CSAH 19 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT 8024 Dear Mr. Shukle= Thank you for sharing some time to revlew the CSAH 15 layout with members of my staff and I last Frlday. As we discussed, I am enclosing the letter from Commissioner Braun which grants the variance from State Aid Standards for CS^H 15 from CS^H 110 (Commerce Boulevard) to CSAH 19 (Shadywood Road). It permlts a street width of 44', wlth no parking, Instead of the required 52'; except that 52' shall be provided between Wlllshlre and Commerce Boulevards. As we explained on Friday, the resolution (~84-179) passed on October 23, 1984 by the Mound City Councll approves a preliminary layout showlng a 44' roadway wldth from approxlmately 300' east of the post office to Cypress Lane. My staff assures me that a 52' roadway can be constructed on the proposed allgnment .but to provide the typlcal section l.e., 52' roadway wlth 5' berms and 5' sidewalks on each side, additional right of way ls necessary along the south side. We are currently preparing detall plans for this project and want to proceed without any uncertaintles about our desl§n. Therefore, we are asking for an assurance from the City of Mound that we can proceed with a 52' roadway on this segment of the project without any repercussions· Please advlse me accordingly. If I can be of further assistance or if you want me to meet with you, please let me know. BMP :mak HENNEPIN COUNTY cc; V, T, Genz I I nger · P. E · an equal oppodunify {mployer Assoc. County Administrator and County Engineer ,M in nc.,-;ota Dct'~artrncn! oI' Tran~l-)ortation l~,t~il¢ling SI. l-'~ul. ,'kli~'~t'lt':.-;()li~ 55155 0111( '(' t)l C(TIllIITI.%.~I( )! u'r August 7, 1985 Vern Genzlinger Hennepin County Highway Engineer 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 In reply refer to: Request for Variance Dear Mr. Cenzlinger: Upon the advice of a Variance Committee appointed expressly for the purpose of recommending to me the validity of Hennepin County's request for a variance from State Aid Rules § 8820.9912, I hereby grant the variance so as to permit a street width of 44 feet with no parking except that the full 52 feet, with no parking, shall be provided west of Willshire Boulevard to Commerce Boulevard. The variance is conditional upon receipt of a resolution by the County of Hennepin that indemnifies, saves and holds harmless the State of Minnesota and all its agents and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of actions of any nature or character arising out of or by reason of, in any manner, the reconstruction of Shoreline Boulevard (CSAH 15) from Commerce Boulevard in Mound to Shadywood Road in Orono, in any other manner than as a 52' wide street with no parking when undivided or a 68' wide street with no parking when a 14 foot median is present in accordance with the Minnesota Rules § 8820.9912 and further agrees to defend at their sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising as a result of the .granting of this variance. Sincerely, Richard P. Braun Commissioner Ted ~ff~am- ~e~nepio County C.E. Wel¢imelba,,m, Dist. File ..l,t Eq,a! Opp,,rttt,t:t3' Eraployer MOUND CITY DAYS CELEBRATION 75th YEAR JUNE 13, 1987 Events arranged for celebration so far: 1. Around Mound 5 Mile Run - early am 2. Parade - approximately 11:OO am 3. Choosing of "Miss Mound Queen" 4. Canine. Oog Show 5. A1 & Alma's Boat rides 6. Craft booths and like 7. Firemen's show 8. Gymnastics show' 9. Kid's events 10. Oldest and youngest events 11. Drawing of door prizes Days events will close with Firemen's Fish Fry and dance following. PARADE UNITS - Mound High School Band, Sr. Citizens Kitchen Band, Waconia School Band, Drum and Bugle corps from the U of M, Shriner's Cycle corps, floats from business places and school. MOUND ALUMNI REUNION - Will be taking a part in the events, plans pending. TENTATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE GRAND MARSHALLS OF THE PARADE - Lt. Governor, Marlene Johnson; Patty Andrews of the Andrew Sisters SPEAKERS WILL BE NEEDED TO SPEAK ABOUT MOUND BEING 75 YEARS OLD, the city will be decorated.for the festivities. FOOD VENDORS WILL BE NEEDED FOR POP, ICE CREAM, HOT DOGS, ETC. PARADE ROUTE - is to be planned upon the return of Police Chief, Len Harrell. CELEBRITIES - Have had inquiries from SHOW BIZ entertainers to be a part of our celebration! HOPEFULLY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL APPROVE ALL PLANS WITH ENTHUSIASM! AND BE A PART OF THE PARADE AND THE CELEBRATION ..... PUBLICITY - Already sent to the Minnesota Department of Tourism, U of M Minnesota Magazine MDRA race calendar. All interested parties contact Chairperson Harold Meeker at 472-6682, or Mound City Hall 472-1155, or Mound Police Department 472-3711. Next meeting of Mound City Days Committee and interested persons is ~ber/17,/j1986, 7:00 PM, in the Council Chambers. Ed ukle City Manager CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SUBDIVISION OF LAND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public hearing at the City Hall, $3ql Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, at 7:30 P.M. on Tues- day, December ~,.]9~6, to consider the subdivision of land located West of Inverness Lane and south of Palsley Road described as follows' Lots. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 25, 26 and 27 and the NOrtheasterly 115 feet of Lots 15 and 16, all in Block 8, Pembroke, Hennepin County, Minnesota PID Numbers 19-117-23 33 o07o/o06q/o057/0058/0o59/0o60 Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C~-CiaFk, City C~-erk McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS ! PLANNERS October 23, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Hr. Edward 3. Shukle, Or. City Manager City of Hound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Lynwood Boulevard HSAP 145-104-03 Tuxedo.Boulevard HSAP 145-101-05 Street Improvements HKA Files #7193 & #3724 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Preferred Paving's Payment Request No. 4 in the amount of $19,715.63 for work completed through October 20th on the subject projects. Of this total, $17,043.99 is for the Lynwood Boulevard project, $146.30 is for the Tuxedo Safety Improvement project and $2,525.34 is from change orders 2 and 4, which is the work being done for the HRA. The amount of $2,525.34 for the HRA work will need to be paid to the Contractor by the City, but you should also bill the HRA for reimbursement in that amount. We have reviewed this request, find that it is in order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:cah cc: Sandy Woytcke, PRA CONTRACTOR PAY Eg:TTHi~tTE NO. 04. PAG:E 7.'L93 C]:TY OF HOUND-LYNIIOOD & TUXEDO BLUD-STREET ZHPROVEHEHTS 01 ENG];NEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAYZNG li?.800 I'ND.PK.BLVO. E4 SOUTH OL:~VE PLYHOUTH, HN S5441 tlACON.~A, HN sro8? DATE: 10/E0/86 ~ CONTRACTOR PRY ESTTHATE SUI~ARY ~ THIS PERZDD tlORI( COHPLETED PART I-'HSAP 145-104-0'3 LYNIIDOD BOLLEVARD PART E"I'I~P 145-101-05 TUXEDO BOULEVARD HATERTALS ON SZTE PART 1-HgAP 145-104-03 LYN~OOD BOULEVARO PART E--H~P 145-101-05 TUXEDO BOULEVARD E0,599.30 154.00 0.00 0.00 E64,0E3.'/5 .1.6,719.50 0.00 0.00 ADJUSTED TOTAL LESS RETAINAGE - 52 PREVIOUS, E0,'/53.30 EBO,?43. ES .~: C URRE H T 1,037.66 14,037.16 TOTAL AHDUNT DIE FOR ItORK COHPLETED TO DATE LESS PREVZOUS PAYHENTS 19,715.63 E66,706.08 -0. O0 E46,990.45 TOTAL AHOUNT DIE 19,71~.63 19,715.63 -- SUI'IHARY DF PREYZOUS PAYHENTS N ESTZHATE NO. DATE I 06/30/86 E 07,"31/86 3 09/01/86 · APPROVED: /~- ~,~ ~,, ENgZREER: flcCOHBS-'KNUTSON AHO~T TOTAL .1.16,709.63 116,709.63 50,479.39 167,189. OE 79,801.43 ~ E46,990.4.~ APPROVE1) -' CONTRACTOR: PREFERREO PAYZNG CONTRACTOR P~¥ ESTIHATE NO. 04 PAGE 7193 CITY ~F ~O~D-LYN~OD ~ ~0 ~-S~ET I~ENT~ P~RT 1~ 145-1~-03 L~OD ~E~ OE~ ENGINEER: HcCOHBS--~UTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING 1E800 ~ID.PK.BLVO. 84 SOUTH OLI~ PLTHOUTH, HN SS441 I~CONI&, ltH SS387 DATE: 10/E0/86 -- PAYHENT SL~HARY FOR ~ORK CONPLETED TO DATE -- ITEH ITEH NO. DESCRIPTION 1 EOEI.501 HOBILIZATION E E101.511 3 E103.501 4 E104.501 5 E104.501 6 E104.503 7 E1~.509 8 E104.509 9 ElO4.SE3 10 2104.5E3 11 E105.501 1E EIOS.SE3 13 EIOS.SE5 E130.501 /S EEll.501 16 E211.501 17 E331.504 15 /9 ==341.504 ==0 E341.505 E1 ==357.50E EE E355.501 E3 ==503:511 E4 ==503.511 E5 E6 E503.51! E? ~503.Sll E8 ==503.511 E9 ==503.573 30 ==506.506 31 3E ==506.507 33 ==506.516 34 ~506.5.1.6 35 ==506.5.1.6 37 ==506.5==== ==5.1.1.505 ==51.1..51.l 40 CONTRACT UNIT QUANTITY IRIIT PRICE QUANTITY 1.0 LS E,500. O0 0.0 C & g ROADtIAY 1.0 LS 500.00 0.0 BLDG. REHO~L 1.0 LS E8,500.00 0.0 REH. ST.S.PIPE 870.0 LF 6.00 0.0 REHOVE CON.C&G 160.0 LF 1.00 0.0 RENOUE SIDEWALK ' 1,670.0 SF 0.35 0.0 REHOVE HH OR CB 4.0 EA 1"/5. O0 O. 0 REROVE ~LLS 1.0 LS E,500. O0 0.0 SALVAGE CAST~G E. 0 ER 75. O0 O, 0 SALVAGE L.POLE 1.0 EA 110.00 0.0 CONHON EXCAU. E,600. O CY 4.00 0.0 COHHON BORROti 0.0 CY 0.00 0.0 TOPSOIL BORROW ==30.0 CY 6.00 150.0. ~TER ES.0 gA l. SO . 0.0 Agg. BASE CL,E 45,0 TN 1==.00 130.0 AGO. BASE CL.5 1,360.0 TN S.O0 0.0 BIT NAT FOR NIX E5.O TN 165.00 0.0 BASE COURSE HIX 5E5.0 TN 13.80 EE.O BIT HAT FOR NIX El. 0 TN 165.00 ES.0 kE_AR COURSE HIX 390.0 TN 17.00 459.0 BIT NAT - TACK IP..~.OGA 1.50 0.0 BIT NAT - PRIHE ~50.0 GA 1.50 0.0 1E' RCP ST.CL.5 106.0 LF EO.70 0.0 ~' RCP ST.CL.5 63.0 LF E1.85 0.0 18" PCP ST.CL.3' 88.0 LF E4.40 0.0 P4" PCP ST.CL.3 ==BO.O LF E9.90 0.0 ==7"RCP ST.CL.== 4==5.0 LF 36.00 0.0 30" PCP ST.CL.== 35.0 LF 40.00 0.0 30" PCP C.APRON i.O EA 1,100.00 0.0 DESIGN SPEC. 19.6 LF 170.00 0.0 HH/CB DESIGN F 9.4 LF 170.00 0.0 flH/CB DESIGN C 5.8 LF 170.00 0.0 CASTINg ASSEH.A ==.0 EA EES. O0 0.0 CASTINg ASSEN.B 4.0 EA E==5.00 0.0 CASTINg ASSEH.C 1.0 EA EE5. O0 0.0 IHSTALL CASTING 9.0 EA 60. O0 O. 0 ADS.FRAME&RINg 9.0 EA 70.00 0.0 RIP RAP 6.6 CY 40.00 0.0 gRANtLAR FILTER 3.3 CY 18.00 0.0 4' CONCR. II~LK 4,550.0 SF 1.40 0.0 ----THIS PERIOD -:: AHOUNT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 900.00 0.00 1,560. O0 0.00 0.00 303.60 4,1E5.00 7,803. O0 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 QUANTITY 1o0 1.0 1.0 155.0 1, ~87.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 E,600. O 0.0 150.0 ES. 0 130.0 i, 666.0 EE.1 491.0 E5.0 459.0 1E5.0 0.0 103.0 73.0 86.0 ==76.0 4==S. 0 35.0 1.0 18.6 6.0 4.0 1.0 9.0 5.0 3.0 4,EE7.0 DATE AHOUNT E,500.O0 500. O4) EO,500. O0 1,110. O0 155. O0 415.45 700.00 E,500. O0 L~O. O0 440. O0 10,400.00 0.00 900.00 37.50 1,560. O0 13,3E8.00 3,646.50 6,775.80 4,JE5. O0 7,803. O0 187.50 0.00 E, J.3E. 10 1,595.03 8,==5E.40 15,408.00 1,400.00 1,100. O0 3,16E. O0 J.,63E.O0 1,OEO. O0 450. O0 900.00 ==E5. O0 .~t0.00 630. O0 ==00. O0 54.00 5,917.80 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHA'IE NO. 04 PAGE CITY OF MOUHD-LYN~0OD & TUXEDO BLVD-STREET IMPROVEMENTS PART I"HSAP 145-104-03 LYNWOOD BOLLEgARD 03 -- PAYMENT SIJMHARY FOR WORK COHPLETED TO DATE -- ITEH ITEN NO. DESCRIPTION 41 E531.501 C~G DESIGN 5618 4E E531.507 6" APRONS 43 E~5.511 INST~L L.PDLE 44 E~5.5~ LCT.BA~, DES.E 45 ~545,~1 3-1/2' COHDU~T 46 E~5.5~ P~L ~XES 47 E571.5~ ~ES - H~LE 48 E571.5~ T~ES - A~ 49 E571.~ ~ES~AC~RRY SO E5~.501 ROADS~E ~ 51 E5~.5~ ~D, HIXTU~ ~ ES~.~ ~DDIHG ~ E5~,511 H~CH HAT ~PE1 ~ ~ CONC~ S~PS ~ ~ DRY R~E H~N ~LL S7 ~ F~Z DZP F~TTZN~S 58 ~ F~Z ~-~/~" COPPER ~R ~ F~ ~-~/~" CO~. COCK 61 ~ F~I 6' ~A~ ~ ~ M3UST ~IST CU~ ~X ~ ~LOCA~ HYD. ~ ~ F~I 6" CI~ ~.~RV. ~ AD3. ~IST. 65 ~ RECO~STR~T ~IST ~ 69 ~ F~I SIGH POSTS 70 ~ F~I ~-1 SIGHS 71 ~ F~I R7-1 SIGHS El~,SE3 ~C.CDH.~RRO~ LO~R ~R ~RVICE 74 ~LOCA~ CU~ ~YS~NE ~TAIHIH~ ~LL 76 1-1/E" RIGID COHDUIT-~C 77 ALT. FOR ST~ET LIGHT ~ DO~R TIME ~ BUILDIH~ DEMOLITIOH BO ~ COMPAC~D B~T FILl. B1 ~ COHMON EXCA~TIOH I-i/E" P~ CONDUIT NO. B U~ CONTRACT MIT QUAHTITY UHIT PRICE QUANTITY 1,600.0 LF 5,85 0.0 140.0 SY EO.O0 0.0 1.0 EA 110. O0 1.0 1.0 ER SEO. O0 0.0 40.0 LF //.TS 0.0 E. 0 EA 700. O0 O. 0 4.0 TR TS. O0 0.0 4.0 TR 75.00 0.0 4.0 TR TS.00 0.0 0.3 AC 1,500.00 0.0 15.0 LB E.30 0.0 1,000.0 5Y 1.70 0.0 O. 6 TN 300. O0 O. 0 EO.O RI 115, O0 0.0 0.0 SF 0.00 0.0 35.0 LF EO. 70 0.0 E60.O LB 1.S0 0.0 30.0 LF 17. O0 O. 0 1.0 EA 115.00 0.0 1,0 EA 1.15. O0 0.0 1.0 ER 400.00 0.0 1.0 EA 85.00 0.0 E.O EA SO. O0 0.0 1.0 EA GBO. O0 0.0 40.0 LF 19.00 0.0 40.0 LF 16.00 0,0 4.0 EA 100, O0 3.0 1. Q EA 500. O0 O. 0 '4.0 EA BO. O0 4.0 E.O EA 100. O0 E.O E.O EA 100.00 · E.O E,TBB. O CY 5. P.S 0.0 1.0 EA EgO. O0 O. 0 1.0 EA 5~0.00 0.0 1,4E0.0 SF 9.TS IOE.O 110.0 LF S.35 0.0 1.0 LS 1,649.50 0.1 EO.O HR 70.00 0.0 1.0 LS 19,951. O0 0.0 E,O00.O CY 5.00 0.0 4,000.0 CY 4,E5 263.0 1,800.0 SF 9.75 lSB. 0 80.0 LF 3.85 0.0 440.0 LF 0.68 0.0 THIS PERIOD __m AMDUNT 0.00 0,00 110. O0 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 300. O0 0.00 3EO. O0 EO0. O0 EO0. O0 0.00 O. O0 0.00 504,50 O. O0 164.9~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,//?.7~ 1,540.50 0.00 0.00 .... TO DATE QUANTITY 11E.0 1.0 1.0 40.0 E.O 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EE.O 0.0 14.0 1S0.0 E.O E,O E.O E.O 0.0 1.0 40.0 61,0 3.0 1.0 4.0 E.O E.O E,TBB.O 1.0 1.0 105.0 1.0 1E.E 1.0 "/37.0 4,790,0 1,498.0 80.0 0.0 ~O~T 9,664.E0 E,E40. O0 110. O0 5EO.O0 470. O0 1,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 E,R30. O0 0.00 E89.80 P. ES. O0 956.0( E30.O0 230.00 B00.00 170. O0 0.00 f~iO. O0 760,00 976,00 300. O0 500, O0 3EO.O0 E O0, O0 EO0. O0 14,637. O0 E90. O0 550.00 .1.E,987, O0 561. TS 1,649.50 1t54.00 19,9~1.00 3,685. O0 EO,SS?.50 14,GOS.Sn 308. O, 0.00 CONTRACTOI~ PAY F_E;TTMATF- NO. 04 '7].93 ~ITY DF MOUND-LYNgDDD & TUXED~ BI_VD-STREET IHPROVEHENTS PART I"HSAP 145-104-03 LYNkiOOD BOULEVRRO O,e,, -- PAYHEHT SUNHARY FOR ~RK COMPLETED TO DATE -- ITEH ITEH CONTRACT UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 8S NO. 4 U~E ¥IRE E,EO0. O LF 0.90 0.0 86 TRENCHING 440.0 LF 1.40 0.0 87 RELOCATE CONTROL CABZNET 1.0 Lg SO0. O0 0.0 B8 HOVE EXISTING WIRES 1.0 LS EBO.O0 0.0 89 SPLICE WIRING 1.0 LS 170.00 0.0 90 FOOTING - RETAINZNG WALL 300.0 LF 10.00 0.0 91 F&I FENCE-RETAINING WALL 1.0 L$ 300.00 1.0 9E BIT.PATCHING HN/DOT E341 BO.O TN 55.00 1E.O 93 EXTRA FOR 8"x6" WET TAP .E.O ER J. O0. O0 0.0 94 EXTRA FOR 8" SADDLE TAP E.O EA SO.O0 0.0 9S SUBDRADE CORRECTION 600.0 CY S. O0 O. 0 96 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION 600.0 C¥ 97 gRANULAR BORROW (L.V.) 800.0 CY 5.00 DB GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1,000.0 SY ~- ~IS PERIOD ..... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300. O0 660. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 OL~NTITY E,O00. O 0.0 1.0 1.0 E2S. 0 1.0 20.0 ~.0 ~.0 ~.0 ?~.0 0.0 AHOUNT 1,800.00 0.00 500.00 EBO. O0 170.00 E,3SO. O0 300,00 1,100 · O0 EO0. O0 100.04) 3'/5. O0 6,666.00 3,SES.O0 0.00 TOTAL PART 1--HSAP 145-104-03 LYN~OD BOULE~RO EO,B~9.30 E64, OE3. f.-'~,'"ro~rt.'lOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 04 PAGE '71E~E~ CITY OF HOUND-LYN~OOD & TUXEDO BLVD-$TREET I~PRDVEHEHTS PART 1-flSAP 145-104-03 LYN~DD BOULEVARD OS EHGINEER: HcCOHBS'~UTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVlltG 1E800 IND.PK. BL~, E4 SOUTH OLIVE PLYHOUTH, HN 55441 II~CONIA, HN ~87 DATE: 1OlEO/B6 -- PAYHEHT SUHHARY FOR HATERIALS ON SITE -- THXS PERIOD ITEH TTEH CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE UNITS ND, DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIVERED PRICE ON SITE TOTAL ITEH VALLE INVOICE PRICE UNITS ON SITE TOTAL ITEH VALLE TOTAL PART Z--HSAP 145-104-03 LYNtIOOD BOLLEVARD 0.00 0.00 CON'IRRCTOR PAY ESTTHRTE NO. 04 PAGE ?/.~ CITY OF HOUN. D-LYNWOOD & TUXEDO Bt. VD-STREET IHPRDVEHENTS PART i.-HSRP 145-104-03 LYNle3DD BOULEVARD ENGINEER: NcCDNBS"t<NUTSON CONTRACTOR'- PREFERRED PAVING 1EGO0 IND.PK. BLVD. E4 SOUTH OLIVE PLYHOUTH, NH 5544! ilACONIA, HN 55387 DATE: -- SUHHARY OF CHANGE ORDERS -- CHANGE OROER NO. 01 06/30/86 9,99E.00 ITE~ ITEH NO. DESCRIPTIDN 11 E/OS.SO/ CONHON EXCAV. 1E ElOS.SE3 COHHDN BORRDll 55 SP DRY RUBEP_E NASON t~LL TE E1OS.SE3 EXC.CON.BORRDll T3 LO~ER M~TER SERVICE 74 RELOCATE CURB STOP 75 KEYSTONE RETAINING ~tRLL 76 1-1/E' RIGID CONDUIT-RMC TT ALT. FOR STREET LIGHT PREVIOUS QUANTITY LHIT PRICE E,750. O0 CY 4.00 1,500. O0 CY 6.50 1,4E0.00 SF 7.90 O. O0 CY O, O0 O. O0 ER O. O0 O. O0 ER O. O0 0.00 Si:' 0.00 O. O0 LF O. O0 O. O0 LS ,,. O. O0 .CHANGEO- QUANTITY UNIT PRICE E, GO0. O0 CY 4. O0 O. O0 CY O. O0 0.00 ~ 0.00 E, 7BB. O0 CY 5.E5 1. O0 EA EgO. O0 I. O0 ER SSO. O0 1,4EO. O0 SF 9.75 1.1.0. O0 LF 5.35 1.00 LS 1,649.S0 AHOUNT DEDUCTED -600. O0 -9,750.00 -11,E18. O0 AHOUNT ADDED IREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE CHANGE 9,99E.00 = REVISED CONTRACT AHOUNT J. gE, IE4.3~ CON'rRRCTOR PRY ESTIHf~TE Fill. 04 Pi=t~E ?.1.9~ CITY OF NOUND-LYN~OOD & TUXEDO BLUD-STREET IHPRDU~ENTS PART Z-HSAP 145-10~-03 LYHgOOD BDULE~RD O7 ENGINEER: HcCONB$-t(NUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING 1,?.B00 TND.PK. BL~. E4 ~UTH OLIVE PLYHOU'TH, HN 55441 IIACONTA, HH 55387 DATE: IO/EO/EI6 ~ SUHHARY OF CHANGE ORDERS ~ CHANGE ORDER HO. OE 07/31/86 70,or-~.EO ZTEH ITEH PRE¥IOUS HO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 78 ~P DOZER TIHE 0.00 HR 0.00 79 SP BUILDING DEHOLITION 0.00 LS 0.00 BO 5P COHPACTED BSHT FI'LL 0,00 CY 0.00 81 ~P COHNDN EXCAVATION 0.00 CY 0.00 Be 5P RETAZNI'HG MALL 0.00 5F' 0.00 83 1-1/2" PUC CONDUIT 0.00 LF 0.00 84 ND. 8 USE ¥IRE 0.00 LF 0.00 85 ND. 4 USE #IRE 0.00 LF 0.00 86 TRENCHING 0.00 LF 0.00 87 RELOCATE CONTROL CABI'HET 0.00 L$ 0.00 88 HOVE EXISTING WIRES 0.00 LS 0.00 ~ ~PL:ICE #:]:RI'NG 0.00 L$ 0,00 -'CHANGED. AHOL,,'Z, IT . AHO~T QUANTITY ~IT PRICE DEDUCTED ADDED eO. O0 HR 70. O0 1,400. O0 1,00 L$ 19,951.00 19,951.00 E, 000. O0 CY S. O0 10,000. O0 4,000.00 CY 4.25 17,000.00 1,800. O0 ~F g, 75 17,550. O~ 80.00 LF 3.85 308.00 440.00 LF 0.~8 E99.EO E,EO0. O0 LF 0.90 1,980.00 440. O0 LF 1,40 616. O0 1. O0 LS SO0. O0 SO0. O0 1.00 L$ ESO.O0 280.00 1.00 LS 170.00 %00 PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE 19E,/E4.35 + CHANGE 70,0S4.20 = REVISED CONTRACT ANOUNT EEE,178.55 CONTRACTOR PAY £SITHA'TIg NO. 04 pAG'i= CITY OF HOUND-LYN~OD ~ TUXEDO BLVD-STREET IHPROVEHENTS PART .I.-'H~P 1~5-.1.04-03 LYNkiODD BOULEVARD EHGltIEER: HcCOHB$-.t(NUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PA¥1NG /ESO0 111D.PK, BLVD. E4 ~U~ PLYHOU~, HN ~41 ~ACONZR, ~ OA~: ~ S~HRRY OF CHANGE O~ERS -- CHANGE OROER NO. 03 08/13/86 4,700.00 ITEH ITEH NO. DESCRIPTION 90 FOOTING - RETAINING MALL 91 F&I FENCE-RETAINING k~LL 9E BIT,PATCHING HN/DOT EL:q1 93 EXTRA FOR 8"x6' liET TAP 94 EXTRA FOR 8" SN)DLE TAP PREVIOUS QUANTITY 0.00 LF 0.00 LS 0.00 TN 0.00 EA O. O0 ER --------CHANGED AHOUNT AHDUNT UNIT PRTCE QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DEDUCTED ADDED 0.00 300. O0LF 10.00 3,000.0, O. 04) 1. O0 L$ 300. O0 300. O0 0.00 EO.O0 TN 5S.00 1,100.0~ O, O0 E. O0 ER 100. O0 El)q). O0 O. O0 E. O0 ER 50. O0 100. OG PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE E6E,ITS.S5 + CHANGE 4,700.00 = REVISED CONTRACT AHOUNT E66,878.55 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 04 PAI~E CITY OF HOUND-I. YN~OD & TUXEDO BLUI)-STREET IHPROVEHENTS PART 1-HSAP 145-104-03 LYNIIOOD BOL~..EVARD E*~GINEER: HcCOHBS'-RNUTSON COHTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING l~BO0 IHD.PK, BLVD. E4 SOUTH OLIVE PLYHOUTH, HN 55441 k~CONIA., HN ~B7 DATE: ~0/E0/86 -- SUNHARY OF CHANGE ORDERS -- CHANGE ORDER ND. 04 08/13/86 100. O0 ITEH ITEH~ NO. DESORIPTION · :~ SLI~I~E CORRECTION ~ SU~RADE EXCAVATION 97 GRANULAR BORRD¥ (L.V.) 98 CEOTEXTILE FA3RIC ~RE¥IOUS, QUANTITY UNIT PRICE O. O0 CY O. O0 O, O0 CY O, O0 O. O0 CY O. O0 0.00 SY 0.00 CHANGED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 600, OOCY 5.00 600.00 CY 6.00 BO0. O0 CY 5.00 1,000.00 ~ 1.50 PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE E66,878 · 55 + CHANGE + CHANGE /2,100.00 96,1NIS.EO AHOUNT DEDUCTED = REVISED cONTRACT AHOUNT = REVISED CONTRACT AHOUNT AHDb'~;T ADDED 3,000. O0 3,600.00 4,000. O0 1,500.00 E?B,97B.55 ETB,978.S5 CON'I'R~C'IOR PAY ES'I' IHR'[E NO. 0a. PRBE ?:19~ CITY OF HOU~D-LYNWODD & TU~DO BLUO-STREET IttPRDUEHENTS PART E-I~SAP 145-101-05 TUXEDO BOLLEUARD .:LO ENGINEER: BcCOBBS"KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVES 1EGO0 IND.PK.BLUO. P4 SOUTH OLIU~ PLYBOUTH, HN 55441 WACONIA, HN 55387 DATE'. IO/EO/~G -- PAYHENT SUI~ARY FOR WORK COHPLETED TO DATE ~ ITEB ITEH CONTRACT UHIT ND. DESCRIPTION QLV~NTITY UHIT PRICE OLk~NTII~ 1 E101.513 C~J;RT-OF-WAY 1.0 LS 500.00 0.0 E E104.501 REH CONC. C8~ PO.O LF 1.00 0.0 3 E104.501 REH BIT CURB 180.0 LF 1.00 0.0 4 E105.501 COHHDN EXCA¥. 15.0 CY 6. O0 O. 0 5 EIO~.SE3 COBNON BORROW 400.0 CY 6.50 0.0 6 ElOS,SE5 TOPSOIL BORROW ' 70,0 C¥ 5,00 EO.O ? E331.S04 BIT HAT FOR HZX 1,6 TN 16'5.00 0.0 9 E331.514 BASE COURSE BIX ~S,O TN 17,00 E,O 9 E341.504 BIT HAT FOR BIX 0.6 TN 1l~.00 0.0 10 2341.508 k~AR COURSE HIX 10.0 TN EO.O0 0.0 11 E357. SOE BIT HAT-TACK 5.0 GAL 1.50 0.0 1E E503.Sll 1E" RCP ST.CL.5 5,0 LF 27,00 0.0 13 E506.509 ON/CB DESIGH N 1.0 ER 170.00 0.0 ESOG. 516 CAST ASSEHBLIES 1.0 EA EES.00 0.0 15 P.535.S01 BITUHIHOUS CURB 170.0 LF 4.00 0.0 16 E..~4.501 DESIGN A 180.0 LF 58.00 0.0 17 ES71.SOE TREES - HAPLE 4.0 ER 75.00 0.0 18 ES71.50E TREES - ASH 4.0 EA 75.00 0.0 19 E571.S41 TRANSPLANT TREE E.O ER 75.00 0.0 EO E575.505 SODDING 540.0 SY 1.?0 0.0 E1 SP RELOCATE EXISTING CB 1.0 LS 150,00 0.0 THIS PERIOD AHOUHT 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 lEO. O0 O. O0 34.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OU~NTZTY 1.0 20.0 1'~.0 25.0 400.0 60.0 · 45.0 0.8 14.E S.O 1,0 1.0 160.0 1GE. 0 3.0 3.0 E.O 0.0 1.0 DATE '-~ ABOUNT 500. O0 EO. O0 1"~. O0 150.00 E,GO0.O0 360.00 330.00 ?b'5.O0 L.~.O0 284. O0 7.50 170.00 EES, O0 TEO.O0 9,396.00 EES. O0 150. O0 0.00 150. O0 TOTAL PART E'-HSRP 145-101-05 TUXEDO BOULE~RD 16,719.50 CONTRACTOR PAY F'-STIMAIE NO. 04 PAGE CITY OF HOUND-LYNW00D & TUXEDO I~.VO-STREET I~R0~NENTS PART E-HSAP 145-101-05 TUXEDO BOULEVA. RD 11 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING /2800 I~.PK.BLVD. E4 SOUTH OLIVE PLYHOUTH, HN ~41 RACONIA, HN ~3B7 DATE: IO/EO/B6 -- PAYHENT SUHHARY FOR HATERIAL$ ON SITE THIS PERIOD ITEH ITEH CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE UNIT8 NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIVERED PRICE ON SITE TOTAL ITEN SLUE TO DATE INVOICE ~IT$ PRICE ON TOTAL ITEH VALLE TOTAL PART E--HSAP 145-101-05 TUXEDO BOULEVARD ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 1B,443.50 + CHANGE 0.00 0.00 = REVI~ED CONTRACT AMOUNT 0.00 18,443.50 A2,¢ / MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEHBER 11, 1~86 Present were: Chair Nancy' C.lough; Commissioners Cathy Bailey, Marilyn Byrnes, Andy Gearhart-, Lowell Swenson; Council Representative Phyllis Jessen; City Manager Ed Shukle; Park Director dim Fackler;.Dock inspector Del Rudolph and Secretary Marge StutsmanL Commissioners Cheryl Burns and Linda Panetta were absent and excused and Commissioner Oelores Maas was also absent. MINUTES The minutes of the .Park Commission meeti.ng of August 14, 1986 were presented .for consideration. Gearhart 'moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to accept the minutes as presented. The vote was'unan|mously in favor. Property at 61'65'& 6167.Sinclair Road ~ Lots 1 & 2~ Block 17, The Highlands The Park Director explained that the Building Official had asked him to take a look at'this property because the garage is actually on the ne|ghbor's property a little bit and when she measured it. out, she found there was only 13~feet from corner of the garage':to the Park property. There is a graveled area of around 30 feet. A good-portion is on the Park property. There is no structUre, but drive and park area has been improved like his yard/lawn. Some members of Commission remembered that.seVeral years ago-he tried to trade land with City~ After'a lengthy discussion,.lt was decide to take no action until after the garage encroachment issue and variance request has been acted on by the City Council. 1987 DoCk Program Pr°POsals The Dock Inspector', Del Rudolph, reviewed the changes he has proposed for the 1987 Dock Program and reasons for them: A. Late fee Proposed changed from $10 to $20 because some people ignore the deadline.. CommisSion asked if there should be a really stiff late fee .for the late, late applicatlons? It was discussed that there is no way to separate the few that unintentionally are late. Applicat|on now states that after April 1, you can no.~ get a dock and that took care of most. B. He stated that shared docks require extra work and hazzle and he feels there should be an extra fee. Intention is to have person coming in to share dock would pay. extra fee. The f°llowlng were discussed: Fees and how the fee shOu!d be split up so far as payment and use; if more money couldn't be earmarked for Commons maintenance; and that raising fees was a very sensitive issue with many people. C. Senior citizen dock rate for other than straight.docks; pros and cons were discussed. Half fee to apply to any sized dock and 3/4 fee when sharing with a non-senior. O. Liab'ility Disclaimer. E. Restriction of number of boats per dock (LMCD adopted an ordinance regulating this supposedly to cut down on rental of dock space) Commission discussed problem with people renting dockage DUb; that they are getting around, current regulations by transferring boats (easy and cheap). Inspector concerned with upsetting 90% percent of people for the other 10%. Commission felt more action would make a lot more work ~.~.. Park Commission Hinutes September 11, 1986 - Page 2 for the Inspector with,little results. No act'ion taken at this time. F. Moratorium on. shared docks 'in certain areas. This suggestion came up be- cause, of problem on R|dgewood'Access. City Attorney advised it could be an adminiStrative declslon. Ge Gearhart'moved and ByrneS seconded the motion that the Park Commission recommend'establlshlnga.moratorium on shared'dockage in any area where there is congestion due to the 20.foot spacing and larger boats in order to re-establish wider spacing of dockage;, moratorium to be administered at the discretion of the Oock Inspector. The vote was unanimously in favor. Dedicated areas -Oel stated hers concerned about these areas. He found out area off of Roanoke up to Pembroke was made restrictive by Council action In 1977. Del asked that this be put on future agenda for discussion. Commission thought we should get background on dedicated.areas and, with the Lost Lake request probably coming back, we should' look at wording of dedications carefu!ly so Commission can be prepared. The Commission toOk the following action on the proposed changes: A. Bailey moved and Gearhart seconded a'motion to Increase late fee to $20.00. The vote was' unanimOusly in favor. Motion carried. Bailey moved and Jessen seconded a motion recommending, after March 1, '- there wll.1 be an addition $25 fee for shared dockage for administrative work. 'The Vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Bailey moved and Jessen seconded a.motion recOmmending that senior citizens will pay half rate (senior'citizen Sharing with a non-senior pays 3/4 of base permit fee).· The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. D. Clough moved.and Bailey seconded a motion recommending liability disclaimer be adopted as written. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Dock Inspector explai.ned about the dock problems he's had with Gordon Wolf and how he finally got ahold of Mr. Wolf's father and told him about the prob- lem as shown in the packet mate'rlal. Clough moved and Jessen Seconded a motion, recommending that Mr. Wolf appear at the March 1987 meeting so Park Commission could review Wolf's request for dock permit. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Park Director reviewed the propdsed Budget and what the figures represent. The Commission questioned the discontinuation of the Chemlawn treatment of parks; they discussed cause of eros!~n (mainly high water) and need for dredging cer- tain areas, Clough moved and Gearhart seconded a motion that the Park Commission strongly recommend Council consider and approve 'recommended emergency sh°reline mainte- nance monies for .1987; that it is in the best interest of the investment in the future of natural resources and quality of the park lands. The vote was unanimously in favor. Park Commission Minutes September 11, 1986 - Page 3 Swenson moved and CloUgh seconded.a .motion to accept 'the Budget as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Park Director listed the areas they are-rlprapping and filling. -The CommissiOn reviewed items to. be, on next month's agenda;.particularly that they want to review dedicated'areas. Commission.'is to call Jim or Harge with any other items they wish to have on agenda. The City Ranager. advised the Commiss,|on of the October-8th Heetlng on Lost Lake. He.will send notices to the Commissioners. ADJOURN~tENT Byrnes moved and Gearhart seconded a mot-ion to. adjourn the meeting at 10:50 P.I~. All were In favor, so meeting was adjourned. BILLS OCTOBER 28, 1986 Batch 86q101 Batch 86~! 02 Computer Run dated 10/18/86 Computer Run dated 10/23/86 120,290.32 lq,Sqg.65 13q,839.97 Super America Se~t gasoline Lawrence Ecklund Reimburse for damage to prop St. Boni Oil 011 for Fire Dept 835.87 31.55 495.~0 TOTAL BILLS 136,202.79 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 October 27, 1986 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: CITY CLERK RE: COMPARISON OF CBD BIDS - 1986 & 1987 The following is a comparison of the bids for the Central Business District. Ce Front End Loaders (2 or 2½ yd. bucket) (3 yd. bucket) (4 yd. bucket) Trucks: Single Axle, 5 yd. box Single Axle, 5 yd. box, plow & sander Tandem Axle, 10 yd. box Other Equipment to be used: 4 x 4 Pick-up Pick-up with plow Bobcat Cat Blade Road Patrol Salt-sand (per yard) We only received one bid. contract holder also. 1985-86 1986-87 PER HOUR PER HOUR 65.OO 68.00 75.OO 32.00 45.OO 40.00 42.00 40.00 42.00 45.OO 54.OO 5O.OO 60.00 35.OO It was from the Widmer, Inc. who was the 1985-86 fc enc. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities, WILLIAM K. DDRAN LLOYD W. COURTER, P- E. BEN T. DORAN ]:)ORAN, r'OURTER, CIUINN & ]:)ORAN A PARTNERSHIP, INr'LurllNG pROFEBBIONAL r'DRPnRATIDN.'~ ATTO RN EYc:; AT LAW BEI-URITY BANK BUILDING 809 8TM STREET BOONE, IOWA E~O0'~E~ (sis) 43a-,~ss October 7, 1986 City of Mound ATTN: Mr. Ed Shuckle City Manager Mound, MN 55364 Dear Council Members: Thomas C. Dowden, who is the principal investor and President of both Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and its parent company, Dowden Communications, Inc., a Georgia corporation, is now involved in negotiations which will lead to a restructuring of his cable franchise business. The proposed new entity, Dowden Cable Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, will have assets which are substantially greater than the combined assets of Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. and Dowden Communications, Inc. Enclosed herewith is a Notice and Consent to Transfer Cable Franchise which is being presented to you in accordance with the provisions of the Fran~chise Ordinance. You will observe that the notice has been executed by officers of Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. and Dowden Communications, Inc. We would request that you present this to your City Council, and as soon as it'has'been approved, I would appreciate it very much if you could send back to us the original copy with the signature of the Mayor and City Clerk affixed thereto. It is contemplated the restructuring agreements will be completed by the first week of December, 1986. Shortly after such completion, Dowden Cable Partners, L.P., will then be signing the Acceptance, which appears on Page 3 of the enclosed Notice and Consent. This original document, fully executed, will then be returned to you for your file. When the performance bond and evidence of insurance is then filed with your office, we would expect adoption of an ordinance confirming the transfer of the Franchise to Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. It is very important that action be taken on this request by your City Council as soon as possible. If there are any questions, Mary A. Smith, who has managed all of the Minnesota Franchises for Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc., including your franchise, is available for your inquiry. Her phone number is: 612-472-6394, or her Watts line number is: 1-800-642-2915. We thank you very much for your cooperation regarding this request. Yours very truly, LWC:jmk Enclosure cc: Thomas C. Dowden Mary A. Smith DORAN, COURTER, QUINN & DORAN NOTICE AND CONSENT TO TRANSFER CABLE FRANCHISE THIS NOTICE AND CONSENT by and between Dowden Commun- ications, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the "Dowden Parent"), Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and subsi- diary of Dowden Parent (the "Dowden Subsidiary"), and Dowden Cable Partners, L.P., a limited partnership (the "Dowden Partnership"), and the City of Mound , a municipal corporation in the State of Minnesota (the "City"), WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City and the Dowden Subsidiary are parties to that certain franchise agreement more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "FRANCHISE") for the operation of a cable television system within the City; and WHEREAS, the Agreement requires the City to be notified under certain circumstances and to consent under certain other circumstances if the r~ghts granted under the FRANCHISE are assigned or transferred to any other entity; and WHEREAS, the Dowden Partnership anticipates acquiring substantially all of the assets of the Dowden Subsidiary, which include the FRANCHISE; and WHEREAS, prior to such acquisition, Dow-Sat of Minnisota, Inc. may be completely liquidated or merged with and its assets transferred to its parent, Dowden Communications, Inc., which in turn will then transfer such assets to the Dowden Partnership; and WHEREAS, the Dowden Partnership will then continue to manage and operate said franchise in substantially the same manner as has been followed by Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc.; and WHEREAS, all involved parties wish to receive City's consent thereto in the spirit of full compliance and open disclosure. -1- NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Dowden Partnership proposes to acquire by assignment the entire FRANCHISE from Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. and states that upon such assignment it will accept the terms of the FRANCHISE, and will agree to perform all of the conditions and terms thereof. 2. City gives its consent and approval to the trans- actions described above, including the transfer of the FRANCHISE from Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. to Dowden Parent and from Dowden Parent to Dowden Partnership, provided that Dowden Partnership signs this Notice and Consent to Transfer Cable Franchise and agrees, by such execution, to perform all of the terms and conditions of the FRANCHISE, including furnishing to the City the performance bond, evidence of insurance, and other items required by the FRANCHISE, all within ninety (90) days of such transfer and assignment. 3. All parties to this Notice and Consent to Transfer Cable Franchise agree the remaining provisions of the FRANCHISE remain in full force and effect following the completion of the transfers and assignments approved herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, parties have executed this agreement as of the date set out beside their signatures. DOWDEN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. W[~EN, President DOW-SAT OF MINNESOTA, INC. THOMAS C. DOWD~N, President ~YT~ry (Corporate Seal) October 1, 1986 (Corporate Seal) October 1, !956 -2- CITY OF Mound Date By. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk ACCEPTANCE DOWDEN CABLE PARTNERS, L.P., a limited partnership, does hereby accept the assignment of the FRANCHISE to it and further agrees to perform all of the co~itions and terms thereof, including the furnishing to the City the performance bond, evidence of insurance, and other items required by the FRANCHISE, all within ninety (90) days of this date. .By. GENERAL PARTNER of DOWDEN CABLE PARTNERS, L.P., A Limited Partnership. Date -3- EXHIBIT "A" City of Mound - Ordinance No. 446 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTEROFFICE MEMO City Manager Ed Shuk~-j DATE_ Acting Chief Willia~_ Radar Survey on Coun~y~o%~-#110 and Three Points Blvd. Oct. 27 198.~6 A survey was conducted per your request, between October 14th and October 25, 1986, at the above location. The suKvey was conducted on different days between the houri of 0531 and 2335 hrs. A total of 2,556 cars were monitored, whiCh includes both north and southbound traffic. Average speed for northbound traffic was 35.2 mph and the average speed of the southbound traffic was 34.6. I have all of the survey sheets if you wish to see any specific day or time. LU I-. Z ::3 0 Z 000000000 000000000 000000000 ZZZ~ZZZZ~ ~wmww~w~W iO0000000 'ZZ~Z · ZZZZZZZZ 00000000 Z I I Ml'q e,' laJ z ~ :aC GJGI mm CO 'r LtlU1 OJ ~J 0 tel Ltl Uli T O0 M _! COt ltl I ¥ : 41. I I I~1 I I'1 I'1 ;MMMMMMMMMM ~ it111,I .JO Z 0 I- 0 I--I- O0 O0 L~LU ZZ ZZ .! ,8.' U t.U t.U ZZ O0 .i :Z 0 I. IJ )- 0 'j~4. e! r~ UJ W 00~00I ZZZZZ~ ZZZZZ ZZZZZ~ 00000 ~°~ · . 00000 .~,3/0 tU 00000 W T W 'r 05 0 -r I- 0 0000~00~0 ~~00 LI.I !I' I' ,I'~I' I' il ,ool I~l oI ,, TT!TT zzzzz! o hi z ~ 0 Zr LU W W T oo oo ZZZZZZZZZZZZ :ZZZZZZZZZZ Z Z Ii ~~I~ ZZZZZZZZZ~ i- I i. 00 Z i-4 Z O0 OJ I o Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission 443 OAK STREET ' EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-5539 October 22, 1986 Mr. Ed Shukle, Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. Transfer of Ownership Dear Mr. Shukle: I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission. You have been identified as a representative of a franchising authority which will soon be involved in the process of reviewing the transfer of ownership and cable franchise from Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. ("Dow-Sat") to Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. ("Dowden"). As a neighboring Dow-Sat cable system, we too have been requested to approve this corporate restructuring and transfer of our cable television franchise ordinance. I am writing to inform you of the process by which the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission intends to review this request and to invite you to combine our efforts as we all undertake this task. The philosophy of our Commission in approaching this transfer process is similar to the initial franchising process. At the time of awarding the original franchise, our Commission considered and approved the technical ability, financial capability, legal qualifications -and character of Dow-Sat. The same factors will be considered and reviewed, albeit in a much shorter order, as part of the transfer request as they relate to the proposed transferee, Dowden. We have already taken steps to identify the necessary information from Dowden which we will incorporate as part of our review. This information includes tentatively the limited partnership offering, financial pro formas, the management contract, and other associated agreements. Your input would be helpful as we finalize plans to request further information. Given our unfamiliarity with the proposed transferee and the uniqueness and importance to our cities of this transfer of ownership process, our Commission has sought the assistance of our ongoing telecommunications legal counsel, Mr. Thomas Creighton and Mr. Mark Ayotte of the law firm of O'Connor and Hannan. These individuals Ed Shukle October 22, 1986 Page Two have extensive experience in representing municipalities in connection with cable television issues and specifically the transfer of ownership process. Additionally, all participants may consider engaging a financial consultant to further advise us in this process. Since your franchising authority is faced with the same request to approve the transfer of your cable franchise to Dowden, and presumably you are contemplating the development of a review process, it would only seem to make sense that we attempt to work cooperatively and share the common costs of this review process. Presently, our thoughts are that each of the franchising authorities involved with this process could work collectively in the identification of requested information and the analysis of the proposed transferee. The common costs involved in this process could be shared by those participating. Dowden is responsible for reimbursing all such costs. However, it still may be convenient and appropriate to divide the common costs on a "per subscriber" basis. Any specific work requested to be done by any participating franchising authority in addition to the common costs would be charged to and paid for by that franchising authority (reimbursed by Dowden). Since we are all presumably intending to review the same information, an information-sharing and cost-sharing process would avoid duplication of effort, afford all of us a more comprehensive analysis, and would save Dowden and us all time, as well as certain costs and expenses. I would ask that you notify me no later than Monday, October 27, 1986 whether you would be interested in pursuing this idea. Since your franchising authority will no doubt not have a meeting between now and then, I would not expect a definite and firm commitment from you, but would rather seek your input. For those franchising authorities who express an interest, it would be our goal to schedule a meeting some time during the week of October 27-31 for the purpose of discussing this matter further. My address is as follows: Jim 01ds, Chair Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission 443 Oak Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474-5539 Ed Shukle October 22, 1986 Page Three We at the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission look forward with enthusiasm to the prospects of working with our neighbors in this process as well as with other common concerns in the years to come. I look forward to hearing from you. If you should have any questions, you can contact me or our cable administrator, Holly Hanson, at the above number. Sincerely, Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission the purchase price shall be the v~lue of an ongoing business. ' Grantee expressly waives .its rights, if any, to relocation costs that might otherwise be provided by law. ~ The date of valuation shill be the date City makes a written offer for the SECTION ILl. ' .' .'.' -' ]7.1 oi " OF .. Be This Franchise shall not be .assigned or 'tjrinsfer.re~. ,. either' in whole or in . .'... part, or leas.ed; SUblet or m~rtgaged i~ any manner, nor sha3_l title -' . .,. · .: thereto,' 'either legal' or equitable or any right, interest or property .. therein, P~ss to or ~st in' any person without the prior written consent of City, which c~ns~nt shall not .be ~%reasonably withheld. Further, .Grantee · shall not sell or transfer any stock or CWnership interest so as to create a n~w controlling interest except with .the consent of Cify, whidh consent ... sha~ not ke u~r..easonably withheld- ' 'The transfer~ described in ~is '"" paragraph shall,' in the sole discretior~ of City, be c~nsidered a sale Or transfer of Franchise within the m~anlng and intent in the Any. sale or transfer of ?ranch'isa, including a sale.or transfer by means 'of a fundamental corpor, ate change, requires th~ written approval of City. · ... Any sale or transfer of Franchise sh~l be subject to the provisions of ~ Board rules prohibiting certain ownership. The parties to the sale or -. transfer of Franchise"shall make a written request to City' of its con- sent. City shall reply .in writing within 30 days of actual receipt 6f the request and shall indicate its approval of the request or its determination · 57 '. -.- · '- .,' ' that a p~blic hearing is necessary. City shall con/u¢ a p hlic hearing on the request within 30 days of such dete~mlnatlon if it determines that. a sale or transfer of Franchise may adversely affect the Grantee's subscri- E Unless otherwise already provided for by local law, notice of any such ". hearing shall be given 14 days pri~r to' the 'hearing by publishing notice ..' '-'. - thereof once in a n~wspaper of general clrculat~on in the City. The notice shall contain the date, tim and place of 'the.hearing and shall; briefly state, the substance of. the act[on to be c~ns[dered by City.'I .: . .; :. , .;:... ::. Within 30 ~ays after the public hearing, City' shall approve or deny' in writir~ the sale or transfer request. -. '-.' '~:. . . ': .' " Any.sale or transfer of Franchise; including'a sale or transfer ~Y 'means of a fund~tal .corporate change, requires notification to the Board..by. ': .' City. The notificati, on shall be aCCCm~i~ by the written Certificatic~ of 'the t4:. ansferee that i{~ ~ets ~ of' th; requirements established by % for original Grantee including but not limited to fechnical abiiity and '. :. financial st~bi!itY. City shall cause ~o be .sent to the Board at Grantee's -. exp~..nse a copy of all public, documan~ relat~ to sale:or transfer of 'the.... Franchise. -' The pa. ~tles' to the sale or transfer of only this Franchise,-without.the inclusi°n of the System in which at least substantial construction has ~ menced, shall be required tO establish to t~e sole satisfaction Of city -' that the sale or transfer of only this Franchise is in the public interest. For purposes of this section, a fundamental co:rporate chahge means any sale or transfer of the stock of a corporation which results in a change of controlling interest or the sale or transfer of all or a majority of a ... corporation's assets, merger (including a parent and its s ,u~idiary corporation) ,. consolidation or creation of a .subsidiary cqrporation., H.'.~ The-word "control", or 'the phrase. "controlling interest", as used herein, /' iS rot 'limited to aj0u stockholders, but includes actual working oon~ol in whatever manner exercised. As a mlnLmum, "control"., as used herein, means a legal or benaflci~ interest (even though actual., working control'. does not exist) of at least five (5%) percent. Every change, transfer or acquisition of control of Grantee sba3_1 make the Franchise subject to can ceLlatic~ unless, and un'ill City she/1 have consented in writing thereto, consent shall not ~e unre. asoDahly withheld. For the purpose, of determining whether it sha3_~ consent to such change., transfer or acquisi-. ~i~n of control, City may 'inquire into the 'qualifications of.the prospec- :t/ve controlling part~, and G~antee .s~%ll assist City in any such inquiry and pay' all c~. sts incurred b~ City in so inquiring., including City staff time at a value' determined b~ City..' ' · In the absence of extraordinary Circumstances, City will not a~pr.ove.any transfer or assignment of the Franchls~' prior to subs%antlai ~pletion ~f construc~c{on of S~stem, as. det6rmin~d solely ~y City. : "" In rD event shall a tranSf~r"or assignment of cmnership or control .. -' 'be approved without transferee beccmlng a signator to this Franchise. " Any transferee sh~7_l be subordinate to any right, title or interest of City. 17. 1402 A. At the expiratio~ of the term for which this Franchise is granted,, or upon its revocation or termination, as provided for herein, City shall 59 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 OCTOBER 14,' 1986 TO; ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR~j~ RE: SEPTEMBER 1986 FINANCIAL REPORT We have reached the 3/4 point of the 1986 Budget Year, There were no significant increases in department spe~din? September. during JN:ls An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in. its programs and activities. CITY OF MOUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES SEPTEMBER 1986 75% of the Year SEPTEMBER YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE UNEN- CUMBERED PER CENT BALANCE EXPENDED GENEIL4L FUND Council $ 36,964 1,245 27,216 City Manager/Clerk 89,273 6,109 64,438 Elections & Reg. 10,307 3,086 4,300 AssesSing 43,369 439 42,224 Finance 141,420 10,058 101,489 Legal 80,330 7,103 .52,589 Cable T.V. ---- (832) 868 Contel 20,000 884 11,012 Recycling 18,585 2,059 10,564 Police Protection 568,199 37,728 402,018 Planning & Insp. 1OO,333 6,562 69,876 Civil Defense 3,000 --- 1,093 Streets 369,950 21,422 295,306 Shop & Store 47,096 3,329 34,495 City Property 83,449 3,388 56,737 Parks 130,093 12,308 101,245. Contingency 50,000 .... 3,431 Transfers 75,741 6,312 58,000 9,748 73.6 24,835 72.2 6,0O7 41.7 1,145 97.4 39,931 71.8 27,741 65.5 (868) -- 8,988 55.1 8,O21 56,8 166,181 70.8 30,457 69.6 1,907 36.4 74,644.' 79.8 12,601 73.2 26,712 68.0 28,848- 77.8 46,569 6.9 17,741 76.6 GENERAL FUND TOTAL $i,868,10~ Federal Reserve Sharing 52,000 Area Fire Service 142,802 Sealcoat Program '- --- CBD Assessment --- Liquor 153,450 Water 315,022 Sewer 631,084 Cemetery 3,896 121,201 1,.336,902 531,207 71.6 (1,806) 30,543 21,457 58.7 11,219 113,799 29,003 79.7 9,614 106,469 46,981 69.4 38,321 258,264 56,758 82.0 61,838 452,188 178,896 71.7 849 3,O16 880 77.4 CITY OF HOUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT REVENUES SEPTEMBER 1986 75% of the Year BUDGET SEPTEMBER REVENUE YTD REVENUE VARIANCE PER CENT RECEIVED GENERAL FUND Taxes $ 931,O61 Intergovernmental 719,964 Business Licenses 13,060 Non-Business Licensa~ & Permits 114,O00 General Gov't Charges 27,750 Court Fines 82,000 Charges to other Departments 23,OO0 Other Revenue 55,300 TOTAL REVENUE $1,966,135 255 15,427 1',227 2]~293 1,259 ].436 40,897 465,'515 380,]39 8,~68 104,594 ].1,976 72,483 18,991 '.18,229 ],08o,097 465,546 339,825 4,892 9,406 15,774 9,517 4,009 37.O71 886,038 50.0 52,8 62.5 91.7 43.2 88,4 82.6 ~.0 54.9 Federal Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Revenue Sharing 45,000 820,000 264,000 500,000 7,880 58,623 3],692 55,52] 31,079 558,834 213,324 417,128 261,166 50,676 82,872 69.0 68.2 80.0 83.4 231 QmETROPOLITRI LURJ'TE CONTROL commuyion October 23, 1986 Mr. Ed Shulke City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shulke: Please join a group of legislators, mayors, city managers and members of the media for a tour of our Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant, (2400 Childs Road, St. Paul, MN), at 3:00 P.M. on Monday, November 17. For nearly 50 years, the Metro Plant has been treating our wastewater -- at a site just three miles east of downtown St. Paul, on the scenic Mississippi River. Believe it or not, before that, sewage went, untreated, into the river. That is hard to believe, especially when you look at the increasingly rigorous State and Federal water quality standards we're asked to meet at our Metro Plant today. And we are meeting them! For the last four years, the Metro Plant has received awards from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for maintaining a compliance record of 100 percent of all the water quality regulations governing Metro's performance. That's something we're very proud Ofo The history of steadily improving water quality throughout the metro area over the past.two decades is a remarkable one, indeed. And the Metro Plant has been center-stage as the history unfolded, because it treats over half the wastewater of the entire state! The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) acquired the Metro Plant (and 32 other wastewater treatment plants) in 1969, when MWCC was established by the Minnesota Legislature to prevent water pollution and efficiently treat the wastewater of the metro region. Efficiency has meant, in part, reducing the number of plants in the MWCC system from 33 to 12 since 1969, and looking to the largest of these plants -- Metro -- for increasingly more and better service. ,350 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-222-8423~.~.,~(~ Metro Tour Page 2 October 23, 1986 And we've received just that. The U.S. Department of Energy pre- sented MWCC last November with its Special Recognition National Award for Energy Innovation for a solids processing/energy reco- very system that is saving area taxpayers over three million dollars annually. Our state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facilities have brohght us a lot of attention, and visitors from throughout the U.S. and overseas to tour our plant. (Most recently, the Mayor of Boston toured the Metro Plant, in advance of building a new wastewater treatment plant in his city.) We thought you might like such a tour, too. So, we've laid out the red carpet and shined up our hard hats, one of which we'll give you to wear on November 17th, if you can come. You only need to dress comfortably and wear flat-soled shoes. Do let us know if you can join us by telephoning JoAnn Florez at 222-8423. I hope I can look forward to seeing you at the Metro Plant! Sincerely, Peter E. Meintsma Cha i rrna n LJB:MPF:jf J:tour