The URL can be used to link to this page

1988-01-26mm CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1988 Pledge of Allegiance Approve the Minutes of the January 12, 1987, Regular Meeting CASE #88-701: Frank Buysse, 2009 Commerce Blvd., Mound Shores, PID #14-117-24 14 0037 Request: Variance - Parking Lot Setback Resolution to Approve the Location of Nine Dock Sites on Lost Lake Channel, City of Mound Property ¸5. Approval of Ordinance #10-1988 - An Ordinance Adding Section'255 to the City Code Creating a Park Advisory Commission and Establishing its Duties Resolution to Concur with the Park Commission Recommendation to Establish Terms for the Commission Members Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise for Bids for the Construction of a New Public Works Facility for the City of Mound Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Report from Economic Development Task Force and Resolution to Authorize Mayor & City Manager to Enter Into a Contract for Services with Business Devel- opment Services (BDS) to Provide Economic Development Services (Report will be handed out Tuesday evening) A brief presentation will be made regarding the report 10. Resolution Accepting the Policies, Premiums and Companies as Submitted by Mr. Earl Bailey, R.L. Youngdahl & Associates for the 1988 Insurance Program (Materials to be handed out Tuesday evening) Pg. 170-176 Pg. 177-185 Pg. 186-199 Pg.' 200-201 Pg. 202 Pg. 203 Page 167 11. Change February 23, 1988 Council Meeting to another evening because of Prec~nc~ Caucuses. ~.~~ SUGGESTED DATE: .arCh 1, 1988 12. Resolution to Transfer $38,831 from the 1981 Street Improvement Fund to the Lynwood Blvd. Improvement Fund 14. Resolution Authorizing Application for Conveyance from the State of Certain Tax Forfeit Lands Resolution_Cancelling Resolution #83-141 Regarding Lot 28, Block 1, Arden (Tax Forfeit Property) and Releasing Certain Tax Forfeit Lands to Hennepin County for Public Auction and Certifying the Special Assessments Resolution Releasing Certain Tax Forfeit Lands to Hennepin County for Public Auction and Certifying the Special Assessments Pg. 204-207 Pg. 208-209 Pg. 210-211 Pg. 212-213 16. 18. 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. 214-220 Resolution Authorizing Reconveyan'ce of Forfeited Lands to the State of Minnesota Payment of Bills Pg. 221-222 Pg. 223-238 19. A. INFORHATION/HISCELLANEOUS Preliminary Year-End 1987 Financial Report as Prepared by John Norman, Finance Director Pg. 239-241 Report from Councilmember Jessen on the NLC Conference in December Pg. 242 Financial Health Profile as Prepare by. the State Auditor's Office for the Years Ended 12/31/82 - 12-31-86 Pg. 243-265 Letter from Pamela Plumb current President of the National League of Cities, re: NLC Update on Legislative Priorities. Notice from NSP re: Interim Electric Rates Pg. 266-272 Pg. 273-287 Page 168 REHINDER: NLC.Annual Congressional City Conference, Washington D.C., March 19-22, 1988. IF YOU WANT TO ATTEND, CONTACT FRAN ASAP REGARDING ARRANGEMENTS. You received an agenda earlier. It is critical that you decide NOm~ if you want to attend. REMINDER: TEAM BUILDING/GOAL SETTING SESSIONS --1/22 and 1/23 at the Lafayette Club. Begins at 5:30 P.M. on 1/22. See you there. .- ~- REMIMDER:~ LMC Legislative Conference - February 16, 1988 - St. Paul Radisson Hotel. If you are interested in attending, please let Fran know ASAP. Planning Commission Minutes of January 11, 1988 Pg. 288-290 Page 169 1 january 12, 1988 MINUllES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 12, 1988 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, january 12, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in'said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Don Abel, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Skip Johnson was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, and the following interested citizens: Tom Reese. The Mayor opened the meeting ahd welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MINUTES MOTION made by AbeT, seconded by Jensen to approve the minutes of the January 12, 1988, Regular Meeting, as pr=esented. The vote was unanim- ously in favor. Motion carried. L.M.C.D. REPRESENTATIVE REPORT Hound's L.M.C.D. Representative, Tom Reese, stated that there is a back licensing issue that has been brought to his attention by the Water Structures Committee which dates back to 1977. He would like to see this issue resolved as quickly as possible. The Council discussed the issue and asked that the City Attorney and City Manager check into this problem and see what can be done to resolve it. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #88-1 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER THE OFFICIAL' NEWSPAPER FOR 1988 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR FOR 1988 Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #88-2 RESOLUTION APPOINTING SKIP JOHNSON ACTING MAYOR FOR 1988 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 17o January 12, 1988 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY NANAGER Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #88-3 RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY CLERK FRA)i CLARK ACTING CITY I~ANAGER FOR 1988 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPOINTNENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO VARIOUS COMMISSIONS Smith moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~88-4 RESOLUTION APPOINTING PHYLLIS JESSEN TO THE PARK COMMISSION; LIZ JENSEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; AND SKIP JOHNSON TO lllE._CABLE T.V. COMNISSION AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 1988 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES Jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~88-5 ~RESOLUTION DESIGNATING llIE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1988 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL BONDS Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~88-6 RESOLUTION APPROV. ING THE PURC~IASE OF A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jessen moYed and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION t88-7 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. January 12, 1988 TRANSFERS OF FUNDS Smith moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION t88-8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRAI~S~R FROM THE GENERAL FU~D TO THE AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #88-9 RESOLUTION. TO TRANSFER $23,947 FROH THE. LIQUOR FU~D AND $23,947 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE 1987 SEALCOAT PROJECT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPOINTMENT TO CABLE T.V. COMMISSION Jess. en moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 188-10 REAPPOINTMENT OF CHUCK C~AMPINE..TO CABLE T.V. COM- MISSION - TERM EXPIRES DECEKBER 31, 1990 The vote was unanimously in favor. Hotion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There was no response. BID AWARD: SHORELINE PROTECTION AND RIP-RAPPING PROJECT The City Hanager reported that the following bids were received: 1. 2. 3. 4. Be 6. 7. 8. 9 · 10. Barber Construction D. H. Blattner & Sons Contracting Services Dock & Lift Service Larson Excavating, Inc. Minnetonka Portable Dredging Northern N Sevcon Sunram Landscape Widmer Brothers $ 30,800.00 $ 71,715.00 $ 21,741.00 $ 29,995.00 $ 68,399.00 $ 29,785.00 $ 23,499.00 $ 65,920.00 $ 24,775.00 $ 21,693.50 The Staff recommendation is to award to bid to Widmer Bros. January 12, 1988 Abel moved and Jessen seconded the following ~esolution: RESOLUTION t88-11 RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE BID FOR THE SHORELINE PROTECTION & RIP-RAPPING PROJECT TO]lIE LOW BIDDER, WIDVER BROTHERS, IN THE ANOUNTOF $21,693.50 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING.. THE CITY CLERK -TO EXECUTE AN ORDER FOR REMOVAL OF A HAZARDOUS BUILDING AT 5444 TONKAWOOD ROAD Jensen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION t88-12 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN ORDER FOR REMOVAL OF A HAZARDOUS BUILDING AT 5444 TONKAWOOD ROAD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASES t87-679 A~D #87-680 A & B - REVISED RESOLUTIONS f87-217 & 87-218 The City Clerk explained that.the City Planner wanted the waiver of subdivi- · sion requir6ments more expressly stated in the above two cases. Thus, the new resolutions. ,The City Attorney s'tatedlthat the property descriptions for Case #87-680 A & B need to be inserted in the new resolution. jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION t88-13 RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 87-217 TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMNENDATION TO APPROVE k WAIVER_OF .SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 330:185 OF.11tE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES.FOR LOTS 5-& 6, BLOCK 13, THE HIGHLANDS; PID ~23-117-24 31 0053; {P & Z CASE t87-679) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION t88-14 RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 87-218 TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMNENDATION TO APPROVE A WAIVER.OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 330:185 OF THE HOUND CODE. OF ORDINANCES AND A. VARIA~CE OF LOT WIDTH FOR LOTS 40, 41, THE NORTH. 1/Z FROHT.AND_REAR..OF 42, WHIPPLE SHORES; PID t25-117-24 21 0011; (5346 PIPER ROAD); (P & Z CASE 187-680 A & B January i2, 1988 SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE -FOR~THE VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE BURTON PROPERTY - LOTS 4 & lO, BLOCK 12, SETON MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to set February 9, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a utility easement on the Burton property - Lots 4 & 10, Block 12, S~ton. The vote was un- animously in favor. Motion carried. LICENSE APPROVAL A. Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church - Charitable Gambling - No Council action is necessary if you do not have a problem with the State issuing a License. No action wa~ taken. Tree Removal. License - Eklunds Tree Service, 4229 Co. Rd. 10 N., Water- town, MN. 55388 MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to authorize the. issuance of Tree Removal_License to Eklunds Tree Service, 4229 Co. Rd. 10 N,, Water- town, MN. 55388. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Abel to authorize_.tbe payment' of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $141,691.11, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Abel asked that the discussion on the property which is for sale adjacent to the new public works facility site be delayed until there is a full Council at the February 9th Regular Meeting. The Council agreed. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A® · Department Head Monthly Reports for December, 1987. Memo from the Police Chief dated December 30, 1987, regarding the squad car fire. Letter dated January 4, 1988, from the City Attorney regarding Doe v. City of Mound and former Police Chief Bruce Wold and Sgt. Bill Hudson. This case began a few years ago and has finally ended with our Police Department being cleared. D. Summary of Municipal Response to LMCD Legislative Program. January 12, 1988 E& Lake Level, Flow & Precipitation Summary for November, 1987, as pub- lished for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District· School District ~277 has formed a Committee to do some comprehensive planning for the short-term and long-term regarding school facilities. Representatives from Mound, Minnetrista, Orono and Spring Park me~ with this Committee last week to provide input regarding city-owned facilities and future uses. Focus was placed on facilities that are recreationally oriented. Discussion included Northwest Tonka Lions · concept of building a Softball and/or baseball complex in Minnetrista. The Committee will be meeting further and will be drafting a report for the Board of Education for their consideration this Spring. NLC Annual Congressional City Conference, Washington, D.C. - March 19~ 22, 1988. IF YOU WANT TO Al-I-END, CONTACT FRAN ASAP REGARDING ARRA#GE~ RENTS. The City of Mound is a direct member of NLC and has taken an ac- tive role in NLC matters over the past several years. REMINDER: TEAM BUILDING/GOAL SETTING SESSIONS - January 22, 1988 ~ 5:30 P.M. ~ 10:00 :P.M..& January 23, 1988 - 7:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. - Lafayette Club Minutes of LMCD Mayor's Meeting of December 19, 1987. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Abel to adjourn at 8:20 vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Francene C. Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS ...... JANUARY BATCH 7123 56,662.50 BATCH 7124 59,131.89 SuperAmerica Dec gasoline Metro Waste Control Commission Jan Sewer Serv 633.71 25,263.01 TOTAL BI LLS 141,691.11 3030 Harbor' Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: January 5, 1987 SUBJECT: Variance - Parking Lot Setback APPLICANT: Frank Buysee LOCATION: 2009 Commerce Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 88-701 VHS FILE NUMBER: 87-310-A34-ZO EXISTING ZONING: (R-4) Multi-family Residential COM~REHENS IVE PLAN: Multi-family BACKGROUND: In October of 1987, the Building Official was notified that a parking lot was being constructed on the north side of the apartment building at 2009 Commerce Boulevard. The lot was being paved 'immediately adjacent to the north property line. The Building Official notified the owner that the construction was in violation of Section 23.716.1(4) of the Mound Zoning Code which requires a 5 foot setback from the property line. The owner elected to continue construction and to apply for a variance "after the fact". Therefore, the current variance request is to construct the parking lot with a 0' setback to the property line resulting in a 5 foot variance. DISCUSSION: The proposed (existing) parking lot wfll accomodate approximately 13 vehicles. The applicant has parking f~r an additional 17 vehicles along the east side of the building. Together, the lots will provide 30 spaces for 23 apartment units. If the complex was a new construction project, they would need 58 parking spaces. The applicant claims that the widen±rig of Commerce Boulevard resulted in the loss of 8 parking spaces. If this is accurate, it constitutes reasonable grounds for the consideration of a varianc e. In reviewing this variance, 'it is important to consider the impact on the adjacent residential structure. With the parking lot on the property line, driveway area and vehicle parking occurs within 5-6 feet of the adjacent apartment building to the north. Ail parking is parallel to the neighboring structure. 'In order to .provide some buffer for the neighboring.property and to keep vehicles on the paved area, the City could require the installation of a low fence/guard rail along the entire edge of the bituminous surfacing. RECO~fENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 5 foot parking ~setback variance subject to the installation of a wooden bumper height barrier along the northern edge of the bituminous paving. Plans for the barrier shall be approved by the building official prior to installation. MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING d~nuary 11, 1~88 BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 88-701 Parking Lot Setback Variance fop 2009 Com- merce Boulevard; South 90 Feet of the North 178 Feet o~ Lots li3, 114 and 115, subject to road, Mound Shores; PID Number 14-117-24 14 0037 Owner, Frank ~uysse, was not present. The .City Pla~ner, Mark Koegier reviewed his report. In Dc- .-.. tobeP o~ '1987, a par~ing lot was going in immediately ad- jacent t.o the north property line; the Build.~ng Official notified the owner construction was in violation o~ .~he Mound Zoning Code which requires a 5 foot setback {rom the property line. The owner made a decision to continue and seek a variance "a~ter the ~act". The variance request.is to allow the parking lot right up to the property line so it would be a 5 foot variance. He noted the apartment complex does have a parking shortage and do have a problem; there was a land taking W~th the expansion of Commerce Boulevard some years ago. He ~hought it was important to consider the impact on the neighboring property; there are tire tracks .going almost to the ~ront door o~ that adjacent structure which is only 5 or 6 ~eet away ~rom the edge o~ the paving. Staf~ ~ecommendation is to approve the variance subject to conditions, make variance subject to ~he installation o~ a wooden bumper height type barrier along the northern edge o~ the .property' line,, to make sure that the vehicles stay on the paved area and !do not encroach on the neighbor's property. Plans for the ~barrier should be approved by the building o~ficial prior to installation. Concern is that something substantial should go in. The Commission discussed the case and it was questioned if there were not architectural specifications for parking areas that we have been observing such as width o{ spaces and turning areas, etc. The Planner stated those are design standards and not specified in the Ordinance. Parking space is regulated (10 by 20); these will not be iO bY 2¢~s. The Commission discussed that it is not possible 'to .get 13 spaces or do anything close to what owner is saying in his drawing; you can not tumn and some o~ the spaces are locked in. It was thought he could sa~ely get 4 or 5 spaces out of A & B; cars would have to be parked at different angle. It was noted that the ' property to the south of his buildings was for sale. dan Bertrand read the minutes of the November 9, 1~87 meeting relative to this case. Com~ission was o~ the opinion that no variance would be granted and provision o~ the Ordinance Section 23.716.1 Item 4 and Section 23.716.3 Items 3 and 4 should apply and be enforced. The Planner stated that there is a legitmate problem here and he stated space is not big enough ~or any ~le×ibility. Also it was noted the neighborts building is not properly setback.by present Zoning Code. The County wants controlled access onto Comnierce and would not allow widening driveway entrance. Weiland moved and Thai seconded a motion that blacktop presently there be allowed to remain in place, but bumper style ~ence be installed 5 feet onto h'is property to meet the e~-.'.isting ordinance. It was discussed that by leaving the blacktop in place we would be granting a 5 ~oot variance so the motion was withdrawn. It was ~elt that this variance would hurt the neighbor and Buysse can purchase land to'the South ~or parkio.g. Weiland moved and Thai seconded a motion to recommend that we maintain the side yard between the buildings and deny the variance. The vote was Reese against be- cause there was a taking o~ land by the County and we are not being at all conciliatory~ all others voted in favor; motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1987 BOARD OF APPEALS ~1. Zoning interpretation for 2009 Commerce Boulevard Applicant, Frank Buysse, was not present. The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, explained that basically Mr. Buysse and the Property owner next door, Mr. Hovland had somewhat of a discussion as to where the property lot line w~s. She has talked with Mr. Buysse and his contractor about Ordinance Section 23.716 and what the setbacks are for off street parking (5 feet from property line) and also whether fencing would apply (for more than 6 cars). Mr. Buysse has had the contractor re- moving dirt to the north of his building and to the south of the adjacent owner's apartment building to put in a blacktopped parking area. Mr.' Buysse contended there wa-as blacktop parking there previously, but it had been covered with dirt and sod. Also, because of the short construction season, he ~as not interested in going through the v~riance process and w~s planning to put in the blacktopping and take consequences of any ordinance violation. Mrs. Johnson, 5625 Grandview Boule~-ard, stated there was never a parking lot there; it was a drive through from the Grandview side. She is against looking over a parking lot from her deck and mentioned she can't fence her yard or plant trees because of the power lines. She is also concerned about_having snow piled %0o high and the consequential runoff ~oming into her basement. Mr. Hovland stated the distance between the steps of his building and of Buysse's building is approximately 26 feet and Buyssehas lined off spaces for 8 to 10 cars in the area approximately 50 to 55 feet by the 26 foot width. Buysse has asphalted right up to the property line. Hovland said he had a survey done 6 to 8 years ago with stakes set in concrete and Buysse seemed in agre~nent as to the property line. Hovland said the residents of his building are concerned that cars will be warmed up right next to the building; snow will be pushed up across the steps and w~ter will come into the back of building; there will be noise and fumes and there maybe the danger of a possible fire, etc. The Commission discussed the ordinance and this situation. Weiland moved and Michael seconded a motion that the Commission is of the opinion that no v~riance would be granted and recommend to the Council that the provisions of the Ordinance Section 23.716.1 Item 4 and Section 23.716.3 Items 3 and 4 should apply and should be enforced by the staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. DEC21 ..... ' CITY OF HOUND Case 'No. 88-'701 :Da te F i 1 ed I APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ,..~-",,-~,',..~, ,~''~ (Please type the following information) ', "" i".' ..... ;" ' ~ ~ ~,~ ;,,_. '... '.. j 1. Street Address 6f Property ~_~O~ ~?~¢~t~,~ ~~ 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot South 90 Feet of North 178 Feet ~u~ ]13, ~,~ ~.d ;i~ subject to road Addition Mound Shores PID No. 14-117-24 14 0037 ~. ~ner's Name 'Frank J. Buysse . , . ..,. ~ ~:: . - D~y Phone No. · / / , 4. Appllcant"(if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: e (~Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review : ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ') A~nend~nt ( ) Sign Permit '( )*Other Present Z°ningDistrict i~~ '/~'~,~_l Existing Use(s) of Property . ~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property?/1/~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken an8 provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and th~ statements contained in any required .papers or plans, to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon tee premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removin9 such notices ,S may be req.ired SigEature of Applicant . Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolut. ion No. Date Eequest for Zon].ng Variance.Procedure (2) Case # 88-701 Location of: Signs, easements; underground utilities, et~. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. I!1. Request for a Zon.in~ Variance .A, All.information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearlngwill be scheduled. B. Does.the present use of the property'conform to all/4~'e regulations for the zone district in.which it is located? Yes (//)' No ( ) .. If "no", specify each ~on-conforming use= Ce Do the exist'ing st[uctures complywith'all area height.aff'd bulk regulations for the zone distr~ct in which i't is.located? Yes (~/~ No' ( ) If ~'no'~, specify each non-conforming use: De Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its' reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil. ' ( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub,surface ( ). Too shallow ( ) Shape'. ( ) Other= Specify= E. Was the hardship d~scribed above 'created by the action o~ anyone having property interests in the land after the. Zoning Ordlnance~adopte~l? /) ~ ~ r~ '~ ~ F. W~s the hardshipS-eared ~y'any'other man-made chan~e, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ([/) No' ( ) 'If yes, explain= G. Are ~he conditions of hardship for w~ich'you request a var~nce peculiar .only to the property described in th~s petition? Yes (~ No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected~ He What. 'is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations' that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional Will granting of the variance be materially detrlmental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? ? ~ L' z. A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A.. THONAS ROGER ~. ~ELLOWS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ IIOO FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, HINN£SOTA S-~40~ January 4, 1988 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Miq 55364 Re: Lost Lake Channel Dear Ed: In response to your letter of December 30, 1987, concerning the Lost Lake Channel, I have reviewed my files and my memory. I am not familiar with any written agreement between the City and property owners in the area which relates to boat traffic in the Lost Lake Channel. We tried a lawsuit whereby Mr. and Mrs. Wagman, who own a home at the outlet of'the channel, and claimed title to the property under the channel at that spot, did sue'Hennepin County and the City of Mound. Tbis~ lawsuit was tried and the City was found not to be~liable to Mr. and Mrs. Wagman. You are aware that at this time Wagman'.s attorney has filed a letter with the City making certain threats that if action is taken to excavate or increase channel activity in their area, they will commence litigation against the City. I know of no other agreement or threatened litigation regarding the Lost Lake Channel. CAP: Ih Very; truly yourS, /I // Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 30. 1987 Curt Pearson 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Curt: At the City Council meeting of Tuesday, December 22,1987, the City Council reviewed a proposal to locate nine dock sites on the Lost Lake Channel. This was tabled until January pursuant to Councilmember Liz Jensen's statement regarding an agreement as to the amount of motorized traffic that should pass through the Lost Lake Channel. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, has reviewed the files on this issue as well 'as Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector. They have.both ind'icated'to me that they are not familar with any written agreement betwee~ the City and'some of the.property Owners along the channel with 'regard to"the amount of traffic permitted in the channel. I would like you to review your files on this issue to see if there was any written agreements signed by the City and adjacent property owners to the channel with regard to motorized traffic in the Lost Lske Channel. If there is no agreement, or even if there was, how would the City prohibit an increased use in boat traffic on Lost Lake Channel? It is my understanding that this is a public waterway and the public should be able to use' it. Please review this issue at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please contact me. Ed~wa~rd J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager cc: Jim Fackler, Parks Director ES:is January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE LOCATION OF NINE DOCK SITES ON LOST LAKE CHANNEL, CITY OF HOUND PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Mound owns property lying west of the Lost Lake Subdivision and east of the main channel access to Lake Minnetonka; and follows: WHEREAS, the nine sites will be assigned location numbers as 55000 55030 55060 55090 A55120 - Abutting property, Lot 18 55150 55180 55210 A55240 - Abutting property, Lot 17 and will be listed on the 1988 dock location map; and WHEREAS, these above listed docks will be governed under the Mound City Code, Section 437 - Dock Licenses; and WHEREAS, Jellico, developer of the Lost Lake Subdivision. agrees to provide a walk/maintenance access to the docks from Lost Lake Road west toward Lost Lake to the 931.5 foot flood elevation. This access is to be 10 feet wide with the length determined by location of the 931.5 foot flood elevation line, with a 4 foot-wide paved walkway surface to the 931.5 foot flood elevation; and WHEREAS, the Mound Parks Advisory Commission recommended approval of these additional nine (9) dock sites to be listed on the 1988 Dock Site Map at their special meeting of December 15, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby approves the addition of the aforesaid nine (9) dock sites to the City of Mound dock system subject to an easement being given to the City of Mound by Jellico for the walkway/maintenance access to the docks from Lost Lake Road west toward Lost Lake. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: January 26, 1988 The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Barry Schneider 475-3766 Wayzata, MN Eckley-§chneider Construction Co. Craig Eckley 472-5001 Mound, MN December 17, 1987 City of Mound 5341 Haywood Road Hound, HN 55364 Attention Ed Shukle, City Manager and City Council Members Dear Hr. Shukle and Council Members: We are requesting that ybu establish a public commons area lying to the West of the Lost Lake Subdivision and that you issue dock sites on said access area. We propose that all docks and commons will be governed by City dock ordinances. We are also proposing that nine (9) docks be allowed on the channel, according to the attached drawing. The Mound Advisory Park Commission Resolution, dated December 15, 1987, resolved the inclusion.of the 'nine (9) Lost Lake dock loca. tions .as commons sites on the 1988 Dock Location Map with the designation that. 'Lots 17 and 18 be included as abutting properties. Jellico, a Minnesota Partnership, has agreed to give the City of Mound a Utility and Public Walkway Easement (10 foot wide strip which will consist of a 4 foot wide strip of asphalt with 3 feet of gravel on either side for walkway and maintenance vehicle access to Commons and dock site area. This agreement is contingent upon the City of Mound designated the area, abutting the channel and lying West of the Subdivision, as a commons area in accordance with this request that said Lots 17 and 18 in said subdivision be considered abutting prbperties. Very Truly Yours, Eckley & Schn~i~e,r Con%~ruct . ' Barry G.~chneider President BGS/ski ion Co. 17o .J / / ~j N 15 ; / ,0 17 6 5 -%0" ~ ' '~ '>'' SCAL ~ DEIx BEAi GOI EN6 DATE A. THOMAS WURST, Cu~s A. Pr~nso~. P.A. JA~r'$ D. [-ARSON, P.A. THOMAs F. UNDERWOOD. P.A. ROGr*R ~J. F'£LLOWS LAW WURgT, Pr'ARgON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERT~Z MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S540~' December 18, 1987 Mr. William R. Koenig Attorney at Law 2305 Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 'Re: Lot 18, Lost Lake Subdivision Dear Bill: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 17, 1987, concerning the City adding a public docking area in the Lost Lake channel. It is my understanding that the Park Advisory Commission will be recommending that docking be provided in that particular area contingent upon receipt of a public easement across Lot 18 of the Lost Lake Subdivision. Your letter indicates that your clients will be providing that easement to the City. The onlyproblem I have.with the statements in your letter is on page 2 where you indicate that the City is going to dedicate this as a commons area. I see no reason for the City to change its designation of this property which currently has no encumbrance or impediment and dedicated for any specific public purpose. The City Council has the right, based upon the recommendation of the Park Advisory Committee, to establish docking areas off of any public way or public lands. I do not see that it is significant that there be any designation of this as a commons. I am presuming that your major concern is that Lot 17 and 18 be considered in the priority "1" section as to the docking Ordinance. I think you should work that out with the Dock Inspector but prior discussions about this area have indicated that there would be no restrictions on the use of these docks as to the general public and.'therefore if this is a condition that you or your clients are placing on the easement, I think that should be discussed with the City Officials prior to the docking area designation being presented to the City Council. Wishing you a happy Holiday Season, I remain Sin.cerely yours, Curtis A. Pearson CAP: kl cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager PETER %'. JONSON JOt~ ~: %'OOD, JR. GARY L PHLEOER %'~ V.'BIOELOW. ~ A~'I,' C. SCHULZ LAW OFFICES KOEN'IG, ROBIN, dOHNSON & WOOD 2305 COMMERCE BOULEVARD MOUND', MI~SOTA 55364 (612) 472-1060 730 EAST LAKE STREET tVAYZATA, I~II~ESOTA 55391 (612) 475-1515 C. SCOTT HASSLE JAHES M. VE~'TURA T. CHRIS STEWART ERIC C. DA30/EY'ER CLARESO,W LI~'D LEY 0~, EARLE d. KIEDERLUECK~ JAHES D. MAcEI3',.~ON December 17, 1987 REPLY 'FO: MOUND Curtis Pearson Attorney at Law 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE: Lot 18, Lost Lake Subdivision Dear Curt: This is in confirmation of mY telephone conversation with. you on the 16th day of December, 1987. Eckley & Schneider Construction Co., a Minnesota corporation, has requested that the City dedicate property lying to the West of the Lost Lake Subdivision and Easterly of the channel as a commons area (see attached Exhibit). If the application of Eckley & Schneider Construction Co. is approved by the City, I am assured by Jellico, a Minnesota General Partnership, the owner of Lot 18, Block 1, Lost Lake, that they will grant to the City of Mound an access easement, 10 feet wide, over and across a part of Lo~ 18, from Lost Lake Road to said dedicated commons area. A legal description of the easement area is now being prepared by the surveyor. In addition to providing the City with an easement, I will, upon receipt of a Registered Property Abstract, furnish the City with a Title Opinion showing title to the said Lot 18 to be in the name of Jellico, free and clear of any liens or encumbrances. Upon acceptance of the easement as drafted, and its signing by the fee owners, I will file that easement of record. )?3 AS indicated, all of the above is contingent upon the City of Mound dedicating the area abutting the channel and lying West of the Subdivision as a commons area, in accordance with the request of Eckley & Schneider Construction Co., and that said Lots 17 and 18 in said Subdivision be considered abutting properties. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~~e n i g & WOOD WRK:ski The' undersigned has read the above and agrees to comply with the terms herein contained. JELLICO, a Minnesota General Partnership, By: Partner ,1' G 15 16 '0 17 14 ?J 6 I ~ I I'~ 75 YEARS 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 18, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR LOST LAKE SUBDIVISION DOCKS In 1979, the City of Mound started proceedings to acquire a section of land on Lost Lake. This land had gone tax forfeit and made up the Lost Lake Subdivision. This property was owned by Nelson Developers and the City sought it for preservation of wetlands, parks and right of way. iA~ the same time, Nelson Developers had begun their proceedings to reacquire the-property. ' :. To eliminate a dispute over' who had just .right t'o this property, Nelson Developers and the City of Hound agreed to split the property. Nelson Developers would retain all lands above the 931.5 elevation and the City would have everything below the 931.5 elevation. With this done, a portion of the City's property, from the 930.00 to' the 931.5 elevation, was dry (Lake Hinnetonka has' a high water elevation of 920.4). This area that is dry is currently land locked. The Lost Lake Development blocks access from the east and'the water level of Lost Lake blocks access from all other points. A proposal was made in 1986 by Eck!ey-Schneider Construction ahd Jellico Developers (formerly Nelson Developers) that would have 9 dedicated docks only for the homes in the Lost Lake Subdivision. This was turned down by the City Council through advisement of the City Attorney, Curt Pearson (reference letter dated July 2, 1986). In this letter, he states the conditions that should be met, they are: 1) The docks should not be dedicated to only residents of Lost Lake Subdivision, rather open to all Hound residents; 2) The Mound City Dock Ordinance should control the dock sites; 3) Develop a plain for access, location of docks and other public usage. Eecently, Eck!ey-Schneider Construction and Jellico Developers proposed that the City of Mound establish a Commons area with regard to the land discussed above. /~ Lost Lake Docks Memo to Mayor and City Council December 18, 1987 Page 2 " A'ttached is a letter regarding this proposal. It has been presented to the Parks Advisory Commission and they have recommended approval (see December 15, 1987 Special Meeting minutes, item "B" in Information/Miscel]aneous on this agenda).. The staff recommends approval also and is available to answer any questions. JF:ls 'I'~C>~A$ F'. UN~r~w~OD. P.A. ~C>G£Pq ~. Fr't.~wS I.~w OF'F'IC£$ ~¥UF~,'T, PE~I~SON~ J_ARSON ~= UNDERWOOD Ou~y 2, 1986 Mayor and City Council City of Mound, Minnesota Re: Lost Lake Subdivision / Docks Gentlemen: I have been talking with Mr. Larson concerning a question which came up relating to dockage in the Lost Lake Subdivision. I have read the memorandum of May 12, 1986, f-rom Jim Fackler and Dell Rudolph to Ed Shukle. I am confused by the reference to 'Woodland Point, Dreamwood, and Wyckwood since Mr. Larson informs me that those'commons are private commons. I call the Council's attention to Section 26.9301, Subds. 1 and 2, of the City Code. The ordinance included the definition of docks for "publicly owned shoreland" and in Subd. 2 license is required on "public structures, road', parks, and commons" It is obvious that the ordinance does not apply'to private, lakeshore and private commons. Reference is also.made'to Section °26.9303, Subd. 1, which again defines where a license is necessary. Whatever parallel is being drawn between Dreamwood, Wychwood, and Woodland Point and Lost Lake would in my opinion be improper. The lands which abut the Lost Lake Subdivision on the west are publicly owned lands, and if it is the City's desire to make that into a public park or public docks, they certainly can do so if there are meahs for the public to obtain access to those lands. In most cases, this will mean public expenditures for preparing ~. the access and also for providing trails or whatever improvements ' may be necessary on the publicly owned land.. If we were to obtain an ~easement over certain properties in the Lost Lake Subdivision so the ~ublic had a way to get to this land, the City Park . Commiss~on and Council could decide that docks would be allowed. If public dockage is to be allowed, then the priorities will be those established in Section 26.9303, Subd. 6. Mr. Larson informs me that three lots would in effect have first priority since the docks abut those lots. If six additional docks were to be provided in the area, they would be governed by priorities 2 and 3, and there would be no preference given to other lots in the Lost Lake Subdivision unless they happened to be the first to apply and to be awarded the docks. Page 2 Mayor and City Council City of Mound July 2, 1986 i think a plan can be worked out which will permit public docks on the lands abutting the Lost Lake-Subdivision, but there should not be any indication that the lands in the Lost Lake Subdivision have priority, but rather that the docR ordinance itself is controlling. It would therefore be the opinion of t~i$ office that before any dockage is permitted in this area, a total plan be worked out for access, location of docks, and other public usage of the property. I hope this answers the Council's questions, and we will expand upon this if you desire. CAP:Ih '- cc: Mr. Ed Shukle Mr. Jim Larson y yours/~ Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney /9? ORDINANCE NO. 10-1988 AN ORDINANCE ADDIN¢~ SECTION 255 TO THE CITY CODE CREATING A PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHING ITS DUTIES THE CITY OF MOUND DOES ORDAIN: Section 255 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 255 - Park Advisory Commission Section255:00. Establishment of Commission. City Park Advisory Commission for the City of Mound is hereb~ established. Section 255:05. Composition. The Park Advisory Commission shall consist of seven members. Six members shall be appointed by the City Council and may be removed by a four-fifths vote of the Council; the Council shall select one member of the Council to serve on the Commission from among the Councilmem- bers, the said Councilmember to be appointed for one year, commencing in. January of each year; the City Manager, and the' Park Director shall be members of the Commission ex-officio and without vote. ~ On the te~s~the members first ~appoinJ~d, two shall expire December, 31, 1.98~; t~shall expire December'31, 1990; and two'shall expire December'31, 1991.-~Their successors shall be appoiAted for terms of three years. Both the original and successive appointees shall hold their offices until their suc- cessors are appointed and qualified. The term of ex-officio members shall correspond with their respective office tenures. Vacancies during the term shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member before entering upon the discharge of his or her duties shall take an oath that he or she will faithfully discharge the duties of his or her Office. All members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual expenses ~l~funds therefor are provided in the adopted budget of the Park Department. ~N~ appointed member shall serve more than two consecu- ti.ye three year terms.~ If a member is appointed to complete someone else's term, they may serve two additional three year terms. Section255:10. Organization, Meetings,.Etc. The commission shall elect a Chairperson from among its appointed members for a term of one year with a limit of two consecutive terms as Chairperson; and the Commission may create and fill such other offices as it may determine. The Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. It shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which record shall be a public record. Section255:15. Duties. It shall be the duty of the Commission to meet from time to time with the City Manager, the City Council, and the Park Director to consider matters pertaining to docks and to park and recreation programs in the City as shall be referred to the Commission by the City Council, City Manager, the Park Director, or as members of the Commission deem proper. The public policy of the City of Mound is to strive to: a) Present and future residents of the City an unpolluted environment; b) provide access to lakes and streams in the community; and c) provide parks which afford natural beauty as well as recrea- tional enjoyment. It is understood that the Commission is advisory to the City Council and is created pursuant to the authority .conferred upon the C. ity Council by Minnesota Statutes, Laws of 1987, Section 412.621, Subdivision 1. Section255:20. Reports to be Advisory. The Commissions reports, conclu- sions, and recommendations shall be made to the Council, Manager, and Park. Director as may be requested, or to any or all 'of them as the Commission deems appropriate in the light of the matter under consideration. Its reports, con- clusions~ and recommendations .are purely advisory,rand the final determination and responsibility shall be withthe Council. It shall be aided.and assisted in every w~y possible by the Park Director, who shall be appointed by the City Manager. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council .... Published in the Official Newspaper January 26, 1988 RESOLUTIOH N0.-88- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH TER~S FOR THE COMHISSIOH MEMBERS WHEREAS, on January 14, 1988, the Park Commission met and recom- mended that the City Council adopt and ordinance adding Section 255 to the City Code creating a Park Advisory Commission and establishing its duties; and WHEREAS, the following recommendation is being made for the mem- bers first appointed: ~' -1'98 2 persons whose terms will expire December 31, 2 persons whose terms will expire December 31, 199{F 2 persons whose terms will expire December 31, 19.9-1 WHEREAS, successors shall be appointed for terms of three years. _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint the cucrent members to terms as follows: ;~ T year terms beginning January 1, 1988: x~hy Bailey and Linda Panetta. / ,2_ ) To ~e/year terms beginning January 1', 1988: Marilyn Byrnes and Nancy Clough. To'~year terms beginning January 'i", i'988: ~Shirley Andersen and Stephen Burke. 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 Advertisement For Bids Mound, Minnesota PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY MFRA #8257 Sealed bids will be received, publicly opened, ano read aloud at the Mound City Hall at lO:O0 AM., Friday, March 4, 1988 for construction of a new Public Works Facility. Construction will consist of remodeling an existing 6,000 S.F. garage and a lO,O00 S.F. addition to house new offices, maintenance facilities and aOditional vehicle storage. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting Tuesday, March 8, 1988 at'7:30 RM. All proposals shall be addressed to: Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 And shall be securely sealed, shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "Proposal for Public Works Facility, City of. Mound" and shall be on theProposal Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans, specifications'and other proposed contract documents are on file for review with the City Clerk, at the offices of McCombs Frank Rods Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers and Surveyors, 13050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 53447, and at the Minneapolis Builders Exchange and Dodge Reports. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be oOtained at the office of the Engineer upon deposit of $40.00. The full amount of the deposit will be refunded to each bidder who has made a deposit and has fileO a bid with the Owner upon return of the plans and specifications within ten (10) days after the bids are opened. Partial documents for subcontractors will be issued only upon prepaid. written oroer to the Engineer, in the amount of $2.00 per drawing sheet and $0,40 per specification page. This charge is non-refundable. Each bidder'shall file with his bid a certified check or bid bono in an amount not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bios are opened. The City of Mound reserves the right to reject any or all bios and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk By: Steve Smith, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 10-1988 AN ORDINANCE ADDING. SECTION 255 TO T~4E CITY CODE CREATING A PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHING ITS DUTIES THE CITY OF MOUND DOES ORDAIN: Section 255 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 255 - Park Advisory Commission Section255:00. Establishment of Commission. City Park Advisory Commission for the City of Mound is hereb~ established. Section 255:05. Composition. The Park Advisory Commission shall consist of seven members. SiX members'shall be appointed by the City Council and may be removed by a four-fifths vote of the Council; the Council shall select one member of the Council to serve on the Commission from among the Councilmem- bers, the said Councilmember to be appointed for one year, commencing in. January of each year; the City Manager, and the Park Director shall be members of the Commission ex-officio and without vote. On the ter~s of the members first, appointed, two shall expire December, 31, 1.989; two shall expire December 31, 1990; and two shall expire December'31, 1991. Their successors shall be appointed for terms of three years. Both the original and successive appointees shall hold their offices until their suc- cessors are appointed and qualified. The term of ex-officio members shall correspond with their respective office tenures. Vacancies during the term shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member before entering upon the discharge of his or her duties shall take an oath that he or she will faithfully discharge the duties of his or her Office. All members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual expenses if funds therefor are provided in the adopted budget of the Park Department. No appointed member shall serve more than two consecu- tive three year terms. If a member is appointed to complete someone else's term, they may serve two additional three year terms. Section255:10. Organization, Meetings, Etc. The commission shall elect a Chairperson from among its appointed members for a term of one year with a limit of two consecutive terms as Chairperson; and the Commission may create and fill such other offices as it may determine. The Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. It shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which record shall be a public record. Section255:15. Duties. It shall be the duty of the Commission to meet from time to time with the City Manager, the City Council, and the Park Director to consider matters pertaining to docks and to park and recreation programs in the City as shall be referred to the Commission by the City Council, City Manager, the Park Director, or as members of the Commission deem proper. The public policy of the City of Mound is to strive to: a) Present and future residents of the City an unpolluted environment; b) provide access to lakes and streams in the community; and c) provide parks which afford natural beauty as well as recrea- tional enjoyment. It is understood that the Commission is advisory to'the City Council and is created pursuant to the authority..conferred upon the £.ity Council by Minnesota Statutes, Laws of 1987, Section 412.621, Subdivision 1. Section255:20. Reports to be Advisory. The Commissions reports, conclu- sions, and recommendations shall be made to the Council, Manager, and Park Director as may be requested, or to any or all 'of them as the Commission deems appropriate in the light of the matter under consideration. Its reports, con- 'clusions~ and recommendations~are purely advisory,.and the final determination and responsibility shall be with the Council. It s.hall be aided and assisted in every way possible by the Park Director, who shall be appointed by the City Manager. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council ..... Published in the Official Newspaper January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION N0.-88- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PARK COMMISSIOM RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH TERI~S FOR THE COMMISSION MEMBERS WHEREAS, on January 14, 1988, the Park Commission met and recom- mended that the City Council adopt and ordinance adding Section 255 to the City Code creating a Park Advisory Commission and establishing its duties; and WHEREAS, the following recommendation is being made for the mem- bers first appointed: 2 persons whose terms will expire December 31, 1989 2 persons whose terms will expire December 31, 1990 2 persons whose terms will expire December 31, 1991 of Mound, follows: WHEREAS, successors shall be appointed for terms of three years. _NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City Minnesota, does hereby appoint the cucrent members to terms as To two year terms beginning January 1, 1988: Cathy Bailey and Linda Panetta. To three year terms beginning January 1, 1988: Marilyn Byrnes and Nancy Clough. To four year terms beginning January 1, 1988: Shirley Andersen and Stephen Burke. 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 AOvertisement For Bids MounO, Minnesota PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY MFRA #8257 Sealed bids will be received, publicly opened, and read aloud at the Mound City Hall at 10:00 AM., Friday, March 4, 1988 for construction of a new Public Works Facility. Construction will consist of remodeling an existing 6,000 S.F. garage and a 10,000 S.F. addition to house new offices, maintenance facilities and additional vehicle storage. The bios will be considered by the City Council at their meeting TuesOay, March 8, 1988 at'7:30 PM. All proposals shall be aOOresseO to: Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywooo RoaO M°unO, MN. 55364 And shall be securely sealed, shall be enOorseO on the outside with the statement "Proposal for Public Works Facility, City of. Mound" and shall be on theProposal Form incluOeO in the specifications for the project. Copies Of the plans, specifications anO other proposed contract documents are on file for review with the City Clerk, at the offices of McCOmbs Frank Rods Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers and Surveyors, 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447, and at the Minneapolis Builders Exchange and Dodge Reports. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be oOtained at the office of the Engineer upon deposit of $40.00. The full amount of the deposit will be refunded to each bioder who has made a deposit anO has fileO a bid with the Owner upon return of the plans and specifications within ten (10) days after the bids are opened. Partial documents for subcontractors will be issued only upon prepaid. written oroer to the Engineer, in the amount of $2.00 per drawing sheet and $0.40 per specification page. This charge is non-refunOable. Each bidder shall file with his bid a certified check or bid bond in an amount not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bio may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City of Mound reserves the right to reject any or all bios and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ~. Fran Clark, City Clerk Steve Smi~, Mayo~ January 26, 1988 CITY of MOUND TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MAYOR'S TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 INTRODUCTION As you are aware, Mayor Steve Smith appointed a Task Force on Economic Development, which began meeting in November 1987. The overall purpose of the Task Force was to define the economic development problem's that exist in the City of Mound and to develop strategies to resolve those problems. The Task Force members are as follows: Vern Andersen, V & S Jewelery, Chairman; Chic Remien, Executive Director of 'the Westonka Chamber of Commerce; Kathy Boese, Westonka Foods; Jerry Longpre, Longpre's; Bob PoIston, former Mayor; Klm Yilek, local resident; Frank Hancuch, President State Bank of Mound; Cheryl Grand, Contel; Dick SchWert, Norwest Insurance; Steve Smith, Mayor; Ed Shukle, City Manager. In November 1987, at the Task Force's first meeting, a number of issues were identified with regard to the Task Force mission. You received a copy of the memo dated November 24, 1987, regarding those issues. The following is a reiteration of those items for your review: 1. Philosophy - There appears to be a difference of opinion as to what the Central Business District in Mound should be. In other words, some persons believe that the Central Business District is strictly a convenience center for a bedroom community. Others believe that the Central Business District should provide as many services as possible and should be a revitalized and spirited downtown that will attract local residents to shop in Mound. We believe, that through the task force, the latter should be the goal within the City. 2. Process - How do we go about strengthening existing business and attracting new business? There are a variety of ways that the private sector and the public sector can work in a partnership to revitalize business within the City. The two sectors must establish an agreed upon direction and involve both the local, unit of government and local business in seeking revitalization for downtown. 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. Mayor and City Council January 26, 1988 Page 2 3. Methodology - Through my City Manager's past experience and contacts, I am aware of a variety of programs that possibly could be utilized in reaching economic revitalization for the Mound business area. This would not only focus on the Central Business District, but also other businesses within our City. Two major programs available today are the Minnesota Star City Program and the Minnesota Main Street Program. In addition, I have been contacted by a private consultant who works in th'e field of economic development. This consultant can serve a city on a retainer type basis similar to the way the City of Mound handles its planning and engineering activities. The consultant serves as an "Economic Development Department". ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS Also submitted with the November 24, 1987 memo were summaries of the Minnesota Main Street Program, Minnesota Star City Program and the summary of services available from Business Development Services (BDS). BDS is a private consulting firm whose · speciality is economic development strategies for cities. The Main PStreet approach is a comprehensive revitalization process designed to impr. ove all aspects of the downtown, producing both intangible and-tangible benefits,~ improving economic management, strengthening public participation and making downtown a fun place to visit are as critical to Main Street's future as recruiting new businesses, rehabilitating buildings and expanding parks. There are four elements within the Main Street approach that are combined to create a well balanced program. They are: 1. Organization 2. Promotions 3. Design 4.~ Economic Restructure Within Minnesota, the State Department of Trade and Economic Development administers the State Main Street Program. It is part of the Department's Office of Development Resources, which is able to draw upon the talents of a variety of professionals in the economic development field. The general goal of the program is to broaden the Main Street Outreach to as many Minnesota communities as possible and become a companion program to the successful Star City Program. While the Star City Program seeks to improve the overall economic development capacity of the local level, Main Street concentrates its efforts on the revi.talization of Minnesota's downtown business districts through the application of the National Main Street Center's four point approach. Mayor and City Council January 26, 1988 Page 3 Minnesota Star City Program attempts to create economic development opportunities. These opportunities can be achieved through the active participation by citizens at the local level and the design and implementation of community based economic development programs. The Star City Program helps communities to construct organized strategies for dealing with ever changing economies. Communities who participate in and complete the requirements of the Program, are offic@lly designated by the State as a "Minnesota Star City for Economic Development ." Star Cities receive an award as well as supplemental technical assistance from the Department of Trade and Economic Development to achieve their economic development goals. Economic development has emerged as a major priority for communities concerned about the future well being of their citizens. Communities are struggling with ways to consciously, purposely influence their local economies. Cities are finding that they cannot do it alone, either on a full service basis or on a support capacity. Due to the 'fact that many cities cann-ot afford to have full time economic development departments with trained staff, consultants have emerged on the scene. One such consultant is Business Development Services, Inc. BDS is a multi-faceted company actively providing development services to many communities and private development corporations in the midwest. BDS possesses a staff with capabilities ranging from financial packaging, marketing and telemarketing, to real estate development. They are a professional economic development firm with full creative and financial resources. Some cities that have utilized their services are: Woodbury, Elk River, Vadnais Heights, Little Canada, Becket, Coon Rapids, Forest Lake, Marshall, Ortonville and Worthington. Other counties and local government entities have also utilized their services. The States of Montana and Nevada have taken advantage of their services. Private businesses and development organizations have also utilized BDS. The. Task Force has checked references on BDS and has found BDS to be highly regarded by cities that have utilized their services. Mayor and City Council January 26, 1988 Page 4 TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES The Economic Development Task Force has been actively reviewing the Main Street Program, Star City Program and a proposal from Business Development Services (BDS). With regard to the Main Street Program, the Task Force spent four to five hours with the City of Hopkins in analyzing what Hopkins has done over the past three to four years with the Main Street Program in its revitalization of downtown Hopkins. The Star City Program has also been reviewed. Some of the members of the Task Force have had past experiences with the Star City Program in other communities. They realize,the amount of time, effort and commitment that is required and know that it takes these elements to make either program successful. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Task Force has developed a mission statement. statement is: The Mission~ To im,prove th'e economic climate in the City of Mound by strengthening existing businesses and attracting new business development to the City. The fi.rst priority is to deal With the Central Business District. The second priority would be City wide development. In order to accomplish the mission, as stated above, the short term solutions have been discussed. The idea of a community brochure listing vital information and containing photographs of t~he City of Mound and what it has to offer businesses, could be developed. Longer term solutions have also been discussed. The pos~sibility of hiring a public relations firm to market-the community has also been discussed. The idea of getting the local newspaper more involved in promoting the community has also been talked about by the Task Force. In general, to develop a more positive attitude towards economic development in Mound. The Task Force has also heard from Business Development Services (BDS) on how they could help the City of Mound in its economic development dilemma. BDS made a formal presentation to the Task Force at its January 22, 1988 meeting. The Task Force was impressed with what BDS had to offer. The Task Force believes that there definitely is an economic development problem in Mound. One of the concerns expressed over and over again at the meetings, is the lack of retail in the Central Business District area. Another is vacant buildings, dilapidated buildings, etc. Mayor and City Council January 26, 1988 Page 5 It is the Economic Development Task Force's conclusion that local volunteers could spend a great deal of time trying to develop a direction on how to solve some of the problems identified within the mission statement. It is also the Task Force's position that it is difficult to find the local commitment that is needed to undertake either the Main Street or Star City programs. Therefore, it is the Task Force's recommendation that the City of Mound engage in a contract with Business Development Services to develop a strategy for economic development and a one year program. The estimated cost for this work is $3,375. It is the opinion of the Task Force that this is a small amount of money to pay for the development pf a very necessary and vital economic development program for the City of Mound. Thus, the Task Force respectfully recommends that the City Council approve an expenditure not to exceed $3,375 to hire BDS for the above stated work. (See attached proposal for services) A resolution is also attached for your consideration. (Members of the Task Force will be present at the City Council meeting on January 26, 1988, to answer any questions you may have. ES:ls Business Development Services Inc. December 23, 1987 Edward Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES Dear Mr. Shukle: I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you regarding the needs of the City of Mound and your plans to implement an effective economic development program. As you requested, I have prepared a propo- sal for services from our firm which will provide you with insight on how we may address your immediate needs. BDS is a multi-faceted company providing contractural economic development services to a number of communities and private development corporations in the midwest. Our staff is'a unique blend of people with capabilities ranging from financial packaging, marketing, and telemarketing, to real estate develop- ment. BDS is also active in serving businesses directly in a wide variety of areas. As the enclosed brochure details, our services for businesses include financial structuring, packaging, and mortgage brokering, direct mail and telemarketing services, loca- tion. and site analysis, and business planning. Because of our relationships with private businesses, we are able to establish a greater awareness of our client communities with the private sec- tor. This enhances our ability to work on behalf of a specific community seeking additional economic development. As an example, we are working at the present time on behalf of a Canadian company to locate their first manufacturing operation in the United States. We will be doing a site search on their behalf identifying the right location for their operation. o Mr. Shukle, Jr. December 28, 1987 Page 2 WE UNDERSTAND YOUR NEEDS As we discussed, the City of Mound is requesting our services to facilitate a workshop with representatives of the city council and/or other individuals involved in the development process for the community. The end product of such a workshop would be a strategy for economic development for the community or a par- ticular property and a one-year work program. Strategy for Economic Development and One-Year Work Program A community which has collected appropriate data about itself and the environment in which it operates and has analyzed the data and completed a community analysis is ready to complete an econo- mic development plan and strategy. This means setting realistic long-term goals for the community's economic development program, setting short-term objectives, and establishing strategies to achieve the objectives and goals. BDS would propose to conduct a series of workshops with the community's, economic development task force to analyze: The Community and Its Economy. This would be basically an analysis of a community's strengths and weaknesses and should be considered a community self-review step. Potentials for Economic Development. Representatives of BDS would assist the city in honestly assessing the likely industry sectors and specific businesses that might be attracted to the community or property along with commercial development possibilities and retention program needs. This would be based on a matching of the community's market and locational factors used by business and industries which have a relationship with the city's strengths, weaknessess, and desires. Strategies for Implementation. This phase is simply a refi- nement of the goals, prioritizing where to begin, and iden- tifying the resources to be used, and who will carry out each objective. It would include a one-year action strategy and outline those activities that will be done during the coming ~year or first year of an economic development program. It is a process for deciding how to capitalize on the community's strengths and which strengths are most important. It also contains strategies for correcting identifiable liabilities. Mr. Shukle, Jr. December 28, 1987 Page 3 ESTIMATED COST We would estimate that at least five evaluation and strategy sessions would be held to complete and refine an economic development strategy. Our estimated cost for the sessions would be $3,375. OUR COMMITMENT You have my promise that we will'strive to provide you with the finest product possible. We would appreciate the opportunity to work on your behalf and sincerely hope that we will be selected by you to provide these services. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me directly at 574-1492. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC. Michael J. Mulrooney /~ President MJM/mc Enclosure RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (BDS) FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHEREAS, the Mayor's Task Force on Economic Development has been established to identify economic development problems in Mound; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has developed a mission statement that indicates that the economic climate in the City of Mound must be improved by strengthening existing businesses and attracting new business development to the City focusing on the Central Business District as well as City-wide development; and WHEREAS, the Task Force h@s reviewed several strategies to accomplish the mission statement. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Task Force recommends to the City Council that a private consulting firm be hired to perform' services that will develop an economic.development program for the City of Mound. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Task Force recommends to the City Council that a contract be signed by the Mayor and City Manager with Business Development Services, (BDS) to perform such services. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk January 25, 1988 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 R.L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES 10261 Yellow Circle Drive Minneapolis, M~nnesota 55343 (612) 033-7488 Attention: Mr. Ed Shukle Dear Ed: Once again it is time for renewing all of the various Property & Casualty lines of insurance that the City of Mound is carrying. This year I am happy to inform you that I have received all of the renewal premiums for your February 1st renewal date,, in time for the council meeting prior to your renewal. I am pleased to say that the overall pricing of the policies is coming in lower than what we thought they would. It appears that the 1988 increase in premiums will be slight and will come nowhere near the 45% increase in premiums we exper- ienced in 1986. This is contributed to by Mound's low number of claims and by a general trend in the insurance industry to slow down price increases and cancellations. Also, the League of Minnesota Cities has made changes in their coverages again, so we can eliminate some policies we have had to.pay extra for in the past. I am enclosing, with this letter, a chart~ comparing your 1987 premiums, your 1988 projected premiums and your 1988 actual premiums. In the ensuing paragraphs I will give you an overview of the 1988 changes to your various lines of coverage. The League of Minnesota Cities is writing the coverage on the Buildings, Contents, General Liability, Equipment and Auto for us. They are writing these coverages in their self-insured program very competitively fortunately, as they are currently the only game in town on these coverages. For your information, the League is writing over 700 of the approximately 800 cities in Minnesota. The League started their self-insured program in 1981 for cities that found it very difficult or very expensive to purchase insurance on their own. To date, they have done a very cost-effective job of providing that insurance. Last year we saw a major change in their approach on offering you insurance. It was designed to reduce premiums and keep insurance dollars in 7our pocket, and not theirs. The League's change was in the General Liability. It was renewed on a "Claims Made" basis last year and will no longer be on an "Occurrence" basis. I am told that all cities with the League were renewed this way, starting January 1, 1987. Also, I understand that the League~ Re-Insurers are the ones responsible for this change and the League program could not have continued unless it went to this "Claims Made" format of paying claims. City of Mound Mr. Ed Shukle - 2 I am not happy with this new "Claims Made" policy, but admittedly, the League has done a good job of making it as palatable as possible, and it apparently resulted in an immediate up-front price reduction. The Liquor Liability premium went down 15% from last year, while the limits of Liability remained the same. This is extraordinary and positively reflects the excellent claims experience Mound has, compared to its sister cities. TheProfessional Liability policy for your Emergency Medical Technicians will not be necessary this year, as it is being included in your League policy. The Public Officials Errors and Omissions policy limit was reduced from $2,000,000 to $1,000,000 with Lloyd's of London last year. This policy was written on a 3 year basis that ended last year. Your coverage and prem- iums were locked in at a 3 year old rate of $890.00 and couldn't be raised until last year. We knew this projected for a very large increase. The renewal came in last year at $7,500.00 with a $10,000 deductible, and a $1,000,000 limit. This year, the League is offering a quote at $5,500, with a $2,5Q0 deductible and coverage for "Prior Acts,', and a $600,000 limit. The Police Professional Liability is being offered by the League this year as part of their General Liability and for the first time will cover reimbursement for punitive damages. They are making no additional charge for this coverage, so we can completely eliminate a previously charged for expense. The Worker's Compensation is renewing at $55,200, which is $10,000 over last year, at a 22% increase. 6% of the increase is the average increase in your city payrolls. 9% comes from the League usin8 the p~pulation of the entire Mound Fire Department, service population, instead of just the population of Mound, as they have done in the past. The final 7% comes from an increase in Mound's Experience Modification factor from. 98 in 1987 to 1.02 in 1988. The Public Official's Bonds are renewing at the same price as last year of $1,099. Once again, all of the insurance companies that I am using represent the lowest prices of all competing companies I could find. They all are financially strong. The League will offer a quote on an Umbrella Liability policy this year, if asked, but I expect it to again be way too expensive to consider. Last year they offered a quote of $20,828 for $1,000,000 of coverage. City of Mound Mr. Ed Shukle - 3 - In finale, I recommend that the city accept the policies that I have quoted, with the companies I have quoted. Thanking you in advance, I am, Respectfully, Earl E. Bailey ~-- R. L. Youngdahl & Assoc~f~tes, Inc. EEB/bk CODE # 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 CITY OF MOUND PREMIUM PAGE JANUARY 25, 1988 1987 PROPERTY $ 10,566 CRIME $ 285 EQUIPMENT $ 5,239 GENERAL LIABILITY $ 40,246 AUTO $'21,051 LIQUOR $ 7,677 E.M.T.'S $ INCL PUBLIC OFFICIALS E & 0 $ 7,825 POLICE PROFESSIONAL $ 4,368 WORKERS ~COMPENSATION $ 45,231 BONDS $ 1,099 1988 PROJECTED 11,000 300 5,200 46,000 21,000 7,800 ZNCL 10,000 4,400 48,600 1,200 TOTAL: $143,587 $155,500 1988 ACTUAL 10,920 293 5,153 39,053 21,200 6,525 INCL 5,438 INCL 55,200 1,099 $144,881 CODE # 1 2 3 4 LEAGUE OF MN. CITIES INSURANCE TRUST THRU N.S.R.S. TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY (CNA) THROUGH JOHN H. CROWTHER LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST THRU E.B.A. CAPITOL INDEMNITY RESOLUTION NO. January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE POLICIES, PREMIUMS AND COMPANIES AS SUBMITTED BY MR. EARL BAILEY, R. L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOCIATES FOR THE 1988 INSURANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, Insurance Agent, Earl Bailey presented the 1988 proposed insurance package to the Council; and WHEREAS, it is as follows: 1987 1988 1988 ACTUAL PROJECTED ACTUAL Property 10,566 11,000 10,920 Crime 285 300 293 Equipment 5,239 5,200 5,153 General Liability 40,246 46,000 39,053 Auto 21,051 21,000 21,200 Liquor Liability 7,677 7,800 6,525 Emer. Med. Techs. incl incl incl Public Officials E & O 7,825 10,000 5,438 Police Professional 4,368 4,400 incl Worker's 'Compensation 45,231 48,600 ]55,200 Bonds 1,0R9 1,200 1,.099 Total $143,587 $155,500 $144,881 Code # 1 League of MN. Cities Insurance Trust Thru N.S.R.S. 2 Transcontinental Insurance Company (CNA) Thru John H. Crowther 3 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Thru E.B.A. 4 Capitol Indemnity NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the above quotation from the League of Minnesota Insurance Trust and the various specialty lines in the amount of $144,881. 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: January 26, 1988 Councilmember Abel was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FRON:' SUBJECT: MENORAHDUM ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTORjz'~J~ JANUARY 14, 1988 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD DEFICIT & 1981 STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND The Lynwood Blvd. Project started at the end of 1984 with some engineering costs. The appraisals and purchase of the bakery and road construction took place in 1985 and 1986. The project was finalized by State Aid in December 1987. The following is a recap of all revenues and expenditures for the Lyn- wood Blvd..Project: REVENUES State-Aid Reimbursement HRA -.Commerce Square Reimbursement Rent - Bakery TOTAL REVENUES $315,525 15,125 745 $331,395 EXPENDITURES Preferred Paving Purchase of Bakery Appraisal/Relocation/Right]of-Way/ Title Insurance McCombs/Knutson Engineering Wurst, Pearson Taxes $195,643 85,050 29,201 49,62.5 7,619 3,088 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $370,226 ($38,831) Deficit 12-31-87 There .will not be any additional revenues coming in to fund this deficit. John Cameron., HcCombs Frank Roos, has written a letter explaining the reasons for the deficit (see attached letter). As equa! cpportun:ty Emp oyer that does not discriminate on the bt:sis of race. co!or, nationa! ;r, t! :, aCm~ss?'m or access to, or treatrr:e'nt or emp'oymem in, its prograr'ns We have discussed ways of financing the Lynwood Blvd..deficit. The two op- tions that exist are, 1) General Fund transfer, 2) 1981 Street Improvement transfer. The following is a yearly breakdown of the activity in the 1981 Street Construction Fund: REVENUES (Excluding MSA OUTSTANDING MSA BOND BOND FUND CASH BOND REVENUE. REVENUE EXPENDITURES BALANCE BALANCE .. PAYABLE 1.981 1,008,452 ~- . 931,968 ...76,484 (146,656) 275,000 1982 56,619 67,125 44,229 155,999 ( 93,57.6) 245,000 1983 43,503 49,650 5.1,487 197,665 ( 34,018) 215,000 1.984 36,034 52,250 15,986 269,963 -.49,084 180,000 1985 39,834 54,450 16,383 347,864 138,872 140,000 1986 63,531 51,250 42,604 420,041 247,043 100,000 1.987 43,456 7,58.7 ._ 455,910 278,686 50,000 1988 Final MSA Bond Payment April 1, 1988 In 1981, $275,000 MSA Street Bonds were issued for the Street Improvement Fund. The Council followed its previous policy of assessing the property owners their share of the project costs (over a 15 year period). This assess- ment would_ have. been sufficient to pay off the bonds on this project. During the year 1982-1985 we received principal and interest payments for the 1981 MSA Bonds out of our State-Aid allotment. Therefore, we had revenue from.both assessment.§ and State-Aid to make~ the principal and interest payments. In 1986 and 1987 we infOrmed the State that we would mak'e principal and.interest payments from City funds (assessments) rather than_from the yearly MSA allot- ment. The MSA bonds will be paid in full on April 1, 1988. I have checked with our auditor and engineer regarding the surplus in this fund. The only concern with the State MSA would be that the bonds are paid off. Therefore, there is no stipulation by the State on what to do with this surplus. This means that the balance of this fund is to be used at the Council's discretion. I recommend that~the deficit in the Lynwood Blvd. fund be financed by a transfer from the1981 Street Improvement Fund (See attached resolution). The balance of the 1981 Street Improvement Fund after April~ 1, 1988 (including remaining assessments to be collected) could be transferred to the. General Fund, set aside for capital improvements or whatever the Council would decide to do with the balance. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Twin Cities, St. Cloud 15050 23rd Ave. N. Plymouth. MN 55441 3anuary 14, 1988 Telephone 612/476-6010 Engineers PLanners Surveyors Hr. Edward O. Shukle, Or. City Hanager City of Hound 5341 Heywood Road Hound, Hinnesota 55364 SUBOECT: Lynwood 8oulevard HSAP 145-104-03 NFRA #7193 Dear Ed: As requested, we have assembled in this letter an explanation as to why the City has a fund deficit for the above project. Even though this project was State Aid funded, there are certain 'expenses which are not eligible for reimbursement, such as miscellaneous expenses necessary .for R/W acquisition. The actual payment for R/W acquisition is eligible but other expense such as Attorney fees., appraisal fees, etc. are not. The State also has-a ceiling on the amount of engineering costs that are eligible for reimbursement, which was exceeded on this project. A maximom 50% of the storm sewer portion of a state Aid project is the responsibility of the' Hunicipality. On this project, the City received reimbursement for 54% of the storm sewer cost. Since I do not have all of your costs available in our office, I cannot give you a complete breakdown of which expenses were not paid by State Aid. However, we could give you a tabulation of the State Aid eligible construction and engineering costs, if you desire to see them. The City of Hound on past State Aid projects has assessed a portion of the cost 'for the improvements to the benefiting properties. However, on this project .the Council elected not to do so, which resulted in a funding deficit for the project. As you, Oohn Norman and myself discussed, the logical way to cover this deficit would be to transfer funds from your 1981 Street Construction account. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, HcCOHBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:djk January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER $38,831 FROM THE 1981 STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND TO 1}lE LYNWOOD BLVD. IMPROVEMENT FUND WHEREAS, the Lynwood Blvd. Improvement Project was started ia 1984; construction occurred during 1985 and 1986; and the project was finM- ized during 1987; and WllEREAS,.tbe Lynwood Blvd. Improvement Fund final revenues and ex- penditures as of 12-31-87 are as follows: Revenues 331,395 Expenditures 370,226 Fund Deficit ($38,831) WHEREAS, the 1981 Street Improvement Fund has a sufficient balance to fund the Lynwood Blvd. deficit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a transfer of $38,831 from the 1981 Street Improvement Fund to the Lynwood Blvd. Improvement Fund. 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 January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS WNEREAS, there are certain lots in the City of Mound which are tax forfeit; and WHEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council either release these lots for public auction; release for pri.vate sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be improved becabse of non-compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance; and WHEREAS, it appears in the best interest of the City to obtain certain lots for various reasons, i.e. wetlands, storm sewer drainage, street or park purposes, or topography. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to make ap- plication to the State of Minnesota for conveyance of the lots listed below for..the public purpose listed: PARCEL ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION 19-117-23 21 0023 Lot 1, Block 11, Seton PURPOSE Topography makes it un- buildable 19-117-23 21 0029 That part of Lots 7 & 8 lying bet the_Nly line and Sly line of Lot 2 extended across said Lots 7 & 8, Block 11, Seton Topography makes it un- buildable 19-117-23 21 0030 That part of Lots 7 & 8 lying N of the Sly line of Lot 1 extended across said lots 7 & 8, Block 11, Seton Topography makes it un- buildable The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the a~firmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: City Clerk Mayor 0 Z~¢.'/ I I I · ,...j ..,.,j ,...,,j I I I f~ 1~.3 b,3 Z X .o January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION NO.-88- RESOLUTIOH CA~ICELLIHG RESOLUTION t83-i4I REGARDING LOT Z8, BLOCK I, ARDEN (TAX FORFEIT PROPERLY) AHD RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LA~DS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION'AND CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSI~EHTS WHEREAS, in 1983 the City Council adopted Resolution #83-141 en- titled, "Resolution Reconveying Certain Tax Forfeit Lands Back to the State and Requesting the County Road to Impose Conditions on the Sale of .said Tax Forfeit. Lands and to Restrict the Sale to Owners of Adjoining Lands - Lot 28, Block.l, Arden", because it d.id not meet. the square footage requirements in the R-1 Zoning District which requires iO,O00 square feet to be a buildable lot; and WHEREAS, in 1987 the City of Mound was informed, by the Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that Lot 27, Block l, Arden, had been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, if these two lots are comb'ined they will make a buildable s~te; and WHEREAS, a combination'application for these two lots was sub- mitred to Hennepin County on December 15, 1987; 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. 435.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been leVies since for- feiture 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. That the following parcel of tax forfeited land is released to the County of Hennepin for public auction and the City hereby cer- tifies the following special assessments. PARCEL PID ~ & DESCRIPT. 24-117-24 44 0023 (Lot 27, Block 1, Arden) AHOUNT BEFORE AMOUNT AFTER FO RFE I TURE FO RFE I TURE LEVY # AMOUNT LEVY ~ AMOUNT 3388 62.96 3397 30.02 7928 565.18 NONE January 26, 1988 PLEASE NOTE: 0 THIS LOT SHOULD NOT .BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION UNTIL IT HAS..BEENo:COMBINED.-WITH.LOT-28~ BLOCK 1, ARDEN.(PiD #24-117-241 44-.0207)..-THIS~COMBINATION WAS--SUBHI1TED TO HENNEPIN COUNTY DECEMBER 15,-1987 That' the action taken in Resolution ~83-141 is hereby cancelled and the following parcel of tax 'forfeited land is released to the County. of. Hennepin. for public auction, after combination with PID ~24-117-24 44 0023 (Lot 27, Block 1, Arden) and the City hereby certified the following special assessments. PARCEL PID ~ & DESCRIPT. 24-117-24 44 02D7 (Lot 28, Block 1, Arden) PLEASE NOTE: ANOUNT BEFOPJE AMOUNT AFTER FOREEITUPJE FORFEITURE LEVY-t AMOUNT LEVY # AHOUNT NONE 7928 $1,444.19 THIS LOT SHOULD NOT BE 'SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION UNTIL IT HAS.-BEEN--COMBINED_~WITH .LOT-27, BLOCK. 1~ ARDEN (PID #24-117-24.-44 0023). ~-THI-S...COHBINATION WAS.-SUBMII-[ED TO HENNEP.IN COUNTY DECEMBER'15~ 1987 ® The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale at public auction sub- ject to the County imposing 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 and the above notes acknowledged and abided by. 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 January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 8B- RESOLUTION RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LA)iDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION AND CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSHENTS 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 parcels do comply with the City's zoning ordinance or building codes and are not adverse to the health safety and general welfare of residents of this City; 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. 435.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levies since for- feiture 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 C'ity Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. That the following parcels of tax forfeited land are released to the County of Hennepin for public auction and the City hereby cer- tifies the following special assessments. PARCEL PID ~ & DESCRIPT. 19-117r23 34 0036 (Lots 9 & 10, Block 2, Pembroke) AMOUNT BEFORE AMOUNT AFTER FORFEITURE FORFEITURE LEVY # AMOUNT LEVY f AHOUNT 3388 66.18 3397 .. 39.60 7928 1,642.55 NONE PLEASE NOTE: THIS PARCEL HAS AN CURRENTLY UNINHABITABLE HOUSE ON IT WHICH EITHER NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CURRENT BUILD- ING AND HEALTH CODES OR TORN DOWN ® The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale at public auction sub- ject to the County imposing the lien of special assessments on said lands. January 26, 1988 The City of Mound is releasing _the above properties subject to street and utility easements being retained by the City of Mound and the above notes acknowledged and abided by. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded bX Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2 January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION ~0, 88- 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 LA)IDS 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 Kennepin County that certain lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound 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, 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 could 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 253, 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: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied since for- feiture 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: The County Board is hereby requested to impose conditions 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: A. PID #19-117-23 31 0118 - Lot 4 and S 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 1.4, Avalon incl all that part of adj. Cumberland Road vac also Lot 1, January 26, 1988 Block 1, Pembroke subject to roads B. REASON FOR AND CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED SPECIALS LEVIED BEFORE FORFEITURE LEVY t AMOUNT 378.42 SPECIALS LEVIED SINCE.FORFEITURE LEVY .! AMOUNT Unbuildable because 7928 NONE there is no access to a public right-of-way PID #19-117-23 .34 0113 - Lots 4, 5 and Sly 2 ft of Lot 3, subject to road, Block 1, Pembroke REASON FOR AND CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED SPECIALS LEVIED BEFORE FORFEITURE LEVY # AMOUNT SPECIALS LEVIED SINCE_.FORFEITURE LEVY t AMOUNT Undersized lot to be 3388 sold only to and 3397 combined with adjoining 7928 properties 73.72 · 37..Z2 484.12 NONE The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale, subject to the County imposing the aforestated conditions 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 XDSSD m Z 0 MIDDLESEX ~', :NO. !~ F:~...S. N BRIGHTON /44.$ ~ McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.. Twin Cities St. Cloud 15050 23rd Ave. N, Plymouth, MN 55441 Telephone 612/476-6010 Engineers Planners Surveyors November 19, 1987 Ms. Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound,.Hinnesota 55364 SUBOECT: Tax Forfeit Property MFRA File #6670 Dear Fran: As requested, we have reviewed the current list of tax forfeit properties and have the following comments and recommendations: P.I.D. 19-117-23 21 0023 - 50'x168' Lot - 8384 S.F. + P.I.D. 19-117-23 21 0029 - 50'x82' Lot - 4100 S.F. + P.I.D, 19-117-23 21 0030 - 50'x82' Lot - 4100 S.F. ~ The topography of these.three lots make them unbuildable. They are comprised of a very steep slope which drops from the end of the present street down to the wetlands. They couldbe released for sale to the adjacent property owner, only if combined with the present developed parcel. P.I.D. 19-117-23 31 0118 - Odd Shaped Lot 8200 S.F.+ - This parcel has an irregular shape and fronts on Tuxedo Boulevard at the location of a high retaining wall. We would consider it unbuildable because of the extreme drop in elevation to the street. It could be released for sale to adjacent property owners only if combined with existing' parcels. P.I.D.'lg-l17-23 34 0036 - 80'x99' Parcel - 7900 S.F. + - This parcel has an existing house located on it, which is uninhabitable. This parcel appears buildable with a house designed for the site; therefore, we would recommend releasing it for sale. P.I.D. 19-117-23 34 0113 - 80'xl20',Parcel - 9600 S.F. + - The area of this parcel is 400 S.F. less than the minimum Yequired b--y the R-1 zoning, but within the guidelines (10%) the Council has used in the past for granting variances. The lots are a low point in the area, and, therefore, collect'runoff from 3 different directions. There is an existing ditch which drains into a culvert that discharges onto Tuxedo 8oulevard. Building on this parcel could create drainage Formerly McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. Hs. Fran Clark November l~, 1287 Rage Two problems for the adjacent house to the south. It appears these problems could be overcome with the correct swales and maintaining the existing ditch. This parcel could be released for sale if the Council grants a lot area varience. P.I.D. 24-117-24 44 0023 - 40'x160' Lot - 6400 S.F. - This lot is unbuildable by itself because of a lot area deficiency. As we · discussed over the phone, if Lot 28 is also available from the State, the two lots could be combined and then we would recommend they be released for sale. If you have any questions regarding any of these parcels, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:djk 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 January 21, 1988 TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER FROM: CITY CLERK Attached is a resolution reconveying f, ive temporary construction easements on private property. These easements were obtained during the street projects and have now expired. The City Engineer has reviewed these ease- · 'ments and does not see a need to extend them. fc January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RECONVEYANCE OF FORFEITED LANDS TO THE STATE OF HINNESOTA WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.01, Subdivi- sion 1, the State of Minnesota, as trustee under Minnesota Statutes, Section 281.25 conveyed to the City of Mound, a governmental subdivision, the lands hereinafter described, to be used for an authorized public use as temporary construction easements; and WHEREAS, said governmental subdivision has abandoned the public use for which such land was donveyed, and now desires to reconvey said lands to the State of Minnesota, as such trustees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to Grant, Bargain, Quitclaim and Reconvey unto the State of Minnesota all the tracts or parcels of land lying and being in the County of Hennepin in the State of Min- nesota, described as follows because the City Engineer has found no reason to keep such temporary construction easements: PID # STATE DEED 30-117-23 22 0013 158368 Lot 1, Block 3, Devon 25-117-24 21. 0134 158369 Lots 10 & 11, Block 10, Whipple 25-11.7-24 21 0028 159147 Lot 10, Block 12, Whipple 24-117-24 44 0190 . 153573 Lots 24 & 25, Block 10, Arden 13-117.-24 21 0030 156742 Lot 21, Block 9, Dreamwood 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: Attest: City Clerk Mayor 1 BILLS .... JANUARY 26, 1988 Batch 8011 Batch 8012 TOTAL BILLS 102,328.96 54,826.85 157,155.81 January 26, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROg THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS WHEREAS, there are certain lots in the City of Mound which are tax forfeit; and WHEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council either release these lots for public auction; release for pri.vate sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be improved because of non-compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance; and WHEREAS, it appears in the best interest of the City to obtain certain lots for various reasons, i.e. wetlands, storm sewer drainage, street or park purposes, or topography. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to make ap- plication to the State of Minnesota for conveyance of the lots listed below for the public purpose listed: PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION PURPOSE 19-117-23 32 0096 Lot 30 & W 1&2 of Lot 31, Block 9, Wychwood Dra i nage 19-117-23 32 0097 Lot 32 & E 1/2 of Lot 31 incl Drainage 1/2 adj Essex Lane vac., Block 9, Wychwood 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: Attest: City Clerk Mayor January 26, 1988 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 Mr. Steve Keefe Chair Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Keefe: I am in receipt of your letter and copy of the draft feasibility. report for a boat launch parking lot in Mound, dated January 20, 1988. We are looking forward to reviewing the report. However, ±t concerns me that we are given only two weeks to respond to the report. I'have spoken with Jack MaUritz ~of the C~ouncil Staff, and he has indicated that' an extension of the February iOth deadline is not a problem. Therefore, I would like to be able to submit our comments no later than~arch 1, 1988. I realize that you want to incorporate our comments into a report to the legislature, but I do not believe that the City of Mound can realistically submit any comments unless we are given more time. Mr. Mauritz had indicated that this was not a problem, and unless I hear from you, we will plan on March 1st to get our comments to you. If you h@ve any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager CC: Senator Gen Olson Jack Mauritz .Dirk deVries ES: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 a~d activities. Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robed Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55~0~ Telephone [6~,2] 29~1-635c~ -January 20, 1988 Edward Shukle~ City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 RE: Draft Feasiblity Report - Boat Launch Parking Lot in Mound Dear Mr. Shukle: On Jan. 14, 1988, the Metropolitan Council accepted the enclosed draft report on a boat launch parking lot in Mound. We are forwarding it for your review and comment. As you will see~ the draft report concludes that it is possible to establish a lot for car-trailer use. The report does not conclude whether the lot should or should not be built. Your agency's comments and conclusions will be very helpful to our conclusion in the final report. We are especially ~nterested in your thoughts about which agency would be an appropriate operating body should the facility be built. Obviously, your suggestion of any factors we 'have missed in our considerations will also be helpful. Please respond by Feb. 10 so a final report can incorporate them into a document for Council action in early March~ while the legislature is still in session. If you have questions or wish to discuss this with our staff, please call Jack Mauritz at 291-6602. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Steve Keefe Chair SK:emp Enclosure cc: Senator Gen Olson Dirk deVries, Metropolitan Council District 13 Jack Mauritz, Metropolitan Council Staff An Equal Opportunity Emp!oyer Metropolitan Council Meeting of January 14, 1988 Business Item: C-3 METROPO L I TAN COUN C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS COMMITTEE DATE: January 6, 1988 TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Draft Feasibility Report - Boat Launch Parking Lot in Mound BACKGROUND At its meeting on Jan. 5, 1988, the Metropolitan Systems Committee reviewed the Jan. 4, 1988, report from the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission on the Draft Feasibility Report for a Boat Launch Park Lot in Mound. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Several Council members were concerned that, thou'gh the report showed the possibility of building the car-trailer parking lot, it did not conclude that to do so was the best alternative. Mr. Wiger recommended that the term "feasible" bec'hanged to "possible" in the last paragraph of the summa'ry/ conclusion section on page 5. With that amendment, the committee unanimously voted the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Metropolitan Council: Accept this feasibility report for transmittal to in.terested agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the City of Mound. 2. 'Request comments from interested agencies. 3. Prepare a final report, incorporating the received comments, for the Minnesota State Legislature and other interested parties. Respectfully submitted, Carol Flynn, Chair Metro Systems Committee EPOO1A/PHOPNI~6 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT BOAT LAUNCH ?ARKING LOT IN MOUND INTRODUCTION The 1987 State Bonding Bill allocated $6 million for the acquisition and betterment of land on Lake Minnetonka for a regional park. The bill also incorporated language as follows: ...of the $6 million the sum of $250,000 may be used to develop parking and a pedestrian underpass to support the public access site in the city of Mound. BACKGROUND The basic document for public agencies concerned about the adequacy of public access for boat launching has been the report of the. 1983 Task Force for Lake Minnetonka (83TF), which established a desired number of boat spaces in each of five zones on the lake in terms of reliable parking spaces for boat-trailer- auto combinations using public ramps. In zone 5, the west/southwest end of the lake~ the report recommended 136 such spaces and stated that there were no reliable spaces in the zone. At the time, there were existing ramps but none had publicly owned, leased, or otherwise protected parking spaces which were· designated for car-trailers using the ramp. The 83TF ~epOrt has since been endorsed by the Metro Water Access Task Force, composed of MnDNR, MnDTED and Metropolitan Council, by Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and by the 1985 Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka (MCTFLM). As of 1985, the ramp at Halstead Bay Rd. in zone 5, provided approximately 16 roadside spaces which could be considered reliable. Since that time, there have been no added reliable spaces at existing ramps in zone 5. The new DNR-owned facility at King's Point added a new ramp and 20 new reliable spaces in 1987. For purposes of this discussion~ Council staff assumed that approximately 100 reliable spaces are still needed in zone 5. The MCTFLM in 1986 recommended that a regional park be established as part of the solution to the problems of public access to Lake Minnetonka. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SHRPD) proposed in 1987 that all or a major portion of the 100~reliable spaces called for in zone 5 could be located between two sites within a regional park on land located in Minnetrista. During negotiations about the park~ state Sen. Gen Olson informed Hennepin Parks, the Council and MnDNR that an individual was willing to acquire a site in Mound, near Mound's Bay Park, and would donate the property for car trailer parking. Council staff assumed at the time that the offer was made to reduce the number of car-trailer spaces which would be provided in the new park, enabling a reduction in the size of the park as well. The offer was considered by Hennepin Parks, MnDNR and Council staff, but was not recommended to any parent body for endorsement. When the 1987 bonding bill passed the legislature, it allocated $6 million for a Lake Minnetonka park and contained the $250,000 use rider outlined in the introduction, above. Because of the legislative action, because the issue could affect the future of the King's Point access, and because the numbe~ of reliable car-trailer sites to be provided in the park ha~ not been resolved, Council staff has undertaken this feasibility analysis for consideration by the water access task force, City of Mound and other concerned parties. DISCUSSION PHYSICAL LAYOUT The'proposed parking area is approximately two acres in size and is located approximately 300 feet north and 840 feet west of the Mound's Bay Park access ramp, across CSAH 110. The site is basically an excavated parcel of land, some of it back-filled, with a st%ep slope along much of its west and north boun- daries up to higher adjacent private land. An estimate, provided by MnDNR (attached), states that the site is adequate for 20 car-trailer spaces. Council staff observation on-site indicates there will be necessary engineering .provisions. They include structures for handling s6rface water runoff and a retaining wall or Iandform for the steep slope along some of the 500 feet south length and the west~end of the parcel' both along private land. ' ~. Entrance 'to the property is from Beachwood Rd. along its northern ~boundary, and vehicle re-entry to CSAH 110 would be from Beachwood Rd., at the northeast corner of the property. CSAH 110 forms the east boundary of the parcel, sloping from approximately 951 feet elevation to 943 feet elevation from south to north. Sight distance fram the entrance (Beachwood Rd./CSAH 110) is reported by Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation at 360 feet to the south ("B" attached), on an exiting driver's right hand, and is unlimited to the north. Speed limit at the entrance intersection is 30 mph on CSAH 110. Across Beachwood Rd., to the north, a wetland, actually part of the shoreline of Langdon Lake~ supports bog birch, cottonwood and box elder. Staff interprets the plant growth to indicate very wet organic soil lies nearly to the road edge. The wetland is approximately five feet lower than Beachwood Rd., which appears to lie on fill. A sketch of the area, ("C") shows the relationship of the ramp and the rest of Mound's Bay Park, which lie across CSAH 110, mostly to the north and east of the proposed parking site. Some distance estimates are on the sketch. PARKING LOT USE PATTERNS Boaters launching at Mound's Bay Park ramp enter the ramp approach from CSAH 110. After launching, they would drive back out to CSAH 110 and then to the lot (about 1,500 feet). Boaters approaching from the west/south could look into the parking area as they passed to ensure that a space was open. Boaters from CSAH 110 to the east/north would not be able to see into the lot and might risk launching their boats only to encounter a filled parking lot when they drove to it. The launch ramp is not visible from within the proposed parking space. CSAH 110 stands several feet higher than the lot and approximately 10 feet higher than the lakeshore. By the most direct path, diagonally across the park, it is about 700 feet from the northeast corner of the lot to the ramp. The ramp would be visible during most of the walk. There is no make-ready dock or area at the Mo~nd's Bay Park ramp. Staff assumed that boats would be beached after launching, probably on the adjacent north end of the swimming beach since private docks are close on the other side. Space for a make-ready structure would need to come from the shore south of the ramp, towards the park beach. Individuals without companions would be forced to leave their boat and its contents unattended for at least the time required to drive to the lot and walk back across CSAH 110. From that point, the beached boat would be in sight. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON CSAH 110 One of the particulars in the bill, quoted in the introduction, is provision of a pedestrian underpass. The Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation letter reports that a pedestrian underpass from the proposed lot to Mound's Bay is feasible. However, CSAH 110 traffic counts, even on the busiest days, did not approach the numbers that Mn/DOT normally uses to warrant a pedestrian crossing signal or a crossing device such as an underpass. During a visit on site~ a painted pedestrian lane located far enough north of the Beachwood Rd./CSAH 110 intersection to provide better sight distance was suggested as adequate. In HCDOT experience, the public has been reluctant to use underpasses unless the crossing area is perceived as very dangerous~ which was not likely to be the perception here. In other words, if an expensive underpass were provided, there's high probability that most pedestrians would still cross CSAH 110 at grade unless special enforcement measures were provided. Numbers of pedestrians making the crossing are few. If 50 launches and~ retrievals are assumed, only 50 pedestrians will need to cross CSAH 110 per day. CAR TRAILER ENTRANCE AND EXITS ON CSAH 110 The road entrance to the Mound's Bay Park ramp has more than adequate sight distance available in both directions. Car-trailers waiting to turn left, i.e., facing oncoming CSAH 110 traffic from the south, could be a problem in that following traffic, from the north, may not have adequate space to pass on the right. The low ADT counts may render this a minor problem. At the Beachwood Rd./CSAH 110 intersection, for car-trailers leaving CSAH 110, problems are few. There is no barrier for those coming from the north and making right turns, and few will enter by left turns from the south since they will not have been to the ramp. 4 Car-trailers leaving the lot will have different experiences. From Beachwood Rd., sight distance to the driver's left (i.e., north) exceeds the minimum. However, cars making the right turn enter an approximate seven percent grade and could have unexpectedly poor acceleration. This is not anticipated to be a major problem~ most car-trailers leaving the lot will turn left to the ramp, the opposite direction. Car-trailers turning left onto CSAH 110 from Beachwood Rd. will find adequate sight distances to the left and about 350 feet to the right (i.e., south). Traffic standards rate this distance adequate for passenger vehicles, inadequate for larger, slower moving vehicles. A car- trailer combination is intermediate in these classes. Staff rates sight distance to the south as marginal. Traffic coming from the right, down the seven percent grade, may also be traveling somewhat faster than usual, and could require longer than usual stopping distances. LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AT MOUND'S BAY PARK RAMP AND BEACH If the 20 car-trailer sites are filled on a busy lake use day, and a typical park turnover of 2.5 per day assumed, there will be 50 launches and retrievals per day from this parking area. Current use data (1986 counts in Boating on Lake Minnetonka, a report by Bicentric, Inc. to LMCD) for lake area 3, which this ramp enters, shows a variation from 6 to 42 boats in the area at the time of the various counts. Average s~mmer count is 25, taken from samples at typical peak use times. The addition of 20 boats to' this area, given that most would not stay solely in lake area 3 during ~ their visit, is not regarded as a ~ignificant impact on boat n~mbers on the lake. Lake area 3 is part of zone 5 of the 83TF report, which is one of two rated more lightly used and recommended for expanded access. It is worth noting, however, that lake area '3 is one of the smaller areas, hence an average summer count of 25 boats represents signif- icantly higher density than does the average summer count of 34 on adjacent area 4, which has more than twice the surface of area 3. No statistics were obtained on swdmming use at Mounds Bay Beach. Observations support the general opinion that it is busy. It is used at or near capacity on · most nice days during the season. SUMMA RY/CON CL US IONS Input from the Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation indicates that the site meets safety criteria marginally with respect to sight distance at the exit in the traffic conditions a car-trailer must enter. It also indicates that neither the proposed number of pedestrians or the extent of auto traffic on CSAH 110 meet the criteria or "warrants" for a pedestrian crossing management structure or device. Input from MnDNR indicates the proposed parking area can provide 20 car-trailer parking spaces. Council staff found that substantial improvements would be required to stabilize the steep earth wall above the parking area and Council staff anticipates a need to deal with storm water draining through the site. Discussion .in the 1983 Task Force Report for boat launch facilities makes it clear that off-site parking is not a preferred arrangement. Individuals, especially, would be forced to leave their boat and gear ~uusupervised to park their car. In this case, boats and gear would be left adjacent to a very busy recreation use area. DNR, while trying to meet reliable parking needs at ramps in zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka, is not enthusiastic about this site. The proximity of the ramp to the busy Mound's Bay Park swimming beach has potential to create problems for the city. In the experience of Hennepin Parks planners, power boat launching, retrieving and traffic into the lake is not compatible with swimming and beach management safety. At Baker Park Reserve on Lake Independence, the launch was moved 400 feet from the beach after several years' experience with a closer location. District planners ~eek 300-400 feet as a "rule of thumb" minimum in their current planning. Mound, the managing agency for the ramp, would need to review and devise mechanisms to mitigate potential conflicts. Mound has taken an earlier position on this subject ("D" attached). The legislation provides development funds but nothing for operation and management of the ramp or parking area. The site is not in a regional recreation open space facility, and Hennepin Parks, the designated regional implementing agency in this area, has stated that it does not wish to operate freestanding facilities of this type. MnDNR prefers exploring on-site parking opportunities in zone 5 before developing an off-site parking area. Hennepin County Public Works and Hennepin County Dept. of TransPortation have not expressed interest in operating a facility of this type. The ramp is currently operated by the city of Mound, presumably a public boat- trailer parking area for ramp users could also be operated by the citY. Locating 20 reliable car-trailer parking spaces on the referenced parcel in the city of Mound is possible. It would be an expensive facility and its remote location (from the ramp) is a drawback. Increasing ramp use in proximity to the park swimming beach appears to be a negative factor in the proposal, as well. RE COMME NDATI ON That the Metropolitan Council: Accept this feasibility report for transmittal to interested agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the City of Mound. 2. Request comments from interested agencies. 3. Prepare a final report, incorporating the received comments, for the Minnesota State Legislature and other interested parties. 12.14.87 EP001A/PHOPNI~6 DEPARTMENT : 13'AT E : TO : FROM : PHONE : SUBJECT : A of Natural Resources November 4, ~987 $ F-00006,0514;8§1 STATE OF MINN£SOTA Office Memorandum Jack Mauritz Parks Planner Metr ~opolitan Council Mart_ha 3. Rsger ~- Area Trails & W~ter~ys Specialist Region VI 296-3572 MOUNDS BAY PARK PUBLIC ACCESS - PARKING EXPANSION I hav~ reviewed the possible parking .expansion site across from Mounds Bay Park along withBeacD~ocdRoad. After looking it over, I have the followir~ information to offer. The site, although significant in size, presents a number of problems to think about. First of ail, ar~ most im.uortant, are the ex~re~ly steep embankmen~ on the south, ar~ west sides of the lot. The stabilization of these slopes wou/d either be very expensive, .throuGh the use of a massive retaindngw~lI, or would significantly reduce the size of the site. Rough c~lcu_lations show that this site could .acconm3odate a.~proximately 20 car/trailer .spaces in it, while doing an adequa, te 3ob of stabilizing the slopes. It coulld possibly acconm3odate more'if a retain~ w~ll w~re used, ho~=v~r, I believe that the expense-of that idea wou/d far outweigh anybenefitwemay'g-aiu.' A few other issues to tak~ into consideration include the loss of viewing site of one's belongings when goir~ to park, and the busy road that wou/d hav~ to be crossed a number of times by people. If you nsed any additional information please feel free to give'me a Call. CC: Delos Barber Kath/een Wallace .2 :..'"' t.'. .' _. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av, South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 OctoOer 26, 1987 Mr. Robert E. Nethercut Metropolitan Council Manager, Parks and Natural Resources 300 Metro Square Bldg. 7th & Robert St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Nethercut, As you requested, the Hennepin County Oepartment of Transportation has analyzed the proposed parking lot at the southwest quadrant of CSAH 110 and Beachwood Road and a connecting pedestrian underpass to Mound Bay Park, with respect to engineering standards and traffic safety. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT) Design Manual recommends a minimum vertical and horizontal dimension of eight feet for a pedestrian underpass. The minimum invert elevation of a pedestrian underpass at this location is 931 feet above sea level, based on the 100 year flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka. The roadway elevation of CSAH 110 adjacent to the property varies from approximately 943 feet above sea level to 951 feet above sea level. Consequently, the elevation differential between the highway and Lake Minnetonka is sufficient to construct a pedestrian underpass. There are no rigid criteria for warranting pedestrian/vehicle grade separations. However, the MN/OOT Oesign Manual makes the following statements concerning pedestrian underpasses and overpasses' "Pedestrian underpasses should be provided where pedestrian volume and traffic volume warrant, and other conditions favor their use over pedestrian bridges. In general, pedestrians are very reluctant to use undercrossings because of the feeling of confinement and limited sight distance." "Pedestrian overpasses should be considered where a combination of pedestrian volumes, traffic volumes, and safety hazards favor their use. No rigid threshold criteria are appropriate for warranting a pedestrian overpass. However, the following may serve as general guidance: HENNEPIN COUNTY on fquol oppodunlty employer B-2 Mr. Robert E. Nethercut Page 2 Freeways may divide areas where pedestrian crossings would otherwise be high. If highway crossings are spaced relatively far apart, a pedestrian overpass many be justified. Pedestrian overpasses may be warranted where the traffic and pedestrian volumes exceed the criteria presented in Section 4C-5 "Minimum Pedestrian Volume" of the MUTCD for warranting pedestrian-actuated or exclusive pedestrian phases for traffic signals. 3. Pedestrian overpasses may be waranted where a significant safety hazard exists." Section 4C-5 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) referenced above states: "The Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the following traffic volumes exist: o On the major street, 600 or more vehicles per hour enter the intersection (total of both approaches); or where there is a raised median island 4 feet or more in width, 1,000 or more vehicles per hour (total of both approaches) enter the intersection on the major street; and During the same'8 hourS as in paragraph (1) there are 150'or more pedestrians per hour on the highest volume crosswalk crossing the major street." The 1986 annual average daily traffic (AADT) on this segment of CSAH 110 was 6,650 vehicles per day. Due to the high recreational use of CSAH 110 in this area, the Hennepin County DOT conducted a traffic volume study on CSAH 110 at Beachwood Road during the Labor Day weekend to determine whether a holiday 'weekend results in significantly higher volume. A copy of the results are attached. The study was conducted from 10:15 a.m., Friday, September 4, i987 through i:30 p.m., Tuesday, September 8, i987. The volumes were 6,678, 7,645, 6,346 and 6,720 for September 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th respectively. Traffic volumes exceeded 600 vehicles per hour for only 4 hours during one day, falling considerably short of the minimum pedestrian volume criteria of the MUTCD. The site distance from the Beachwood Road/CSAH 110 intersection appears to be inadequate to the south (to a driver's right). However, the measured available site distance from this intersection to the driver's right is 350 feet and to the driver's left is unlimited. The recommended site distance for a 30 mph speed is 260 feet to the driver's right and 350 feet to the driver's left for passenger vehicles. The recommended site distance for semi-trailers B-3 Mr. Robert E. Nethercut Page 3 and other large, slow moving vehicles is 400 feet to the driver's right and 500 feet to the driver's left. Consequently, the adquancy of the available site distance is questionable. I hope these comments assist you in evaluating this property. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, David W. $chmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning OWS/gk Attachment C January 30, 1986 I)-1 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55384 (612) 472-1155 Honorable Rudy Perpich Governor of Minnesota State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorable Joan Anderson Growe Secretary of the State of Minnesota Room 180, State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorable Arne H. Carlson State Auditor of Minnesota Suite 440, 555 Park Street St. Paul, MN 55103 Honorable Robert Mattson State Treasurer of Minnesota 1208 Grand Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey III Attorney General of Minnesota 101 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorable Marlene Johnson Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota 122 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Review of Increased Public Access on Lake Minnetonka Dear Governor Perpich and Members of the Executive Council: This letter outlines the formal iresponse to the Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka who, at your:direction, are in the process of implementing the 1983 Task Force recommendation of identifying 700 reliable car-trailer parking spaces serving public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. The City of Mound has a long history of making Lake Minnetonka accessible to city residents and members of the general pub)lc. Small access sites are scattered around the City of Hound. These sites, although not appropriate for serving regional users, provide the means for limited numbers of non-lak~_s~hore neighborhood residents to gain access to the lake. Additionally, the City has established ownership of 4.5 lineal miles of park and conznon areas around the lake. During 1985, 400 docks were in place along these areas providing access to residents of the City who, in most cases, are non-lakeshore owners. The boat access at Mound Bay Park is used by both local residents and t,he general pub)lc. The City has determined that further expansion of this facility is not possible due to adjacent land uses, limited land area and lack of suitable areas for parking. The Hound Bay Park access is located between a swimming beach and a multi-family residential structure.. In the summer months, this 2.5 acre park is intensively used. Due to this intensive usage and the limited size of the park, expansion of the facility would increase the chances of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts to unacceptable levels. As a result, the City of Mound cannot support e~xpansion of this facility. Parking in the vicinity of Mound Bay Park is also complicated by the existing development pattern. Virtually all on-street parking opportunities occur. along county roads which contain limited shoulder areas or presently have An equal ooDonumty Employer t~at qoes not q~scr)mi~ale on the basis Of race, color, nahonal origin. Or han:,caDpe0 status m the &Omission or access to. or Ireatmenl or employment m, ~ts ~rograms omo ac:,v,t,es, 'Page 2 D-2 Governor and Members of Executive Council January 30, 1986 B-38 on-street parking which serves abutting businesses and residences; Due to this situation, expansion of on-street parking is viewed as being phy$1caily impossible without costly modifications to the existing county road system. The 1983 Task Force identlfled Lost Lake as a potential access site. At the present time, the City is conducting a detailed analysis of the Lost Lake site and its potential for future use. Prelimlnary results indicate that Lost Lake should be designated as unsuitable for construction of a lake access due to severe enviornmental constraints, high development costs and unacceptable 'local community impacts. Due to these factors, the City of Hound recon~ends that Lost Lake receive no further consideration at this time nor in the future. On December 23, 1985, the City received a letter from the Department of Natural Resources requesting co~mnent on the use of a 4 acre parcel on the north shore of Halsted Bay as an access site. This site lies within the Cities of Hound and Minnetrista. Hound's review of the use of this property as an access site has conc)u~ed that the property is unsuitable for such an activity. This conclusion is based on the fact that entry to the site involves travel on a narrow residential street and construction of parking associated with the access would require clear cutting up to 3 acres of existing tree cover. Additionally, thls parcel presently contains a mobile home park which is a non-conforming ]and use under the Hound Zoning Code. Acquisition of a portion of the site by the DNR for access purposes would not reduce'the inten- sity of the adjacent non-conforming use but in actuality, would increase the density of the mobile home park due to the reduction in total land area. Such an occurrencels contrary to the intent of the non-conforming use provisions of the Hound Zoning Code. After thorough review of potential access sites within the City, the Hound City Council has concluded that the community is providing as much access to Lake Hinnetonka as is physically and financially feasible. Therefore, the City of Mound does not recommend expansion of any existing access points nor does it recommend installation of any new accesses within the Mound Corporate Limits. As was stated in the beginning of this letter, t,~e City will con..tinue to support public access to Lake Minnetonka. In that regard, the Mayor and the City Council of t.~e .I,y of Hound cordially extend an i rrvit-a~ion :o members of the Executive Council to visit the community and review the City's current efforts. We feel that after such a review, the Executive Council will agree that the City is providing more than its fair share of access to Lake Minnetonka; City Manager CC: Mr. Joseph Alexander · Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources Mr. Pat Scully, Chair, Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka Mc-Combs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Twin Cities St. Cloud 15050 23rd Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55441 Telephone 612/476-6010 Engineer's Planners Surveyors 3anuary 26, 1988 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUB 3ECT: Hennepin County Road No. 15 Watermain Replacement and Street Lights MFRA #8258/8259 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: Attached is a tabulation of the bids received by Hennepin County for the watermain replacement and the new street lights on County Road 15. As you can see, we received very good bids on the street lights, but the watermain replacement was an entirely different story. The low bidder for Hennepin county on their complete project was actually the highest bidder on the City's two projects. We have discussed the high prices received on the watermain project with Hennepin County, but they have not been very sympathetic, since the street light bid was approximate $18,000 below our estimate. They have discussed possible reductions in some of the unit prices with Hardrives, with no positive results to report at this time. If a better price cannot be negotiated with Hardrives and their subcontractor, the City could request that Hennepin County delete all or part of the watermain replacement from the contract. If this is done, the City can then negotiate directly with Hardrives' subcontractor or request quotes from other utility contractors. Hinnesota Statutes 429.041, Subdivision 2 allows the City to perform the work by day labor, or in any other manner considered proper, if the bids are more than the estimated cost. Should the City decide to handle the watermain replacement themselves, they probably would not receive a quote comparable to the low price of $53,355.00 received by Hennepin County. The reason being that a utility contractor working directly for the City instead of a subcontractor under Hardrives would need their own traffic control and possibly temporary driving lanes. We realize now that our original estimate of $44,235.00 was too low. We did not have all the facts as to the traffic control problems and tight schedule imposed by Hennepin County when the estimate was compiled. The City would probably be looking at a construction cost of $55,000.00 to $60,000.00 if they handled this project themselves, which would still be a savings of $24,000.00 Formedy McCornDs-Knutson Associates Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound Oanuary 26, 1988 Rage Two to $30,000.00 from Hennepin County's bid. We suggest that the City not make any decision at this time but wait until the first meeting in February to give us more time to negotiate with the County Contractor, and/or acquire additional quotes from other utility contractors. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, 1NC. Oohn Cameron JC:jmj Enclosures~ I ZZ~. ~-4 Z oO n- cO W ~: --~ n- CD 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 ED (:2) 0 u% I~ Zl,ZI 0 u% 0 0 0 I~5 CD· O~ · 0 · 0 ·ED · -..1' W k * 0 o 0 0 0 ,-4 '0 0 rr' t- O 0 t- O c' 0 0 ~ ~ Z ~oooO00OO00000000OOO0~ ~QQO~ - ; 0 n ~ ggggggg~gggggggggggg°°§gg°°~gg°°g°°~oo oo~oo oo~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .................................... 0 PAGE 1 AP-C02-01 V~90~ I~¥OICE 9UE HOLD NO. INVOICE ~BR [lATE DATE STATUS F~E-PAID 1120188 ~ERIC~t BATTERY EXCH~GE VENDOR TOTAL ~0500 PRE-PAID 1/20/88 1120188 BABLER AUTOMOTIVE VENDOR TOTAL ~0549 PRE-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/Er8 BELLBJ]¥ CORFS~ATION VEl~OR TOTAL B0580 'PRE-PAID 1/20/~ 1/20/88 BILL CLARK OIL CD,ANY VENDOR TOTAJ_ ~OUNT 113.00 113.00 PURCHASE dDURNAL CITY OF MOUND 113.00 312.75 312.75 312.75 960.48 1,~3.~ 2,023.S6 2023.56 685,54 685.54 685.54 B(1680 PRE-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/83 465.00 BRJqDFORI) ROY VENDOR TOTAL 465.00 C0920 PRE-PAID 50.~0 1/20/88 1/20/88 50.90 PRE-PAID 11.21 1/20/88 1/~/88 11.21 CITY ~ MOUND VENDOR TOTAL 62.11 C0990 P~-.PAID 297.O0 1/20/88 1/20/83 ~7.O0 CD~IPUT~VICE INC VENDOR TOTAL ~7.O0 C0999. PRE-PAID 3.60 1.80 3.60 6.30 14.40 3.60 .90 7.20 5.40 ,~0 1/20/88 1/20/~ 47,70 ~IAL LIFE INS CO VENDOR TOTAL 47.70 Clo01 ~-PAID 61 6,~2.88 1/20/88 1/20/~ 6,6/~3. ~3 DESCRIPTION A/P-TIRE PICKUP JR~_-CD A/P REPAIR 85CELEB JRNL-CD LIQ A/P LID JRNL-CD DIESEL GASOLINE dF~.-CD 88 UNIF~ ALLOWANCE JR)iL-CO REPLEN PEltrY CASH JR~_-CD A/P DEC WATER BILL ~-CD A/P DOW~Y~T-UB dRIt-CD JA.N LIFE INS JAN LIFE INS JA~( LIFE INS JAN LIFE INS J~-~ LIFE INS JAN LIFE I~ JAN LIFE INS JAN LIFE INS ~N LIFE INS JA, N LIFE INS JR,-CD A~ DEC SALES TAX A~ DEC SAUES TAX ~NL-CD ~COOUNT NUMB~ O1-2040-000,~ lO10 PRE-PAID AMOUNT 113.00 [AiE TIME 27974 01-2040-0000 1010 71-71O0-~10 71-2040-0000 ~ 1010 01-12~-00O0 1010 312.75 2023.56 &~5.54 27967 27~4 27992 01-4140-~40 1010 01-23O0-0~0 1010 71-2040-0000 1010 01-2040-0000 lO10 465.00 ~.90 11.21 297,o0 279~ 279~ 28O02 2797~ 73-7300-1520 78-7800-1520 71-71O0-1520 01-4280-1520 01-4140-1520 01-4170-1520 01-4290-1520 01-4090-1520 01-4040-15~ 01-4340-1520 1010 47.70 277~ 73-~40-O0O0 71-2040-0000 1010 6663.~ PAGE. 2 AP-C02-OI VENDOR IN¥OICE DLE I-~3I.D ND. I~OlCE I~'IBR ~TE I)ATE STAllJS PURCHASE CITY DF MDU~D AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER PRE-PAID . A~UNT CHECK COMMISSIONER DF REVENUE VE]ID~ TOTAL 6~3.93 I)1219 Ff,:E-PAID 55.25 6.5 C~TRACT HOURS 1/20/88 1/~/$8 55.25 JRNL-CD DE1.BERT RUI)DLPH VE]tl)DR TOTAL 55,5.25 ))1259 PRE-PAIl) 110.00 DREI)GE PEIUiIT ~7-6100 BL LK 1/20/88 1/20/88 110.00 JFtNL-CD I}~T DF NA~ RESOURCES VE)4DOR TOTAL 110.00 E1429 PRE-PAID 1,497,89 A/P LIQ 1/20/88 1/20/88 1,497.89 JR)i,-CD · PRE-PAID 109.60 WINE 1/20/88 1/~/88 109.60 ~-CD PRE-PAID 2,340.87 LIO 163.00 WINE 48.02- DISC 1/20/88 1/20/88 2,455.85 ~-CD lEI) PHILLIF'S & SONS VENDOR TOTAL -4063.~ 61790 PRE-PAID 410. O0 1/~/88 1/20/88 410.00 GAILY LDI'FDN VEND~ TOTAL 410.00 G1971 PRE-PAID 176.6,5 1/20/88 1/20/88 176.65 GROUP HEALTH PLAN VENDOR TOTAL 176.65 G1972 P~-PAID 1,523.46 1/20/88 1/20/88 1,52'3.46 PRE-PAID 3O4.53 6.09- 4.95 303.39 1/20/88 1/20/88 PRE-PAID 1,2F-~. 47 165.53 28.32- 10.80 1/20/88 1/20/88 GRIGGS COOPER & COMPLY VENDOR TOTAL 3225.~ ~181 PRE-PAID ~,925.47 1/20/88 1/20/~ 22,9'25.47 HENNEPIN L'DUNTY CDBG VE]qDOR TOTAL 22925.47 88 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE JRNL-CD JAN HDSP PREM ~II.-CD A/P LIQ ~NL -CD WINE DISC FRT JRNL-CD LIQ WINE DISC FRT JRI~_-CD HEI 2~ F~-PAY ' JRNL-CD 01-4350-3100 1010 01-2999-0000 1010 71-2040-0000 1010 71-7100-9520 1010 71'7100-9510 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 01-4140-2240 1010 01-4140-1510 I010 71.2040-0000 1010 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 71-7100-9600 1010 71-7100-~10 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 71-7100-9600 1010 16-2040-0000 1010 55.25 110.00 1497.89 109.60 2455.85 410.00 176.65 15£~.~ 303.39 1378.48 22~5.47 2799O 2G~O1 27971 27977 27996 27959 27969 277~ 28007 27999 PAGE 3 AP-C02-01 NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMO~'~T DESCRIPTION JOURNAL .-ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK 12301 PRE-PAID 6%40 DEF COM~' S~E 1/~FR 1/~/88 1/20/~:B 69.40 ~NL-CD I~ R~IREMENT ~ VEN[~R TOTAL 69.40 I2390 PRE-PAiD 1/20/88 I/~/~ ISFS! VE~IOR TOTAL PRE-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/~8 J~HN EWA~ III VEN[~R TOTAL ~2b-70 F~E-PAID 1/20/$~ 1/20/~B JOHN MCKINLEY VENDOR TOTAL PRE-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/~B J~N TAFFE . .' VEND~ TOTAL d2579 PRE-PAID 1120188 1/20/88 PRE-PAID 1120/88 1/20/88 ~E-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/8~B JOHNSON BROS WHOLES~E LI~ VE~OR TOTAL PF£-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/~ MA~KATO STATE UNIVERSITY V~[~R TOTAL M3090 F~E-PAID ~ED CENTER HEALTH P~N VENDOR TOTAL M3170 ~E-PAID 210.00 INSTRUCTORS CONF 210.~ JF~I_-CD 210.(~ 410.00 88 LINIF~M AU_~ANC1E 410.(X) ~NL-CD 410.00 410.00 88 UNIFO~ A~OWANCE 410.00 JRNL-CD 410.00 168.00 ~8 CONTACT HOURS 168.00 JRNL-CD 168.00 1,619.84 A/P LIQ 1,619.84 dR~L-CD 302.10 LIQ 2P8.39 WI~E 9.03- DISC 591.46 JR~-CD ~7.84 LIQ 315.00 WINE 20.70- DISC 1,152.14 JR~'CD 33&3.44 40.(~ S~INAR ~.00 JRNL-CD 40,00 ~}8.10 J~N HOSP PREM 2n4.'~ ~ U., JAN HOSP F'REM 78,40 JAN HOSP PREM 6~0..~ JRNt-CD 6?0.55 33,736.17 d~ SEW~ SERVICE 7,719.84- JAN SEWER SE~ICE 75.,3.32- JAN SEWER SEFNICE 01-4040-14~ 1010 ~-4170-4110 1010 01-4140-2240 1010 01-4140-~40 1010 01-4~0-3100 1010 71-2040-0000 1010 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9520 71-71~3-9560 1010 01-4040-4110 10!0 01-4040-1510 01-4340-1510 0!-4140-1510 I010 .8-7oUO-4zc, O 78-11~-0000 7o'~,,i~-0U00 69.40 210.00 410.00 410.00 1619.84 591.46 1152.14 40.00 690.55 28003 27995 27997 F'AGE 4 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 1/20/88 1/20/E8 25,263.01 JRNL-CD PRE-PAID 4,158.00 A/P DEC SAC 1/20/88 1/20/88 4,158.00 JR)-tL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 1010 78-2040-0CE)0 1010 PRE-PAID AMOL~T 252~.01 415~.00 279,.~ METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMI~ VENDOR TOTAL 29421.01 M3258 PRE-PAID 50.00 ~ MEMB-HARRL,G~ND 01-4140-4130 1/20/88 1/20/88 50.00 dRhL-CD 1010 50.00 27%! MINNETONKA SPORTSMEN, INC VENDOR TOTAL 50,00 M3441 PRE-PAID 455.00 140.00 112~/88 1/20/88 595.00 CONF 6/9-11 ROOM DEPOSIT-CONF dR)~.-CO 2~-4170-4110 22-4170-4110 1010 595.00 279~ MN STATE FIREFIGHTER~ CONF VENDOR TOTAL 5~5.00 PRE-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/88 4,428.~2 JAN FIRE RELIEF PENSION 4,42~.92 OF(N).-CD 95-9500-1400 1010 4428.~ 27981 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VEI,~DDR TOTAL 4428.~ M3520 PRE-PAID 155.00 155.00 · 1/20/88 1/20/88 310.00 88 MAIL FEES 88.MAIL FEES JR)i-CD 73-7300-3210 78-7800-3210 1010 310.00 27973 PRE-PAID 100.00 1/20/88 1/20/88 ~0.00 REPLEN POSTG DUE'ACCT REF'LEN PDSTG DUE ACCT JR'L-CD 73-7300-3210' 78-7800-~10 1010 2tX~.O0 27975 MOUND POSTMASTER VE~80R TOTAL 510.00 ~631 PRE-PAID 1120/88 1/20/88 194.65 88.84 41.80 16.44 16.44 56.09 16.44 30.~ 35.06 51.51 547.5? JAN LTD JAN LTD JAN LTD JAN LTD JAN LTD JAN LTD JAN LTD JAN LTD JAN LTD JAN LTD JRNL-CD 01-4140-1520 01-42~-15~Q 01-4040-1520 01-4190-1520 01-4340-1520 01-4090-15C~) 01-4290-1520 71-7100-1520 73-7300-1520 78-7800-15C~ 1010 547.5? 279~ MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE VENDOR TOTAL PC~P50 PRE-PAID 547.59 129.03 1.57.69 99.10 318.18 84.73 1,920.88 44.98 63,32 143.57 PERA FERA PERA PERA PE~ PERA ' PERA PERA PEF~q I/9 PR 1/9 PR 1/9 PR 1/~ PR 1/9 PR I/9 PR 1/9 PR 1/9 PR 1/9 PR 73-7300-1440 78-78L~0-1440 71-7100-1440 01-4280-1440 01-4190-1440 01-4140-1440 01-4290-1440 01-4040-14~ 01-4090-1440 PAGE 5 AP-C02-01 VD~OR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. I~IVO!CE N~R DATE DATE STATUS PERA P~330 1/20/88 1/20/88 YEHDOR TOTAL PRE-PAID PHYSICIA, NS OF MN Q4171 1/20/88 1/20/83 VENDOR TOTAL PRE-PAID 1/20/8,9 1/20/~ PRE-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/88 P~-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/88 Qt~qLITY WINE & SPIRITS VD~DC8 TOTAL AMOUNT 47.86 3,00~.34 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND 300%34 423.86 528.41 376,76 952.25 :~2.93 1,937.76 188.38 585.86 1~.38 5,474.59 5474.59 382,78 382,78 1,212.43 22,64- 1,189.79 441.80 368.75 12.53- 798,02 2370.59 R4270 PRE-PAID 410.00 1/20/~ 1/20/88 410.~ RONALD B~TROM VB~DOR TOT~ 410.00 S4370 PRE-PAID 68.~ 280.35 1/20/88 1/20/88 ~9.20 SHARE V~DOR TOTt 34%20 S4390 PRE-PAID 1,?~3.74 1/20/88 ~.~n~.~ · ~w-~ 1,993.74 SHORELINE PLAZA VD'~DOR TOTAL 1.~3.74 S4500 PRE-PAID 227.97 278.65 175.12 [~5~.32 14~.73 79.49 234,52 253.70 DE~RIPTION PERA 1/? PR J~-CD JAN HOSP PREM JAN HOSP PF~M JAN HOSP PREM JAN HOSP PREM JAN HOSP PR~ JAN HOSP PREM JAN HDSP PFEM JAN HOSP PREM JAN HOSP PF~_M JBNL-CD A/P WINE JR~-CD LIQ DISC ~NL-CD LIQ WINE DI~ JRNL-CD E8 UNIFORM AU. OWANCE JRNL-CD 1-2'3 H~P, THARALSON 2-3-4 HOSP, KRA~E JRNL-CD JAN RENT JRNL-CD FICA 1/9 PR FICA I/9 PR FICA 1/9 PR FICA 1/9 PR FICA 1i9 PR FICA 1/9 PR FICA 1/? PR FICA i/? PR 0!-4340-14¥J I010 73-7300-1510 78-7800-1510 71-7100-1510 01-4280-1510 01-4190-1510 01-4140-1510 01-4290-1510 01-4090-1510 01-4040-1510 1010 71-2040-0000 1010 71-71~-9510 71-7100-9560 1010 .71~7100='~10 71-71¢~-952~ 71-7100-9560 1010 01-4140-2240 1010 01-4140-1510 01-42~-1510 I010 71-7100-3920 1010 73-73~)-1440 78-7800-1440 71-71~-1440 01-4280-1440 01-41~9-1440 01-4290-1440 01-4040-14~ 01-4090-~440 PRE-PAiD AMOL~T oO,.,Y..:,4 5474.5~ 3E~.78 1189.79 798,02 410.00 349.20 1~3,74 Ti~E 28004 27%~ 2797~ 279~ 280~ 2799j 279~ PAGE 6 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. I~OICE NMBR [~TE DATE STATUS AMOUNT 79.73 84.56 32.62 9.30 1/20/88 1/20/~ 1,958.71 STATE BANK OF M~JND VENDO~ TOTAL 1958.71 S4550 PRE-PAID 1,553.25 1/20/,~. 1/20/88 1,353.25 STATE TREASURER VB~noR TOTAL 1353.25 S4550 PRE-PAID 410,00 1/20/88 1/20/8~ 410.00 STEPHEN GRAND VENDOR TOTAL 410.00 T4830 PRE-PAID 410.00 1/20/~ 1/20/~ 410.00 TODD TRUAX VENDOR TOTAL 410.00 W~20 PRE-PAID l&.O0 8,00 '1/~/85 I/i~/88 24.00 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOU[~D WEST~A CIHAMBER OF COMM~ VENDOR TOTAL W5S50 PRE-PAID 1/20/:~ 1/20/~ WILLIAM M HUDSON V~DOR TOTAL W5700 PRE-PAID 1/20/88 1/20/88 WURST-P~RSDN-LARSDN VENDOR TOTAL TOTAL ALL VEN[~S 24.00 ~5.00 465.00 465. O0 1,~0.00 1,560.~ 1550.00 102,~.96 DESCRIPTIC~4 FICA 1/9 PR FICA I/9 PR FICA-MED I/9 PR FICA-M£D I/9 PR ~)~.-CD A~ 4 QTR ~RCI~%~GE JRNL-CD 88 UNIFOP~ ALLOWANCE dPJ~I.-CD ~ ~IFORM ALLOW~ ~-CD CH~ LUNCH ~AMB~ L~CH JR.-CD 88 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE JRNL-CD JAN Pi-TA INE~ JPJqL-CD ACCOST NUI'tBER Ol-4140-1 ¥J 01-4340-1440 01-4140-1440 71-7100-1440 1010 01-2040-0000 1010 01-4140-~40 1010 01-4140-2240 1010 01-4040-4120 .01-4140-4120 1010 01-4140-~40 1010 01-4110-31F~ 1010 PRE-PAID AMOUNT 1353.25 410.00 410.00 24.00 465.00 1550.00 CHE~ ~ 28005 2,'-~00 27994 279P,:J 279~ PAGE 1 AP-C02-OI PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF buU, d) bIVO J F.;~' .nU~ HOU.~ NO. INVOICE NMBR [~ATE DATE STATUS ~MOUNT DE~RIPTION -AC~UNT NUHB~: AHOU~ CHECK A0060 404,52 A/P OFFICE 5UPPL!E~ i.$7 A/P OFFICE SUPPLIES 10.90 A/P OFFICE SUPPLIES 10.91 A/P OFFICE SUPPLIES 427.70 JRNL-CD O1-20~a-OO(~J 71-2040-0000 73-2040-00C~ 2040 ACRO-MN VENDOR TOTAL 427.70 AOIO0 1122/88 1/22/88 68.28 JAN SERVICE CONTRACT ~0.4. JAN S~'VICE CONTRACT %45 JAN SERVICE CONTRACT 4.68 JAN SERVICE CONTRACT 24.30 ~N S~VICE CONTRACT 4.6? dAN SERVICE CONTraCT 14.&5 JAN S~ViCE CONTRACT ~.45 dAN SERVICE CONTRACT 14.85 JAN SERVICE CONTRACT 171,00 01-4280-3~50 ~I'4o,0-o~..,0 01-41~0-395~ 01-4270-3~50 01-4140-395~ 01-4040-5q~50 7~-7o1~-o~5~ 78-7800-3950 22-4170-3~5~ 2040 AIR COMM INC VENDOR TOTAL 171.00 A0240 AM~ICAN WATERWOB<SAoo,('" VENDOR TOTAL A0271 1/22/88 .... o 1/~/c,~ 58.¢~ AWWA-88 DUES 53.00 JNL-CD .~.00 ~0.00 ~ SUBSCRiP-AMER HEAT 6,50.00 JF~-CD 73-7300-4130 2040 z-4170-~00 2040 AMERICAN HEAT VENDOR TOTAL 6.,0. O0 ~)350 60.00 A/P-WREATHS 60.00 JRNL-CD 01-2040-0000 2040 Ar.~ONYS FLORAL V~DOR TOTAL 60.00 A0410 ,::N OF METROPOLiTN MUNIC* VENDOR TOTAL 1,994.00 E8 MEMB-ASSN METR MUNIC 1,994.00 JRNL-cD 1994.00 01-4020-4130 2040 A0435 1/22/88 1/22/88 10.00~°R M~B-ATOM i0.00 JRNL-CD 01-4140-4130 ATOM VBJDOR TOTAL 10.00 B0520 1/z..'/oo 1/22/88 BALBOA MI)JNESOTA ~,01000307 "~"~ ' ¥:,~uOR TOTAL 1,4il.25 FEB LEASE 1,411.z~ JRNL-CD 14!!.25 20-5200-3720 20~3 B0540 BATHKE COMPANY 1/22/88 1/22/88 VE)EOR TOTAL 30.00 A/F'-OXYGEN 30.00 JRNL-CD 01-2040-0000 ;'040 FACE 2 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND T!~E i V~NDOR !N¥OICE DUE HOLD NO. iNVOICE ~MBR DATE DATE STATUS B0550 1122188 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 200.00 A/P-HAL~E~N CANDY 77.40 A/P-XMAS LIGHTS J67.56 A/P-XMaS LIGHTS ~6.,0~ ~ A/P~qUPPL!ES~ 691.86 JR~-CD I N~~ ACCOUNT Nu ~R oi-2040-0000 01-2040-00i>3 40-2040-{~'00 01-2040"00¢×; 20~3 PRE-PAID AMOUNT CHECK BEN FRANKLIN STORE VENDOR TOTAL 691.86 BOngO 1/2~/88 1/22/88 32.50 A/P-DEC GARBAGE 32.50 A/P-DEC GARBAGE 65.00 JRNL-CD 01-2040-0~?0 £~-2040-0000 2040. BLAO.3WIAKAND SON VENDOR TOTAL 6~.00 C~-360 1/22/88 31.00 A/P-EXAM-REX 31.00 J~L-CD 01-2040-0000 C~NHASSE~ VETERINARY VENDOR TOTAL 31.00 C0~30 1/22/88 1/22/88 8.25 JAN WINDOW CLEAN 8.25 A/P-DEC WINDCI~ CLEAN 16.5~J ~NL-CD 71-7100-2200 71-2040-0000 2040 CITYWIDE SERVICES C09~0 V~ND~ TOTAL 1122/88 1/22/81 16.50 907.00 d~N LEASE 505.00 d~ MA!~ 1,412.00 dRNL-CD 01~4095-5000 01-4075~3800 ~40 COMPUTDSERVICE INC VEND~ TOTAL 14!2,00 CIOIO 1/22/88 1/Z2/88 21.71 A/P-PAGER ~PAIR 21.71 JR~L-CD 22-2040-0000 2040 COMMb~ICATION AUDITOR VENDOR TOTAL 21,71 CI020 1/22/88 1/22/88 57.05 A/P-DUPL FICHE 18.60 JACKETS-FICHE 173.90 FI~E-DEVELOF'ER 249.55 JR~-CD 01-2040-0000 01-4140-4260 , 01-4020-4260 CONCEPT HICE~FILM C1079 VCNDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 i/22/88 CC~,iTi)J~TAL TELEFHO~E VENDOR TOTAL 249.55 96.29 A/P-DEC LD TEL 319.65 JAN TELE 18.17 A/P-DEC LD TEL 186.7~ JAN TELE 106.11 JAN TELE 53.05 JAN TELE 53.05 JAN TB-E ~ Oo JAN TELE 4.05 A/P-DEC TEL 14~.0~ JAN TELE ,04!.27 ~m.~-CD 1041.27 01-2040-0000 01-4o~0-o~0 01-2040-00(X~ 01-4140-3220 0!-42~-3220 73-7300-3220 /o-7~(~0-~0 ~-4170-3220 71-2040-00~J 71-7100-320 2040 AF'-C02-01 VE~;DOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ~'~0. I~VOICE ~¢~IB,r,~ DATE DATE PURCHASE CITY OF ~,n~,..,~,'.m AMOUNT DESCRiPTiON JOUF~NAL ACCOU~F NUNBER FRc-PA~L Ab~UNT DllTO DAKOTA RAIL iNC D1190 DAVIES WAT~ EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL D1259 ll'.zz/~ DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES VENDOR TOTAL F1580 1/2~/88 1/22/E8 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN VENDOR TOTAL G1890 GLO, WOOD iNGLEWOOD H2110 · 1/~/88 1/22/88 VENi!OR TOTAL 1/~/88 i HENN CO CHIEFS OF POLICE ~ VENDOR TOTAL H2140 1/~/~ 1/~/88 HENN CD ;Hcn:Fro DEPT V~N[OR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/22/88 HOUSING & RFFIEVELOF'MNT AUT VE,~LuR TOTAL 12340 1/~/o~ 1/22/88 · ,~ ~,A~L AooN CHIEFS POLl VENDOR TOTAL I2350 1/22/:~ !/22/$3 I,~EnkMTL ASSN FiRE ~ut~;S VENDOR TOTAL 12360 1/22/88 I/2~/~:3 459.75 RR L~SE TO 2/15 ~....., ~.,~.,".~, .-~, ~ I.,..,..~.., LEASE TO 613,00 dRNL-CD 613.00 1,959.00 PIPE LO~TOR !,959.00 JRNL-CD lYvg.0V 1~,00 150.00 150.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 A/P-87 WATER USE FEE JR~-CD 88 DUES-FIAM JRNL-CD 6~.21 A/P-DEC WATER COOLER 3.37 A/P-DEC WATER COOLER 3.37 A/P-DEC WATER COOLER 91.95 JR~-CD 91.75 40.00 88 DUES-HENN r_Z) C~ POL ASSN 40.00 dRNL-CD 40.00 137.54 A/P-DEC BD~(ING FEE 137.54 JR~-CD 137.54 10,175.74 A/P-DEC TAX STTLMNT-HRA 10,175.74 JRNL-CD 10175.74 50.00 88 DUES-iACP 50.00 JR)~-CD 50.00 60.00~,~,°° MEMB-!AFC 60.00 dRNL-CD 60.00 70.00 JRNL-CD 40-6000-3~10 01-4320-3710 2040 73-73(~-5000 2040 73-2040-0000 2040 22-4170-4130 2040 01-2040-0000 73-2040-0000 78-2040-00(Q 2040 01-414.-41..'.0 2940 01-2040-0C"J0 20;0 96-2040-0000 2040 01-4140-4130 2040 22-4170-4!30 2040 20~0 PA,SE 4 AP-C02-0i VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. IN'~,~ICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DEECRiPTION ,JOURNAL ACCJDUNT NUMBER PRE-PAID AHOUNT DATE TIK£ CHECK iNTERNATL CONF~NC B~,G OF* VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/£~/88 INTE~NATL CITY MGMT ASSN VelDOR TOTAL J2440 d B DISTRIBUTING J2500 JANET BERTRAND K2720 K~ERCOMPN~Y K2721 KRUGE-A!R iNC k~730 Kt~TOM ELECTRONI~ L2750 1/22/88 1/22/88 VO~D~ TOTAL 1/22/88 1/22/88 VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/22/88 VENDOR TOTAL tl'~/O~ VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/22/~ V~JDOR TOTAL LOGIS L2770 1/22/88 1/22/8~ VE}4DOR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/~/88 LAKE MTKA CONSerVATION DI* VENDOR TOTAL L2780 1/22/88 1/~/88 L.AKE REGION MUTUAL AID ASS VEND£~', TOTAL L2818 1/22/88 11~/88 ~AW ~ ....... - ..... VD~D~R .... ~'~ru~;'~=,~, VIE;ED JOU~ TOTAL 70.00 305.00 88 SUBS~RiPTION-M~T INFO S~V ~1.99 88 DUES-ICMA &36.99 JR,.L-CD 636.99 125.37 CHEMICALS 125.37 J~.IL-CD 125.37 163.69 ICBO INSTITUTE 163.69 JR~Nq_-CD 163.69 255.54 A/P-PARTS 255.54 JRNL-CD ~5.54 · 207.00 A/PzVISE 207,00 JRNL-CD 207.00 1,655.00 A/P-RADAR UNiT 1~ qn ,ow.,,, JRNL-CD 1655.00 746.91 A/P-N~/,DEC LOGIS 746.91 A/P-NOV,DEC'LOG!S 1~.22 A/P-NOV,DEC LDGIS 1,~S~.4~ A/P-NOV,DEC LOGIS 3,162.46 JRNL-CD 3162.46 ,4v9.67 1/., LMCD DUES 3,459.67 JRNL-CD 3459.67 I0.00 10.00 I0.00 !40.00 140.00 140.00 88 DUES-LK REGN HUTL AID JRNL-CD A/P-87 COURT LCI~iO:.~ TAFE -JRD~-CD 01-4040-4130 0!-4040-4130 01-4290-2250 01-41'~0-4!10 20~ 01-2040-0000 Ol-204o-oooo 2040 01-2040-0000 2040 73-20~-0063 78-2040-00C~) 71-2040-00CQ 01-2040-~00 2040 01-4020-4130 2~ 0~0 ;~-41~0-41o0 2040 01-2040-0000 2040 PAGE~ 5 F' U R C H A S ~ J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND V~DOR iN%~OICE DUE HOLD PRE-PAID NO. INVOlutE .... ~' - .~ ~r t'~ ..... ' ..... - .. r~,~ DATE DATE S,ATUo AMOUNT DESC~iPTION ~CO0,~T NU~'~ER ~MOU~'~T C~=C~,- 140.00 LMC-M, AP P,,~G DUES TOc.,.~ 0!-4020-4130 1/22/88 1/22/88 140.00 JRNL-CD 2040 ~AOUE OF MN CITIES-MAP P~ V~.IDOR TOTAL 140.00 ~'~ "~ 50 L~ooO oo.. ROTARY DUES JAN-F~-MAR 88 01-4140-4130 1/22/88 1/22/88 38.50 JENL-CD 2040 LEONARD HA, RRELL VENDOR TOTAL 38.50 L2~30 494.30 A/P-AUTO PARTS 01-2040-0000 474.$~ JRNL-CD ~40 LOWELL'S M3010 MAR, I~A AUTO SUPPLY ~t~040 MASYS CORPORatiON 1/~/~ 1/22/88 VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 VENDOR TOTAL 1/~2/8S 1/22/~ VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/22/~ M~OMBS ~^~'~' ,,,~,,,., RODS ASSOCt~ V~'IDOR TOTAL M31t8 MEMA ~229 1/22/88 1/~/88 VB~E~OR TOTAL 1/22/;]8 1/22/~8 ~ ..... ~'~uL,~ TOTAL ,~[k,E~T MACHINE TOOL ~JPPL "~'~ .... M3250 1/22/88,/~/oo~'" ..... VE)'~DOR TOTAL M3~70 494.30 164.84 A/P-DEC PARTS 01-2040-0000 4.70 A/P-DEC PARTS 22-2040-0000 16~.54 JRNL-CD ~.~:4 ~ 169.54 lo.~.O0 FEB SUPPORT O1-40~v-o~vO 135.00 JR~-CD 2040 135.00 3,716.00 A/P-DEC MC~OMBS 01-2040-00(~J 196.00 A/P-DEC MCCOMBS 40-2040-0000 168.00 A/P-DEC MCCOI'~S 73-2040-0000 252.00 A/P-DEC MCCOMBS 26-2040-00~ 112.00 A/P-DEC MC, CO~S 66-2040-0000 307.00 A/P-DEC MCCOMBS 80-20~3-00~J 28.00 A/P-DEC MCCOMBS 57-2040-0000 4,781.00 JRNL-CD 2040 4781,00 25.00 ~" ~ ~ MEMB-ME~ 01-4140-413~ 25,00 JRh~-CD 204(I 25.00 35.65 A/P-BAL-VAC PUMP 01-2040-,:~J00 35.&5 JRNL-CD 2040 565.47 A/P- DEC GAS 01-2040-0000 ~7.87 A/P- DEC C~S 71-2040-0000 732.74 A/P- DEC OAS 22-2040-00C"3 1,526.10 JRNL-CD 2040 1526.10 ~;.00 ~,u~-~', CHFS POL (!!-4140'4130 PAGE 6 ~P-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HDLD NO. INVOi~ NMBR DATE DATE STATUS MN CHIPS GF POLICE ASSN VENDOR TOTAL M327~ 1/22/88 1/~/88 MN ANIMAL CONTROL AS~ VENDOR TOTAL M3'280 MN CITY MGMT ASSN M3320 1/22/88 1/22/8:3 VENDOR TOTAL I/~2/¢,~, 1/22/¢8 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC S~ETY M3~30 MN GFOA VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/22/88 VENDOR TOTAL 1./Zz/oo 1/22/88 MN PARK SLPERVISOR~ ASSNC~ VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/:.~ 1/22/88 M}~ RECREATION & PARK VENDOR TOTAL M3410 MN S~ETY COUNCIL M3439 1/.,~ mo ~ '*"'"'R VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88uz~'~" ~ STATE FIRE DEPT ASSN VENDOR TOTAL M3440 1/22/88 1/22/88 MN STATE FIRE ~IEF'S ASSN VENDOR TOTAL MJb71 1/22/88 1/22/88 MN WASTEWATER OP~ATO~S AS VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/22/88 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT ~,00 45.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 95.00 95,00 95.00 75.00 75,00 75.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 115.oo i15,00 115.00 18.50 l~..JO 18.50 8.40 8.40 DESCRIPTION JRNL-CD 88 DUES-MACA J~,L-CD 88 MEMB-MCMA ~NL-CD A/P-4 QTR CONNECT CHG JRNL-CD 88 MEMB-MN GFOA ~NL-CD 88 ~ES,MN PARK SUPEE~ ASSN JR~,~CD 88 MEMB- ~RPA JRNL-CD 88 DUES-M~ SAFETY COUNCIL JR)~.-CD 88 DUES-M~I STATE FIRE [EPT ASN JRNL-CD 88 ME~-~4 STATE FIRE CHF ASSN JRNL-CD 88 & 87 DUES-MN WASTEWTR ASSN JRNL-CD A/P-DEC CYL RDtT J~;'iL;CD ACO]UNT NUMBER 2~,40 01-4140-4!30 2040 01-4040-4130 2~40 01-2040-0000 20~ 01-4~0-4130 2040 01-4340-4130 2040 01-4340-4130 2040 01-4320-41~3 2040 Z2-4170-4130 2~40 22-4170-4130 2040 /o-7o00-~!.:.0 2040 73-2040-00(>3 ~(.~ PRE-PAID AMOb?~T [!ATE T!~ CHECK PA.SE ' 7 ~., D.,~-OI I" NO. INVOICE NMBR [HTE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL ?.~:E-PA!D AMOUNT MPLS OXYGEN CO~2ANY VENDOR TOTAL N3670 1/~,~., 1/22/88 .~-~c-:, N W.BEII TELEPHONE CO ~,,~u~x~r~o TOTAL N3680 1/22/88 1/~/88 NATL FiRE PROTECTION ASSN VEN[~R TOTAL N3710 NAVARRE HARDWARE N3719 NEEN~ FOUNDRY CO ~87~0 NDRTHEG~ HY£SAULICS · 1/22/88 1/22/8~ VENDOR TOTAL 1/22/88 1/22/88 ¥&N%~OR TOTAL 1/22/~ 1/~/,-~ VENDOR TOTAL 11~I88 11~t88 NORT~RN STATES POW~ CO VENDOR TOTAL ~3820 1/22/88 1/22/~8 NORTHSTAR CHAPTER--ICBO VD-DGR TOTAL PDQ FOOD STORES F':3999 1/22/$8 OIL CO 1/22/88 VD-~DOR TOTAL · , ~-:,-,,'o.., 1/~/:::8 VENI';OR TOTAL 8,40 173.65 173.65 173.65 247.50 247.50 247,50 266.44 ?,.12 4~.72 3~8.28 294.00 294,00 294.00 70.21 70.21 70.21 4.22 573.52 272,58 4,879.36 44.10 5,773.78 5773,78 30.00 30.00 30.00 102.48 50,04 152.52 132.85 107.45 JAN D~DICA ~D LINE JRNL-CD CODc~ E:3 SU~CRIr-N,T~ FIRE JRNL-CD A/P-DEC SUPPLIES A/P-DEC SUF~LiES A/P-DEC SUPPLIES JRNL-CD A/P-MANHOLE COVERS JRNt-CD SPRING ASST JRNL-CD A/P-DEC ELEC A/P-DEC ELEC A/P-DEC ELEC JAN EI_EC JAN ELEC JR~_-CD ~'~ M£MB-NOSTAR C~PT tCBO JRNL-CD JAN GASOLINE A/P-DEC GAoO~INE JRNL-CD ANTI-FREEZE JR~.-CD A/F'-SLE~E, L~4SH 01-40'?0-3220 2040 22-4170-2280 2040 01-2040-0000 73-2040-00(~ 78-2040-0(K~0 2~40 78-2040-0000 20~O 2040 ~-2~40-0000 73-2040-0000 78-2040-0000 01-4280-37!0 ~1-6000-3710 2040 01-4190-4i30 2040 01-4!40-22i0 01-2040-0000 0!-42~0-2250 ~V~ 01-2040-0000 PASE 8 AP-C02-01 VENDOR I~¥O!CE DUE H~.D NO. INVOICE ~R DATE DATE STATUS 1/22/88 1/22/88 MY ALLE}I MANUFACTURDCG CO VENDO~ TOTAL PURCHASE CITY OF MOb?iD AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 107.45 ~NL-CD 107.45 JOUR~AL AC~UNT NUMB~ PRE-PAiD AMO~.~T E~TE T~ i CE~CK # R4220 1/~/88 1/~/88 RBKS CORPOR. ATION/NELSON [~ VENDOR TOTAL R4240 1/22/88 1/22/88 ~O-RAJ k~NELS VENDOR TOTAL 305.78 A/P-DEC D~-IVERY u,,.7o JRNL-CD 305.78 ,~1.00 A/P-DEC KENNEL FEES 53!.00 JRNL-CD ~1.00 71-2040-0000 204~i 01-2040-0000 2040 S4360 1122188 131.00 A/F'-4 QTR SR COMM SRV-~L 131.00 J~_-CD 16-2040-0000 20~ SENI~ CO~-IUNITY SF_F6/ICES VENDOR TOTAL 13t.00 S~lO SMI~ H1EATING & AIR 1/22/88 1/~/8) VE]qDC~ TOTAL 82.00 RELIGHT FURNACES-VALVE 82.00 ~NL-CD ~,00 01-4290-2~30 21)40 S4430 ~S PRINTING 1/22/88 1/22/Sg V~D~ TOTAL !,046.10 A/P-DEC FORMS 417.70 ICR FORMJ 1,463.80 ,~NL-CD 1463.80 01-2040-0000 01-4140-2120 2040 S44.40 1/22/88 1/22/88 SPRING F'~ CqR WASH VE:~UDR TOTAL ~,.~v A/P-DEC C~ WASHES 5%50 JPJ'~-CD 59,50 01-2040-0000 2040 S4451 ST BDNI OiL' 1/72/88 1/22/88 VENDOR TOTAL 145.~5 OIL 14 .... JRNL-CD 145.95 ~Z-4170-zzO0 204O.. T4740 TRI-STATE DRILLING 1/Z/88 1/~/88 VESt, OR TOTAL 597.33 A/P-PLOP REPAIR 597.33 JRI~.-CD 597.33 78-2040-00(X) 2040 U5050 UNIFO~ UNLIMITED 1/22/8~: 1/22/88 V~DOR TOTAL 163.20 A/P-DEC UNIF-HALT 163.20 dRNL-CD 163.20 01-2040-0000 ~40 U5090 1/22/88 1/22/88 25.00 88 DUES-UNITED FIREFIGHTERS ~.,.00 JR~-CD 22-4170-4130 2040 UNITED Fi~,E FiF_~TERS LL5100 VE~OR TOTAL 25.00 . 275.01 A/P-£~EC UNITOG 01-2040-0000 Z 0 Z O._ LIJ 0 'LO Z~ ZO 0 0 O~ >- ~ I--~:~ Z 0 U >- U imm PAGE ~ ? P U R C H A S E d 0 U R N A L DATE AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND TI~ VE~DOR INVOICE DUE ~r..t D Fr;~-rNID ~ u~ ~OUNT DESCRIPTION AC~UNT NU~B~.,,~ ~E~ ~ 1/~2/88 1/~/88 UNITOG RENTAL SYSTEM VENDOR TOTAL 46.64 A/P-DEC UNITOG 73-2040-0000 N/P-D~C UNITOG 78-2040-0000 77,72 ^ '~ 2.40 A/P-DEC UNITOG ~-2040-0000 401,77 JRNL-CD 20'40 401.77 USIlO 130.00 1/22/88 1/22/8~ 130.00 UNIVERSITY OF MN VE)~OR TOTAL 130.00 W5330 542.30 1/~/88 1/22/88 ,A.~,oO WAcONIA RIDGEViE~W HOSPITAL VENDOR TOTAL 542,30 W~20 60. O0 1/~/'88 1/22/88 60.00 WESTON)-'Sq CHAHBER OF COH, MER VENDOR TOTAL 60.00 W5&30 1~22/88 ....'~'/"'" 1 / -"~., ,:,,:, VENDOR TUT~L 1/22/88 1/22/88 VENDOR TOTAL WIDHER INC W5641 WILKINS PONTIAC X5750 dUV OFF INSTITUTE 01-4140-4110 JRNL-CD 2040 1ST AID SUPPLIES ~ 4170-~7V JRNL-CD 2040 88 DUES WTKA CHAHB CDHMERCE 01-4020-4130 JRNL-CD 2040 1,1~3.12 A/P-PLOWiNG 40-2040-0000 374.38 A/P-PLOWING 01-2040-0(~0 430.25 A/P-BARTLETT 73-2040-0000 727,00 A/P-NORTHERN RD 78-2040-0000 2,854.75 JRNL-CD ' 2040 2E~4,75 5.48 A/P-AUTO PARTS 01-2040-0000 5,48 JF~NL-CD 2040 5.48 1/22/88 1/~2/88 XEROX.CORPOraTION VB~DOR TOTAL ¢)I.~7 TOTAL ALL V~DORS 54,826.85 481.77 A/P-OCT-DEC MAINT 01-2040-0000 481.~7 JRNL-CD ~40 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 January 21, 1988 TO: FROM: RE: Ed Shukle, City Manager John Norman, Finance Director December 1987 Financial Report The following reports contain the preliminary figures for the month of December. There will be additional receivables and payables that will be reflected in the year-end'figures for the audit. The final revenues and expenditures will not be significantly different from 'these preliminary figures. Planning/Inspection Department i.s over budget by $11,474.. The heavy building and remodeling activity in Mound during 1987 was the reason for the budget overrun. However, the overrun is more than offest by the building permit revenue (Budget, $55,000 Revenue $97,050). With the Revenues exceeding the budget and expenditures under budget, the General Fund balance will increase from $700,000 to approximately $800,000 at the end of 1987. An equal opportumty Employer that does not discriminate '.;~ tr, e b,*.s.;s c,f race. Co!or, r~at~ona! orfgin, or handicapped status u~ the a:~m?.~sion or access to, or treatm~r~t c,¢ er-ip;oyr'h,~nt rn ;ts pr29rams a'~d act~¥,t es CITY OF HOUND 1~87 BUDGET REPORT December, 1987 Pr~l iminary 100 ~ of Year BUDGET December REVENUE YTD REVENUE VAR I ANCE PER CENT RECEIVED GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental BusSness"Licenses Non-Business. Licenses and Permits General Gov't Charges Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue 'OTAL REVENUE $975,893 771,O57 13,000 108,100 33,300 94,000 20,870 57,500' 461,168 355,.045 591 8,435 18,1o8 8,117 i,15o ~7,289 946,923 772,706 10,957 158r216 38,208 85,252 15,013 53.716 28,97O (1;649) 2,043 (5o, 116) (4,908) .8,748 3,193 3,784 $2,073,720 889.903 2,080,991 (~,935). 97.0 1OO.2 84.3 146.4 114.7 90.7 76.3 9'3.4 100.3 LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND $755,000 $300,000 $565,000 78,829 11,831 47,2il 785,001 312,965 569,308 (3o,ooi) (12,965) (4,308) 104.O 104.3 1OO.8 BUDGET CITY OF MOUND 1987 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES December 1987 December EXPENSE YTD EXPENSE Preliminary 100 % of Year UNEN- CUMBERED EXPENSE PER CENT EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council " City'Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance .... Legal Cable TV Recycling Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspectior Streets Shop & Store City Property Parks Commons Docks Mound City ·Days Contingencies. Transfers Cgmputer $50,460 111,430 5OO 46,170 134,010 83,75o 6,490 ]8,320 626,130 2,300 104,600 390,730 5o,810 85,320 144,760 54,100 ~.,5'00 17,140 143,200 1,195 12,394 32 54 13,841 6,395 389 2,251 71,685 13,159 33,605 5,28O 3,036 11,813 641 1,~32 34,250. 2,'433.. 44 108 3 47 127 68 6 16 583 1 116 349 52 8O 131 43 3 3 141 54 ,721 ,104 ,335 ,165 ,800 ,608 ,034 ,103 ,145 ,013 ,074 ,191 ,609 ,002 ,917 ,806 ,485 ,632 683 ,484 5,739' 3,326 (2,835) (995) 6,2]0 15,142 456 2,217 '42,985 1,287 (11,4741 41,539. (1,799) 5,318 12,843 10,294 15 1:3,508.. 1,517. · (54~4841... 1 88.6 97.01 02.1 95.3 81.9 93.0 87.9 93.1 44.0 11.0 89.4 03.5 93.8 91.1 81.0 99.6 21.2 98.9 GENERAL FUND TOTAL .~2,073,720 213;RR5 1 ;9R?;9~ 1 90,R09 qg.6 Area Fire $223,940 SErviCe Fund Liquor Fund 149,340 Water Fund' 296,910 Sewer Fund' 693,150 12,880 i4,752 20,980 37,131 203,664 143,593 266,370 641,074 20,276 5,747 30,540 5'2,076 90.1 96.2 89.7 92.5 Memo from Phyllis Jessen To the Council and Staff: Please forgive my tardiness in preparing this report but with holidays intervening I found my time rather limited. Also, so I do not bore you with lengthy observations, I will make this a short and concise summary of, what I considered, an informative and interesting conference. The 64th Annual Congress was held at the Convention Center next to the Hilton in Las Vegas. The hotel I stayed at was the Bally several miles from the Center. Buses shuttled back and forth all day long between hotels and the Center to accomodate the delegates. We never waited longer than 5 minutes. That was especially appreciated on the windy, cold days. Since I would board a bus by myself, I would usually have someone in the next seat to introduce myself to and strike up a conversation. Without taking an actual count, I think I visited with city delegates from at least 40 states. We would compare types of city governments, what problems they face and share elected officials concerns. That was a real enrichment to my whole Conference experience. Democrat and Republican candidates were invited to address us. Unfortunately, a debate was being held that week-end in Harlingen, Texas so many declined. I suspect they were contacted later by mayors and other officials in their states or who supported them who were disappointed they did not show. Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson were the two who did address us. Both were well received and Jesse is a spellbinder when addressing an audience. A speaker at the luncheon for the delegates was George Plimpton and his speech was humorous and entertaining. I attended the Minnesota breakfast and was brought up to date on our concerns and efforts on our state's behalf. The Monday General Session was presided over by Cathy Reynolds. She gave us a summary of the past legislative session explaining both the Clean Water Act and Ground Transportation Act, supported by NLC3were passed over the president's veto. Upcoming issues of concern are HRA, Tax legislation, Clean Air and Welfare Reform. Also spoke of the need to speak to candidates of city issues and work hard to be sure they are · aware of them. Presidents Awards were presented to Henry Maier of Milwaukee and Richard Hatcher of Gary, Indiana. I attended the Steering Committee meetings of the Human Development Policy Committee and the Community and Economic Development and heard resolutions adopted to be passed on to the Resolutions Committee. These in turn were adopted by the general body.at the Annual Business Meeting held on Wednesday. At this meeting, Jim Scheibel from St. Paul was elected with others to the Board of Directors. The delegation from Minnesota stood and waved Homer Hankies brought by Minneapolis in his honor and delighted the audience. I was able to attend three workshops though so many are offered I wished I could have spread myself thinner. The presentation on Urban Landscape was excellent and I would like to speak to Mark Koegler and see if we could incorporate.' some ideas I heard there. Also, went to Juvenile Justice and Training and Employment which did not give me much to share with you though I did share our Toro situation with them. ......... ~ ..... ~ h~o~ you will be able to attend one soon. REPORT OF THE STATE AUDITOR of MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE CITY OF MOUND Years Ended December 31 1982 through 1986 ARNE H. CARLSON State Auditor St. Paul, Minnesota MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE 1982 THROUGH 1986 TABL~ OF CONTENTS Indicated Market Value Gross Retail Sales Graphs Profile Indicator 1: Indicator 2: IndiCator 3: Indicator 4: Indicator 5: Indicator 6: Indicator'7: Indicator 8: Indicator 9: Change in Population ................. Change in Property Values .............. Trend in Building Permits .............. Trend in Retail Sales Activity .., .......... Trend in Individual Economic Status ......... Trend in Revenue Sources ............... Trend, in Expenditures by Function .......... Trend in Expenditures by Function (Per Capita) .... Change in Property Tax Levy ............. Indicator 10: Trend in Outstanding Indebtedness .......... Indicator 11: Trend in Governmental Fund Type Liabilities ..... Indicator 12: Budget to Actual Revenues .............. Indicator 13: Budget to Actual Expenditures. . .......... Indicator 14: Change in Fund Balances (Unreserved, UndeSignated) . . Indicator 15: Trend in Earnings on Investments (Governmental Funds). Indicator 16: Trend in Current Debt Service Costs (Governmental Funds) ....................... Indicator 17: Trend in Number of Employees Compared to Population (Governmental Funds) ................ Indicator 18: Trend in Compensation and Employer Paid Fringe Benefits (Governmental Funds) ........... Indicator 19: Profit or Loss in Enterprises ............ Indicator 20: Trend in Property Tax Collection ........... Indicator 20: Current or Change in Bond Rating ........... Indicator 21: Opinion on Financial Statements ........... Appendices Population by Class (Indicator 1) Current Expenditures Per Capita (Indicator 8) Additional Analysis for Metro Area Data Base: Content of Indicators for Financial Health Profiles Pa~e 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 11 $3OO $250 $200 $150 $1 O0 $5O $0 CITY OF MOUND INDICATED MARKET VALUE Milllon~ 1962 1980 1964 1988 1988 Year CITY Of MOUND GROSS RETAIL SALES Millton8 · $5o ..................... :::::::::::::::::::' :::::::::::::::::::, :::::::::::::::::::: ,o,.., ............. :::::::::::::::::::: !il!i~i!!!!ii!i~!!: ~::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: ;::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: .................... :2::2:2:::2:2::2:2:: :::::::::::::::2:22: 2:::::::::::::::::2 :::::::::::::::::::. :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::; :::::::::::::::::::: * .................. :::::::::::::::::::, :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::; .... *..***.****°o** I :::::::::::::::::::' ::::::::::::::::::~ :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::~ ~!~!~I ::::::::::::::::::: ~::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::~ ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: I::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: .................... ....................................... :::::::::::::::::::~ ::::::::::::::::::: ~i!~!!~!~!~i~iE!! ~ii~iiF::::~:::::: i~F:::::::::::::: :~:;:::;::::;:::::: $4O $30 $20 $10 $O 1982 1983 1984 1988 1986 Year HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA FINANCIAL HEALTH ECONOMIC VITALITY PROGRAM ~1106187 1. INDICATOR: CHANGE IN POPULAT'ION 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Population 9,310 9,450 rcent Change 0.0t 1.2t Number of Households 3,384 ['] 3,485 Percent Change .... 3.0t 2. INDICATOR: CHANGE IN PROPERTY VALUES Indicated Market Value Percent Change Assessed Valuation Percent Change Tax Increment District Captured Assessed Value Percent Change Ratio 9,600 1.Gt 3,523 1.lC 9,700 1.Or 3,598 2.1t 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 $ 260,450,946 $ 285,768,579 $. 9.7% $ 53,936,015 $ 60,H8,509 $ 11.2% 12.1t METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE % CHANGE 9,742 0.41 3,620 0.6t (.3% 5.7t METRO 5 YEAR 5 YEAR t CHANGE t CHANGE 272,816,266 $ 270,986,858 $ 267,792,087 -4.5t -0.7t -1.2t 2.8~ 14.5I 60,530,747 $ 60,261,092 $ 58,956,289 0.lC -0.4t -2.2t 9.3~ 27.3t $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,908 0.940 0.853 0.861 0.926 Mote: ['] 1980 Census 41983 - 1986 State Oemographer's Estimates) 0 -lO0.Ot 0.945 151.9I 3. INDICATOR: TREND Yalue of Building Permits Percent Change No. of Building Permits Issued Percent Change ECONOMIC VITALITY IN BUILDING PERMITS CXTY: NOUND 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 $ 6,216,915 66.21 255 2o878,03! $ 5,402,109 $ 3,741,744 -0.61 87.7t -30.7t 262 302 322 -8.4~ 15.3~ 6.6t 10,082,700 62.2t 277 8.6~ 11/o6/8' METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE I CHANGE 250.3t 118.8t 5.7t 4. INDICATOR: TREND Gross Retail Sales Percent Change Number of Businesses Percent Change IN RETAIL SALES ACTIVITY 1982 1983 1984 42,404,832 $ 43,031,417 $ 37,993,975 20.0t 1.51 -ll.7t 116 111 115 5.5I -4.3I. 3.6t 1985 $ 33,710,222 -11.31 108 -6.11 1986 $ 24,036,081 -28.71 106 -1.gt METRO YEAR S YEAR CHANGE I CHAN6E -43.31 52.61 -8.G1 5. INDICATOR: TREND IN INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC STATUS 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Per Capita.Federal Adjusted Gross Income * $11,278 $11,743 $12,710 $14,748 Unavailable Percent Change' 3.Or 4.1~ B.2t 1G.0I .... Number of AFOC Recipients in County 36,675 34,295 36,965 37,883 40,226 AFOC Recipients as a Percent of County Population 3.9I 3.6t 3.9t 3.9~ 4.21 Unemployment Rate in County 1985 YEAR STATESIDE CHANGE PER CAPITA $ 11,257 9.71 1986 STATE~IOE RATE 6.1I 6.31 4.4t 4.1I 3.9{ 5.3I Notes: ['] Per capita adjusted gross income figures for 1985 are preliminary numbers from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Oata for 1986 is not yet available. Final figures for 1985 and 1986 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Commerce Oepartment viii not be available until April, 1988. ["] The 1982 through 1986 unemployment rates vere revi~ed in April 1987 by the Oepartment of Jobs and Trainin9. 6. INDICRTOR: TREND CITY: MOUND REVENUE TRENDS IN REVENUE SOURCES 1110618? 60VERNMEMTAL FUMOS REVENUES Intergovernmental Revenues Federal State County Local Total Intergovernmental Revenues Taxes Special Assessments Franchise Taxes Local Sales & Hotel/Motel' Taxes Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Miscellaneous Revenues Interest Earnings All Other Revenues Totil Revenues Total Revenues Per Capita 1983 198q 1985 1906 AMOUNT t AMOUNT t AMOUNT t AMOUNT t AMOUNT 158,798 q.5t $ 58,363 1.71 $ 227,899 6.8I $ 101,752 2.9~ $ 100,488 2.71 579,426 16.51 750,510 22.41 706,939 21.2t 845,791 24.1t 1,073,022 28.71 33,410 0.9I 156,534 4.71 0 0.0I 0 0.0I 7,413 0.21 0 0.01 0 0.01 9,843 0.3~ 1,799 0.11 7,223 0.21 771,634 21.9I 965,407 28.81 944,681 28.31 949,342 27.11 2,188,146 31.8I 807,987 23.0I 811,042 24.21 883,290 26.$1 936,566 26.71 1,018,522 27.31 1,088,769 30.9I 699,909 20.91 619,775 18.61 508,854 14.51 468,280 12.5I 0 0.0~ 0 O.Ot 8,483 0.3I 11,129 0.31 16,433 0 0.01 0 O.Ot- 0 O.Ot 0 '0.0~ O' O.Ot 71,606 2.0% 98,112 2.91 92,661 2.81 120,751 3.4I 144,797 3.9~ 112,814 3.2I 122,670 3.7~ 121,184 3.61 146,295 4.21 143,073 66,488 1.9~ 86,266 2.6I 97,702 2.91 84,399 2.4~ 113,042 3.01 534,901 15.2% 486,123 14.5I 524,591 1S.Tt 576,459 16.51 611,102 16.4I 65,216 1.91 86,507 . 2.6I 44,168 1.3I 169,067 4.Bt 32,782 0.9% 3,519,415 100.01 3,356,036 lO0.Ot 3,336,535 100.01 3,502,862 lO0.Ot 3,736,177 100.0I $ 376.81 $ 355.24 $ 34?.56 $ 361.12 $ 383.51 CITY: 7. INDICATOR: TREND EXPENDITURE TRENDS IN EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION 11/o6/~' 60VERMMEMTA[ FUNDS CURRENT EXPENDITURES General 6overnment Police Fire Streets & Mighvay~ Refuse and Sanitation Culture and Recreation Urban Redevelopment i Mousing Interest and Fiscal Charges Miscellaneous Expenditures Total Current Expenditures 1902 1983 1984 1985 1986 AMOUNT t AMOUNT t AMOUNT t AMOUNT I AMOUNT 335,064 12.91 $ 436,187 15.7I $ 449,839 16.71 $ 428,936 16.31 $ 472,038 16.8I 422,571 16.21 442,443 17.01 470,684 17.5I 51D,251 19.Bt 527,724 1D.71 170,149 6.51 169,384 6.51 182,309 6.8I 196,328 7.St 213,026 7.61 404,863 15.61 361,598 13.91 376,437 14.01 446,516 17.01 423,164 15.01 0 O.Ot 0 O.Ot 0 O.Ot 0 0.01 %4,312 0.5% 139,411 5.41 123,662 4.71 140,978 5.21 135,710 5.21 121,821 4.31 33,410 1.31 156,534 6.01 192,646 7.11 50,461 1.9I 64,786 2.31 780,718 30.01 758,658 29.1I 699,937 26.01 640,055 24.41 752,789 26.71 315,073 12.11 158~874 6.11 182,071 6.81 207,654 7.91 225,719 2;601,259 100.01 2,607,340'100.0I 2,694,901 100.01 2,623,911 lO0.Ot 2,815,379 10 Total Current Expenditures Per Capita $ 278.51 $ 275.91 $ 280.72 $ 270.51 $ 288.99 Total Current Expenditures Total Capital Outlay Oebt Service Funds (Principal Paid) Total Expenditures Total Expenditures Per Capita 2,601,259 88.6t 2,607,340 90.5I 2,694,901 90.41 2,623,911 74.01 2,815,379 65.41 335,475 11.41 273,384 9.51 285,378 9.6t 922,217 26.01 1,432,376 33.31 0 O.Ot 55,000 1.31 2,936,734 100.01 2,880,724 100.01 2,980,279 100.01 3,546,128 100.01 4,302,755 100.01 $ 314.43 $ 304.84 $ 310.45 $ 365.58 $ 441.67 m EXPENDITURE TRENDS 8. INDICATOR: TREND IN EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS CURRENT EXPENDITURES (Per Capita) General Government Police Fire Streets & Highvayi Refuse & Sanitation Culture & Recreation Urban Redevelopment & Housing Interest and Fiscal Charges Miscellaneous,Expenditures Total Current Expe~dit~re.s CITY: MOUND (PER CAPITA) ltlOGIB7 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 AMOUNT t AMOUNT t AMOUNT t AMOUNT t AMOUNT 3S.87 12.9~ $ 46.16 16.7t $ M6.86 16.7t $ 44.22 16.3t $ qB.MS 16.8t 45.24 16.2t 46.82 17.0t 49.03 17.5t 53.43 19.8t 54.17 18.7t 18.22 6.5t 17.92 6.5t 18.99 6.8t 20.24 7.5t 21.87 7.6t 43.35 15.6t 38.26 13.9t 39.21 H.O~ 46.03 17.0~ 43.4q 15.Ot 0.00 O.~t 0.00 O.Ot 0.00 O,Ot 0.00 O.Ot 1.47 O.S~ 1M.93 5.4t 13,09 4.7~ 14.69 5,2t 13,99 5.2t 12.50 3.58 1,3t 16.56 G.Ot 20.07 7.1t 5.20 1,9t 6.65 2.3~ 83.59 30.Or 80.28 29,1t 72.91 26.0t 65.99 24,4t 77,27 26,7t 33,73 12.1~ 16.81 6.1t 18.97 6.8~ 21.41 7,9t 23.17 8,0% 278.51 100.0t 275.91 100.0t 280.72 100.0t 270.51 100.0t 288.99.100;0~ Total Current Expenditures Total Capital Outlay Debt Service Funds (Principal Paid) Total Expenditures 278.51 88.6~ 275.91 90.St 280.72 90.Mt 270.51 74.0t 288.99 35.92 11.4~ 28.93 9.5t 29.73 9.6t 95.07 26.0t 147.03 33.3t 0.00 0.0~ 5.65 31M.43 lO0.Ot 304.84 lO0.Ot 310.45 lO0.Ot 365.58 lO0.Ot 441.67 100.0~ 9. INDICATOR: CHANGE IN Special Assessment LeVy Limited Levy Other Local Levy Total Property Tax Levy Plus Special Assessment Levy Percent Change Levy Lieit lieited Levy as a Percent of levy limit Fiscal Disparities Levy 10. INDICATOR: TREND General Obligation and 8.0. Revenue Bonded Indebtedness $ Per Capita As a Percent of Assessed Valuation Special Assessment Bonded Indebtedness $ Per Capita As a Percent of Assessed Valuation Tax Increment Financing Bonds $ Per Capita As a Percent of Tax Increment Assessed Valuation REVENUE TRENDS PROPERTY TAX LEVY ~ITV: ROUND 1982 1983 1984 1985 1985 1,490,105 720,051 328,175 $ 1,353,389 $ 1,238,999 819,208 913,372 178,951 151,864 $ 1,101,110 957,920 163,127 11/06/~' METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE t CHANGE 992,076 -33.41 1,028,847 42.91 222,636 -32.21 2,538,331 2,351,548 2,314,235 2,222,157 2,243,559 57.7I -7.41 -1.61 -4.01 1.01 710,869 828,390 913,372 957,920 1,028,847 101.31 98.91 100.0% 52,054 77,828 74,090 FUTURE SOLVENCY 100.01 102,793 100.01 110,688 IN OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS 1982 19'83 1984 1985 1986 325,000 $ 288,000 $ 5SI,O00 $ 494,000 34.80 30.48 57.40 50.93 0.61 0.51 0.9% 0.81 12,497,000 $ 11,536,000 $ 10,245,000 $ 9,293,000 1,338.01 1,220.74 1,067.19 958.04 23.21 19.11 16.9I 15.4I 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,100,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 216.49 $ 437,000 44.86 0.7I 8,350,000 BST.i1 14.21 2,100,000 215.56 -11.61 31.51 44.71 112.61 M YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE t CHANGE 34.5% 45.91 -33.21 1.1% .... 143.21 11. INDICATOR: TREND Liabilities Percent Change liabilities as a Percent of Current Expenditures IN GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE LIABILITIES 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 12,621,895 $ 11,634,914 $ 10,624,245 $ 9,692,247 $ -3.91 -7.81 -8.7% -e.el METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE % CHANGE 8,705,593 -10.21 -31.01 485.21 446/2I 394.2I 369.41 309.2% 23.3~ · INDICATOR: GENERAL FUND: BUDGETED REVENUES ACTUAL REVENUES PERCENT OVER/-UNDER SPECIAl REVENUE FUND: BUDGETEO REVENUES ACTUAL.REVENUES PERCENT OVER/-UNDER CITY: REVENUE/EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS BUDGET TO ACTUAL REVENUES 1982 1983 ROUND 1984 1985 1986 $ 1.262,619 $ 1,q33,214 $ 1,555,568 1,342,990 1,556,878 1,665,463 6.4~ 8.6~ 7.1~ $ 1,6~4.456 $ 1,787,743 8.7t $ 189,305 $ 280,385 $ 280,740 $ 169,760 $ 239,888 296,892 291,355 176,021 26.7{ s.gt 3.8~ 3.7I 1,943,135 1,988,663 2.3% 181,740 180,507 -0.71 11106187 13. INDICATOR: BUDGET ENERAL FUND: BUDGETED EXPENDITURES ACTUAL EXPENDITURES PERCENT -OVER/UNDER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: BUDGETED EXPENDITURES ACTUAL EXPENDITURES PERCENT -OVER/UNDER TO ACTUAL 1982 ExpENDITURES 1983 1984 1985. 1986 $ 1,222,826 $ 1,352,377 $ 1,486,064 1,360,392 1,357,520 1,487,705 -11.2~ -0.4~ -0.1~ 1,567,921 S 1,615,978 -3.1t $ 350,057 $ 361,274 $ 359,501 $ 241,996 $ 251,623 389,587 354,266 244,978 28.1I -7.Bt 1.St -1.2t 1,769,368 1,703.917 3.71 262,648 25~,668 3.0~ 14o INDICATOR: CHANGE FUTURE SOLVENCY IN FUND BALANCES (UNRESERVED, UNDESIGNATED) 1982 1983 1984 1985 6eneral Fund (Unreserved, Undesignated) $ 104,301 $ 252,742 $ 358,590 Percent Change -15.3Z 142.31 41.91 Percent of Ac!ua! Expenditures 7.7t 18.61 24.11 Spec!al Revenue Funds (Unreserved, Undesignated) $ q0,491 $ 58,413 $ 28,258 Percent Change -23.$t 44.3I -51.61 Percent of Ac!ua! Expenditures $ 496,763 38.5I 3o.71 $ 43,130 52.61 Genera! Fund BaJance as a Percent of Tote] Current Expenditures 1986 701,819 41.3% 53,235 23.41 16.11 15.01 8.01 17.61 20.9I 4.01 18.9t 15. INDICATOR= TREND IN EARNINGS ON (GOVERNMENTAL-FUNDS) 9.7% 13.31 INVESTMENTS 24.91 Interest Income Percent Change Percent of.Total Revenues Coming from Interest Income i6. INDICATOR: 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 534,901 $ 486,123 $ 524,591 -18.91 -9.1t 7.9t 1S.21 14.5t 15.7t TREND IN CURRENT DEBT SERVICE COSTS (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) $ 576,459 $ 611,102 9.9% 6.Or 16.51 16.41 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Debt Service Payments $ 1,445,718 $ 1,719,658' $ 1,995,937 Percent Change 24.7I 18.91 16.1t Debt Service as a Percent of Total Revenues 41.11 S1.2t 59.8% $ 1,687,055 $ 1,790,789 -15.5% 6.11 48.2% 47.9t 111061P' METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE t CHANGE 572.9% 83.8I 31.51 579.21 METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE % CHANGE 14.21 45.61 METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE I CHANGE 23.81 42.81 7. INDICATOR: NANAGEMENT PRACTICES CITY: TREND IN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) (As Reported by the city) COMPARED TO P~PULATION Full-Time Employees Employees per 1,000 Population Part-lime Employees Employees per 1,000 Population 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 33 28 35 28 3.53 2.96 3.65 2.89 24 26 9 A 2.57 2.75 0.94 0.41 METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE t CHANGE 28 -15.2% 3.9% 2.87 4 -83.3% G3.2% 0.41 18. INDICATOR: TREND IN CONPENSATION (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS) (As Reported by the city) AND EMPLOYER PAID FRINGE BENEFITS 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 Payroll $ 698,930 $ 658,831 Percent Change .... -5.7% Employer Paid Fringe Benefits $ 166,049 $ 223,395 Percent Change 8.5% 34.5t Fringe Benefits as a Percent of Payroll 23.8% 33.9% 768,928 $ 915,168 16.7% 19.0% 270,880 $ 249,791 21.3% -7.8% 35.2% 27.3% METRO YEAR 5 YEAR CHANGE % CHANGE '968,426 5.8% 38.6% 32.1% 247,266 -1.or 48.g% 35.8% 25.5t 19. INDICATOR: LIQUOR STORE Operati~9 Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Income Net Incole SEWER Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Income Net Income WATER Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Income Net Income PROFIT OR NANA6EMENT -LOSS IN 1982 1983 715,140 $ 665,848 48,292 68,787 PRACTICES ENTERPRISES 694,774 666,551 28,223 36,604 1984 716,838 677,566 39,272 43,145 441,910 433,760 8,150 77,964 507,175 602,111 -94,936 144,469 433,422 529,882 -96,460 -34,225 283,522 261,250 22,272 42,846 488,690 292,422 196.278 218,929 239,745 283,229 -43,484 -31,T82 1985 797,175 735,037 61,138 66,582 498,723 562,532 -63,819 7,211 263,421 328,644 -65,223 -77,890 111061' ]986 759,527 729,084 30,443 36,702 538,923 559,020 -20,087 55,256 280,320 274,240 6,080 :2,494 10 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INDICATOR: TREND IN PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION 1982 1983 Percent Collected 94.0~ 96.Q~ 1984 21. INDICATOR: CURRENT OR CHANGE IN BOND RATING 1982 198:) 1984 RATIM6 FIRM Moody's A A A Standard and Poor's A A CXTY~ 1985 97 1986 97.9~ 1986 22. INDICATOR: OPINION ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1982 1983 1984 Auditor's Opinion QUALIFIED QUALIFIED QUALIFIED )FOA Certificate of Achievement 1985 QUAIIFIEO 1988 QUALIFIED 11 FIILKIAL i~LL~ PBO£IIE $~(iE! IKlicitor 1 - Populatio~ (1986 e~ttBite) ....... CLA~ 1 ................. CL.A~ 3 .......... DULUTH 84,012 ALBEIT LEA 18,046 HINX£DOLI$ 360,000 AJIDOVE! 11,281 ST. PAUL 267,000 tHOU 15,950 BEXIZ)JI 11,088 B~AIII~D 11,272 3 CHA~LI! 11,642 CLOQUL'T 10,444 COLUKBIA HEIGHTS 19,426 ...... CLASS 2 ......... FAIRHOAT 11,581 Al)PIE VALLH 28,538 FAilBAUL! 16,230 AUSTII 22,374 FI~U$ FALLS 12,370 BLAIIEE 34,405 HASTINGS 13,837 BLO0~I!~O! 84,289 HIB~IIG 19,002 HBOO~T! Cl~ 30,267 BOPI:I~ . 15,211 BBO0~Tll I)AK 51,424 H~LqSVI~ 42,583 CO0! EDID$ 42,845 ¢OTrAG£ GgO~ 20,753 CBTSTAL 24,628 F. AGAN 35,311 ~a tPitlRI£ 26,224 DIHA 45,523 t~IZ)Lt"T 29,423 GOLDnl VAIl, ET 21,541 IIA~TO 29,464 HAPIE ~v~ ~0,969 HAPLL~K)D 28,775 HI!N~TONI:A 42,636 HOO~H£AD 30,285 lEV BBIGHTOII 23,310 lEV HOP[ 22,770 PLTI~OUTH 41,207 BICHFIELD 36,891 !(X:HE~TI~ 62,782 BOSEVILIE 35,278 SHOEL'VIEV 22,560 SOUTH ST. PAUL 20,489 ST. CLOUD 43,953 ST. LOUIS PIE£ 42,713 WHITE BF.A~ LAEE 22,992 IIHOHA 24,675 IIIV~ GHOVE HEIG[~ 19,549 LAI2'YILIE 17,865 HA~HALL 11,595 HOUIDS VI~ 12,928 IL~ ULII 13,389 HOrl'H ST. PAUL 12,210 HOETIIFIELD 13,437 0~1)~ 14,166 OffATORNA 18,766 HAliS~ 21,395 ~ rING 14,191 EOBBI!SDAIE 14,212 SHA£OP~ 11,236 STIZJ, YAT~2 13,116 VlKIIIA 9,835 WEST ST. PAUL 18,134 IILL~ 17,029 YOOP8~! 14,726 HOr~ifINGTON 10,335 33 32 CLASS 4 .............. CLJ~ 4 .................. CLASS IFTO! 2,570 HAH LAW 8,875 ALL'HA!DHA 7,840 li~HAFrO~ 6, S14 A~D~! HILLS 9,162 HOI'TLAX~ 2,490 At~O~A 2,247 ~GO 3,976 HAITEIt 3,114 HOTCHIGO! 9,708 BA~POFi' 2,820 IHOD~!UEXCE 2,684 B~T ~LAII~ 3,09! IITEUATIOHAL£A~L~ 5,192 HEBSOI 3,578 JIC~O! 3,879 BLUE HAETH 4,132 JORDAN 2,872 BREC££NIIDG£ 4,014 EAS50! 3,121 BUFFALO 5,063 LA C8£$CEIIT 3,951 CILEIX)~IA 2,730 ~ ¢IT~ 4,358 CI~EIIX;E 3,282 LAJ~ ~I~0~ 5,935 CllmO! FALLS 2,856 IES~ 3,667 CHANRAL~£N 7,853 LIHO LAH~ 6,766 CHASiA 9,582 LI~I£LO 6,024 CHISHO~ S,335 LIITIE CAIIADA 8,231 ClECIE PIl~ 4,653 LIT%~ FALLS 7,265 COKOHAa 4,802 LONG PHAIEI£ 2,930 CHOO~TO! 8,386 ~ 4,569 DA~2'O! 4,566 HA~OI~I 4,292 D~LC'PRAV~ 3,671 HEDIHA 2,867 DETEOI! ~ 7,027 HE!DOrA ~IGHTS 8,195 ~ILVOi~ 2,683 !INN~iISTi 3,446 LAST BL'~ 7,542 NGrr~YID£O S,801 EAST GHAK FOE~ 8,413 HOr~ICm-0 3,363' ~ EIV~ 7,952 ~HA 2,744 ELY 3,853 HO!ElS 5,416 EVEIETH 4,643 BOUKD 9,742 EICELSIOB 2,601 HOUFrAI! lBO! 3,744 FAI, C~ HEIGHTS 5,412 ~ PEAGUE 3,285 FI~NINGTO! S,OIO IEVPO~ 3,526 FOILST LA[£ 5,360 HOr2'B HAIKA~O 9,883 GIUL*~ 2,222 ~ OA[S 3,121 GT,~CO£ 4,5O30A£ ~ALI: HEIGrrS 3,392 GIEXHOOD 2,432 OLIVIA 2,745 (~ODVl~ 2,711 0!0HO 7,172 GHAKD HAl)IDS 8,207 or~!VlLL£ 2,713 ~I!ITE ?ALLS 3,287 OSSHO 2,801 PAK HAl)IDS 2,856 PIP~TO~ 4,580 PBIICL'TON 3,325 P!IO~ LAE£ 9,710 PBOCTO! 3,102 E.£DVOOD FAI~ 5,266 i~t~OU~ 6,548 SA~T£~ 4,135 SAUl C~I(THE 3,785 SAUE !APIDS 6,472 SAVAGE 6,400 SHOBL'VOOD 4,788 SILV~ BAY 2,226 SL~P! EYE 3,506 SO~H I!T£~ATIOHAL FALLS 2,849 $PilNG LAW PA~ 6,773 'SP~ING VALLEY 2,645 STAPLES 2,795 STL'V~ItF.~ 4,109 S~. Arl'H0~ 7,641 ST. JA{Lr~ 4,213 ST. JOSLTH ~ ST. PAUL PlK ST. PLT~ 9,078 THI£F EI~I~ FALL~ 8,111 TWO HA~O~ 3,724 VADIAI$ HEIGHTS 8,090 HACOHIA 3,177 ViDal 4,485 1lITE PAIl 4,466 !~S£CA 8,396 gAI~ATi 3,654 ~ 2,628 gl{fi)OH 4,347 112 CITY: MOUND FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILE SUMMARY For the Year Ended December 31, 1986 Indicator 8 - Current Expenditures Per Capit~ H£NN£PIN COUNTY 10/21/87 Current Expenditures Per Capita General Government Police Fire Streets and Highways Refuse and Sanitation Culture and Recreation Urban Redevelopment and Housing Interest and Fiscal Charges Miscellaneous Expenditures TOtal Curren't Expenditures City Averaqe 48.45 $ 54.35 54.17 75.93 21.87 38.39 43.44 46.76 1.47 6.93 12.50 45.69 6.65 36.07 77.27 63.44 23.17 68.61 Metro Area Cities - Maximum $ 124.11 136.87 94.12 110.75 34.85 99.29 112.57 191.07 200.83 288.99 S436.16 S. 890.79 Minimum $ 12.46 9.06 3.19 5.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ .76.'53 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS - For the Year Ended FOR METRO AREA December 31, 1986 11/03/87 NAME OF CITY AFTON ANDOVER ANOKA APPLE VALLEY ARDEN HILLS BAYPORT BELLE PLAINE BLAINE' BLOOMINGTON BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK BURNSVILLE CHAMPLIN CHANHASSEN CHASKA CIRCLE PINES COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COON RAPIDS CORCORAN COTTAGE GROVE- CRYSTAL DAYTON DEEPHAVEN EAGAN EAST BETHEL EDEN PRAIRIE EDINA EXCELSIOR FALCON HEIGHTS FARMINGTON .FOREST LAKE FRIDLEY GOLDEN VALLEY HAM LAKE HOPKINS HUGO INDEPENDENCE 'INVER GROVE HEIGHTS JORDAN LAKE ELMO LAKEVILLE LINO LAKES LITTLE CANADA MAHTOMEDI MAPLE GROVE MAPLEWOOD MEDINA MENDOTA HEIGHTS MINNEAPOLIS PER CAPITA TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES $ 187.46 $ 178.60 · 302.10 · 220.80 · 152.73 · 271.97 · 219.20 · 205.27 409.82 · 294.51 · 221.75 · 298.57 · 368.52 · 400.83 $ 232.23 · 188.64 $ 326.21 · 267.29 · .129.82 · '239.90 · 218.68 146.04 $ 303.16 · 260.57 · 76.53 $ 539.44 · 277.28 $ 362.48 · 223.61 $ 322.30 $ 268.93 $ 284.08 · 410.56 108.30 · 334.83 159.55 212.26 · 344.96 · 330.16 · 110.28 265.20 · 218.87 · 158.77 183.72 · 274.28 $ 260.76 546.94 · 350.38 890.79 TOTAL. CAPITAL OUTLAY · 2.48 · 343,71 · 201.79 · 237.56 · 163.79 · 30.93 · 15.69 · 240.14 · 396.16 · 106.40 · 316.73 · 251.78 · 134.68 · 244.57 · 370.24 · 131.91 · 260.16 · 254.57 · 19.26 · 131.44 · 198.93 · ' 42.20 · 30.44 · 362.44 · 72.46 · 235.96 · 150.41 · 96.88 · 170.90 · 299.24 · 67.18 · 93.75 · 425.65 · 66.24 · 31.19 · 2.02 · 690.93 · . 154.39 · 605.31 · 162.97 · 198.03 · 239.06 · 63.09 · 133.89 · 312.26 · 143.93 · 115.36 · 206.68 · 271.19 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 3.7Z 4.7Z 4.7% 4.1% 4.2% 3.7% 5.1~ 4.7Z 3.9~ 3.9~ 3.9~ 4.1~ 3.9~ 4.0~ 4.0Z 4.7% 4.7~ 4.7% 3.9%- 3.7~ 3.9% 3.9%' 3.9% 4.1Z 4.7% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9~ 4.2% 4.1% 3.7~ 4.7% 3.9Z 4.7% 3.9% 3.7% 3.9~ 4.1~ 5.1~ 3.7~ 4.1~ 4.7~ 4.2~ 3.7Z 3.9~ 4.2~ 3.9~ 4.1~ 3.9~ PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME 1985 ·14,911 · 7,117 017,512 $12,227 010,075 ·13,942 · 8,890 · 9,056 ·13,517 · 9,253 · 9,969 $13,229 ·10,378 $11,128 S12,295 $18,466 · 8,778 ·10,120 S 6,240 $10,273 · 9,920 · 7,583 $13,701 $12,179 · 4,052 016,632 ·21,245 ·49,072 · 5,907 ·15,858 ·16,258 ·10,367 $13,389 · 6,151 014,556 · 9,589 · 3,665 ·10,852 ·12,553 011,922 · 8,321 · 7,666 · 7,250 ·11,164 ·12,370 · 7,151 · 4,521 913,778 ·12,372 11/03/87 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS FOR METRO AREA - For ~he Year Ended December 31, 1986 - PER CAPITA TOTAL TOTAL PER CAPITA CURRENT CAPITAL UNEMPLOYMENT PERSONAL NAME OF CITY EXPENDITURES OUTLAY RATE INCOME 1985 MINNETONKA $ 297.84 $ 275.95 3.9% $15,606 MINNETRISTA $ 394.22 $ 0.00 3.9% $ 4,845 MOUND $ 288.99 $ 147.03 3.9% $14,748 MOUNDS VIEW $ 156.11 $ 41.63 4.2% $ 6,746 NEW BRIGHTON $ 186.69 $ 164.99 4.2% $12,114 NEW HOPE $ 236.80 8 106.18 3.9% 810,433 NEWPORT S 267.42 8 372.20 3.7% 8 9,954 NORTH OAKS 8 145.37 8 0.00 4.2% $21,875 NORTH ST. PAUL 8 176.96 8 63.02 4.2% 8 9,798 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 8 235.72 8 15.04 3.7% 8 3,250 OAKDALE S 384.05- 8 265.80 3.7% $ 9,163 ORONO 8 335.31 8 64.18 3.9% 8 6,085 OSSEO $ 198.86 $ 10.82 3.9% 815,968 PLYMOUTH S 320.75 8 116.06 3.9% 815,120 PRIOR LAKE 8 320.31 $ 378.89 5.1% 817,312 RAMSEY 8 166.04 $ 85.12 4.7% $ 5,781 RICHFIELD $ 343.04 $ 104.68 3.9% 810,762 ROBBINSDALE S 324.32 $ 200.27 3.9% $ 9,634 ROSEMOUNT S 368.17 $ 529.69 4.1% 815,856 ROSEVILLE $ 178.73 $ 422.53 4.2% $10,374 SAVAGE $ 342.28 $ 238.12 5.1% 810,549 SHAKOPEE $ 369'.18 $ 251.22 5.1% $11,805 SHOREVIEW S 166.72 8 79.18 4.2% 810,987 SHOREWOOD $ 348.54 $ 71.22 3.9% $11,029 SOUTH ST. PAUL $ 351.91 8 205.67 4.1% $ 9,791 SPRING LAKE PARK 8 176.30 8 152.54 4.7% $ 8,539 ST. ANTHONY 8 249.80 $ 54.10 3.9% $ 7,809 ST. LOUIS PARK $ 309.31 8 72.03 3.9% 812,232 ST. PAUL 8 612.05 8 145.63 4.2% $12,064 ST. PAUL PARK $ 220.30 $ 18.47 3.7% 812,921 STILLWATER $ 323.61 8 72.86 3.7% 817,026 VADNAIS HEIGHTS $ 252.36 $ 87.39 4.2% S 8,685 WACONIA 8 433.74 $ 268.88 4.0% 813,131 WAYZATA $ 487.39 8 105.98 3.9% 892,217 WEST ST. PAUL 8 270.64 8 56.32 4.1% 811,465 WHITE BEAR LAKE $ 200.13 8 138.71 4.2% 815,267 WOODBURY 8 269.50 8 400.46 3.7% 813,464 SEMINAR AVERAGE STATEWIDE AVERAGE 437.38 8 210.88 4.1% 812,137 418.38 $ 203.64 5.3% 811,257 I .UNEMPLOYMENT RATE S=atewide Average: RATE OF INFLATION 1983 3.0% 1984 3.4% 5.3% AR.~E H. STyli. AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR SUITE 400 555 PARK STREET SAINT PAUL 296-2551 DATA ~ASE CONTENT OF INDICATORS FOR FINANCIAL HEALTH PROFILES Throughout the profile, class refers to the following population groups: 1. First Class Cities (more than 100,000 population) 2. 20,000 to 100,000 population 3. 10,000 to 20,000 population 4. 2,500 to 10,000 population Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the source of information shown on the Financial Health profile is the annual financial statement. 1. Population - Source: Minnesota State Demographer; estimate Households - Source: Minnesota State Demographer; estimate 2. .property Values Source: Minnesota Department of Revenue. Data shown for the'"payable" year; e.g., 1985 value is payable in 1986. Indicated market value, assessed valuation and sales ratios are from the Department of Revenue. 3. Buildin~ Permits Source: Data provided by individual cities 4. Retail Sales Source: Minnesota Department of Revenue's Historical Retail Sales data on "Gross Retail Sales," showing both taxable and nontaxable sales. Number of businesses equals the number of vendors who filed sales tax returns. 5. Individual Economic Status Per Capita Income - Source: Minnesota Department of Revenue. Federal Adjusted Gross Income (FAGI) divided by demographer's estimate of popu- lation. Per capita adjusted gross income figures for 1985 are prelimi- nary numbers from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Data for 1986 is not yet available. Final figures for 1985 and 1986 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Commerce Department, will not be available until April, 1988. -1 - AFDC Recipients in County - Source: Minnesota Department of Welfare's '~innesota Aid to Families With Dependent Children" annual report (State Fiscal Year). Totals include caretakers and children. Unemployment Data - Source: Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training. Revenue Sources Governmental Funds Revenues Intergovernmental Revenue: Federal State County Local Taxes Special Assessments Franchise taxes Local sales and hotel/motel taxes Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Miscellaneous Revenue: Interest Earnings Ail Other Revenues Total Revenues Revenues Per Capita (total revenues divided by current population in Indicator 1) 7. Expenditures by Function Governmental Funds Current Expenditures General Government Police Fire Streets and Highways Refuse & Sanitation Culture and Recreation Urban Redevelopment and Housing Interest and Fiscal Charges Miscellaneous Expenditures Total Current Expenditures Total Current Expenditures Totals the functional current expenditures shown above. Not included are capital outlay (where it is separated from current expenditures in annual financial reports), debt redemption (long term and short term), and operating transfers out (e.g., to special projects or for debt service). ?. Expenditures By Function (Continued) Total Capital Outlay Sum of annual capital outlay from all governmental funds including both capital outlay for general fund types of activities, and also capital outlay for enterprise fund activities where those are financed by governmental funds. Debt Service Funds Principal paid on long-term debt from debt service funds. Total Expenditures These include current expenditures (as described above) and capital outlay but exclude debt redemption (long-term and short-term). Debt redemption is excluded to avoid distortion; since debt proceeds have already been spent on a project or program in the current or prior years, debt redemption as an expenditure would inflate expenditure figures. Expenditures Per Capita Total expenditures divided by population in Indlcator 1. Expenditures by Function (Per Capita) Expenditures shown in Indicator 7, divided by the population in Indicator 1 for each year. Property Tax Lev~ Special Assessments: Limited Levy: Other Local Levy: Total Levy: Levy Limit: Fiscal Disparities Levy: Source: Department of Revenue Source: Department of Revenue from local jurisdictions. Total levy less limited levy The sum of the above Calculated by Department of Revenue pursuant to levy limit law. Source: Department of Revenue 10. Outstanding Indebtedness The outstanding principal portion of three types of long-term debt is shown. The types are: general obligation (general obligation and general obliga- tion revenue); special assessment debt; and tax increment financing bonds. Each amount is divided by current population and by assessed valuation. -3- 11. governmental Fund LiaBilities Total liabilities of the governmental fund types. Includes accounts payable, outstanding principal of short term debt, certain long-term debt, and other liabilities. 12 Budget to Actual Revenues 13. Budget to Actual Expenditures Compares budget to actual figures for two fund types: special revenue funds. general fund and Not shown are debt service funds, capital projects funds, special assessment funds, any enterprise funds, or fiduciary (trust and agency) funds which are not required to be budgeted by GAAP. 14. Fund Balances (unreserved~ yndesi~nated) General Fund Special Revenue Funds 15. Earnings on Investments Interest income includes earnings on all governmental fund investments, such as surplus funds which may be temporarily invested. General fund, special revenue funds and all other governmental funds are included. 16. Current Debt Service Costs Includes the principal and interest paid during the year on long-term debt by the governmental funds. Total debt redemption plus Interest and fiscal charges 17. Number of Employees Source: Reported by city personnel. Full-time includes (generally) full- time only. Part-time includes part-time and part-time seasonal workers. Compensation and Employer-Paid Fringe Benefits Source: Reported by city personnel. Compensation covers governmental fund employees. Also reported are fringe benefits including sick leave, vacation leave; severance pay; employer contributions for retirement; employer payments for health, life and disability insurance; benefits and insurance premiums for unemployment compensation and workers compensation; the value of past retirement benefits and any other benefits. Some cities have estimated fringe benefits, while some provide actual dollar amounts. -4- 19. Enterprises - Profit or Loss Includes operating revenues, expenses, operating income and net income for enterprises such as water, sewer, and electric. 20. Propert~ Tax Collection Rate This is current-year data, showing the collection rate on the current year tax levy. 21. Bond Ratings Source: Bond rating services. Note that often cities are rated only in years when the city markets an issue. 22. Opinion on Financial Report and Certificate of Achievement Unqualified opinion - In auditor's professional opinion, the financial sta- tements conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Qualified opinion - In the auditor's opinion, the financial statements are not in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. A common example is general fixed assets, which may not be accounted for in a manner prescribed by GAAP. A "Certificate of Achievement" is awarded by the Government Finance Officers Association to cities which exhibit excellence in financial reporting. This is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. 9/25/87 M. 7/Datal-5 --- 5 -- National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW League Washington, D.C. of 20004 Cities (202) 626-3000 January 8, 1988 The Honorable Steve Smith Mayor 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Officers P~esident Cathy Reynotds Councilwoman-a~-Large, Denver. Colora(3o First V~ce Pres~Clent Pamela P Plumb Councilor. Portlanci. Maine Second Wce President Terry Goddard Mayor, Phoenix, Arizona lamed~ate Past President Henry G. Cisneros Mayor, San Antonio, Texas Executive Director Atari Beals Dear Mayor: Happy New Year! After a year in which we were able to accomplish so much in our efforts to halt the erosion of federal support and to create a positive new approach, I look forward to working with you to make 1988 a better year for our cities and towns. I am also writing to report to you on the results of the closing days of the Congress on our most important municipal priorities and'to ask for your help on some of the priorities we set in Las Vegas onwhich we hope Congress will begin action prior to our March Congressional-City Conference. On tax, catalog order sales revenue, and welfare reform, I need your help right away to insure positive action by the Congress. December 1987 Urgent Legislative Priorities At your Board of Directors meeting in Las Vegas, we set out a list of urgent priorities to target for action before the Congress adjourned. I have enclosed a scorecard of those issues and the final outcome, as well as a funding chart on the final budget levels for priority municipal programs. I am especially pleased to report to you that our position prevailed completely on six of the eight issues, and we were successful in achieving modifications in the other two. I am also pleased to report that NLC delegates generated hundreds of phone calls and mailgrams to their Congressional delegations from Las Vegas. These obviously made a critical difference. I do want to warn you, however, that if you look at the 8 issues, you will see that in each case the federal government was proPosing to interfere with and intrude upon our authority as municipal elected officials. Our efforts were defensive, and we can anticipate efforts by some to bring these same issues back again this year. So, thank you for your personal efforts, but please be ready to fight again. ~(~ PaatPrea~dec~a: Tom Bradley, Mayor, Los Angeles, Cahforn~a ·Ferd L, Harrison, Mayor, Scodand Neck, North Carolina · William H, Hudnut, III, Mayor, indianapolis, Indiana · George Latimer, Mayor, St Paul. Minnesota. Henry W. Maier, Mayor, M~lwaukee W~sconsin. Jessie M. Rattley, Mayot Newport News,Virginia. JnhnR Rousskie, Mayor. Savannah, Georgia. Charles Royer. Mayor, Seattle. Washington · George V. Voinovich, Mayor. Cleveland Ohio · D;ractora: Sidney J. Barthelemy, Mayor, New Orleans, Louts~ana · Jos~ G. Benavides, Council Member, Sterling Heights. M~chigan · Richard L. Berkle¥, Mayor. Kansas City, M~ssour~ · Marie A. BerriozJ, bal. Councilwoman, San Antonio, Texas · Bob Bolen, Mayor, Fort Worth Texas · Scott A. Burgess, Executive Director, Alaska Mumc~pal League. Jon C. Burrell, E xecuhve Director. Marylan0 Municipal League · Mary Davis, Councilmember, Atlanta, Georgia · Eugene Co~[ Dunwod¥, Councd President, Macon, Georg,a. Stacey A. Garner, Mayor, Pulaskt, Tennessee · W. Wilson Goods, Mayor, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. E. Arthur Gray, Mayor, Port Jervls, New York · Aisc Hensen, Exec utwe D~rector, Montana League of Gibes and Towns. Maria n H uses, Alderman, Chicago, IIhno~s · Karen Humph ray, Councilmember, Fresno, Caiifornla · Steven E. Jeffrey, Execubve D~rector, Vermont League of Cit*es and Towns. Robert E. Johnson, Executive D,rector North Dakcta League of C~t~es · Joseph A. Leafs, Mayor, Norfolk. Virginia · Roland A. Luedtke. Mayor, Lmcoln, Nebraska · Charles Lyons, Chairman, Board of Selectmen, Arlington, Massachusetts. Arthur E.Morri$,Mayor Lancaster, Pennsylvania. BobOverstreet, Couno!member, E,,erett. Wash~ngton. GracePetarsen. Mayor, P~erre SouthDakota. Joy Picus, Councit Member Los Angeles, Cahforma · Dana G. Rinehart, Mayor. Columbus, Ohio · Steven C. Roberts, AMerman. St Louis M,ssouri · Joseph A. Sweet, Execubve D~rector, Tennessee Mumcipa~ League · Dan D. Theobald, Mayorl ShelDywl,e md~ana · James Weatherby, Executwe D,rector, Associat,on of Idaho C~:es · Douglas $. Wright, Ma}o' '" .%eka, Kansas - 2 - In the closing days, we were also successful in securing reauthorization of the nation's housing and community development laws and airport and airway development laws. These were priorities we set way back in San Antonio at our annual meeting in 1986 and worked hard on all year. The reauthorization of the housing and community development laws marked the first "clean" reauthorization since 1980, demonstrating a strong, bipartisan recognition of the importance of housing and community development. In achieving the reauthorization, we were successful in deleting much of the House-proposed anti- displaCement mandate, which would have imposed severe additional costs on the use of CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation or economic development. While the bill has been termed a "housekeeping" measure, it makes an important statement and, I hope, will set the stage for a major new federal-local housing and community development policy to begin this election year. Finally, in those last hours, we were able to gain an eight month extension on the deadline for imposing Clean Air sanctions on municipalities, giving us more time to work with the Administration and the Congress to amend the nation's Clean Air laws so as not to penalize municipalities who have worked in good faith to comply. Legislative Priorities Untilthe Congressional-Cities Conference Between now and January 25, when the Congress returns, I would like to ask you to meet with the members of your Congressional delegation to discuss: Bellas-Hess (catalog order sales tax collection), tax technical corrections, and welfare reform. Bellas-Hess We are currently denied hundreds of millions of dollars of municipal revenues because of a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting municipalities from collecting sales taxes on out-of-state mail order catalog.sales. Last year we reached a compromise agreement with the State Budget Officers and Governors on federal legislation to permit the collection of such revenues under a system in which municipalities would each receive a proportionate share of the new revenue. The State Legislators opposed that compromise. They oppose any pass-through requirements to local governments. We need to make them understand that we cannot support any federal legislation under which we do not receive our fair share. The catalog retailers oppose the legislation. The Administration is silent. - 3 - We need to get the state legislators on board. We need to get our local merchants on board; they have a major stake too. A House Ways and Means subcommittee has reported H.R. 1242, but will hold up further action pending a state-local compromise. Even such a compromise faces concerted opposition. I hope you will put together a coalition of local officials and merchants to convince both your state legislators and your Congressional delegation of the importance of prompt action. This revenue, after all, could help all our constituents. Tax Bill The tax bill Congress passed in its closing days left out the so-called technical corrections portion - a portion intended to fix a number of mistakes in the 1986 tax bill. I urge you to contact your delegation to move for early action on this bill. I have enclosed a tax chart on the provisions most important to us. I want to emphasize two issues in particular: · I strongly urge you to seek to have your delegation work to repeal the gas tax collection provision which went into effect on January 1. This provision requires us to pay the federal gas tax and then file with the IRS for a rebate. It is a tax for which none of us budgeted, which we may not impose upon federal vehicles, and which imposes an unreasonable paperwork burden for our most critical vehicles. The technical corrections bill ought to be a vehicle for resolving this. It can be with your help. The technical corrections bill contains a provision overriding a U.S. Court of Appeals decision in favor of the City of Tucson. The provision would make so-called "sinking funds" used to pay off tax exempt municipal bonds subject to federal arbitrage and rebate mandates;it would also give the IRS extremely broad authority to impose such mandates on any · municipal revenues which the IRS believes might, in any way, be connected with your city's tax exempt borrowing. It is a license to interfere. I strongly urge you to ask your Representative and Senators to support deletion of this provision. Welfare Reform In its closing days, the House passed its version of welfare reform. We supported that bill, and we support the Senate version, S. 1511, sponsored by Sen. Pat Moynihan (D-NY) and co-sponsored by more than 50 Senators of both parties. Reforming our welfare system to give families with young children a chance to climb out of poverty is critical to the future of our cities - 4 - and towns. It is one of our highest priorities. I hope you will join me in seeking the earliest possible Senate action in order to avoid losing the issue to election-year politics. I note, in closing, that these 1988 priorities are steps forward, not just defensive actions. They offer us an opportunity to make things better in our own communities. Last year we made a difference. Please join me in making sure we' continue to make a difference in 1988. With best regards, Pamela P. Plumb President Councilor, Portland, Maine Enclosures ir~ tm= tr~ i~e of ~n/cipal ~ bmda foz the l~ZCi~ of exiathx~ fa~tlltiN 5. appt~inticn~ agreed to cut pziozity $2.6 in ~micip~l drastic pzogr~m dl~etic~a~y ~ 395 in ~ 3545 ~o p~c~inim cut 3.5% of hmd~ in ~A ~ ~t~, ~t left ~lfi~ ~ no p~ovisicu ~o pco~isim a~d ~ni¢ipal lties =lllicu o~er r~mc 3 l~a~a re~ 0 0 .el 0 0 -~1 0 KE~ ~X PNDVISI~ IN 1988 ~AX BILL ~DR ~]NICIPALITIES 1. withholding of federal gas tax (part of 1986 tax bill ' .unposed Jan.-l, 1988) no action to no action to prevent prevent 2. a~T.~ansion of exer~tion fr~ arbitrage and rebate require- ments from $5 million up to $10 million annually adopted no provision 3. exempt ~unicipal retir~..~ent plans frcm 1986 tax law restrictions adopted adopted 4. taxation of non- elected deferred ccm~....ensaticn under municipal plans (§457) clarified clarified 5. taxing m~nicipal sinking funds and overturning City of Tuscon U.S. Ccur~ of Appeals decision (Fcot- note Nc. 160 of the Blue Book) adopted adopted 6. clarify restric- no provision · tions cn tax and revenue antici- pation notes to arbitrage and rebate provision (Foot,no te No. 173 of the Blue Bock) 7. exclude up to $15 per m~nth far public transpor- tation passes from incc~ra adopted w~uld make f~deral regulations prospective, rather than retroactive to Sept. 1, 1986 no provision Municfpal I~pact requ. ires r~nicipali ties to pay the federal gas effective Jan. 1, 1988; raanicipalities wculd be permitted to file with the IRS for a rebate, hut the federal gover.~ent would receive unlimited arbitrage would relieve many cities and towns of the costly mandate of tracking the e .xpenditure and investment cf bond proceeds and paying rebate taxes to the federal government would permit distribution ..from such plans to be deferred until an emp. loyee actually retires would clarify that certain deferred c~s_ensaticn benefits shcu!d be taxed wren taken--not wren accrued, but would still interfere with municipal standards ~uld provide broad authority to the Treasury and IRS to restrict arbitrage and require rebates cn municipal taxes and revenues used for reserves or sinking funds Senate provision wculd release mnnicipa!ities frcm retroactive lia- bility, but wcu!d still give Treasury authority to declare that set- aside manicipal funds "are deemed readily available cash" would increase support for .uub!ic transportation Status .op!:osed · u..~por ts efforts to exempt m~nicipalities supports will depend cn the Senate position supports defends u~uon adoption of tax bill su..~ports, but with additicna! clarification; depends upon adcption of .'tax bill opposed depends upon conference; administration su..u~orts su..u~orts, but with further clarificatiohs su.u-por ts Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Telephone (612) 330-5500 January 12, 198~ On November 2, 1987, NSP asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Cu~L.t~ssion (I~3C) to approve an overall increase of 9.5 percent ($99.3 million) in NSP's electric revenues. The proposed rates for the various customer classes differ because we are moving each class closer to paying its fair share of the costs of service. During the time the ~JC considers our request, state law allows an interim (temporary) rate increase. In this case, the ~JC has approved, a-9.13 percent. ($95 million) interim increase fo~ all customers. The Cu~Lu,.~ssion will order the Company to refund to its electric customers any amount collected in excess of final rates during the interim rate perioch Any refund will include interest based upon the average prime rate during the period. The interim increase applies to the electricity used from January 1 to the time the I~JC makes its decision and final rates are put into effect. The FJC, by law, must issue an order on the final rates by September 2, 1988. Please note that the attached pages may list more services than you are .receiving. If you have any questions regardLng the attachments, please contact your local Northern States Power Company Customer Business Office. The telephone number appears on your monthly statement. NORTHERN STATES POWER CO#PANY (NIHNESOTA) Sheet #o: 5' 39 ELECTRIC RATE Baal ~PUC NO. 1 Revision: lZth MINNESOTA STREET LIGHTING SERVICE CCD#rANI OWNED EQUIP#IHT) AvaiLabiLity: AvaiLabLe for year-round iLLumination of public streets, parkways, and highHays by electric Lamps in ~umtnatres supported on poles, where the facilities for this service are funnished by Company. Custom Underground Service under this schedule is Limited to areas having a Company owned underground electric distribution system. Rate: 70W High Pressure Sodium 100~ High Pressure Sodium 150W High Pressure Sodium 250W High Pressure Sodium 400~ High Pressure Sodium Rate Per Luminsire Custom Overhead ~9£~ S 9,15 S12.75 9.50 13.15 10.35 14.75 13.40 17.70 16.80 Interim Rate Adjustment: An interim rate adjustment of 9.13~ shaLL be added to biLLings for electric service. Fuel CLause: giLLs subject to adjustment provided for in Fuel CLause Rider No. 1. Surcharge: In certain communities biLLs are subject to a surcharge provided for in Surcharge Rider. Late Payment Charge: Any unpaid balance over S10.00 is subject to s 1.5~ Late payment chNrge or S1.00, .hichever is greater. The charge may be assessed four .orklng days after t~e date due. Other Provisions: Tht~ schedule is also subject to provisions contained in RuLes for AppLication of Street Lighting Rates. "1 Rate Code Overhead KPO08 Custom Underground KPO09 FiLing Date: 11-2-87 By: W. J. Lynch. E fa v -89 Vice President, Rates and Corporate Strategy ,PUC Docket No: EOO2/GR-a7-670 Order Date: NORTHERN STATES POWER CO#PANT (#INNESOTA) Sheet..No: 5- &l ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - #PUC NO. 1 Revision: 12th #INHESOTA STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (COHPANT OWNED EQUIPHENT) CCLosed) AvaiLabiLity: AvaiLabLe for year-round ILLumination of publtc streets, parkways, and htgh.ays by electric Lamps tn tuminatres supported on wood poles, ~here the fsciLitles for this service are furnished by Company. · Service under this schedule Is Limited to tnstsLLsttons being served as o.f the effective dele of this schedule. Rate: ~!~nation of LamE 175W Hercury 250W Hercury &OOW Hercury 700W Mercury 1,000~ Hercury 200~ High Pressure Sodium ~,500 Lumen Incandescent F~8EHO Fluorescent F72HO FLuorescent Number of Lsmps Per Luminaire HonthL. z_~ste Per Lumfnaire Custom Overhead 1 S 9.45 S13.05 1 10.25 1~.85 1 13.30 I 20.35 1 Z&.ZO 1 $12.80 1 S 8.70 I Sl1.05 & 17.&5 Interim Rate Adjustment: An interim rate adjustment of 9.13~ shaLL be added to biLLings for electric service. Fuel CLause: Bi,ts subject to adjustment provided for in Fuel CLause Rider Surcharge:- in certain communities biLLs are ~ubject to s surcharge provided for tn Surcharge Rider. Late Payment Charge: Any unpaid balance over S10.00 is subject to s 1.5~ Late payment charge or $1.00, ~hichever is greater. The charge may be assessed four ~orking days after the date due. Other Provialone: This schedule is also subject to provisions contstned in RuLee for AppLication of Street Lightlng Rates. Rate Code Overhead KPI08 Custom Underground ~P109 FiLing Date: 11.2-87 By: W. J. Lynch, Effective: Vice President, Rates and Corporate Strategy MPUC Oocket No: EOO2/GR-87-670 Order Oate: 12-29-87 NORTHERN STATES PORER COHPANT (MZN#ESOTA) Sheet #o: 5- ~3 ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - #PUC #0. 1 Revision: 1Zth H]NNESOTA * STREET LIGHTING SERV%CE CCUSTO#ER OUNED EQUIPMENT) Av'aitabitity= Available for year-round illumination of public streets, parkways, and hlgh~ays by electric tamps mounted on standards ~here customer owns an ornamental street Lighting system complete with standards, tuminalres with globes, Lamps, and other appurtenances, together with all necessary cables extending between standards and to point of connection to Company's facilities ss designated by Company. Rate: Group ~S!!gnatton of IOOR Mercury 175~ Mercury 250~ Mercury 400~ Mercury 700~ Mercury 1,000U Mercury 70R High Pressure Sodium lOOW High Pressure Sodium 150~ High Pressure Sodium 200~ High Pressure Sodium 250W High Pressure Sodium &O0~ High Pressure Sodium 1,000~ High Pressure Sodium Groups 11 8nd, III ~Z Rate Per Luminaire ~ ~ 24 Hour S 2.40 S 2.95 $ 3.85 5.65 3.65 4.95 7.60 5.30 7.35 11.55 12.00 16.00 S 2.85 S 3.25 S 3.15 3.70 4.45 5.20 7.45 4.60 6.15 8.15 17.65 Rates for Group I tess the following monthly deddctton per LumInalre: 250~ or Less ~00~ or ~reater Group Il Mercury $ .30 $ .60 High Pressure Sodium .75 .90 Group Ill Mercury $ .10 $ .30 High Pressure Sodium .25 .40 'Group IV (CLosed) MonthLz Rate Per Luminaire AH 100~ Mercury $ 1.70 RI 175R Mercury 2.60 I 250~ Hercury ~.60 &OOU Mercury 5.80 R ~Continued on Rate Code Ornamental KSO09 Ornamental E~ergy Only KYO09 Traffic Control KTO08 ..................................... Filing Date: 11-2-87 By: U. J. Lynch, Effe t ve Vice President, Rates and Corporate Strategy MPUC Oocket #o: EOO2/GR-87-670 Order Oate: 12-29-87 NORTHERN STATES POWER COHPA#T CNINNESOTA) Sheet~No: S- 44 ELECTRIC RATE BOO[ - NPUC NO. 1 Revision: 9th #INNESOTA \ STREET LIGHTING SERVICE CCUS~O#ER OWNED EQUIPNENT) CConttnued) Group IV CCtoaed) 70~ High Pressure Sodium lOOg High Pressure Sodium 150g High Pressure Sodium 200~ High Pressure Sodium 250g High Pressure Sodium 400g High Pressure Sodium 1,0QOg High Pressure Sodium Per Lumineire 1.10 1.SS 2.25 3.05 3.90 6.00 13.90 $5g Lou Pressure Sodium 150~ Low Pressure Sodium 1,000~ HetsL HsLide 2-F?2HO FLuorescent 100~ Traffic Control 6,000 Lumen Incandescent 10,000 Lumen Incandescent 1.05 3.20 S14.8S 2.75 1.75 5.05 7.75 [nterim Rate Adjustment: An Snterim rate adjustment of 9.13~ sheLL be added to bi'ttings for electric service. Fue( Ctsuse:BltLe subject to the.sdJustment provided for in F'ueL eL'susa.. Rider No. 1. : Surcharge: In certain communities biLLs ire subject to · surcharge provided' for in Surcharge Rider. Lets Payment Charge: Any unpaid balance over S10.00 is subject to I 1.52 Lste payment charge or S1.00, whichever is grester. The ch. srge may be assessed four working days after the date due. Other Provisions: This schedule is also subject to prov[slons contained in RuLes for AppLication of Street Lighting Rates. R R R R R R R FiLing Date: 11-2-87 By: W. J. Lynch, Effective: 1-1-88 Vice President, Rates and Corporate Strategy HPUC Docket Ro: EOO2/GR-87'670 Order Date: 1Z-~9-87 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO#PANY C#INNESOTA) Sheet No: 5' ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - NPUC NO. I Re¥1sJon: 7th #INNESOTA STREET LIGHTING SERVICE (HETERED CUSTO#ER OWNED EQUiP#ENT) Availability: Available for year-round illumination of public streets, parkways and highways by uncommon electric lamps mounted on standards where customer owns end maintains an ornamental street Lighting system complete with standards, Lumlnalres with globes, tamps, photocells, and other appurtenances, together with ail necessary cables extending between standards end to point of connection to Company"s meter es designated by Company. Rate: Customer charge per meter per month *$ 5.45 Energy Charge ALL kwh per kwh Interim Rate Adjustment: An interim rate adjustment of 9.13~ shell be added to billings for electric service. Fuel CLBuse: BILLs subject to the adjustment provided for In Fuel Clause Rider No. 1. Surcharge: Zn certain communltles bills are subject to a surcharge provided for in Surcharge Rider. Late Payment Charge: Any unpaid balance over S10.00 is subject to a 1.5~ Late payment charge or S1.00, whichever is greater. The charge may be assessed four working days after the date due. Conditions of Service: The customer owns and maintains .ornmmente.t street tighttng system including underground c'Bbtes, .posts, tamps, ballast, photocells, and glassware. Ballasts shall provide a power factor of et least 90~ and photocellE shall conform to specified da'ltV operating schedule. Company furn?shes energy only st central metered dlstrtbut'lon points designated by Company. The daily operating schedule of the lamps shell be from approximately, one-half hour after sunset..unti[ one-half hour before sunrise. Rate Code Ornamental Metered Energy Only ;YO00 ................. ;=~ ~=~7~ Filing Date: 11-2-87 By: W. J. Lynch, Effectt · · Vice President, Rates and Corporate Strategy HPUC Docket #o: EOO2/GR-87-670 Order Date: 12-29-87 NORTHERN STATES POUER COHPANY (HINNESOTA) Sheet~-No: 5- 47 ELECTRIC RATE BOOK HPUC NO. 1 Revision: loth HINNESOTA STREET LXGRTI#G SERVICE (CUSTONER OUNED EQUIPHENT) (Closed) Availability: Available for year-round illumination of public streets, parkways, and highways by electric Lamps mounted on standards where customer owns mn ornamental street lighting system complete with standards, lumlnalres 'with globes, lamps, and other appurtenances, together with all necessary cables extending between standards end to points of connection to Company's facilities ss designated by Company. Service under this schedule is limited to installations being served ss of the effective date of this schedule. Rate: 1,000 2,$00 4,000 6,000 10,000 15,000 Lumen Incandescent Lumen Incandescent Lumen.incandescent Lumen incandescent Lumen Incandescent Lumen Incandescent F&SEHO FLuorescent FTZHO FLuorescent F72HO Fluorescent FTZHO FLuorescent FTZEHO FLuorescent F72EHO Fluorescent F72EHO FLuoreacent Interim Rate Adjustment: Number of Lamps Per ~_~_E~£ Lumtnarie Lumtnaire ~ 2AN-ZHN 2& Hour 1 S 2.55 1 3.75 1 5.20 1 6.70 1 9.50 1 13.10 1 S 4.70 S I 3.60 2 4.70 4 8.25 7.10 1 4.80 Z 7.30 10.95 4 13.45 11.70 An Interim rate' adjustment of 9.13% shaLL be added to biLLings for electric service. Fuel CLause= BilLs subject to the adjustment provided for in Fuel Clause Rider No. 1. Surcharge: In certain communities bills are subject to s surcharge provided for tn Surcharge Rider. Late Payment Charge= Any unpaid balance over $10.00 is subject to s 1.5% late payment charge or $1.00, whichever is greater. The charge may be assessed four working days after the date due. Other Provisions= This schedule is also subject to provisions contained in Rules for AppLication of Street Lighting Rates. Rate Code Ornamental K$109 FiLing Date= 11-2-87 By: U. J. Lynch, Effective= 1-1-88 Vice President, Rates end Corporate Strategy MPUC Docket No= EOO2/$R-87-670 Order Date: 12-29-87 NORTHERN STATES POYER COHPAN¥ (HINNESOTA} . Sheet Nog ~- ~2.1 ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - NPUC NO, I Rev~$1o~ ~St MINNESOTA YoJmee I RULES FOR APPLICATION OF STREET LIGHTING RATES 1. Service Included Company Owned Equlpm®n+ Company shall own, operate, and malntaln the overhead and custom underground street IIghtlng systems using Company's standard street light1ng equipment, Customer Owned Equipment Group I and Closed Schedule Company shall furnish all electric energy necessary to operate customer's ornamental street lighting system, shall make ell lamp end globe renewals, clean the globes, light end extlngulsh all lamps, make all ballast rems,als, and furnish all the materials and }abor necessary therefore Where customer receives painting of metal standards service In lieu of ballast renewals [closed schedule) the monthly ra*9.sh Il be reduced stander by 2~~ for each addlttona! lum/naI~e mounted on a stngl~ d. Group II (Ball'globe or lumtnalres with nonstandard ballast) Company shall furnish all electrlc energy necessary to operate customer's ornamental street Ilghtlng system, shal-I make all lamp renewals, clean the globes, light and extinguish all lamps, and furnlsh all the materials and labor necessary therefor. Group !11 (Customer furnlshes glassware and ballast) . Company shall furnish all electric energy necesse'ry to operate customer's ornamental street Ilghtlng system, shall make all lamp . renewals, .clean the g.lobes, light and extinguish all lamps,' and furnish all the mata~$ais and labor necessary therefor. Customer shall furnish and stock glassware and ballast - Company sha)l furnish reFlacement labor. Group IV (Closed} The customer owns and maintains entire ornamental street I.Ightlng system Including underground cables, posts, lamps, ballast, photocells, and glassware. Ballasts shall provide a power factor of &t least and photocells shall conform to specified daily operating schedule. Company furnishes energy only at central dlstr~but~on polnts designated by Company. See IndTvldua) street lighting con?facts for terms and condlt~ons not covered herein. T T L L C T N N (Continued on follo~Ing sheet) Issued~ 4-6-8~ By: Ro H, Bergland, Effective: 3-29-a3 V, P, Commerclal Operations HPUC Docket Nog E002/H-8~-92 Order Date: ]-29-8] NORTHERN STATES POWER COHPANY (NINNESOTA) Sheet No: 5- ~2.2 ELECTR/C RATE BOOK - NPUC NO. I Revision: 2nd H~NNESOTA RULES FOR APPLICATION OF STREET LIGHTING RATES (Continued) c. City of St. Paul Hultiple Ornamental · City owns and maintains underground cables, posts, lamps, baiZes.ts, · photocells, and glassware. Ballasts ~hall provide a power factor of at least 90~ and photocells shall conform to specified dally operating schedule. Company furnishes energy only st centra! distribution points designated by Company. Hulblple Overhead C£ty owns and maintains lamp unitst lamps, photocells, end glassware. Company owns and maintains distribution system, Including hanger m, and furnishes energy st the lamp unit. Ballasts shall provide s power factor of st least 90~ and photocells shall conform to specified operating schedule. Settee Ornamental ~ City owns and maintains underground cables, posts, lamps, photocells, end glassware. Photocells-shall conform to specified daily operst'ing schedule. Company furnishes energy mt central distribution points designated by the Company. Energy shall bm metered on pr£mary a£de.or constant current Stairway and Navigst~on Lamps Customer owns and'maintains. Company fubnIahes energy only at central " distribution po£nts'. No a~di:lonal lights.will be served under' this ts. ts which wouId ~equtre. construction in excess of an average feet .per lamp and no poles will be set In' frozen ground~ 2. emily Operating Sohedu~e~ The daily opera:ting schedule or 2amPe on the'. all-night (AN) schedule shall be from approximately ons-hel~ hour after suneet until one-ha'If hour before eun~lae, 'and on the midnight (HN) schedule shall be spptox£mstely one-half hour after sunset until midnight (Central Standard Time). All lamps served under Company owned street lighting scheduIes operate on the above all-night schedule. ~.' Outages~ If £11uminst£on from any lamp is Interrupted and said tllumtnat£on is .not resumed within 2~ hours from the t~me Company receives notice thereof ~tom customer, II,Otb of the monthly rate rot such lamp shell bm deducted ~or each n~ght of non£Ilum£nation after such notice £s received. a. Special Services: s. Compan~ Owned Equipment .' Conversion to Hiqh Pressure Sodium Street Ltqht~ When requested by the customer, Company wil! convert obeolete Incandescent, fluorescent, and mercury vapor *street lighting un/ts to high pressure sodium street lighting un£ts. There aha1! be s conversion charge of $20 fat functional mercury vapor l£ght[ng units prior to the Company conversion schedule and no conversion charge ~ot ~ncandeeoent, fluorescent, or scheduled mercury vapor street lighting units for thla service. D L Filing Date: . 8-1-85 By: Harry ~. Spell, Effective: 9-~O-B& Senior Vice Preeldsnt - F~nance MPUC Docket No: £002/GR-8~-558 0rdet Da're: '9-2~-86 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) Sheet Not 5- 52.~ ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - MPUC NO. HZNNE$OTA RULES FOR APPLICATION OF STR££T LIGHT2NG RATES (Continued) Temporary Disconnection of Service (Street lightin9 facilities remain in place.) When requested by the customer, Company will temporarily disconnect service to individua! street lighting units provided the cuatome~ pays a monthly facilities charge equal to the regular monthly ~ate less the product of the average monthly kwh For the lighting unit and the energy charge f~om the street lightin9 service (metered customer owned equipment) tare schedule. The customer must pay a charge o~ $2~.00 to disconnect ot reconnect each lighting unit. Termination of Street Liqhtinq Facilities When requested by the customer, Company wil! remove all at a portion a attest lighting system end cease blll£ng. The customer must pay · estimated termination coats rot the remove! end undepteciated value oF ~acllitiea~ less any se~vage value~ ir the number or lights requested to be removed in any twelve month period exceeds 5~ or the municipalities Company owned attest lighting system. Customer Owned Equipment Daily Opetat[nq Schedule Option Reduced hours or operation rtom the standard daily operating schedule available under the applicable commercial end industrial tate~ subject to the ~ollowing ptovieione= (l) Customer must install a meter socket at the service point. (2) Customer shalI provide all maintenance to lighting unite and identity the lighting d~i~e with Company approved markings. Company inspection or lighting un~s rot.adaptability to Company's maintenance setv£ce must precede ·ttansret back to the applicable attest lighting service tote. Disconnection o~ Service During the pet'£od between customer disconnection and teconnection or attest lighting units, Company will cease billing provided the disconnection ie made on the line aide oF the lighting unit Customer disconnection not on the ~ine aide wil! requite the cuetome't pay a charge to compensate rot the lighting unit ballast cote leas. When requested by the customer, Company wil! disconnect at reconnect street lighting unite provided the customer pays · charge o~ $25.00 the disconnection at teconnection o~ each lighting unit. The customer must identify all disconnected street lighting units with Company approved markings. Filing Date: 8-1-85 By: Hetty W. Spell~ Effective: 9-30-86 Senior Vice President -Flnance MPUC Docket N~: EOO2/GR-65-558 Order Date: '9-2~-86 NORTHERN STATES PagER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) ' Sheet No: 5- 53.1 ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - gPUC NO. 1 Ravia*lan: 6th #INNESOTA SNALL NUNICIPAL PUNPING SERVICE AvaiLabiLity: AvailabLe to municipal owned water works and municipal sewage systems for operation of pumping and treatment plants. CRate schedule applied separately to each delivery point) Rote: Customer Charge per Honth Energy Charge for Service st Secondary VoLtage: ALL kgh per month per kgh 9ct-#a~ June'~!E~ S5.45 S5.45 4.252~ 5.052~ Interim Rate Adjustment: An tn~erlm rate adjustment of 9.13~ shaLL be added to biLLings for electric service. Fuel CLause= Bills subject to the adjustment provided for ~n Fuel Clause Rider No 1. MonthLy Minimum Charge: Customer charge. Surcharge: in certaln communitJes biLLs are subject to s surcharge provided for in Surcharge Rider. Late' Payment Charge: Any unpaid balance over $10.00 .is subject to a 1.SX Late payment charge or S1.00, whichever ia greater. The charge may be assessed four'wo~klng, days after the date.due. inet'attation of Dammed Meters: The Company Ih'aLt instaLL i demand meter for. a customer when: A. Customer's connected Load Is estimated to be 20 kV or greater, or B. Customer is served singLe-phase and has a service entrance capacity greater thin 200 amperes, or C. Customer ts served three-phase st 120/208 or 120/240voits end hms s lervlce entrance capacity greeter than 200 amperes, or D. Customer Is served three-phase st 240/480 or 277/480 voLts'and has a service entrance capacity greater than 100 amperes, or E. Customer's average monthly kgb use for four consecutive months exceeds 2,500 kgb. If s demand meter is InstalLed tn accordance with the above, the customer may remain on the SmaLL HunlcipaL Pumping Service schedule as long es his maximum demand is Jess than 25 k~. ~hen the customer achieves an actual maximum demand of 25 kg or greater, the measured demand shaLL become the basis of the d~mand charge for bll Ling purposes end the customer wit I be placed on the HuniclpaL Service schedule in the next biLLing month. If a customer has a btL L~ng demand of Less than 25 kg for twelve consecutive months, he wiLL be given the option of returning to the SmeLL HuntctpaL Pumping Service schedule. Rate Code Vater Pumping M2000 Sewage Pumping H3000 FiLing Date: 11-2-87 By: g. J. Lynch, Effective: 1-1-88 Vice President, Rates and Corporate Strategy MPUC Docket No: EOO~/GR-87-670 Order Date: 12-29-87 NORTHERH STATES POWER COHPANY (MINNESOTA) Sheet No: 5- 5& ELECTRIC RATE BOOK · HPUC NO. 1 Revision: 11th HINNE$OTA = HU#ZCIPAL PUHPZ#G SERVICE AvaiLabiLity: AvaiLabLe to municipal owned water works end municipal eewsge systems for operation of pumping and treatment plante. (Rate ScheduLe applied sepereteLy to each delivery point) Rate: Customer Charge per Honth Service et SeCondary VoLtage: Demand Charge per Month Att kg per kW $23.60 June-,~E~ $ 5.08 S 7.08 Energy Charge per kwh VoLtage Discounts per Month: Primary VoLtage $ .55 December Per kwh .07~ Interim Rate Adjustment: An interim rate adjustment of 9.13% sheLL be added to biLLings for electric service. ~ueL C.Lause: BILls subject tO the adjustment provided for in FueL..CLauee Rider No. 1. Maximum Charge: The monthly maximum charge for demand end energy sheLL not exceed $.13 per kiLowatt-hour before application of customer charge .and fuel clause adjustment. Surcharge: in certain communities biLLs are subject to · surcharge pr0.vtded for in Surcharge Rider. Late Payment Charge: Any unpaid balance over $10.00 il subject to e 1.5% Late pgyment charge or Sl.00, whichever is greater. The charge may be assessed four working days after the date due. Determination of Demand: The adjusted demand In kilowatts for bitting purposes shaLL be determined by dividing the maximum actual demand in kilowatts by the power factor expressed in percent but not more than e 90% power factor and multiplying the quotient so obtained by 90% and rounding to the nearest whole kW. In no month shaLL the demand to be biLLed be considered es Less than the current month's adjusted demand tn kW. Maximum Oemand= The maximum actual demand in kilowatts shaLL be the greatest 15-minute Load during the month for which biLL is rendered. Fate Code _~Continued on Secon~!£Z Prtmarz SmaLL Water Pumping M2OO& H2OI& Sewage Pumping H3OO& H]O1& Water Pumping M2104 H211& Sewage Pumping M310& M311& FiLing Date: 11-2-8Z By: g. J. Lynch, Effective: - -88 Vice Preaident, Rates and Corporate Strategy #PUC Docket #o: EOO2/GR-87-670 Order Date: 12-29-87 NORTHERN STATES POUER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) Sheet No: ELECTRIC RATE BO0[ - MPUC NO; 1 Revision: 9th MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL PUMPING SERVICE (Continued) Pouer Factor= For three phase customers ulth services above 200 amperes, or above &80 V, the po~er factor for the month shaLL be determined by permanently instaLLed metering equipment. For aLL single phase customers and three phase customers ~ith services 200 amperes or tess, · poHer factor of 90X ~iLL be assumed. Minimum Demand to be Bitted: The monthly minimum biLLing demand shaLL not be Less then provided above. Terms and Condition8 of Service: ALternating current service is prov?ded st the foLLo~ing nominal voltages: a. Secondary VoLtage: SingLe or three phase from 208v up to but not including 2,&OOv~ -- b. Primary Voltage: Three phase from 2,~OOv up to but not including 69~000v~ FiLing Date: 8-25-86 By: Harry U. SpeLL, Effective: 10-7 Senior Vice President Finance MPUC Docket No: EOO2/M-86-510 Order Date: 10-7-86 m NORTHERN STATES PagER CO#PANT (NZNNESOTA) Sheet No: 5- 56 ELECTRIC RATE BOOK #PUC NO. 1 Revision: loth MINNESOTA == = ~FIRE AND CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN SERVICE AvaiLabiLitY: AvaiLabLe for power service for'the operettas of municipal fire and civil defense warning sirens having · rated capacity not in excess of 25 horsepower. Rate: &gL per month per horsepower of connected capacity. MonthLy Minimum Charge: S2.50 Interim Rate Adjustment: An ~nterim rate adjustment of 9,11% sheLL be added t~ bi[Lings for electric service. Late Payment Charge: Any unpaid balance over S10.00 is subject to a 1.5% Late payment charge or S1,00, whichever is greater, The charge may be assessed four working days after the date due, Connection: Under the above rate the Company wiLL make no extension for service other than a normal service span. Where conditions are such that a Long service connection or extra transformer capacity, or both, are necessary, the customer shaLL either pay the entire cost of such extra equipment or pay a monthly facilities charge based on such costs, The circuit serving the siren must be in conduit from the entrance to the motor with an enclosed entrance switch box, which may be sealed and operated from an external appliance. OptionaL: In case the customer already has a service connection of sufficient Capacity to permit operation of the siren without unduly disturbing conditions on the Company"a nearby, circuits, the siren may be connected at.the option of the customer On the Load side of the cus'tomer"s existing meter'and the commercial rate applied to the total toad, Rate Code M&O08 FiLing Date: 11-2-87 By: W. J. Lynch, Effective= 1-1-88 Vice President, Rates and Corporate Strategy #PUC Docket No: EOO2/GR-87-670 Order Date: 12-29-87~.~ NORTHERN STATES POWER COHPANT C#INNESOTA) Sheet-No: 5- 59 ELECTRIC RATE BOOK - #PUC NO. I ReYJsJon: ?th #iNNESOTA FUEL CLAUSE RIDER Fuel CLause Rider No. I Th'ere shaLL be added to or deducted from the net monthly biLK O.001g per klto~att-hour for each 0.001¢ increase above or decrease be'tow 1.0&9¢ tn the Fuel Cost per kiLowatt*hour sales. The Fue['Cost shat[ be the sum of the foLLowing for the most recent two month period: I. The'fossiL and nuclear fuel consumed in the Company's generating stations as recorded in Accounts 151 sad 518. 2. The net energy cost of energy purchases es recorded in Account $55 exclusive of capacity or demand charges, when such energy Js purchased on an economic dispatch basis. 3. The actual identifiable fossil end nuclear fuel costs associated with energy purchased for reasons other than identified tn (2) sbove, tess &. The fueL-reLated costs recovered through Intersystem sates. The kiLowatt-hour sates shaLL be att kiLowatt-hours sold excluding Intersystem sates. FiLing Date: 11-13-87 By: V. J. Lynch, E 8 Vice President, Rates and Corporate Strategy MPUC Docket No: EOO2/MR-87-TSO order Date: 12-21-87 MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING danuary 11, I988 Present were: Chairman Thomas Reese; Commissioners Vern Andersen, Willia~a Meyer, Geoff Michael, Brad Sohns, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Elizabeth densen; City Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official dan Bertrand; and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioner Kennw~h Smith was absent and excused. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1~87 were presented ~or consideration. Weiland moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the minutes as-submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 88-701 Parking Lot Setback Variance for 200'B Co~,- merce Boulevard; South ~0 Feet of the North 178 Feet of Lots 113, 114 and 115, subject to road, Moond Shores; F'ID Number 14-117-24 14 0037 Owner, Frank Buysse, Aas not present. T~e .City F'lanner, Mark Koegler reviewed his report~ In Oc- tober of 1'~87, a parking lot was going in immediately.ad- jacent to the north propm~ty line; the Building O~ficial notified the owner construction was in violation o~ the Mound Zoning Code which requires a 5 ~oot setback ~rom the property line. The owner made a decision to continue and seek a variance "after the fact". The variance request.is to allow the parking lot right up to the property line so it would be a 5 foot variance. He noted the apartment complex does have a parking shortage and do have a problem; there was a land taking W-~th the expansion of Commerce Boulevard some years ago. He ~hought it was important to consider the impact on the neighboring property; there are tire tracks going almost to the ~ront door o~ that adjacent structure which is only 5 or 6 feet away ~rom the edge o~ the paving. Staff recommendation is to approve the variance subject to conditions, make variance subject to the installation o~ a wooden bumper height type barrier along the northern edge of the property line, to make sure that the vehicles stay on the paved area and do not encroach on the neighbor's property. Plans for the barrier should be approved by the building o~ficial prior 'to installation. Concern is that something substantial should go in. The Commission discussed the case and it was questioned if ~there were not architectural specifications ~or parking areas that we have been observing such as width o{ spaces and turning areas, etc. ~he Planner stated those are design Planning Commission Minutes danuary 11, 1985 - Page 2 standards and not specified in the Ordinance. Parking space is regulated (10 by 20>; these will not be 10 by 20ts. The Commission discussed that it is not possible to .get 13 spaces or do anything close to what owner is saying in his drawing; you can not turn and, some o~ the spaces are locked in. It was thought he could sa~ely get 4 or 5 spaces out o~ A & B; cars would have to be parked at different angle. It was noted that the property to the south of his buildings was ~or sale. dan Bertrand read the minutes of the November 9, 1987 meeting relative to this case. Commission was o~ the opinion that no variance would be granted and provision o~ the Ordinance Section 23.716.1 Item 4 .and Section 23.716.3 Items 3 and 4 should apply and be enforced. The Planner stated that there is a legitmate problem here and he stated space is not big enough ~or any ~lexibility. Also it was noted the neighborts building is not'properly setback.by present Zoning Code. The County wants controlled access onto Commerce and would not allow widening driveway entrance. Weiland moved 'and Th~l seconded a motion that blacktop presently there be allowed to remain in place, but bumper style fence be installed 5 feet onto h'is property to meet the existing ordinance. It was discussed that by leaving the blacktop in place we would be granting a 5 ~oot variance so the motion was withdrawn. It was ~elt that this variance would hurt the neighbor and Buysse can purchase land to the South for parkio.g. Weiland moved and Thal seconded a motion to recommend that we maintain the side yard between the buildings and deny the variance. The vote was Reese against be- cause there was a taking of land by the County and we are not being at all conciliatory; all others voted in favor; motion carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Chair opened the nominations for Chairperson: Thai moved and Weiland seconded a motion nominating the present Chairperson, There were no other nominations; it was moved that the Secretary cast an unanimous ballot ~or Thomas Reese for Chairperson. Planning Co~m, ission Minutes danuary il, 1988 - Page 3 The Chair opened the nominations ~or Vice Chairperson: Andersen moved and densen seconded a motion to nominate Bill Thal Vice Chairperson. There were no other nominations; it was moved that the Secretary cast an unanimous ballot ~or Bill Thai ~or Vice Chairperson. Thai reported on his observations regarding Gri~m~?s Store, Barrettts on Tuxedo and Craigts on Brighton. The Planning Commission discussed the 1987 Sum~ary Report. It was also discussed that the Comprehensive Plan will be on the Workshop Agenda, danuary 25th. Also Brad Sohns had prepared a letter with a timetable ~or the Housing Maintenance Ordinance work. Thomas Reese, as Mound's LMCD representative, explained and gave an update on dock charges by the LMCD. ADJOURNMENT densen ~oved and Meyer seconded a motion ~o adjourn th'e meeting at :B:45 P.M. All were in ~avor~ so meeting was adjobrned. Thomas Reese, Chair 'Attest: