1995-09-12 AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
~ MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1995, 7:30 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 22, 1995
REGULAR MEETING.
PRESENTATION OF SURVEY RESULTS - WESTONKA
COMMUNITY CENTER - DR. BILL MORRIS,
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED QUANTITATIVE SURVEY -
COMMONS TASK FORCE - MARK GOLDBERG, CHAIR
CASE #95-34: REQUEST FOR A LAKESIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR A POOL, AND/OR DECK OR FENCE
AT 2459 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOTS 15, BLOCK 1,
PID #24-117-24 22 0029.
6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL
OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,123.
REQUEST FOR STOP SIGN AT RESTHAVEN AND
THREE POINTS BLVD.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF RELATING TO THE $160,000 COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE OF 1980 (VICTOR J, JUDE
DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH PROPERTIES PROJECT)
AND DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO.
10.
PRESENTATION OF THE 1996 PROPOSED BUDGET--
- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1996 PRELIMINARY
GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,474,220;
SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $1,850,295 LESS
THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA) OF
PG. 2567-2574
PG. 2575-2584
PG. 2585-2598
PG. 2599-2631
PG. 2632
PG. 2633-2635
PG. 2636-2648
2564
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
$485,095, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY CERTIFIED
LEVY OF $1,365,200; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1996; AND SETTING PUBLIC
HEARING DATES.
- RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED
$24,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST
OF OPERATIONS, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR
1996.
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN PERMIT - QUASI - PUBLIC
FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN - MWHS. HOCKEY BOOSTER
APPROVAL OF REDUCTION OF LETTER OF CREDIT -
BOYER CONSTRUCTION - PELICAN POINT.
APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF
PELICAN POINT TOWNHOMES, COMMON INTEREST
COMMUNITY NO. 378.
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR
AUGUST, 1995.
B. LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT
FOR AUGUST, 1995.
C. LMCD MAILINGS.
D. COMMONS TASK FORCE MINUTES OF 8-15-95.
E. INFORMATION FROM NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
(NLC) RE: VOTING AND ALTERNATE DELEGATES TO
THE ANNUAL CONGRESS OF CITIES CONFERENCE
IN PHOENIX LATER THIS YEAR.
F. LETTER DATED AUGUST 23, 1995 FROM JIM GRUBE,
HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
ENGINEER RE: WARNING LIGHT REQUEST AT
CSAH 15 CROSSWALK NEAR THE HOUSE OF MOY.
G. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 8-28-95.
PG. 2649-2651
PG. 2652
PG. 2653
PG. 2654-2656
PG. 2657-2660
PG. 2661-2679
PG. 2680-2705
PG. 27O6-2712
PG. 2713-2715
PG. 2716-2718
PG. 2719-2720
PG. 2721-2722
PG. 2723-2728
2565
CORRESPONDENCE FROM VINCENT FORYSTEK RE:
3137 INVERNESS LANE AND PROPERTY VALUATION
DETERMINED BY COUNTY ASSESSOR, LOCAL BOARD
OF REVIEW, COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW. I HAVE
ALSO HAD PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. FORYSTEK
HE IS ANGRY WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY. I HAVE ASKED
THE COUNTY ASSESSOR TO ADDRESS HIS CONCERNS.
MR. FORYSTEK WANTED ME TO SHARE THIS
INFORMATION WITH YOU. PG. 2729-2764
PLEASE NOTE THAT DR. BILL MORRIS, DECISION
RESOURCES, LTD., WILL BE PRESENT TUESDAY
EVENING TO PRESENT SURVEY RESULTS ON THE
WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER. HE WILL ALSO
BE MAKING A PRESENTATION AT THE SCHOOL
BOARD MEETING ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
AT 7:00 PM. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE
SCHOOL BOARD MEETING, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.
REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1995, 7:30 PM.
2566
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 22, 1995
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, August 22, 1995 at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Persons in attendance: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark
Hanus and Phyllis Jessen. Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also present: City
Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Manager Ed Shukle and
Acting City Clerk Linda Strong. The following citizens were also present: Erik Figenskau,
John Luse, Rhonda Eurich, Tom Aune, Phil Klein, Duane and Fran Clark-Leisinger, Sgt.
John McKinley, Officer Matt Sibley, Scott Nagel.
Mayor Polston opened the meeting and welcomed all who were present.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mayor Polston recognized Fran Clark, City Clerk, who was in attendance. She has been
recuperating from a severe illness.
Mayor Polston introduced Sgt. John McKinley of the Mound Police Department. Sgt.
McKinley introduced the City's newest police officer Matt Sibley.
1.1
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 8, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND
THE AUGUST 15, 1995 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to approve
the Minutes of the August 8, 1995 regular Council meeting.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to approve
the Minutes of the August 15, 1995 Committee of the Whole meeting.
1.2
CASE #95-31: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH, 2385 COMMERCE BLVD.,
LOTS 6 - 10, AUDITOR'S SUBD. 167 & LOTS 1-3, GUILFORD'S
REARRANGEMENT OF MOUND BAY PARK, PID #14-117-24 44 0005.
VARIANCE FOR "PENNYWISE THRIFT SHOP" SIGN
Building Official Jon Sutherland informed the Council the 2 free standing proposed signs
would be 48" x 36" and will be 60" high. One sign will be along the street frontage and
one at a 9 foot setback variance to the street right-of-way. The ordinance allows one sign
per street frontage and a minimum setback of 10 feet to the right-of-way. Planning
Commission and staff recommend approval.
Mound City Council Minutes
August 22, 1995
Councilmember Jensen moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION #95-83 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR OUR
LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH, 2385 COMMERCE BLVD.,
P&Z CASE #95-31.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.3
CASE #95-32: LUSE & SON, INC., BASSWOOD AND CHURCH, LOTS 14- 17,
BLOCK 2, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-117-24 32 0014.
MINOR SUBDIVISION
City Attorney Curt Pearson stated that this subdivision proposed will create a new lot
which requires park dedication fees and there was an Add-on item to the agenda
proposing an ordinance amendment clarifying the language regarding this item. He asked
Council to continue this item and deal with the ordinance amendment.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to continue
Case #95-32 until the ordinance amendment clarifying park dedication fees
language was acted upon.
1.4
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 330:120, SUBD. 3 OF THE CITY CODE
RELATING TO PARK DEDICATION FEES IN MINOR SUBDIVISIONS.
City Attorney Curt Pearson stated currently the ordinance indicates a fee of $500 per lot.
The change will indicate "$500 for each new lot being created. In cases where one lot
is split into two lots, it is determined that only one new lot is being created."
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, and carried unanimously to adopt
an ordinance amending Section 330:120, subd, 3, of the City Code relating to
Park Dedication Fees in Minor Subdivisions.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens, and carried unanimously to
reconsider agenda item P&Z Case #95-32.
1.3
CASE #95-32: LUSE & SON, INC., BASSWOOD AND CHURCH, LOTS 14- 17,
BLOCK 2, A.L. ADDN. TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID #13-117-24 32 0014.
MINOR SUBDIVISION
City Attorney Curt Pearson stated that subdivision "F" of the proposed resolution should
be changed from $1000 per lot to $500 per each new lot, resulting in a lower fee.
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following
resolution as amended:
Mound City Council Minutes
August 22, 1995
RESOLUTION #95-84
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT
LOTS 14-17, BLOCK 2, A.L. ADDITION TO LAKESIDE
PARK, PID 13-117-24 32 0014, (BASSWOOD & CHURCH)
P&Z CASE #95-32.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.4
CASE #95-33: LUSE & SON, INC., BELMONT LANE, LOTS 6-8, BLOCK 9,
LAKESIDE PARK, A.L. CROCKERS 1ST DIV. PID #13-117-24 32 0120, 0121 &
0122. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated this subdivision will create 2 lots from 3 existing
lots. Both will comply with all ordinance requirements. Staff and Planning Commission
recommended approval with conditions. Item "e" will be modified to address the new park
dedication fee schedule. He stated there were substantial trees on the lot and a site plan
was requested to preserve as many as possible.
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following
resolution with item "e" amended:
RESOLUTION #95-85 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT
LOTS 6, 7, 8, BLOCK 9, LAKESIDE PARK, A.L.
CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION, (BELMONT LANE) PID 13-117-
24 32 0120, 0121 & 0122, P&Z CASE #95-33
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5
CASE #95-35: TERENCE ALMQUIST, 4515 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOTS 1-3,
BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 31 0060. VARIANCE FOR DECK
Jon Sutheriand stated the owner has applied for a variance to recognize the existing
nonconforming south side setback of 7 feet and west rear setback of 8 feet, and a lot size
variance of approximately 1,900 square feet in order to construct a conforming deck.
Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval. Councilmember Hanus stated that
the DNR letter regarding this item had an error. Item la of this letter is invalid.
Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION #95-86
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS AND LOT AREA
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 4515
MANCHESTER ROAD, THAT PART OF LOTS 1, 2, 3,
BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID 19-117-23 31 0060, P&Z CASE
#95-35.
Motion carried.
3 9 toq
Mound City Council Minutes
August 22, 1995
1.6
CASE #95-36: ERIK FIGNSKAU, 3070 HIGHLAND BLVD., LOTS 19 & 20,
BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 43 001. VARIANCE FOR DECK.
Jon Sutherlan d, Building Official, stated the owner has applied for a variance to recognize
existing nonconforming accessory structures and setbacks in order to construct a
conforming deck. There are 5 accessory buildings and the code limits the number to 3
for this site. The owner was present and stated he would like to retain the shed nearest
the lake for boat/water utility purposes. He would give up the changing shed. He asked
that the underground structure remain as it is. The Council discussed the item and
recommended the following:
1)
2)
3)
The conforming storm shelter to remain and recognize the nonconformance
of the underground structure as a fourth accessory building that conforms
to the setbacks. The underground structure must be screened.
The removal of the smaller changing shed.
Recognize the existing setbacks for the remaining lakeside shed and for it
to be painted on the west and south side in earth tone colors.
The owner was in agreement with the Council's recommendations. Councilmember
Jessen stated the code still allows only 3 accessory buildings on this property.
Councilmember Hanus moved and Councilmember Ahrens seconded the following
resolution with the above changes:
RESOLUTION #95-87
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 3070
HIGHLAND BLVD., LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 2, THE
HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 43 0001. P&Z CASE #95-36
The vote carried with a 3 to 1 vote. Councilmember Jessen voted nay.
1.7
CASE #95-37: SCOTT NAGEL, 4586 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 5, BLOCK 3,
AVALON, PID #19-117-23 31 0005. VARIANCE FOR NEW HOUSE, LOT AREA
& SETBACKS
Building Official Jon Sutherland stated the owner has applied for a lot area variance, and
a side setback variance to allow construction of a new dwelling. The owner has extended
the width of the house from 27' to 28'. The Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval.
Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following
resolution:
Mound Cio/Council Minutes
RESOLUTION #95-88
August 22, 1995
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA VARIANCE FOR
4586 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 5, BLOCK 3, AVALON, PID#
19-117 23 31 0005, P&Z CASE #95-37.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.9
RESOLUTION TO REMOVE AND RELOCATE STOP SIGNS - WOODLAND
ROAD ON THREE POINTS.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated that residents of the area of Woodland Road had
requested to have the several intersecting stop signs along Woodland Road be removed.
Sgt. John McKinley and Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent had studied the area
per the request and has suggested the relocation of the stop signs on Woodland to be
placed on the roads crossing Woodland Road; Finch, Eagle, Dove, Canary and Bluebird.
Council discussed and decided to table until further information is available.
MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously to table the
resolution to remove and relocate stop signs along Woodland Road until
more information is available.
1.10
CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE: LOT 1, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID
#13-117-2411 0064. REQUEST TO PURCHASE - PHILLIP KLEIN AND THOMAS
AUNE. '
City Manager Ed Shukle referred to the letter in the packet from Tom Aune and Phil Klein
withdrawing their request for the City to release the subject lot for sale to adjoining lot
owners. The adjacent owners are requesting the City designate the area as an NCA
(Nature Conservation Area). Mayor Polston referred to a letter received from the City
Engineer, John Cameron, stating the lot should be retained by the City for drainage
easements and not made available for sale. Councilmember Hanus stated this lot would
not qualify for an NCA referring to #9 of the NCA Plan as it relates to the neighboring
properties and whether or not the neighboring properties require any other land to
become conforming. Mr. Aune's lot is an undersized lot and by acquiring less than half
of this lot, it would become conforming. City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the possibility
of the County releasing it with the stipulation that the entire lot be left to the City for
drainage purposes. The question is would the neighbors want to purchase the lot with
the entire lot being subject to the condition that it be retained for drainage? Aune was
concerned with the City creating a holding pond on this lot. Fran Clark was in the
audience and she informed the Council that the city engineer would have to get a
5
Mound City Council Minutes
August 22, 1995
description of the easement before it is released. A resolution needs to be written to
release the lot from the County and retaining easements. Also, concurrent subdivisions
must be made on this lot. Also it was noted that if the lot was released from the County,
and sold to the adjacent property owners, and subdivided between them, theY would have
to annex this new parcel to their current parcel and make into one parcel. Mr. Klein
asked that the acquisition cost of them purchasing the lot also be researched.
MOTION by Mayor Polston, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to
direct staff to confer with Hennepin County concerning the release of Lot 1,
Block 20, Shadywood Point, PID #13-117 24 11 0064, property subject to a
drainage easement over the entire property and for staff to research the
subdivision and the cost of the subdivision and acquisition.
1.11 APPROVAL OF PAYMENT REQUEST NO. I (FINAL), 1995 SEALCOAT
PROGRAM, ALLIED BLACKTOP IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,288.19.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated this was the first and final payment request from Allied
Blacktop for the 1995 Seal Coat program. The payment is for $37,288.1 9, which is under
the bid of $42,898.50.
MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to approve
the final payment to Allied Blacktop of $37,288.19, for the 1995 seal coat
program, when the funds become available.
1.12 LICENSE RENEWAL: ON-SALE BEER LICENSE - MOUND LANES.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated Mound Lanes is applying for renewal of their On-Sale
Beer License for 7-1-95 through 6-30-96, pending all forms, insurance, etc. being
submitted.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to approve
the renewal of the On-Sale Beer License for Mound Lanes, for the period of
7-1-95 through 6-30-96, contingent upon all forms, insurance, etc. being
submitted.
1.13 RECOMMENDATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RE:
BANNERS IN DOWNTOWN MOUND.
City Manager Ed Shukle stated the Retail and Professional Council had proposed to
purchase Christmas holiday banners to be attached to the light poles in the downtown
area. Donations were being sought from civic organizations and there would be no cost
to the City. They did request that the City Public Works to install the banners. The
Council discussed and agreed to seek a local vendor to make summer banners. If the
o] ~ 7,~ 6
Mound City Council Minutes
August 22, 1995
banners were to be customized with the City's logo, there would be some cost to the City.
The Council endorsed this idea.
MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to approve
the installation of holiday banners in the downtown area purchased through
donations from civic organizations through the Retail and Professional
Council.
1.14
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously through a
roll call vote to authorize payment of the bills on the pre-list in the amount of
$156,029.27, when funds become available.
16.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A.
Bo
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
EXECUTIVE
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR JULY 1995 AS PREPARED BY GINO
BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
LMCD MAILINGS (TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY)
JULY 1995 UTILITIES REPORT
LETTER FROM MINNEGASCO RE: PROPOSED RATE INCREASE.
COMMONS TASK FORCE MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 1995.
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 14, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE FROM CITY OF ORONO RE: LAKE AREA MAYORS MEETING
SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 1995, 7:30 AM, AT THE
LAFAYETTE CLUB. IF INTERESTED IN ATTENDING, CALL CITY
OF ORONO TO RSVP.
SESSION
At 8:45 PM, the Council went into Executive Session to discuss the Piper Jaffray Case.
The Council reconvened at 9:40 PM.
City Attorney Curt Pearson stated the Council had discussed the status of the Piper
litigation. There is a tolling agreement that is effective on September 1st. Efforts are
being made to have this extended. Authority is needed that if Piper does not go along
and extend the tolling agreement to allow additional time, then he suggested that the City
notify the Court that the City is opting out and to proceed with the arbitration.
7 ~Q5-7~
Mound City Council Minutes
August 22, 1995
MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to
authorize staff to notify the court that the City of Mound is opting out and to
proceed with the arbitration if the tolling agreement is not extended.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously to adjourn
the meeting at 9:40 PM.
City Manager
Attest: Acting City Clerk
5-75/ 8
W'RXTER'S DIRECT DIakL ND2~BER
(612) 334-8513
o400 I D S CENTER
NIIN/~EAPOLIS, HIN/~ESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE ~010') 3{)4-~400
FACSIMILE ((~1~) 3~4- 8~50
September 8, 1995
SAINT PAUL OFFICE
2200 FIRST NATIONAL BA/~K BUILDING
BY MESSENGER
Edward Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Re:
Amendment No. 1 to City of Mound - $160,000 Commercial Development
Revenue Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith
Properties Project)
Dear Ed:
Enclosed are a clean and a redlined copy of the Resolution Authorizing Execution
of Amendments to the above-referenced Note and related Loan Documents. The changes
were made at the request of Curt Pearson.
By separate letter, a copy of which is also enclosed, I am asking Jerry Pietrowski of
Marquette Bank to arrange for a $500 escrow deposit to cover any City Attorney or any
administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with consideration of this
Resolution and execution of the documents. If you have any questions or comments, please
call me.
Very truly yours,
Trudy J. ~
TJH/mhl
Enclosures
cc: Curtis A. Pearson (w/encs.) by messenger
730668.1
Lx%~ OF~IC F.S
BRIGGS .AND MORGAN
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
2400 I D S CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS., MINNESOTA §8402
DIRECT DIAL NU'~BER
(612) 334-8513
TELEPHONE (612~ 034-8400
FACSIMILE (6121 334 - 8680
September 8, 1995
SAINT PAUL OFFICE
BY MESSENGER
Mr. Jerry Pietrowski
President
Marquette Bank, N.A.
2220 Commerce
Mound, MN 55364-1536
Re:
Amendment No. 1 to City of Mound - $160,000 Commercial Development
Revenue Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith
Properties Project)
Dear Jerry:
The Mound City Council is prepared to consider adoption of the Resolution
Authorizing the Amendments of the above documents. However, the City has requested a
deposit of $500 to cover the City's administrative and legal costs in connection with the
Resolution and execution of the documents. This amount is quite nominal. Our fees in
connection with this transaction will be no more than $1,500, so the combined total will be
within the fee estimate given to you by Tony Stemberger. If you have any questions or
comments on the fees, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Trudy J. Hall//
TJH/mhl
CC:
Curtis A. Pearson by messenger
Edward Shukle, Jr. by messenger
730670.1
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
RELATINC; TO THE $160,000
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE OF 1980
(VICTOR N. JUDE, DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH
PROPERTIES PROJECT)
AND DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO
WHERF_AS, pursuant to a Note Resolution adopted by the City Council on February
19, 1980 (the "Resolution"), the City issued its $160,000 Commercial Development Revenue
Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith Properties Project) dated as
of February 29, 1980 (the "Note"), to provide financing for Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas,
and Ralph J. Smith Properties, a Minnesota partnership (the "Partnership"), to acquire and
construct a commercial facility located at 2361 Wilshire Boulevard in Mound, Minnesota (the
"Project"). The proceeds of the Note were loaned to the Partnership pursuant to a Loan
Agreement dated February 29, 1980 (the "Loan Agreement"). The Note was purchased by
State Bank of Mound, now known as Marquette Bank, N.A. (the "Lender"). Pursuant to an
Assignment of Loan Agreement dated February 29, 1980 (the "Pledge Agreement"), the City
pledged and assigned to the Lender its right, title and interest in the Loan. Agreement
(except for rights to certain payments and indemnification) as security for the Note. The
obligations of the Partnership under the Loan Agreement including the obligation to repay
the Note are secured by a Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement
dated February 29, 1980, executed by the Partnership in favor of the Lender (the
"Mortgage") and by an Assignment of Leases and Rents dated February 29, 1980, executed
by the Partnership in favor of the Lender (the "Assignment"); and
WHEREAS, the Partnership has sold the Project and transferred and assigned all of
its rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage and the Assignment to
WWT Partners, a Minnesota partnership consisting of John D. Wilsey, Charles A. Wilsey
and Gerald Tasa (the "Borrower"); and
WHEREAS, the Lender and the Borrower have agreed to extend the final maturity
date of the Note and to reduce the monthly payments due under the Note as set forth in the
Amendment No. 1 to Note which has been submitted to the Council for approval (the "Note
Amendment") and have agreed to amend the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, the
Mortgage and the Assignment pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to Loan Documents (the
"Loan Documents Amendment") which has also been submitted to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Mound as
follows:
1. The City shall proceed forthwith to execute and deliver the Note Amendment
and the Loan Documents Amendment substantially in the forms and upon the terms set
729261.2
forth in the forms on file with the City. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and
directed to execute the Loan Documents Amendment and Note Amendment and deliver
them to the Lender.
2. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Lender certified copies of all proceedings and records
of the City relating to the Note and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality of the Note, Loan Documents Amendment and
Note Amendment as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody
and control or as otherwise known to them.
3. The approval hereby given to the Loan Documents Amendment and Note
Amendment and other various documents referred to above includes approval of such
additional details therein, as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications
thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessaW and appropriate and
approved by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said
documents prior to their execution; and said City officials are authorized to approve such
changes on behalf of the City. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer
or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such
documents in accordance with the terms hereof.
Adopted: September 12, 1993.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Manager
729261.2
(612) 334-8513
September _~, 1995
[DRAFT]
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Marquette Bank, N.A.
2220 Commerce
Mound, MN 55364-1536
John Wilsey
Charles Wilsey
Jerry Tasa
2361 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, MN 55364
Re:
CITY OF MOUND - $160,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
NOTE OF 1980 (VICTOR N. JUDE, DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH
PROPERTIES PROJECT)
Gentlemen:
We acted as bond counsel in connection with the issuance and sale by the City of
Mound (the "City") of its Commercial Development Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis
J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith Properties Project) (the "Note") dated February 29, 1980 in the
principal amount of $160,000 and issued our opinion of bond counsel in connection
therewith dated February 29, 1980 (the "Opinion") a copy of which is attached. We have
examined Amendment No. 1 to Note (the "Note Amendment") dated as of,~,.~,,.~,A ...... ~ 20
~~:. ........... '~:i:i~, 1995 between the City and Marquette Bank, m.A., successor to State Bank
of Mound (the "Lender") and Amendment No. 1 to Loan Documents (the "Loan Documents
Amendment") dated as of .nc.:g,.'.st 29 ~~:i:i~, 1995 among the City, the Lender and
WWT Partners, a Minnesota partnership and a Resolution adopted by the City on
September 12, 1995 (the "Resolution") authorizing execution and delivery of the Note
Amendment and Loan Documents Amendment.
729272.2
Page Two
September 12, 1995
Based upon such examination and the examination of such other documents as we
deem relevant, nothing has come to our attention which would affect the tax exempt status
of the Note as set forth in the Opinion.
Very truly yours,
Briggs and Morgan, P. A.
/cas
Enclosure
729272.2
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(612) 334-8513
~400 I D $ CENTER
1~ II%VIq]KAPO LI$, MI1W2qE $OTA
TELEPHONE (0121 304-8400
FACSIMILE (6121 304-8650
September 12, 1995
SAII~IT PAUL OFFICE
[DRAFT]
City of Mound
5341 Ma)wood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Marquette Bank, N.A.
2220 Commerce
Mound, MN 55364-1536
John Wilsey
Charles Wilsey
Jerry Tasa
2361 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, MN 55364
Re:
CITY OF MOUND - $160,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
NOTE OF 1980 (VICTOR N. JUDE, DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH
PROPERTIES PROJECT)
Gentlemen:
We acted as bond counsel in connection with the issuance and sale by the City of
Mound (the "City") of its Commercial Development Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis
J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith Properties Project) (the "Note") dated February 29, 1980 in the
principal amount of $160,000 and issued our opinion of bond counsel in connection
therewith dated February 29, 1980 (the "Opinion") a copy of which is attached. We have
examined Amendment No. 1 to Note (the "Note Amendment") dated as of September 12,
1995 between the City and Marquette Bank, N.A., successor to State Bank of Mound (the
"Lender") and Amendment No. 1 to Loan Documents (the "Loan Documents Amendment")
dated as of September 12, 1995 among the City, the Lender and WWT Partners, a
Minnesota partnership and a Resolution adopted by the City on September 12, 1995 (the
"Resolution") authorizing execution and delivery of the Note Amendment and Loan
Documents Amendment.
729272.2
BRIGGS AN~) MORGAN
Page Two
September 12, 1995
Based upon such examination and the examination of such other documents as we
deem relevant, nothing has come to our attention which would affect the tax exempt status
of the Note as set forth in the Opinion.
Very truly yours,
Briggs and Morgan, P. A~
/cas
Enclosure
729272.2
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOAN DOCUMENTS
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOAN DOCUMENTS is made as of the 30th
day of ~agas~ ~~~, 1995, by and among the CITY OF MOUND (the "City"),
PARTNERS, a Minnesota partnership (the "Mortgagor" or "Borrower") and MARQUETrE
BANK N.A., successor to State Bank of Mound (the "Mortgagee" or "Lender").
RECITALS:
A. The City issued to the Lender its $160,000 Commercial Development Revenue
Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith Properties Project) dated as
of February 29, 1980 (the "Note"), the proceeds of which were loaned by the City to Victor
N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas and Ralph J. Smith Properties, a Minnesota partnership (the
"Partnership") pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of February 29, 1980, between the
City and the Partnership (the "Loan Agreement") to finance the acquisition and construction
of a commercial facility located at 2361 Wilshire Boulevard in Mound, Minnesota (the
"Project") and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto.
B. Pursuant to an Assignment of Loan Agreement dated February 29, 1980
between the City and the Lender (the "Pledge Agreement"), the City pledged and assigned
to the Lender its right, title and interest in the Loan Agreement (except for rights to certain
payments and indemnification) as security for the Note.
C. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Partnership is required to make
payments to the Lender on behalf of the City in an amount sufficient to pay all principal,
interest and premium on the Note, as and when due. The obligations of the Partnership
under the Loan Agreement and the Note are secured by a Mortgage, Security Agreement
and Fixture Financing Statement dated as of February 29, 1980, executed by the Partnership
in favor of the Lender, and filed in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles
(the "Registrar") on March 4, 1980, as Document No. 1373183 (the "Mortgage"), and by an
Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of February 29, 1980, executed by the Partnership
in favor of the Lender and filed in the office of the Registrar on March 4, 1980, as
Document No. 1373185 (the "Assignment").
D. As of the date hereof, the Partnership has sold and transferred all of its right,
title and interest in the Project to the Borrower and the Borrower has assumed all of the
Partnership's rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement, Mortgage and Assignment.
E. As of the date hereof, $66,976.85 in principal plus accrued interest remains
outstanding under the Note.
F. The Lender, the City and the Borrower have agreed to extend the final
maturity date of the Note and reduce the monthly payment amounts thereunder as set forth
729248.2
in Amendment No. 1 to Note dated as of the date hereof, executed by the City and the
Lender and consented to by the Lender and Borrower (the "Note Amendment").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is hereby
agreed as follows:
1. The name and address of the Mortgagee or Lender set forth in all places in
the Loan Agreement, Mortgage, Assignment and Pledge Agreement (collectively, the "Loan
Documents") are amended to be Marquette Bank, N.A., 2220 Commerce, Mound,
Minnesota 55364-1536.
2. The name and address of the Mortgagor or Borrower set forth in all places
in the Loan Documents are amended to be WWT Partners, 2361 Wilshire Boulevard,
Mound, Minnesota 55364.
3. Section 1.14 of the Mortgage is amended to recite March 1, 2005 as the final
maturity date of the Note.
4. The Lender hereby consents to the sale of the Project to the Borrower.
5. All references in the Loan Documents to the Note shall hereafter be to the
Note, as amended by the Note Amendment. All references in the Loan Documents to the
Loan Agreement, Mortgage, Pledge Agreement and Assignment shall hereafter be to such
Loan Documents, as amended hereby.
6. All other terms and conditions of the Loan Documents, except as modified
hereby, remain in full force and effect.
7. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which when so
executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and each of which counterpart when
taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
?29248.2 2
IN WITNESS WltEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1
as of A~gu~ ~g~~ 1995.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
MORTGAGOR AND BORROWER:
Mayor
City Manager
WWT PARTNERS
a Minnesota partnership
John D. Wilsey, General Partner
By
Charles A. Wilsey, General Partner
Gerald Tasa, General Partner
MARQUETTE BANK, N.A.
MORTGAGEE AND LENDER:
By
Its
7292~,8.2 3
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of ~
~~~, 1995, by John D. Wilsey, Charles A. Wilsey and Gerald Tasa, general partners
in WWT Partners, a Minnesota general partnership, on behalf of such partnership.
Notary Public
[Notarial Stamp]
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
~~, 1995, by , the
Bank N. A., a national banking association on behalf of such association.
day of ~
of Marquette
Notary Public
[Notarial Stamp]
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1995, by , the Mayor, and
the City Manager of the City of Mound, on behalf of the City.
day of September,
This instrument was drafted by:
Briggs and Morgan (TJH)
2400 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(6!2)334-8513
Notary Public
[Notarial Stamp]
729248.2
EXIIIBIT A
TO
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOAN DOCUMENTS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 29 to 36 inclusive, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F according to the Plat thereof on file and
of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 563720.
729248.2 A-1
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CITY OF MOUND
$160,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE OF 1980
(VICTOR N. JUDE, DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH PROPERTIES PROJECT)
THIS AMENDMENT is made as of the ~0th ~ day of Atigas; ii.~~~, 1995,
by and between the City of Mound, Minnesota (the "City") and Marquette Bank, N.A.
successor to State Bank of Mound (the "Lender").
RECITALS:
1. The City previously issued to the Lender its $160,000 Commercial
Development Revenue Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith
Properties Project) dated February 29, 1980 (the "Note"), the proceeds of which were loaned
by the City to Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas and Ralph J. Smith Properties, a Minnesota
general partnership (the "Partnership") pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated February 29,
1980 between the City and the Borrower (the "Loan Agreement").
2. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Borrower is required to make payments
to the Lender on behalf of the City in an amount sufficient to pay all principal, interest and
premium, if any, on the Note as and when due.
3. As of the date hereof the Partnership is selling to WWT Partners (the
"Borrower") all of its right, title and interest in and to the "Project" as defined in the Note
and assigning to the Borrower all the Partnership's rights and obligations under the Loan
Agreement and the Mortgage and Assignment of Leases and Rents (as defined in the Note),
all of which obligations the Borrower has agreed to assume.
4. The Borrower and the Lender have agreed to extend the maturity date on the
Note and to provide for modification of monthly payment amounts thereunder and have
requested that the City amend the Note in accordance with the provisions hereof. The City
is willing to grant the request of the Borrower.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and further in
consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the City and the Lender hereby
agree as follows:
1. The name of the Lender set forth in the first unnumbered paragraph of the
Note is hereby amended to be Marquette Bank, N.A.
2. The monthly installment amount set forth in paragraph l(a) of the Note is
hereby amended to be $892.27.
3. The Final Maturity Date of the Note as set forth in paragraph l(a) is hereby
amended to be March 1, 2005.
729175.3
4. The definition of the "Borrower" set forth in paragraph 3 of the Note is hereby
amended to be the Borrower.
5. All capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the meanings set
forth in the Note.
6. All references in the Note to the Loan Agreement, Mortgage or Assignment
of Rents and Leases shall be to such documents as amended by the Amendment No. 1 to
Loan Documents of even date herewith among the City, the Lender and the Borrower.
7. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain in full force and
effect and in accordance with its original terms.
8. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which when
executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and each of which counterpart when
taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WltEREOF, the City and the Lender have executed this Amendment
as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MOUND
Its Mayor
(SEAL)
Its City Manager
MARQUETTE BANK, N.A.
Its
729175.3 2
CONSENT AND ASSUMPTION
The undersigned, hereby consents to the Amendment of the Note as set forth above
and agrees to assume all obligations of the Partnership under the Loan Agreement,
Mortgage and the Assignment of Leases and Rents.
Dated: ^ ...... · .m S~~i}i~
. ~, ..... 1995
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
partnership
WWT PARTNERS, a Minnesota
John D. Wilsey, General Partner
Charles A. Wilsey, General Partner
Gerald Tasa, General Partner
729175.3 3
RECEIVED SEP 1 1 ll]!
LAKE MIHNBTONKA CONaBR~'ATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7: O0 pm, Wednesday, September 13, 1995
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ]%HNOUNCEMENTS, Vice-Chair Babcock
READING OF MINUTES- 8/23/95 Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COHMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min)
1. L~KE USE & RECREATION
A. Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC), Staff Memo outlining adopted 10 step
safety policy by WYC;
B. Additional Business;
2. WATER STRUCTURES
A. Discussion on boat that recently sank at Curly's Minnetonka
Marina in Echo Bay;
B. Consideration of amendment of LMCD Code Section 2.12, Subd. 3
relating to canopy setbacks;
C. Additional Business;
3. ADMINISTRATIVE
A. Nominating Committee Report, new Officer nominations;
B. City of Spring Park, request to consider proposal for binding
arbitration with regards to milfoil payments from 1990-1993;
C. Additional Business;
4. FINANCIAL
A. Update on Investments;
B. Report on adjusted levies for approved 1996 LMCD Budget;
C. Additional Business;
$. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Willcutt
6. HEW BU8INESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
C~LL ~o ORDE~
RECEIVED SEP 1 1 l]g5
LA~E ~INNETONKACONSERV~TION DISTRICT
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ~EETING
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, Augl/st 23, 1995
Tonka Bay City Hall
DRAFT
Chair Johnstone called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: William Johnstone, Minnetonka; James Grathwol,
Excelsior; Joe Zwak, Greenwood; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Gene
Partyka, 'Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Spring
Park; Ross McGlasson, Tonka Bay. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD
Counsel; G. Alan Willcutt, Executive Director; Gregory Nybeck
Administrative Technician. '
Members absent: Tom Reese, Mound; Craig Mollet, Victoria; Duane Markus,
Wayzata; Herb Suerth, Woodland. Orono has no appointed member.
CHAIR ANNOUNCRMR_NTS
There were no chair announcements.
INSTALLATION O__F NEW BOARD ~EMBER
LeFevere administered the Oath of Office to Kent Dahlen. Dahlen was
seated on the Board as the Minnetonka Beach representative.
READIN_____~ O_~F ~HE MINUTE_____~S
Babcock moved, Partyka seconded to approve the minutes of the August 9,
1995 Regular Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on
the agenda.
CONSENT AGEND______A~
Zwak moved, Babcock seconded to approve the consent agenda items
identified by an "*" on the agenda, with agenda item iD removed.
Motion carried unanimously (Approved agenda items include: 2B- Kurt
Scheurer variance refund and 3A- 8/11/95 EWM Taskforce Minutes).
COMMITTEE REPORTS
LAKE USE & RECREATION
A. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report.
Deputy Ken Schilling of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water
Patrol summarized the activity report since 7/22/95. He noted
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 2
the Water Patrol had been extremely busy in this period of
time. He pointed to the unseasonably warm weather conditions
as contributing factors. He encouraged Board members to ask
questions.
Zwak asked Schilling if he felt the two significant boating
accidents this Summer were a result of more boats or larger
boats? He added the 1994 LMCD Boat Density Survey indicated
that boat count on Lake Minnetonka has remained constant over
the years.
Schilling stated he did not know if it was more or larger
boats. He added that there has been significantly more
complaints regarding personal watercrafts this Summer.
McGlasson asked for feedback from Schilling with regards to the
A1 Livingstone Para-Sail operation? He also asked how the
Water Patrol would handle if they received similar multiple
requests?
Schilling noted he was not aware of any complaints from this
special event permit. He added they are limited to use on Lake
Minnetonka during the weekdays on a one year trial basis.
McGlasson asked Schilling the role the Water Patrol has played
in the inspection of Eurasian Water Milfoil and Zebra Mussel
for boats foreign to Lake Minnetonka?
Schilling noted the Water Patrol has not played an active role
because of limited resources and personnel. He noted the Water
Patrol did inspect a large vessel from the St. Croix River
before it entered Lake Minnetonka.
Steve Tallen, Report from Prosecuting Attorney on 1995
activities.
Tallen agreed it had been a very busy Summer. He added that in
the past, some of the credit in the decrease of BUI's, careless
driving, and other offenses on Lake Minnetonka were attributed
to the aggressive prosecution of offenders. After activities
this Summer, he maintained that the decrease was related to the
lousy weather the past few Summers. He added with the improved
weather this Summer, he has seen an increase in the numbers of
cases.
Tallen reported an increase in the number of Personal
Watercraft (PWC) cases this Summer. He added a majority of the
tickets issued are related to shoreline infractions. He added
there is a resentment from these operators since they feel they
are being singled out. He stated it appears to be an
educational/enforcement problem.
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 3
Johnstone asked Tallen the success ratio in enforcement of PWC
tickets?
Tallen noted that all cases have plead guilty so far.
He added there has been a high frequency of DUI cases this
Summer compared to past years.
He outlined a letter from Frank Rondoni regarding a conflict
case. He indicated this was a case that involved the Wayzata
Yacht Club (WYC) and whether they complied with terms of
special event permit. He stated the event was a rhegatta where
a boat tipped and some passengers spent a significant amount of
time in the water. The permit required a chase boat, however,
he noted the chase boat at the event was also the judges boat.
He noted two charges were issued with one charge currently
being appealed and the second having a directed verdict of not
guilty. He noted changes have been made by the WYC to prevent
this from happening in the future.
Tallen reported fine revenue was low this Spring but has
increased in the Summer months. He suspected this was
attributed to the high turnover of personnel at the Water
Patrol this Spring.
Babcock asked Tallen if there is anything he would like the
Board to improve in the LMCD ordinances?
He suggested improvements could be made in education of the
public rather than through the ordinance amendments. He
encouraged education of the public at public accesses regarding
frequently violated ordinances. He used the speed limit at
night and the requirement for an observer while waterskiing as
examples.
.Sailors World, Letter from Gary DeSantis which addresses Board
concerns on open water at the deicing installation that extends
beyond the dock use area.
Nybeck reviewed a letter from Gary DeSantis which addressed
Board concerns on open water beyond the dock use area. He
indicated this letter was put on the agenda for informational
purposes.
Babcock directed staff to communicate to DeSantis concern of
the Board of open water outside the dock use are in general,
not only the west side. He suggested better containment of the
deicing for the upcoming Winter.
Seanote, Staff recommends full refund of $500 deposit for
preliminary investigation of new Beer and Wine licenses for the
charter boat.
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 4
Nybeck reviewed the process of new beer and wine license
applications and how the applicant pays for the initial
preliminary investigation. He noted the applicant, Jon Kietzer
from Seanote, had requested the refund, however, Hennepin
County had not submitted an invoice for the preliminary
investigation. He noted staff recommended a full refund of
$5o0.
McGlasson expressed a concern refunding the full $500 deposit
and receiving an invoice from Hennepin County at a later date.
He noted the applicant needs to agree to pay this and that it
should be a condition of the refund.
MOTION: Zwak moved, McGlasson seconded to refund the $500
deposit from Seanote for the preliminary investigation
of new beer and wine license applications, subject to
the applicant agreeing to pay for the preliminary
investigation if the LMCD is billed at a later date.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
E. Additional Business
Wayzata Yacht Club
Grathwol suggested staff investigate what changes have been made by
the WYC to prevent similar situations from happening in the future.
Johnstone recommended these changes be reported at the next Board
meeting in September.
Foster expressed concerns with how the Water Patrol and the
prosecuting attorney handled the case against the WYC. He noted
generally LMCD policy on similar cases have been to gain voluntary
compliance rather than criminal prosecution. He noted he had a
conflict of interest in this case because he is a member of the WYC
and is Chairman of the Race Committee. He added he stayed out of
this case because of his dual roles of LMCD Board member and WYC
member and Race Committee Chairman. He stated he is in favor of
examining a policy in which there would be voluntary compliance
with LMCD Code. He noted this is difficult at times since the
Water Patrol is granted independent authority of the licensing of
special event permits on all lakes in Hennepin County.
Babcock encouraged a spirit of cooperation between the LMCD and the
Water Patrol in the licensing of special event permits in the
future. He added he was not convinced the Water Patrol would not
adopt there own set of guidelines different from the LMCD because
of there independent licensing authority.
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 5
WATER STRUCTURES
A. Ordinance Amendment, 3rd reading of an ordinance relating to
reconfiguration of non-conforming docks on Lake Minnetonka,
adding new section 2.015 to the LMCD Code of Ordinances:
MOTION: Zwak moved, Partyka seconded to approve the third
reading and adoption of the ordinance. LMCD Board of
Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 5
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously
Babcock noted concurrent resolution regarding the measurement
of dolphin poles and other issues will need to be approved in
the near future by the Board.
Johnstone directed staff to work with Babcock and Foster on a
draft resolution on how to measure existing and planned
structures by the second meeting in September.
C. Additional Business
~Waters Development
Johnstone noted three issues that needed to be addressed by the
Board on this project. They were:
(1) Approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and a
determination on whether an Environmental Impact
Statement needs to be done.
(2) Consider approval of the multiple dock licenses.
(3) Consider approval of the variance at the north
dock site to allow the applicant to extend their
dock out to 200'.
He asked staff for their input on these issues.
Nybeck noted the EAW was published in the EQB on July 17 with the
30 day comment period expiring on August 15. He added comments
were received from the Metropolitan Council and the DNR. He noted
comments from both organizations were favorable, however, the DNR
suggested the EAW of the docks should have been done in conjunction
with the development as a whole. He added Julie Klemp, City
Planner of Minnetrista, drafted a memo addressing why an EAW was
not done on the development itself. He noted the concerns the LMCD
should have is on the dockage rights and not the development
itself. Based on this, he recommended a negative declaration'on
the EAW with no EIS.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Grathwol seconded to declare a negative
declaration on the Falling Waters Development EAW with
no EIS.
Babcock concurred with staff recommendation on the EIS. He added
the comment from the DNR was misdirected because an EAW on the
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 6
development is a City of Minnetrista concern.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
Johnstone asked for clarification if the Board would be granting
one or four separate multiple dock licenses?
LeFevere stated four separate multiple dock licenses would be
appropriate.
MOTION: Zwak moved, Babcock seconded to issue the multiple dock
licenses for the four multiple dock sites.
LeFevere noted two conditions of the multiple dock license that
were previously agreed upon. They were a no pre-build clause and
review of the covenants by staff and legal counsel.
Babcock recommended a friendly amendment to the motion to include
review by staff of previously agreed upon conditions. Zwak agreed
to this friendly amendment.
Marc Anderson, Lundgren Brothers Construction Co., noted the no
pre-build clause was agreed upon with the City of Minnetrista and
noted they agreed with this condition. He requested the Board
allow the applicant to put the pilings in the channel dock with the
slips on this permanent dock roped off until the corresponding
house is built.
Babcock recommended a friendly amendment to allow construction of
the slips in the channel dock structure prior to the homes being
built with the condition of no overnight storage. Zwak agreed to
this friendly amendment.
VOTE: Ayes (7), Nays (1, McGlasson); Motion carried.
MOTION: Grathwol moved, Partyka seconded to approve the
variance at the north dock structure to allow the dock
to extend 200' into the lake with slip sizes not to
exceed 24'.
Babcock noted a draft variance order was prepared by LeFevere
regarding this variance request. He recommended approving the
findings as presented.
Chuck Dayton, attorney representing the applicant, viewed this as
an application for 24' slips rather than 32' since they had
previously agreed to this condition. He added the findings do not
need to support the reasons for 24' slips rather than 32' since the
applicant does not intend to appeal this decision. He recommended
removal of the last paragraph on page 1 and the first two
paragraphs on page 2 since it discussed an application for a 32'
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 7
slip.
Grathwol and Partyka agreed to these changes.
Babcock asked if an amended 24' slips application was on file?
Dayton noted the basis of the EAW was for 24' slips at the north
dock site. He requested amending the applications on file to show
the applicant is requesting for 24' slips.
LeFevere recommended adding in the second paragraph on page 1 after
32 feet, "subsequently amended by the applicant to 24'". He noted
the order could be approved tonight with a corrected copy later
sent to the office. Grathwol and Partyka agreed to these changes.
Babcock noted he was not comfortable with these proposed changes.
He suggested the 32' slip discussion needs to be included because
of the previously lengthy Board discussions on this issue.
Grathwol noted the applicant has done a good job in this process.
He noted with there acceptance of the 24' slips that this would be
a good way to resolve this application.
Babcock stated the additional information on the variance order
would assist further Board's to come to the same conclusions.
Zwak stated the amended variance order should be sufficient since
review of the Board minutes on March 22, 1995 could be reviewed at
a later date.
VOTE:
Ayes (4), Nays (4, Foster, McGlasson, Foster, Dahlen);
Motion failed.
MOTION: Babcock moved, Foster seconded to approve the variance
order as drafted.
McGlasson expressed concerns with the storage of 1 boat for 88
residences. He stated he felt each residence would not be
satisfied with just one boat and would apply for additional boat
storage in the near future.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE
B. 1995 ~ Harvesting Report, Summary report from Project Manager
Norm Paurus:
Paurus reported that the harvesting season was recently completed.
He reported a total of 700+ acres, 386 harvester loads, and 1,900
tons of Eurasian watermilfoil and other weeds were harvested during
the season. He stated he was pleased with the personnel, equipment,
LMCD Board of Directors, Minute~, 8/2~/95, Page
and the weather. He added formal results of the season would be
presented at the next Board meeting. He recommended the Board not
convert one of the harvesters to paddlewheel propulsion since the
money would still be spent on an old harvester that is underpowered.
Babcock asked for the number of acres harvested twice?
Paurus noted somewhere around 100 acres were harvested twice.
Babcock asked where projected expenses are in comparison to budgeted
expenses?
Paurus estimated the harvest season will be under budget.
The Board applauded Paurus for a successful harvest season.
4. FINANCII%L REPORT
A. Update on Investments
Willcutt reported he had researched investment vehicles for the LMCD
allowed by the enabling legislation. He reported on a meeting with
auditor Mark Babcock where he received a recommendation on the
amounts of reserve funds to invest and the periods of time to safely
invest. He prepared an investment schedule using these
recommendations making sure there are funds available to pay for
operating costs and expenditures through 12/31/95. This was
outlined in a 8/17/95 staff memo. He encouraged the Board and the
Finance Committee to proceed on this issue.
Johnstone stated he was comfortable with recommendations from
Willcutt and recommended investing accordingly. He expressed some
questions about investing funds in the First National Bank of LeRoy.
McGlasson recommended approval by the Board pending review of the
Finance Committee. He added concern of investing $400,000 for the
next 12 months.
LeFevere recommended the Board approve a list of depositories for
investing purposes. He added the LMCD is restricted by its enabling
legislation on how they can invest funds. He noted it is much more
restrictive than how cities can invest.
Babcock recommended tabling these investments to the first Board
meeting in September so the Finance Committee can review these
recommendations from Willcutt.
Johnstone noted the investment can be done by the Finance Committee
without Board approval, however, the list of depositories needs to
be approved by the Board.
Foster questioned whether the $100,000 investment at Summit
Investments would be a government money market fund as previously
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 9
agreed upon.
LeFevere noted the LMCD is restricted to investing in bonds, notes,
and certificates of either the Unites States or the State of
Minnesota.
Johnstone asked LeFevere if there is a list of already approved
depositories?
LeFevere noted Norwest Bank has been approved and possibly one or
two others. He added some cities approve a larger list of approved
depositories for flexibility. '
McGlasson noted his concern with previous investments was not
whether it was FDIC or FSLIC guaranteed. He added his concern was
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 9
that the principal was at risk and the investments were no
conservative enough.
Johnstone noted the investments were liquidated not so much because
of risk but because of the volatility of fluctuating values.
He added the investments were approved investment but were
questionable on whether they were prudent. He suggested approving
qualified depositories so these investments can be made before the
next Board meeting. He asked LeFevere if the Finance Committee
could be delegated there responsibility of determining qualified
depositories?
LeFevere noted this could be done retroactive to ratifying these
depositories at the Board meeting. He noted the enabling act
requires the Treasurer to invest the funds.
Foster suggested investing all the funds in one money market fund
insured by the U.S. government on short-term obligation bonds.
Johnstone suggested either delegating these responsibilities to the
Treasurer or further discussing this at a committee of a whole.
LeFevere noted the City of Minnetonka has received high praise
nationally on their investments and suggested further review of
proposed LMCD investments by Dale Eggenberger, Finance Director.
Willcutt reported that projections on the equipment acquisition fund
will be short $115,284 based on an annual contribution of $35,000.
B. July Financial Summary and Balance Sheet;
The Board reviewed and accepted it as submitted.
LMHD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 10
C. Audit of Vouchers for Payment;
Zwak moved, McGlasson seconded to approve the vouchers for
payment as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Additional Business
There was no additional business.
5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Sprinq Park 1995 Levy
Willcutt noted he had drafted a letter to Spring Park requesting
payment of $1,644.75 for the first three quarters of 1995. He noted
he received a call from Patricia Higus, City Clerk and she noted the
City Council is not in favor of making payments this year. He
requested Board input in how to proceed with this to receive payment
from the City of Spring Park.
Babcock declared he was against his cities stance on this issue. He
stated the enabling act is clear on this issue in that it requires
each city to deposit the amount of funds levied to each city at the
depository designated by the LMCD.
Grathwol recommended an additional letter be sent to the city
council requesting them to pay their levy. If they decide not to,
it should be turned over to the county auditor to levy an additional
tax to pay their bill.
LeFevere questioned whether the LMCD would have the authority to do
this but he noted they are entitled to pay their portion of the
total levy.
Johnstone noted the LMCD does not have independent taxing authority.
He added we can bill a city for their portion of the levy. If they
decide not to pay it, a decision needs to be made on legal action to
get them to comply with payment.
Foster suggested LeFevere contact the Spring Park attorney to
resolve this situation.
LeFevere noted had been in contact with their attorney previously
and was not awa~e their attorney had ever rendered an opinion to the
city council on this.
Johnstone noted this has been on-going for quite a while. He added
he had sat down and talked to Mayor Rockvam and provided a legal
analysis. He added they have not responded with a credible legal
analysis to the contrary.
LMCD Board of Directors, Minutes, 8/23/95, Page 11
Partyka suggested writing a letter requesting them to further
discuss at a future city council meeting.
The Board directed LeFevere to write a letter to the Spring Park
City Council requesting payment of their levy outlining the legal
reasons. This letter needs to be addressed to the City Council with
formal action taken on it.
Administrative ~
Willcutt noted staff has received 30+ applicants for this position
with interviews scheduled for next Tuesday, August 29, 1995.
6. NEW BUHINE88
Minnehaha Steamboat
McGlasson reported it is in the water and that dredging has begun at
the Excelsior Park Pavilion.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9'42
P.M. ·
William Johnstone, Chair
Joseph Zwak, Secretary
CITY OF MOUND
SPECIAL RE Y UN DAY
SA TURDA Y OCTOBER 14. 1995- 8 AM to 5 PM
NO BRUSH WILL BE ACCEPTED ON THIS DAY!!
AT THE LOST LAKE AREA ON COUNTY ROAD 15
BETWEEN SUPERAMERICA AND THE POST OFFICE
GOODWILL:
MATTRESS:
FURNITURE:
CARPET:
TIRES:
APPLIANCES:
SCRAP METAL:
ELECTRONICS:
PHONE BOOKS:
BATTERIES:
NEW BINS:
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE ACCEPTED:
CLOTHING, SMALLWORKING APPLIANCES, GAMES, DOMESTIC ITEMS (PANS, DISHES, ETC.),
HARDWARE TOOLS, LAMPS...** THERE IS NO CHARGE **
THERE IS A CHARGE BY SIZE FOR EACH MATTRESS & BOX SPRING: CRIB $3, SINGLE $5,
DOUBLE $6, QUEEN $7, K~NG SB
CHAIRS $3, RECLINERS $5, LOVESEAT COUCH $6, SOFA $10, HIDE-A-BED SOFA $15
50 CENTS PER SQUARE YARD (Jute back only, no foam padding)
$1 EACH, $1.50 WITH RIM, TRACTOR AND LARGE TRUCK TIRES $5
$7 EACH this includes washers, dryers, stoves, furnaces, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers,
water softeners, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, trash compactors, garbage disposals, water heaters,
microwaves ..... $15 for AIR CONDITIONERS
SWING SETS, LAWN FURNITURE, GRILLS, BICYCLES {with tires $1), AUTO PARTS, SPRINGS,
PIPE, METAL WINDOW FRAMES (no glass), AUTO BATTERIES, ETC. ** NO CHARGE **
$4 EACH TELEVISIONS, STEREOS, VCRS, VACUUM CLEANERS, COMPUTERS;
No charge for: Telephones, Radios, Camcorders, Tape Players, This includes rechar.qeable and
cordless appliances
A CONTAINER WILL BE PROVIDED AT NO CHARGE
HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES ** FREE **
IF YOU BRING IN YOUR BROKEN RECYCLING BIN, WE WILL REPLACE IT OR YOU MAY
PURCHASE A NEW ONE FOR $6
FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS: The City will be accepting these at: $.25 for 4', $.50 for B'
CONCRETE: 50 cents per construction size block
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED:
Household plastics, plastic toys, styrofoam, insulation, window glass, rope, hazardous
waste (paint, oil, thinners, etc.) cans, glass, newspaper, cardboard, garbage, leaves,
foam rubber, construction waste, carpet padding.
ANY QUESTIONS, CALL CITY HALL AT 472-0603
ABSOLUTELY NO WOOD OR BRUSH OR LUMBER OR LEAVES
WILL BE ACCEPTED ON THIS DATE!!
CITY OF MOUND
LEA VES
- BRUSH-SCRAP WOOD
DROP OFF SITE
THE CITY OF MOUND HAS OPENED A LEAVES AND BRUSH
DROP OFF SITE AT THE CITY PROPERTY
LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 15
NEXT TO SUPERAMERICA
SATURDAYS and SUNDAYS ONLY
STARTING
OCT 21 THRU NOv 12
10 AM TO 4 PM
* * LEA VES MUST BE DEBA GGED * *
- FREE TO MOUND RESIDENTS -
.50 PER LEAF BAG FOR NON-RESIDENTS
BRUSH ITEMS ACCEPTED:
BRUSH, TREE LIMBS UP TO 12" IN DIAMETER, DISCARDED
LUMBER AND PALLETS
THE COST:
$3 PER CUBIC YARD
$1 MINIMUM CHARGE
THIS MATERIAL WILL BE CHIPPED UP AND AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC FREE OF CHARGE AT A LATER TIME
THIS SITE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND
IS SUPERVISED - NO DUMPING ALLOWED
QUESTIONS - CALL 472-0603
M
E
M
O
To~
From:
Date:
Subject:
RECEIVED 1 1 100
Mr. Mike Looby and Community Center Taskforce
Dr. Bill Morris
8/9/95
Westonka Community Center
Survey Methodology:
Residents were contacted by telephone between July 10 and 18, 1995.
A sample of 500 households projectable to the entire adult population within :t: 4.5 % in
95 out of 100 cases.
Geographical subsamples were apportioned by community:
· 100 City of Minnetrista residents
· 100 City of Orono residents
· 190 City of Mound residents
· 100 City of Spring Park residents
· 10 Cities of Independence and Shoreview residents
Geographical subsamples were also apportioned by school district of residence:
· 418 Westonka School District residents
· 82 Non-Westonka School District residents
Awareness of Discussions:
Only 30% were aware of discussions between the Cities and the School District about an
area Community Center.
· Most -- 44% -- knew only that there was a proposal, but no specifics.
· 32% thought that discussions centered around the building of a new community
center.
51% of those aware of the proposal had a favorable reaction; 17% were unfavorable,
while 17% had "mixed" feelings.
· Those who had favorable reactions pointed to the need for such a facility, pointed
out by 22%; good impact on children, cited by 12%; and, good impact on the
community, mentioned by 12%.
· Those who had unfavorable reactions pointed to the lack of need, cited by 12%;
and 8% mentioned akeady high taxes.
Awareness and knowledge of the Community Center proved to be very limited. Detailed
knowledge was sporadic. But, even so, knowledgeable residents were favorably disposed
by 3-to-l.
o7ff
If estonka Community Center Preference Study
.dugust, 1995
General Feelings taward an Area Community Center:
In discussing important facilities to include in a community center, 22% pointed to a
swimming pool; 9% cited a gymnasium; 6% wanted a teen center; fewer numbers
suggested an exercise room, "spa" amenities, senior center, hockey/ice arena, classes, and
sports facilities. But, 40% had no suggestions.
In enumerating activities or services to be offered at a community center, 11% suggested
classes; 8% wanted youth programming; 5% wanted a fitness center; fewer numbers cited
daycare facilities, swimming lessons, senior programs, hockey/skating instruction, and
ballfields. 59% had no suggestions to offer.
Overall, by a 52%-23% judgment, residents favored the eommction ofa Westonka Area
Community Center. 27% "strongly favored" the facility, while 12% "strongly opposed" it.
25% had no opinion on this matter.
Among all residents, a majority posted a favorable reaction toward the new facility,
while a small portion of the populace was opposed in concept..d swimming pool and
gymnasium were key facilities for inclusion in any Community Center.
Preferred Facilities in a Community Center:
The following list ranks possible facilities in order of their popularity:
Significant majorities favored the inclusion of six facilities:
· 80% favored an activities center for school-aged youth.
· 78% supported a senior citizens center.
· 74% favored a gymnasium.
· 74% wanted an arts and crates room for class and instructional programs.
· 72% supported an exercise and fitness center.
· 72% favored an indoor family fun leisure-type swimming pool.
Solid majorities supported the inclusion of two facilities:
· 66% favored small group meeting rooms.
· 65% supported a single large multi-purpose room with kitchen facilities.
Two facilities posted more marginal judgments:
· While 49% favored racquethall courts, 42% opposed them.
· 41% supported an indoor ice arena, while 51% opposed it.
If a proposed community center contained the features they most favored, 36% said they
would be "quite a lot" more likely to support its construction, while 36% stated they were
"somewhat" more likely to do so.
Westonka Community Center Preference Study
August, 1995
l~y a ,18%-32% judgment, residents supported the construction cfa new Community
Center over minimal repair, code compliance, and downsizing of the current Community
Center. While 32% "strongly supported" the former, 22% "strongly supported" the latter.
The median resident in the school area would support a $3.90 monthly increase in their
property taxes to fund the construction ora new Westonka Community Center. But, 35%
indicated an unwillingness to support any increase for this purpose.
In general, residents were willing to see their property taxes raised by a moderate
amount to fund the construction cfa new Community Center. However, one-third were
opposed to any tax increase for facility construction. There was a clear preference for a
new facility over minor remodeling of the current center. Key facilities for inclusion in a
new center, which ought to be the cornerstone of any proposal, included youth and senior
centers, gymnasium, exercise/fitness center, and indoor leisure fun swimming pool.
Fee Stru~d~ Membership Charges:
A project.~of the households reported that members would use the proposed
Community Center.
Among potential users, 14% stated their usage of the Community Center would be
significantly decreased ifa fee for a daily pass were charged.
· Even so, the median interested resident was willing to pay $3.40 for a daily pass
offering limited accessibility to the facility.
In considering individual yearly memberships, 53% of the sample indicated an interest in
this type of financial offering.
· Among those interested, the median potential user was willing to pay $78.00 for
an annual individual membership.
In considering family yearly membership, 54% of the sample indicated an interest in this
type of financial offering.
Among those interested, the median potential user was willing to pay $150.00 for an
annual family membership.
In comparison with other areas considering Community Center, this area had a projected
usership equal at the same point in time to the successful facilities in the Cities of
Maplewood and Chaska. But, while residents were willing to pay more than the
suburban norm for a daily pass, they were unwilling to pay as much as the suburban
norm for family or individual member-ships. This irregularity should be taken into
account when projecting financial easibility.
FROM:
WESTONKA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277
5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
Michael G. Looby, Director of Community Education and Personnel Services
August 4, 1995
RECEIVED AUO - 7 tgg5
Westonka Community Center Task Force Members
Mike Looby, Co-chairperson ~.~~
Sue Peglow, Co-chairperson /
COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE MEETING
THURSDAY, AUGUST 10 10:00 A.M.
BOARD ROOM, COMMUNITY CENTER
472-0341
The Community Center Survey has been completed and the results have just
come in! A copy of the survey is enclosed for your review. I have not had an
opportunity to review the data yet, but like you, I am eagerly anticipating the
moment-to read, learn, and discuss the preliminary results of frequencies for each
of the survey questions.
I have been in regular contact with staff from our professional polling firm,
Decision Resources, Inc. As we have planned, next Thursday we'll review the
preliminary report and discuss the findings with their representative.
A formal presentation, including a more thorough explanation of the process and
results, is scheduled for Monday, September 1 lth, at 7:00 p.m. This topic will be
presented by Bill Morris prior to our regularly scheduled 7:30 p.m. Board of
Education meeting. This would be a good meeting to invite others to attend such
as city council members, city staff, community organization leaders, etc. As a Task
Force member, I hope you will also be able to attend this presentation.
I'm sure our next meeting will be extremely interesting and provide a
considerabie amount of discussion. We
w,. more than likely want to take some
time to "digest" the data as we review the findings, and then consider what
action we should take in making a final recommendation to the Board of
Education.
Thanks for your continued support of the Community Center Task Force. See
you Thursday!
Decision Resources, L~d.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55416
w~STO~KA COMMUNITY CENTER
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
July, 1995
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a survey
research firm located in Minneapolis. We are calling on behalf
of the Cities of Minnetrista, Spring Park, Mound, Independence,
a~d 0rono in conjunction with the Westonka Public Schools and the
Mound and Orono Hockey Associations to speak with a random sample
of residents about issues facing the area. I want to assure you
that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential;
only summaries of the entire sample will be reported.
i. Approximately how many years have
you lived in this community?
Are you aware of discussions be-
tween the Cities of Minnetrista,
Spring Park, Mound, Independence,
Orono0 and z~e Westonka School
District about an area Community
C~nter?
LESS THAN TWO YEARS .... 7%
TWO TO FIVE YEARS ..... 20%
SIX TO TEN YEARS ...... 2i%
ELEVEN TO TWENTY YEARS21%
21 TO 30 YEARS ........ 13%
OVER THIRTY YEARS ..... 18%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0%
AWARE ................. 30%
UNAWARE ............... 69%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 1%
IF 'AWARE," ASK:
o
What have you heard about this project? (N=150)
DON'T KNOW, 15%; ONLY ABOUT A PROPOSAL, 44%; ~UILD
NEW COMMUNi~-~f CENTER, 32%. TEAR DOWN OLD CENTER, '7%;
SCATTERED, 3%. '
4. Are you generally favorable FAVOPJiBLE ............. 51%
or unfavorable about the pro- UNFAVORABLE ........... 17%
ject b~sed upon what ycu have MIXED (VOL.) .......... 17%
heard or read? (N=lS0) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 15%
5. Why do you feel that way?
NO ~NSWER, 17%; GOOD FOR KIDS, 13%; NEEDED, 22%; NOT
NEEDED, 1£%; NEED iV~DRE INFO, 13%; TAXES, 8%; GOOD
FOR COMMUNITY, 12%; SCATTERED,
Many cities and school districts across the Metropolitan Area
have either built or are considering building a community cen~er.
o
If local munic/palities were to build a community center,
what types of facilities do you %htnk it is important to
include?
NO ANSWER/NOTHING, 40%; ~XERCISE, 2%; POOL, 22%; "SPA
A~NETIES, 3%; TEEN, 6%; GYM, 9%; SENIOR, 4%; HOCKEY/ICE
ARENA, 4%; T~INGS POR ALL AGES, 3%- SPORTS, 3%;
CLASSES, 3%. '
Are there any particular activities or programs and services
the center should offer to serve the needs of residents in
this area? (IF "YES,' ASK:) What .are they?
NO ANSWeR/NOThING, 59%; YOUTh, 8%; FITNESS CENTER, 5%;
C~4%SSES, 11%; DAYCARE, 2%; SWI594ING LESSONS, 3%; SENIOR,
3%; HOCKEY/SKATING~ 2%' BALLFIELDS, 2%; ALL AGES, 3%;
SCATTERED, 3%.
DO you favor or oppose the con-
struction of a WesConka Area
Co~munity Center? (WAIT FOR RE-
SPONSE) And, do you feel strongly
that way?
FAVOR/STRONGLY ........ 27%
FAVOR ................. 25%
OPPOSE ................
OPPOSE/STRONGLY ....... 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 25%
I would like ~o read you a list of facilities ~hat could be
included in an area community center. For each one, please tell
me if you would strongly favor, somewha~ favor, somewhat oppose,
or strongly oppose its inclusion. If you have no opinion, just
say so. (ROTATE)
o
12.
13.
An indoor family fun leisure-
type swimmin9 pool?
A single large multi-purpose
room with kitchen facilities
suitable for receptions,
meetings, ~arties and other
rentals?
A 9ymna sium?
An exercise and fitness
Center?
Racquetball courts?
An arts and crafts room for
class and instructional
pro, rams?
i5. A senior citizens cencer?
STF SMF SMO STO DKR
27%
34% 31% 14%
44% 30% 9% 13% 4%
42% 30% 11% 14% 4%
20% 29% 21% 20% 10%
37% 37% 8% 12% 6%
47% 31% 9% 8% 5%
S12-BF2'B-Sl_~_~ DEZ:ISIC;,W ~ESFURC:ES -~39 ~C~4 .~,3:3 83 '95
17.
18.
19.
An acsivities center for
school-aged youth?
Small group meeting rooms?
indoor ice arena?
STF SMF SRO STO DKR
50% 3C% 7% 8%
24% 42% 11% 14% 8%
22% 19% 21% 30% 8%
Are there any other facilities you would like to see in an
area community center?
NO ~NSWER/NOTMIN~, 81%; WALKING TRACK, 1%; DAYCARE, 3%;
TECHNOLOGY CENTER, 1%; OUTDOOR POOL, 1%; CU~OR ICE
ARENA, 1%; TENNIS COURTS, 3%; BALLFIELD, 1%. THEATER, 4%;
SCATTERED, 4%. ,
20.
If a proposed community center
contained the features you most
favored, how much more likely
would you be to support its con-
struction -- quite a lot, some,
not too much, or not at all?
QUITE A LOT ........... 3.6%
SOME
.................. 36%
NOT TOO MUCH ........... 7%
NOT AT ALL ............ 16%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 5%
21. From our discussion so far, how VERY LIKELY ........... 34%
likely would you or household mom- SOME%¢HAT LIKELY ....... 37%
bors be to use the proposed SOMEWHAT UNLIKELY ..... 10%
Ccrmuunity Center -- very likely, VERY UNLIKELY ......... 18%
somewhat likely, somewhat unlike- DON'T ,~NOW/REFUS~D
ly, or very unlikely? ..... 1%
Two options are being considered for an area community center.
ROT~TEOPTIOA-~
[One option/The other option] would be compliance with minimum
code standards for fire safety and accessibility, as well as some
minimal repairs and maintenar, ce of the current Westonka Community
Center. Include~ in this proposal is the downsizing of the
current facility by the demolition of ~he 1939 portion of the
center, except for the gymnasium. Under this proposal, 1.9 mil-
lion dollars in existing funds from the 1993 bond referendum
would be utilized to make some minimal repairs and limited im-
provements to the current structure; but, no major facilities
additions or renovations would be made. The School District
would continue to operate ~he Cen~er w/th their programs and
services remaining substantially unchanged.
[One option/The other option] would be ~he demolition of the
current communigy center and the construction of a new facility
at the same site. Under this proposal, 1.9 million dollars in
existing bond referendum funds and land provided by the district
would be combined with revenue raised through the issuance of
municipal bonds to finance construction. This new buildin~ could
contain all current community center services as well as expanded
612-929-61AA DECI'_~I~-N REgOLIRCES 939 ~05 ~ILG ~3 'B5 13:39
recreational facilities. The new center would also contain the
School Eistrict, Community Education, ECFE, and Special Education
offices. The center could be operated through a joint powers
agreement between the local municipalities and the school dis-
trict.
22.
Which option do you most prefer
-- (ROTATE) minimal repair, code
compliance, and downsizing of the
current Community Center or con-
struction of a new Community
Center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do
you feel strongly t.hat way?
MINIM REPAIR/STRONGLY.22%
MINIM REPAIR .......... i0%
CONSTRUCT ............. 16%
CONSTRUCT/STRONGLY .... 32%
NEITHER {VOL.) ......... 8%
' BOTH EQUALLY (VOL.) .... 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 10%
If a new con~ur, ity center building were constructed, the issuance
of municipal bonds could require an increase in residential and
commercial property taxes to cover their cost and interest.
23.
HOW much would you be willing ~o
pay in additional property taxes
to fund the construction of a new
Westonka Community Center? {START
AT A RANDOMLY SELECTED PRICE
LEVEL) Let's say, would you be
willing to pay $ per month?
(MOVE UP OR DSWN--~-~ENDING ON RE-
SPONSE) How about $... per month?
(REPEAT)
NOTHING ............... 35%
$2.00
$4.00
................. 11%
$~.00 .................
is.00
$10.00 .................
$12.00 ................ 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 13%
Moving on ....
A fee would be charged for ~he use of tile recreational facili-
tY-s, to ccver the opera:lng costs of the Community Cen~er.
24.
Would the charge of a fee for a
daily pass to use facilities such
as the swimming pool, arts and
craf=s rooms, and health and fit-
ness center significantly decrease
your use of the Community Center?
YES
................... 24%
NO .........
· 11%
REFUSED ................ 0%
One plan calls for the offering of individual memberships to
recreational facility users.
25.
How much would you be willing to
pay yearly for an individual
membership? (START AT A RAndOMLY
SELECTED PRICE LEVEL) Let's say,
would you be willing to pay $
per year? (MOVE UP OR DOW/~ DE---i---
PENDING ON RESPONSE) ~ow about
$ per year? (REPEAT)
NOTHING ............... 33%
$50.00 ................ 26%
$i00.00 ............... 16%
$150.00 ................
$209.00 ................
$250.00 ................
DON'T KNOW/R~EFUSED .... 13%
61~-:'329-516,"3 DECISI-tN RESOIJ~CE5 _-339 =-'06 qdG 85 '95 1.~:-¢9
Another plan calls for the offering of family memberships to
recreational facility users.
26.
How muck would you be willing to
pay yearly for a family member-
ship? (START AT A RANDOMLY SE-
LECTED PRICE LEVEL) Let's say,
would you be willing to pay $
per year? (MOVE UP OR DOWN D~- -
PENDING ON RESPONSE) How about
$~ per year? {REPEAT)
NOTHING ............... 30%
$z00.00 ............... 28%
$200.00 ............... 18%
$30C.00 ................
$400.00 ................
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 16%
A third option calls for charging a daily fee to non-members of
the community center. This fee would offer limited accessibility
to the facility.
27.
How much would you be willin9 to
pay for a daily fee to use the
center? (START AT A .RANDOMLY SE-
LECTED PRICE LEVEL) Let's say,
would you be willin9 to pay $~
per day? (MOVE UP OR DOWN DE-
PENDING ON RESPONSE) Mow about
$~ per day? (REPEAT)
NOTHING., ............. 17%
SZ.O0 ..................
$2.00 ................. 14%
$3.00 ................. 22%
$4.00 .................
$5.00 ................. 23%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 8%
Thinktn9 about the ~, ~=
-ur~_nt community cenCer facility ....
28. Do you have any su99es~ions for o~her uses of the existing
facilities and the community center?
NO ANSWER, 85%: RENT IT OUT, 2%; MEBTING ROOMS, i%;
SChOOLS/EDUCATiOn, 2%; TEAR DO~, 1%; OFFICES, 1%; TEEN
CENTER, 2%; THEATER, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%.
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes ....
Could you ~ell me now many people in eac~ of the following age
groups live in your household ....
29. First, people 65 years or older?
30. Adults, under 65 years old and
ove~ 19 years old?
31. School-aged children?
0
..................... 82%
z ..................... -2%-
2
0
..................... 14%
1 ...................... 14%
2 ..................... 57%
3
.....................
4 OR ~ORE .............. 4 %
..................... 59%
1 ..................... 14%
2 ..................... 18%
3
4 OR MORE ............... 3%
~12-929-C~1~,~, DECISION RE~3ulRCE_~ 93'B PO? Ada 03 ~'95 13:4'_?
32. Bre-schoolers7
33.
34.
35.
36.
Do you rent or own your present
residence?
What is your age, please?
CATEGORIES)
(READ
Are you currently employed full-
C±me outside of the home? (WAIT
FOR RESPONSE) If applicable, is
your spouse or partner currently
employed full-~/me outside of the
home?
Gender (BY OBSERVATION:
DO NOT ASK)
37. ClOy Or Region
DO NOT ASK)
(FROM LIST:
38. School District
0
..................... 86%
f ..................... 20%
-.' OR MDRE .............. 5%
OWN ....... 83%
RENT .... '..' .......... 17%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0%
18-24 .................. 6%
25-34
................. 17%
35-44 ................. 32%
45-54 ................. 1~%
55-64 ................. 12%
OVER 65 YEARS OLD ..... 17%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0%
YES/YES ............... 33%
YES/MD ................ 13%
NO/YES ................ 19%
~0/N0
APPLICABLE .... 12%
NO/NOT APPLICABLE ...... 9%
REFUSED ................ 1%
MALE .................. 50%
FEMALE ................ 50%
INDEPENDENCE ........... 1%
MI~ETRISTA ........... 20%
MGUN~ ................. 38%
ORONO ................. 20%
SHOREWOOD .............. 1%
SPRING PA/qK ........... 20%
IN.
................... 84%
OUT ................... 16%
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
September ~, 1995
Dear Mound Citizen,
Your input will make a difference!
Mound Lakeshore Commons
In May of this year, Mayor Polston and the City Council established a task force to
review the lakeshore commons program and identify ways to increase citizen
satisfaction.
The task force has been exploring the problems and priorities of each group of citizens
that use the commons. We thank many of you who responded to our "exploratory"
survey in early July. The next step is to quantify the problems and priorities of each
group. That is the purpose of this survey. We will use the results of this survey to
make recommendations to the City Council for policy changes to the commons
program.
Please answer the following questions and return in the enclosed envelope by
The City Council will be making commons policy decisions based on your input.
Thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,
Commons Task Force
PJ
printed on recycled paper
LABEL:
Class? A B C D
Dedicated Common? Y N
Encroachments? Y N
Commons Task Force
Quantitative Survey
Draft 9/7/95
Abutters
I NOTE: The word "commons" as referred to within this survey relates to anyI
lakeshore property currently being managed by the City of Mound within the~
dock program. ·
What is your overall level of satisfaction with the commons program?
(Circle one.)
ae
Very satisfied.
Somewhat satisfied.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Somewhat dissatisfied.
Very dissatisfied.
How important to you and your family are the following uses of commons?
ae
Does Not
Apply
Inexpensive boat dockage. NA
Swimming. NA
Shore fishing. NA
Dock fishing. NA
Picnicking. NA
Impact of NA
access on the
your home.
lakeshore
value of
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Survey - Abutters
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements as
they relate to the commons next to your house·
Does Not Strongly Strongly
Apply Agree Disagree
a. The commons has an impact NA 1 2 3 4 5
on my backyard privacy.
b. The spacing of the docks NA 1 2 3 4 5
in front of my house
seems reasonable.
c. I am comfortable doing NA 1 2 3 4 5
the normal maintenance of
the shoreline and commons
in front of my house.
d. I am satisfied with the NA 1 2 3 4 5
appearance of the
lakeshore in front of my
house.
e. I think that the dock fee NA 1 2 3 4 5
structure is reasonable.
f. The size of boats (other NA 1 2 3 4 5
than my own) docked in
front of my house is
reasonable.
Having boat canopies
(ther than my own)
in
front of my house is
reasonable.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
I am comfortable with
having commons docks in
front of my house.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
The shoreline riprapping
in front of my house is
in satisfactory
condition.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
The City's commons and
dock ordinances exert too
little control over the
commons.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
The City has been
reasonable in their
enforcement of the
commons and dock
ordinances
NA 1 2 3 4 5
2
Survey - Abutters
Please Rank the importance to you of the following statements. Strong
priorities get more points than weaker priorities. Points must total
100.
EXAMPLE:
a. I don't want dock permit
h fees to go up.
b. ~ I want more control over
what happens to the
commons in front of my
house.
I want fewer docks in
front of my house.
Does Not least most
Apply important important
2o 3o 4o ~-~= 50
NA
0
10
0 lO 20 (~ ,~0 50 = .~0
0 30 40 = ZD
TOTAL ............ 100
ae
bo
Ce
de
ee
I don't want dock permit
fees to go up.
I want more control over
what happens to the
commons in front of my
house.
I want fewer docks in
front of my house.
I want the city to do
more maintenance of the
commons, even if dock
fees increase.
I want to keep my
existing private
structures on the
commons.
Does Not least
Apply important
most
important
NA
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
NA
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
NA
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
NA
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
NA
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
TOTAL ............ 100
3
Se
Survey - Abutters
To what extent are you willing to pay higher dock fees in order to
receive additional control and privileges over the commons in front of
your house?
ae
Willing to pay much higher fees.
Willing to pay somewhat high fees.
Unwilling to pay higher fees.
e
Which of the following locations do you prefer to use for (check one):
commons public
beach or park
a. swimming
b. picnicking
c. shore fishing
d. parties
e. dock fishing
What is your level of satisfaction with the balance that the city has
struck between the rights of homeowners abutting commons and the rights
of dock site holders that do not live on the lake? (circle one)
ae
Very satisfied.
Somewhat satisfied.
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied.
Somewhat dissatisfied.
Very dissatisfied.
If you have
deck, etc.),
structure?
/
a private structure on~ommons (e.g. stairway, building,
for
maintaining that
are you willing to take/responsibility
a. Yes.
b. No.
c.
Not Applicable.
If you have docks in front of your house other than your own, to what
extent do you find the docks to be a problem for you?
Very much a problem.
Somewhat a problem.
Not at all a problem.
Not applicable.
4
Survey - Abutters
If you have docks in front of your house other than your own, would yo,'
be willing to support a multiple boat slip system resulting in fewe~
commons docks in front of your house?,.~'
a. Very much. ~ ~J'~ ~~
b. Somewhat.
c. Not at all.
d. Not applicable.
LABEL:
Class? A B C D
Dedicated Common? Y N
Encroachments? Y N
Commons Task Force
Quantitative Survey
Draft 9-7-95
Non-Abutters
NOTE: The word "commons" as referred to within this survey relates to anyI
lakeshore property currently being managed by the City of Mound within thel
dock program.
What is your overall level of satisfaction with the commons program?
(Circle one.)
Very satisfied.
Somewhat satisfied.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Somewhat dissatisfied.
Very dissatisfied.
How important to you and your family are the following uses of commons?
ae
Does Not
Apply
Inexpensive boat dockage. NA
Swimming. NA
Shore fishing. NA
Dock fishing. NA
Picnicking. NA
Impact of NA
access on the
your home.
lakeshore
value of
Not Very Very
Important Important
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Survey - Non-Abutters
Please rank the importance to you of the following commons uses. Assign
points to each use with the total points for all uses adding to 100.
EXAMPLE:
Does Not least
Apply
a. Inexpensive boat dockage. NA
b. Shore fishing. NA
c. Dock fishing. NA
d. Picnicking. NA
most
important important
o 2o 3o
o
TOTAL ........... = 100
ge
Does Not least
Apply
Inexpensive boat dockage. NA
Shore fishing. NA
Dock fishing. NA
Picnicking. NA
Swimming. NA
Lake access near your NA
home.
Impact of lakeshore NA
access on value of your
home.
most
important important
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
TOTAL ...........
= 100
Which of the following locations do you prefer to use for (check one):
commons public
beach or park
a. swimming
b. picnicking
c. shore fishing
d. parties
e. dock fishing
2
~urvey - Non-Abutters
What is your level of satisfaction with the balance that the city has
struck between the rights of the homeowners abutting lakeshore commons
and the rights of the dock site holders that do not live on the lake.
Very satisfied.
Somewhat satisfied.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Somewhat dissatisfied.
Very dissatisfied.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements as
they relate to the commons.
Does Not Strongly Strongly
Apply Agree Disagree
ae
The dock fee structure is
reasonable.
The commons is accessible
to ,~a~ all Mound
residents.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Ce
The property owner next
to my commons dock site
is comfortable with
having a dock(s) in front
of their house.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
de
I feel comfortable having
my commons dock in front
of someone's house.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Se
The City's commons and
dock ordinances exert too
little control over the
commons.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
fe
The City has been
reasonable in their
enforcement of the
commons and dock
ordinances.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
ge
I am comfortable doing
the normal maintenance of
the shoreline and commons
around my dock site.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
3
Survey - Non-Abutters
To what extent do you feel that existing private structures on commons
(e.g. decks, stairs, buildings, retaining walls, etc.) are having a~
effect on your use of the commons?
No effect.
Somewhat negative effect.
Large negative effect.
Would you be in favor or opposed to a City multiple boat slip system?
a. Strongly in favor·~~,
b. Somewhat in favor. \ ~'"~%3~
c. Somewhat. opposed. ~ %
d. Strongly opposed.
Would you be willing to move from your current dock site in order to
keep your boat in a City multiple boat slip system?
Very willing.
Somewhat willing.
Somewhat unwilling.
Very unwilling.
10. Do you normally walk or drive to your dock site?
a. Walk.
b. Drive.
4
LABEL:
Class? A B C D
Dedicated Common? Y N
Encroachments? Y N
Commons Task Force
Quantitative Survey
Draft 9-7-95
Citizens at Large
NOTE: The word "commons" as referred to within this survey relates to anyI
lakeshore property currently being managed by the City of Mound within thel
dock program.
What is your overall level of satisfaction with the commons program?
(Circle one.)
ao
Very satisfied.
Somewhat satisfied.
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Somewhat dissatisfied.
Very dissatisfied.
Don't know or does not apply.
How important to you and your family are the following uses of commons?
Does Not Not Very
Apply or Important
Don't Know
Very
Important
Access to inexpensive
boat dockage.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
b. Swimming.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
c. Shore fishing.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
e. Picnicking.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Impact of lakeshore
access on the value of
your home.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Survey - Citizen's at Large
Please rank the importance to you of the following commons uses. Assign
points to each use with the total points for all uses adding to 100.
EXAMPLE:
ae
be
Access to inexpensive
boat dockage.
Shore fishing.
Picnicking.
Does Not least
Apply or important
Don't Know
NA
NA
NA
most
important
o ~o 2o 3o ,~o(~ ~:D
o ~o 2o~,~o ,~o = 50
o o6D o.o
TOTAL ........... = 100
·
ae
fe
Does Not least
Apply or important
Don't Know
Access to inexpensive NA
boat dockage.
Shore fishing. NA
Picnicking. NA
Swimming. NA
Lake access near your NA
home.
Impact of lakeshore NA
access on value of your
home.
most
important
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
0 10 20 30 40 50 =
TOTAL ........... = 100
Which of the following locations do you prefer to use for (check one):
commons public
beach or park
a. swimming
b. picnicking
c. shore fishing
d. parties
2
Survey - Citizen's at Large
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements as
they relate to the commons.
Does Not Strongly Strongly
Apply or Agree Disagree
Don't Know
a. The dock fee structure is NA 1 2 3 4 5
reasonable.
b. The commons is accessible NA 1 2 3 4 5
to all Mound residents.
c. The City's commons and NA 1 2 3 4 5
dock ordinances exert too
little control over the
commons.
d. The City has been NA 1 2 3 4 5
reasonable in their
enforcement of the
commons and dock
ordinances.
What is your level of satisfaction with the balance that the City has
struck between the rights of homeowners abutting commons and the rights
of dock site holders and other Mound residents that do not live on the
lake?
Very satisfied.
Somewhat satisfied.
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied.
Somewhat dissatisfied.
Very dissatisfied.
Don't know or does not apply.
To what extent do you feel that existing private structures on commons
(e.g. decks, stairs, buildings, retaining walls, etc.) are having an
effect on your use of the commons?
ae
No effect.
Somewhat negative effect.
Large negative effect.
Would you be in favor or opposed to a City multiple boat slip system?
a. Strongly in favor.
b. Somewhat in favor.
c. Somewhat opposed.
d. Strongly opposed.
3
Survey - Citizen's at Large
e
Are you interested in obtaining a commons dock site through the City of
Mound in the future?
ae
Very interested.
Somewhat interested.
Not interested.
4
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #95-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR A POOLv AND/OR DECK OR FENCE AT
2459 LOST L~KE ROAD,
LOT 15, BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE,
PID 24-117-24 22 0029
P&~SE #95-34
WHEREAS, the owners,~Perry and Doreen Hanson, have applied
for a variance to allow fof~he construction of a~.l within the
50 foot setback to the ordl' . Two ~tions were
requested to be approved as the below ground pool may not be
permitted due to soil conditions (a soil test is pending). The
variances requested with each option are:
OPTION ~1:
OHW
ABOVE GROUND POOL WITH DECK SURROUNDING POOL (DECK RAILING TO
ACT AS FENCE ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENT).
required existinq proposed variance
50' 45'+/- 19' 31'
TO EXIST- TO NEW
ING DECK DECK
OPTION ~2: BELOW GROUND POOL 16' x 32' OR 14' X 32' WITH A 5 FOOT FENCE
ENCLOSING POOL AREA.
OHW
required existinq proposed variance
50' 45'+/- 21' 29'
TO EXIST- TO POOL
ING DECK
SETBACK FROM
POOL TO HOUSE 10' - 7' 3'
FENCE HEIGHT 3' - 5' 2'
FENCE SEE-THROUGH
VISIBILITY* 50'
O' 50'
WHEREAS, *the Zoning Ordinance requires that fences within
any portion of the fifty (50) foot lakeshore setback shall maintain
a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain-link type
fence, and they must blend with the natural surroundings. The
proposed fence will be of chain link materials along the rear
property line on the lakeside, however, extending down the side
property lines, the fence is proposed to be a wooden privacy type
which is not considered to be see-through, therefore, a 50 foot
setback variance to this requirement is also requested within
option #2, and;
WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage is conforming with both
proposals, and;
Proposed Resolution
Hanson
P. 2
WHEREAS, it was clarified that in Option #2 if the size of
the pool is reduced to 14 feet, the Planning Commission recommended
that a 7 foot setback from the house be allowed in order to reduce
the setback towards the wetland, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City
Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front
yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to
the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, and;
WHEREAS, from a visual perspective, the lost lake wetland
area is not the same as the main body of the lake and other setback
variances have been granted for structures abutting other similar
wetlands, however, they were not within the shore impact zone, and;
WHEREAS, the DNR recommended denial, and;
WHEREAS, every other property on the wetland side of the Lost
Lake Subdivision is nonconforming to the OHW setback except for
one, and;
WHEREAS, other upland wetland areas have only a 15 foot rear
yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval, with conditions, by a 5 to 2 vote. Findings
of fact include:
To allow the owner reasonable use of their property as
there is no other location on the property for the pool.
Proposal is not inconsistent with rest of the
neighborhood relating to the nonconforming setbacks to
the wetlands.
- Unique property due to adjacent wetland.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant the variances as listed below to
allow construction of a pool, either Option #1 or Option #2.
Neither option should be constructed closer that 19 feet to
the ordinary high water, resulting in a 31 foot setback
variance. Approval is subject to the applicant conforming to
proper pool water discharging codes.
Proposed Resolution
Hanson
P. 3
Se
OPTION ~1: ABOVE GROUND POOL WITH DECK SUP~ROUNDING POOL (DECK RAILING TO
ACT AS FENCE ENCLOSURE).
required existinq proposed variance
OHW 50' 45'+/- 19' 31'
TO EXIST- TO NEW
ING DECK DECK
OPTION ~2: BELOW GROUND POOL 16' x 32' OR 14' X 32' WITH A 5 FOOT FENCE
ENCLOSING POOL AREA.
required existinq proposed variance
OHW 50' 45'+/- 21' 29'
TO EXIST- TO POOL
ING DECK
SETBACK FROM
POOL TO HOUSE 10' - 7' 3'
FENCE HEIGHT 3' - 5' 2'
FENCE SEE-THROUGH
VISIBILITY* 50'
0' 50'
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the
use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of
the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a pool and/or deck or fence
according to Options #1 and #2 attached.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Lot 15, Block 1, Lost Lake.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
i
/
/
I.
.%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/.
RESOLUTION #95-
.Z ~-o7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 28, 1995
CASE #95-34: PERRY & DOREEN HANSON, 2459 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 15, BLOCK
1, LOST LAKE, PID 24-117-24 22 0029, VARIANCE FOR POOL/DECK
At the Planning Commission meeting on August 14, 1995 this case was tabled pending
clarification of the following issues.
Q: Can zoning ordinance amendments (adoption of SMO) alter special provisions
approved for existing Planned Development Areas (PDA)?
No. Specific conditions of a PDA are not changed by subsequent ordinance amendments.
2. Q: What setbacks were approved with the Lost Lake PDA?
The Lost Lake subdivision was not processed as a PDA. Setbacks were not addressed in the
Final Plat approval for Lost Lake. The required setbacks for the R-1 Zone in 1984were as the
same as they are today.
3. Q: Clarification of all variances being requested for proposed pool.
Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995
OPTION #1' ABOVE GROUND POOL WITH DECK SURROUNDING POOL (DECK RAILING TO
ACT AS FENCE ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENT).
required existing proposed variance
OhW 50' 45'+/- 19' 31'
TO EXISTING TO NEW DECK
DECK
OPTION #2: BELOW GROUND POOL 16' x 32' WITH A 5 FOOT FENCE ENCLOSING POOL
AREA.
required existing proposed variance
OHW 50'
~F~ENCE
HEIGHT
45'+/- 21'
TO EXISTING TO POOL
DECK
3' 5' 2'
29'
The Zoning Ordinance requires that fences within any portion of the fifty (50)
foot lakeshore setback shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that
of a chain-link type fence, and they must blend with the natural surroundings.
The proposed fence will be of chain link materials along the rear property line
on the lakeside, however, extending down the side property lines, the fence is
proposed to be a wooden privacy type which is not considered to be see-
through. A variance would also need to be recognized to allow a fence that is
not a see-through type within the 50 foot setback of the OHW.
Impervious surface coverage will be conforming with both proposals.
The applicant noted that the size of the in-ground pool may be reduced to a 14' x 32'.
Glister questioned where the water goes when the pool is drained. Hanson noted that her
neighbor drains their pool into the street. The Building Official reviewed the stormwater
drainage in this area and indicated that there is a stormwater retention pond that treats the
storm water before it enters the wetlands. It was questioned if there are written regulations
relating to discharging pool water. Clapsaddle requested that staff investigate this issue and
advise them of their findings. Mueller also suggested that these regulations could be published
in the City Contact.
Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995
Mueller commented that he does not have a problem with pools being on the lakeside of
houses, or in the Lost Lake area, but questioned the hardship. Hanus referred to the original
staff recommendation and suggested that a practical difficulty may exist due to the shallow
lot and due to the fact that other neighbors have decks that are closer to the lake than this
proposal.
Mueller stated that he does not want to set a precedence using the line of site theory as he
feels this causes everything to get closer and closer to the lake.
The Building Official noted that, from a visual perspective, the lost lake wetland area is not the
same as the main body of the lake and noted that other setback variances have been granted
for structures abutting wetlands, however, those other variances were not within the shore
impact zone.
The applicant, Doreen Hanson, asked that both options be approved because she is not sure
if a below ground pool will be allowed due to the soil conditions, even though her first option
would be a below ground pool.
Voss commented that the owner should be allowed reasonable use of their land.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to recommend approval of the
variance that would allow for either pool, both Options I or 2, including all
variances as noted within the staff report, subject to the condition that neither
option be constructed closer that 19 feet to the ordinary high water, resulting
in a 31 foot setback variance, and to also approve a 7 foot setback from the
deck to the pool for Option 2. Findings of fact include:
To allow the owner reasonable use of their property as there is no other location
on the property for the pool.
Proposal is not inconsistent with rest of the neighborhood relating to the
nonconforming setbacks to the wetlands.
Unique property due to adjacent wetland.
Approval is subject to the applicant conforming to proper pool water discharging codes.
Michael noted that this proposal increases a nonconforming situation. It was discussed if the
deck surrounding the pool in Option 1 could be considered as a water oriented accessory
structure.
Glister referred to the DNR letter which recommends denial, and questioned if Mound should
endorse a pool as being a reasonable use. She feels that the City is missing the vision of
Mound by giving variances and that they are only increasing nonconformities.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, I995
The Building Official confirmed that every property in this neighborhood on the wetland side
is nonconforming, except for Veit's house.
It was clarified that in Option 2 if the size of the pool is reduced to 14 feet, the Commission
would still recommend that a 7 foot setback from the house be allowed in order to reduce the
setback towards the wetland.
Hanus stated that he is not one to judge that a pool cannot be a hardship. Glister commented
that the issue here is not whether a pool is a luxury or not, it is the conformity of the issue,
and by constructing this pool you are increasing the nonconformity.
Clapsaddle commented that the City writes a code that is not practical and cannot be
maintained and then the City issues variances to it. Clapsaddle compared this to the DNR who
is trying to convert a developed lake back into a boundary waters lake.
Sutherland suggested that maybe this subdivision needs special attention and maybe the shore
impact zone could be reduced when you are looking at wetland areas. He believes that other
upland wetland areas have only a 15 foot setback. Maybe wetland areas should be looked
at differently than main bodies of the lake.
Voss called for the question to vote on the motion on the floor.
MOTION carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were Clapsaddle, Weiland, Mueller,
Voss, and Hanus. Those opposed were Glister and Michael.
This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12, 1995.
Glister commented that we have ordinances and maybe they should be changed, but this
variance should not be granted. Michael agreed and would hope an ordinance change could
be made because what was recommended for approval tonight sets a terrible precedence for
Mound to do this within the 25 foot shoreland impact zone. Sutherland suggested this issue
could be discussed by the Council. Weiland agrees with all the reasons for opposition, but
commented that the City will never write an ordinance that you don't have to ask for a
variance. He feels this area is unique.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memo~ndum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 24, 1995
Planning Commission
Jon Sutherland, Building Official '~'-0--/c'~'"~'~ °
Variance Case #95-34, Perry & Doreen Hanson, 2459 Lost Lake Road,
Lot 15, Block 1, Lost Lake, PID 24-117-24 22 0029
At the Planning Commission meeting on August 14, 1995 this case was tabled
pending clarification of the following issues. Please also note the City Planner's
response that is attached.
Q: Can zoning ordinance amendments (adoption of SMO) alter special
provisions approved for existing Planned Development Areas (PDA)?
No. Specific conditions of a PDA are not changed by subsequent ordinance
amendments.
2. Q: What setbacks were approved with the Lost Lake PDA?
The Lost Lake subdivision was not processed as a PDA. Setbacks were not addressed
in the Final Plat approval for Lost Lake. The required setbacks for the R-1 Zone in
1984 were as the same as they are today.
printed on recycled paper
Memorandum - Hanson Variance
August 24, 1955
p. 2
3. Q: Clarification of all variances being requested for proposed pool.
OPTION #1: ABOVE GROUND POOL WITH DECK SURROUNDING POOL (DECK
RAILING TO ACT AS FENCE ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENT).
required existing proposed variance
OHW 50' 45' +/- 19' 31'
TO EXISTING TO NEW DECK
DECK
OPTION #2: BELOW GROUND POOL WITH 5 FOOT FENCE ENCLOSING POOL AREA.
required existing proposed variance
OHW 50' 45'+/- 21' 29'
TO EXISTING TO POOL
DECK
FENCE 3' 5' 2'
HEIGHT
The Zoning Ordinance requires that fences within any portion of the fifty
(50) foot lakeshore setback shall maintain a see-through visibility level
equal to that of a chain-link type fence, and they must blend with the
natural surroundings. The proposed fence will be of chain link materials
along the rear property line on the lakeside, however, extending down
the side property lines, the fence is proposed to be a wooden privacy
type which is not considered to be see-through. A variance would also
need to be recognized to allow ~ fence that is not a see-through type
within the 50 foot setback of the OHW.
Impervious surface coverage will be conforming with both proposals.
pJ
/
RECEIVED
Los~ Lc~
Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
gill
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jon Sutherland
FROM: Mark Koegler
DATE: August 17, 1995
SUBJECT: Hanson Variance Request - Case #95-34
When this case was reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting on August 14, 1995, part of the
discussion focused on the appropriate application of Mound's codes and ordinances to lots within the
Lost Lake subdivision. Specifically, required setbacks were discussed. The Lost Lake subdivision
was processed as a standard subdivision, not a Planned Development Area. Therefore, lots within
the subdivision are required to observe all standard setbacks including setbacks from the ordinary high
water line.
The Planning Commission also questioned setbacks in Pelican Point. Pelican Point is a different
situation since the project was approved as a Planned Development Area (PDA). As a PDA, the
placement of the units in some cases was allowed to encroach into standard setback requirements
because those encroachments were specifically called out in the plan and were formally part of the
approval. If a homeowner in Pelican Point desires to encroach further into the setback than shown
on the plan, they also will be required to obtain a variance.
I trust that this helps clarify the difference in setback requirements between Lost Lake and Pelican
Point.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
(612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160
261
RESOLUTION NO. 8q-170
October 9, 198q
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOST LAKE
WHEREAS, the final plat of Lost Lake has been submitted
in the manner required for platting of land under the City of
Mound Ordinance Code, Section 22.00 and under Chapter 462 of the
Minnesota Statues and all proceedings have been duly conducted
thereunder; and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with
the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of
the State of Minnesota and Ordinances of the City of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has suggested that some
changes be incorporated into this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, that:
Plat approval request for the Lost Lake is approved
upon compliance with the following requirements:
1. As per final Plat "Exhibit A".
Per requirements set forth in Resolution 83-12q,
or as subsequently amended by motion, approving
the preliminary plat of Lost Lake·
Escrow fund is to be established in the amount
of $3,600.
Pursuant to the City of Mound Resoluton No. 79-
501, the Park dedication and open space
requirements for the subdivision are satisfied·
Furnish the City with a performance bond in the
amount of $130,344. to cover 125% of the
estimated cost of grading, watermain, streets,
sanitary sewer, etc.; all in conformance with
the City plans and specifications before the
final plat is signed by the City at the sole
expence of the subdivider and in conformance
with Chapter 22 of the City Code; or if, in lieu
of the developer making improvements, the City
proceeds to install any or all of said
improvements, under the provisions of Chapter
q20 of the Minnsota State Statutes, the above
mentioned corporate surety bond shall guarantee
262
October 9, 1984
payment in full by the developer of the cost of
said improvements upon completion and assessment
of the improvement.
Driveway access to Lots 1 through 19 will be
provided from the newly platted Lost Lake Road.
Current validation of any State, County or local
permit approval such as Minnehaha Creek
Watershed, State Health Department, Hennepin
County Department of Transportation, enc.
Signing the Developer's Contract establishing
performance and requiring that the date of
completion of utilities and streets be set at a
date not later than the first anticipated date
of issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy.
If said Certificate is anticipated to be issued
during the winter months, construction must be
completed by November 30th. Said Development
Contract shall be Exhibit "B" and in no event
shall Development Contract exceed one year.
9. City Attorney's title opinion approval.
10.
All construction plans, Exhibit "C", shall meet
the requirements of the City Engineer and his
recommendation letter of September 11, 1984.
That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a
certified copy of this resolution to the above named
Owners and Subdividers after completion of the
requirements of their use as required by M.S.A.
q62.358.
That the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby
authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval on
behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the
foregoing provisions.
De
This final plat shall be filed and recorded within
60 days of the signing of the hard shells by the
Mayor and City Manager in accordance with Section
22.00 of the City Code and shall be recorded within
180 days of the adoption date of this resolution
with one copy being filed with the City of Mound.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the
Certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be
conclusive showing of property compliance therewith by the
Subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be
placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in
Del5
263
October 9, 1984
compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the Ordinances of the City.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Coun¢ilmember
Charon and seconded by Councllmember Peterson.
The following CouncilmembeFs voted in the affirmative:
Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none,
Mayor
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO, 83-1Z4
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF LOST LAKE ADDITION-
PID #24-117-24 22 OO18
WHEREAS, the plat of Lost Lake Addition has been submitted in
the manner required for platting under Section 22 of the City Code of the
City of Mound and under Section 462 of the Minnesota Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Mound has
reviewed said plat and found it to be consistent with the City plan and
ordinances of the City of Mound.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the preliminary plat approval
request application as described in Exhibit "A'l, Case No. 83-229, contingent
upon compliance with the following requirements:
The filing of a revised plat indicating surface water drainage
patterns and proposed street grades. Also before final plat
approval by the City Council, the petitioner shall submit to
the City Engineer for approval, constructions plans which will
include grading, drainage, streets and utilities. Development
Contract to be executed and approved by the City Engineer.
Submission to the City Building Official of a letter from the
Hennepin County Highway Department documenting the approval
of the proposed road access on County Road 125.
3. Submission to.the City Building Official of results of soil
boring tests conducted on the site.
4. Submission to the City Building Official of evidence of approval
by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the proposed
surface water drainage plan and systems.
5. Furnishing a duly completed and executed performance bond,
certified by the City Attorney as valid and enforceable, 125%
of estimated cost, $75,375.00, to cover:
· (a) installation of grading, gravel and base for streets;
' (b) paving of streets;
(c) installation of concrete curb and gutters;
(d) installation of water systems;
(e) installation of sanitary sewer systems;
(f) installation of storm sewer systems;
all in conformance with City approved plans and specifications
at the sole expense of the subdivider inconformance with
Chapter 22.00 of the City Code.
The provision of a ten (10) foot utility and drainage easement
along the front, sides or corner lots, rear of all lots, and
ten (10) feet equally divided between each lot on interior side
lot lines.
July 19, 1983
7. Before building permits for any homes to be constructed in
said subdivision are issued, a certificate signed by a
registered engineer must be provided. This certificate will
state that all final lot and building grades are in conformance
to the drainage development plan and minimum floor elevation
plans approved by the City Engineer as per development contract.
8. Pursuant to City of Mound Resolution /AT-~, the park dedication
and open space requirements for the subdivision are satisfied.
9. Approval of Title by the City Attorney.
10.
I1.
Failure on the part of the petitioner to submit a final plat
within one (1) year from the date of this approval shall deem
the preliminary approval to be null and void (Section 22.13).
Submission to the Building Official of evidence of approval by
Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Health for
sanitary sewer and watermain.
12. Submit street name for proposed plat, as well as signage and
street lighting.
13.
An escrow fund of $2,700.00 (minus filing fees, approximately
$298.00) be established to°cover City engineering, legal and
administrative expenses.
14. Divide Outlot A between adjoining properties with necessary
drainage and utility easements, where required.
15. Removal of all dead and diseased trees on the property.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and
seconded by Councilmember Peterson.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
None.
Attest: City Clerk ...
· I
iNC.
$
ADDITION
"1
RESOLU~: ION ~82-1
EXHIBIT "A'!
I o.: ; 7 '.' ·
-..: ..:':.!::.:
C
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 14, 1995
CASE ~95-34: PERRY & DOREEN H~NSON, 2459 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 15,
BLOCK 1, LOST LAKE, PID 24-117-24 22 0029, FARIANCE FOR POOL/DECK.
The Building Official reviewed the staff report. The applicant is
seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming
swimming pool and surrounding deck. This site is nonconforming due
to the existing upper deck that is setback approximately 44 feet to
the ordinary high water (OHW). A 50 foot setback is required. The
proposed pool and deck are setback approximately 19 feet to the
OHW. Hardcover is nonconforming at just over 30%, 40% is allowed
for lots of record, however, no changes are being considered at
this time.
The proposed pool and deck encroach into the required 50 foot
setback. Hardship has not been identified in their request,
however, other properties in this area enjoy decks of a similar
nature with a minimal setback to the lake. The neighboring houses
at 2453, 2465 and 2503 all have decks that are less than the 50
foot setback. The existing decks have varying degrees of
encroachment, with their setbacks being approximately 10 to 15 feet
from the OHW.
Hardship has not been shown, however, the Planning Commission may
wish to consider practical difficulty due to the situation of the
other properties in the areas, and the fact that the deck and pool
will have a minimal impact to the main body of the lake due to the
expansive wetland.
The Building Official proceeded to give comparisons of other
properties on Lost Lake Road abutting the same wetland and
indicated that all sites but one, constructed in 1994, are
nonconforming to the lake side setback. One property was issued a
building permit in July 1988 to allow construction of a deck closer
than 50 feet to the OHW, without a variance. It was determined
these conconforming structures were constructed prior to the
4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1995
'adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
The Building Official indicated that the applicant informed him
today that they are seeking another option involving an in-ground
pool, 24 feet from the OHW, with a 5 foot high fence surrounding
the rear yard. The 5 foot high fence would require a 2 foot fence
height variance. Pools are required to be surrounded by a 5 to 6
foot high fence. Fences within 50 feet of the ordinary high water
are limited to a maximum of 3 feet in height. Copies of a site
plan drawn by the applicant showing option ~2 were distributed to
the Commission.
The Building official stated the DNR would not object to a line-up
with adjoining structures, however, they would recommend approval
of any encroachment inside the shore impact zone of 25 feet.
The distance from the house to the pool was questioned. Sutherland
confirmed that 10 feet is required from the house to the pool. It
was noted that the adjacent deck is 10 to 15 feet high.
The applicant, Dorene Hanson, stated that if a variance is
approved, the pool will not be constructed until soil tests are
completed.
Mueller questioned if the Lost Lake Development was a PDA and if
they were granted special provisions for setbacks to the wetland.
Weiland recalled that they allowed this development to have shallow
back yards towards the wetlands in order to make the development
fit and get as many lots as they did.
The Building Official commented that he and the Planner has
confirmed that since the adoption of the Shoreland Management
Ordinance, a variance would be required and that the adjacent
properties are also now nonconforming. Mueller questioned how this
affects other existing PDA's, will Pelican Point now be considered
nonconforming?
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to table
the request for two weeks until clarification is received
on the following:
Can zoning ordinance amendments
SMO) alter special provisions
existing PDA's?
(adoption of
approved for
What setbacks were approved with the Lost Lake
PDA?
Clarification of all variances being requested
for proposed pool.
MOTION carried ? to 2. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle,
Mueller, Michael, Crum, Hanus, Surko, and Glister.
Weiland and Voss opposed.
This case will be heard by the Planning Commission on August 28,
1995.
PHONE NO.
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN
772-7910
FILE NO.
55106
August 14, 1995
Mr. Jon Sutherland
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE:
Perry & Dorene Hanson Variance Application, (City #95-34),
Lost Lake (27-150W), City of Mound, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Sutherland:
We have reviewed the above-referenced variance request (received
August 1, 1995) and we strongly recommend denial of the variance
request for the following reasons:
The existing house and deck are within the 50' setback from
the OHW of Lost Lake and do not conform with the shoreland
standards adopted by the City of Mound. The proposed pool and
deck are unacceptable because they will increase the
nonconformity of the existing structures.
The proposed pool and deck are within the 25' shore impact
zone of Lost Lake. According to State Shoreland Standards,
only water oriented accessory structures should be placed
within the shore impact zone.
There are reasonable alternatives available to placing the
proposed pool and eck within the shore impact zone of Lost
Lake. The applicants may use public pools and/or beaches.
Hardship must be demonstrated to justify receiving a variance.
The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on
the following prerequisites:
A. The proposed use is reasonable.
Be
It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the
ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to
"functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical
difficulty.
Ce
The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to
circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar
topography. If the problem is common to a number of
homes in the area, it is not considered unique.
"~(g~'~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Jon Sutherland
August 14, 1995
Page 2
Do
The problem must not be created by the landowner.
The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential
character of the locality.
In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department should be
advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final
action. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance.
Should you have any questions please contact me at 772-7910.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c:
City of Mound Shoreland File
Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist
Dale Homuth, Regional Hydrologist
Lost Lake (27-180P) file
CITY OF MOUND
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of August 14, 1995
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jori Sutherland, Building Official ~
Variance Request
Perry & Dorene Hanson
95-34
2459 Lost Lake Road, lot 15, Block 1, Lost Lake, PID #24-117-24 22 0029.
R-1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a
nonconforming swimming pool and surrounding deck. This site is nonconforming due to the
existing upper deck that is setback approximately 44 feet to the ordinary high water (OHW).
A 50 foot setback is required. The proposed pool and deck are setback approximately 19
feet to the OHW. Hardcover is nonconforming at just over 30%, 40% is allowed for lots of
record, however, no changes are being considered at this time.
COMMENT: The new pool and deck encroach a substantial amount into the required 50 foot
setback. Hardship has not been identified in their request, however, other properties in this
area enjoy decks of a similar nature with a minimal setback to the lake. The neighboring
houses at 2453, 2465 and 2503 all have decks that are less than the 50 foot setback. The
existing decks have varying degrees of encroachment, with their setbacks being
approximately 10 to 15 feet from the OHW.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Hardship has not been shown, however, the Planning
Commission may wish to consider practical difficulty due to the situation of the other
properties in the areas, and the fact that the deck and pool will have a minimal impact to the
main body of the lake due to the expansive wetland.
JS:pj
The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the C/ty Counc// on August
22, 1995.
printed on recycled paper
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0~20
Planning Commission Date: (~C L~%-~
City Council Date: (~C-AI ~ ~'
Distribution:
14
CiTY
Application Fee: $50.00
$o.qS-3q-
City Planner Public Works
City Engineer Q-~"ol~:15 DNR
Other
Please type or print the following information:
Address of Subject Property ~l.~ 5
Block
Addition LO S ~c [~w_~ O__ PID No.
District Use of Property:
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes,'~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
. Variance Application (11/93)
Page 2
Case No.
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning,
district in which it is located? Yes (), Not~ If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
.3
SETBACKS: required
requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (NSEW)
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ( N S E W )
: (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
.50 ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
sq ft
-3cV 7o
ft. ft.
ff. ft.
ft. ft.
ft. ft.
ff. ff.
sq ft sq ft
sq ft 'q'~- } sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it i
located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow
( ) too small
( ) too shallow
Please describe: ?Fx. OxO P_~( ~
( ) topography
( ) drainage
( ) shape
( ) soil
( ) existing situation
(~other: specify
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
N~(,~. If yes, explain:
Yes (),
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
,O
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Date ~zc~/tO//~c'/6'"
/cd'{, ~ /
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S' NAME: '
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
//t 2 z1'2. .SQ. FT. X 30%
//,Z~2- SQ. FT. X 40%
= (for all lots) .. ............ I .?.~ ?.;7 I
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... I ~Y'~' 9 ? I
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 perCent ~'6~era'ge provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1 (se'e back)'. A plan.must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
BLDGS
=
=
TOTAL DRIVEWA¥;'ETC .......
X =
' TOTAl.' 'DECK .... : ..............................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAl- HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER I OVER (indicate diTference) ...............................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
TOTAL DETACHED
~/y¢ x
~". £u~ 7, ? x
(Fxxc, &u,tc k: X
DECKS Open decke {1/4" min.
opening between boarde} with a
pervioul'eurface under ere
not counted as hardcove'r
OTHER
PREPARED BY
I
DATE
Z
/Z7/
.~ ,/03
77¢ol
,I
7-z¥-~
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
~o~ ~^ //~/~- SQ. ~.
LOT AREA ///~/--2/~- SQ. ~.
~o~ A.~ s~. ~.
X 30% =
X 40% =
(for all lots) .............. J ,_~ ~)~-~j J
(for Lots of Record*) ....... [ /-7//-~9 ~/ I
X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. J j
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
HOUSE
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
~/h~' x : /~
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X :
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY DATE
L UT'I~PJ, tAN HOI~7.S
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
~ND SURVEYOP~
REGIb~I~ERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
66O-3093
7601 - 73rd Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
Denotes Mood Ilub ~cet
For Excavation Only
Denotes Surface Drainage
Denotes Proposed Elevation
Denotes Existing Elevation
Bencl~ark: Top of ttydrant 50 feet ~est of Lakeland
Lnne South side Bartlett Blvd.
Elev. - 939.93
Top of Block
Garage Floor
Lo~est Most Floor
INVOICE NO. 19599
F. B. NO. 350-35
SCALE I" go'
O- DENOTES IRON
Lot 14, Block 1, LOST LA~ ADDITION
The o~ly ~a~ements a~mm am from plata of reco~d o~ Infom3atkm ~ by
client.
ina heellby ~ertlfy thai this Is a true and cow~:! ~Fe~entallon of a lun~y of the
bo~JndaHes of Ihe ~ (le~cHbed land &~d the k:)callon of lit buildings I~d vtl-
Ibte ef'k.'foechments, II any, Imm O~ off laid land.
Su~eyedl~usthtB 19th dayof. March 19, 87
,~q~aymond A. Pr~ch, Minn. Reg. No. 6743
I1
Certif'icate of Survey
for Eck]ey Schneider Construction
of Lot 16, Block ], Lost Lake
Hennepin County, Minnesota
~t
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of
the boundaries of Lot 16, Block ], Lost Lake, the location of all existing
buildings, if any, thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed bui!d!ng.
It does no% purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
Date
Scale
0
Datum
2-11-87
1": 30'
Iron marker
City sewer
Proposed elevation
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
//_..~-~ .aL ..~d. ~ ,.
~:~¥i~-5. Gronberg Mn. L~c. No. T2-7.~;5'--
Engineers, Land Surveyors. P].anners
Long Lake, Minnesota
ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: EXIST. LOT AREA:
I o,t oo
~REOUIREO STRE~ FRONTAGE~IDTH: ~O /
~x,s~,.~ ~o~ ~,~.: ~o ' ~ .x,s~,~ ~o~ ~..~.: I~ 5 ' ~/_
REQUIRED SETBACKS
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
50' (measured from O.H.W.)
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF: ~ ·
EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W 4'
LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.)
TOP OF BLUFF:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE
FRONT: N S E W ~
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: (~ W
SIDE: W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
}C) '
Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600.
LOT ~0
~9
(~9)
ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED
FRONT: N S E W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
SIDE: N S E W
REAR: N S E W
LAKESHORE:
TOP OF BLUFF:
IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES / NO / 7
ion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning
LOT ~
0
RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,123
WHEREAS, there is a Resolution #80-223 with the Hennepin County Auditor
directing a levy of $3,123 for General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980; and,
WHEREAS, it appears that there will be sufficient funds to cover the principal
and interest due in 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to make the levy
of $3,123 for 1996 taxes payable for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980.
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 Manager
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMO
TO:
FROM:
REF:
CHIEF HARREL~
SGT McKINLEY
REQUEST FOR STOP SIGN, RESTHAVEN AND 3 PTS BLVD
The intersection of Resthaven Lane and Three Points Blvd is a "T" intersection.
Resthaven Lane intersects Three Points at approximately a 90 degree angle. Three
Points Blvd is a through street.
As a vehicle approaches Three Points Blvd on Resthaven Lane the drivers view to the
east, or his/her right, is partially obstructed by the landscape. There appears to be at
least a 3 foot rise in the topography at that intersection as well as a power/telephone
pole, street sign, and the YIELD sign.
A further concern for the driver would be the configuration of roadway for Three
Points Bivd itself. As east bound traffic approaches Resthaven Lane on Three Points
Blvd the roadway has a incline and a curve. This curve continues for distance after
Resthaven Lane and the incline becomes a decline. For these reasons it makes it more
difficult for the driver to safely pull out onto Three Points Blvd. from Resthaven
Lane.
State Statute 169.201 states "The driver of a vehicle approaching a YIELD sign shall
slow to a speed that is reasonable for conditions of traffic and visibility, and stop if
necessary, and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian legally crossing the roadway,
and to all vehicles on the intersecting street or highway which are so close as to
constitute an immediate hazard."
After viewing this intersection, the roadway, and the topography it is my opinion that
any traffic, which would be approaching Three Points BIvd on Resthaven Lane,
would have to come to a stop to safely enter that intersection. A YIELD sign may give
a false sense of security to a driver who is unfamiliar to are~ The driver may believe
he/she has an unobstructed view of the intersection as he/she approaches it and may
proceed into the intersection when, in fact, there is an immediate hazard in the area
not readily apparent to the driver.
It is my suggestion, and opinion, that the YIELD sign at the intersection of
Resthaven Lane and Three Points Blvd be changed to a STOP sign.
LAW OFFICES
BRIGGS XND MORGAN
PROFESSION~ AS SOCL~TION
~4OO I D S CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~
(612) 334-8513
TELEPHONE (61~; 8[~4-84OO
FACSIMILE (612; 334-88~50
August 25, 1995
SA/NT PAUL OFFICE
2~OO FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1515101
TELEPHONE (012) 1~O-OOOO
FACSIMILE (Ol~ ~8-~
Edward Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
RECEIVED 2 8 995
Re:
$160,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude,
Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith Properties Project)
Dear Ed:
Pursuant to our phone conversation, enclosed for consideration by the City Council
at its meeting on September 12th is a resolution authorizing execution of an amendment to
the above-referenced Note and related loan documents. Also included with this letter are
copies of the Amendment to Note, Amendment to Loan Documents, and Form of Bond
Counsel Opinion which are referred to in the City Resolution. As we discussed, Marquette
Bank, N.A. and the purchaser of the property wish to extend the final maturity date of this
Note by five years and thereby reduce the monthly installments of principal and interest due
under the Note. Briggs and Morgan acted as bond counsel in connection with issuance of
the Note in 1980 and we are prepared to give an approving opinion for the extension.
By copy of this letter, I am also sending these documents to Curt Pearson for his
review. If either of you have any questions or comments, please call me.
TJH/jml
Enclosures
cc: Curtis A. Pearson (w/enc.)
Very truly yours,
Tr!d!j. H~
Jerry Pietrowski (w/enc.) (via messenger)
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY
OF RELATING TO THE $160,000
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE OF 1980
(VICTOR N. JUDE, DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH
PROPERTIES PROJECT)
AND DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO
WltEREAS, pursuant to a Note Resolution adopted by the City Council on February
19, 1980 (the "Resolution"), the City issued its $160,000 Commercial Development Revenue
Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith Properties Project) dated as
of February 29, 1980 (the "Note"), to provide financing for Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas,
and Ralph J. Smith Properties, a Minnesota partnership (the "Partnership"), to acquire and
construct a commercial facility located at 2361 Wilshire Boulevard in Mound, Minnesota (the
"Project"). The proceeds of the Note were loaned to the Partnership pursuant to a Loan
Agreement dated February 29, 1980 (the "Loan Agreement"). The Note was purchased by
State Bank of Mound, now known as Marquette Bank, N.A. (the "Lender"). Pursuant to an
Assignment of Loan Agreement dated February 29, 1980 (the "Pledge Agreement"), the City
pledged and assigned to the Lender its right, title and interest in the Loan Agreement
(except for rights to certain payments and indemnification) as security for the Note. The
obligations of the Partnership under the Loan Agreement including the obligation to repay
the Note are secured by a Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement
dated February 29, 1980, executed by the Partnership in favor of the Lender (the
"Mortgage") and by an Assignment of Leases and Rents dated February 29, 1980, executed
by the Partnership in favor of the Lender (the "Assignment"); and
WHEREAS, the Partnership has sold the Project and transferred and assigned all of
its rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage and the Assignment to
WWT Partners, a Minnesota partnership consisting of John D. Wilsey, Charles A. Wilsey
and Gerald Tasa (the "Borrower"); and
WHERE~S, the Lender and the Borrower have agreed to extend the final maturity
date of the Note and to reduce the monthly payments due under the Note as set forth in the
Amendment No. 1 to Note which has been submitted to the Council for approval (the "Note
Amendment") and have agreed to amend the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, the
Mortgage and the Assignment pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to Loan Documents (the
"Loan Documents Amendment") which has also been submitted to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Mound as
follows:
1. The City shall proceed forthwith to execute and deliver the Note Amendment
and the Loan Documents Amendment substantially in the forms and upon the terms set
forth in the forms on file with the City. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and
directed to execute the Loan Documents Amendment and Note Amendment and deliver
them to the Lender.
2. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to the Lender certified copies of all proceedings and records
of the City relating to the Note and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality of the Note, Loan Documents Amendment and
Note Amendment as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody
and control or as otherwise known to them.
3. The approval hereby given to the Loan Documents Amendment and Note
Amendment and other various documents referred to above includes approval of such
additional details therein, as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications
thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and
approved by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said
documents prior to their execution; and said City officials are authorized to approve such
changes on behalf of the City. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer
or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such
documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence of the Mayor or City
Manager, any of the documents authorized by this Resolution to be executed may be
executed by any other City Council member or officer of the City.
Adopted: September 12, 1993.
ATI'EST:
Mayor
City Manager
729261.1
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CITY OF MOUND
$160,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE OF 1980
(VICTOR N. JUDE, DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH PROPERTIES PROJECT)
THIS AMENDMENT is made as of the 30th day of August, 1995, by and between
the City of Mound, Minnesota (the "City") and Marquette Bank, N.A. successor to State
Bank of Mound (the "Lender").
RECITALS:
1. The City previously issued to the Lender its $160,000 Commercial
Development Revenue Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith
Properties Project) dated February 29, 1980 (the "Note"), the proceeds of which were loaned
by the City to Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas and Ralph J. Smith Properties, a Minnesota
general partnership (the "Partnership") pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated February 29,
1980 between the City and the Borrower (the "Loan Agreement").
2. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Borrower is required to make payments
to the Lender on behalf of the City in an amount sufficient to pay all principal, interest and
premium, if any, on the Note as and when due.
3. As of the date hereof the Partnership is selling to WWT Partners (the
"Borrower") all of its right, title and interest in and to the "Project" as defined in the Note
and assigning to the Borrower all the Partnership's rights and obligations under the Loan
Agreement and the Mortgage and Assignment of Leases and Rents (as defined in the Note),
all of which obligations the Borrower has agreed to assume.
4. The Borrower and the Lender have agreed to extend the maturity date on the
Note and to provide for modification of monthly payment amounts thereunder and have
requested that the City amend the Note in accordance with the provisions hereof. The City
is willing to grant the request of the Borrower.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and further in
consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the City and the Lender hereby
agree as follows:
1. The name of the Lender set forth in the first unnumbered paragraph of the
Note is hereby amended to be Marquette Bank, N.A.
2. The monthly installment amount set forth in paragraph l(a) of the Note is
hereby amended to be $892.27.
3. The Final Maturity Date of the Note as set forth in paragraph l(a) is hereby
amended to be March 1, 2005.
729175.2
4. The definition of the "Borrower" set forth in paragraph 3 of the Note is hereby
amended to be the Borrower.
5. All capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the meanings set
forth in the Note.
6. All references in the Note to the Loan Agreement, Mortgage or Assignment
of Rents and Leases shall be to such documents as amended by the Amendment No. 1 to
Loan Documents of even date herewith among the City, the Lender and the Borrower.
7. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain in full force and
effect and in accordance with its original terms.
8. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which when
executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and each of which counterpart when
taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WltEREOF, the City and the Lender have executed this Amendment
as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MOUND
By
Its Mayor
(SEAL) By
Its City Manager
MARQUETTE BANK, N.A.
By.
Its
729175.2
2
CONSENT AND ASSUMPTION
The undersigned, hereby consents to the Amendment of the Note as set forth above
and agrees to assume all obligations of the Partnership under the Loan Agreement,
Mortgage and the Assignment of Leases and Rents.
Dated: August 30, 1995
WWT PARTNERS, a Minnesota partnership
John D. Wilsey, General Partner
Charles A. Wilsey, General Partner
Gerald Tasa, General Partner
729175.2 3
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOAN DOCUMENTS
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOAN DOCUMENTS is made as of the 30th day
of August, 1995, by and among the CITY OF MOUND (the "City"), WWT PARTNERS, a
Minnesota partnership (the "Mortgagor" or "Borrower") and MARQUETrE BANK N.A.,
successor to State Bank of Mound (the "Mortgagee" or "Lender").
RECITALS:
A. The City issued to the Lender its $160,000 Commercial Development Revenue
Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith Properties Project) dated as
of February 29, 1980 (the "Note"), the proceeds of which were loaned by the City to Victor
N. Jude, Dennis J. Oas and Ralph J. Smith Properties, a Minnesota partnership (the
"Partnership") pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of February 29, 1980, between the
City and the Partnership (the "Loan Agreement") to finance the acquisition and construction
of a commercial facility located at 2361 Wilshire Boulevard in Mound, Minnesota (the
"Project") and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto.
B. Pursuant to an Assignment of Loan Agreement dated February 29, 1980
between the City and the Lender (the "Pledge Agreement"), the City pledged and assigned
to the Lender its right, title and interest in the Loan Agreement (except for rights to certain
payments and indemnification) as security for the Note.
C. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the Partnership is required to make
payments to the Lender on behalf of the City in an amount sufficient to pay all principal,
interest and premium on the Note, as and when due. The obligations of the Partnership
under the Loan Agreement and the Note are secured by a Mortgage, Security Agreement
and Fixture Financing Statement dated as of February 29, 1980, executed by the Partnership
in favor of the Lender, and filed in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles
(the "Registrar") on March 4, 1980, as Document No. 1373183 (the "Mortgage"), and by an
Assignment of Leases and Rents dated as of February 29, 1980, executed by the Partnership
in favor of the Lender and filed in the office of the Registrar on March 4, 1980, as
Document No. 1373185 (the "Assignment").
D. As of the date hereof, the Partnership has sold and transferred all of its right,
title and interest in the Project to the Borrower and the Borrower has assumed all of the
Partnership's rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement, Mortgage and Assignment.
E. As of the date hereof, $66,976.85 in principal plus accrued interest remains
outstanding under the Note.
F. The Lender, the City and the Borrower have agreed to extend the final
maturity date of the Note and reduce the monthly payment amounts thereunder as set forth
729248.1
in Amendment No. 1 to Note dated as of the date hereof, executed by the City and the
Lender and consented to by the Lender and Borrower (the "Note Amendment").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is hereby
agreed as follows:
1. The name and address of the Mortgagee or Lender set forth in all places in
the Loan Agreement, Mortgage, Assignment and Pledge Agreement (collectively, the "Loan
Documents") are amended to be Marquette Bank, N.A., 2220 Commerce, Mound,
Minnesota 55364-1536.
2. The name and address of the Mortgagor or Borrower set forth in all places
in the Loan Documents are amended to be WWT Partners, 2361 Wilshire Boulevard,
Mound, Minnesota 55364.
3. Section 1.14 of the Mortgage is amended to recite March 1, 2005 as the final
maturity date of the Note.
4. The Lender hereby consents to the sale of the Project to the Borrower.
5. Ail references in the Loan Documents to the Note shall hereafter be to the
Note, as amended by the Note Amendment. Ail references in the Loan Documents to the
Loan Agreement, Mortgage, Pledge Agreement and Assignment shall hereafter be to such
Loan Documents, as amended hereby.
6. All other terms and conditions of the Loan Documents, except as modified
hereby, remain in full force and effect.
7. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which when so
executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and each of which counterpart when
taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1
as of August __, 1995.
CITY:
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
MORTGAGOR AND BORROWER:
By
By
Mayor
City Manager
WWT PARTNERS
a Minnesota partnership
John D. Wilsey, General Partner
By
Charles A. Wilsey, General Partner
By
Gerald Tasa, General Partner
MARQUETTE BANK, N.A.
MORTGAGEE AND LENDER:
By.
Its
729248.1
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of August,
1995, by John D. Wilsey, Charles A. Wilsey and Gerald Tasa, general partners in WWT
Partners, a Minnesota general partnership, on behalf of such partnership.
Notary Public
[Notarial Stamp]
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of August,
1995, by ., the of Marquette Bank N. A.,
a national banking association on behalf of such association.
Notary Public
[Notarial Stamp]
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1995, by ., the Mayor, and
the City Manager of the City of Mound, on behalf of the City.
day of September,
.,
This instrument was drafted by:
Briggs and Morgan (TJH)
2400 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612)334-8513
Notary Public
[Notarial Stamp]
EXHIBIT A
TO
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOAN DOCUMENTS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 29 to 36 inclusive, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F according to the Plat thereof on file and
of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Being registered land as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 563720.
729248.1
A-1
(612) 334-8513
LAW OFFICES
BI~IGG8 AND MO1RGAN
PI~'OFE S S IONAL ASSOCIATION
2400 I D S CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS., MINNESOTA 5154-0'~
TELEPHONE (6121 834-8400
FACSIMILE (6121 ~84 - 8~0
September __, 1995
SAINT PAUL OFFICE
2200 FII/ST NATIONAL BA/qK BUILDING
SAINT PAIFL, MrNNESOTA ~O1
[DRAFT]
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Marquette Bank, N.A.
2220 Commerce
Mound, MN 55364-1536
John Wilsey
Charles Wilsey
Jerry Tasa
2361 Wilshire Boulevard
Mound, MN 55364
Re:
CITY OF MOUND - $160,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
NOTE OF 1980 (VICTOR N. JUDE, DENNIS J. OAS, RALPH J. SMITH
PROPERTIES PROJECT)
Gentlemen:
We acted as bond counsel in connection with the issuance and sale by the City of
Mound (the "City") of its Commercial Development Note of 1980 (Victor N. Jude, Dennis
J. Oas, Ralph J. Smith Properties Project) (the "Note") dated February 29, 1980 in the
principal amount of $160,000 and issued our opinion of bond counsel in connection
therewith dated February 29, 1980 (the "Opinion") a copy of which is attached. We have
examined Amendment No. 1 to Note (the "Note Amendment") dated as of August 30, 1995
between the City and Marquette Bank, N.A., successor to State Bank of Mound (the
"Lender") and Amendment No. 1 to Loan Documents (the "Loan Documents Amendment")
dated as of August 30, 1995 among the City, the Lender and WWT Partners, a Minnesota
partnership and a Resolution adopted by the City on September 12, 1995 (the "Resolution")
authorizing execution and delivery of the Note Amendment and Loan Documents
Amendment.
?zgz?z.
BRIGGS AND MORGA. N
Page Two
September __, 1995
Based upon such examination and the examination of such other documents as we
deem relevant, nothing has come to our attention which would affect the tax exempt status
of the Note as set forth in the Opinion.
Very truly yours,
Briggs and Morgan, P. A.
/cas
Enclosure
729272.1
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1996 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND
BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,474,220;
SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $1,850,295
LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA)
OF $485,095, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY
CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,365,200;
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1996;
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby adopt the following preliminary 1996 General Fund Budget appropriations:
City Council 69,850
Promotions 4,000
Cable TV 600
City Manager/Clerk 185,590
Elections/Registration 11,300
Assessing 54,450
Finance 164,230
Computer 24,350
Legal 106,520
Police 822,530
Emergency Preparedness 3,810
Planning/Inspections 167,990
Street 404,360
Shop/Stores - 0 -
City Property/Buildings 92,950
Parks 136,680
Recreation 29,700
Contingencies 40,000
Transfers 155.310
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2,474,220
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following preliminary taxes for
collection in 1996:
SPECIAL LEVIES
Bonded Indebtedness
Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds
Total Special Levies
TOTAL PRELIMINARY LEVY
PRELIMINARY TOTAL TO BE LEVIED FOR 1996
Less Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA)
Preliminary Certified Levy
103,400
33.350
136,750
1.713.545
1,850,295
-485.095
1,365,200
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the preliminary overall budget for 1996
as follows:
GENERAL FUND
As per above
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Area Fire Service Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
Capital Projects Fund
Cemetery Fund
Dock Fund
Pension Fund
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
2,474,220
307,570
347,510
-0-
5,570
37,470
-0-
698,120
122,420
377,780
413,410
963.180
1,876,790
SUMMARY
General Fund
Special RevenUe Funds
Enterprise Funds
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
2,474,220
698,120
1,876.790
5.,049,130
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, hereby sets Wednesday, November 29, 1995 and
Wednesday, December 6, 1995, as the public hearing dates for consideration of
the 1996 Proposed Budget.
ded
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
and
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF
OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469,
OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 1996
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is the governing body of the
City of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received two resolutions from the Housing &
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound: one entitled, "Resolution Approving the
Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority Budget for the Year 1996 Pursuant to MSA
Chapter 469, and the other entitled, "Resolution Establishing the Tax Levy for the Mound
Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, must by
resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the
City of Mound.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, that a special tax be levied upon real and personal property within the City
of Mound in the amount not to exceed $24,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said levy, not to exceed $24,000 is
approved by this Council to be used for the operation of the Mound Housing & Redevelopment
Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, and shall be certified as a tax levy to the
County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before September 15, 1995.
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 Manager
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION- PORTABLE SIGN
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620
Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a
governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten
(10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed
on the premises of the advertised event. A permit is required, however is exempt
from all fees.
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
(If more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper)
Number of signs:
TYPE OF SIGN:
banner wall mount
~,~emporary permanent
· ,,.~ree standing
SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ft high x ft wide =
DESCRIBE REASON FOR REQUEST:
sq ft
DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.):
~,~/~ "-'"(~ ~M"fJ'..-.~- , ~' z' ~ ~ ' ,
Applicant's/S?~nature Date
//////~/////////¢!////////////~/~////////////~/~//~/~//////////~////~/~//////~/////~////~//~/////~///////~/~/
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
SEP 87 '95 11:08AM MCCOMBS FRRNK ROOS P.8/4
M, cComba Frank Roos Assoc~,!atea, Inc,
15050 ~3r~ Avenue NoS, Plymouth, Mlnneoom ~447-4739
Telephone
61 ~/478-~010
81W478-~53~ FAX
EnQIn~m
Surveyo~
September 1, 1995
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT=
Cl=y of Mound
Pelican Potn~
Reduction of Letter of Credt~
MFRA #741g
Enclosed lsa request from Boyer Constructton's engineer R.L.K.
to reduce the amount of =he letter of credit for the Pellcan Polnt
Subdivision. We have reviewed this request and inspected the project
to determine a dollar amount ~or the remaining wor~, whlch co,slats
mainly of installing the ftnal bituminous wear course. This will be
done next construction year.
The value of the unfinished work was determined by using the
contract unit prices which resulted in a dollar amount of
To this 10% or $2,354.00 was added for miscellaneous ¢on~lngencies
resulting An · total of $25,900.00. Therefore, we are recommending
approval for a reduction of the letter of credit from the original
amount of $108,214.00 to $25,900.00.
If you have any questions or need &ddtttonal information, please
contact us,
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES,
John Cameron
City Engineer
JC: pry
cc: John Boyer, Boyer Construction
p~l= :7419\lh~9-:L
INC.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
SEP 87 '95 ll:08AM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS. P.B/4
August 24, 1995
C{VIL ENGINEERING. · UPI~IN PLANNING · TWANSPOFFr"ATION
L,ANO$¢APE ARCHITECTURE , CONSTRUCTION k~NAGEMENT" · LAND SURV~'Y
Mr. ~ohn Cs.mcron, Y
McCombs, Frank, ioos ~ Associatgs
15050 23rd Avenue North
Pi.vrnouth, lvl'N 55447
Pelican Point Addition
Mound, Minnesota
Dca, r Mr. Cameron:
We respectfully request that the City take action to reduce th~ amount of development contract for
work performed at the Pelican Point Addition in thc amount o£ $304,995.03 for construction
completed to date (see.auached pay request #2, dated June 30, 1995).
All sanitary s~wcr, watcrmain and storm s=v~r, concrete curbing and aggregate b~c and
bituminous bssc construction, perform~ under contract with Brown & Cris, has been comple~l in
accordance with the approved plans amf to city suudardm. The instal~.tion ofth~ bituminous
wearing course is yet to be completedJ Grading is complete other than five lots currently under
builcl~ construction.
If You have any further questions or require addkional infOrmation, please do not:hesita~ to call.
Sincerely,
RLK Associates,.Ltd.
S~dor Proj~"t Engineer
cC:
John Boyer, Boyer Construction
Alan Kretn~n, RLI~ Associates, Ltd.
(612) 933-0972 · 6110 Blue Circle Drive , 'Suite 100 · Minnetonka, MN $5343 * FAX (512) 933-1153
SEP 07 ~95 11:08AM
MCCOMBS FRAMK ROOS
P.4/4
September 1, 1995
CIVIL ENGINEERING · URBAN Pt. ANNING * TRANE~ORTATtON · ENVIRONMENTAL
LANO~CAPE ARCHFTECTURE · CONSTRU~TION MANAGEMENT . LAND ~URV~Y
Mr, :Iohn Cameron, P.E.
McCombs, Frank, RooE & Associates
1~0~0 23rd Avenue North '
P .lymo~th, ~ 55447
P.E: Pelican Point Addition; Mound, Minnesota
Enimatc of Work RemainLug tn bc Completed
Dear Mr. Cameron: .
Wc estimate that the r, reet construction work remaining at the Pelican Point Addition, will cost
S21,250. This estLnute was derived using the contract amounts for'he following remafi~. ' g tas~
to complete the project: adjustL,~ gate va.lvcs and manhole castings; street cleaning prior to
installation of wearing course; applying bituminous ~ack coat; i:utalling biuuuinous ~v. aring
coOl'Se.
If you have any further quest/one or require ~dMonal information, please do not hesitat~ to call.
Sincerely,
ILLK Associates, Ltd.
Senior Project Engineer
cc: lohn Boyer, Boycr Construction
(612) 933-0972 * 6110 Blue Circle Drive · 'Suite 100 · Minnemnka, MN 55343 · FAX (612) 933-1153
Sewer
We spent some time cleaning lines with the rodder. We cleaned out some roots and bad spots.
We took delivery of our tandem dump truck. We set it up and have used it and so far it is
working real well. It will save us time. We also took delivery of the Jet Vac machine. It will
take a week to get it out on the street and use it. It needs lights, radios, etc. It will really help
us clean the storm sewers and the sewer main lines.
On August 6th we had the big storm. Everyone was working that night. There were a number
of trees down. The storm sewers were taking the water as fast as it could, but there was a lot
of water. Evergreen, near the water tower, seemed to be hit hard. There were lots of trees
down on City owned lots. The path to the storm sewer was blocked with tree debris. There
was a lot of erosion damage around the storm sewer. We had to set a new sump man hole. We
ran some pipe into the pond for drainage. We will fill in the ditch line since the storm washed
out most of the soil there. This is an expense of $8500 that we did not plan on this year. There
was also a fallen tree on the commons on Island View that fell on a boat. Them wasn't too
much damage to the boat. During the storm all of the lift stations were out for a period of time.
NSP had a lot of fuses and power lines that were down. A storm of this magnitude, when the
power is gone, the lift stations do not work. We can't do much about this. I believe there is
about 5 claims against the City for sewer or water damages in houses from this storm. We have
met with insurance adjusters and no decisions have been made on any of the claims.
GS:ls
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
September 7, 1995
TO:FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Parks
The summer flew by, the parks crew were very busy trying to keep up with the
mowing. The hot, wet weather caused the grass to grow unreasonably fast. The
attendance at the beaches were up due to the hot weather and they were staffed with
lifeguards for more hours due to few rain-out days.
With the end of August the parks crew will start to decrease with two of the tree trust
workers and two of the college students going back to school.
I feel this summer staff has done an excellent job keeping up the City parks.
We did begin putting various equipment away for the winter and will finish up in
September.
Docks
The Commons Task Force has been meeting regularly and have discussed many ideas.
A survey has been established and staff will be preparing it for City Council approval.
The dock inspector has been keeping up with the inspections of the dock sites. This
warm summer also saw a lot of activity and demand on boating. We repaired 70
linear feet of shoreline at Arbor Lane with rip rap and general clean up.
printed on recycled paper
Trees
With the storms in August, we saw a high number of trees damaged. From just
August, I have removed fifteen trees and had to trim a number of other ones. The
largest damage was on Island View Drive where a large cottonwood tree came down.
Cemetery
Again, with the heavy rains, we saw a lot of settling of the old grave sites. We have
repaired these as far as adding dirt but we do not reset headstones.
JF:ls
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF AUGUST 1995
FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE
i ,~ ANDmSEN × ~ ~ 19.oo 3 9~ 6.00 ~.no
2 GR~ ~N X X 2 19.O0 4 qq 6.m 594.00
3 PA~ B~B X X 2 19.00 2 80 6.~ 4~.~
4 DA~ BO~ X ~__ 1 9.50 2 54 6.~ 324.00
s sc~ m~c~ x x ~ ~.oo o ~ ~.~ ~s.oo
~ ~A~ c~ x ~ ~ ~.~o ~ ~ ~.~ ~s.oo
7 JIM ~S~ ~ ~. O -~ 2~ 68 6.~ 408.00
8 ST~ CO~S X X 2 19.00 4 50 6.~ 3~,00
9 ~B ~ X X 2 19.00 2% 63 6.~ 378.00
10 ~Y ~T X X 2 19.00 5 58 6.~ 348.00
11 ST~ ~I~ON X X 2 19.00 0 67 4 .
~ 6.'50 435 50
12 ~ FISK X X 2 19.00 2% 43 6.~ 258.00
13 D~ ~Y X X 2 19.00 2% 72 6.~ 432.00
14 ~IN G~Y X X 2 19.00 1~ 52 6.~ 312.00
15 C~G ~N X X 2 19.00 0 86 6.25 537.50
16 PA~ ~Y X X 2 19.00 1 0 6.~ ~-
17 JO~ ~N X X 2 19.00 1% 68 6.~ 408.00
18 J~N ~ X X 2 19.~ 2 50 6.~ 3~.00
19 JO~ NA~IS ~ X 1 9.50 3 44 6.~ 2~.00
20 JA~ ~qON X X 2 19.00 2% 69 6.~ 414.00
21 ~ARV~ ~,~N X ~ 1 9.50 2 47 6.~ 282.00
22 BR~ NTC~ X X 2 19.00 2 7~ 6-~ 46R_~
23 GR~ PALM X X 2 lq.DO 2 6~ 6-~ q9D.DD
24 ~.~I~ PALM X X 2 lq_OD 5 ~7 6.~ ~A? ~D
25 TZM P~ X X '2 19.OO 2 47 6.~ ~? nq
26 GR~ P~N X X 2 ]9.00 3 64 6,~ ~.nn
27 ~S ~. X X 2 19.00 2 70 6.m 4~n,OO
28 T0~ ~SS~ X ~ 1 9,50 1~ 33 6,~ 198.O0
29 ~ SAVAGE X X 2 19,00 14 76 6,~ 456.00
,ON o -+ o
= ,oc= x x ,,.oo 4 .oo
33 ~M ~N ~ X Z ' 9.~0 Z{ 53 6.~ 3Z8.00
~ D V~ X X 2 zg.~ ~ 80 6.~ 4~.00
35 RI~ ~U~ X X Z zg.00 ~4 62 6.~ 372.00
36 TII.~ ~S X X 2 19.~ 2 49 6.~ 294.00
37 D~S W~ X X 2 19.00 4 69 6.~ 414.00
33 31 ~
~ 82% 77% 1~ 608,00 111% 2~6 ~ 13,531,~
160 ~s ~8, ~
111% ~ 1~167,~
~ 15,306,~
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
THIS .... .LAST DIIS" YEAR LAST YEAR
~ONTH OF mr~-r 1~ MO~ MO~ ~ ~ TO DA~
~. 0F C~ .
1~ 65 ~ 4~
~OUND FI~ ~ 17 ~
~INNETONKA BEACH FI~ 3 0 9
~G~ 2 0 5 1
~INNETRISTA FI~ 5 5 ~ 11
~G~ ~ 1 21 31
)BONO F3~ 6 6 38 26
~G~ ~ 2 16 16
SHOREWOOD FI~ 3 0 7 0
~~ O · 1 2 4
SPRING PARK ~I~ 11 3 31 22
~'~ ~ 7 48 23
~UTUAL AID-' FI~ O 0 3 4
,.. ~~ ] 0 2
tOTAL FIRE CALLS 60 3~ 243 178
tOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 40 ~ 2~ 242
~CI~ 2 O 4 6
~tD~ ] % 7 54 35
~'~ ~ o 0 o
~S & ~~S 24 9 8~ 58
A~ 2 3 ] 6
F~E ~ / FIRE ~
19 12 82 6~
~. OF H~ FI~ 773 373 2812 2073
- MOUND ~~ 50~ 360 3463 3295
~ 3274 733 627} 5369
FI~ 60 O 205 33Z
- MTKA BEACH D~G~ 38 O 91 11
~I~ 1 l~ lol 740 2o3
- M' TRISTA ~.~G~ 86 23 385 572
~ 208 124 3125 775
~I~ 141 ~48 9~9 552
- ORONO ~~ 29 35 393 .261
~ ~7o ~83 ~2 813
E~~ 85 O 192
- SHOREWOOD ~~ O 21 ~ 73
· ' ~ ~5 21 236 73
F!~ Z77 52 ~7 567
- sP. PARK ~~ 101 90 922 488
~ 378 142 16~ 1055
~,~E O O 131 166
- ~ ~ ~G~ 33 0 50 27
T~ 33 O 181 193
TOTAL DRILL HOURS 160 155 1262~ 134~
TOTAL FIRE HOURS 1458 674 5736
TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 788 529 5~8 A79R
~ F~E & ~G~ ~S 2246 1203 l l .084
~UTUAL AID RECEIVED O 0 1 /,
MUTUAL AID GIVEN 1 0 5 5
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
ChiefLen Harrell
Monthly Report for August 1995 ·
The police department responded to 998 calls for service during the month
of August. There were 22 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses
included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 3 burglaries and 18 larcenies.
There were 87 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 child
abuse/neglect, 2 forgery/NSF check, 3 narcotics, 15 damage to property, 5
liquor law violations, 10 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 14 domestics (4 with
assaults), 3 harassment, 11 juvenile status offenses, and 19 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 127 adult citations and 8 juvenile citations.
Parking violations accounted for an additional 19 tickets. Warnings were
issued to 139 individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 5 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 34 adults and 23
juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 11 warrant
arrests.
The department assisted in 8 vehicle accidents, 3 with injuries. There were
35 medical emergencies and 55 animal complaints. Mound assisted other
agencies on 22 occasions in August and requested assistance 11 times.
Property valued at $8,242 was stolen.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - AUGUST 1995
II.
III.
INVESTIGATIONS
The investigators worked on four criminal sexual conduct cases and 5 child
protection issues that accounted for 64 hours of investigative time. Other
cases investigated were domestic abuse, narcotics possession, forgery, NSF
checks, damage to property, procuring alcohol for a minor, theft,
possession of stolen property, violation of a restraining order, gross DWI,
and absenting.
Formal complaints were issued for violation of an order for protection,
disorderly conduct, assault, minor consumption, careless driving, evasion
of taxes, loud party, and gross misdemeanor DWI.
personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 27 hours of overtime during the month
of August. Officers used 45 hours of comp-time, 136 hours of vacation,
16 hours of sick time, and 3 holidays. Officers earned 23 hours of comp-
time.
Three days of training were used for canine competition. One officer
attended EMT re-training for three days.
St. Grand attended three days of training for narcotics investigations.
Inv. Truax continued the Wilson Leadership program
The Mound Police Reserves donated 787 hours during the month of
August.
The reserve unit currently consists of six volunteers who are doing a
yeoman's job of covering the needed details. Reserves were very helpful in
making National Night Out a success.
Recruiting efforts have not been very productive and we continue to look
for quality individuals to join the reserves.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 1995
O~'~x. NSE S CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED
REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT
PART I CRIMES
Homicide
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
Arson
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0
18 1 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect
Forgery/NSF Checks
Criminal Damage to Property
Weapons
Narcotic Laws
Liquor Laws
DWI
Simple Assault
Domestic Assault
Domestic (No Assault)
Harassment
Juvenile Status Offenses
Public Peace
Trespassing
All Other Offenses
22 2 0 I 0 5
2 2 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 1
15 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 3 2 0
5 0 0 4 3 2
10 0 0 10 10 0
3 0 1 0 1 0
4 0 0 3 3 0
10 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 1
11 0 0 10 0 19
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 1 13 14 0
TOTAL
87 3 5 43 34 23
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTAL
5
3
0
35
55
23
699
820
HCCP
Inspections
7
62
TOTAL
998
44
34 28
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT AUGUST 1995
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR
MONTH DATE TO DATE
Hazardous Citations 79
Non-Hazardous Citations 36
Hazardous Warnings 11
Non-Hazardous Warnings 113
Verbal Warnings 63
Parking Citations 19
DWI 10
Over .10 10
Property Damage Accidents 5
Personal Injury Accidents 3
Fatal Accidents 0
Adult Felony Arrests 2
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 43
Juvenile Felony Arrests 5
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 23
Part I Offenses 22
Part II Offenses 87
Medicals 35
Animal Complaints 55
Ordinance Violations 62
Other Public Contacts 699
584 446
496 358
133 138
438 247
447 518
247 229
35 57
29 46
62 74
24 22
0 0
14 21
233 263
41 35
107 66
182 231
504 516
236 204
440 766
415 373
4,726 6,519
TOTAL 1,382 9,393 11,129
Assists 62 598 374
Follow-Ups 23 254 353
HCCP 7 24 34
Mutual Aid Given 23 129 95
Mutal Aid Requested 11 103 63
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 1995
DWI
More Than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired or No Plates
Stop Arm Violations
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
MV/ATV
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTA~
10
10
1
9
0
46
0
1
21
0
4
1
5
1
6
0
0
19
1
5
0
2
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 1995
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
A~imals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
48
8
15
3
5
28
0
0
0
18
125
6
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
Run: 29-Aug-95 14:45 OFF01
Primary ISN~s on[y: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/95
Tima range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Oispositions: All
Activity cedes: AIl
Officers/Badges: AIl
Grids: Ail
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page
..... OFFENSES CLEARED .....
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT dUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
TF159 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-GH-HAILS-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 O- 0 0,0
TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GM'MOTOR VEH-OTN PROP 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
U3289 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100
X3250 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
Y3230 CRIM AGNST GOVN-MS-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
**** Report Totals: 99 5 94 45 31 13 5 49 52.1
Run: 29-Aug-95 14:24 CFS08 1~fl3UND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 1
Enfors Ca[Is For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
Primary ISN's on[y: No
eported range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/~5
each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: ALL
Activity Resulted: ALL
Dispositions: ALL
Officers/Badges: Att
Grids: ALL
Patrol Areas: ALl
Days of the week: ALL
ACTIVITY COOE NLMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9000 SPEEDING
9001 d-SPEEDING
9004 RESTRICTED D/L
9014 STOP SIGN
9016 FAILURE TO YIELD
9017 J-FAILURE TO YIELD
EQUIPMENT VIOLATION
9019
9020
9021
9022
9025
9030
9032
9038
9040
9100
9200
9210
9221
9301
J-EQIPMENT VIOLATION
CARELESS/RECKLESS
J-CARELESS/RECKLESS
EXHIBITION DRIVING
d-ILLEGAL/UNSAFE TURNS
CROSSWALK VIOLATION
NO PASSING
ALL OTHER TRAFFIC
NO SEATBELT
PARKING/ALL OTHER
DAS/DAR/DAC
PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED
INO INSURANCE/PROOF OF
d-NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF
LOST PERSONS
46
2
1
4
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
19
9
21
6
2
Run: 29-Aug-95 14:24 CFS08
Primary ISN's on[y: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/~5
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Now Received: AIl
Activity Resulted: AIl
Dispositions: At[
Officers/Badges:
Grids: AL[
Patrol Areas: AIl
Days of the week: AIl
MOUND POL%CE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Ca[Is For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9309 FOUND/RUNAWAY
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS
9313 FOUND PROPERTY
9314 FOUNO VENICLES/IMPOUNDED
9420 DERELICT AUTO
9430 PERSONAL INdURY ACCIDENTS
9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS
9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC.
9452 H & R ACCIDENTS W/TICKET
9520 PUBLIC PROPERTY ACCIDENTS
9561 DOG BITE
1
5
10
5
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
2
1
3O
1
1
1
2
6
9564 DOG BARKING
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
9567 DANGEROUS DOG
9710 MEDICAL/ASU
9~20 MEDICAL/DOA
97'50 MEDICAL$
9T51 MEDICALS/DX
9?'52 MEDICALS/Cl
97'55 lO0 INJURY
9750 FIRES
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED
Page
Run: 29-Aug-95 14:24 CF$O& MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 3
Primary %SN's only: No Enfors Calls For Service
range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/95
each day: 00:00 - 23:59 INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: ALl
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: ALi
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
995O
9980
9992
9993
9994
A2331
A5351
A5352
A5354
A5355
A5501
A5506
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT
9802 PUBLIC ASSIST
9900 ALL HCCP CASES
9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS
9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION
SUSPICIOUS PERSON
INFO/INT
WARRANTS
MUTUAL AID/8100
MUTUAL AID/6500
MUTUAL AIO/ ALL OTHER
ASLT 2-1NFLICTS BODILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-FAM
ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC
ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM
ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM'HANDS-CHLD'ACQ
ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-FAM
ASLT 5-THRT BODILY NARM-NO WEAP-CHLO-STR
BURG 3'UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP'COM THEFT
B3794 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
B4390 BURG 4-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT
10 ~/
3
1
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Run: 29-Aug-95 14:24 CFS08
Primary ISN~s only: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/95
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Act(vity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
Cl132 FORGERY-FE-MAKE ALTER DESTROY-DOCUM-BUSINESS 1
C2992 FORGERY-GM-OTHER ACT*OTHR TYP-BUSINES$ 1
D8500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION 2
DCSO0 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 1
13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 1
J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 1
J2700 TRAF-ACCID-GM-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION 2
J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 3
J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR ?
J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 6
J3E05 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-WATERCRAFT 1
K6004 DEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK WEAP'CHLD-FAM 1
L7043 CSC 4-UNK ACT-OTH FAM-13-15-F 1
M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2
M4106 LIQUOR - PROCURING LIQUOR FOR A MINOR 1
M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER 2
M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 4
M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY ?
M6201 CONSERVATION-ANIMALS 1
M6202 CONSERVATION-FISH 1
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 2
N3230 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARASS-ABUSE-THRT-MAIL-OELIV 1
Page
Run: 29-Aug-95 14:24 CFS08 Page
Prinkary ISN's onty: No
range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/95
each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: AIL
Activity Resulted: ALt
Dispositions: AIl
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: ALl
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
ACTIVITY COOE
DESCRIPTION
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
02442 OBSENITY-GM-DISTRIB-BOOKS-DEPICT-ADLT-ADLT AUD
03602 OBSENITY-MS-INDECENT-EXPOSURE-TO ADULT
Pl110 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
Pl120 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
P2120 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
P3330 TRESPASS-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
TB059 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP
TC021 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-MONEY
TC029 TNEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
TC059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP
TF159 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH'OTH PROP
TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP
TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP
TG061
TG151
TG169
U3289
THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAILS-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-C44-MOTOR VEH-MONEY
200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP
THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
Run= 29-Aug-95 14:24 CFS08
Primary ISN's on[y: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/95
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Now Received: ALt
Activity Resutted: At[
Dispositions: AL[
Officers/Badges:
Grids= ALL
Patrol Areas= AL[
Days of the week:
NOUND POL]CE DEPARTNENT
Enfors Ca[Is For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE
DESCRIPTION
NUNBER OF
INCIDENTS
X3250 CRIN AGNST ADNN JUST-NS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION
Y3230 CRIM AGNST GOVN-MS-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH
Page
**** Report Totals:
381
Run: 29-Aug-95 14:45 OFF01 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 1
Primary ISN~s onty: No Enfors Offense Report
Date Reported range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/95
-ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Dispositions: Alt
Activity codes: Att
Officers/Badges: Ali
Grids: ALL
ACT ACTIVITY
COOE DESCRIPTION
A2331 ASLT 2-INFLICTS BOOILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-FAM
A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC
A5354 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM
A5355 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ
A5501 ASLT 5-THAT BOOILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-FAM
A5506 ASLT 5'THAT BOOILY HARM-NO WEAP-CHLD'STR
BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP'COH THEFT
BURG 3'UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT
B4390 BURG 4-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-UNK ACT
Cl132 FORGERY-FE-MAKE ALTER DESTROY-DOCUM-BUSINESS
C2992 FORGERY-GM-OTHER ACT-OTHR TYP-BUSINESS
D8500 DRUGS-SMALL 'AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION
DC500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK
I3060 CR%M AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD
J2500
J2700
J2EO0
J3500
J3EO0
K6004
L7043
TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
TRAF'ACC[D-GM'AGGRAVATED VIOLATION
TRAF-ACC-GM'AL 10 MORE-UNK INd-UNK VEH
TRAF-ACC[D-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
TRAF'ACC-M$-AL 10 MORE'UNK INJ'UNK VEH
TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INd-~ATERCRAFT
DEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK WEAP'CHLO'FAM
CSC 4-UNK ACT-OTH FAM-13-15-F
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO
1 0 1 0 I 0 0 I 100.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 I 0 0 O. 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
I 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0
7 0 7 0 7 0 0 7 100.0
6 0 6 1 5 0 0 5 83.3
1 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
Run: 29-Aug-95 14:45 OFF01
Primary ISN~s onty: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/95 - 08/25/95
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: Att
Activity codes: AIl
Officers/Badges: AIl
Grids:
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTEO FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
M3001
M4106
M4199
M5313
M5350
M6201
M6202
JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER
LIQUOR - PROCURING LIQUOR FOR A MINOR
LIQUOR - OTHER
JUVENILE-CURFEW
JUVENILE'RUNAWAY
CONSERVATION-ANIMALS
CONSERVATION-FiSH
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS
N3230 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARASS-ABUSE-THRT-MAIL-DELIV
02442 OBSENITY-ON-DISTRIB-BOOKS-DEPICT-ADLT-ADLT AUD
03602 OBSENITY-MS-INDECENT-EXPOSURE-TO ADULT
P1110 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK iNTENT
Pl120 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
P2120 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
P3120 PROP DANAGE-NS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
P3130 PROP DAMAGE-NS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
P3330 TRESPASS-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
TB059 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP
TC021 THEFT- 501 - 2500- FE-BUI LD I NG-MONEY
TC029 IHEFT'501-2500-FE-BUILOING-OTH PROP
TC059 THEFT'501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP
2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
4 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 100.0
7 0 7' 1 0 6 O. 6 85.7
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
9 0 9 6 0 0 3 3 33.3
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 O.
I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1667
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER
AUGUST 1995 MONTHLY REPORT
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 1,1995
Traditionally, August is the slowest month of the summer. There are several
factors that contribute to this trend. With school beginning the first week of
September, parents and guardians have to sort out their priorities if they are on a tight
budget. And let's admit it, what's more important- clothes and school materials, or
booze? I think the answer is obvious. The second factor that contributes to the slow-
down in August is "The Great Minnesota Get Together" that begins every year in late
August. You need more than just a few dinero if you decide to attend the state fair.
Then there is the Renaissance Festival which is held in Shakopee. This is another
event that requires extra shekels. Finally, I think by the end of the summer people are
simply partied out!
Again this year, the pattern of August being the slowest summer month, held
true. The only difference between this years sales in August and last yea'rs August's
sales is that we are up 7%, or $9,514 over August of 1994. Thus, for the year gross
sales are $1,006,903 compared to $968,541 at this same time last year.
printed on recycled paper
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
AUGUST FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Investment activity
Bouq~:
Money Market First Bank 103,579
Money Market Smith Barney 1
Money Market 4M 175,750
CP Dain Bosworth 5.75% 300,264
CP Dain Bosworth 5.81% 246,351
Matured:
CP Dain Bosworth 5.75% (151,519)
CP Dain Bosworth 5.85% (399,606)
CP Dain Bosworth 5.93% (231,889)
CD First Bank 9.20% (175,000)
Money Market First Bank (130,000)
Money Market 4M (97,351)
~i274~612
1996 Proposed Budget and Proposed Levy
This month I have been working with the City Manager to finalize the
proposed budget and the proposed property levy for 1996.
Fiscal Future Committee
In July and August I attended two meetings of the Fiscal Futures Committee,
which is one of the many committees organized by the League of Cities
in preparation for the 1996 session of the Legislature.
A task force to review property tax as well as state/local fiscal
issues was established. These issues will be debated once the Weber/Brandl
report is presented to the Governor and the Legislature.
The Commissioner of Finance, Laura King, made a presentation on projected
State Revenues and Expenditures for the next five years. The State will be
faced and will have to deal with some big deficits. Also, major probable cuts
in Federal Aids will make the State budget difficult to balance. Through all of this,
the Local Government Aid and the Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid
could be impacted negatively for us.
City of Mound
Monthly Report
Utilities
Vlonth of: Aug. 1995
09/07/95
Utility- 96
of Customers:
Water
Sewer
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons)
Billing:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Total
Payments:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Total
Residential
1,124
1,118
22,182
$30,466
$44,546
$4,987
$79,999
$31,280
$47,327
$5,099
$83,706
Commercial
122
122
3,962
$5,584
$13,929
$1o5
$19,618
$4,421
$11,030
$104
$15,555
Total
1,246
1,24O
26,144
$36,050
$58,475
$5,092
$99,617
$35,701
$58,357
$5,203
$99,261
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 8, 1995
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
AUGUST 1995 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
There were 57 building permits issued in August for a total construction value of $1,566,121.
This brings year-to-date value to $5,484,914 and this is again ahead of last year's record
pace. there were 29 plumbing, mechanical, and other miscellaneous permits issued for a total
of 86 permits this month and 482 year-to-date.
PLANNING & ZONING
There were 13 cases processed this month by the Planning Commission and Council. In
addition to the planning cases there is the ongoing public land permit updating, however, none
were processed this round due to the increased building permit activity.
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER (CSO) ACTIVITY
The CSO's total contacts were 267 this month, with 63 being of zoning related issues. Thirty
warning tags were issued. Additional information is in the Police Department Report.
JS:pj
printed on recycled paper
City of Mound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: AUGUST Year: 1,995
THIS MONTH YEAR T0 DATE
NEWRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION [I # PERMITS [ # UNITSI VALUATION I[ #UNITS I VALUATION
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 7 7 796,305 1~ 1,957,737
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOSl 2 2 570,000 6 1,758,000
TWO FAM,LY / DUPLEX
MULTIPLE FAMILY 13 OR MORE UNITS)
TRANSIENT HBG. {HOTELB / MOTELS)
SUBTOTAL 9 9 1,366,305 24 3,715,737
COMMERCIAL {RETAIL/RESTAURANTI
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL
[DDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 1 44,283 23 554,930
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 1 6,450 6 75,576
DECKS 7 22,452 39 100,455
SWIMMING POOLS
REMODEL - MISC RESIDENTIAL 55 116,051 lq8 580,950
REMODEL' MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 2 6, 100 6 93,100
SUBTOTAL 46 195,316 222 1,405,011
couuERC.~t {RETA~m~STAU,~UT~ 1 q, 500 7 79,700
OmCE t PROfeSsioNAL
~UDUSm~L 3 68, 166
,UmC ~ SCHOOLS 2 216,300
DETACH~D ~CCESSO~ BUiLDiNgs
~U.TOTAL 1 q, 500 12 36~, 166
~ES~DE,T~L DWtLUUGS 1 1 5
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
toTAL oE~otmoNs 1 1 6
t PERMII$ f UNITS VALUATION f UNITS VALUATION
~ PERMII$
24
TOTAL 57 1,566,121 ~264
'BUILDING 57 264
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 2 25
s~GNs 0 3
PLUMBING 13 79
MECHANICAL 5 70
s&w. STREET EXC^V.. me. ETC. 9 37
TOTAL I 86
I
482
O
09tB?/1995 89:15 612--4724435 TOM REESE PAGE 01
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 FAST WAYZATA 2OULHVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
BOARD MEMBER8
William A, Johnstone
Chair, Minnetonka
Douglas E. 8aboock
ViCe Chair, SMing Park
Joseph Zwak
Secretary. Greenwood
Robert Rascop
Treasurer. Shorewood
Mike Bloom
Minnetonka Beech
Albert {Bert) Foster
Oeephaven
James N. Grathwol
Excelsior
Duan~ Markus
Wayzala
Ross McGlasson
Tonka Bay
Craig Moiler
Victoria
Eugene Pa~tyka
Minnef¢ista
Tom Reese
Mound
Herb J, Suerth
Woodland
Orono
TO: MOt,qqD CTIT COUNCIL DATE: $~ER 7, 1995
FROM: TOM REESE, IA,lCD ~ENTATIVG
8~: AUGUST REI~RT - LMCD
2.o _Eurmon Wsterndlroli
2.1 Ha~estin8 is completed and the machines retired to
winter storasc. S~nc maintenance rcmaim to be *__,~,~m~shed. The
final rqx~ on the tmrvest operation is attached. This year's
opcmfioa was pa~icularly cffcctivc and came in under btxi~
2.2 The report Ga the T~ehlopi= (sucessor to 2-4-D) ~
in lebelps and ~ _~,flnm's bays was publisl~l this month. While thc
cbemcul is vel7 effective, tho cost, m~e then tbrm times 2-4-D. sad
the feet that the weeds grow back, in my view, relegates it to special
89/87/1995 89:15 G12--4724435 T0M REESE PAGE 02
some ~~n inlmd hk~, th~c lx)m ~
thm~t, as do otlx~ boa~s trullemi in from distnt
manner of con~ o~scbomis~ Tbisis whncourmtmdl
[~fc~icn ~ ccmc
4.0 La~e Use.
4.1 ~ number of vioh~iom was up siSnificantly fi]is yoar,
watorcr~ (jot skiis). Hisher power and 8pstcr humbert of these
=aft i~c~ a cc~in8
?1 o Moutm 8peeJfle ltmm
Non~
fc Bill JobmM~
Alan
attachments AlS
09/07/1995 09:15 612--4724435 TOM REESE PAGE 03
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 EURASION WATER MILFOIL HARVESTING SEASON REPORT
CE
HARVESTING SEASON SUMMARY DATA:
THE HARVESTING SCHEDULE CONSISTED OF $0 CALENDOR
DAYS OF WHICH 40 WERE WORKING DAYS, 2 WERE HOLIDAYS,
4 WERE RAIN DAYS AND 4 WERE START UP AND SHUT DOWN
DAYS.
703 ACRES WERE HARVESTED, OF WHICH 598 ACRES WERE
NEW CUT AND 105 ACRES WERE RECUT ACRES.
394 HARVESTOR AND 183 TRUCK LOADS WERE HARVESTED,
AMOUNTING TO APPROXIMATELY 1,970 TONS @ 5 TONS PER
HARVESTOR LOAD.
o
THE HARVESTINO PLAN CALLED FOR USING ONbY 3 OF THE 4
LMCD HARVESTORS AT ANY GIVEN TIME AND HAVE THE 4TH
UNIT DOWN FOR MAINTENANCE, HOWEVER THE HARVESTORS
PERFORMED WELL ENOUGH TO ALLOW USE OF ALL 4 UNITS h
SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE SEASON.
WORK DAYS CONSISTED OF 8 HOURS PER DAY WITH NO
EXTENDED WORK DAYS USED.
SEASONAL PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS:
1995 1994 1993
HARVESTOR LOADS PER ENGINE HOUR .41 .4 .4
HARVESTOR LOADS PER CUTTER HOUR .63 .7 .6
HARVESTOR LOADS PER DAY 9.85 11.9 10.0
ACRES PER ENGINE HOUR
ACRES PER CUTTER HOUR
ACRES PER DAY
.72 .45 .58
1.12 .73 .78
17.6 13.09 13.66
HARVESTOR LORDS PER ACRE
.56 .91 .7
ACRES PER HARVESTOR LOAD
1.78 1.1 1.4
OPERATING INFORMATION:
THE EWM GROWTH AND DENSITY WERE SOMEWHAT CHANGED FROM
PAST YEARS IN THAT IT SEEMED MORE SPREAD OUT AND LESS
THICK IN MOST AREAS OF THE LAKE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
ST. ALBINS, CARMANS, GRAYS AND PHELPS BAYS WHERE THE
GROWTH WAS CONSISTANTLY HEAVY WITH PAST YEARS. THE
HARVESTING SEASON DATES FIT WELL WITH THIS YEARS GROWTH
PATTERN. THE HARVESTING EFFICIANCY WAS DRAMATICALLY
IMPROVED THIS YEAR BY ASSURING THAT THE EQUIPMENT WAS IN
WATER READY CONDITION PRIOR TO THE START OF HARVESTING,
8S/O7/iSg5 09:15 612--4724435 TOM REESE PAGE 84
LAKE MINNETONKACONSERVATiON DISTRICT
BY HAVING THE MECHANIC AVAILABLE AT THE START OZ THE DaY
AND ALL DAY ASi. REQUIRED AND BY INSTITUTINO CLOSE
SUPERVISION OF THE HARVESTING OPERATIONS CONTINUALLY. NO
MAJOR CHANGES ARE CONTEMPLATED OPERATIONALLY FOR NEXT
YEAR, ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME PERSONNEL TURNOVER.
EQU I PMENT:
THE PONTOON, THE SUBURBAN AND THE CONVEYORS ARE ALL IN
OPERATING CONDITION AND READY FOR THE NEXT SEASON. THE
HARVESTORS ALL HAVE SOME MINOR REPAIR AND/OR ADJUSTMENTS
THAT ARE ALL PLANNED TO BE COMPLETED THIS FALL. THE ONE
SIGNIFICANT ITEM NEEDING ATTENTION IS THE PLANNED
REPLACEMENT OF THE THROSTER CONTROL LEVERS ON 3
HARVESTORS AT A COST OF $410 EACH, THEY WERE REPLACED ON
ONE UNIT THIS SUMMER. SOME WELDIN= IMPROVF. HENTS ON THE
WING BELT GUIDES SHOULD REDUCE THE WING BELT BREAKAGE
PROBLEMS WE HAVE SEEN IN RECENT MONTHS. CONSIDERATION
OF ADDING PADDLE WHEELS TO ONE HARVESTOR HAS BEEN
DEFERRED.
FINANCIAL:
WE EXPECT TO COMPLETE THE SEASON WELL UNDER THE BUDGETED
EXPENSES FOR 1995. THE AUGUST FINANCIAL REPORT WAS NOT
AVAILABLE TO INCLUDE WITH THIS SUMMARY.
CONCLUSION:
FROM ALL ASPECTS THE 1995 PROGRAM WAS, NOT PERFECT, BUT
VERY MUCH A SUCCESSFUL EFFORT. THE DETAILED HARVESTING
REPORTS ARE ATTACHED.
09/87/1995 89:15 612--4724435 TOM REESE PAGE 05
]. 995 Zw~ R~__~3ZST SUMM~¥
DaTE
6/14/95
6/15/95
6/16/95
TOTAL
CREW LOCATION HARVESTOR TRUCK
~J. ~2 LOADS ~O~DS
PHELPS 5.5 3
PHELPS 6.0 3
PHELPS 6.0 3
HARVES.
3
3
3
~/19/95
s/2o/95
6/21/95
6/22/95
6/23/95
PHELPS 11.0
PHELPS 8.0
PHELPS 6.5
PHELPS 8.0
COOKS/BLACK/PRIESTS 3.0
6/~ ;/95 CA~ANS ORAYS 3.0
6/27/95 " " 11.0
6/28/95 " " 14.0
6/29/95 " WAYZATA 11.5
6/30/95 " " 5.5
3
4
4
4
4
7/~/95
7/7/95
OLD CHAN. ST. ALBANS 0.0 0
" " 0.0 0
ST ALBANS,COMBINED CREW 13.0 6
0 RAIN
0 RAIN
5
7/lO/95
7/11/95
7/12/95
7/13/95
7/14/95
EXCELSIOR 9.5 5 5
ECHO i0.0 4 5
'* 9.0 3 4
" 8.5 3 4
LAFAYETTE 9.5 4 4
7/17/95 SMITHS 10.0
7/18/95 BROWNS 7.0
7/19/95 NORTH ARM 8.0
7/20/95 " 14.0
7/21/95 *' 12.5
5.5
3
4
6
5
4
7/24/95
7/25/95
7/26/95
7/27/95
7/28/95
MAXWELL 7.5 3
HARRISON & COOKS 6.5 3
COOKS 12.5 5
COOKS 0.0 0
COOKS 4.0 2
4
4
3
0 RAIN
3
7/31/95 WEST UPPER hAKE 4.0
8/1/95 GRAYS 3.5
8/2/95 ORAYS 18.5
8/3/95 GRAYS 14.25
8/4/95 GRAYS 6.0
3
4
4
8/6/95 CARHANS
s/9/95 CA.tAN ' S
8/10/9S CA~ANS
8/11/95 CA~ANS
8/14/9S PHELPS
8/15/95 PHELPS
8/16/95 PHELPS
8/17/95 SPRING PARK
8/18/95 SPRING PARK
TOTALS:
9.0
12.0
1S.0
17 .S
0.0
1S.0
20.5
16.5
CLEANED
REHOVED
394.0
4
5
5
'7
0
5
9
$
HARVESTERS
HARVESTERS
183
RAIN
09/07/1995 09:15 612--4724435 TBH REESE PAGE 07
Lake
,0
~t
[2
t4
t6
t?
t!
t9
Z0
21
24
26
2'/
31
~4
36
37
Minnctonltz
Hals~cd~ 322
Priests 76
Cooks
w. Upper Lake
S. Upper Lake 320
Smi~btowu 33
Pi~¢tps 272
F, Upper L&ke
SprLn~ Park 141
Black Lake
Emerald Lake
Sttoa l.~e 41
Jauin~ 174
We~t A.-m M3
CrystiJ 2ES
North Arm
Smbbs 104
Mix*~ll 175
L.tfay~tt¢
Smitlu 244
Browu~ :309
Wayzata
Robhisom 2'7
St. A/barn 102
Ezcelsior 79
Gid¢ons lq)
Lo~,tr Lake $. 310
Lower L.&kc N.
lViike Halvcrson _ '~
LMCD Harvest I. MC
Littoral Acrgs Acres Acres
__ .Aquatic Plant Manqcment Specialist
1995
Harvested
. Acres
2
24
8
33
8
62
4'7
13
8
2
10
9
5
36
14
35
16
2O
21
44
16
13
14
25
598
BOARD MEMBERS
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 ° WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 ° TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
September 7, 1995
William A. Johnstone
Chair, Minnetonka
Douglas E. Babcock
Vice Chair, Spring Park
Joseph Zwak
Secretary, Greenwood
Robert Rascop
Treasurer, Shorewood
Mike Bloom
Minnetonka Beach
Albert (Bert) Foster
Deephaven
James N. Grathwol
Excelsior
Duane Markus
Wayzata
Ross McGlasson
Tonka Bay
Craig Mollet
Victoria
Eugene Partyka
Minnetrista
Tom Reese
Mound
Herb J. Suerth
Woodtand
Orono
TO:
FROM:
LMCD cities
LMOD Board of Directors
Greg Nybeck, administrati~ch'nician
SUBJECT: 1996 Budget Allocations
It has recently come to our attention that the formula
used to calculate allocation of levies for the 1996 LMCD
Budget was not correct.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.635, Subd. 2 (a)
describes "the governing body or board of supervisors of
each municipality in the district must provide the funds
necessary to meet its proportion of the total cost
determined by the board, provided the total funding from
all municipalities in the district for the costs shall
not exceed an amount equal to .00242 percent of the
total taxable market value within the district, unless
three-fourths of the municipalities in the district pass
a resolution concurring to the additional costs". Staff
review of the approved levy indicates it is well within
what is allowed by state law at .00224 percent of
taxable market value in the district.
However, Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.631, Subd. 2
states "the expenses of the district shall be borne by
the municipalities. The portion of the expenses of the
district borne Dy each municipality must be in
proportion to its net tax capacity provided that the
portion of any one municipality may not be more than 20
percent of the total expense or less than $200". The
allocations previously forwarded to the cities were
calculated in proportion to taxable market value, not
the net tax capacity of each municipality.
60% Recycled Content
30°/° Post Consumer Waste
Enclosed is a revised schedule of levies using net tax
capacity for the 1996 LMCD Budget and a copy of the
enabling legislation described above. We apologize for
any inconveniences for which our error may have caused
you. Feei 'free to call me if you have questions or
additional concerns.
DC~O
z~>
(n
Z
498
membership
.1 a treasurer.
· officers.
thcr Officers,
as the board
d to the di~.
all money of
:e with rules
eaqlrer m3y
notes of the
of the state
trs from the
i for current
board shall
mrs, c~rti.fi-
;titutc a part
~f the funds
rd, the ires-
'strict show-
;tatcment;
funds from
ctor for thc
hall reCeiVe
e executive
activities
and
.Is of
499
W~TER PLANNING ~ND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 103B.645
incur liability or make expenditures on behalf of the district without general or specific
directions by the board, as shown by the bylaws or minutes of its meetings.
History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 52
103B.631 PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND EXPENSES.
Subdivision 1. Duties may be performed by municipal employees. The dutie~ of the
distrkt may be executed by employees of the municipalities.
Subd. 2. Expenses. The expenses of the district shall be borne by the municipali-
ties. The portion of the expenses of the district borne by each municipality must be in
proportion to its net tax capacity provided that the portion of any one municipality
may hca be more than 20 percent of the total expense or leas than $200.
History: 1990 c 39I art 2 s 53
103B.635 FUNDING OF DISTRICT.
Subdivision 1. Budget. The board must, on or before July I each year, prepare and
submit a detailed budget of the district's needs for the hex! calendar year to the govern-
ing body of each municipality in the district with a statement of the proportion of the
budget to be provided by each municipality. The governing body of each municipality
in the district shall review the budget and the board, upon notice from a municipality,
must hear objections to the budget. After the hearing, the board may modify or amend
the budget. Notice must be given to the municipalities of modifications or amend-
ments.
Subd. 2. Municipal funding of district. (a) The governing body or board of supervi-
sops of each municipality in the district must provide the funds necessary to meet its
proportion of the total cost determined by the board, provided the total funding from
all municipalities in the district for the costs shall not exceed an amount equal to .00242
percent of the total taxable market value within the district, unless three-fourths of the
municipalities in the district pass a resolution concurring to the additional costs.
(b) The funds must be deposited in the treasury of the district in amounts and at
times as the treasurer of the district requires.
History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 54; 1993 c 375 art 7 $ I
103B.641 REGULATIONS OF DISTRICT.
Subdivision I. Authority and effect. (a) The district may adopt rules and regulations
to effectuate the purpose of its establishment and the powers granted to the district.
(b) The rules and regulations have the effect of an ordinance if declared by the
board of direcnors of the district and stated in the rule or regulation.
(c) The rules and regulations of the district may be enforced by the district by
injuuction in addition tO penalties under this section.
Su~xi. 2, Adoption procedure. (a) A rule or regulation must be suitably titled.
(b) A rule or regulation must be adopted by a majority vote of all of the members
0fthc board of directors. The adopted rule or regulation must be signed by the chair,
attesled by the secretary of lhe board, and published once in an official newspaper.
(c) Proof of publication must be attached to and filed with the rule or regulation.
Each rule and regulation must be recorded in the rule and regulation book by 20 days
after its publication.
Subd. 3. Penalty. A person who violates a rule or regulation that has the force and
effec~ of au ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a sentence of not more
than 90 days plus costs or a fine of not more than $100 plus costs.
History: 1990 c 391 art 2 $ 55
103B.645 PROSECUTION OF VIOLATIONS.
Subdivision I. Complaint for violation. A prosecution for a v~olation of a rule or
COMMONS TASK FORCE
OF A MF ETING
August 15, 1995
Chair Mark Goldberg opened the meeting at 7:30 PM.
Those present were: Frank Ahrens, Rodney Beystrom, Bev Botko, Jim
Funk, Chair Mark Goldberg, Rita Pederson, Rodrigo Plaza, Michael
Shearer, Gordy Tulberg, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary
Peggy James. Marilyn Byrnes and Dennis Hopkins were absent.
OUANTIT&TIVE SURVEY
Mark Goldberg explained that at the August 8th City Council meeting
he gave a progress report and reviewed the list the task force
developed on the constituency group's problems and desires.
Goldberg reviewed the task force's time schedule, and indicated
that the quantitative survey should be drafted and fielded by
September 1, 1995 at the latest, and then be forwarded to the City
Council for approval. He reported that the task force is behind in
their time schedule by a couple of weeks.
Ahrens commended Goldberg on his presentation to the Council.
Ouestion Style Examples
Goldberg handed out copies of "Question Style Examples" and
explained the different styles of questions and ranking they could
use for the survey.
Nonabutters
Goldberg handed out a copy of the drafted survey for the
nonabutters. Goldberg emphasized that this is a very rough draft
and it needs to be cleaned-up, and he is looking for responses on
general content only.
Shearer suggested that they should do away with the classification
of abutters and nonabutters and emphasized that everyone is a
partner in this program. Ahrens commented that different groups
have different interests. Shearer agreed, however, believes the
language in the survey is offensive.
Goldberg stressed that they need to find viable solutions agreeable
to both parties.
Shearer suggested that a Commons Advisory Council could be
established to help with issues between permit holders and the
city. He emphasized that the nonabutters are not the problem here
and he is not comfortable being segregated and being pointed at as
if they are the problem. The numbers are on the nonabutters side.
The task force would be better off representing it such that they
are all partners.
Commons Task Force Minutes
August 15, 1995
Ahrens commented that they are all stakeholders and have interests
in the program, and they have got to do a better job of educating
people of what this is all about, and part of it is people
understanding concerns, such as privacy is a big concern.
Goldberg reviewed the purpose of the quantitative survey- and
suggested that some language and focus could be adjusted.
Rod Plaza read an article which he wrote which indicates that he~
/Ass not support divisiveness amongst residents. · ~
Question #7 was discuSsed at length. It was suggested that maybe '/
this question should be eliminated as it implies that a multiple/
dock system is a possibility when it may not be. Ahrens suggested?
~e question could be re-worded to imply "if possible." J
Goldberg stated that at this point they are only collecting data
and opinions to help determine what direction to pursue. Goldberg
reviewed the process which is to first identify the problems, then
get it quantified, then they can start generating solutions that
will work for everybody.
Beystrom, questioned Goldberg's intent in question #7, and asked if
they are implying that the abutter would have to pay to reduce the
number of docks in front of their house. Goldberg answered yes,
and suggested that maybe question $7 should be deleted all
together. Beystrom believes that #7 is essential, however,
believes it could be written with less words, such as, "Would you
be in favor of relocating your dock site to a multiple dock site
which is maintained by the City?"
Funk referred to question #5 and suggested that if you ask people
where they "prefer" to swim, they may answer at the beach, however,
this does not mean that they do not swim off their dock. Also, he
questioned, why it would be different to say that nonabutters
cannot swim off their dock and abutters can?
The Parks Director referred to question #6 and suggested that the
cost be taken into consideration. He explained that the
nonabutters, as citizens of Mound, help pay for removal of
encroachments on the commons through their taxes. Beystrom,
suggested that another question could be added regarding potential
costs for removal of encroachments.
It was determined that the survey to the nonabutters will also be
the same survey as distributed to the citizens at large, and the
task force should keep this in mind when they review it.
2
Commons Task Force Minutes August 15, 1995
Abutters
The rough draft of the survey for the abutters was handed out.
It was determined that question #2 should be modified to state ".
· . spacing of docks" instead of ". . .number of docks." -Funk
commented that some may or may not want to pay to reduce the'number
of docks in front of their house and that this question should be
broken into two parts.
Plaza requested that a question be included regarding maintenance
of the commons and if abutters would be willing to maintain commons
in return for some type of compensation from City.
It was determined that a question should be formulated for each
survey regarding maintenance of the commons.
Goldberg explained that they are trying to find out what the
nonabutters do not care about that can make it better for the
abutters.
It was suggested that question #2 relating to privacy was too
general.
The task force discussed the possibility of restricting the size of
boats that could be allowed in certain areas, and how a question
could be formulated regarding this issue. Fackler commented that
if canopies or large boats are restricted in certain areas, these
restrictions would also apply to abutting owners. Beystrom
suggested that areas to be restricted could depend on where the
houses are located in relation to commons.
Goldberg suggested that the task force members take home the
drafted surveys and report back to him by Sunday, August 20th with
any feedback. Goldberg suggested they use the listing of problems
and desires as a compass when reviewing the surveys.
The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, August 29, 1995, 7:30
p.m., at City Hall.
The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Submitted by,
Peggy James
Secretary
3
August 18, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
League Washington, D.C.
of 20004
Cities (202) 626-3000
Fax: (202) 626-3043
City Clerk~ of Direct Member Cities
Donald J. Borut, Executive Dire~~ '~~
Officers
Presk~ent
Carolyn Long Banks
Coundlwoman-at-Large, Atlanta, Georgia
First Vice Presk~ent
Gregory S. Lashut~a
Mayor. Columbus, Ohio
S~cond V~ President
Gtenda E. Hood
Mayor, Orlando, Florida
Immediate Past President
Sharpe James
Mayor, Newark. New Jersey
Execu~ve D/rector
Donald J. Borut
Voting and Alternate Votine Delegates, Annual Congress of Cities,
November 29 - December 2, 1995, Phoenix, Arizona
DUE OCTOBER 6, 1995
The National League of Cities' Annual Business Meeting will be held Saturday, December 2,
1995 at the Congress of Cities in Phoenix, Arizona. Under the Bylaws of the National League
of Cities, each direct member city is entitled to cast from one to 20 votes, depending upon the
city's population, through its designated voting delegate at the Annual Business Meeting. The
table on the reverse side of this memorandum shows the breakdown of votes by population
categories.
To be eligible to cast the city's vote(s), each voting delegate and alternate voting delegate must
be designated by the city using the attached form which will be forwarded to NLC's Credentials
Committee. NLC's Bylaws expressly prohibit voting by proxy. Thus, the designated voting
delegates must be present at the Annual Business Meeting to cast the city's vote or votes.
To enable us to get your credentials in order and to provide your voting delegates with proposed
National Municipal Policy amendments and proposed Resolutions prior to the Congress of Cities,
we ask that you return the IVORY copy of the completed form to NLC on or before October
6, 1995. A pre-addressed envelope is attached. Upon receipt of these names, NLC will send
each voting and alternate voting delegate a set of instructions on registration and rules governing
the conduct of the Annual Business Meeting.
To assist your state municipal league in selecting delegates to cast votes on behalf of the state
municipal league, please forward the BLUE copy of the credential form to your state league
office and keep the WHITE copy for your records. A list of the state leagues is enclosed.
If you have any questions, please contact Lesley-Ann Rennie at (202) 626-3020.
Past Prseldent~: Ferd Harrison, Mayor, Scotland Neck, North Carolina · Glands E. Hood, Mayor, Orlando, Florida · Cathy Reynolds, Councilwoman-at-Large, Denver, Colorado · D/rectore:
Lucy T. Allen, Mayor, Louisburg, North Carolina · Karen Andereon, Mayor, Minnetonka, Minnesota · Clarence E. Anthony, Mayor, South Bay, Florida · Ann Azari, Mayor, Fort Collins,
Colorado · Lock P. Beechum, Sr., Councilman, Youngstown, Ohio · Don Benninghoven, Executive Director, League of California Cities · I_ara Blakely, Councilmember, Monrovia, California ·
Eddie L. Blenkenehlp, City Council President, Birmingham, Alabama · John W. Butt, Councilmember, Chesapeake, Virginia · Carl Clsesen, Executive Director, Wyoming Association of
Municipalities · Larr~ R. Cuffis, Mayor, Ames, iowa · John Divine, Commissioner, Salina, Kansas · Alvin P. DuPont, Mayor, Tuscaloosa, Alabama · Richard J. Haas, Mayor, Trotwood, Ohio ·
James C. Hunt, Councilmember, Clarksburg, West Virginia · Steven E. Jeffrey, Executive Director, Vermont League of Cities and Towns · Walter F. Kelly, Town Council President, Fishers,
Indiana · liana Lieberman, Mayor, Lauderhill, Flonda* Sylvia L. Lovely, Executive Director, Kentucky League of Cities · Maryann Mahaffey, City Council President, Detroit, Michigan ·
Christopher K. McKenzle, Executive Director, League of Kansas Municipalities · Thomas M. Menlno, Mayor, Boston, Massachusetts · Will D. Minter, Mayor Pro Tern, Oak Ridge, Tennessee ·
David W. Moore, Mayor, Beaumont, Texas · Thomas F. Morales, Jr., Councilmember, Avondale, Arizona · Kathy Morris, Mayor, San Mamos, Texas · Kathryn Neck, Mayor, Pasadena,
California · James P. Nix, Mayor, Fairhope, Alabama · Michael J. Qulnn, Executive Director, Indiana Association of Cities and Towns * Carolyn Ratio, Councitmember, Turlock, California · Bill
Revell, Mayor, Dyersburg, Tennessee · AIIcla M. Sanchez, Council Member, Port Huron, Michigan * Alice Schienker, Mayor, Lake Oswego, Oregon · Winston Searles, Mayor Pro Tern, Rock
Hill, South Carolina · Joseph F. Slnkiswtc, Mayor, Loves Park, Illinois · Joseph A. Sweet, Executive Director, Tennessee Municipal League · Marian B. Tseco, Councilwoman, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania · Max W. Wells, Councilmember, Dallas, Texas · Thomas L. We~th, Mayor, Rochester, Michigan · Don ZImmerman, Executive Director, Arkansas Municipal League
Recycled Paper
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
ANNUAL CONGRESS OF CITIES
Number of Votes - Direct Member Cities
Article IV. Section 2 of NLC's Bylaws specifies as follows the number of votes which each
member city of the National League of Cities is entitled to cast at the Annual Congress of Cities:
Under 50,000 1 vote
50.000 - 99,999 2 votes
100,000 - 199,999 4 votes
200,000 - 299,999 6 votes
300,000 - 399,999 8 votes
400,000 - 499,999 10 votes
500,000 - 599,000 12 votes
600.000 - 699,000 14 votes
700,000 - 799.000 16 votes
800,000 - 899,000 18 votes
900.000 and above 20 votes
Note: Member cities are required by the Bylaws to cast unanimous votes.
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
RECEIVED
August 23, 1995
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687
Re: Request for Warning Light at CSAH 15 Crosswalk Near House of Moy
Dear Mr. S/kle: ~
/
This letter is intended to respond to your telephone request for flashing
warning lights at the CSAH 15 crosswalk in the vicinity of the House of Moy.
As you have advised, the provision for pedestrians at this location has
received considerable discussion within the City of Mound. My June 5, 1995,
letter to you summarized the proposed actions the County and the City would
jointly take in installing the referenced crosswalk. Two items left for
further discussion and consideration at that time were the use of the
experimental fluorescent strong yellow-green signing and the installation of
flashing lights. Since my letter was written, the crosswalk has been
established and it was decided to use the strong fluorescent yellow-green
signing.
Although my June 5 letter indicated the County has strong reservations
concerning the use of flashing lights at the referenced crossing, it did
allow time for further discussion and consideration. The following items
were influential in our reaching a determination regarding flashing lights
at the crosswalk:
1) We believe that over-the-street flashing lights may cause confusion for
westbound drivers due to the short distance between the crosswalk and
the existing traffic control signals at CSAH 15 and CSAH 110.
2) The use of a pedestrian actuated warning light may give a pedestrian a
false sense of security that traffic will stop, when in fact only a
warning is given.
Department of Public Works
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
(612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513
Recycled Paper
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
August 23, 1995
Page 2
3) Visibility of the crosswalk is extremely good with the fluorescent
strong yellow-green signage and other special treatments currently in
place. We believe the addition of flashing lights would be of
questionable additional value.
Based on the above considerations, County staff cannot support the
installation of flashing lights at the crosswalk. The benefit of such
lights seems limited and their use could actually create other problems. If
you would like to discuss any of the above further, please feel free to call
me at 930-2506.
Sincerely,
James N. Grube, P.E.
Transportation Division Engineer
JNG/TDJ/jh
cc: Tom Johnson
Ted Hoffman
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 28, 1995
Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill
Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Becky Glister, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, Building
Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Crum was absent and
excused. Commissioner Surko was absent and excused.
The following person was also in attendance: Doreen Hanson.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of August 14, 1995 were presented for approval. Three
changes were noted:
1. Page 5, seconded paragraph, second line, last word should be "denial."
2. Page 8, fourth paragraph, last line, delete "if it is in a conforming location."
3. Page 9, fifth paragraph, seconded line, should read, "2-1/2 story maximum..."
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes of August 14, 1995 as amended. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE #95-34: PERRY & DOREEN HANSON, 2459 LOST LAKE ROAD, LOT 15, BLOCK
1, LOST LAKE, PID 24-117-24 22 0029, VARIANCE FOR POOL/DECK
At the Planning Commission meeting on August 14, 1995 this case was tabled pending
clarification of the following issues.
1. Q: Can zoning ordinance amendments (adoption of SMO) alter special provisions
approved for existing Planned Development Areas (PDA)?
No. Specific conditions of a PDA are not changed by subsequent ordinance amendments.
2. Q: What setbacks were approved with the Lost Lake PDA?
The Lost Lake subdivision was not processed as a PDA. Setbacks were not addressed in the
Final Plat approval for Lost Lake. The required setbacks for the R-1 Zone in 1984 were as the
same as they are today.
3. Q: Clarification of all variances being requested for proposed pool.
Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995
OPTION #1' ABOVE GROUND POOL WITH DECK SURROUNDING POOL (DECK RAILING TO
ACT AS FENCE ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENT).
required existing Drooosed variance
OHW 50' 45'+/- 19' 31'
TO EXISTING TO NEW DECK
DECK
OPTION #2: BELOW GROUND POOL 16' x 32' WITH A 5 FOOT FENCE ENCLOSING POOL
AREA.
required existin,q OrODOSed variance
OHW 50' 45'+/- 21' 29'
TO EXISTING TO POOL
DECK
FENCE 3' - 5' 2'
HEIGHT
The Zoning Ordinance requires that fences within any portion of the fifty (50)
foot lakeshore setback shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that
of a chain-link type fence, and they must blend with the natural surroundings.
The proposed fence will be of chain link materials along the rear property line
on the lakeside, however, extending down the side property lines, the fence is
proposed to be a wooden privacy type which is not considered to be see-
through. A variance would also need to be recognized to allow a fence that is
not a see-through type within the 50 foot setback of the OHW.
Impervious surface coverage will be conforming with both proposals.
The applicant noted that the size of the in-ground pool may be reduced to a 14' x 32'.
Glister questioned where the water goes when the pool is drained. Hanson noted that her
neighbor drains their pool into the street. The Building Official reviewed the stormwater
drainage in this area and indicated that there is a stormwater retention pond that treats the
storm water before it enters the wetlands. It was questioned if there are written regulations
relating to discharging pool water. Clapsaddle requested that staff investigate this issue and
advise them of their findings. Mueller also suggested that these regulations could be published
in the City Contact.
2
Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995
Mueller commented that he does not have a problem with pools being on the lakeside of
houses, or in the Lost Lake area, but questioned the hardship. Hanus referred to the original
staff recommendation and suggested that a practical difficulty may exist due to the shallow
lot and due to the fact that other neighbors have decks that are closer to the lake than this
proposal.
Mueller stated that he does not want to set a precedence using the line of site theory as he
feels this causes everything to get closer and closer to the lake.
The Building Official noted that, from a visual perspective, the lost lake wetland area is not the
same as the main body of the lake and noted that other setback variances have been granted
for structures abutting wetlands, however, those other variances were not within the shore
impact zone.
The applicant, Doreen Hanson, asked that both options be approved because she is not sure
if a below ground pool will be allowed due to the soil conditions, even though her first option
would be a below ground pool.
Voss commented that the owner should be allowed reasonable use of their land.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to recommend approval of the
variance that would allow for either pool, both Options 1 or 2, including all
variances as noted within the staff report, subject to the condition that neither
option be constructed closer that 19 feet to the ordinary high water, resulting
in a 31 foot setback variance, and to also approve a 7 foot setback from the
deck to the pool for Option 2. Findings of fact include:
To allow the owner reasonable use of their property as there is no other location
on the property for the pool.
Proposal is not inconsistent with rest of the neighborhood relating to the
nonconforming setbacks to the wetlands.
Unique property due to adjacent wetland.
Approval is subject to the applicant conforming to proper pool water discharging codes.
Michael noted that this proposal increases a nonconforming situation. It was discussed if the
deck surrounding the pool in Option 1 could be considered as a water oriented accessory
structure.
Glister referred to the DNR letter which recommends denial, and questioned if Mound should
endorse a pool as being a reasonable use. She feels that the City is missing the vision of
Mound by giving variances and that they are only increasing nonconformities.
Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995
The Building Official confirmed that every property in this neighborhood on the wetland side
is nonconforming, except for Veit's house.
It was clarified that in Option 2 if the size of the pool is reduced to 14 feet, the Commission
would still recommend that a 7 foot setback from the house be allowed in order to reduce the
setback towards the wetland.
Hanus stated that he is not one to judge that a pool cannot be a hardship. Glister commented
that the issue here is not whether a pool is a luxury or not, it is the conformity of the issue,
and by constructing this pool you are increasing the nonconformity.
Clapsaddle commented that the City writes a code that is not practical and cannot be
maintained and then the City issues variances to it. Clapsaddle compared this to the DNR who
is trying to convert a developed lake back into a boundary waters lake.
Sutherland suggested that maybe this subdivision needs special attention and maybe the shore
impact zone could be reduced when you are looking at wetland areas. He believes that other
upland wetland areas have only a 15 foot setback. Maybe wetland areas should be looked
at differently than main bodies of the lake.
Voss called for the question to vote on the motion on the floor.
MOTION carried 5 to 2. Those in favor were Clapsaddle, Weiland, Mueller,
Voss, and Hanus. Those opposed were Glister and Michael.
This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12, 1995.
Glister commented that we have ordinances and maybe they should be changed, but this
variance should not be granted. Michael agreed and would hope an ordinance change could
be made because what was recommended for approval tonight sets a terrible precedence for
Mound to do this within the 25 foot shoreland impact zone. Sutherland suggested this issue
could be discussed by the Council. Weiland agrees with all the reasons for opposition, but
commented that the City will never write an ordinance that you don't have to ask for a
variance. He feels this area is unique.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
Council Representative Mark Hanus reported to the Commission on the ordinance amendment
to relating to Park Dedication Fees. Mueller questioned if the park dedication fee to be
charged is $500 per lot or 10% of the fair market value? Hanus suggested that it may be the
way the ordinance is being interpreted, and he will check into the issue. Hanus questioned
if the 10% rule applies to minor subdivisions, or only major subdivisions.
4
Planning Commission ~inu=es Augus= 28, 1995
Hanus followed-up on pending ordinance amendments. He reported that the City Council has
prioritized the pending ordinance amendments and have determined that "Streamlining of
Variances is priority #1, and a telecommunications ordinance is priority #2. The mayor
requested more time in order to review the balance of the open ordinance amendments,
including Truth in Housing, Driveways, and Truck Parking, and the balance of the City Council
approved of this delay.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 8:39
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Geoff Michael
Attest:
5
RECEIVED SEP 1
Hennepin County
An Equal Opportunity Employer
August 30, 1995
Vincent D. Forystek
Alternative Industry Resources Inc.
7912 73rd Ave. No.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
Dear Mr. Forystek:
Re: Vacant Land in the City of Mound
In response to your letter dated August 18, 1995 questioning the appraisal process used to form an
opinion of value for your property in Mound, the decision of the 1995 County Board of Equalization
is final. If you have further concems, you may appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court by filing a petition
on or before March 31, 1996. This is the forum which will provide you an opportunity to cross
examine our witness/appraiser regarding what steps, considerations and opinions that led to his or
her conclusion of value.
Information on the tax court can be obtained by contacting:
Minnesota Tax Court
520 Lafayette Road, 2nd Floor
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 296-2806
Sincerely,
Robert H. Hanscom
Appraisal Manager
RHH:jn
cc: Edward J. Shukle Jr., Mound City Manager
Hennepin County General Services
County Assessor Division
A-2103 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213
Recycled Paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472~620
September 1, 1995
Mr. Vincent D. Forystek
Alternative Industry Resources, Inc.
7912 73rd Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
RE: 3137 Inverness Lane
Dear Vince:
As we discussed on the telephone last week, I am enclosing some information with regard to the
responsibilities of local, county and state government as it relates to the assessment on real
estate.
The first document comes from the Handbook for Minnesota Cities, published by the League
of Minnesota Cities, which talks about equalization procedures, City Board of Review, County
Board of Equalization, State Board of Equalization and Appeals to Tax Court. I am also
enclosing copies of Chapter 274 Minnesota Statutes, Section 375.192 of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 270.11, subd. 6 of Minnesota Statutes, Section 271.01, subd. 5 of the Minnesota
Statutes, Section 271.21 of Minnesota StatUteS and Section 271.06 of the Minnesota Statutes.
I hope this information gives you a better understanding of the assessment process that cities,
counties and state government have to follow by state law. If you have any further questions
with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
ES:Is
pr~nte~ff on recycle~ff paper
CHAPTER 22
to the full property tax plus the property
tax on the property at the time the defer-
ral took effect, t Jmes the number of years
of the deferral.
Equalization Procedures
Once the assessors have completed
their work, the city, county, and state
levels of government review and modify,
with limitations, the assessments. During
this review, two kinds of corrections are
possible: the govemlng body may check
the assessor's lists for accuracy, hear
individual complaints, and make any
necessamg adjustments; and It may equal-
ize the ratio of market to assessed market
values. The first function ts the sole
concern of the city board of review, while
the county and state boards devote more
time to the latter task.
When the entire procedure is complete,
the county auditor puts the valuations in
the records to use when making up the
tax rate figures. Only when all three levels
of government have reviewed and equal-
lzed the assessments, do they become the
official assessed values.
CITY BOARD OF REVIEW
The city council may serve as the board
of review in cities which have been sepa-
rated from the town.~ In cities which have
not been separated from the town for
assessment and election purposes, the
town board serves as the board of review.
The city council may appoint a special
board of review. It may delegate to the
board all of the powers and duties the
council would have if it acted as the board
of review. The members of the special
board of review serve at the direction and
discretion of the council. The council
determines the number of members, the
compensation and expense payments, and
the term of office. At least one member of
the board must be an appraiser, realtor,
or other person familiar with property
valuations in the assessment district.
The board of review meets in the city
clerk's office. The city assessor and the
county assessor must attend this meeting
with their assessment books and papers.
These officials may take part in the pro-
ceedings, but may not vote.
The meeting date of the board of review,
which must be between April I and May
31. is fixed by the county assessor on or
before April 1 of each year by giving
written noUce to the city clerk. After
receiving the notice, the clerk must give
published and posted notice of the meet-
lng at least 10 days before the date of the
meeting.
A majority of the members may take
action at the board of review meeUng and
may adjourn the meeting from day to day
for a period of 20 days until they complete
their work. After 20 days. the board has
no authority and any action It takes is
invalid unless the commissioner of rev-
enue has granted an extension.
In fulfilling its role, the board of review
has three main functions.
· It must review the assessor's list,
making sure that all taxable property
in the city has been properly placed on
the list.
· It must review the assessor's
valuations, striving to standardize the
ratio between market value and
adjusted market value for each
individual piece of property. To
accomplish this, the board may raise
or lower valuations on individual
properties, but it cannot increase
valuations without notifying the
property owner and giving that person
an opportunity to be heard.
· The board must hear and settle the
complaints of individual property
owners regarding the valuations on
their property.
If a person fails to appear in person or
through counsel or written communica-
tion before the board of review after
receiving notice of intent to raise the
assessment, or if a person fails to apply
for a review of the assessment, that
person may not appear before the county
board of equalt?ation for a review of the
assessment. An exception is when the
assessment takes place after the meeting
of the board of review or when aggrieved
individuals can establish that they did not
receWe notice at least five days before the
local board of review meeting.
The local board of review may not
reduce the total or aggregate amount of
the county assessor's assessment by more
than one percent. This means that the
274.01 ASSESSMENTS; REVIEW, CORRECTION, EQUALIZATION
CHAPTER 274
ASSESSMENTS; REVIEW, CORRECTION,
EQUALIZATION
274.01 Board of review. 274.12 Duties of auditor and
274.03 Notice of meeting. 274.13 County board of equalization.
274.04 Aa.sessor's return to auditor. 274. ]4 Length of session; record
274.05 Auditor's certificates. 274.16 Corrected lists, abstracts.
274.07 List by pemon sick or absent. 274.17 Record; abstract to County
274.08 Correction of books.
auditor~.
274.09 Correction of false lists and 274.175 Values finaliz~L
returns. 274.18 Abstract of realty assessment roll
274.10 Property omitted or undervalued.
274.11 Taxes a lien on property in to town clerks.
examiner's list.
274.01 BOARD OF REVIEW.
Subdivision I. Ordinary board; meetings, deadlines, grievances. (a) The town board.s
ora town, or the council or other governing body of a city, is the board of review except .~
in cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization. The county assessor shall
fix a day and time when the board or the board of equalization shall meet in the assess-
ment districts of the county. On or before February 15 of each year the assessor shall
give written notice of the time to the city or town clerk. Notwithstanding the provisions
of any charter to the contrary., the meetings must be held between April 1 and May 31
each year. The clerk shall give published and posted notice of the meeting at least ten
days before the date of the meeting. The board shall meet at the office of the clerk to
review the assessment and classification of property in the town or city. No changes in
valuation or classification which are intended to correct errors in judgment by the
county assessor may be made by the count), assessor after the board of review or the'
county board of equalization has adjourned; however, corrections of errors that are ~
merely clerical in nature or changes that extend homestead treatment to property are '
permitted after adjournment until the tax extension date for that assessment year. The
changes must be fully documented and maintained in the assessor's office and must be
available for review by any person. A copy of the changes made during this period must
be sent to the county board no later than December 31 of the assessment year.
(b) The board shall determine whether the taxable property in the town or city has
been properly placed on the list and properly valued by the assessor. If real or personal
property has been omitted, the board shall place it on the list with its market value, and
correct the assessment so that each tract or lot of real property, and each article, parcel,
or class of personal property, is entered on the assessment list at its market value. No
assessment of the property of any person may be raised unless the person has been duly
notified of the intent of the board to do so. On application of any person feeling
aggrieved, the board shall review the assessment or classification, or both, and correct
it as appears just.
(c) A local board of review may reduce assessments upon petition of the taxpayer
but the total reductions must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the county
assessor by more than one percent. If the total reductions would lower the aggregate
assessments made by the county assessor by more than one percent, none of the adjust-
ments may be made. The assessor shall correct any clerical errors or double assessments
discovered by the board of review without regard to the one percent limitation.
(d) A majority of the members may act at the meeting, and adjourn from day to
day until they finish hearing the cases presented. The assessor shall attend, with the
assessment books and papers, and take part in the proceedings, but must not vote. The
county assessor, or an assistant delegated by the county assessor shall attend the meet-
ings. The board shall list separately, on a form appended to the assessment book, all
omitted property added to the list by the board and all items of property increased or
long~
dart
COl
2.
whose.
TI-.
~he
shai
.... to b
boarc
yak
I-Iistor3':
i 32 art 8 s 3
.582 s 3:19'
7 s 37: 1~
274.013 IR
-274.02 [R
NO~
The clef
. meeting of tl~
'al~ any asses
'ii~;~ Histor)':
274.O4 ASS
~" Subdivi:
in the assessr
ment showin
foot the tots
day of May.
deliver the Ii
davit_ ~nbsta
""St, M:
County of ..
.204
'ION,
or and
~f equalization-
on;
. abstraas.
~ to count,/
flt¥ a.~-~raent roll
.. (a) The town board
lard of review except
county assessor shall
:11 meet in the assess-
ear the assessor shall
~nding the provisions
~ April 1 and May 31
e meeting at least ten
: office of the clerk to
or city. No changes in
s iglllilgment by the
)o~ll[ review or the
OhS o'BY errors that are
.tment to property are
: assessment year. The
or's office and must be
luring this period must
assessment year.
· in the town or city has
-ssor. If real or personal
th its market value, and
and each article, parcel,
at its market value. No
.he person has been duly
a of any person feeling'
~on, or both, and correct
. petition of the taxpayer
nent made by the count~
ould lower the aggregate
rcent, none of the adjuSt-
,rs or double assessmentS
percent limitation.
and adjourn from day
sor shall attend, with
;s, but must not vote.
;sot shall attend the
book,
ASSESSMENTS; REVIEW, CORRECTION, EQUALIZATION 274.04
205
decreased, with the market value of each item of property, added or changed by the
board, placed opposite the item. The county assessor shall enter all changes made by
the board in the assessment book.
(e) If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel, or by written communication
before the board after being duly notified of the board's intent to raise the assessment
of the property, or if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment or classification fails
to apply for a review of the assessment or classification, the person may not appear
before the county board of equalization for a review of the assessment or classification.
This paragraph does not apply if an assessment was made after the board meeting, as
provided in section 273.01, or if the person can establish not having received notice
of market value at least five days before the local board of review meeting.
(f) The board of review or the board of equalization must complete its work and
adjourn within 20 days from the time of convening stated in the notice of the clerk,
unless a longer period is approved by the commissioner of revenue. No action taken
after that date is valid. All complaints about an assessment or classification made after
the meeting of the board must be heard and determined by the county board of equal-
ization. A nonresident may, at any time, before the meeting of the board of review file
written objections to an assessment or classification with the county assessor. The
objections must be presented to the board of review at its meeting by the county asses-
mr for its consideration.
Subd. 2. Special board; duties delegated. The governing body of a city, including
a city whose charter provides for a board of equalization, may appoint a special board
of review. The city may delegate to the special board of review all of the powers and
duties in subdivision 1. The special board of review shall serve at the direction and dis-
' fthe a ointing body, subject to the restrictions imposed by law. The appoint-
?reu. on, o _ ,, P~_P~___:_~ .~,o'number of members of the board, the compensation and
'!. mg ooay snan oetcmxm~
paid, and the term of office of each member. At least one member of the
board of review must be an appraiser, realtor, or other person familiar with
p. roperty valuations in the assessment district.
an History: (2034) RL s 847; 1941 c 402 s I; 1945 c 402 s I; 1949 c 543 s I; Ex1967
' 32 art 8 s 3; 1971 c 434 s 3; I971 c 564 s 6; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 150 s 1; 1973
s 3; 1975 c 339 s 5; 1977 c 434 s II; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 229 art 4 s I; 1987 c 268
:~art 7 s 37; 1988 c 719 art 7 s 8; 1990 c 480 art 7 s 14
[Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70]
[Repealed, 1949 c 543 s 2]
· NOTICE OF MEETING.
clerk shall give at least ten days' posted notice of the time and place of the
of the board of review. Failure to give notice or hold the meeting does not viti-
,ag. ff assessment, except as to the excess over the market value of the property.
(2036) RL s 849; 1941 c 402 s 2; 1975 c 339 s 8; 1987 c 229 art 4 s I
_ASSESSOR'S RETURN TO AUDITOR.
1. Assessment books; affidavits. The assessor shall foot each colunm
and make in each book, under proper headings, a tabular state-
the footings of the several columns on each page. The assessor shall also
of the columns under the headings. On or before the first Mort-
the assessor shall return the assessment books to the county auditor and
lhe lists and statements of persons assessed. The return must be verified by atti-
in the following form:
)
) SS.
· -. , assessor of ........... solemnly swear that the book to which this is attached
?
274.1}4 ASSESSMENTS; REVIEw, CORRECTION, EQUALIZATION
contains a correct and full list of real property (or personal property, as the case
be) subject to taxation in ........... and that the market value and the net tax capacit~
the proper column, opposite the descriptions of property, is in each ease the market
the net tax capacity of the property, to the best of my knowledge and belief (where.
assessment has been corrected by the town board, "except as corrected by the
board"), and that the footings of the several columns in the book, and the tabular
ment returned with it, are correct.
Assessor.
Signed and sworn to before me this .......... day of ........... 19 ....
Auditor of .......... County."
The auditor shall preserve the records. · -:~h
Subd. 2. Summary; affidavit. In counties where the county auditor has elected
keep records under section 273.03, subdivision 2, the county assessor shall
summaries of the total amount of market valuations and net lax capacities by
sions of government within the county as of January 2 of each year. The
be in the form required by the commissioner of revenue. The summary must be submit,,o"
ted on or before the fourth Monday of June and must be verified by the assessor's
davit, substantially in the following form:
"State of Minnesota ) ".
) ss.
County of ........................... ) b
I ............ assessor of ........... solemnly swear that the summary attached to this
davit contains a correct and full statement of market valuations and net tax capacities
of real estate for the year 19 .....
Assessor.
Signed and sworn to before me this .......... day of ........... 19 ....
Auditor of .............................. County."
A copy of the summary must be certified by the county assessor and promptly for-
warded to the commissioner of revenue.
History: (2037) RL s 850; 1945 c 146 s 1; 1963 c 781 s 3; 1971 c 564 s 7; 1973 c 582
s 3; 1975 c 339 s 8; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 229 art 4 s I; 1988 c 719 art 5 s 84; 1989 c 329
art 13 s 20
274.05 AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATES.
Subdivision 1. Auditor's certificate of assessment books. Upon the return of the
assessment books under section 274.04, the county auditor shall examine ~3aem; and,
if found in proper form, shall issue a certificate to the assessor. The certificate must state
tha~ the books comply with section 274.04. The assessor shall lile the certificate with
the clerk of the town. The town board must not pay the assessor for services until the
assessor has complied with this section.
Subd. 2. Auditor's certificate of summaries. On receiving the summaries under sec-
tion 274.04, subdivision 2, the county auditor shall examine them and, if found in
proper form, shall issue a certificate to the assessor. The certificate must state that the
summaries comply with section 274.04, subdivision 2.
History: (2038, 2039) 1907 c 87 s I,Z 1963 c 781 s 4:1975 c 339 s 8; 1986 c 444;
1987 c 229 art 4 s 1
274.06 [Repealed, 1949 c 543 s 2]
LIST BY
may
at any tin
list the prop
No state
to the state
any person.
or distri
from
(20
CORR}
The county
ibeen omitte
of the omis
of the orr
ar
:' History: (:
CORt
; If thc cou
of OersO~
qui
~'re'turn of the:
the auditor s~
of ta
For purl:
mendance o
and examine
entry on the
erty of the ri
rect. The cc
evidence up
reduce the a
sioner of re
county aud!
HistoE
an4sl
274.10 PI~
Subdi'
examiner '
a gourt or
amount o~
assessmen
grossly un
merit has
bein writ
of the 0.,012
c shi'
p~..on sl'
ASSESSMENTS: REVIEW, CORRECTION, EQUALIZATION 274.10
LIST BY PERSON SICK OR ABSENT.
required to list property for taxation is prevented by sickness or
listing it with the assessor, the person, or the person's agent in charge of
may give the auditor a statement of the property value as required by this
at any time before the taxes are extended by the county auditor. The auditor
:list the property and correct the corresponding items in the return made by the
No statement may be received from any person who refused or neglected to
~to the statement when required by the assessor. No statement may be received
any person, unless the person makes and files with it an aHdavit of absence from
or district without design to avoid the listing of the property/, or was prevented
~ess from giving the assessor the required statement when asked to do so.
(2041) RL s 851; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 229 art 4 s I
CORRECTION OF BOOKS.
~¥he county auditor shall carefully examine the assessment books. If any property
· ~ omitted, the auditor shall enter it on the list. The auditor shall notify the asses-
'the omission. Upon notification, the assessor shall immediately determine the
: of the omitted property and correct the original return. If the assessor does not
the auditor shall determine the value of the property and make the necessary
"' 'History: (2042) RL s 852; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 229 art 4 s 1
~4.09 CORRECTION OF FALSE LISTS AND RETURNS.
~- If the county auditor believes that any person has given the assessor a false state-
of personal property, or that the assessor has not returned the full amount of all
property required to be listed in the assessor's town or district, or has omitted, or made
afl erroneous return of, any property subject to taxation, the auditor shall correct the
rt~urn of the assessor. At any time before the final settlement with the county treasurer,
the auditor shall charge the owners of the property on the tax lists with the proper
amount of taxes.
For purposes of this section the auditor may issue compulsory process, require the
attendance of any person supposed to have a knowledge of the property, or its value,
and examine the person, on oath, about the statement or return. Before making the
entry on the tax list, the county auditor shall notify the person required to list the prop-
erty of the right to show that the person's statement or the return of the assessor is cor-
rect. The county auditor shall file in the auditor's oHce a statement of the facts or
evidence upon which the auditor made the corrections. The county auditor must not
reduce the amount returned by the assessor without the written consent of the commis-
sioner of revenue. A statement supporting the reduction must be submitted by the
county auditor or the party aggrieved to the commissioner of revenue.
History: (2043) RL s 853; Ex1959 c 59 s 2; 1973 c 582 s 3; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 229
art 4s l
274.10 PROPERTY OMITTED OR UNDERVALUED.
Subdivision 1. Examiner, appoinl~nent, duties. The governor shall appoint an
examiner when it appears to the governor on a verified complaint, or by the finding of
a court or of the legislature, or any committee of the legislature, that a considerable
amount of property in any county has been improperly omitted from the tax lists and
assessment roll of thc county for a year, or, if assessed, that the property has been
grossly undervalued by the assessor or other county officials, whether or not the assr'
ment has been reviewed by the county board of equalization. The appointme,"
be in writing. The appointee must be a competent citizen of the state, but no'
of the county. Thc person appointed shall determine the character, loc~"
ownership of the real and personal property in the county omitted or ~.
person shall take an oath to faithfully perform the duties.
274.10 ASSESSMENTS; REVIEW, CORRECTION, EQUALIZATION
The person shall examine the subject and prepare a report in duplicate. A list
be attached to the report, showing the character, location, ownership,
all property that has been omitted or undervalued. The list must state the years or
of years that the property has been omitted or undervalued. The list must show
each piece or parcel of land or item of personal property undervalued, the amount
the assessment, its actual and market value at the time it should have been
and the difference between its assessed and actual value. On or before January 1,
assessment year, the examiner shall file the report and list with the county
with the commissioner of finance. Lists must be verified substantially as follows:
"I ............................... solemnly swear that I have personally examined the real and
personal property in the attached list, and that it is a correct and full list of the real:
personal property subject to taxation in the county, and omitted from taxation for the
years stated in it, or, if assessed for those years, grossly undervalued, and that the char-
acter, location, ownership, and valuation of the property as set down in the
umn, opposite the property, are correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief." '
Subd. 2. Deputies; appointment, duties. When necessary to properly perform dutie~a~
within the time prescribed by law, with the approval of the governor, the examiner may:~
appoint one or more well-qualified citizens of the state as deputies to assist in the per-
formance of examiner's duties. The deputies shall perform the duties assigned them bLq
the examiner. The deputies must take an oath to faithfully perform the duties. ..~
Subd. 3. Compensation of examiner and deputies. The examiner shall be paid $3
for services, and each deputy shall be paid $2, for every day they are necessarily
employed in the performance of their duties. The examiner and deputies shall be paid
their necessary expenses. Upon the approval by the governor, the compensation and
expenses must be paid out of the general fund in the state treasury. The respective coun-
ties shall reimburse the state two years after the payments are made. The state auditor'z
shall notify the county auditor of the amount to be paid. The county auditor shall levy'
a tax on the taxable property in the county sufficient to pay it. When collected, the pro-
ceeds of the tax must be paid into the state treasury like other state taxes.
History: (2044, 2045, 2046) RL s 854,855,856:1973 c 492 s 14; 1975 c 339 s & 1986
c 444; 1987 c 229 art 4 s I
274.11 TAXES A LIEN ON PROPERTY IN EXAMINER'S LIST.
The taxes upon the property on the list of the examiner under section 274.10, and
found to have been omitted from or undervalued in the tax list for any year, is a lien
upon all the real property owned in the county by any person named in it as the owner.
The lien attaches at the time the list is filed with the county auditor. The lien continues
until the taxes are paid. The lien may be satisfied from the proceeds of the sale of any
property in the county owned by the person.
History: (2047) RL s 857; 1987 c 229 art 4 s 1
274.12 DUTIES OF AUDITOR AND ASSESSORS.
Upon the receipt of the examiner's list, the county auditor shall enter the property
described in it in the real and personal property assessment books. Upon receiving the
books from the auditor, the assessor shall assess the property entered in it at its market
value as shown by the list. A copy of the list must be furnished to the assessor with the
assessment books of the district. The assessor shall also make the necessary corrections
in any assessment made before receipt of the list to correspond with the market value
of the property shown in the list and correct the returns accordingly. The auditor shall
proceed under sections 273.02 and 274.09. On finding from the examiner's list that any
property has been omitted from or undervalued in the lists of any prior year or years,
the auditor shall enter it on the assessment and tax books for the year or years it was
omitted or undervalued. The omitted and undervalued property must be assessed at
the valuation and amounts shown on the list. The arrearages of taxes on the property
accruing against il must be extended upon the tax list for the current year and collected
taxes
is ~
COU:
th(
district
of th
of eqt
at the
. pefforrr
the assessr
or lot of
: assessme'
(1) The
opinio:
b,
'whose nar
t~"a time ar
(2) The
he
i
It shall raise
rations, wht
value c
corporatior
';~otice to ti-
. a hearing.
~ (4) Th
plaint of a
vidual's pe
is assessed
believes w
(5) Ti
as submitt
tor under ~
raise the ~
'of the cou
market va
to be its r
(6) 'r
is not prc
Subd
ing comp
ments ar,
counsel, (
0~ bo:
tt .,ea~
hag befor
nue and,
~SSF_SSM£~rS; a~-W~W, COllECTION, EQUALIZATION 274,13
taxes. An assessor or county auditor who neglects to perform a duty under
is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to the usual penalty, the assessor
liable on official bond for all taxes on the property on the examiner's list.
(2048) RL s 858; 1975 c 339 s 8; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 229 art 4 s I
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION-
1. Members; meetings; rules for equalizing assessments. The county
or a majority of them, with the county auditor, or, if~he auditor cannot
the deputy county auditor, or, if there is no deputy, the court administrator
court, shall form a board for the equalization of the assessment of the
of the county, including the property of all cities whose charters provide for
Of equalization. The board shall meet annually, on the date specified in secuon
the office of the auditor. Each member shall take an oath to fairly and impar-
perform duties as a member· The board shall examine and compare the returns
of property of the towns or districts, and equalize them so that each
. lot of real property and each article or class of personal property is entered on list at its market value, subject to the following rules:
The board shall raise the valuation of each tract or lot of real property which
~inion is returned below its market value to the sum believed to be its market
The board must first give notice of intention to raise the valuation to the person
name it is assessed, if the person is a resident of the county. The notice must
time and place for a hearing.
(2) The board shall reduce the valuation of each tract or lot which in its opinion
above its market value to the sum believed to be its market value.
(3) The board shall raise the valuation of each class of personal property which in
its opinion is returned below its market value to the sum believed to be its market value.
it shall raise the aggregate value of the personal property of individuals, firms, or corpo-
rations, when it believes that the aggregate valuation, as returned, is less than the mar-
ket value of the taxable personal property possessed by the individuals, firms, or
corporations, to the sum it believes to be the market value. The board must first give
fiotice to the persons of intention to do so. The notice must set a time and place for
a hearing.
'~ (4) The board shall reduce the valuation of each class of personal property that is
~eturned above its market value to the sum it believes to be its market value. Upon com-
l~laint of a party aggrieved, the board shall reduce the aggregate valuation of the indi-
vidual's personal property, or of any class of personal property for which the individual
is assessed, which in its opinion has been assessed at too large a sum, to the sum it
believes was the market value of the individual's personal property of that class.
(5) The board must not reduce the aggregate value of all the property of its county,
as submitted to the county board of equalization, with ~he additions made by the audi-
tor under this chapter, by more than one percent of its whole valuation. The board may
raise the aggregate valuation of real property, and of each class of personal property,
of the county, or of any town or district of the county, when it believes it is below the
market value of the property, or class of propertY, to the aggregate amount it believes
to be its market value.
(6) The board shall change the classification of any property which in its opinion
is not properly classified.
Subd. 1 a. Failure to appear or appeal. If a person, other than a public utility, min-
ing company, or the metropolitan airports commission for which the original assess-
ments are determined by the commissioner of revenue, fails to appear in person, by
counsel, or by written communication before the county board after being duly notified
of the board's intent to raise the assessment of the person's propertY, or if a person fails
to appeal a decision of the board of review as described in section 274.01 after appear-
ing before the local board, the person may not appear before the commissioner of reve-
nue under section 270.1 l, subdivisions 5 and 6, to contest the valuation.
274.13 ASSESSMENTS; REVIEW, CORRECTION, EQUALIZATION
Subd. 2. Special board; delegated duties. The board of equalization for any
may appoint a special board of equalization and may delegate to it the powers.
duties in subdivision 1. The special board of equalization shall serve at the
and discretion of the appointing county board, subject to the restrictions imposed b}
law on thc appointing board. The appointing board may determine the number
members to be appointed to the special board, the compensation and expenses to
paid, and the term of office of each member. At least one member of the
of equalization must be an appraiser, realtor, or other person familiar with
valuations in the county. The county auditor is a nonvoting member and serves as'
recorder for the special board.
History: (2049) RL s 859; 1945 c 401 s I; 1949 c 543 s 3; 1971 c 564 s 8; 1975 c 33§
s 6; 1977 c 434 s 12; 1980 c 437 s 7; 1986 c 444; ISp1986 c 3 art 1 s 82; 1987 c 229 a
4 s I; 1993 c 375 art 3 s 22 .
274.14 LENGTH OF SESSION; RECORD.
-~,
The county board of equalization or the special board of equalization appointed
by it shall meet during the last two weeks in June that contain ten meeting days, exclud-
ing Saturday and Sunday. No action taken by the county board of review after June 30
is valid, except for corrections permitted in sections 273.01 and 274.01. The county
auditor shall keep an accurate record of the proceedings and orders of the board. The
record must be published like other proceedings of county commissioners. A copy of
the published record must be sent to the commissioner of revenue, with the abstra?~
of assessment required by section 274.16.
History: (2050) RL s 860; 1949 c 543 s 4; 1971 c 564 s 9; 1973 c 582 s 3; 1975 c 339
s 7; 1976 c 334 s 8; 1980 c 437 s 8; 1987 c 229 art 4 s 1; 1987 c 268 art 7 s 38; 1Sp1989
c l art 9 s 29;1990 c 480 art 7s15
274.15 [Repealed, 1975 c 301 s 16]
274.16 CORRECTED LISTS, ABSTRACTS.
The county assessor or, in Ramsey county, the official designated by the board of
county commissioners shall calculate the changes of the assessment lists determined by
the county board of equalization, and make corrections accordingly, in the real or per-
sonal lists, or both, and shall make duplicate abstracts of them. One must be filed in
the assessor's office, and one must be forwarded to the commissioner of revenue as pro-
vided in section 270.11, subdivision 2.
History: (2052) RL s 862; 1949 c 543 s 5; 1955 c 71 s I; 1971 c 25 s 56; 1971 c 564
s I0; 1973 c 582 s 3; 1978 c 743 s II; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 229 art 4 s 1; 1987 c 268 art
7s 39
274.17 RECORD; ABSTRACT TO COUNTY AUDITORS.
The secretary shall keep a record of the proceedings of the county board of equal-
ization. The record must be published in the annual report of the commissioner of
finance. Upon final adjournment the secretary shall send each county auditor an
abstract of the proceedings, specifying: (1) the percent added to or deducted from the
valuation of the real property of each of the towns and cities, and of the real property
not in towns or cities, in case an equal percent has not been added to or deducted from
each; (2) the percent added to or deducted from the classes of personal property in each
of the towns and cities; and (3) the amounts added to the assessments of individuals,
firms, or corporations.
The county auditor shall add to or deduct from each tract or lot of real property
in the county the required percent on the valuation of the property after equalization
by the county board, rounding the value of each separate tract or lot to the nearest dol-
lar. The county auditor shall also add to or deduct from the classes of personal property
in the county the required percent on the valuation of the property after equalization
:county boz
and corpor
'History: (20:
art 4 s I
t75 VALU;
.i The assessm
273.124, st
arc final o~
roils
'pursuant lc
History: 15
ABST~
Once each
'{he county who
~ssessment roll
~,~. History: (2
375 art 3 s 23
~.74.19 [Re!:
274.20 [Re!r
ASSESSMENTS; REVIEW, CORRF..CTION, EQU.O..IZATION 2"/d.lS
, board, rounding the value of each separate class of personal property to
dollar. The county auditor shall also add to the assessments of individuals,
corporations after equalization by the county board, the required amounts.
(2053) RL s 864; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 492 $14; I986 c 444; 1987
4sl
VALUES FINALIZED.
assessments recorded by the county assessor and the county auditor under sec-
r3.124, subdivision 9; 274.16; 274.17; or other law for real and personal prop-
final on July 1 of the assessment year, except for property added to the
rolls under section 272.02, subdivision 4, or deleted because of tax forfei-
to chapter 281. No changes in value may be made after July 1 of the
year, except for corrections permitted in sections 273.01 and 274.01.
ISp1989c I art 9 s 30; 1990 c 480 art 7 s 16
ABSTRACT OF REALTY ASSESSMENT ROLL TO TOWN CLERKS.
~nce each year, the county auditor shall make out and send to each town clerk in
county who has requested it, a copy or abstract of the latest available real estate
lent roll of the town, as equalized by the county and state boards of equalization.
History: (2054) RL s 865; 1979 c 50 s 31; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 229 art 4 s I; 1993 c
'art 3 s 23
[Repealed, 1993 c 375 art 3 s 47]
[Repealed, 1993 c 375 art 3 s 47]
37S.lgl COUNTY BOARDS
94
375.181 SITES FOR COUNTY BUILDINGS.
If the board of county commissioners at any regular or extra meeting adopts and
enters in the minutes of its proceedings a resolution declaring that it is necessary to
acquire for the use of the county any land, describing it, to be used as a site for a court-
house or other public building or to enlarge the site of a courthouse or other public
building already owned by the county, and the board of county commissioners is unable
to purchase the land at a reasonable price, the land may be acquired by condemnation
as provided in chapter 117.
History: (6558) 1905 c 7 $1; 1961 c 561 s 7; 1984 c 629 $ 2
375.182 NEGLECT OF DIY~.
Every member of the county board who shall neglect or omit to discharge any of
the duties imposed by law shall be deemed guilty of a gross misdemeanoE and, upon
conviction, punished by a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $3,000.
History: (855) RI. s 509:1969 c 9 s 82:1984 c 628 art $ $ ll
375.19 ADDITIONAL POWERS.
A county board may accept for its county real or personal property by gift, bequest,
devise, conveyance, or otherwise from any person whose care, support, treatment, or
maintenance, in whole or part, is or may be chargeable to or furnished or provided by
the county, and hold or dispose of it for the benefit of the county, as in the case of other
county property. It may permit use of county equipment for soil conservation projects
and make annual expenditures from the general revenue fund for soil conservation pur-
poses.
History: (669) 1923 c 241; 1947 c 255 s I; 1951 c 645 s I; 1969 c 637s 1; 1974 c 72
s 1; 1984 c 629 s 2
375.191 [Repealed, 1969 c 333 s 7]
375.192 REDUCTIONS OR ABATEMENTS OF VALUATION OR TAXES.
Subdivision 1. [Repealed, 1990 c 604 art 3 s 65]
Subd. 2. Upon written application by the owner ofany property, the county board
may grant the reduction or abatement of estimated market valuation or taxes and of
any costs, penalties, or interest on them as the board deems just and equitable and order
the refund in whole or part of any taxes, costs, penalties, or interest which have been
erroneously or unjustly paid. The county board is authorized to consider and grant
reductions or abatements on applications only as they relate to taxes payable in the cur-
rent year and the two prior years; provided that reductions or abatements for the two
prior years shall be considered or granted only for (i) clerical errors, or (ii) when the
taxpayer fails to file for a reduction or an adjustment due to hardship, as determined
by the county board. The application must include the social security number of the
applicant. The social security number is private data on individuals as defined by sec-
tion 13.02, subdivision 12. Ail applications must be approved by the county assessor,
or, if the property is located in a city of the first or second class having a city assessor,
by the city assessor, and by the county auditor before consideration by the county
board, except that the part of the application which is for the abatement of penalty or
interest must be approved by the county treasurer and county auditor. Approval by the
c.ounty or city assessor is not required for abatements of penalty or interest. No reduc-
tion, abatement, or refund of any special assessments made or levied by any municipal-
ity for local improvements shall be made unless it is also approved by the board of
review or similar taxing authority of the municipality. Before taking action on any
reduction or abatement where the reduction of taxes, costs, penalties, and interest
exceed $10,000, the county board shall give 20 days' notice to the school board and the
municipality in which the property is located. The notice must describe the property
involved, the actual amount of the reduction being sought, and the reason for the reduc-
If the schoc
the c
of revenue
or reductic
appeal n
in the exe-
county
from ti
prop
June 30
~tify the com~
CO
of the applicant
Subd. 3.
shall authorize
subdivision 4, i
board shall not
~aich the taxe.'
History: I
~582 s 3:1977
~ 2; 1986 c 444
13 s 20; 1990 c
~993 c ~-' art
375.193 tReF
375.195 SAL~
~ Subdivisi(
board, the cou
appraised by
in trust for th~
may, at any ti
by the county
Subd. 2.
may sell at pu
lets under the
taxing district
by the commi
of natural rest
public sale, ti'
sale by the cc
Subd. 3.
offered for sa!
tute a fire ha:
before the sal
post on the
in the courth(
tion of the bu
their apprais
Subd. 4.
be co,~ ~fion
impi len
the
or 2.
COUNTY BOARDS 3'/5.195
If the school board or the municipality object to the granting of the reduction or
the county board must refer the abatement or reduction to the commis-
of revenue with its recommendation. The commissioner shall consider the abate-
or reduction under section 270.07, subdivision 1.
An appeal may not be taken to the tax court from any order of the county board
in the exercise of the discretionary authority granted in this section.
The county auditor shall notify the commissioner of revenue of all abatements
from the erroneous classification of real property, for tax purposes, as non-
~omestead property. For the abatements relating to the current year's tax processed
~June 30, the auditor shall notify the commissioner on or before July 31 of that
year of all abatement applications granted. For the abatements relating to the cur-
year's tax processed after June 30 through the balance of the year, the auditor shall
;~tify the commissioner on or before the following January 31 of all applications
The county auditor shall submit a form containing the social security number
of the applicant and such other information the commissioner prescribes.
Subd. 3. Subject to the approval of the commissioner of revenue, the county board
shall authorize the county auditor to grant the credits denied under section 272.115,
': subdivision 4, ifa certificate of value has been filed with the county auditor. The county
board shall not hear any requests under this subdivision after May 31 of the year in
'which the taxes are payable.
::c Histo~: 1949 c 76 s I; 1949 c 485 s I; 1963 c 591 s 1; Ex1967 c 32 art 8 s 4; 1973
'c-582 s 3; 1977 c 423 art 4 s 3; 1980 c 607 art 3 s 8; ISp1981 c I art 8 s 17; 1984 c 629
s 2; 1986 c 444; 1988 c 719 art 5 s 84; art 6 s 16; 1989 c 277 art 2 s 58; 1989 c 329 art
13 s 20; 1990 c 604 art 3 s 38; 1991 c 291 art I2 s 21; 1992 c 511 art 2 s 34; art 4 s 22;
1993 c 375 art 5 s 31
375.193 [Repealed, 1984 c 503 s 6]
375.195 SALE OF BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Subdivision 1. Count~ auditor may sell property. Upon resolution of the county
board, the county auditor may sell at public auction for cash at not less than the value
appraised by the county board, buildings or improvements upon lands held by the state
in trust for the taxing districts. If the buildings are not sold at the public auction, they
may, at any time within one year from the date of the auction, be sold at private sale
by the county auditor at not less than the appraised value.
Subd. 2. Sale on request of commissioner of natmnd resoutn:es. The county auditor
may sell at public auction any buildings or improvements upon state lands or platted
lots under the control of the commissioner of natural resources not held in trust for the
taxing districts, at not less than the value appraised by the county board and approved
by the commissioner of natural resources, if requested to do so by the commissioner
of natural resources. If the buildings or improvements are not sold when offered at the
public sale, they may within one year from the date of the auction be sold at private
sale by the county auditor at not less than their appraised value.
Subd. 3. Finding by count~ board. The buildings or improvements shall not be
offered for sale or sold until the county board has, by resolution, found that they consti-
tute a fire hazard, an inducement to trespass, or a public nuisance. At least two weeks
before the sale, the county auditor shall publish in a legal newspaper in the county and
post on the bulletin board in the auditor's office and at least one other prominent place
in the courthouse, a notice of the sale, which shall include the date of the sale, a descrip-
tion of the buildings and improvements and the lands upon which .they are situated and
their appraised value.
Subd. 4. Sale conditioned upon removal. All sales under subdivisions 1 or 2 shall
be conditioned upon the removal from the land by the purchaser of all buildings and
improvements within 90 days of the date of purchase. Upon failure to so remove them,
the buildings shall revert to the state and may be resold as provided in subdivision 1
or 2.
~70.11 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
270.11 POWERS; MEETINGS. ".'"-
Subdivision 1. To act as state board of equalization. The commissioner of revenue'/~
shall have and exercise all the rights, powers and authority by law vested in the
board of equalization, which board of equalization is hereby continued, with full
and authority to review, modify, and revise all of the acts and
missioner in so far as they relate to the equalization and valuation of propert]
for taxation, as prescribed by section 270.12. -
Sub& 2. County assessor's reports of assessment filed with commissioner. Each
county assessor shall file by April 1 with the commissioner of revenue a copy of the,
abstract that will be acted upon by the local and county boards of review. The abstract
must list the real and personal property in the county itemized by assessment districts,:
The assessor of each county in the state shah file with the commissioner, within tew
working days following final action of the local board of review or equalization and
within five days following final action of the county board of equalization, any changes
made by the local or county board. The information must be filed in the manner pre;
scribed by the commissioner. It must be accompanied by a printed or typewritten copy
of the proceedings of the appropriate board.
The final abstract of assessments after adjustments by the state board of equaliza-
tion and inclusion of any omitted property shall be submitted to the commissioner of
revenue on or before September I of each calendar year. The final abstract must sepa-
rately report the captured tax capacity of tax increment financing districts under section
469.177, subdivision 2, the metropolitan revenue contribution value under section
473F.07, and the value subject to the power line credit under section 273.42.
Sub& 3. Special assessors, deputies; reassessments. The commissioner of revenue
shall appoint a special assessor and deputies and cause to be made, in any year, a reas-
sessment of all or any real and personal property, or either, in any assessment district,
when in thc commissioner's judgment such reassessment is desirable or necessary, to
the end that any and all property in such district shall be assessed equitably as com-
pared with like property in the county wherein such district is situated.
Subd. 4. Omitted property. The commissioner of revenue shall require the county
auditor to carefully place upon the assessment rolls omitted property which may be dis-
covered to have escaped assessment and taxation in previous years.
Subd. 5. Examination of complaints; proceedings. The commissioner of revenue
shall receive complaints and carefully examine into all cases where it is alleged that
property subject to taxation has not been assessed or has been fraudulently or for any
reason improperly or unequally assessed, or the law in any manner evaded or violated,
and cause to be instituted such proceedings as will remedy improper or negligent
administration of the taxing of the state.
Subd. 6. Change of market values. The commissioner of revenue shall raise or
lower the market value of any real or personal property, including the power to raise
or lower the market value of the real or personal property of any individual, copartner-
ship, company, association, or corporation; provided, that before any such assessment
against the property of any individual, copartnership, company, association, or corpo-
ration is so raised, notice of an intention to raise such market value and of the time and
place at which a hearing thereon will be held shall be given to such person, by mail,
addressed to the person at the place of residence listed upon the assessment book, at
least five days before the day of such hearing.
All relevant and material evidence concerning the market value of the real or per-
sonal property shall be submitted at the hearing, and the hearing shall not be a "con-
tested case" within the meaning of section 14.02, subdivision 3. The person notified
of the hearing, or any other person having an interest in the property, may present evi-
dence and argument bearing upon the market value of the property.
Subd. 7. Appearances before the commissioner. A property owner, other than a
public utility or mining company, for which the original assessments are determined
by the commissioner of revenue, may not appear before the commissioner for the pur-
provided in subdi'
written communi¢
provided in section
owner can est;
: the local board c
-: The commissioner
small claims divisim
owner shall be
division whenex'
History: (2365)
~74 c 521 s 28; 1975 c
c I art 8 s I; 1982 c 424
c 719 art 5 s 84; 1989
270.12 STATE BOA!
Subdivision 1. Co
revenue shall constitu:
day to day and emplo
Subd. 2. Meeting
and June 30 at the
the returns of the asse
same so tha~ all the ta
subject to the followi~
(1) The board sh
county, which the bo;
percent as wi' ag -
(2) The bv_.d sl~
every county, which
such percent as will r
(3) If the board
of market value unde
any town or district it
of the real property c
without raising or re
or reducing it in the
a part of a class, a
property not in towr
the same to its marl<
(4) The board s
or classes of personz
to be valued below t
market value in mo
(5) Theboard s
or classes of person
to be valued above
its market value in
(6) The board
state, as returned b:
valuation thereof;
(7) When it wc
county auditor to ft
of any individuals,
and equali;,- -,,,ch:
or corpora ab,
it shall appe,~, to
CHAPTER 271
TAX COURT
TAX COURT 271.01
271.01 Creation of tax court: jurisdiction.
271.02 Offn cers.
271.03 Seal.
271.04 Hearings; venue.
271.05 Power to review.
271.06 Appeals from orders.
271.07 Stenographic report; transcript.
271.05 Findings of fact; decision, entry of
judgment.
~.71.09 Appeals and reviews.
271.10 Review by supreme court.
271.I 2 When order effective.
271.13 May compel attendance of
271.15 Who may administer oaths.
271.17 Filing ottieer~.
271.18 Ex-jud~ea not to represent clients;
exception; violation.
271.19 Costa and disbursements.
271.20 Decisions filed within three months.
271.21 Small claims division.
271.001 [Repealed, 1977 c 307 s 31]
271.01 CREATION OF TAX COURT; JURISDICTION.
Subdivision 1. Membership, appointment, qualifications. There is hereby created
a tax court as an independent agency of the executive branch of the government. The
tax court is a court of record. The tax court shall consist of three judges, each of whom
shall be a citizen of the state, appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and
consent of the senate, for a term of six years commencing at the expiration of the pre-
ceding term. Any vacancy shall be filled by the governor for the unexpired term, subject
to confirmation by the senate. The terms of the judges shall end on the first Monday
in January. The terms of the judges shall be staggered, the term of one judge expiring
on the first Monday of each odd-numbered year. Judges may serve until their successors
are appointed and qualify. They shall be selected on the basis of their experience with
and knowledge of taxation and tax laws. The judges of the tax court shall be subject to
the provisions of the Minnesota Constitution, article VI, section 6, the jurisdiction of
the commission on judicial standards, as provided in sections 490.15 and 490.16, and
the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Subd. 1 a. Retired judges. Upon the retirement of a judge of the tax court or the
district court, the chief judge of the tax court may, with the retired judge's consent,
assign the retired judge to hear any case properly assignable to a judge of the tax court
and to act on it with the full powers of a judge of the ~x court. A retired judge perform-
ing this service shall receive pay and expenses in the amount and manner provided by
law for judges serving on the court, less the amount of retirement pay the judge is
receiving under chapter 352 or 490.
Subd. 2. [Repealed, 1977 c 307 s 31]
Subd. 2a. [Repealed, 1977 c 307 s 31]
Subd. 3. [Repealed, 1976 c 134 s 79] ~
Subd. 4. [Repealed, 1971 c 753 s 2]
Subd. 4a. Expenses. Each judge of the tax court shall receive actual and necessary
expenses paid or incurred in the performance of duties as provided in section 43A.04,
subdivision 3.
Subd. 5. Jurisdiction. The tax court shall have statewide jurisdiction. Except for
an appeal to the supreme court or any other appeal allowed under this subdivision, the
tax court shall be the sole, exclusive, and final authority for the hearing and determina-
tion of all questions of law and fact arising under the mx laws of the state, as defined
in this subdivision, in those cases that have been appealed to the tax court and in any
case that has been transferred by the district court to the tax court. The tax court shall
have no jurisdiction in any case that does not arise under the tax laws of the state or
in any criminal case or in any case determining or granting title to real proper~y or in
any case that is under the jurisdiction of the probate court. The small claims division
of the tax court shall have no jurisdiction in any case dealing with property valuation
271.01 TAX COURT
84
Or assessment for property tax purposes until the taxpayer has appealed the valuation
or assessment to the town or city board of equalization and to the county board of
equalization, except for those taxpayers whose original assessments are determined by
the commissioner of revenue. The tax court shall have no jurisdiction in any case
involving an order of the state board of equalization unless a taxpayer contests the valu-
ation of property. Laws governing taxes, aids, and related matters administered by the
commissioner of revenue, laws dealing with property valuation, assessment or taxation
of.property for property tax purposes, and any other laws that contain provisions autho-
rizing review of taxes, aids, and related matters by the tax court shall be considered tax
laws of this state subject to the jurisdiction of the tax court. This subdivision shall not
be construed to prevent an appeal, as provided by law, to an administrative agency,
board of equalization, or to the commissioner of revenue. Wherever used in this chap-
ter, the term commissioner shall mean the commissioner of revenue, unless otherwise
specified.
Subd. 6. [Repealed, 1989 c 324 s 29]
History: (2362-10) 1939 c 431 art 6 s 10; 1943 c 533 s I; 1965 c 698 s 2,3; 1969 c
1125 s 1; 1971 c 226 s 2; 1971 c 753 s 1; 1973 c 582 s 3; 1974 c 355 s 36; 1976 c 134 s
61,62, 78; 1977 c 307 s 2-4,29; 1977 c 432 s 5; 1978 c 6 72 s 1; 1981 c 210 s 54; 1984 c 502
art 11 s 2; 1984 c 592 s 82; 1985 c 305 art 12 s 5; ISp1985 c 14 art 20 s I; 1Sp1985 c
16 art 2 s 26; 1986 c 444; 1986 c 473 s 3; 1987 c 404 s 158; 1988 c 719 art 19 s 12; 1989
c 324 s 7,8
271.02 OFFICERS.
The judges of the tax court shall choose a chief judge. The chief judge shall coordi-
nate and make hearing assignments, and appoint employees who shall be in the unclas-
sifted service. The chief judge may delegate administrative duties to the employees
appointed. The court administrator of district court in each county shall be the court
administrator of the tax court in that county. Filing fees and library fees deposited with
the court administrator of district court in the capacity of court administrator of the
tax court and in cases originally commenced in district court and transferred to the tax
court shall be retained by the court administrator of district court. The court adminis-
trator of the tax court in each county shall be subject to the supervision of the adminis-
trator in tax court matters.
History: (2362-11) 1939 c 431 art 6 s 11; 1965 c 698 s 3; 1976 c 134 s 78; 1977 c 307
s 5,29; 1978 c 672 s 2; 1981 c 356 s 338; 1986 c 444; ISp1986 c 3 art 1 s 82; 1989 c 324
s9
271.03 SEAL.
The tax court shall have a seal, engraved with the words, "State of Minnesota, Tax
Court." Such seal may be used to authenticate the official acts of the tax court or any
judge thereof, but failure to use the seal shall not invalidate any such act.
History: (2362-12) 1939 c 431 art 6 s 12; 1965 c 698 s 3; 1976 c 134 s 78; 1977 c 307
s 29
271.04 HEARINGS; VENUE.
Subdivision I. Generally. The tax court shall hold hearings and meetings as may
be prescribed by the rules of the tax court. The principal office of the tax court shall
be in Saint Paul, but it shall hold hearings at any other place within the state, so that
taxpayers may appear before the court with as little inconvenience and expense to the
taxpayer as is practicable. The tax court shall be allowed to use the district court court
room in all of the counties. The administrator of the tax court shall consult with the
court administrator of the district court involved before a schedule of court room to
be used by the tax court is established. Each tax court judge may hear and decide cases.
Upon petition by a party to a case, or upon a motion by a tax court judge, and approval
by a majority of the tax court, a case may be tried before the entire tax court. When
is taken
I~volving property
~Ramsey county or
shall be in I:
'~'order of the co~
~he'smte shall be i
Sub& 2. [Rep
History: (236;
1978 c 672 s.
271.05 POWER
~.~. The tax cour
the commissione:
::: History: (23¢
s 78; 1977c 307.
271.06 APPEAl
Subdivision
sion 1, paragrap?
manner herein;
respecting an)'
imposition of
diction c se
or affectt. ~ere
interested therei
or by any resider
upon request, s~
is taken to the
ation for proper
5, and chapter
Sub& 2.
60 days after no
the appellant,
missioner and
tot or with the c
tax court; prov-
the time for ale
appeal shall be
the commissio~
in all cases whe
the commissim
general has ap~
deems it again:
the attorney
state at any st:
Upon a fi
jurisdiction ur
shall file a pet:
of district cou
proof of servi
time · red
notice .sse
assessor, Rn 0
equalization.
271.19 TAX COURT
271.19 COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS.
Upon thc determination of any appeal under this chapter before the tax court, or
of any review hereunder by the supreme court, the costs and disbursements shall be
taxed and allowed in favor of the prevailing party and against the losing party as in civil
actions. In any case where a person liable for a tax or other obligation has lost an appeal
or review instituted by the person, and the tax court or court shall determine that the
person instituted thc same merely for thc purposes of delay, or that the taxpayer's posi-
tion in the proceedings is frivolous, additional costs, commensurate with thc expense
incurred and services performed by the agencies of thc state in connection with the
appeal, but not exceeding $$,000 in any case, may be allowed against the taxpayer, in
the discretion of the tax court or court. Costs and disbursements allowed against any
such person shall be added to thc tax or other obligation determined to be due, and shall
be payable therewith. To the extent described in section 15.471, where an award of
costs and attorney fees is authorized under section 15.472, the costs and fees shall be
allowed against the state, including expenses incurred by the taxpayer to administra-
tively protest or appeal to the department of revenue the order, decision, or report of
the commissioner that is the subject of the tax court proceedings. Costs and disburse-
ments allowed against the state or other public agencies shall be paid out of funds
received from taxes or other obligations of the kind involved in the proceeding, or other
funds of thc agency concerned appropriated and available therefor. Witnesses in pro-
ceedings under this chapter shall receive like fees as in the district court, to be paid in
thc first instance by the parties by whom thc witnesses were called, and to be taxed and
allowed as herein provided.
History: (£36£-£8) 1939 c 451 art 6 $ £8; 1965 c 698 $ $; 1976 c 134 $ 78; 1977 c $07
s 29; !984 c 514 ar! $ $ 3,. 1986 c 444,. 1990 c 604 art I s 20; 1991 c 345 art / s 86
271.20 DECISIONS FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS.
Ail questions of fact and law and all matters submitted to the judges of the tax court
shall be disposed of and their decision filed with the court administrator of the ~x court
within three months after such submission, unless sickness or casualty shall prevent,
or the time be extended by written consent of the parties. No part of the salary of any
judge of the tax court shall be paid unless the voucher therefor be accompanied by the
judge's certificate of full compliance with the requirements of this section. A tax court
judge shall devote full time to thc duties of the office and shall not engage in the practice
of law.
History: (£36£-$0) 1959 c 451 art 6 $ 30; 1965 c 698 $ $; 1976 c 134 $ 78; 1977 c 307
s 24,29; 1986 c 444; 1Sp1986 c 3 art I s 82
271.21 SMALL CLAIMS DMSION.
Subdivision I. Division created; judges. There shall be a division of the tax court
known as the small claims division. The judges of the tax court shall sit as judges of
the small claims division. Each judge shall have authority to hear and decide the cases
heard as small claims judge.
Subd. 2. Jurisdletion. At the election of the taxpayer, the small claims division
shall have jurisdiction only in the following matters:
(a) in cases involving valuation, assessment, or taxation of real or personal prop-
erty, if the taxpayer has satisfied the requirements of section 271.01, subdivision 5, and
in the case of nonhomestead property, the assessor's estimated market value is less than
$100,000; or
Co) any other case concerning the tax laws as defined in section 271.01, subdivision
5, in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $5,000, including penalty and
interest.
Sub& 3. Appeal election. A taxpayer may elect to appeal in the small claims divi-
sion instead of appealing to the regular division oflhe tax court. If the taxpayer elects
to appeal to the small claims division, and 30 days have elapsed since the filing of the
or briefs h~
s to appeal to
~ $~ne matter.
Subd. 4. [ReF
Subd. 5. Cu~r
~ small claim'~
in the form ~
the taxpayer's c
the cour
or to ti:
~to the procc
have ex
2.
Subd. 6. He:
without a jury. T
deems necessa~~
in paragraph (b).
admissible as a ~
oath. A party ma.~
ney. No transcn'
Subd. 7.
a case in the sma
in writing. The d
fled in subdivisi~
Sub& 8. Ju
upon all panics
the appropriate
refund, or take c
may be had fro'
form. The judg:
force or effect in
in a case dealing
after the state bc
Subd. 9. S~
be issued only ~
Sub& 10. !
gested with app
tax purposes, th
to the small cia
cases heard as
shall have expe:
values, depend'
of the salary of
of time served z
or incurred in
Subd. 11.
to proceedings
wise.
History: I
1989 c $24 s 2
271.22 [Relr
· or
be
e~l
,si-
ay
of
~s
TAX COURT 271.21
or briefs have been filed or a hearing held on the matter, whichever occurs first,
the taxpayer shall not appeal to the regular division in the same matter. A taxpayer who
?elects to appeal to the regular division shall not appeal to the small claims division in
the same matter.
Subd. 4. [Repealed, 1989 c 324 s 29]
Subd. 5. Commencement of proceeding. A taxpayer shall commence a proceeding
in the small claims division by filing with the court administrator of the tax court a peti-
ti6n in the form prescribed by the rules of the tax court, which shall state the nature
of the taxpayer's claim. Upon the filing of a petition by the taxpayer to the small claims
division, the court administrator of the tax court shall give notice thereof to the com-
missioner or to the appropriate unit of government, who shall thereafter be deemed a
party to the proceeding. In the event a petition is filed, the small claims division shall
thereafter have exclusive jurisdiction over the case if it meets the requirements of sub-
division 2.
Subd. 6. Hearing. The hearing in the small claims division shall be informal and
without a jury. The judge may hear any testimony and receive any evidence the judge
deems necessary or desirable for a just determination of the case except as provided
in paragraph (b). Sales ratio studies published by the department of revenue may be
admissible as a public record without foundation. All testimony shall be given under
oath. A party may appear personally or may be represented or accompanied by an attor-
ney. No transcript of the proceedings shall be kept.
Subd. 7. Dismissal. At any time prior to entry of judgment, a taxpayer may dismiss
a case in the small claims division by notifying the court administrator of the tax court
in writing. The dismissal shall be with prejudice and shall not revoke the election speci-
fied in subdivision 3.
Subd. 8. Judgment. The judgment in the small claims division shall be conclusive
upon all parties and may not be appealed. The court may order the commissioner or
the appropriate unit of government to modify or cancel an assessment, pay or allow a
refund, or take other action necessary to effectuate the judgment. Notice that no appeal
may be had from a small claims judgment shall appear prominently on the petition
form. The judgment shall not be considered as judicial precedent and shall have no
force or effect in any other case, hearing, or proceeding. No judgment shall be rendered
in a case dealing with property valuation or assessment for property tax purposes until
after the state board of equalization has issued its order, if any, for that area or property.
Subd. 9. Subpoenas. Subpoenas in a proceeding in the small claims division will
be issued only at the discretion of the court.
Subd. 10. Referees. Whenever the small claims division trial docket becomes con-
gested with appeals involving valuation, classification, and assessment of property for
tax purposes, the judges of the tax court may appoint referees to hear the cases appealed
to the small claims div/sion. Each referee shall have authority to hear and decide the
cases heard as small claims referee. Each referee shall be a citizen of Minnesota and
shall have experience with and knowledge of tax law or property taxation and property
values, depending on the case at issue. A referee shall be paid at a rate of 80 percent
of the salary of the judges of the district court in that county, prorated by the length
of time served as a referee. Each referee shall receive actual and necessary expenses paid
or incurred in the performance of duties.
Subd. 11. Applicability. The provisions of sections 271.01 to 271.20, shall apply
to proceedings in the small claims division unless this section expressly provides other-
wise.
History: 1977 c 307 s 25; 1986 c 444; ISp1986 c 3 art I s 82; 1987 c 268 art 7 s 25;
1989 c 324 s 20,21; 1991 c 29I art I s 9; 1992 c 511 art 2 s 8
271.22 [Repealed, 1989 c 324 s 29]
85
TAX COURT 271.06
an appeal is taken by a resident taxpayer from an order of the commissioner, not
involving property taxes, venue for the case shall be, at the election of the taxpayer, in
Ramsey county or in the district court judicial district in which the taxpayer resides.
Venue shall be in Ramsey county for an appeal taken by a nonresident taxpayer from
an order of the commissioner. Venue for all other cases arising under the tax laws of
the state shall be in the same judicial district as if the case was being tried in district
COUrt.
Subd. 2. [Repealed, 1992 c 511 art 2 s 60]
History: (2362-13} 1939 c 43I art 6 s 13; 1965 c 698 s 3; 1976 c 134 s 78; 1977 c 307
s 6; 1978 c 672 s 3; 1989 c 324 s I0; 1991 c 291 art I s 8
271.05 POWER TO REVIEW.
The tax court shall have power to review and redetermine orders or decisions of
the commissioner of revenue upon appeal therefrom in the cases authorized by law.
History: (2362-14) 1939 c 431 art 6 s 14; 1965 c 698 s 3; 1973 c 582 s 3; 1976 c 134
s 78; 1977 c 307 s 29
271.06 APPEALS FROM ORDERS.
Subdivision 1. Manner. Except as otherwise provided in section 270.07, subdivi-
sion 1, paragraph (a), or any other law, an appeal to the tax court may be taken, in the
manner herein provided, from any official order of the commissioner of revenue
respecting any tax, fee, or assessment, or any matter pertaining thereto, including the
imposition of interest and penalty, or any matter over which the court is granted juris-
diction under section 271.0 I, subdivision 5, by any person directly interested therein
or affected thereby, or by any political subdivision of the state, directly or indirectly,
interested therein or affected thereby, or by the attorney general in behalf of the state,
or by any resident taxpayer of the state in behalf&the state in case the attorney general,
upon request, shall refuse to appeal. Notwithstanding subdivision 2, when an appeal
is taken to the tax court in any case dealing with property valuation, assessment, or tax-
ation for property tax purposes, the provisions of section 273.125, subdivisions 4 and
5, and chapter 278 shall apply as if the appeal had been taken to the district court.
Subd. 2. Time; notice; intervention. Except as othervdse provided by law, within
60 days after notice of the making and filing of an order of the commissioner of revenue,
the appellant, or the appellant's attorney, shall serve a notice of appeal upon the com-
missioner and file the original, with proof of such service, with the tax court administra-
tor or with the court administrator of district court acting as court administrator of the
tax court; provided, that the tax court, for cause shown, may by written order extend
the time for appealing for an additional period not exceeding 30 days. The notice of
appeal shall be in the form prescribed by the tax court. Within five days after receipt,
the commissioner shall transmit a copy of the notice of appeal to the attorney general
in all cases where the amount at issue exceeds $100. The attorney general shall represent
the commissioner, if requested, upon all such appeals except in cases where the attorney
general has appealed in behalf of the state, or in other cases where the attorney general
deems it against the interests of the state to represent the commissioner, in which event
the attorney general may intervene or be substituted as an appellant in behalf of the
state at any stage of the proceedings.
Upon a final determination of any other matter over which the court is granted
jurisdiction under section 271.01, subdivision 5, the taxpayer or the taxpayer's attorney
shall file a petition or notice of appeal as provided by law with the court administrator
of district court, acting in the capacity of court administrator of the tax court, with
proof of service of the petition or notice of appeal as required by law and within the
time required by law. As used in this subdivision, ~final determination" includes a
notice of assessment and equalization for the year in question received from the local
assessor, an order of the local board of equalization, or an order of a county board of
equalization.
271.06 TAX COURT
The tax court shall prescribe a filing system so that the notice of appeal or petition
filed with the district court administrator acting as court administrator of the tax court
is forwarded to the tax court administrator. In the case of an appeal or a petition con-
cerning property valuation for which the assessor, a local board of equalization, a
county board of equalization or the commissioner of revenue has issued an order, the
officer issuing the order shall be notified of the filing of the appeal. The notice of appeal
or petition shall be in the form prescribed by the tax court.
Subd. 3. Pleadings. Within 30 days after the service and filing of the notice of
appeal, unless the appeal be theretofore dismissed, the commissioner shall make, cer-
tify, and file with the tax court a return composed of a copy of any application or peti-
tion by which the proceeding was instituted and any other material paper preceding the
order of the commissioner, a copy of the order appealed from, all relevant correspon-
dence or other communication, and a denial, admission, or explanation with respec~
to each allegation of fact in the notice so far as not covered by the order;, provided, that
the tax court, for cause shown, may extend the time for filing such return for an addi-
tional period not exceeding 30 days. Where the commissioner is required to transmit
a copy of the notice of appeal to the attorney general, the commissioner shall, within
ten days after service of the notice of appeal upon the commissioner, transmit to the
attorney general a complete copy of all papers required for the return. Allegations of
new matter in the return shall be deemed to be denied by the appellant.
Subd. 4. Appeal fee. At the time of filing the notice of appeal the appellant shall
pay to the court administrator of the tax court an appeal fee of $50; provided, that no
appeal fee shall be required of the commissioner of revenue, the attorney general, the
state or any of its political subdivisions. In small claims division, the appeal fee shall
be $5. The provisions of chapter 563, providing for proceedings in forma pauperis, shall
also apply for appeals to the tax court.
Subd. 5. Modification or rescission of orders. At any time before final determina-
tion of an appeal by the tax court, the commissioner may, upon notice to the appellant
and with the approval of the attorney general, offer to modify or rescind the order
appealed from and, if such action be satisfactory to the appellant and to all other parties
appearing in the proceeding, if any, and they shall stipulate thereto in writing, the pro-
posed modification or rescission shall be made by the commissioner, and the appeal
shall thereupon be dismissed, with such adjustment of costs as may be agreed upon
between the commissioner and the appellant and specified in the stipulation.
Subd. 6. Hearings; determination of issues; default. The tax court shall hear, con-
sider, and determine withou! a jury every appeal de novo. A tax court judge may
empanel an advisory jury upon the judge's motion. The tax court shall hold a public
hearing in every case. All such parties shall have an opportunity to offer evidence and
arguments at the hearing; provided, that the order of the commissioner or the appropri-
ate unit of government in every case shall be prima facie valid. When an appeal to the
mx court has been taken from an order or determination of the commissioner or from
the appropriate unit of government, the proceeding shall be an original proceeding in
the nature of a suit to set aside or modify the order or determination. In case no appel-
lant shall appear the tax court shall enter its order affirming the order of the commis-
sioner of revenue or the appropriate unit of government from which the appeal was
taken. If the department ofrevenue's sales ratio study is introduced in tax court as evi-
dence, the sales ratio data from the study shall be admissible as evidence only as pro-
vided in section 278.05, subdivision 4.
Subd. 7. Rules. Except as provided in section 278.05, subdivision 6, the rules of
evidence and civil procedure for the district court of Minnesoha shall govern the proce-
dures in the tax court, where practicable. The mx court may adopt rules under chapter
14. The rules in effect on January 1, 1989, apply until superseded.
History: (2362-15) 1939 c 431 art 6 s 15; 1943 c 174 s 3; 1945 c 604 s 23,24; 1957
c 770 s 1; 1965 c 698 s 3; 1973 c 582 s 3; 1976 c 134 s 78; 1977 c 307s 7-12,29; 1978 c
672 s 4; 1979 c 333 s 95; 1981 c 253 s 29; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1984 c 502 art 11 s 3; 1986
c 444; 1Sp1986 c 3 art 1 s 82:1989 c 324 s 11-14; 1991 c 345 art I s 85; 1992 c 511 art
2 s 7; 1993 c 375 art 3 s 5,48; 1994 c 587 art 5 s 1
1.061 [Repe
~.07 STEN(
Except in
~tenographic re'
· laws relating to
.]~..paid by the
;.:: History: (2
I3,29; 1986 c
271.08 FINU
~-3 Subdivisic
'determine eve:
of the tax cour
~ertified copy
appropriate ur
and of the sub'
appeared, and
general.
Subd. 2.
in subdivisim
entered there~
History:
s 3; 197~ c 15.
271.0~ .
Subdivis'
subdivision 1
the right of
action of the:
any tax, asse
Upon any ag
the supreme
upon all pa~
sion. In all ca
review, as th
appropriate
Subd. 2
division
court or has
sive, all righ
assessment.
Subd. -"
the mxpayc
the taxpaye'
the taxpaye:
tions 273.1
an appeal d(
poses, as if
Histoc.
s 3; 1976 c
27I RE
~uodix
upon certi(
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
August 23, 1995
Mr. Vincent D. Forystek
Alternative Industry Resources Inc.
7912 73rd Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
RE: 3137 Inverness Lane
Dear Mr. Forystek:
We are in receipt of your letter dated August 18, 1995 regarding questions about the
property assessment at the above location.
The Local Board of Review, which is made up of the City Council, is responsible under
state law to hear appeals by property owners regarding property evaluations that is
placed on those properties by the assessor. In the City of Mound's case, the assessor
is Hennepin County and we contract with Hennepin County to provide the assessment
on an annual basis. The City Council hears the appeal at the first Board of Review
meeting. They then direct the county assessor to conduct a review of the property
pursuant to the appeal and to return to the next Board of Review meeting with their
recommendation. The City Council directed that your property be reviewed at the first
Board of Review meeting. The assessor then came back at the second Board of
Review meeting and made his recommendation. It is then your responsibility, if you
want to pursue it, to follow the process to Hennepin County, which is apparently what
you have done, and you continue to disagree with the assessor. The only other
alternative that you have for appeal through this process, is tax court. You have until
March 31, 1996 to appeal this assessment to the tax court.
In your letter of August 18th, you are asking the City Council to send you a letter
"...confirming that the appraiser has made an inaccurate and misleading statements."
The City Council will not send you a letter to this effect because they have agreed
with the assessor's appraisal.
printed on recycled paper
Letter to Vincent Forystek
August 23, 1595
Page 2
You further state: "If you are going to agree with the appraiser's statements, I am
requesting that you send me a letter confirming that you, the City Council, will support
the use of the private easement and back me up regardless of concerns from people
whose easements run across." The City Council will not send you a letter t~o this
effect either. The only recourse that you have is to appeal this to tax court.
The City Council cannot reconvene the Board of Review to discuss this matter with
you. You have the option, as I have stated above, to contact the tax court regarding
your appeal.
/~ince~ely,
Edward~J.~hukle, Jr.
City Manager
ES:Is
CC: Keith Rennerfeldt, Hennepin County Assessor's Office
ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRY RESOURCES, INC.
7912 73rd Ave. N.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
(612)493-2255
RECEIVED AU6 2. ! lgg5
Mound City Council (Board of Revue)
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
August 18, 1995
Ladies and Gentleman,
On June 20th I attended a meeting with the Hennepin County Board of Equalization. At that time I was
handed an appraisel from the county assessor. The land in question is a home at 3137 Inverness lane and
several additional partials of property.
As you may remember, I tried to discuss the situation with you at the local board of review meeting. At that
meeting it was aparent that the local board never intended to review anything with me. I tried at least three
times to engage any of you into reviewing the matter with me.
My long standing concern has been that the county assessor has and continues to use a rocky and bulwinkle
(watch me pull a number out of my hat) aproach. Last year the County valued the rental property at 3137
Inverness lane at $58,000.00 dollars. This year, in an apparent retaliation for my actions, they have gone to
$66,000.00 dollars. This number is 30 percent higher than what I originally paid for the property two years
ago.
In the appraisel, to the County Board of Rexdew, the appraisor indicates that YOU the city will allow me to
use a private easement to access the land in order to form three buildable sites. Later Keith Reneffeldt
informed me that in fact the appraisor could not say this. However, Mr Renerfeldt got upset when I asked
him to send me documentation supporting his statement and this fact. He also refused to send copies of the
appraisel to you. I don't understand why he wants to hide this appraisel from you.
I am sending both the appraisel on the house and the land, to you.
At this time I am asking you to review the appraisels, and send me a letter confirming that
the appraisor has made inacurrate and misleading statements. If you are going to agree
with the appraisors statements I am requesting that you send me a letter confirming that
you the city council will support the use of the private easement and back me up regardless
of concerns from the people whose property these easements run across.
I would welcome an opportunity to speak in person with the city council about this matter. The statements
about the easements are not the only misleading itmens in this appraisel.
Sincerely,
Vincent D. FoD, stek
3131 Inverness Lane
OTsl
ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRY RESOURCES, INC.
7912 73rd Ave. N.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
(612) 493-2255
Robert Winge
Appraiser
Hennepin County Assessors office
A-2103 Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis Minnesota 55487-0213
August 18. 1995
Dear Mr Winge,
In your recent appralsel provided to the board of review, it is apparent that you have manipulated the
numbers in coming up with an appraised value for the properties in question (the land). I am requesting
that you give me answers to the following questions within 10 days from receipt of this letter.
1 Why didn't you point out that sale ~4 is actually two building sites
If you would have shown this fact, the average value of the buildable sites would have been approx.
$15.40000. Even with the numbers as you have shown them the average value you show is approx.
$16.700.00
2. Why is it that you deviated from the average of your comparables and increased
the value to $20,000.00 dollars, times 3 on the lots you are saying I can build on the land.
3. Is it likely that a home on the end of a private alley would actually be less valuable
than a home or proper~y that abuts a city street
4. Is it a fact that none of the comparables you have used are on the end of an alley.
5. Did you talk to any of the parties involved in the private easement (alley) on the south
side of the property.
If you did, please provide me a copy of the text of the easement and reference what
items in the easement would allow me to use this existing easement for additional
building sites.
6. Did you review the language of the easement before you submitted the appraisel.
7 Is it true that the existing easement allows access for only the existing properties
Where, in your appraisel to the County Board of review, have you figured in the
cost that would be associated with having the neighbors allow me to use the
existing easment for addtional building sites.
Sincerely, ~.~, ~
· Forystek ~ ~
cc Mound City Council
APPOINTMENT DATE:
kPPOINTMENT TIME;
PROPERTY OWNER:
(By:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
(Scheduled on:
HENNEPIN COUNTY 1995 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
H-140, H-141, H-142, H-143 TOGETHER
TUESDAY, JUNE 20
10:00
PAGE I
VINCENT D. FORYSTEK
)
31 31 INVERNESS LANE, MOUND 55364
860-2476
6/7@ 11:20)
MOTION:
MOTION:
SECOND:
SECOND:
APP'T. NUMBER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
MUNICIPALITY:
PID:
PROPERTY TYPE:
H-140
3137 INVERNESS LANE
MOUND
19-117-23-33-0061
RESIDENTIAL
LAND MARKET VALUE
STRUCTURE MARKET VALUE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE
REVIEW APPRAISAL
15.000
51,000
66~000
ASSESSOR'S RECOMMENDATIQN
$ 15,000
$ 51,000
$ 66~000
LAND MARKET VALUE
STRUCTURE MARKET VALUE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE
VALUE PRIOR TO
LOCAL BOARD
15,000
44~000
59,000
VALUE AFTER
LOCAL BOARD
$ No Chanqe
$
DECISION OF COUNTY
BOARD 0F EOUALIZATION
APP'T. NUMBER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
MUNICIPALITY:
PID:
PROPERTY TYPE:
H-141
NO ADDRESS
MOUND
19-117-23-33-0058
VACANT LAND
LAND MARKET VALUE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE
REVIEW APPRAISAL
$
$
ASSESSOR'S RECOMMENDATION
$ No Chanqe
LAND MARKET VALUE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE
VALUE PRIOR TO
LOCAL BOARD
$ 5.000
$ 5,000
VALUE AFTER
L0(;:AL BOARD
$ No Change
DECISION OF COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
$
)INTMENT DATE:
OINTMENT TIME:
IOPERTY OWNER:
APP'T, NUMBER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
MUNICIPALITY:
PID:
PROPERTY TYPE:
H-140, H-141, H-142, H-143 TOGETHER
TUESDAY, JUNE 20
10:00
VINCENT D. FORYSTEK
H-142
NO ADDRESS
MOUND
1 g-117-23-33-0064
VACANT LAND
PAGE 2
LAND MARKET VALUE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE
REVIEW APPRAI~;AL
ASSESSOR'S RECOMMENDATION
$ NQ Chanqe
LAND MARKET VALUE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE
VALUE PRIOR TO
LOCAL BOARD
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
VALUE AFTER
LOCAL BOARD
$ No Change
DECISION OF COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALI;[ATION
APP'T. NUMBER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
MUNICIPALITY:
PID:
PROPERTY TYPE:
H-143
NO ADDRESS
MOUND
19-117-23-33o0070
VACANT LAND
LAND MARKET VALUE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE
REVIEW APPRAISAL
$
$
ASSESSOR'S RECOMMENDATION
$ No Change
LAND MARKET VALUE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE
VALUE PRIOR TO
LOCAL BOARD
$ 4.000
$ 4,000
VALUE AFTER
LOCAL BOARD
$ No Change
DECISION OF COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
SUBJECT PHOTO
VINCENT D. FORYSTEK
VACANT LAND
MOUND
,::)"'/55
GOVT LOT 4 ~
GOVT LOT 5
Oss Paisley_ 4750 Dorchester XXXX Dorchester 4429 Manchester Rd
XXXX
Dr.
;Municipality Mound Mound Mound Mound
P~O 19-117-23-32-0192 19-117-23-32-0195 19-117-23-34-0095
Legal Descrip~on
f Date of Sale 3-94 12-94 3-93
Sale Pdce . $12,500 $16,900 $10,500
Unit Price .$....P...e..r. ....................................................................................... .$...1.......9...5.../...S...F.. ............................... .$..2.......6..4./...S...F.. ................................... .$......8..7.Z..S...F. .......................
$ Per
Size Sq Ft. : 6,400 : 6,400 ~ 12,054
Location $ Avera.qe ~ Avera[~e ~ Average
:
Neighborhood Trend i Stable :, Stable Stable
Topography : ~ '=~
Utility/Shape i Square ~ Square ~ R~ctancju 1 ar~
~ ~ ~ 10,000 SF
Zoning Min. Size .: 6,000 SF ~ 6,000 SF
~ Averaqe ~ ~ Avera Avera ecl~_~.-:
U~lities i In Street i In Street In Street
,Street Surface : ~ :
I ~ ~ ~
! '
: : ~
Total Net Adjustmem
Adjusted ..$....P..~.r. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Unit Value $ Per
I Indicated Value
Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach .................................................................... .$
ltion Date:
Inspection Date:
Final Opinion of Value: $
Appraiser
,ddress 4728 Hampton Rd. 1292o Oakland Ln. 49XX Tuxedo 5274 Sl;.Morv's R
r
Municipality Mound Mound Mound Mi nnetonk~l
PID 19-117-23-33-020. 23-117-24-31-0007 24-117-24-44-0060 25-117-24-24-0034
Legal Description
Date of Sale 1-94 8-94 3-94 11-94
Sale Pdce $27.500 $18,900 $12.500 $18.000
$ Per
Size Sq. Ft. 15~054 i 14,430 ~ :
~ 12.464 ~ 9.680
Location Avera§e .: Averaqe : Ay~ri~oe ~ Average
Neighborhood Trend Stable i Stable: ~ Stable : ~ Stable
Topography : ·:~
Utility/Shape Rectanqul a.~ RectanqulaH Re~tanoular ~ ReCtangular
Zoning Min. Size 600 SF ~ 10.000 SF ~ 10,000 SF ~ NA
Access Averaqe ~ Averaqe ~ Avcr~g~ ~ Averaoe
Uilities In Street i In Street; i in Street In Street
Sa'em Surface ~ i i
Total Net Adjustmem
Adjusted .$...P.**e..r. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Unit Value $ Per
Indicated Value
Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach .................................................................... .$
Valuation Date:
Inspection Date:
Final Opinion of Value: $
Appraiser
Value Conclusion
Location:
The subject is located in the City of Mound. It is in the southeast part of the city known as "The
Island". The area consists mostly of single family houses ranging in value from $45,000 to $115,000.
Sites:
The subject consists of three vacant sites next to each other that have not been developedl
Combined, they total approximately 46,200 square feet (1.06 acres) in size. Two of the three sites
do not have sewer, water or a road. The other site has a road in front of it along with water and
sewer available in the street. The sites are heavily wooded with rolling terrain.
Sales History:
Property I.D. Number 19-117-23-33-0064 was purchased in December of 1986 for $7,500 from the
current owner's brother. Property ID Number 19-1 i 7-23-33-0070 was purchased from the State of
Minnesota in September of 1979. The sale price is unknown. The other property with I.D. Number
19-117-23-33-0058 sold in December of 1986 for $7,000 along with Property ID Number 19-117-
23-33-0225.
Owner*s Concerns:
The owner has owned these sites for approximately eight years. He also owns other properties next
to these that the values are not being questioned. The owner approached the City of Mound
approximately ten years ago with a possible six site development. The owner said he was told he
would have to construct a new cul-de-sac, install sewer and water lines and regrade a portion of the
existing road.
The engineer for the city said the development costs may be between $35,000 - $40,000 today. The
owner split off 12,000 square feet of land and constructed a house on it in 1986. No other
development has taken place on these sites. The four remaining parcels no longer can be divided into
six buildable sites. Only three of the remaining four parcels are being appealed. With the
development costs so high the owner feels that he could not r3qake any money selling the sites.
The owners indicated that he may not have access to these three parcels. There is a permanent alley
easement running next to one of owner's sites on the south side. On the north side of these sites is
the existing road. In my opinion the City would probably grant an easement at either one of the
access points.
Comparables:
There were seven vacant land sales that were used in this report. The four that were given the most
weight are in the area known as "The Island", Comparables 1 through 4. All of the comparables have
city water and sewer available to them...o/°
These properties were sold as single building sites. The subject has three parcels. If they are
combined, the site would be over one acre in size. The property could then be divided into at least
three sites. Each site would be approximately 15,000 square feet and the sale price would be from
$18,000 to $22,000.
Based on a sales price of $20,000 time three sites gives a value of $60,000 minus the development
costs of $40,000 gives a total value of the three sites of $20,000. The 1995 market value for the
three sites is currently at $14,000.
The sites could also be combined to form one site and the development costs could be lowered ~om
$40,000 to approximately $5,500. A lateral sewer and lateral water line could be run from Inverness
across parcel (58) without tearing up the existing road and without building a cul-de-sac.
This single site would sell for approximately $24,000 to $26,000. Taking out the development costs
of $5,500 indicates a value of $19,500.
My final opinion of value for the subject sites as of January 2, 1995, is $1%500.
(Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars)
Robert Winge
Appraiser
CERTIFICATION
This is certification that I have personally inspected
the property described in this appraisal report, that all
statements of fact contained in this report are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge. I have no present
or contemplated future interest in the subject property.
No one other than the undersigned prepared the analysis,
opinions, or conclusions concerning real estate that are
set forth in this appraisal report. The value estimate
is not contingent on any fees or monetary consideration.
It is assumed, unless otherwise stated, that there are no
hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil,
or structures that affects its value. No responsibility
is assumed for such conditions. This report has been
made in conformity with the professional standards of the
International Association of Assessing Officers.
Certified by,
"Rob~ert~Winge~~~'
Appraiser
XPERIENECE~
Current Position - Appraiser, Hennepin County Assessor,s Office
Independent Fee Appraiser - 3 1/2 years
Licensed Minnesota Realtor - ? years
Bachelor of Science Degree in Real Estate - St. Cloud State
University
REAL ESTATE ~ RELATED EDUCATION/
SREA Courses - Introduction to Appraising Real Property (Course 101)
Applied Residential Techniques (Course 102)
University of Minnesota Continuing Education Courses --
Course A - Assessment Laws, History & Procedures
Hennepin County Personnel Training Division Courses --
Writing for the Information Age
Other Related Courses --
Real Estate Law
Real Estate Investment
Minnesota Association of Assessing Officers --
Narrative Report Writing Workshop
PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION~
C.M.A. - Certified Minnesota Assessor
PROFEssIONAL MEMBERSHIP:
Member Minnesota Association of Assessing Officers
BILLS
September 12, 1995
Batch 5083
Batch 5084
Total Bills
$327,323.91
129,606.11
$456,930.02
zzzz
o ~0
Z
C~
on-
-I
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
CITY OF MOUND
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
September 7, 1995
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
GREG SKINNER, PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENTS;
AUGUST PUBLIC WORKS REPORT
Streets
The storm sewer on Red Oak Lane was changed from a 24" corrugated pipe, cut in half. It had
been dangerous as people could fall into it. Corrugated arch pipe was installed and buried under
ground and seated with a flare end. This should be safe now.
The sealcoat project is completed, all swept up, the buckshot has been taken to the stockpile.
There is still some striping to do in the parking lots. The striper has had difficulty in getting
here. He needs to do the lots at Chapman Place, the Depot and some handicapped parking
spots. We cleaned some storm ditches around town. Some of them were very clogged from
the August 6th storm. We have been doing some pothole, manhole patching, getting ready for
winter. There were some sidewalk sections on County Road 15 that heaved up due to the heat.
They have been repaired.
Water
Things are pretty calm. The meter system is working pretty well right now. We are getting
readings, there are very few repairs. We repaired a couple of standpipes. One gate valve needs
repair on Bartlett and Highland Blvd. before winter.
pr~nted on recycled paper