Loading...
86-12-23 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGEffD. A MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1986 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Presentation of Appreciation Awards to Mayor Bob Polston and Councilmember Russ Peterson. Councilmember Gary Paulsen had received his award previously. Approve the Minutes of December 9, 1986, Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills Pg. 2730-2737 Pg. 2738 CONTINUATION OF 'PUBLIC HEARING: Vincent Forystek, Lots 5,6,7,8,9,25,26,27 and Part of 15 & 16, Block 8, Pembroke, Proposed Subdivision of Land 5. BID AWARD: Recycling Contract Pg. 2739-2760 Pg. 2761-2770 Request from 75th Anniversary/Mound City Days Committee- Harold Meeker, Chairman Recodification of City of Mound Ordinances - City Attorney Pg. 2771-2772. Resolution Requesting that the 1987 & 1988 MSA Bond Payment, Including Interest, be Made from City Funds Pg. 2773-2774 Resolution Reconveying (If Necessary) Certain Tax Forfeit Lands Back to the State and Requesting the County Board to Impose Conditions on the Sale of Said Tax Forfeit Lands and to Restrict the Sale to Owners of Adjoining Lands Pg. 2775-2776 10. Resolution Reconveying Certain Portions of Tax Forfeit Lands Back to the State; Requesting These Lands be Combined; Requesting the County Board to Impose Conditions on the Sale of Said Tax Forfeit Lands and to Restrict the Sale to Owners of Adjoining Lands Pg. 2777-2779 11. Resolution to Transfer $48,822 from the Liquor Fund to· the 1986 Sealcoat Project Pg. 2780 12. Resolution Authorizing Transfers from the General Fund to Area Fire Service Fund and Fire Capital Outlay Fund Pg. 2781 13. Optical Scan Voting Equipment Pg. 27 82-27 90 Page 2728 14. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present 15. Payment of Bills Pg. 2791-2801 16. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS AS November 1986 Financial Report a~ Freparcd by John Norman, Finance Director ?g. 2802-2804 Be Article from the Minnetonka Sailor Concerning a Nuisance Ordinance in the City of Minnetonka Pg. 2805 Statistical Data from the Metropolitan Council on Population, Households and Employment Pg. 2806 De Jan Bertrand, Building Official, has received her Associates Degree in Building Inspection Technology from North Hennepin Community College. Jan has spent a great deal of her off-duty hours attending school at night and on weekends to obtain her Degree. Congratulations to her on this achievement. MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR Page 2729 188 December 9, 1986 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1986 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, December 9, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. 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 Offical Jan Bertrand and the following interested citizens: Mary Smith (Dow-Sat of Minnesota), Councilmembers Elect Liz Jensen and Skip Johnson, Ron Griffiths, Ed Freidlund, Paul Larson, Ira Crider, Angela Hingos, Vincent Forystek. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to approve the Minutes of the November 25, 1986, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: VINCENT FORYSTEK._ LOTS ~6~7~8~q~2~26~27. AND PART OF 15 & 16. BLOCK 8. PEMBROKE. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LAND The City Planner explained the proposed subdivision and the conditions that the Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended. The City Engineer explained his letter of October 13, 1986, which was in the packet, The Mayor opened the public hearing. The Developer, Vincent Forystek, stated that he remembers the last meeting in June 1985 and felt the City committed to pay for the reconstruction of the last 50 to 60 feet of Paisley Road to alleviate the water runoff problem on Inverness. No one else responded. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Jessen asked if the new design and the combination of Lots 5 and 5A was acceptable to the Developer. He stated yes. Councilmember Smith stated that he would like the resolution to have language allowing only building on Lot 5, not SA, at this time. Mayor Polston stated that he feels the Developer should pay for reconstruction of the last 50 or 60 feet of Paisle~ Road to reverse the flow of water to Inverness. 189 December 9, 1986 Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-178 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND LOT VARIANCE FOR LOT 5, BLOCK 1, INVERNESS HEIGHT FOR VINCENT FORYSTEK, P & Z CASE ~86-550 There was considerable discussion by the Council and the Developer about who should pay for reversing the flow of Paisley .Road. Councilmember Peterson stated he would like to go out and look at the area where the drainage problem is and Paisley Road before making a decision. AMENDENT made bY Jessen, seconded by Paulsen to add ~6 to the proposed resolution stating: SThe City will pay for reconstruction of the last 50 to 60 feet of Paisley Road to correct the drainage problems. A roll call vote was 2 in favor with Polston and Smith voting nay and Peterson abstaining. Motion failed. AMENDMENT made by Smith, seconded by Polston to add wording to the resolution that any structure built on Lot 5-5A, be limited to the confines of Lot 5 only. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. AMENDMENT made by Polston, seconded by Smith to add ~6'to the proposed resolution stating: SThe Developer will pay for the reconstruction of the last 50 or 60 feet of Paisley Road to correct the drainage problems. A roll call vote was 2 in favor with Jessen and Paulsen voting nay and Peterson abstaining. Motion failed. MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Jessen to continue this item until the next meeting, December 23, 1986, so that the Council has a chance to go out and look at Paisley Road and the drainage problem. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney read the portion of the Minutes from the June 1985 Meeting and stated that the City Engineer recommended that the City pay for the reconstruction, but the Council.took no action on the matter. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: CARLE TELEVISION COMMUNICATIONS The City Manager stated that the report and recommendation has now been received from the Cable Consultant. It was forwarded to the Cable T.V. Committee. The Mayor opened the public hearing. 190 December 9, 1986 JIM KUTZNER, Vice Chairman of the Cable T.V. Committee stated that the he contacted 6 of the 8 people on the Committee and they are recommending approval of the sale and transfer of ownership. The only concern was what the nature cf service will be afterward. Mary Smith, Dow-Sat of Minnesota, stated that no change is expected. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-178 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN CABLE SYSTEM AI/D TRANSFER OF CABLE FRANCHISE OF DOW-SAT OF MINNESOTA, INC. TO DOWDEN CABLE PARTNERS, L.P. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~86-561: ANGELA HINGOS? ~7q7 NORTHERN ROAD~ WLY 1/2 OF LOT 27. SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & R2 RAYENSWOOD~ VARIANCE TO REMODEL & EXPAND EXISTING NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE The City Planner called t'he Council's attention to the informational items on Pages 2624-2627 regarding potential rezonings, variances and nonconforming uses. He then explained the applicant's request and the Staff's recommendation to deny. A similar request by the former owner was denied in 1985. MOTION made by Jessen to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the variance request. The motion died for lack of second. MOTION made .by Smith to approve the variance as requested. The motion died for lack of second. The applicant was present and explained her request. The CounCil discussed the variance request and the nonconforming use because of zoning. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to deny the variance application to remodel and expand an existing nonconforming structure at ~798 Northern Road, (Wly 1/2 of Lot 27, Subdivision of Lots I & 32 Ravenswood), P & Z Case ~86-561. The vote was 4 in favor with Smith voting nay. Motion carried. CASE ~86-562: RONA[.D & ODESSA GRIFFITHS~ #q~7 CRESTVIEW ROAD~ LOT 18 & THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 197 BLOCK 25. SHADY- WOOD POINT~ FENCE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE FINISHED FABRIC SIDE TOWARD THE APPLICANT,S PROPERTY 191 December 9, 1986 The Building Official explained that the applicant misunderstood the wording in Section 23.q15(q)g of the Zoning Code, which reads as follows: "If the material used in fence construction is not finished on both sides, the finished side of the material shall be on the outside facing the abutting property". The applicant explained that both sides of the fence are finished so he assumed it would be all right. The neighbors had no objection to the way the fence was installed. Peterson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-179 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FENCE VARIANCE FOR Q9q? CRESTVIEW ROAD, LOT 18 & THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 19, BLOCK 25, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-2q 11 0109, P & Z CASE ~86-562, AFTER GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #86-56~: ED & MELANIE FREIDLUND~ ~qO9 ISLAND VIE"d DRIVE~ LOTS 12 & 17~ BLOCK lq. DEVON. VARIANCE IN SET- BACK TO THE SIDE & FRONT PROPERTY LINE The Building Official explained the applicants request. Planning Commission recommended approval. The Smith Moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-180 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES FORS LOTS 12 & 13, BLOCK lq, DEVON, PID 925-117-2~ 11 00~2 (q909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE), P & Z CASE ~86-563 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Paul' Larson stated he would like to see municipal docks in the Lost Lake area behind the Post Office so people could shop and visit Mound by boat. WATER SERVICE REOUEST & AGREEMENT FOR LOT lq? HALSTED'S P-ARK~ ~INNETRISTA The City Manager reported that the agreement for water service has now been drawn up and is ready for approval by Mound, Minnetrista and the parties who own Lot lq. Polston moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: 1 92 December 9, 1986 RESOLUTION #86-181 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR & CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE CITY OF MOUND RELATIVE TO PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICE TO A MINNETRISTA PROPERTY OWNER IN BALSTED,S PARK The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT REOUEST: LYNWOOD BLVD. IMP. PROJ. & TUXEDO BLVD. SAFETY PROJ.. PREFERRED PAVING. $18.6q~.04 MOTION made by Peterson,. seconded by Paulsen to approve the payment request of Preferred Paving in the amount of $18,69~.04, for the Lynwood Blvd. Improvement Proj. and the Tuxedo Blvd. Safety Proj. Also reduce the retainage from 5~ to 1~. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REOUEST BY LIONS CLUB TO SELL PULL-TABS AT CAPTAIN BILLY,S The Council had no objection to the application that has been submitted to the State of Minnesota allowing the Lions to sell pull-tabs at Captain Billy's. RECOMMEND DAVID COCHRANE TO SERVE ON MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD The Mayor stated he has received a letter asking Mound to support having David Cochrane serve on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 986-1 82 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DAVID COCHRANE TO SERVE ON THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council asked that Mr. Cochrane be asked to attend a Mound Council Meeting sometime in early 1987. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Jessen to approve the payment of bills, as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $182,273.2~, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 193 December 9, 1986 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. November Monthly Reports as prepared by the Department Heads. B. Notice from the LHC of New Development in the League's Property/Casualty Program. C. Park Commission Minutes - November 13, 1986. D. Planning Commission Hinutes - November 24, 1986. NOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. The vote #as unanimously in favor. Notlon carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, 'CHC, City Clerk BILLS ...... DECEMBER 9, 1986 (Cont) Coca Cola Bottling Day Distributing East Side Beverage Four Star Bar Supp]y Flahertys Happy Tyme Happys Potato Chi ps Mark VII Distr Pepsi Cola/7 UP Pogreba Dlstr Ron~s Ice Royal Crown Beverage Thorpe Distr Twln City Home Juice Nov mix Nov Beer Nov Beer NOV Mix , MiSC Nov mix Nov Misc Nov Beer Nov mix Nov Beer Nov ice Nov mix Nov Beer Nov mix Total--Batch 864115 291.85 3,278.69 2,552.09 116.30 59. hO 77.35 q,361.8O 284.10 3,374.20 78.96 75.55 5,686.25 45.3O 55,863.65 Mound Firemen Preferred Paving Mound Postmaster Nat~! Car Sales Bill Clark 0il PHP of MN MN Dept Pub Safety-Liq Med Center Group Health Mutual Benefit Life Oel Rudolph Arthur Lee Griggs, Cooper Quality Wine Twin City Wine Commissioner of Revenue Physicians Health Plan Shoreline Plaza Metro Waste Control Officers Pay 1986 Pymt Request' #5 Replen Postg Due acct 86 Chev Cav Wagofi-Police Gaso 1 i ne Hosp - Werts Buyers Card Oec Hosp II II Dec LTD Contract help Contract cleaning Liquor II II Nov Dec Dec Dec Tota Sales Tax Hosp Rent Sewer Serv l--Batch 864121 3,600.00 18,694.04 200.00 8,375.00 610.10 87.30 12.00 229.10 155.59 626.10 33.00 200.00 1,532.59 162.23 .103.99 5,174.99 5,664.49 1,541.70 28,469.55 75,471.77 Batch 864114 Computer Run Dated 12-3-86 50,93'7.82 Grand Total--All Bil:ls 182,273.24 BILLS ..... DECEHBER 9, 1986 Apache Paper Acro-MN Bonestroo, Rosene Balboa MN Co. Bryan Rock Products Donald Bryce Communication Auditors Conrad Concrete Fran Clark Cargill Salt Dependable Services Glenwood Inglewood Wanda Gorgoschlltz W.W. Gralnger Henn Co Chlefs Police PTAC Henn Co. Treas Henn Co. Sheriff Dept Hazard Control Inc' Ind School Dlstr 277 Island Park Ske11~ Kelly Services Lowells Luverne Truck Equip The Laker LOGIS Kyle Larson Ronald Harschke Wm Hueller'& Sons Hetro Area Hgmt Assn' Hound Fire Dept Harina Auto Supply 'Hinnegasco Northern States Power Navarre Hd~e O'Connor &Hannan Rotary Club of Hound Ranger Products Tom Rockvam Savoie Supply Co. Edw Shukle' Sterne Elec Smith Heating Suburban Tire 'SOS Printing Team Laboratory Tom's Jack Repair Thrifty Snyder Drug University. of HN Unitog Rental Westonka Foods Westonka Firestone Westonka Intervention Watkins Aircraft Support Wayzata Auto Service Xerox Corp Paper Towels Office Supplles Engr. PW Bl.dg Storage Rent Nov. Rock Nov Chief Pager Repair Curb-Otter Htg-Hicrofilm Salt Nov garbage Nov water cooler Tape mtgs for cable 'Elec motor Courses for Roy & Hudson' Oct prisoner board Oct booking fees Firegloves Senior Center expenses Reseal sector Temp help Nov parts Brush guard-new ~ruck hearings & 1iq inserts Oct computer expenses Halloween candy-Reserves Nov Asst. Chief Concrete Sand HAHA mtg Nov salaries,drllls,malnt Nov supplles Nov gas Nov Elec Nov supplies Cable TV--prof serv Hemb & mtgs hose clamps 'Dock removal Janitor supplies LHC lunch Ballasts--Liq Store Pipe Tires Certificates - Fire Dept Roughneck Replace Hall handle Film Reglstr. BIdg Off Inst Nov Unlform rent Nov supplies-council,City Hall Tube Postage Nov Recycling Services Flags Pymts on Copiers 186.30 2q9.52 1;~22.5o 1,q11.25 91.98 q17.o0 89.06 130.00 10.00 1,257.50 38.00 6q.55 60.50 76.84 16o.oo 1,692.50 140.67 139.15 8,995.00 151.95 liB.40 190.Il 177.95 359.68 2,529.94 61.82 150.O0 2,589.48 8.OO 6,061.00 514.75 591.39 1,291.74 418.7o 334.44 45.00 20.42 168.00 99.02 -26.63 151.87 10.15 486.40 7.50 81.71 22.45 17.98 90.00 215.57 109.26 14.95 lO.O4 1,085.00 45.00 253.19 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF .',7~. f"~ ~ \! Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND EP 26 1986 0 F FEE OWNER LAND " ') Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: To be divided as follows: Al I supp. orting documents? 'such.. as sketch plans,, surveys, attacl~ments, etc. submitted '-in '8½'"'X 11'~ size 'and/or 14 cop/es, plus' one '8½"'X 11i'' copy. (attach survey or scale ~rawing showing edjace..nt streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel 'designated by number) A WAIVER IN. LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No · From , ~quare feet TO Square feet must bR Reason: APPLICAN~ Applicant"s interest in the property: TEL. NO. DATE This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- 'etlon given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE 18' ~" RD 7Z December 4,1986 Dear City Council, I am writing this letter concerning a final decision on the proposed development of a land-locked lot 6 which boarders Paisley Rd. and our property at 3162 Drury Ln. I am unable to attend the meeting, but wish to repeat our concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting. This particular lot is partly on a hill and we will be very Concerned about water run-off should a house be built there. We already have problems which required that a swale be dug. Second, we already have a long up-hill driveway to the east of our home which causes traffic problems due to freezing rain and snow. Neighbors usually end up in our driveway because parking is not feasible on Drury which is a hill at this end. A second long driveway may duplicate the problem on the other side should that property become available. Third, we feel it is a ridiculous place to put a house because it increases the already cluttered look of the Island. Finally, for what it is worth, we are all losing ~ildlife and trees for the sake of devlopment, which is a real shame, because that is what drew me from Minneapolis twelve years ago. We realize since we have no real say about the property we will seriously consider moving if a house should be built there. My husband has lived in Mound all his life and is greatly saddened by how much it has been built up. It no longer is a child's paradise in harmony with nature, but a somewhat typical suburban neighborhood. Sincerely yours, F,rank and Roxanne Mcgill CASE NO. 86-550 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: City Oom~cil amd Staff FRC~: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~ DATE: November 12, 1986 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat - Inverness Heights As follow-up to discussion at the Planning Co~nission meeting on November 10, 1986, I have further reviewed two aspects of the Inverness Heights preliminary plat; park dedication requirements and lot arrangement. Each is discussed as follows: Park Dedication Requirements: The proposed plat for Inverness Heights involves the conversion of six parcels of land into six lots. The original parcels ranged from 6,000 sq. ft. to approximately 30,000 sq. ft. By combining the small lots with the larger parcels, all lots within the plat meet the minimum 10,000 square foot area requirement. In keeping with the subdivision ordinance, Section 23.37, such plats are not required to provide park dedication. Hence, it is not required that a park charge be levied against any of the lots within the plat. Lot Arrangement: The proposed plat contains two nonconforming lots. Lot 6 is nonconforming due to a lack. of public access. As a result, the Planning Commission recommended that Lot 6 be combined with Lot 5 creating one large parcel. If the applicant can secure additional property in the future to provide access to Lot 6, it can be split to accommodate construction of a home. In conducting a more detailed review of Lots 4 and 5, it is possible to plat the property so that both are conforming. In doing so, the proposed stacking of the two lots can be avoided. Exhibit A contains an example of how this can be achieved. Under this scheme, both lots contain adequate frontage, area and setbacks to construct two conforming housing Nits. Lot 5A as it is called on this plan, can be part of Lot 5 until such future time as it becomes developable due to the acquisition of additional property. CASE NO. 86-550 As a result of this review, the modified staff recommendation is to approve the preliminary plat for Inverness Heights subject to the following conditions.- Lots 1-3 are approved consistent with the applicant's original preliminary plat drawing dated September 22, 1986. That the preliminary plat be modified in General concurrence with Exhibit A to make Lots 4 and 5 conforming. 3. That Lot 6 (SA on Exhibit A) be combined with Lot 5. 0 Grading, drainage, utility and streets shall be in conformance with the City Engineer as re~ndations dated October 13, 1986. The preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by th. Watershed District. The applicant shall provide a fire hydrant in the proposed Paisley cul-de-sac or shall supply the city with a letter from the fire chief stating that existing fire protection is adequate and no additional hydrants are necessary. - Attached are two resolutions, one reflecting the outcome of the Planning Commission recommendations and one reflecting the modified staff recommenda t ions. CASE NO. 86-550 Exhibit A 'TEE I0," IZ 6II --N · -,- I 6" PLUG HYDRANT o*~73 6'~ 6"x6' TEE $.V. 6'~6"x6" TEE 6" $.V. o'~8 9' PAISLEY ROAD STUS 0~t99 Otg~ tS? ...m 6'x6"~ 6" TEE 6" ~6 BEND /16 BEND RDON ROAD *DRY ..... 98; 961.6 ......................... ............. Planning Commission H~nutes November 10, 1986 1. Case No. 8G-SSO Public Hearlng on Proposed Plat, )~verness Heights Lots 5,6,7,8,9,25,26,27 and part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 8,'Pembroke Vince Forystek was present. .' The City P'lanner, Mark Koegler, revi. ewed hl~. report. He is recommending pre~ llminary p.'lan approval with six conditlons whi. ch include, due to the shape of the parcel and topographic constraint, a 38 foot variance.for access width for Lot S and the limiting of number of lots for the'plat to $ rather than 6 as Lot 6 has no access to a publ. ic right-of-way.' t. Jan Bertrand, Building'Official, commen~ed on the City Engineer's report dated October 13, 1~86 which also included some background information. The Engineer Is basically recommend.ing that the drainage be from the existing cul-de-sac ad- joining Paisley Road. The water should flow SWly from the new cul-de-sac down .the existing st6eet..The grades of the new cu]-de-sac with the grades of the street w).ll have to fit together.. The Engineer is recommending a 80 foot dedl- cated diameter with a 70 foot improve'd street for the cu)-de-sac. Sanitary sewer should be a 8. inch minimum diameter and the watermain 2 inch. minimum dia- meter. .The Engineer recommended preliminary plat app. roval with 3 conditions which Incl.ude l) eliminating Lot 6; '2) variances be granted'for undersized width of Lot $ and underslzed cul-de-sac; and 3) addition of drainage & utility easements to plat and an increase of $ feet in width of easement on Lot 2 for sanitary sewer main. Commis~)oner Weiland·stated he'd like a 6 Inch watermain for fire protection. Applicant Forystek'stated that in 1985 the Fire Chief stated fire protection was fine and that he would provide a letter to that effect; also. Forys(ek'stated services to.Lot 2 are in the ground. He asked questions on what would be required to divide off Lot 6 iQ the future and whether park dedication should be required when replatting legal lots. Koegler stated for now, Lots 5 and 6 would have to be combined and if, at a later date, addltlona) land can be acquired for street access for Lot 6, applicant.could do a minor subdivision. Koegler will clarify the park dedication wlth applicant. The Chair openeJ the public hearing and the following persons had questions and comments :.. DEL PFEIFER - IS against havlng.existin~ easement used for proposed Lot 6. ROXAflNE McGILL'.- questioned who owns' easement; feels putting additional traffic on 'the easement would be a hassle, in the winter because of its steepness and · congestion; also' commented drain.age'.is another problem; they had to put .swale in for their house to keep wa~er away. The Building Official.noted Cameron stated drainage wOuld.be critical, and would need very.specific'plans when.they go for final plat approval. ..[mm DEL PFEIFER questioned.why he was not' notified about ordinance change from "llne of sight" on principal'dwellings front yard setback.' The Cha)~ closed the publ'Ic'hear'ing as there .were ~o other comments relative to this preliminary plat. The P)annlng Commi'sslon discussed the proposal. Reese moved and ~eiland'seconded.a motion to accept staff recommendations with the e~ceptlon of clearing up whether, park dedication is approprlate and combining proposed Lots 5 and 6 and also including the provisions.for a letter on'fire ' hydrant. The.Planning Commission discussed where house should be on' proposed new Lot 5; Mark Koegler Stated that as Lot 5.is.not conforming and needs a vari'ance, the .Planning Commission'can .specify' the building area'and recommended approving the plat subject to. all the conditions with Lot 5 and 6 being combined in~o one building lot and tha't the housing pad be located'on what is shown right.now as Lot $ on the Tha) moved an'.amendment to the mot)on to include recommendation of the staff on placement of'the house.. 'Steve Smith. seconded the motion. The vote on the amend- ment was Heyer, Mlchae], Reese and Ken Smith opposed; Andersen, Steve Smith, Thal, ~eiland and Jensen in favor. Amehdment passed. The vote. on the.motl6n as·amended'was unanimously in favor. The City Councll'has'been asked to set December ~, 1986 'fo'r the.public hearing. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesote 55441 612/553-1950 '113= Planning Commission and Staff FRC~: Mark Koegler, C.ity Planner ~/ DATE= November 3, 1986 '. SOBJ-BCT: Preliminary Plat - Inverness Heights ~ ~};:)= 86-550 VHS ~ ROo; 86-310--A35--~.0 APPLICANT= Vincent D. Forystek ~SIWE PLAN: Single Family Residential PRC~)SAL: The applicant is'proposing to divid~ 1.4 acres into six lots, all of which are at least 10,000 square feet in area. Three of the proposed lots will face eastward and front on Inverness Lane., two lots will take. access from a proposed cul-de-sac along Paisley Road and the sixth lot as shown on the proposed plat will be landlocked and presumably will take access from an easement connection to Gordon Road. Lots 1-4 conform to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Lot 5 will require a 38 foot lot width variance since the proposed frontage on Paisley Road is only 22 feet wide. In order for Lot 6 to be approved, a variance will be necessary since it does not have frontage on the public street. REOOMMENDATION: The proposed plat is a collection of lots which "front on two public streets. Topography in the area is steep. Lots 1-4 meet the minimum ordinance requirements for access, lot area and width. Lots 5 and 6, however, do not meet current standards. A 38 foot variance is appropriate for Lot 5 since the shape and terrain of the area make access difficult. Since Lot 6 does not contain access to a public street, variance approval is not recommended. Due to the shape of the parcel and the topographic constraint, five lots are appropriate for the plat rather than six. Staff recommends approval of the .preliminary plat' for Inverness Heights subject to the followin~ conditions: 1. Lots 1-4 shall be apprOVed since they conform to ordinance criteria. 0 A 38 foot lot width variance for Lot 5 is approved due to the shape of the overall parcel and topographic constraints. e Approval of Lot 6 is denied since it does not have access to a public street. The lot. area from Lot 6 should be distributed to the other lots as appropriate. Grading, drainage, utilities and streets-shall be in conformance with the City Engineer's recommendations dated 'O~tober 13, 1986. Se The preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by the watershed district, If applicable. Park dedication fee shall be collected consistent with current ordinance requirementsf ~n:.no case less than $300.00 per ]or. - 25"o McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS October 13, 1986 Ms. Oan Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 SUBOECT: Dear Proposed Plat Inverness Heights Case No. 86-550 HKA ~7479 As requested, we have reviewed the material submitted for the preliminary plat of Inverness Heights and have the following comments and recommendations. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1) Proposed ~ot 5 will need a lot widthya~ance, since it does not meet the minimum lot width as required by the zoning ordinance. 2) Lot 6 cannot be allowed because it does not front on a public right-of-way as required by the platting regulations. 3) Drainage and utility easements need to be added to all lot lines, 6 feet in width alon9 the side and rear lot lines and 10 feet in width along the front. GRADING & DRAINAGE Any grading done on this proper~y.will be very critical because of the steep slopes that exist. The final grading plan, when submitted, will have to be complete, including good erosion control measures. STREETS We have writtena number, of letters to the city on previous p~oposals submitted by the developer regarding portions of this propez~cy. Attached are copies of these review letters. The major concern we have is the proposed extension and cUl-de-sac construction of Paisley Road. As you will note from the enclosed letters, we previousiy recommended that a portion of the existing street be removed and the grade changed to allow drainage from the new cul-de- sac to flow southwesterly down the existing street. This method would be much more economical than the other aiternates previously discussed involving storm sewer extensions. It wiI1 be the Council's decision as to whether the City wiI1 pay for any of this reconstruction on the existing street as was suggested in our previous letter. Our other concerns are with the actual cui-de-sac. The City's piatting regulations require a 50 foot radius to the right-of-way Iine. The plan submitted shows a 34 feet radius to back of curb and 35 feet radius to the right-of-way. We would recommend that a variance be granted to aliow a 80 foot diameter cui-de-sac with 70 foot diameter improved street. This wouiO stiii ieave a 5 foot area between the curb and property Iine for underground utiiities such as teIephone, gas and electricity. Ms. San Bertrand October I3, 1986 Page Two UTILITIES i) 2) The sanitary sewer should be 8" dia. minimum and the wate~main will need to be 2" dia. minimum. The easement for the proposed sanitary sewer main on proposed Lot 2 needs to be wider. (15 feet minimum with 20 feet preferred) There are no existing services extended to the right-of-way line for the use of proposed lot 2, which means new services will be required from either the existing main in Inverness Lane or from the new mains in the easement. Elevations of both the proposed house and of the sewer main extension will determine which main can be used for the sewer service. In conclusion, we would recommend preliminary plat approvai subject to the foilowing conOitionS. i) 2) Lot 6.be eliminated and the area combiped with Lot 5. Variances be granted for the undersized width of Lot 5 and the undersized cuI-de-sac. Addition of drainage and utility easements to the piat and an increase of 5 feet in width of the easement shown on Lot 2 for the sanitary sewer main. Very t~uly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3ohn Cameron Enclosures gC:tdv McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CO,SUL?IN$ EN$1NEERS , LAND SURVEYORS,PLANNERS-. 12800 Industr~l~Park .IB~ulevlrd Plymoutl~. Mi~sot~55441 City Hanager . . City of Hound .. ' ' 5341 Naywood Road Mound, Minnesota Dear 3on, .. i test ro el< dated As requested, I have rev/ewed the a p ~~en~Otryjc2s~7 3Jne 3, 1985. The way I read his proposal, the c~/~y would.~tand the cost exist/rig stree~f/ncludtng replacing the last 60 feet of the engineer/ng costs. TEe remainder This would amount *to approximately $~00.00. of the development cost of approx/mately $24,200.00 would be paid*~O~ in cash by the developer and 50~ assessed beck to the property. Th/s means the city would have to finance approx/mately $12,100.00. As ~e stated in our previous letter of Hay 6,1985, we do not feel Hr. Forystek should be responsible for the expense of reconstruct/rig the ex/sting portion 'of Paisley Road, but we do th/nk he should be responsible for the all eng/neering costs assobtated with this project.. One other itam in Hr. Forystek's letter of 3une '3,. does concern me. He mentions that he would 1/kc to create question, Lots 25, 26, 27, and the north 115 feet of Lots 15 and 16, Block*8, Para broke. Hound's ordinance, chapter 22 wh/ch ~'eqbiates the subdivision of property, contains a number of requlations which would not be met by dtvid/ng this property /nto ~ build/rig sites. The two most obvious are the platt/rig requirements and the m/n/mu~ lot width front/rig on a public right-of-way. The city has /n the past usually wa/red the platt/rig requirement when a parcel is divided into 2 building sites. In this case, depend/ng, on the location of the new property 1/nes and the legal descriptions of the new parcels, we may recommend a replat of the property. The less than m/n/mu~ lot width would require a variance. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Oune 10, 19B5 S/ncerely, HCCG4BS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. 3ohn Cameron COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.' CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS May 6, 1~8~ Elam City Manager . City of Mound 53al Maywood Road Hound, MN 55~6 SUBJECT: FllePaisley~ 7479.R°ad Extension. ~ ~ Deaz ,]on: . Rs requested .we have done an addttlonal study on the exi~ing drainage problems in the area of the p:oposed Paisley Road cul-de-sac and also the portion of Inverness Road to the east which :ecetges run off from the Paisley right of way. We looked at a number of differ~nt' solutions, but from an economic standpoint we feel only one alternate is feasible. Reply To: 12800 Indu~rial Park Boulevard Plymouth. Minnesot~ 155441 (612) 559-37~,~L.~ Storm sewer could be extended to the proposed cul-de-sac from existing mains at two different locations. Alternate No. i would cost approximately $2a,000.00 and involve extending storm sewer from the intersection of D:uzy Lane and Paisley Road to the proposed cul-de-sac. This alternate wtll not solve the problems on Inverness Lane and the .same results can be accomplished in a much less expensive way. which will be discussed further on as alternate We also looked at extending the storm sewer from a main in Tuxedo Boulevard up Sterling Road and Inverness Lane with the last section in the unimproved right-of-way of Paisley Road. Catch basins would be installed in Inverness Lane and also in the new cul-de-sac. Our estimated cost for this method would be approximately $5~,- 000. 00. 'Both this alternate and alternate No; I are very expensive because of the street restoration required. Alternate No. ~ would involve removing approximately the last 60 feet of lnplace concrete curb and gutter and bitL~inous paving of Paisley road and zeconst~ucttng this section to drain westerly. By doing this the new cul-de-sac could aiso be constructed to drain westerly, thus eliminating the need fo: any new storm sewer in the p~oposed cuI-de-sac. We have estimated this reconstruction to cost approximately $3,700.00. Our previous estimate for the cul-de-sac construction was $~,620.00 which would bring the totsi street cost to approxtmateiy $10, ~20. 00. As you can see this method is much cheaper than the two previousiy mentioned. The negative side of alternate No. ~ is that approximately one half to two thirds of this hiII wilI continue to'drain overiand easterly to Inverness Lane. The yard which suffers the most from this run off, was graded into the I Mr. ~on ~iam May 6, 1985 Page Two hill and left much too fiat with not' enough slope away fzom the house. The only way to solve their water probiem would be to completely zegrade the yazd on the west and north sides of the house. It may be possible to dive~t some of the runoff from the hill and keep it in the unimproved R/W of Paisley by some zegrading at the same time sanita~ sewer and wate~main are extended. In conclusion we would have the follOwing recommendations: Alternate No..-~ be considered as the method of handling ~un off fzom the proposed cul-de-sac. The cost~ o~ ~econstzucting ~0 feet of Paisiey Road, appzoximately $~,700.00, wii1 be paid for by the Mr. Fo~ystek, the developer of the 2 pzoposed building sites, should' stand the cost of extending sewer and water from the mains in Inverness Lane and construction of the cul-de-sac. See estimated cost attached to our previous Ietter dated Februa~ 27, 1985. If the City agrees to finance these costs and assess them to the parceis owned by Mr. Forystek, the costs for engineering, administration, lega.1, etc. should also be included. If you have any questions or need additional info,marion, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, . McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIAllES, INC. ~ohn -Cameron gC:cah cc: Vince Forystek February ~7, Reply To: 12800 Industriml Park Bo~le~erd Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612 ~669- 700 3on Elam 'i 'i 'ir.city Nanagez ....... //~/ ...' .Ctty of Nounal . /~/ 5341 Na,.y~.ood Road -: Nounal, 14~nnesota 55;~ · Subject. ' Palsley Road Extension' ,/'/ As reques~d ~e have p~epo~ed cost es~ma~s-~ co~c~on of a ~-de-sac and ~ans~ of u~t~es to se~e ~ect y~c~t property. E~losed are ~ese estimates. We have ~ot done any field work therefore no elevations are available at ~hts time. ! did visit the site and it appears an area has alreadY' been rough graded where a cul-de-sac could be constructed. If` thls p~ect goes any further, the drainage in the area of' the proposed cul-de-sac needs additional study. The attached cost estimates for utilities include '~a'in extensions within the Paisley Road right-of-way from Inverness Lane to the proposed cul-de-sac. This would be much cheaper than extendin9 the water and sewer from where .it presently ends and have to replace approximately 200 feet of existing street. G~eg and I have discussed the different methods that could be used to serve this property and have .settled .on the one estimated. We feel the water should be a 6" mai~ with a hydrant' at the proposed cul-de-sac for fire protection. At the present time the closest hydrant is at the intersection of Drury and Paisley. The cost estimate for the sewer shows an 8" line, which could be reduced to 6" if desired. The cost savin9s would probably amount to only $500 to $600. The cost estimate also shows 2 manholes even thou9h the length of the extension would only require one new manhole at the proposed cul-de-sac. .' ,Without elevations to show the ground profile it is impossible to determine if one manhole would be sufficient.. .]on Elam -'- February 27, .. Page Two If you have any questions or need additional information, please donor hesitate to contact us. ~Sincerelyt HcCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. 3ohn Cameron 3C:J City of Hound February 25, 1~85 - #2113 Pzelimina=y Cost Paisley Road 'Sewe= 8" PVC Sewer 270 L.F.t ;.O0/LF $~,510.00 ,anholes 2 O.O0/EA 1,~00.00 8"x4." Wye . 6~ 70.00,,)~/7 l~lO.O0 4" sewer service ,,8.QCY/LT / 480.00 Con.t~ngencies ' ~~.' ', '600.00 Estimated Construction Cost ........... ware= · 6. wateTmain 270 L.F. · $2~700.00 SaTvice G=oups 2 EACH ~ 80.O0/F.A 160.00 1- coppe= service pipe 80 L.F..I ;.OO/LF z~80.O0 Fittings · 300 LETS. ~ l oSO/EA 450.00 Gate valves 2 EACH; ~50.O0/E:A 700.00 Contingencies Estimated Cons~uction Cost ...................................... Streets (70' O~amete: Cul-de-sac) Grading Concrete curb & gutter Bituminous base Bituminous weaz ContinGencies 8 Lump Sum 830.00 2_30 L.F; 8 6.O0/LF 1,~80.00 100 TON · · 28.00/TN 2,800.00 40TON · 26.00/TN 1,040.00 Estimated Construction Cost ...................................... $6,620.00 RESOII~IO~ ~0. 86- AND LOTVARIAN(~~5, BLOCK 1, INVERNESS HEIGHTS FOR VINCENT FORYSTEK' CASE NO. 86-550 WHEREAS, The City Council on December 9 ), 1986 held a Public Hearing pursuant to Section 2200, Chapter 22, Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider approval of a preliminary plat and lot area variances for the establishment of six residential lots described as Lots 1-6, Block 1, Inverness Heights; and WHEREAS, during review by the Planning Commission, the applicant and the Commission agreed to combine Lot 6 and LOt 5 thereby establishing a plat containing five lots; and WHEREAS, the revised plat is consistent with the exception of lot width with the Mound Ccmprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Mound, Subdivision Code #422; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a 38 foot lot width variance for Lot 5 and such variance has been reviewedbythe Planning Commission who has recommended approval due to the unique shape of the property and topographic constraints which meets the zoning ordinance criteria for the granting of a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: The preliminary plat and variance (case number 86-550) are approved upon compliance with the following requirements. Per plat on file at Mound City ~mll dated September 22, 1986. Lot 5 is granted a 38 foot lot width variance subject to the combination of Lots 5 and 6 into one building lot. Furthermore, any home constructed on Lot 5 shall be placed within the boundaries of LOt 5 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 22, 1986 and shall, as a minimum, observe the setbacks as shown on the plat. 3. Grading, drainage, utilities and street plans shall be reviewed and 'approved by the city engineer. 4. The preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. 5. The developer shall provide a fire hydrant in the proposed Paisley cul-de-sac or shall supply the city with a letter from the fire chief stating that existing fire protection is adequate and no additional hydrants are necessary. 6. Failure on the part of the applicant to submit a finml plat per Section 22.13 within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the prelimiDmry approval null and void. RE~PL~ON NO. 86- RESOLUTION AP~RGVI~ A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND LOT VARIANCE fOR LOT 5, BIDCK 1, INVERNESS HEIGHTS FOR VINCENT.FORYSTEK P & Z CASE NO. 86'550 WHEREAS, The City Council on December 9,' 1986 held a Public Hearing pursuant to Section 2200, Chapter 22, Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider approval of a preliminary plat and lot area variances for the establishment of six residential lots described as Lots 1-6, Block 1, Inverness Heights; and WHEREAS, during review by the Planning Commission, the applicant and ' the Commission agreed to combine Lot 6 and Lot 5 thereby establishing a plat containing five lots; and W~EREAS, during review by the City Council, it was shown that the proposed preliminary plat could be modified to make all lots conforming thereby eliminating the need for the proposed lot width variance; and WHEREAS, the modified plat is consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Mound, Subdivision Code #422. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~HE CITY OF MOUND: The preliminary plat (case nUmber 86-550) is approved upon compliance with the following requirements. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat drawing showing the combination of Lots 5 and 6 and the modification of Lots 4 and 5 to make them conforming. The revised preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by the city planner and city engineer. e Grading, drainage, utilities and street plans shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. 0 The preliminary plat Shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. The developer shall provide a fire hydrant in the proposed Paisley cul-de-sac or shall supply the city with a letter from the fire chief stating that existing fire protection is adequate and no additional hydrants are necessary. Failure on the part of the applicant to submit a final plat per Section 22.13 within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary approval, null and void. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 18, 1986 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator Recycling Contract Only one bid was received, this was from Supercycle. This company has been picking up our recyclable items since October when Beerman Services went out of business. I feel they do a good job out here, have good looking equipment and are easy to work with. Their bid came in at $1,050.00 a month and are not charging anything to come out the third Saturday of the month for our drop-off site. We have been paying $1,O85.00 a month, for 1987 we have $13,900 budgeted. This bid will fit very nicely in the recycling budget. 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 5341 MAYWOOO ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (652)'472-1155 NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: The City of Mound is seeking a recycling contractor to collect newsprint, aluminum, steel and 'tin' cans, glass and cardborad from an area of approximately 3050 housing units. The specifics of the program are contained within the enclosed draft agreement. To bid this program, please Gill in the blanks below and return this sheet and pages ll and 12 to the City Manager at the City Hall by IO:OO a.m..December 15, 198b. I have read the proposed "Agreement for Recycling Services" and agree to sign it and comply with i~ .if I am the successful bidder. TELEPHONE SIGNATURE, ~ "~ ~. DATE An equal opportunity Employer thai 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 acliv lies. What is the extent of your current recyclables collection operation? Number of units now serving OR Number of municipalities 'servered AND ~'q~ T~ ~)~ Number of years in CONTINOUS business Please furnish references of previous/current customers. our ~ Are y recyclable mac~[al~colleccion Erucks/veh'icles clearly m~rked and identifiable wtrh your company's name2 Yes NO Number of trucks/vehicles used for your recycling hauling services. Please furnish a copy of your most recent financial statement or balance sheet. (Audited statement preferred if available). 7. Present a brief descript::on of the procedures used to operate your current recyclables collection program. Include comments about the equipment, facilities, and number of employees .needed for your recycling operation. 8. 'Is your business for profit or nor-for-profit? ~O~'~' 9. Other' comments: 12 QUESTIONS 1 - 9 TO BE COMPLETED AND' MAILED IN WITH COVER SHEET What collection cost, if any, for 3050 dwellin§ units: cos~/ton $ OR cost/unit collection $ OR Flat/fee month ADDITIONAL FEE for manned drop-off site 1 day/month (3-4 hours) $~~. 2. What preparation is required before recyclable materials are placed on the curb? (check all that apply) NEWSPRINT: Bag Bundle other(specify) ALUMINUM: wash rinse remove labels smash other (specify) GLASS wash rinse remove labels smash other (specify) Preparation of additional recyclable materials; Identify any aspect of this program which would cause a problem or present difficulties to your business to undertake this program. Would there be an alternative day which would be more convenient for your business for the City of Mound's recyclable materials collection? Yes , /~ No If "yes", which day ? ll ~[LLFR. MCDONALD~ ERICKSCN & MCLLER~ LTD. P. Oo [OX ~6 51~ E~LTPAM[ RVENUE ,. ,,/~..',. P · INg. lnL ACCOKPA,~YING ~ALANCE SH;rT OF W.A.S.P., INC. AS OF OCT3'..~LR ~1. 1986 AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF i,~COFL FCR THE PERIOD THE~ E~DED HAVE BEEN COMPILED ,:Y US. I~ ACCONDANCt~ W~Th THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED ~Y T~E AMERICAN [NSTZTUTZ OF CF~T/F~ED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS. A COMPILATION 15 LIHITED TO PRESENTING IN THE FORM OF, F~NA'~CIAL STATEMk~NTa INFORMATION THAT IS THE REP- ~cS;NTATION OF MAN~.,EMENT. k~ HAVE NO~ AUDITED CR ~.WIL,~o TH~ ACCOMP~,NYIN~ finANCiAL ~TATEMENTS 4ND~ kJk,'l OF AS~OPANCE Ot~ TH~P. FAt, q.,~Y,-**hT HAS ELECTED TC CHIT ~,U?~STANTZALLY ALL OF 1,tc ~,[~CLOSU,~L-$ ~ND THE STATE:"IFNT OF CHANGES IN I~AhCI.~L FO$ITION RE'aUIi~EO BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED AC- COb~TI~ PRINCIPLES. IF THE O~ITT~D DISCLOSURES ~,~CL~D~ ZN TH~ FINANCIAL ST~TE~ENTS~ THEY HIGHT F~bE~.'C: 1~ US[R"S CCNCLUSIOES AE'OUT THE COflPANYeS ~[KANC[~L FOS[TZCN~ RESULTS CF 3PERAT[ONS~ AND CHANGES zq FLhA%C[AL POSITION. aCCOFDZN~LY~ THESE bT~Tc?ENT5 A~E NGT DESIGneD FOR THCSE ~HO ARE 'NOT ~J~D A~OUT SUCH HATTERE. ,~(.TO./~k 21, 1986 ccY. IDJ I, MI~h£SOT~ W.A.S.p. a~L&NC E SHEET OCTCBEq 31, 19S6 CURRENT ASSETS (;ASH XN BANK - GSa PlA CASH 1N ~ANK - GSP GEN. CASH - SELF INSURANCE CASH TN aANK-SUPERCYCLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OTHER RECEIVABLES DUE FROM STOCKHOLDER INTEREST RECCE IVAF:LE PREPAID INSURAqC£ INVENTORY TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS ASSETS PR OPERTY AND EQUIPMENT LAND bU ILDI NG MACHINERY & E;UIPMENT AbTOMOTIVE E abTpMENT FURNZTUR~ & F]'XTUR~S L h VIr.$T MLNT EQUTPH~NT LEASED EQUZPMENT ACCUH. DEPREC-LEASED EQUXP LE SS ACCUMUL.&TED DEPRECIATION TOTAL PkOP:'i~Ty AND EaU[PHEN1 D£P REC IATE'D VALUE OTHER ASSETS INV~STMLNTS DEFERREG INVEST. EXPEKSE TOTAL OTHER ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS (51,5&6.72) (141,465.81) 19,750.00 24~,771 75,11'Z.99 4,432.47 $ 15,000.00 952,850.u0 716,096.22 243,21 15,$60.00 $6,263,30 6.36 r ~.A.S.P.. ZNC. 5ALANCE SHEET OCTG~ER 31,~ 1986 NOT~: PRYA~L~ - AC COUrt. T~ FAY R"~ SA~.~O TAX PAY~ ~NCOHC TAX PAY ~u~ TC/FRC~ TR PNOFII LIA~ILITI ES LZA,. ILITI6S dANK LE ~LE. YABLE ~L AK$. ACT SHARING PAYABLE CURREKT LIABILITIE$ TOi'A~ AhD ST 0 CKHO.LD ERS ' LONG-TER~ LIABILITIES NGT~. PAYABLE - 6~AC N(,Tr PAYA-.LE - GLEN.DEVELOP. RGRTGA~aC PAYAP. LE - NuTE PAYABLE - FLATBED NCT~ PAY~L~ - G~AC ~U~Y-hOT~ PAYABLE ~NCF-N~TE PAyA~LL DcF~:D :NTEREST ;~UT~ pAYAJLE - GL~N~OCD O~V. CORP. TCT~L LONG-1~RM LZ~EZL.ZT~ES 3TOC, KHOL dgRS ' E~IJIT¥ C,~ P ITA~. STOCK Re.l*aJ:NcL~ LA~NING$ CU~,~,:I~T i:NCOML (LOSS) TOTAl. STOCKHOLDERS ' EQUITY TOTAL L.tAuILITIc$ & STOCKHOLDERSe EQUITY EQUITY SEE ACCOUNTANT'S COMPILATION REPORT $ 530,000.00 1,281,a65.70 (5~840.00) ?~000.00 117,~1 10,72~.76 6,691.00 ........ $ 21~,~54.36 13Z~164.$0 187,279.28 2~763.36 1,065.92 1,7o4,1e 1.20 (759.74) $ 30,000.00 9C6,915.96 $6,265,306.36 FO~ THE T~ N PA~$£~GER AIR SALE~ AI~ FAEIbH1 SALE& bPS T~XHINAL R~PAIA PARTS TOTAL SALES. KATERIAL$ .LAcUK TOTAL LOST OF SALES OPERA Tiara EXPEN$£S ~P!i~rLCT t. XPb. hSc t. 0 ht K. r.~ g', ~ CO~PEN~A110N £~ab I P.~c NT REKT rdLLDLN~ ~ENT EAP EN~A~LE T~OLING IN~U~RNCE OIL & T~UC~ FREIG~I-iN F~E i~HT-CUT ~EPAI;~S 6 ~.AINIENANCE GAb & OIL ~aCYC~ING ~XPEN~ES ~bCLLLAN~OU~ LAuOR I ~ANS-ACT ~AC~ dkdL COrM TRANS-ACT TOTAL ~ND~R6CT ~CC~ ~TAT~qENT MONIH$ ENDED OCTOBER CURRENT PERIOD A .,tOUNT RATIO YEAR-TO-DATE AHOUNT RAt%0 5.61 $ 1,,582,945.07 41.93 4~400~0&9.49 48.61 5~066,871.79 5~2,179.98 ?.65,990.93 31.64 $ 5~272,608.4b 15.52 1,674,12,.20 14.55 17~S56.00 1.02 $ 15,574.00 .1Z 1,329.24 .98 2,659.46 .00 .00 3.130.00 .03 16~006.12 .93 74~160.8e 13,753.21 1.09 71,535.76 .62 13~924.40 · ~1 57~072.95 .50 1C5~06~.04 b.l~ ~&4~881.1~ 5.60 ~0/~C5.60 2.12 123/994.10 1,0~ ~/649.40 .15 8/687.5 5 .07 6~996.53 ,41 59,859.85 17~673.67 10.19 ~12~699.71 1 2,915.95 .75 86~1 ~0.41 .7S C411.5E) (.02) 5,163.1 3 215.54 .01 22,962.02 .20 13~667.32 ~0 136~o73.20 1.19 .OD .00 773.80 .01 5~214.55 .30 50,~58.90 18~325.88 · 1.~7 112~4B0.90 WiAISoPo INCCPI£ -e TkTEME#T FOR THk T~ 4 MoNIHS ENDEO OCTOBER 31t ~986 yEAR-TO-DAT~ CUR~ ENT pERIOD k~ouNT R~110 ARouNT R~TXO ~ 2~2~0.00 .13 t 1 6~500-00 8~ Z .65 . ~5 7~ Z 23- 85 .06 ~9~k68.05 1~275'78 .07 17~087-~ ~ .15 (~,26Z.32) (.25) ~2~5~3.01 .37 ko0.O0 .~2 28~82~-30 S~915,~6. ,55 74~519-75 ,65 .00 .O0 2~k91.1~ .02 1C0.00 01 3~634000 · 928.20 .00 .00 ~0~762.9Z 1.79 ~01~709-97 7~0~3.65 ,~1 102~?~Z" 82 .89 z~ L~T ~XPE~S~ (5~692.1Z) ('~) 7, 50e.70 .07 sALEb E XpEN~L 8~044.06 .47 15;565-6~ 0~ ' 9000~8 p~U~c~lY TAXES .00 .~0 ¢,Uk LDLNe RA~NTENANCE ~6.00 z. SO e28~60'00 O~p~C O~ ~t~V~I~ENTS (t;556.8)) (.15) (27~0Z9.~0) 2.75~ IOTAL cpER~TING aXPEkS~S~----' OeclITIN~ paoF1TiLOS~) 5Z) (.12 OT~6~ ~NCO~,~ (~xp6NS~S) $ 1~17.62 .72 $ Bo. OO .00 CfdC~ I ~COP': (Z~660.70) (,16) (13~6Z9- D/SCGO'h T5 10.00 000 216~b67-2~ ~.88 IoIAL CTHIR INCOM~ (EXpENSE)i---: ~ 22b,iO8-55 13.21 S 61'5~ 571-07 ~E~IEkAL Ah,) ADMINISIRATIVE OF i. J.C il~ SALARY OFFI. Lr~R LLF~ IN'iURANCc 6~tb UP 1N~oRAN.C.t OFFIC[ 5bPPLI£S Aa¥ r~RTIStNG & p Ro~OT].ON Lca^LANL)' pROF ESSZONAL ' 1,¢,A V i. LA ND ENTERTAINMEN'~ OUtS ~, SU~J$CRIPTXO~S bANK, cHARGES cohT~,LsUI iONS pAY~,uLL IAx~-S .SaLtS CoP, MISS £CHS MOUND CITY DAYS 75TH CELEBRATION BUDGET Expense: Security (Pond, Comm. Ctr.) King & Queen P.A. System Parade Signs 2-People Cable TV 3-Major Door Prizes Senior Center Breakfast (500) 3-Banners ($320.00 ea.) Buttons ($83.85/M) Advertising Westonka Foods (rolls, milk) Photographer Coffee Brochure (3000) Miscellaneous $ 110.00 200.00 100.00 75.00 25.00 500.00 250.00 495.00 960.00 255.00 800.00 150.00 75.00 120.00 2,075.00 200.00 $6,270.00 Income: VFW (dep. 12/11 ) $ Nancy Jean Hardees CONTEL Mound Med. Svgs. Acct. Bal. 200.00 100.00 250.00 250.00 100.00 252.00 $1,152.00 ' Note: Raffle door prizes donated by merchants. FOR TH~ AkE~¥LLLNG ~NCO~L ~i.A.S- P- ]:NC. tNCORE STATEMENT SCHEDULE R£CYCL]:Nt~ OPERATION T~N RON'iH$ [NDED GCIOBER 3'1~. 19E6 CURRENT PERIOD AMOUNT RATIO ~U~LUiA~ RENT TRbC~ REPAIR T~AV~L AND SU'~SC~:PT~ON5 a. L. COKSULT:NG UTHER CONSULT:NG 10TAL OPLRATING ~ A t_ CYC L.,LNG i NC Oleg YEAR-TO-DATE AI~OU NT . RAIZO ~ 50~755-37 2 ~,,134o$8 28.k~ $ 93~653.93 6,~75.03 e.55 12~4S0-03 5.76 .00 .00 1~020.1 8 2~511.62 2.5~ 2,511.eZ 1.16 100.70 .10 1,9~4.27 .90 .00 .00 ~6~0.67 ~.1~ 8~817.79 6.9~ 60~54.60 27.86 ~000.00 2.02 11~2~-08 5.~o ......... *Q~ -~-~:~ ..... ~A~*QQ --~*Q~ 51.~7 $ 19~339.85 e.93 ,77o A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A PEARSON, P.A. ~JAMES D. ~ARSON, P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, CRAIG H. HERTZ ROGER d. FELLOWS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & ME:RTZ ItOO FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 December 2, 1986 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Ordinance Codification Dear Ed: In February.of 1983, the City of Mound determined to go forward with a recodification of its ordinances. I believe it is universally agreed that our ordinances contain a good deal of information which is old and obsolete and that it has been poorly organized and difficult to work with in the every day operation of the City. It is a job that I agreed to do for the City for the sum of $15,000, and we have worked on it now for 3~ years at various times, working on it when time was available. I want to get the Code enacted if at all possible prior to the change in Councils, since this Council made the determination to go forward and contracted with us to do the codification. I also feel it would be better if the new Council could work with a new ordinance book and not be confused by going back and forth. The purpose of codifying the ordinances is stated to be as follows: "In addition to consideration of convenience for City officers and employees, citizens have a right to know what is required of them by their government, either national, state, or local. If a person can be fined or imprisoned for doing or not doing a particular thing, then that person should know very clearly what that particular thing is so that he and she can make every effort to conform to the standard required and thereby avoid civil or criminal liability. This is fundamental due process in our legal system, not to mention common- sense fair play. Of course, if one is to know what the law is on a particular matter, he or she must first know where to find it." WURST~ PEAR$ON~ LAR$ON, UNDERWOOD & HERTZ Page 2 Rr. Ed Shukle, City Ranager City of Round December 2, 1986 We have gone through and attempted to do the following: 1. Identify conflicting ordinances and repeal or redraft inconsistencies or unclear ordinance provisions. 2. Remove archaic and unconstitutional ordinances. Develop an organizational framework that facilitates access to the City's laws and provides for continuous updating. We have gone into a comprehensive index and com- prehensive reference system. We have gone through a general review of the entire body of municipal ordinances for omissions and to try to bring them consistent with current state law. A copy of the new Code has been furnished to your staff, and it is my understanding that has been distributed to the various departments for review of the ordinances with which they work on a daily basis. We are continuing in our office to review and bring it into order for final adoption, and we have recently'submitted a number of clarifying pages clearing up typos and other minor matters. Ed, I would hope that we could have the Code adoption on for the second Council meeting in December along with our statement for services in the amount of $15,000. I enclose a statement, and this can be amended or paid partly this year and the rest next year, or can be handled in almost any way you deem advisable. I will be happy to meet with you, Fran, and/or individual Council members to go over any aspect of the recodification, but let's try to have it concluded this month. I am sure you realize, as does the Council, that in such a mammoth amount of work it is possible that errors have been made and corrections will be necessary, but that will be an on-going operation and we can try to catch those items and take care of them individually as we find errors in the Code. Very truly yours/~ Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney CAP:Ih Enclosure IMMcCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATEs, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS December 8, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Hound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: 1981 MSA Bond MKA #7753 Dear Mayor and Council. Members: Enclosed is a proposed resolution that the City Manager and myself would like to have you consider. A MSA Bond in the amount of $275,000.00 was sold in the spring of 1981 to finance a portion of the cost of the street improvements on Tuxedo Boulevard and Three Points Boulevard. Each year, money is automatically withheld from the City's annual MSA construction and maintenance alottment to repay this bond, including the interest. The City has a special assessment fund which was set up because some of the costs for this project was assessed in the fall of 1981. This fund has an excess of money, which could be used to repay this HSA.bond. The City could then use the additional MSA money, which would normally have went towards repayment of the bond, for future ~SA street improvement projects. One such project that the City will be responsible for in the near future is a portion of the cost of the improvements on County Road 15. If the Council should have any questions, I will be available to answer them. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmj Enclosures December 9, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE 1987 & 1988 WSA BOND PAYMENT, INCLUDING INTEREST, 8E WADE FROW CITY FUNOS WHEREAS, the principal payment on the Wound MSA Bond issue of 4-1-81 is normally made from the MSA Urban Construction fund; and WHEREAS, the interest payment on the Wound MSA Bond issue of 4-1-81 is normally made from the MSA Urban Maintenance fund; and WHEREAS, the current Mound MSA construction fond balance is very low; and WHEREAS, the City has an excess of money in their own fund for the 1981 Street Improvement Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, that City is Qereby requesting that their 1987 and 1988 MSA bond principal and interest payments, not be made from the City's MSA construction and maintenance funds. The City of Mound will make these last two annual payments from City funds. The City will then use the additional MSA money, which would normally have gone towards repayment of the bond, for future MSA street improvement projects. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NECESSARY) CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND REOUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Hound has a number of tax Parcels which do not comply with the City's zoning ordinance and building codes because of a lack of minimum area, shape, fronta/e, access prob- lems, or the parcels contain nuisances or dangerous conditions which are adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and WHEREAS, the City was instrumental in obtaining legislation which would allow said parcels to be withheld from public-sale and sold at a non-public sale to eliminate nuisances and dangerous conditions and to increase compliance with land use ordinances and Minnesota Laws of 1 982, Chapter 523, Article 39, Sect. 6 was adopted to provide said authority to the City and the County; and WHEREAS, a specific list of tax forfeited lands has been provided the City and the City wishes to restrict and condition the sale of certain lands to bring them into conformance with City ordinances and land use goals; and WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282.02 (also note: H.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23. and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added to the appraised value of any such parcel of land at'the time it is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. The 'County Board is hereby requested to imposecondi- tions on the sale of the following described lands, and is further requested to sell such lands only to owners of lands adjoining at a non-public sale so that said lands will be combined for tax and land use purposes and will comply with City ordinances and regulations: REASON FOR AND CONDITION~ TO BE ~OSED SPECIALS LE¥IED BEFORE FORFEITDRE SPECIALS LEVI~ SINCE FORFEITURE LEVY~ AMOUr 24-117-24 42 0006 Undersized lot to be 3180 (Lot 6, Block 34,sold only to and 3388 Wychwood) combined with ad- 3397 joining properties 7928 479.70 581.41 775.83 1,045.95 NONE The City of Mound to retain the easement as specified in Resolution 886-151, dated October 14, 1986. (Lot 14, Block 26, Wychwood) sold only to and combined with ad- joining properties NONE NONE This parcel is approved to be split off of PID 824-117-24 14 0047. This land was conveyed to the City in ~tate Deed 8150270 on January 23, 1976, for park purposes· The City has determined it does not need Lot 14, Block 26, Wychwood for park purposes. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale, subject to the County imposing the aforestated condi- tions and the lien of special assessments on said lands.- The City of Mound is releasing the above properties subject to street and utility easements being retained by the City of Mound. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by CoUncilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECONVEYING CERTAIN PORTION OF TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE; REQUESTING THESE LANDS BE COMBINED; REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS WHEREAS, the City of Mound requested conveyance, to the City, of certain portions of tax forfeit lands in WHIPPLE, for street purposes; and WHEREAS, the property description for this property is as follows: North ]q feet of Lot 15, Block 9, Whipple, PID 12q- 117-2q q3 O0qS; and WHEREAS;' this land was conveyed to the City in State Deed #]50271 on January 23, 1976; and : WHEREAS, the City does not need this property for street purposes; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound requested conveyance, to the City, of certain portions of tax forfeit lands in WHIPPLE, for wetlands; and . WHEREAS, the property description for this property is as follows: Lot 15, Block 9, Whipple, ex st. (PID 12q-11?-2q q3 OOq9); and WHEREAS, this land was conveyed to the City in State Deed ~161917 on October 1, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City has now had a survey done to determine how much of the above was in the wetlands and finds i.t does not need to retain the the following described portion: "That part of Lot 15, Block 9, Whipple, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 15, distant 110.00 feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 15; thence northeasterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 15, distant 70.00 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 15." WHEREAS, the two above described parcels (PID 12q-11?-2q q3 00qB and a portion of 2q-llY-2q q3 O0q9) should be combined into one parcel; and WHEREAS, this parcel does not comply with the City's zoning ordinance and building codes because of a lack 'of minimum area, shape, frontage, access problems, or the parcels contain nuisances or dangerous conditions which are adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and WHEREAS, the City was instrumental in obtaining legislation which would allow said parcels to be withheld from public-sale and sold at a non-public sale to eliminate nuisances and dangerous conditions and to increase compliance with land use ordinances and Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 523, Article 39, Sect. 6 was adopted to provide said authority to the City and the County; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to restrict and condition the sale of certain lands to bring this parcel into conformance with City ordinances and land use goals; and WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 43§.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added to the appraised value of any such parcel of land at the time it is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Hound, Minnesota: Requests that the 2 parcels described as follows be combined: PID ~24-117-24 43 0048 - North 14' of Lot 15, Block 9, Whipple. and A portion of. PID ~24-117-24 43 0049, described, as: That part of Lot 15, Block 9, Whipple, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Lot 15, distant 110.00 feet south of the northwest corner of said Lot 15; thence northeasterly to a point on the east line of said Lot 15, distant 70.00 feet south of the northeast corner of said Lot 15. The County Board is hereby requested to impose condi- tions on the sale of the following described lands, and is further requested to sell such lands only to owners of lands adjoining at a non-public sale so that said lands will be combined for tax and land use purposes and will comply with City ordinances and regulations: 2 REASON FOR AND CONDITIONS A Portion of Lot Undersized lot to be 15, Block 9, sold only to and Whipple (as combined with ad- described above) joining properties 2~-117-24 43 0048 Undersized lot to be (North 14' of sold only to and Lot ~5, Block 9, combined with ad- Whipple) joining properties SPECIALS LEVIED BEFORE FORFEITURE NoNE NONE SPECIALS LEVIED SINCE FORFEITURm NONE 9904-A $234 The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale, subject to the County imposing the aforestated condi- tions and the lien of special assessments on said lands. The City of Mound is releasing the above properties subject to street and utility easements being retained by the City of Mound· The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 3 December 23, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER $q8,822.00 FROM THE- LIQUOR FUND TO THE 1986 SEALCOAT PROJECT WHEREAS, Resolution d82-46 approved the plans and specificatiOns for a five year sealcoating of the streets in Mound; and WHEREAS, Liquor Fund Revenues and Liquor Store Fund Balance are to pay for the project costs; and WHEREAS, the 1986 Sealcoat Project costs consist of the following: McCombs $ 957.00 Mueller 14,830.00 Allied 32,893.00 Publishing 142.00 TOTAL $ 48,822.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve a transfer from the Liquor Fund to the 1986 Sealcoat Project of $48,822.00. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk December 23, 1986 " RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND AND FIRE CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WHEREAS, Resolution ~81-39~ created a Special Revenue Fund.called the Area Fire Service Fund to account for operations of the Fire Department; and WHEREAS, the City of'Mound entered into fire contracts with five surrounding municipalities; and WHEREAS, Mound's share of the total cost of fire service is $135,283 for 1986; and WHEREAS, $59,5~2 of Mound's share is provided by special tax levies which are credited directly to the Fire Relief Fund and Fire Equipment Certificate Fund; and WHEREAS, $75,7~1 was budgeted in 1986 in the General Fund to transfer to the Area Fire Service Fund and Fire Capital Outlay Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to transfer $72,538 from the General Fund to the Area Fire Service Fund and $3,203 from the General Fund to the Fire Capital Outlay Fund. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The follOwing C0uncilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk MarK' FEATURES Accurate Results Dependable Performance Lightweight 2 Color Printout System Expandable Reduced Cost , Insert Ballot Any Direction Variable Width Ballot' Variable Length Ballot Counts Both Sides Self Diagnostics Voter Friendly Easy Service/Storage Latest Technology Versatile--Accepts Three Ballot Widths, BOth Sides Auxiliary Power--Connects to any '12 volt battery Portable Memory Cartridge may be taken to a central computer for readout Compatible with O-III-C Instant precinct results with turn of key Units nest for compact storage { .--PRODUCT DESCRIPTION Variable Width Ballot The Optech III P unit reads three column ballots but, by simple adjustment, can read single or double column as well. Printing is single color on bath front and back and the length can vary from six to aver twenty-four inche~ Thus, the election officials have almost complete fr~',~dom in selecting ballot sizes in order to substantially reduce the printing costs of each election. ** Totals Accumulations Precinct totals are printed out by Inserting a key into the control panel and rotating It a quarter turn. The candidate names are printed opposIte the total votes each received. Optech III P vote tabulators from each precinct can also talk directly with a computer at election headquarters through a telephone system, or the memory cartridge may be removed and sent to election headquarters for read out. Also, a single O III P unit can be used as a central accumulator for other precincts having similar ballot& Simplified Transportation and Storage . Poll workers will appreciate the light weight convenience offered by the O III P unit. Election administrato~ will save money In handling, transportation, and storage. All supplies including ballot box and the twenty pound O III P unit is easily transportable in the precinct worker's automobile. Optional cardboard ballot boxes are available to further reduce storage costs and facilitate transportation. Self Diagnostics--Easy to Service Set up at the precinct is easily accomplished and requires no technical skill. During the election process, the O III P unit performs numerous self checks for proper operation and, In the event of malfunction, automatically prints out a message guiding the poll workers in what to do. and prevents additional ballots from being Inserted. During such periods, the integral auxiliary ballot box compartment is utilized so that the election process may continue wIth- out Interruption. In the unlikely event of a ballot Jam, the card reader generally leaves some portion of the ballot exposed. Thus, the jam may normally be cleared by the poll worker-- avoiding the delay and expense of dispatching a technician from election headquarter& Battery Operated Vote totals will be retained in memory even If power falls temporarily. If power will be out for a long period of time, an optional battery pack or any 12 volt automobile battery may be used to power the system. Simply connect an auxiliary power cable to the O III P unIf and continue operation without adjustment. Prograrnming Service Complete ballot layout, programming, and printing services are available from BEC, Election Services Division, and Its affiliates. Election Administrators never need to worn/about loss of skills or specialized personnel trained for layout and programming. Should It be desirable to have a local printer print ballots, your BRC, Election Services DMsion representative offers a printer certification program. The program authorizes a qualified local printer to print Optech III ballots after successfully completing a training course. The printer is then given averlays and other materials necessary for the accurate production of ballots. In this way, election authori- ties are assured of receiving ballots that will be compatible with Optech IIl's unique optical system. , similar] 'Aud# ~'dep~ of tlie Business Records Corporation Election Services Division 328 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-5614 RICHAI~O I.I. lacKAY President (312) 454-1475 August 8, 1986 Ms. Marge Christianson Department of Property Taxation Elections Division A608 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, MN .55487 Dear Marge= As you requested, we are quoting herein on the planned quantity purchases of OPTECH III-P optical scan vote tabulators for Hennepin County to include Ramsey County as an option if they desire to participate in this plan. Although we had discussed the pooling of additional orders, the costs of installation and support for the 1987 elections beyond the Twin City area could not cost justify this consideration. Inasmuch as the time and travel cost per precinct to train and install is inversely proportionate to the size of the jurisdiction, it will be necessary to consider other counties, each on its own merit. This proposal is predicated on the following assumptions, and is valid only under these circumstances= Orders from Hennepin county and Ramsey County jurisdictions must have been received by Otto Johannes on or before 12/31/86 in order to qualify for the quantity discounts. Purchase orders would be issued by each jurisdiction subject to certification of the OPTECH III-P by the Secretary of State for the State of Minnesota. Ae Payment arrangement alternatives will include the following plans= (1) cash price 30 days after delivery~ Ms. Marge Christianson -2- August 8, 1986 *(2) 20% deposit with order and 36 monthly installment payments commencing the first day of the month following delivery of the equipment~ (present rate of 8.96% annually is subject to change)~ *(3) 30% ~eposit with order an~ 60 monthly installment payments commencing the first day of the month following delivery of the equipment~ (present rate of 8.64% annually is subject to change)~ (4) lease with option to buy. *July, 1986 rates quoted by ~ company specializing in municipal finance. Delivery arrangements would be agreed upon as follows= (1) any jurisdiction having 1987 elections would receive delivery in ample time to prepare for those elections~ these dates must be stated on the purchase order at time of issuance~ (2) jurisdictions having no election commitments until 1988 would receive ~elivery at the sole discretion of BRC any time prior to June 30, 1988. Pric~s are ~.o.b. destination. Any unforeseen factors which may emerge could, of course, be mutually agreed upon'. Ms. Marge Christianson -3- August 8, 1986 OPTECH III-P WITH VOTING SUPPLY CASE Quantity Range Unit Cost Less than 100 $4,800 101. - 200 4,704 201 - 300 4,608 301 - 400 4,512 401 - 500 4,368 501 and over 4,176 Each jurisdiction must issue its purchase order committing to the appropriate purchase plan at the unit price determined by the quantity ordered by each jurisdiction for its specific use. After January 1, 1987, when the total quantity ordered has been determined, BRC will send an appropriate letter to each jurisdiction amending its purchase price accordingly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ¢a11. Richard H. McKay RHM:ll BILLS DECEMBER 23, 1986 Computer Run Dated 12/18/86 II II II Batch 864122 Batch 864123 28,385.44 8O ,238.88 Total Bills 108,624.32 MINNESOTA NBA BASKETBALL 5525 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 612-544-DUNK December 17, 1986 City Council RE: Minnesota NBA Basketball Dear Council Members: As you know, we have been working hard to bring exciting NBA Basketball back to Minnesota. It has been 26 years since the Lakers left, and our chances are excellent for an NBA franchise to be awarded April 20, 1987, when the league has committed to announce expansion sites. In order to maximize the input of our fans, we have had a "Name The Team" contest which ended December 15. After only one advertisement, we received suggestions from over 5,500 people! We have decided upon two finalists, and want to ask for your help in choosing the eventual team name. We see your council and the other city councils throughout Minnesota as representatives of all parts of our state. Each council has one vote, and we hope that you will consider the two name alternatives and write us with your choice at the address above by January 9. The majority will rule, and the choice of the most city councils will be our NBA team name. 'You should know that we have tried to select names which are marketable, consider the personality of our state and its people, and reflect on the geography, recreational opportunities and other unique characteristics of Minnesota. The two choices are:. Minnesota Polars, or Minnesota Timber Wolves. Thank you for taking the time to help us choose a name for the NBA team which will soon represent our great state. Sincerely, MINNESOTA~NBA BASKETBALL ~~ Ha~'Rat~ne ~r'v~o 1~~~~ Robert A. Stein **Minnesota NBA Basketball is a Division of Northwest Racquet, Swim & Health Clubs, Inc.** T It/ Z 0 Z 0 o Z o T, I,.. Z Z 0 t,.- Z · Z f O0 O0 41' W 13. ] # ,# o~~ooooo o~~ooooo o~o~~ooooo I I I I I I I I:11 I I I ~00~ 000,~~ I Z~)XZ~ ~0~0~ IIIIII)! 0000~00~ ZZZ~ZZZZZOZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 0000000000000 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0000000000000 I' · I 41, 000 T W ~ 0 0 ~ ~000 I1 Pq o Z -'r W UY .J 4- 41. Z C) U. UJ I-. Z 41. lei ,-, ~ 'Ir oo oL~l/~o o oo oI~.OJW o1~ o L i,~~ I'1 I Z 0 I- U ,J O. · Z lC I 41, · · h- O Z oo oo oo ~ oo ~ oo ~ Z ~ W '.r Z 0 c~ Z Z Z ~1 I I lO00 . .~ Z I Z I 1- I F-- ~" I,.- U. Ii. ~ZX 000 000 000 v I Il. ILl. :0 I · o Z 0 ~0 "r'~ Z UJ D~ '0 ,X !Z I- l- 0 Z ~J 0 uJ T 0 s- o :ZZZZZZ ZZZZZZ , IIIIII IIIIII I'l'llill 'i JJJ~J~ I Ii' ! ~o~ o JJJ~J~ u~ o lei I t fi:: I~1~ -I 0 oo ~J i o o I' UJ Z 0. X oo oo \ Z ~0 ZZ O0 O0 ),,,. ~, I,-, I-- . eOom W T bJ Z :3 0 3:: w w 0~00--~0~0~0~0~00 Z 0 W 0 ,-, Z 0 ZZZZ ! ! Z r~ I- LI.I 0 Z :,- 0 W Ld f- O~ 0 0 I- Z Ltl 0 0 ~0 h. t~ CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 15, 1986 TO: FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER JOHN L. NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR RE: NOVEMBER' 1986 FINANCIAL REPORT DECEMBER REVENUES We receive the October tax settlement from Hennepin County the first week of December. The legislature changed the payment for Local Government Aid, from the state, to one-half in duly and the other one-half in December. Combined, these two payments in December represent approximately 40% of the general fund revenues for the year. Therefore,'investments must be made to meet expenditures of the first six months of next year. EXPENDITURE BUDGETS Heading into the final month of the year, almost all of the expenditure budgets are on or below target. City property is over budget due in part to building repairs being $3,500 over budget. The majority of the building repairs was spent on trying to get the City Hall building heating system to operate properly. (Despite our efforts, the.heating problems continue to occur.) JN:ls An equal o pportunily 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 HOUND 19~6'BUDGET REPORT REVENUES November ,,1986 91.7~ of Year BUDGET anwmh, r' YTD REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE PER CENT RECEIVED GENERAL FUND Taxes $ 931,061 Intergovernmental 719,964 Business Licenses 13,060 Non-Business Licenses & Permits 11q,00~ General Gov't Charges. 27,750 Court Fines 82,000 Charges to other Oepartments' ... 23,000 Other Revenue 5~,300 465,515 465,546. 2,779 382,918 337,o46 30 8,258 4,802 10,441 128,800 (14,800) 880 .13,987 13,763. 11,982 84,464 (2,464) 991 21,642 '(1,359) 855 22~442 32~858 50.0 53.2 63.2 113.0 50.4 103.o 94.1 40.6 TOTAL REVENUE $1,966,135 27,958 '1,128,026 838,109 57.4 Federal Revenue Shari.ng 45,000 31,079 13,921 Liquor Fund 820,000 60,957 681,698 138,302 Water Fund 264,000 (4,966) 260,871 3,129 Sewer Fund 500,000 4,899 467,053 32,947 69.0 83.1 98.9 93.4 CiTY OF HOUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES November 1986 91.7t of Year UNEN- November YTD CUMBERED BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE BALANCE PER CENT_ EXPENDE0 GENERAL FUND Councit $ 36,964 2,161 30,443 6,521 City Manager/Clerk 89,273 6,037 76,432 12,841 Elections & Reg. 10,307 3,263 8,120 2,187 Assessing q3,369 430 43,134 235 Finance 141,420 10,180 121,816 19,604 Legal 80,330 5,191 62,617 17,713 Cable T.V. ---- 407 1,411 (1,411) Contel 20,000 --- 14,462 5,538 Recycling 18,585 1,335 13,167 5,418 Police Protection .. 568,199 37,437 477,708 90,491 Planning & Insp. 1OO,333 6,404 83,460 16,873 Civil Defense 3,000 1,093 1,907 Streets 369,950 24,332 339,312 30,638 Sho~ & Store 47,096 3,440 41,782 5,314 City Property. 83,449 1,577 86,529. (3,080) Parks 1.30,O93 6,339 115,105 14,988 Contingency 50,000 21,184 25,390 24,610 Transfers 75,741 6,312 70,624 5,117 82.4 85.6 78.8 99~5 86.1 77.9 iii 72.3 70.8 84.1 83.2 36.4 91.7 88.7 103.7 88.5 5O.8 93.2 GENERAL FUND TOTAL $1,868,10~ 136,O29 1,612,604 255,505 86.3 Federal Reserve Sharing 52,000 Area Fire Service 142,802 Sealcoat Program -. --- CBD Assessment --- 8,775 Liquor I~3,q50 9,162 Water 315,022 9,075 Sewer 631,084 46,096 Cemetery 3,896 364 28,737 13,263 68.4 130,780 12,022 91.6 126,074 27,376 282,840 32,183 490,037 141,047 3,475 421 82.2 89.8 77.7 89.2 · yards not mowed ' ' ed or gravel ' parking From page lA * the amount and condition of driveway area under the new m'- netonka compJex" and sug-. ~.~t~,pfles ' .. ... dinance. No'more, than.four gested that Minnetonka catch up the number' of location of vehicles,' indud{ng those parked with other metropolitan com- · vehicles ". .. in any driveway, may be stm, ed munities bypassing the new or- The section onmowi~"g~-ass outside'of enclosed .storage dinances and "keeping an' eye Would require residents to mow. fenced areas which would be onit." ..... " grass over six-inches/high. :visihlefrsmother~,.-~.-~ .aLso favored the new ordln~nces wetlands, 'and public property de storage ordimmce states no and suggested the cotmcil would be exempt. Naturtdareas .commercial vehicles car he "should try it." would be compared with other parked on residential prt. 'Y Although there are several property within 1000 feet. or public streets for more ttmn changes in the _proposed or- Woodpiles would be limited to two hours,' except' when pro- · d inances, Pon Rankin, Com- three full cords, neatly stacked, vicing a service or delivery. mtmity Development Director, .Only licensed, operable Rankin described the new or- said the'changes are in three passenger vehicles and motor- dinances as a "reasonable set of wain areas: cycles may be parked on a pay- standards."