1993-09-14CITY OF MOUND MI~qSION STATEMENT: The city of Mound, through
teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality
services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a
safe, attractive and flourishing community.
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL -'REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, SEFFEMBER 14, 1993
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 24, 1993,
REGULAR MEETING.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR "DAKOTA RAIL 2ND
ADDITION" BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC., INVOLVING LANDS
SOUTH OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD. (JOHN'S VARIETY
AND PETS) AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.
PG. 3174 - 3189
PG. 3190 - 3222
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW)
AND RESOLUTION #93-20, TEAL POINTE
DEVELOPMENT.
PG. 3223 - 3238
PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED 1994 BUDGET AND
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1994 PRELIMINARY
GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,366,950;
SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY $1,783,620 LESS
THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AID (HACA)
OF $494,800, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY
CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,288,820; APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1994; 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 1994.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
PG. 3239 - 3240
PG. 3241
PG. 3242 - 3262
3172
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for
August 1993.
PG. 3263 - 3290
Be
Ce
De
Ge
LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for
August 1993.
Memo dated August 27, 1993 from Dave
Cochran, Chair, LMCD, re: Issues
before LMCD Board.
LMCD Mailings
Letter dated August 24, 1993 from
Governor Arne Carlson, RE: budget
restraint - holding the line on salary
increases.
Planning Commission Minutes of
August 23, 1993.
Announcement from League of Minnesota
cities (LMC) RE: 1993 Regional Meetings.
PG. 3291 - 3292
PG. 3293 - 3299
PG. 3300 - 3302
PG. 3303
PG. 3304 - 3309
PG. 3310 - 3312
He
Se
REMINDER: Household Hazardous Waste Days
are scheduled for Friday, September 17 and
Saturday, September 18th at the Hennepin
County Public Works site - Orono.
PG. 3314
REMINDER: No C.O.W. meeting Tuesday, September
21, 1993. Next C.O.W. meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, October 19, 1993.
Jon Sutherland, Building Official, has done a cursory review
of the Our Lady of the Lake convent building per City Council
direction. He indicated that the building is structurally
sound but there are a number of code items to address:
egress windows in all bedrooms, new electric smoke detectors,
plumbing and electrical update to current code, handrails and
guardrails to code, 6" - 8" headroom to basement, new stairs to
code, heating contractors to evaluate boiler system and certify
to current codes, etc.
Jon Sutherland, Building official has
scheduled an open forum on a proposed Truth
in the Sale of Housing Ordinance for Monday,
September 27, 1993 during the Planning Commission's
regular meeting, 7:30 PM, at City Hall. He has
invited a group of housing evaluators experienced
with this type of ordinance as it has been used
in other cities. Please check your calendar
to see if you can attend to hear from these
3173
Lo
people who have worked with this
type of ordinance.
PG. 3315 - 3316
Letter to the Editor of the Laker and Sailor News
from Bill Clark, 5549 Bartlett Blvd., RE:
House of Moy. PG. 3317 - 3318
3173A
Mound city Council Minutes
August 24, 1993
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 24, 1993
The city Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, August 24, 1993, in the Council
Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea
Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present
were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark,
city Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planners Bruce Chamberlain and
Mark Koegler, Building official Jon Sutherland, and the following
interested citizens: Tom Casey, John Edewaard, Keith & Debra
Kullberg, Neil Weber, Michael Martinson, Leona Schuler, Michael
Pride, Stephanie Cass, Bev Mierzejewski, Frank Weiland, Rick
Jostrom, Jeff Svem, John & Darlene Maxwell, John Bessesen, Charles
Champine, David C. Kunz, and Peter Meyer.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECYCLOTTO WINNERS
The Mayor presented Westonka Dollars to the following people:
Recycling week of August 4th - Michael Martinson, 5918 Lynwood -
$50.00.
Recycling week of August 9th - Leona Schuler, 2300 Chateau -
$50.o0.
1.0 MINUTE~
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to approve the
Minutes of the August 10, 1993, Regular Meeting, and the
August 17, 1993, Committee of theW hole Meeting, as submitted.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1 C~SE #93-036: JEFFREY & NICOLE SVEMt 5809 GRANDVIEW BLVD, t
LOT 92~ MOUND SHORES, PID ~14-117-24 14 0031,
V~RIANCE FOR DECK
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning
Commission recommended approval.
Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %93-106 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING DECK AT 5809 GRANDVIEW BLVD. v
LOT 92v MOtFRD SHORES~ PID %14-117-24 14
0031, P & Z CASE ~93-036
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
1.3
CASE ~93-038:
JOHN & DARLENE MAXWELLt 3040 HIGHLAND BLVD. t
LOT 12, BLOCK 2, THE HIGHLANDS, PID ~23-117-24
44 0004, VARIANCE FOR DECK
The Building Official reviewed the request for a variance and an
after-the-fact building permit for a conforming deck on the
existing lakeside dwelling. He reported that there is another
structure (cottage) on the property near the street. It was rented
out in the past but the applicant is not renting it out now nor is
he planning to do so in the future. Staff recommended approval
with the following conditions:
The stairway landing be modified in width to a maximum 36
inches to reduce its impact as a deck, but still allow a
walkway between the two stairs, and approve the issuance
of an after-the-fact permit.
®
The street side dwelling is a legal nonconforming use.
Nothing contained in the approval for a deck for the main
structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances
for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same
parcel is prohibited by our code and the owners are
encouraged to remove the street side building at the
earliest date possible. The owners are further advised
that City staff, the current Planning Commission and City
Council will not allow any variances or work on the
street side dwelling in the future as we desire that the
property be brought into conformance with the current
codes. Therefore, the owner should recognize that at
some point the street side dwelling must be removed.
The Council discussed the legal nonconforming use of the street
side dwelling. The applicant stated that when he bought the
property, the realtor told him it was alright to rent out the
cottage. The City Attorney explained that it is when someone comes
in for a variance on a piece of property that this type of
situation can be restricted and brought into conformance with the
ordinance. The Council discussed the renting out the cottage or
allowing a family member and guest to stay in the cottage on a
temporary basis.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-108
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 3040
HIGHLAND BLVD., LOT 12~ BLOCK 2, THE
HIGHLANDS, PID ~23-117-24 44 0004, P & Z
CASE %93-038
Jensen & Jessen asked the following be changed in the proposed
resolution:
Mound city Council Minutes
1.
August 24, 1993
"The city does hereby approve a variance recognizing
existing nonconforming setbacks, as listed below, to
allow construction of a conforming deck onto the lakeside
dwelling upon the condition that the street side
accessory structure be recognized as a legal
nonconforming use and it shall not be used as a ~=~t-a%
dwelling."
Add items 7 & 8 as follows:
The street side dwelling is a legal nonconforming use.
Nothing contained in the approval for a deck for the main
structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances
for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same
i hibit by
parcel s pro ed our code
.... at
^~--~ ~ ~ .... ~- f~th r advised
- ^ The owners are "- c
· ~--~-=-- and City
that City staff, ~ .......
^ ~ ....... Plann~ng
Council will likely not allow any variances or work on
the street side dwelling in the future as we desire that
the property be brought into conformation with the
current codes· Therefore, the owner should recognize
that at some point the street side dwelling m%~ may be
required to be removed.
8. There be only one house number assigned to this parcel.
After considerable discussion on the wording of item 7, the vote on
the proposed resolution as revised was 2 in favor with Ahrens,
Johnson and Smith voting nay. Motion fails.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %93-108
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 3040
HIGHLAND BLVD.~ LOT 12~ BLOCK 2, THE
HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 44 0004, P & Z
C~SE ~93-038
Smith and Ahrens agreed with the revision of item #1 as
proposed by Jensen and Jessen. They also agreed with the
addition of #8. After discussion the Council proposed the
following for item 7:
The street side dwelling is a legal nonconforming use.
Nothing contained in the approval for a deck for the main
structure shall imply or grant approval of any variances
for the street side dwelling. Two (2) houses on the same
parcel is prohibited by our code_ and thc ~'.'ncrs arc
cncouragcd ~ ...... ~,,,~.~ ~^~,,~ -~t~^^~t~"~ ~"~~,,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~,,,.
~-a~ ~ ..... ~a~ The owners are~..~- advised
~ ~ ~ City
that City staff~ thc~.,~ Planning C ............. and
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
Council will likely not allow any variances for the e~
~ street side dwelling in the future as we desire
that the property be brought into conformance with the
current codes m~A~^~^ ~ ........ ~,,~ ...... ~,~
The vote on the above resolution was 4 in favor with Jessen voting
nay. Motion carried.
The Council advised the applicant that the goal is the removal of
the street side dwelling at some future time.
1.4
CASE 493-039:
JOSEPH RICE, 1725 RESTHAVEN LANE, LOT 20,
BLOCK 14, BHADYWOOD POINT, PID 413-117-24 11
0048, VARIANCE FOR ADDITION
The Building Official explained the request.
Commission recommended approval.
The Planning
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-109
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING ADDITION AT
1725 RESTHAVEN LANE, LOT 20, BLOCK 14,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %13-117-24 11 0048,
P & Z CASE %98-039
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.5
CASE 493-042:
STANMIERZEJEWSKI, 1942 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 12
AND PART OF LOT 11, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT,
PID 418-117-23 33 0014, VARIANCE FOR DECK
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning
Commission recommended approval with the following conditions:
The owner/applicant establish the location of the
ordinary high water elevation.
The lakeside deck shall not be closer than 40 feet to the
ordinary high water elevation.
The lakeside deck shall not extend closer to the ordinary
high water than the existing deck.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-110
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR A DECK AT 1942 SHOREWOOD
LANEt LOT 12 AND PART OF LOT 11, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINTt PID %18-117-23 23 0014t
P & Z CASE %93-042
Mound city Council Minutes
The vote was unanimously in favor.
August 24, 1993
Motion carried.
1.6 DISCUS__SION:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) -
TEAL POINTE
City Planner Bruce Chamberlain explained that this was continued
from the last meeting regarding comments on the EAW for Teal Pointe
Development Project. He stated that Mr. Weber would like to be
recognized to make some comments.
Mr. Weber stated that this project was started in 1985 and is now
in the EAW stage of it. He stated he has read the information
given to the Council, there are a number of issues that keep coming
up. He would like to make some proposals to the Council as a way
a resolving some of these issues and easing the concerns of some of
the citizens who have commented. There are three items to talk
about. Two of them are proposals that he is proposing as
additional conditions for approval.
He stated that he realizes Lots 1, 2 and 3 are a sensitive
part of this project and as has been discussed the concerns
and the problems that have been addressed to assure the
Council and the citizens that what they will be doing on those
sites will be environmentally safe. He stated they have
already conceded to submitting structural engineering drawings
for the caissons, etc. They would like to propose as an
additional requirement to these 3 lots, that at the time of
applying for a building permit, a landscape plan done by a
landscape architect, which would address issues that are here
but unknown such as any trees removed there would be an
explanation as to why they were removed, how the developer
will replace them, how they will deal with ground cover and
control for runoff.
This is a comment on the archaeological study. He stated he
talked to Scott Anfinson, who basically looked at the study,
approved it and gave the recommendation to Britta Bloomberg of
the State Historic Preservation office, who accepted the
archaeological study. Mr. Anfinson assured him that the
archaeological study as done meets exactly the letter of what
is required by the State and there is nothing inappropriate in
it and the information in it is totally the State's
responsibility.
The other condition he is proposing to do is that with the
restriction of having a homeowners association that will
follow the guidelines and restrictions in the preliminary plat
approval, they have an adjacent landowner on the association
board to monitor and assure guidelines will be followed.
Bruce Chamberlain reminded the Council that they have a choice of
4 actions tonight.
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
2.
3.
4.
One is to require the completion of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).
Require conditions and/or modifications to the proposed
project based on comments made to the EAW.
To allow the project to continue as proposed by the
applicant.
Deny based on comments.
Tom Casey stated that now is the time to design this project and to
have the requirements that are necessary to make sure that it is
environmentally sensitive. He stated he would like to see
something in writing that the archaeological study complies with
State law. He stated there are some items that he has submitted in
his comments that cast some doubt about the veracity of the
developer. He further stated that the covenants and restrictions
need to be developed very carefully so that they are enforceable
not just by the Board but by the City of Mound.
The Council discussed the possibility of having an adjacent
property owner on the association. They will work on this when
drawing up the covenants and restrictions.
Tom Casey highlighted the 36 pages of comments that were submitted
regarding the EAW. He asked that there be a conservation easement
on the parcels. The things that should be considered for these
easements are: yard areas kept to a minimum; vegetative buffers
will be maintained; lots will have no landscaped areas leaving the
site around the homes as natural as possible; homes will have wood
exterior and stained in earth tones; what percentage of ground
cover types will be in place after development; watercraft
restrictions and dredging; less need for pesticides and
fertilizers; no development anticipated on adjacent lands or
outlots. Mr. Casey contends these are all insupportable statements
unless there is a conservation easement in place that covers these
issues.
Mr. Casey asked that when the covenants are developed, they be
subject to review by the public so that the property is protected
from the issues raised by the EAW.
Mr. Casey stated that the City itself should have been involved in
the hiring process for an objective archaeological analysis to be
done. He asked that another archeological survey be done by the
City. Further that the City have a professional on-site ecological
survey done. He stated that Lots 1-3 should be considered
unbuildable. He asked that the City postpone a decision and get
answers to his questions.
Mr. Weber responded as follows:
1. Conservation easement - City can integrate into convenants &
restrictions.
Mound city Council Minutes
2.
August 24, 1993
The dredging and docks - the city would have complete control
over this because it is land that the developer is giving to
the city.
3. The ecological survey - the DNR said the parcel is too small
to do that.
4. Lots 1-3 - what has been proposed tonight for a landscape
architect is another try to shore up the concerns.
5. He stated that he has tried to meet with the concerned
citizens about this project and they refuse to meet.
6. He explained he sent out 5 RFP's from a list of archaeologists
that he got from the State. When he got the list, the State
told him to ask for the minimal amount of services because he
would tend to be sold services that he didn't need if he
didn't specifically ask for an archeological study for an EAW.
He asked that the study be done to the letter of the law. The
study was delivered to the State with no input from the
Developer.
The Council discussed the possible actions tonight. They agreed
that they were not going to deny the project or require an EIS.
They decided to modify the proposal and go forward. The City
Attorney stated that the Council can amend the preliminary plat
resolution to incorporate additional qualifications.
The Planner asked that the Council identify the issues of concern,
have the staff work on those and bring them back at a future
meeting for Council consideration. The City Attorney agreed and
stated that the City will have to publish whatever action they take
on the EAW and notify the appropriate agencies for their review of
the approval.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to accept the EAW for
Teal Pointe and direct the staff to prepare written
documentation to modify the EAW and Resolution #93-20 to
provide the followlng amendments:
1. Any construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be subject to
an additional landscape plan, prepared by a registered
landscape architect, to incorporate items which would
address issues that are here, but unknown, such as any
trees removed there would be an explanation as to why
they were removed; how the developer will replace; how
they will deal with ground cover; and control for runoff.
Z. The covenants and restrictions are to be a part of the
homeowner's association and shall provide for
representation by one outsider from the neighborhood.
3. There shall be no private docks nor shall there be any
dredging of the wetlands.
4. The covenants and restrictions shall contain
environmental safeguards and/or for the granting of a
conservation easement.
5. Storm water runoff shall be subject to Best Management
Practices.
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
Send the appropriate material including the archeological
study and the letter from the State &rchaeologist to the
Indian Affairs Council for their review and approval of
the project.
The city Attorney stated that he would welcome, from Mr. Casey, a
draft or his input on the kinds of things that need to go into the
conservation easement and how that is going to be taken care of.
7. The city shall be the beneficiary of the covenants and
restrictions.
This resolution with the outlined additions and modifications
to the EAW and Resolution #93-20 to come back to the City
Council on September 14, 1993, for consideration. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMHENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: UPDATES OF
PERMITS FOR STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS (WAURIKA COMMONS)
The Building Official stated that the next 11 items are updates by
the Staff on Public Lands Permits. The recommendations are based
on the Procedure Manual for processing these permits.
1.7 DOCK ~01600t DAVID KUNZ - STAIRWAY
The Building Official reported that this stairway is not in
compliance with the Code. Mr. Kunz does not agree with replacing
this stairway because it is his opinion that the existing stairway
location has the least amount of impact on the hill which is what
the Park Commission wanted originally. Staff's recommendation is
for approval of permit to correct or build a new stairway according
to the code subject to certain conditions:
- the applicant is responsible for all costs incurred
including installation and maintenance.
- the stairway shall be in compliance with the Building
Code and approved by the Building Official.
- the permit will expire 5 years from the date of City
Council approval.
- the permit must be renewed with change in dock license
holder.
- if compliance to these conditions has not been achieved
within one (1) year of the date of approval of the
permit, the applicant's dock license will not be issued
until compliance has been achieved.
Mr. Kunz addressed the Park Commission and stated he has always
tried to comply with City regulations and he likes the Commons
concept. He originally submitted plans for the stairway in 1985
Mound city Council Minutes August 24, 1993
and they were approved by the Council. The stairs are structurally
sound. Timbers are dug into the hill to allow for minimum impact
and to stabilize erosion. The average rise is 8 1/3" versus the
required 8" maximum allowed by Code. The average run is 8 3/4"
versus the minimum 9" run required by Code. There is no landing at
12 feet as required by the Code. Mr. Kunz does not have a problem
with installing a legal handrail. The top step has 9" rise and he
will correct this. Mr. Kunz feels that if changes are made it will
adversely affect the hillside. He stated he would comply with
Staff's recommendation, but is not happy about it. He feels the
stairway can last a long time the way it is.
The Park Commission recommended approval with the following
conditions:
- the existing stairway shall be modified to include a
conforming handrail, and the top step should be corrected
to have no more than an 8" rise, and shall be inspected
and approved by the Building official.
- the permit will expire five (5) years from the date of
City Council approval.
- the stairway must be reconstructed to code when it is
determined the stairway is in an unsafe condition.
- the stairway is allowed to remain due to the erosion
concerns.
smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-111
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO
ALLOW REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON
WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1546 BLUEBIRD
LANE FOR DAVID KUNZ - DOCK SITE %01600
The Council discussed applying the Building Code to every
stairway on Commons. They discussed liability issues. The
city Attorney stated the question is, "Did the Council make a
reasonable attempt to make it safe?"
Councilmember Ahrens asked if the UBC applies to all stairs or
only stairs attached to buildings? The Building official
stated that the UBC only applies to stairways that serve a
building. The Council discussed the fact that they gave
direction to Staff to use the UBC as a guide or standard in
these cases. Councilmember Ahrens stated that at the Park
Commission there was discussion about how if the UBC is used
a lot of these stairways would need to be removed and
reconstructed causing a lot of disturbance to the land.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
1.8 DOCK ~01900, CHUCK CHAMPINE, STAIRWAY, ELECTRIC
The Building Official explained that the proposed resolution
includes the Park Commission recommendations not the
recommendations of the Staff. He further explained that the Park
Commission's recommendation is, "to have City staff remove the
stairway, retaining wall, light, and electrical from Waurika Common
abutting 1550 Canary Lane, Dock Site #01900, and all costs
associated with such removal be taken out of the City budget, not
including the dock fund." The Building Official explained that the
electrical originates from Mr. Champine's private property. Mr.
Champine was present and stated he has changed his mined about the
electrical and will apply for a State Electrical Permit. He did
not agree that he as an abutting property owner should have to pay
for improvements to the stairway, erosion control or retaining
wall.
The City Attorney suggested that this item be continued until Mr.
Champine's application for an Electrical Permit has been processed.
The City Manager stated that the Park Commission has recommended
all these Common's maintenance costs not be taken out of the Dock
Fund. It is his recommendation that these costs be charged against
the Commons Dock Fund.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to continue this
item relating to Dock Site %01900 until the Electrical Permit
has been processed. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
The Council discussed approving the remaining items as a package.
The Council discussed Dock Sites 01940 & 01960. The Council asked
that the Building Official make sure that the dock site holders
have been notified of the intent to remove the stairway.
Councilmember Jessen stated that the money to fix and maintain the
Commons should come from the Commons Dock Fund.
Councilmember Ahrens stated she does not agree that only the dock
holders, through the Commons Dock Fund, should have to pay for
maintenance and improvements to the Commons.
1.9
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to approve the
remaining resolutions relating to stairway permits listed in
Item %10 excepting dock site #01900. The resolutions are to
be as authorized by the Park & Open Space Commission with the
modification that the costs incurred by the City are to come
from the Commons Dock Fund.
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
The Council asked if there was anyone present who has a
problem with any of the proposed resolutions. No one
objected.
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion
oarried.
1.10 DOCK SITE %01920, VER~ FRAHM, STAIRWAY
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %93-112
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A
PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW
REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON
WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1555 DOVE LANE
FOR VERA FRAHM OF 1555 DOVE LANE - DOCK
SITE %01920
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.11 DOCK SITE ~01940 & 01960, CHASE/HOWELL, STAIRWAY
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %93-113
RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO REMOVE A
STAIRWAY FROM PUBLIC LAND ON WAURIKA
COMMON ABUTTING 1555 DOVE LANE t DOCK SITE
%01940 & 01960
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.12 DOCK SITE ~02000, D. BOLICK & D. WATSON, STAIRWAY
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %93-114
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A
PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW
RECONSTRUCTION OF ANEXISTING STAIRWAY ON
WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1559 EAGLE LANEt
FOR D. BOLICK & D. WATSON OF 1559 EAGLE
LANE - DOCK SITE %02000
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.13 DOCK SITE ~02020~ MICHAEL FREEMAN, STAIRWAY
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
RESOLUTION #93-115
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A
PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW
REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON
WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1559 EAGLE LANEv
FOR MICHAEL FREEMAN OF 1591 EAGLE LANE -
DOCK SITE %02020
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.14 DOCK SITE ~02060, GILBERT SCHRUPP, STAIRWAY
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %93-116
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A
PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW
REPAIRS TO AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON
WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING XXXX EAGLE LANE
(N. END OF RD.) FOR GILBERT SCHRUPP OF
1661 EAGLE LANE - DOCK SITE #02060
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.15 DOCK SITE ~02100, HELEN EISS, STAIRWAY
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~93-117
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A
PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW
THE CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY
ON WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1566 EAGLE
LANE FOR HELEN EISS OF 1563 EAGLE LANE -
DOCK SITE ~02100
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.16 DOCK SITE ~02180, RALPH MCFALLt STAIRWAY
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-118
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR A
PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW
THE CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING STAIRWAY
ON WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1566 EAGLE
LANE FOR RALPH MCFALL OF DOCK SITE #2180
AND WILLIAM TOSIER OF DOCK SITE #02200
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
1.17 DOCK SITE ~02250, STEVE WELCH, STAIRWAY
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %93-119 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L]tNDS PERMIT FOR A
PRIVATE STRUCTURE ON PUBLIC LAND TO ALLOW
THE CONTINUATION OF ]tN EXISTING STAIRWAY
ON WAURIKA COMMON ABUTTING 1566 EAGLE
LANE FOR STEVBWELCH OF 1566 EAGLE LANE -
DOCK SITE %02250
The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
1.18 REOUEST FOR USE OF THE DEPOT EVERY SUNDAY EVENING UNTIL THE
END OF 1993 BY MOUND FREE CHURCH/MOUND ASSEMBLY - FOR wzEKL%
YOUTH GATHERING AND CONCERT. REQUEST TO WAIVE FEE FOR
MUSICAL CONCERT ($200.00 ANNUAL) - DEBRA & KEITH KULLBERG
The city Clerk explained the request.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve a request
to use the Depot at Mound Bay Park every Sunday evening until
the end of 1993 by Mound Free Church/Mound Assembly for weekly
youth gathering and concert. Waive the fee for the live
musical concert permit ($200.00). This group will not have to
pay a fee for the use of the Depot but will have to make a
damage deposit of $200.00 to be held until they are through
using the Depot. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
Councilmember Smith left because of illness at 10:50 P.M.
1.19 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
MOTION made by Ahrens seconded by Jensen to set the following
public hearings for October 26, 1993:
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD PARKING)
UNPAID MOWING
UNPAID SEWER & WATER.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.20 APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - 1993 SEAL COAT PROJECT -
ALLIED BLACKTOP - $37,755.72.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the final
payment request from Allied Blacktop, in the amount of
$37,755.72, for the 1993 Seal Coat Project. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
1.21 APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN - HAROLD J. POND ARENA - HOCKEY
REGISTRATION
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Johnson to approve a
portable sign request at Harold J. Pond Arena from Sept. I to
19, 1993, advertising hockey registration. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.22 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR & CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
8UBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
pROGRAM FOR YEAR XIX
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #93-120
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR & CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENTAGREEMENT
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR YEAR XIX
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.23 ORDINANCE ~MENDMENTS TO SECTION 800:40 AND 810:50
The City Attorney explained that this is being recommended so that
no one in a liquor establishment after closing can consume liquor.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE ~65-1993
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SUBD. $ TO SECTION
800:40 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
CONSUMPTION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND
ADDING SUBD. S TO SECTION 810:50 OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO CONSUMPTION OF NON-
INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR OR BEER
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.24 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of
$142,538.15, when funds are available. A roll call vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A®
Financial Report for July 1993 as prepared by Gino Businaro,
Finance Director.
Mound City Council Minutes
August 24, 1993
Be
Announcement from the West Hennepin Recycling Commission
regarding Household HazardOus WaSte Days scheduled for Friday,
September 17 and Saturday, September 18 at Hennepin County
Public Works Site - Orono.
C. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 1993.
De
Fe
Ge
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of August 12, 1993.
Economic Development Commission Minutes of July 15, 1993 and
August 19, 1993.
REMINDER: City offices closed, Monday, September 6, 1993, for
Labor Day Holiday.
REMINDER: Next meeting of the West Hennepin Human Services
Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, September 7, 1993, at
Eisenhower Community Center, 10011 Highway 7, Hopkins, Room
328. Councilmember Jensen is to attend this meeting.
Je
Letter and related information dated, August 17, 1993, from
Nancy Nordstrom, Citizens Concerned for Dutch Lake (CCDL) in
response to the City Council's action in June.
Letter dated August 18, 1993, from Emily Ann Staples RE:
Hennepin County Solid Waste Program and related information.
RE: proposed service fee ordinances on solid waste
management. The Council asked the City Manager to write a
letter stating that the haulers should not be responsible for
collecting the management fee. They would rather have the
County collect this fee.
Letter from Hennepin County regarding speed limit on Shoreline
Drive from Commerce Blvd. to Belmont Lane. The Commission of
Transportation granted a reduction in the speed limit from 35
MPH to 30 MPH. The County will do the signing changes as soon
as scheduling permits.
Ke
The City Manager explained that the City does not have any
lots large enough to move the Our Lady of the Lake convent to
for Westonka Intervention. The Building official will be
meeting with Westonka Intervention to review the building and
let them know what it would take to bring the building up to
code.
ne
The City Attorney informed the Council that a week ago the
Dakota Rail trial started and opening arguments were made on
both sides. The City Attorney and an expert witness were
prepared to testify and the judge disqualified himself. A new
judge has been appointed.
Mound City Council Minutes August 24, 1993
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 11:15
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
RF~OLUTION/t93-
RESOL~ON TO APPROVE A PRELIM-IN~Y AND FINAl, PLAT
FOR "DAKOTA RAIl, 2ND ADDITION"
INVOLVING LANDS OWNED BY DAKOTA RAH,, INC.
LOCATED SOU'I~ OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD.
(JOHN'S VARIETY & PETS),
AND NORTH OF THE RAH,ROAD TRACKS
P&Z CASE fl93-040
WHEREAS, a request for Preliminary and Final Plat for Dakota
Rail 2nd Addition has been submitted in the manner required for
platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code Section 330
and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes 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 subject property is located within the B-1
Central Business Zoning District, and;
WHEREAS,
approval of
conditions.
the Mound Advisory Planning Commission recommended
the preliminary and final plat request, with
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the city
of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve the Preliminary and Final Plat for Dakota Rail 2nd
Addition as shown on the attached Exhibit A, and subject to
the following:
That the lot created by Dakota Rail 2nd Addition be
combined with and be made part of Parcel 0036 (2281
Commerce Blvd.), and that it be subject to the same
ownership and security interests.
A park dedication fee not be charged due to the following
findings of fact:
There will be no increased burden for the park
system, and no change in park utilization.
- No change in existing use of the property.
Proposed Resolution Case #93-040
Page 2 DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION
-- NO increase in utilities
- Encourages improvement and development of downtown.
- Consistent with the plat approval in 1990.
- No increase in number of lots.
The existing legal description of the property to be platted
is attached as Exhibit B.
Needs to be submitted.
The proposed legal description is as follows:
That part of Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way in
Government Lot 8, Section 14, Township 177 North, Range 24
West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota
described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Government Lot 8;
thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East, assumed
bearing along the east line of said Lot 8, a distance of
850.03 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly
measured at right angles to the main track center line of said
Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way; thence South 87
degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West parallel with said main
track center line a distance of 33.14 feet to a point on the
west line of the east 33.00 feet of said Government Lot 8 said
point being the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West,
continuing parallel with said main track center line a
distance of 144.53 feet; thence South 2 degrees 33 minutes 02
seconds East a distance of 41.50 feet to a line parallel with
and 8.50 feet northerly measured at right angles to said main
track center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58
seconds East parallel with said main track center line a
distance of 132.65 feet; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32
seconds East parallel with said east line of Government Lot $
a distance of 10.04 feet; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes
58 seconds East parallel with said main track center line a
distance of 8.03 feet; to said west line of the east 33.00
feet of Government Lot 8; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32
seconds East along said west line a distance of 31.64 feet to
said point of beginning.
Proposed Resolution
Page 2
Case #93-040
DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION
The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this resolution to the owners and subdivider after
completion of the requirement of their use as required by
M.S.A. 462.358.
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.
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 330 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.
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 compliance with M.S.A. 462
and the Ordinances of the City.
EXHIBIT ' A'
RESOLUTION {93-
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE NO. 93-040
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST
FOR "DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION"
BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC.
INVOLVING LANDS SOUTH OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD.
(JOHN'S VARIETY & PETS) AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30
p.m. on Tuesday, September 14, 1993 to consider a request by Dakota Rail
Inc, for a Preliminary and Final Plat to be named "Dakota Rail 2nd
Addition" involving land located south of 2281 Commerce Blvd. (John's
Variety & Pets) and North of the railroad tracks. The platting will
result in the creation of one new parcel, generally located in the
following described property:
That part of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way in Government Lot
8, Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal
Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
A copy of a plat map showing the location of the proposed subdivision is
below. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the
above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
TM
..,,.[., .,. I ,
railroad . ~,~ !6' I~ ~T..: ~..~. 17..'
~ :~-,-~,~_.'"".. - 12: (~)
~k
Mailed to property owners within 350' by August 31, 1993 and Published in "The Laker"
on August 24, 1993.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 23, 1993
Case 493-040: Dakota Rail, Inc., Preliminary and Final Plat request for
"Dakot& Rail 2n4 Addition" for lands south of 2281 Commerce Blvd.
(John's Variety & Pets).
Chair Meyer clarified that the public hearing was formally closed at the
August 9, Planning Commission Meeting, however, questioned if there was
anyone present who wanted to be heard regarding this request. There was
no response from those present.
Building official, Jon Sutherland, commented that he has discussed with
Mark Koegler, City Planner, the Planning Commission's request that he be
present when reports are prepared by him, and Koegler will make an
effort to be present at those meetings. Sutherland reviewed Mark
Koegler's response to questions raised at the August 9, 1993 Planning
Commission Meeting relating to this request, as follows:
1. Q. Should items A. 3, 4 and 5 of Resolution ~90-153 be included
as conditions for this proposal?
A. No. These conditions related to the other lots and blocks in
the proposed Railroad Addition.
2. Q. What impacts will the 20 foot westerly extension of the
proposed lot have on this subdivision?
A. None. This zig zag is not abnormal in commercial areas and
will not impede future development.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 1993
3. Q. What is the new lot to be combined with, Lot 52 or Parcel
(36)?
A. The intent of the combination was to have the lot combined
with Mr. Royer's property only, specifically, Parcel (36).
4. Q. Recommend that there be no park dedication fee, as the parcels
are being combined and the number of parcels is not changing.
A. We must be consistent with recent plats and a park dedication
fee applied to the recently platted Balboa Addition.
Mueller referred to item 2 and commented that he can understand a zig
zag in a commercial area, but this property abuts residential. He feels
this jog could be an obvious extension for someone else's lot to provide
access. Meyer commented that he walked the lot and feels the 20 feet is
insignificant. The Commission questioned the zoning district of the 20'
extension. Sutherland went to get a legible zoning map. Mueller
questioned if some screening or buffering should be required between the
parking 10t and the adjacent apartment building. The Secretary referred
to Section 350:720, Screening and Buffering. After Sutherland returned,
it was determined that the B-1 zone extends another 75' west of the
alley, therefore, there should be no concerns relating to the use of the
property.
Item 4, relating to park dedication fees was discussed at length.
Mueller commented that by creating a combination they are actually
creating less lots. The city should be pro-development. What is the
impact of a parking lot?
Liz reviewed the City Attorney's interpretation of the ordinance and
commented that the Council will need to be consistent and require a park
dedication fee with this case. She stated that a change in code would
be required in order to not require a fee.
Meyer agreed with Mueller and stated that just because the attorney
decides to change how he interprets the rules is no reason to charge a
park dedication fee for this subdivision. The Planning Commission did
not agree with charging a park dedication fee for the Balboa Addition
either.
Weiland commented that nothing will impact the park use with this
subdivision, the use is not changing. This subdivision is actually
making the property better by bringing the lot area into conformance.
Mueller commented that if a subdivision increases the use or number of
lots, then a fee should be paid, however, this subdivision does not, it
does not increase the utilities.
2
'Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 1993
A poll was taken to determine who was in favor of not requiring a park
dedication fee for this subdivision, due to these findings. The vote
was 5-1-1. Those in favor were: Mueller, Weiland, Meyer, Hanus, and
Michael. Johnson was opposed, and Jensen abstained. Jensen feels we
need to be consistent witJa the City Attorneys opinion.
Hanus commented that there was not reference in the minutes to his
concerns regarding the need for a lot area variance; he has serious
doubts that a lot area variance needs to be recognized. Greg Keller
stated that no application was submitted for a lot size variance because
staff deemed it unnecessary. Weiland referred to staffs recommendation
on page 20 of the packet, item 1, which requires that the lots be
combined, he reflected that if this condition is not complied with, then
a lot area variance would need to be recognized.
MOTION made by Hanus, to recommend approval of the Preliminary
and Final Plat for Dakota Rail Znd Addition, subject to the
following:
1. That the lot created by Dakota Rail 2nd Addition be
combined with and be made part of Parcel 0035, and
that it be subject to the same ownership and
security interests.
2. A park dedication fee not be charged due to the
following Finding of Facts:
a. There will be no increased burden for the
park system, and no change in park
utilization.
Co
e®
No change in existing use of the
property.
No increase in utilities.
Encourages improvement and development of
downtown.
Consistent with the plat approval in
1990.
f. No increase in number of lots
Motion seconded by Mueller.
Greg Keller commented that the park dedication fee is money that John
Royer can put into paving the parking lot.
Pl&nn£n9 Commission Minutes
August 23, 1993
The Building official commented that he agrees with the the city
attorney's interpretation, however, it is possible that the way our
ordinance is written, it could exceed the maximum park dedication fee
required by law.
Johnson stated that he has information in front of him from the Attorney
and the Planner stating that the law applies, and from his perspective
he has no other information disputing that the law do not apply,
therefore, he believes it ought to apply. He believes the possibility
exists for some downtown development that will impact the park system.
Meyer believes that the findings relating to this plat are unique and a
fee should be charged for future downtown subdivisions that propose a
change in the use of the land.
The intent of the park dedication ordinance and who interprets the code
was further discussed.
Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Mueller,
Weiland, Jensen, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson opposed.
Johnson commented that he is not trying to disagree with anyone, but,
there are opinions from two people who's interpretations should be
trusted.
This request is scheduled for a public hearing by the City Council on
September 14, 1993.
4
CITY of NIOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 1657
~61214-2 0600
FAX ~612i 472 0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 12, 1993
Planning Commission
Mark Koegler, city Planner
Proposed Plat for Dakota Rail 2nd Addition
At the August 9, 1993 Planning Commission meeting you had expressed
some concerns and questions relating to the proposed plat for
Dakota Rail 2nd Addition, which I will try to answer in this
memorandum.
1. Q.
Should items A. 3, 4 and 5 of Resolution #90-153 be
included as conditions for this proposal?
ae
No. These conditions related to the other lots and
blocks in the proposed Railroad Addition.
2. Q.
What impacts will the 20 foot westerly extension of the
proposed lot have on this subdivision?
None. This zig zag is not abnormal in commercial areas
and will not impede future development.
3. Q.
What is the new lot to be combined with, Lot 52 or Parcel
(36)?
The intent of the combination was to have the lot
combined with Mr. Royer's property only, specifically,
Parcel (36).
Qe
Recommend that there be no park dedication fee, as the
parcels are being combined and the number of parcels is
not changing.
We must be consistent with recent plats and a park
dedication fee applied to the recently platted Balboa
Addition.
This request is scheduled for a public hearing by the City Council
on September 14, 1993.
printed on recycled paper
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 9, 1993
Case k93-0401 Dakota Rail, Inc., Preliminary and Final Plat request for
"Dakota Rail 2nd Addition" for lands south of 2281 Commerce Blvd. (John's
Variety & Pe~). PUBLIC HEARING,
Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's
report. The applicant, Dakota Rail, Inc., is requesting approval
of a preliminary and final plat for "Dakota Rail 2nd Addition"
which involves land just south of John Royer's property known as
2281 Commerce Blvd.
The new parcel is proposed to be 5,838 square feet, and it is the
intent of the applicant and new owner to combine the new lot with
lot 52 which lies immediately to the north.
The proposed lot is currently used for parking and it contains a
portion of a bituminous surfaced area that houses a portable green
house in the summer months. The existing uses are expected to
remain on the site.
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plat and does not see
any need for drainage or utility easements.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1993
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary and final plats for
Dakota Rail 2nd Addition subject to the following conditions:
1. A lot variance of 1,662 square feet is hereby granted with the
condition that the lot created by Dakota Rail 2nd Addition be
combined with and made part of Lot 52 and that it be subject
to the same ownership and security interests.
2. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in
accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of
Ordinances.
Mueller questioned why staff was requiring that the new lot be
combined with Lot 52? Mueller referred to the plat map and
explained that Lot 52 includes parcels 31 through 38 and questioned
if the intent was that all these parcels be combined, or that only
parcel (36) be combined with the new lot.
Hanus questioned why they need to approve a lot size variance when
after the lots are combined it will be conforming to lot area.
Greg Keller, attorney for John Royer, stated that he was not
required to pay a variance application fee because it was
determined it was not necessary, however, it was previously
approved by the Council.
Weiland commented, for a point of interest only, that it may be
beneficial to include the southeast corner of the proposed parcel
in this subdivision. What would happen to this corner of property
if the railroad was removed; in his opinion it should become part
of the lot being proposed with this application to avoid future
complications with developments. Mr. Keller noted that the
railroad lights are located in that corner and Dakota Rail would
not include that land in the sale.
Meyer questioned the right-of-way width requirements for future
light rail transit. Greg Keller stated that the dimension dictated
by the railroad authority is 8.5' from center line.
Chair Meyer opened the public hearing.
Mr. Paul Goshgarian of 5965 Lakeview Drive, stated that he
represents the property to the west where the apartments are, and
he is in favor of good future planning. He would like the city to
review how this subdivision interferes or accents the parking area,
and questioned if Mr. Royer could now expand his building. It was
clarified that the proposed lot extends 20' further west than the
parcel to the north. Mr. Royer stated that he needs the additional
20 feet for parking. Mr. Goshgarian expressed a concern of how the
20 foot extension is going to be used.
k I I, I,
Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1993
Greg Keller stated that they are not in favor of paying a park
dedication fee. He does not feel this proposal will impose more
burden on parks in Mound as there will not be any developing, the
use will remain the same. He added that in 1990 when this proposed
subdivision was originally submitted and approved by the City no
park dedication fee was required then, and the recent subdivision
for Norwest was not required to pay a park dedication fee either.
Chair Meyer closed the public hearing.
Hanus summarized that there are three questions relating to this
proposal, 1) which parcel is the new lot to be combined with, 2)
does a variance need to be granted, and 3) the question relating to
the corner of the property where the railroad lights are, should
this be divided differently considering future development?
Johnson commented that he believes staff intent is to combine the
lot with parcel (36) and referring to it as Lot 52 was just a
mistake. He does not feel a lot area variance needs to be issued
if the lots are combined.
Mueller questioned why the subdivision should include property 20
feet further west than property to the north, zig zag lines are not
clean and how will this jog affect the adjoining property?
It was questioned why conditions that were listed in Resolution 90-
153 were not included in this request.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to table this
request for further clarification by staff relating to
the following:
Should items A. 3, 4 and 5 of Resolution $90-
153 be included as conditions for this
proposal?
What impacts will the 20 foot westerly
extension of the proposed lot have on this
subdivision?
What is the new lot to be combined with, Lot
52 or Parcel (36)9
Recommend that there be no park dedication
fee, as the parcels are being combined and the
number of parcels is not changing.
Motion carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer,
Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and
Michael. Johnson opposed.
8
Planning Commission Minutes
August 9, 1993
Johnson commented that he would have liked to move the proposal
forward.
The Planning Commission agreed that if Mark Koegler writes reports
for the Planning Commission, he should be presenting them. Meyer
suggested this issue be discussed later in the meeting.
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 10, 1993
1.5 SET PUBLIC HE~RING TO CONSIDER PRELIMINARY ]~ND FINAL PL~T
REOUEST FOR "D~KOT~ RAIL 2ND ADDITION" BY D~KOT~ RAIL, INC.
INVOLVIN~ LANDS SOUTH OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD. (JOHN'8 VARIET%
& PETS) AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by ~hrens to set September 14,
1993, for a public hearing to consider preliminary and final
plat for ,,Dakota Rail 2nd ~dditionfl by Dakota Rail, Inc.,
involving lands south of 2281 Commerce Blvd. (John,s Variety
& Pets) and north of the railroad tracks. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mm
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mound Planning Commission and Staff
Mark Koegler, City Planner
August 4, 1993
SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Plat - Dakota Rail Second Addition
APPLICANT: Dakota Rail, Inc.
CASE NUMBER: 93-040
HKG FILE NUMBER: 93-10e
LOCATION: Adjoining 2281 Commerce Boulevard
EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-I)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a preliminary and final plat (combined
submittal) to subdivide a parcel totalling 5,838 square feet. Upon division, it is the intent of
the applicant and new owner to combine the new lot with Lot 52, Lynwood Park which lies
immediately to the north.
COMMENT: The proposed lot division is to be combined with property currently owned by
John and Marie Royer to the north. At the present time, the land is used for parking and it
contains a portion of a bituminous surfaced area that houses a portable green house in the
summer months. The existing uses are expected to remain on the site.
This property was the subject of a plat in 1990 which also included other parcels owned by
Dakota Rail. That plat was not filed and currently portions of the transaction are in litigation.
The pending litigation does not impact the subject parcel nor its ability to be subdivided at this
time.
Land Use / Environmental · Planning/Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
Dakota Rail Subdivision Planning Report
August 4, 1993
Page Two
When the plat was approved in 1990, a "technical" variance was added to the approval to
address the size of the subject parcel - 5,838 square feet compared to the required minimum
lot size of 7,500 square feet. Technically, this variance should again be granted, however,
since the lot is to be combined with Lot 52 to the north, it will not be an independent land
parcel with separate development potential in the future. To ensure that this combination
occurs, conditions of approval can address common ownership of the parcels as well as
common security interests.
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plat and does not see any need for drainage or
utility easements.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plats for
Dakota Rail 2nd Addition subject to the following conditions:
A lot variance of 1,662 square feet is hereby granted with the condition that the
lot created by Dakota Rail 2nd Addition be combined with and made part of Lot
52 and that it be subject to the same ownership and security interests.
o
Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section
330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances.
Clq'h ()f NIOk;ND
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE NO. 93-040
NOTICE OF AN INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST
FOR "DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION"
BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC.
INVOLVING LANDS SOUTH OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD.
(JOHN'S VARIETY & PETS) AND NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road,
at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, August 9, 1993 to consider a request by Dakota
Rail, Inc. for a Preliminary and Final Plat to be named "Dakota Rail 2nd
Addition" involving land located south of 2281 Commerce Blvd. (John's
Variety & Pets) and North of the railroad tracks. The platting will
result in the creation of one new parcel, generally located in the
following described property:
That part of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way in Government Lot
8, Section 14, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal
Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
A copy of a plat map showing the location of the proposed subdivision is
below. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the
above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Francene-Cl dlark, Ci~ Clerk
Mailed to property owners within~ on July 26, 1993.
~'0 "1 ~ printed on recycled paper
Date Filed
OF LAND
L_,Uiu i k..,
Major S~Jbdt vi s ton:
Application $50
Park Ded.
Other
Delinquent Taxes? yes / no
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Escrow Deposit
Park Ded.icatton.
Other · , ,.
(Please type or print the following InFormatll~n[)
John E. Royer
Applicant's Name
Day Phone'
$150
$]oo
$1,000
( 612)4'71-7012,"
Applicant's Address
3ohnE. Royer. andMarie K. Rq, yer
Contract Buyers .
Fee Owner(s)
print name
2281 Conlnerce Blvd.. ..
mailing address
2281 CoTmerce Blvd. , Mound.,. MN. 55364
Dakota Rail, Inc., Contract Selle.r
print name
25 Adams St. No.
.~lling address
Hutchinson, MN. ~5350
Mound, MN. 55364
Signature of Fee Owner Signature of Fee Owner
'[his appllcatlon must be signed by all. the OWNERS off the property, or an
explanation given why this is not the case. Executed Purchase Ag~e~nt an8 ~
~een ~ota ~l anQ Ro~e~s, contingent on Su~v~s~on.',
Property to be divided:
Address/tocat Ion ~kota ~il pro~rty adjo~g 2281 C~rce Blvd.. .. -~- ,- ,,
/~ Pbrtion of Railroad proper2y in section, 14, Township 117, Rang~ 24
Hennepin Count~, Minnesota,.lying West of ConTnerce Blvd.
Block PID # Plat
To be divided as follows:
.5,,838 's~ar~ feet to be split from Dakot~ Rail propeLTy, and combined with lot 52,
Lynwood Park
Name oF proposed subdivision: Dakota Rail 2nd Addition
[xlstlng Use oF Property: Parking lot
Zoning District: Central Business (B-'l)
Application For Subdivision
Page Two
Case No.
Has an application ever been made For zoning, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure For this property? yes / m~ · IF yes,
list date(s) oF application, action taken, and provide-resolution number(s)
See attached
(Copies oF previous resolutions must accompany this application.)'
! certify that all oF the above statements and the statements contained In
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewtth are true and ac-
curate. 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.
Applicant's Signature ~ill ~y~_ /C:~_~,~o_,../ Date
///////////////////// ]////////////////////////////////////////////////
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Commission Recommendation
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
Dakota
Rail, Inc.
FLORIDA OFFICE: 801 West Bay Dr~ve, Suite 800, Largo, FL 34640
FAX: (813)585-7781
"Route of the Charging Buffalo"
(81 3) 585-4727
RECEIVED
JUL 2 7 1993
~L~Ng PLi~t4NING & INSP.
July 26, 1993
Overnight Delivery
Ms. Peggy James
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Ms. James:
I have executed the enclosed Application for Subdivision of Land at the request of
Mr. Gregory Keller on behalf of Mr. John and Mrs. Marie Royer, and have enclosed
it herewith for your use.
Very truly yours,
.'., ~ /.',..~ (_ )
,~ ~ f / '/ ¢// . - "~
Elli M. A. Mills
President
EMAM\cv
enclosure
CORPORATE OFFICE: 25 Adams St No. Hutchinson, MN 55350. (612) 587-4018
FAX: f612) 587-0875
~T¥ OF tloUm~
RECEIVED
JUL 2 7 1993
MOUND PLANN!NG & INSP.
API'LJ~AT i ON FOil
Date ~ I I.ecl ......
I. EE51
(Please t;¥pe or print the following
AI)P I I cant;' s N~ne. aohn ~... ~>yer
HaJor ,Subd I.v I s._l o[I
Pr,el Imlnar¥ Plat _:_ _$_l_~0
Final Plat
Eucf'ow Oepos I t
Park Ded.I Cat Ion.
Otl~er ........ ":.
~.;
I nformac I Un :)
Day Phone' (~2)4T).-70~2,
ApP I I cant' s Addres$ 2281 oanne£ce Blvd. , Mou~,~ MN. 55364 .
Fee Owner(~) ~ntract ~y~..... · ' ' ~ot~ ~tl, lnc~, ~ntract
pr ll~ ,ume ' pr Int name
2~81 ~~e ~.. ,.' 25 ~ st,. ~. ..
Signature of' Fee Owner
'11~1o aPl)llca~loll must IJe slurled by ell t~l~e OWHI!R$ oF :l~e propert7* or an
explanatlull given wl~y this 19 no~ tl)~ooe. ~e~t~ ~'ci~se Ay:~r~.L al~d ~'
~tw~n mXota ~11 ~ ~ye~, ~nt~ent ~ ~lvi~tvnJ.. - , '' '' ',
P,_:gP~r ~v to be d I v I ded ~.
Address/Loca~lon~.m~ta ~il pretty ~jo~g 2~1 ~me ~lvd. .', ,,. , ,,
~ .~ion ~f ~il~d pm~ ~ section. 14, ~,hip ~tT, ~,~g~ 24 ..
~, l~eptn ...... ~unt~,, , .... ~nesota, .ly~g West~. of ~,,,~u ~vd. . '.
Bluuk .... PID
:l'9___b~ d l vi ded__~_s.:
byn~ P~k . '. '., ''.. '"" ' '"
' Parking lot
~xl~tlng Use
Zen Jm~ Dlstrlctl._._ .....
3
c",,I
-0
0,,1
-U')
'3'7
~ 1~1
cD
0
o .J -~:
d
OS
t
s
.3
S
d
°z:o
| !
I t :
Id i. :~l
i! :ilil~l!::i~:
,illi::ll]l:
lJ:l:.Jl I
: -
]i lllJi]]ll[ll[
i
272
December 18, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 153
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE AND THE PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLAT OF RAILROAD ADDITION.
WHEREAs, the preliminary plat, final plat and variance
application for Railroad Addition have been submitted in the manner
required for platting of land under the City of Mound Code of
Ordinances, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota
State Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted
thereunder; and
WHEREAS, the City COuncil on December 18, 1990, held a hearing
pursuant to Section 330 of the City of Mound Code of Ordinances, to
consider the issuance of a variance and the approval of the
preliminary and final plat for Railroad Addition located on
property described as follows:
That part of Government Lot 8, Section 14, Township 117, Range 24 lying
west of the west line of the east 33.00 feet of said Government Lot, north
of the north line of Lot 53, "LYNWOLD PARK", LAKE MINNETONKA and Lot 1,
KENNEDY'S SUBDIVISION OF LOT 56, LYNWOLD PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA, according
to the recorded plats thereof, easterly of the northerly extension of the
west line of the east 30.00 feet of said Lot 1, said 30.00 feet being
measured along the north line of said Lot 1 and which lies southerly of
the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Government Lot 8; thence on
an assumed bearing of North along the east line of said Government
Lot, 784.75 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 84 degrees 42
minutes 00 seconds West 263.47 feet to the intersection with the
northerly extension of the west line of the east 30.00 feet of said
Lot ! said 30.00 feet being measured along the north line of said Lot
1 and said line there terminating. ALSO
That part of the Government Lot 8, Section 14, Township 117, Range 24,
described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Government Lot 8, Section
14; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the east line of said
Government Lot 8, 818.39 feet: thence South 84 degrees 42 minutes OO
seconds West 33.14 feet to the intersection with the west line of the
east 33.00 feet of said Government Lot to the point of beginning;
thence continue on last described course 8.03 feet; thence on a
bearing of South 10.04 feet; thence South 84 degrees 42 minutes 00
seconds West 132.65 feet; thence North 05 degrees 18 minutes OO
seconds West 41.50 feet to the intersection with the south line of Lot
52, "LYNWOLD PARK" LAKE MINNETONKA; thence easterly along said south
line to the west line of said east 33.00 feet; thence southerly along
said west line to the point of beginning. ALSO
I, ,~ i
273
December tS, t990
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13,
Township 117, Range 24, lying southerly of the south line of Lot 46,
"Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka. according to the recorded
plat thereof, and its easterly extension, easterly of the east line of the
west 33.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said
Section 13. west of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of Lot 33. said
"Koehler's Addition to Mound". Lake Minnetonka and its southerly extension,
said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33
and which lies northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the
west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 814.87
feet to the point of beginning; thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes OO
seconds East 566.40 feet to the intersection with the southerly
extension of the east line of Lot 38. said "Koehler's Addition to
Mound". Lake Minnetonka: thence southerly along said extension 5.02
feet: thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes O0 seconds East 233.55 feet
to the intersection with said southerly extension of the west line of
the east 17.40 feet of said Lot 33. said 17.40 feet being measured
along the most southerly line of said Lot 33 and said line there
terminating, except that part of the north 96.00 feet thereof measured
at a right angle from said easterly extension of the south line of Lot
46 which lies between the southerly extension of the east line of Lot
38, said "Koehler's Addition to Mound. take Minnetonka" and a line
drawn parallel with and 317.00 feet west. measured at right angles to
said east line of said Lot 38 a~d its southerly extension. ALSO
7~at part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13,
Township 117, Range 24, lying northerly of the northerly line of COUNTY
STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15. PLAT 68. easterly of the east line of the west
33.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, west of the
southerly extension of the west line of the east 17.40 feet of Lot 33,
"Koehler's Addition to Mound', Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded
plat thereof, said 17.40 feet being measured along the most southerly line
of said Lot 33 and which lies southerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the
west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, 791.27
feet. to the point of beginning: thence North 84 degrees ~2 minutes OO
seconds East 203.87 feet: thence on a bearing of South 6.53 feet;
thence North 84 degrees 42 minutes OO seconds East 596.08 feet to the
intersection with the southerly extension of the west line of the east
17.~0 feet of said Lot 33, said 17.40 feet being measured along the
most southerly line of said Lot 33 and said line there terminating.
That part of the north 96.00 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter lying southerly of and measured at a right angle from
the south line of Lot 46, "Koehler's Addition to Mound', Lake Minnetonka,
and its easterly extension which lies between the southerly extension of
the east line of Lot 38, 'Koehler's Addition to Mound', Lake Minnetonka.
and a line drawn parallel with and 317.00 feet west measured at right
angles to said east line of said Lot 38 and its southerly extension. ALSO
Lots 38 and 39, 'Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according
tO the recorded plat thereof, except the north 20.00 feet of said Lots.
274
December 18, 1990
That part of Lots 53, 54 and 55, "LYNWOLD PARK", LAKE MINNETONKA, described
as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 53; thence South along the
east line of said Lot 53 and 54 to the southeast corner of of said Lot
54; thence westerly a distance of 30.00 feet along the southerly line
of said Lot 54; thence north parallel with said east line a distaJace
of 10 feet; thence at right angles west a distance of 120.00 feet;
thence at right angles south to the south line of said Lot 54; thence
easterly along said south line to a point 50.00 feet east of the
southwest corner of said Lot 54; thence south parallel with the west
line of said Lot 55 to the south line of said Lot 55; thence westerly
along said south line to a point distant 30.00 feet east measured at a
right angle from the west line of said Lot 55; thence north parallel
with the west line of said Lots 53. 54 and 55 to the north line of
said Lot 53; thence easterly along said north line to the point of
beginning.
That part of Lot 33. "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka,
according to the recorded plat thereof, lying westerly of the west line of
the east 17.40 feet of said Lot 33. said 17.40 feet being measured along
the most southerly line of said Lot 33. ALSO
That part of Lot 3~, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka,
according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of a line 60.00 feet
westerly of and parallel with the west line of the east 17.40 feet of Lot
33. said "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, said 17.40 feet
being measured along the most southerly line of said Lot 33. ALSO
The north 20.00 feet of Lots 38 and 39. "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake
Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof. ALSO
That part of Lot l, "KENNEDY'S SUBDIVISION OF LOT 56, LYNWOLD PARK", LAKE
MINNETONKA, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the
east 30.00 feet of said Lot 1, said 30.00 feet being measured along the
north line or said Lot 1. ALSO
The west 30.00 feet of Lots 53, 54 and 55. "LYNWOLD PARK", LAKE MINNETONKA,
according to the recorded plat thereof.
WREREAS, the Central Business (B-l) district requires a
minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet; and
WHEREAS, Lot 1, Block 2 as identified on the preliminary and
final plat drawings contains 5,838 square feet of area resulting in
a lot area variance of 1,662 square feet; and
WHEREAS, with the exception of the aforementioned variance,
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 the Code of Ordinances of the City of Mound.
275
December 18, 1990
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota:
A®
Preliminary and Final Plat approval is granted for
Railroad Addition upon compliance with the following
requirements:
As per Preliminary and Final Plat
Exhibits A and B respectively.
drawings,
Lot 1, Block 2 shall be combined with the parcel
lying immediately to the north. In the absence of
such combination occurring, all future development
and/or redevelopment of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be
required to obtain approval of a site plan from the
City Council with recommendations provided by the
Mound Planning Commission. The submittal required
for requesting site plan approval shall be the
information that is outlined in Section 23.505.3
(la - ld) of the Mound Zoning Code.
Due to drainage and utility concerns that cannot be
addressed at this time, all future development
and/or redevelopment proposed for Lots 2-5, Block 3
shall be required to obtain approval of a site plan
from the City Council with recommendations provided
by the Mound Planning Commission. The submittal
required for requesting site plan approval shall be
the information that is outlined in Section
23.505.3 (la - ld) of the Mound Zoning Code.
Water and sewer services for Lot 2, Block 3 are to
be extended to the south right-of-way line of
Lynwood Boulevard as part of a City project and the
cost assessed 100% to Lot 2, Block 3, Railroad
Addition.
A watermain extension and installation of sewer and
water services will be required as a prerequisite
of the development of Lot 5, Block 3, Railroad
Addition. Detail. of such extension are to be
developed with City staff during the required site
plan approval process.
The City does hereby authorize the lot area variance for
Lot l, Block 2, Railroad Addition.
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will
constitute a desirable and stable community development
and it is in harmony with adjacent properties·
The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owner and subdivider after
the completion of requirements for their use as required
by Minnesota State Statutes.
276
December 18, 1990
E. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing Resolution.
F. The final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days
of the date of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor
and City Manager in accordance with Section 330 of the
Mound Code of Ordinances 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 IF FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate
upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive
showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City
Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record
forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A.
462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Johnson
and seconded by Councilmember Jensen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
M~yor
Attest: City Cl6rk
203
December 18, 1990
MINUTE8 - MOUND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - DECEMBER 18, 1990
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
special session on Tuesday, December 18, 1990 in the Mound City
Hall Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea
Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also
present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Secretary
Peggy James, Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler,
City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director John Norman, and the
following interested citizens: Cynthia and Ryan Smith, John
Royer, Greg Keller, Curt Johnson, Judy & Don Bryce, Ken Smith,
William Thal, Jon Scherven, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Michael
Mueller, Vernon Schwalbe, Gerry Dodds, Mike Mueller Sr., Philip
Lansing, Darrel Monteith, Walter Wolfe, John Madson, Calvin
Drews, Stephen Kakos, Dick Schwert, Jerry Longpre, Phyllis and
William Johnson, Peter W. Johnson, Dale Sherburne, Bob Brown, and
Paul Meisel.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINUTES
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to approve the
minutes of the December 11, 1990, Regular Meeting as
presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.1 PUBLIC HEARING:
TO CONSIDER A REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAN
AND FINAL PLAT FOR CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED
IN DOWNTOWN MOUND (RAILROAD ADDITION)
City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained to the Council that two
actions need to be taken, one being the rezoning, and two being
the replatting. Koegler recommended approval of the rezoning as
proposed.
Koegler reviewed the conditions in the proposed resolution to
approve a variance and the preliminary and final plat of Railroad
Addition. Koegler explained that the bank building, Lot 2, Block
4, has now been added to the plat per the request of Mr. Mills.
He explained the lot size variance for Lot 1, Block 2, which is
proposed to be combined with the lot to the north (Ben Franklin).
204
December 18, 1990
The City Engineer reviewed the easement for Belmont Lane. Lot 5,
Block 3 will not meet the lot area requirement of 30,000 square
feet if the land being used for Belmont Lane is not allowed to be
figured into the lot area, therefore, Mr. Mills is requesting
that this portion of land be easement rather than right-of-way.
Approval was recommended by both the City Planner and the city
Engineer.
Mayor Smith opened the public hearing. There were no comments
from citizens present. Mayor Smith closed the public hearing.
Cameron commented on the letter from Hennepin County, Department
of Public Works requesting that an additional 7 feet of right-of-
way along both sides of County Road 15 and County Road 110 be
dedicated to the County. He explained that after discussions
with Hennepin County, the plat now meets with their approval; it
has been modified by dedicating a 7 foot wide strip of land along
the east side of County Road 110 from Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 3,
and also a corner out of Lot 1, Block 2 on the west side of
Commerce.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded approval of the following:
ORDINANCE NO. 46-1990
]tN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS
FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TO
CENTRAL BUSINESS (B-l)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90-153 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE AND THE
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF RAILROAD
ADDITION.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2 PUBLIC HEARING:
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT: CBD PARKING LOT
ACQUISITION & IMPROVEMENTS
The City Manager gave an update on the status of the purchase of
the lots from Dakota Rail. He explained that Dakota Rail is
experiencing problems clearing the title with the State. It was
noted that the Department of Transportation has expressed an
interest in the property. The city Attorney explained procedures
of the assessment hearing.
k n I, I &
80.84
5: 5
,(~?: ('
I
(?8)
144. ~
Il
55 (4Z)
I ~3o
(I)
3 /
{~) '$..
(56)
8
(5) ~ ..;':
~ ·
r~
RESOLUTION g93-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
AMENDING RESOLUTION 93-20; THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL,
APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND LOT AND STREET
DESIGN VARIANCES FOR TEAL POINTE
WHEREAS, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit in accordance with the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board's Environmental Review Program Rules., Minn. Rules,
parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been
prepared and approved by the City of Mound and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has the authority to modify the project based on
comments to the EAW and
WHEREAS, based on comments to the EAW, the City Council has determined
that further conditions to the project are necessary to ensure environmental integrity.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
A. The following conditions shall be added in numerical order to those stated in
Resolution g93-20 and all shall be agreed to and/or fulfilled by the developer
prior to Final Plat approval.
20. Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall
submit a set of pl~.,.~l[,..prepared by a registered Landscape Architect for
revie,q~by the City.b~X~e plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory,
_.~xo~"'~erosi°n mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and
~0-8~ ground cover replacement.
21. A Homeowner's Association shall be established and include one (1)
representative from outside the development but within the adjacent
neighborhood. ~~ ~
22. There shall be no~rivate docks on the shoreline of the adjacent wetland
nor shall there be any dredging of the wetland to accommodate this
development ~'~,, ~ ~ ~
23. Conservatio/a~isements shal~_be egablishe4t_. ~o guide de p
property.trEas,q(nents shall}~i~s,~~~:'zone adjacent to ~e wetla, nd~.
consisting of [~ting, predominantly unaltered vegetation, lqemovm or
vegetation othei~an dead, dying or diseased plants shall be prohibited.~
Alteration to the teh~4in through grading ~activities shall be prohibited. ~
24.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Best Management Practices shall
be applied to the development and subsequent management of the
property.
25.
To assist their review of the archeological study for compliance with the
Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act, the City of Mound will ensure that the
Minnesota Indian Affairs Council has received all needed documentation.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
RESOLUTION #93-~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl, OF THE CITY OF MOUND
DETERMINING THAT FURTHER CONDITIONS ARE WARRANTED TO THE
TEAL POINTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON PUBLIC COMMENT
TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
WHEREAS, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit in accordance with the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board's Environmental Review Program Rules., Minn. Rules,,
parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been
prepared and approved by the City of Mound and
WHEREAS, through published notice, the City of Mound has solicited public
comment on the contents of the EAW report and
WHEREAS, written, public comment has been received from a number of parties
and the Mound City Council has reviewed and considered these comments and
WHEREAS, the comments received raise environmental concerns about certain
aspects of the Teal Pointe Development.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
A.
Bo
Based on these comments, the City Council has determined that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted for the project.
The environmental concerns raised by comments warrant that further
conditions be placed on the approval of the project. Said conditions are as
follows:
Prior to issuing a building permit for Lots 1, 2 and 3, the developer shall
submit a set of pl.an,~.sffil?pared by a registered Landscape Architect for
review by the City'?~ plans shall contain a master plan, tree inventory,
erosion mitigation plan and a landscaping plan which details tree and
ground cover replacement.
A Homeowner's Association shall be established and include one (1)
representative from outside the development but within the adjacent
neighborhood.
o
There shall be no.~rivate docks on the shoreline of the adjacent wetland
nor shall there be any dredging of the wetland to accommodate this
development.
Conservation easements shall be established to guide development of the
property.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Best Management Practices
shall be applied to the development and subsequent management of the
property.
To assist their review of the archeological study for compliance with the
Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act, the City of Mound will ensure that the
Minnesota Indian Affairs Council has received all needed documentation.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
22.9,
September 9, 1993
Ed Shukle, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
HAND DELIVER ONLY
RE: Teal Pointe Development - Conservation Easement
Dear Mr. Shukle,
Enclosed please find a 10-page Conservation Easement
accompanied by a September 1, 1993 cover letter to Curt
Pearson.
It is important that the Mound City Council be fully informed
about the Land Preservation Society's proposal. Therefore,
please place these documents in the City Council agenda
packet for the September 14, 1993 meeting.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Thomas E. Casey
2854 Cambridge Lane
Mound, MN 55364
472-1099
ii I. · I, I, ,1
September 1, 1993
Curt Pearson
Attorney at Law
1 Financial Plaza Bldg., Suite 1100
120 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
VIA FAX AND U.S. ~IL
338-2625
RE: Teal Pointe Conservation Easements
City of Mound
Dear Curt,
Enclosed please find a proposed Conservation Easement for the
Teal Pointe development. Please insert subordination or
release language in this document for any entity that has a
pre-existing mortgage or other rights.
I have also included language on page 9 to designate "Teal
Pointe Homeowners' Association" as a third-party under the
statute. Therefore, it is important to draft the Homeowners'
Association documents to include language that the purposes
of the association also include, "... to preserve and
conserve natural areas for their ecological benefits ...,,
etc., etc. Please send me a copy of these documents before
your approval.
It is also important that abutting property owners be granted
an appurtenant easement to enforce the provisions in the
conservation easement. I assume you would have no objection
advising the City Council to require the developer to convey
an appurtenant easement to abutting property o~;ners.
1%~ill be on vacation from September 2-6. Please call ne
after September 6th to discuss this matter in further detail.
Very truly yours,
rlb~m-~s E. Cas~y
2~4 Cap..bridge Lane
~.~ound, ~.LU 55364
472-1099
~72-4771 (fax)
c3;: file
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS INDENTURE, made this day of September, 1993,
between TEAL POINTE DEVELOPMENT CO., a Minnesota corporation,
(hereinafter referred to as the "Grantor"), and THE CITY OF
MOUND, a statutory city, (hereinafter referred to as
"Grantee").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is owner of approximately 5.7 acres of
real property located in the City of Mound, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, which is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated by reference herein, (hereafter referred to
as the "Protected Property");
WHEREAS, the Protected Property, in its present state,
remains relatively undisturbed (i.e. in a natural state) and
has significant and substantial value as a natural,
ecological, archaeological, aesthetic, scientific~-and
educational resource;
WHEREAS, the Protected Property is a significant natural
area containing a remnant "Big Woods" (Maple - Basswood)
forest ecosystem with an adjacent wetland ecosystem;'
WHEREAS, the Protected Property presently contains
habitat for the American Bittern (Botaurus lentginosus),
Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and Ginseng (Panax
quinquefolius), species listed as "special concern" on the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Checklist o__f
Endanqered and Threatened Animal and Plant Species of
Minnesota and possibly other rare plants and animals;
WHEREAS, the Protected Property is a valuable element of
an adjacent wetland system protected by the State of
Minnesota and the city of Mound whose integrity depends upon
the preservation of the natural elements and ecological
features of the Protected Property, specifically surface and
ground water which originates on the Protected Property and
discharges into and sustains the natural wetland system;
WHEREAS, these natural characteristics and ecological
and aesthetic features and values contribute to the natural
heritage of the State of Minnesota;
WHEREAS, Grantor recognizes these natural elements and
the ecological and aesthetic features and values of the
Protected Property and is committed to the conservation and
preservation of the natural elements and ecological and
aesthetic features and values of the Protected Property in
perpetuity by the use of the Protected Property in a manner
consistent with the terms of this Conservation Easement;
-1-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
W~EREAS, the city of MoUnd is a statutory city and,
therefore, authorized to acquire a conservation easement
as a "holder" pursuant to Minnesota Statute 84C.01;
W~ERE~S, The Land Preservation Society is a non-profit
association which is organized in part to preserve and
conserve natural areas and ecologically significant land for
aesthetic, scientific, charitable, and educational purposes
and is authorized to obtain a "third-party right of
enforcement" pursuant to Minnesota Statute $4C.01(3);
W~EREAS, the Grantor and the Grantee both desire,
intend, and have a common purpose to conserve and preserve in
perpetuity the Protected Property by placing restrictions
upon the use of the Protected Property and by transferring
from the Grantor to the Grantee through the creation of a
conservation easement on, over and across the Protected
Property affirmative rights to ensure the preservation of the
natural elements and values of the Protected Property and
conserve and protect its animal and plant populations and
habitat; and
W~EREAS, the terms and phrases, "natural, ecological,
scientific, aesthetic, and educational value," "natural
elements," "natural characteristics" and "ecological and
aesthetic features," as used herein shall mean, without
limiting the generality of those terms, the physical
condition of the Protected Property at the time of this
grant, as evidenced by reports, photographs, maps, and
scientific documentation possessed by the Grantor or the
Grantee (now or in the future) which may include but are not
limited to, the following:
1. The appropriate survey maps from the United States
Geological Survey, showing property lines and other
contiguous or nearby protected areas
2. A map of the area drawn to scale showing all
existing man-made improvements or incursions (such
as roads, buildings, fences or gravel pits),
vegetation and identification of flora and fauna
(including, for example, rare species locations,
animal breeding and roosting areas, and migration
routes), land use history (including present uses
and recent pest disturbances), distinct natural
features (such as large trees and aquatic areas);
3. An aerial photograph of the Protected Property at an
appropriate scale taken as close as possible to the
date the donation is made;
4. On-site photographs taken at appropriate locations
on the Protected Property; and
5. An easement documentation report which shall
-2-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
include, among other things, an acknowledgment by
the Grantor and the Grantee of conditions,
background information, legal information,
ecological features information, and land-use and
man-made features information with respect to the
Protected Property;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor, for and in consideration of
the facts above recited and of the mutual covenants, terms,
conditions, and restrictions herein contained and pursuant to
Minnesota law, does hereby give, grant, bargain and convey as
an absolute and unconditional gift unto the Grantee and its
successors and assigns forever a Conservation Easement in
perpetuity over the Protected Property consisting of the
following rights and restrictions:
AFFIRMATIVE RIGHTS
The Grantor conveys to the Grantee and its successors
and assigns the following rights:
1. The right to enter the Protected Property, in a
reasonable manner and at reasonable times, for the purpose of
inspecting the Protected Property to determine if the Grantor
is complying with the covenants and purposes of this
Conservation Easement.
2. The right to observe and study nature and to make
scientific and education observations and studies in such a
manner as will not disturb the quiet enjoyment of the
protected Property by the Grantor, his successors, and
assigns.
3. The right to survey the Protected Property if
necessary to protect the natural resources of the Protected
Property.
4. The right to enforce by proceedings at law or in
equity the covenants hereinafter set forth. This right shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the right to: (a) bring
an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce
the terms of this agreement; (b) require the restoration of
the property to its prior condition; (c) enjoin such non-
compliance by ex parte temporary restraining order, temporary
or permanent injunction; and/or (d) recover damages arising
from such non-compliance, including but not limited to damage
to wildlife and plants. Such damages, when recovered, may be
applied by the Grantee in its discretion, to corrective
action on the Protected Property, if necessary. If such
court determines that the Grantor has failed to comply with
this agreement, Grantor shall reimburse the Grantee for any
-3-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
reasonable costs of enforcement, including costs of
restoration, court costs and reasonable attorneys fees, in
addition to any other payments ordered by such court.
In the event the Grantee becomes aware of an event or
circumstance of non-compliance with the terms and conditions
herein set forth, the Grantee shall give written notice to
the Grantor or his heirs, successors, or assignees, at the
address set forth below, of such event or circumstance of
non-compliance and request corrective action sufficient to
abate such event or circumstance of non-compliance and
restore the Protected Property to its previous condition.
Failure by the Grantor to cause discontinuance, abatement, or
such other corrective action as may be requested by Grantee
within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice shall entitle
the Grantee to bring an action as authorized herein.
The Grantee does not waive or forfeit the right to take
action as may be necessary to insure compliance with the
covenants and purposes of this grant by any prior failure to
act and Grantor hereby waives any defense of laches with
respect to any delay by the Grantee in acting to enforce any
of the provisions or exercise any rights under this easement.
B. COVENANTS
IN FURTHERANCE of the foregoing affirmative rights, the
Grantor makes the following covenants, on behalf of the
Grantor and the Grantor's heirs, successors, and assigns,
which covenants shall run with and bind the Protected
Property in perpetuity:
1. USES. There shall be no industrial or commercial
activity undertaken or allowed on the Protected Property nor
shall any right of passage across or upon the Protected
Property be allowed or granted if that right of passage is
used in conjunction with industrial or commercial activity.
2. BUILDINGS ~%ND STRUCTURES. No structure or building,
whether permanent or temporary, shall be allowed on the
Protected Property except the following: (a) the dwelling
unit; (b) accessory building which is intended for and used
to store private passenger vehicles of the family residing
upon the premises; (c) on-grade stairways and steps
constructed according to the existing Building Code
(excluding stairways or lifts to or within fifty (50) feet of
the ordinary high water level); (d) driveways not exceeding
twenty (20) feet in width; (e) sidewalks not exceeding six
(6) feet in width; and (f) retaining walls not exceeding four
(4) feet in height (excluding retaining walls within fifty
(50) feet of the ordinary high water level).
-4-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
3. DOCKS, WATERCRAFT, AND DREDGING. It is expressly
agreed that no dock, pier, stairway, other structure or
device shall be allowed on any part of the Protected Property
to enable a person or watercraft to access any wetland or
public water. No watercraft shall be launched from the
Protected Property into any wetland or public water. No
dredging shall be accomplished to access the Protected
Property.
4. EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE. Any structure permitted by
this Conservation Easement shall be constructed with a wood
exterior and shall be painted in "earth tone" colors to blend
in and conform to the natural surroundings.
5. DUMPING. There shall be no dumping of trash, non-
compostable garbage or other unsightly or offensive material
on the Protected Property. There shall be no change in the
topography of the Protected Property through the placing of
soil or other substances such as landfill or dredging spoils.
6. CHEMICALS. There shall be no spraying or any other
application of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers on the
Protected Property; however, if necessary, small quantities
may be applied beyond fifty (50) feet from the ordinary high
water level for a non-commercial vegetable garden or for lawn
maintenance and only then with the written approval of the
Grantee.
7. VEHICLES. There shall be no operation of
snowmobiles, dunebuggies, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles,
or any other types of motorized vehicle upon the Protected
Property except on the driveway pad or public street when
authorized by law.
8. ANIMALS. There shall be no horses allowed nor any
grazing of livestock on the Protected Property. No dogs,
cats, or other animals, domestic or exotic, shall be allowed
outside the dwelling unit or garage of the Protected Property
without a leash.
9. AGRICULTURE. Except as allowed by Grantee, there
shall be no agricultural activities of any kind including but
not limited to plowing, planting, grazing, or harvesting
except for small vegetable gardens for non-commercial use.
However, Grantee may manage the vegetation to establish
native plant cover deemed desirable for control of soil
erosion and enhancement of wildlife species.
10. WETLANDS AND PUBLIC WATERS. Grantor shall not
fill, dredge, drain, or in any way alter or degrade any
wetland or public water on or adjoining the Protected
Property nor shall Grantor be eligible for or receive any
permit from any government agency to alter said wetlands or
public waters.
11. VEGETATION. There shall be no removal of
vegetation within fifty (50) feet of the ordinary high water
-5-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
level, except when planting native plants to restore the
shoreline to a natural state and only then with the written
approval of the Grantee.
Structures shall be located in such a manner that the
maximum number of trees shall be preserved. Grantor shall
also re-forest disturbed and open areas immediately upon
project completion with native tress and plants appropriate
to the site characteristics, with at least the minimum size
required by Mound City Code, Section 350.725 subd. 3.
Under no circumstances shall non-native or exotic plants
be allowed or planted outside of the dwelling unit or garage.
The Grantor shall be responsible for the control of "noxious
weeds" (as defined by law) and other non-native plants and
shall perform such control as required by law and the terms
of this Conservation Agreement.
12. HUNTING OR TRAPPING. There shall be no hunting or
trapping of any fauna on the Protected Property except to the
extent specifically approved by the Grantee to keep the
animal population within numbers consistent with the
ecological balance of the area.
13. FIRES. There shall be no fires on the Protected
Property without a burning permit issued by the proper
governmental authority.
14. PROTECTED SPECIES. No structure shall be erected,
maintained, or repaired and no activity or use shall occur
such as to interfere with or adversely affect any plant or
animal listed in the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources' Checklist 9f Endanqered and Threatened Animal and
Plant Species of Minnesota, as amended, whether listed as
"endangered," "threatened," or "special concern."
15. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. No building or structure
of any kind shall be placed within fifty (50) feet of a
significant historical site, as defined by the Mound City
Code or other applicable law nor shall any use of the
Protected Property affect the value of said significant
historical site.
16. LANDSCAPING. A landscaping plan shall be required
and approved by the Mound City Council before a building
permit is issued. Said plan shall conform to the provisions
of this document.
17. STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN. Any stormwater
detention basin built on the Protected Property shall be
designed according to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) wet detention basin standards.
18. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. Grantor shall use all
appropriate erosion control best management practices (BMPs)
during and after construction to prevent erosion and
sedimentation on and off the Protected Property.
-6-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
C. RESERVED RIGHT8
Nevertheless and notwithstanding any of the foregoing
provisions to the contrary, the Grantor reserves for the
Grantor and the Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, all
rights as owner of the Protected Property, except the right
to undertake any activities which are expressly and
specifically prohibited by this CONSERVATION EASEMENT or
which are inconsistent with the conservation purposes of this
grant. Grantor agrees to notify the Grantee in writing
before exercising any reserved right (including replacing or
substantially altering any structure) which may have an
adverse impact on the natural characteristics or ecological
and aesthetic features of the Protected Property and shall
provide Grantee with photographs of any new or substantially
altered structures following completion of the work.
It is understood that the provisions of this Conservation
Easement shall not relieve the Grantor of its obligation to
obtain all necessary licenses, permits and permission from
the proper public authorities. The use and occupancy of the
Protected Property by the Grantor and all operations
conducted by the same shall be in strict compliance with all
rules and regulations adopted by any governmental body having
authority in the matter.
D. GENERAL PROVISION8
1. This Conservation Easement shall run with and burden
the Protected Property in perpetuity and shall bind the
Grantor and the Grantor's agents, heirs, successors, and
assigns and any and all other successors to him in interest.
2. GRANTOR'8 WARRANTY. The Grantor hereby warrants and
represents that the Grantor is seized of the Protected
Property in fee simple and has good right to grant and convey
this Conservation Easement, that the Protected Property is
free and clear of any and all encumbrances, and that the
Grantee and its successors and assigns shall have the use of
and enjoy all of the benefits derived from and arising out of
this Conservation Easement.
3. PAYMENT OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT~. The Grantor shall
pay any and all real property taxes and assessments levied by
an competent authority on the Protected Property.
If the Grantor becomes delinquent in payment of said
taxes or assessments, to the extent that the Grantor may
forfeit his interest in the Protected Property, the Grantee,
at its option, shall have the right to purchase and acquire
the Grantor's interest in said Protected Property by paying
-7-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
funds to discharge said delinquent taxes or assessments, or
to take other actions as may be necessary to protect the
Grantee's interest in the Protected Property and to assure
the continued enforceability of this Conservation Easement.
4. DUTY TO ENFORCE. The Grantee shall be under the
duty and obligation to enforce the terms of this Conservation
Easement.
5. 8UBSEQUE~T TRkNSFER. The Grantor agrees that the
terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this grant
will be inserted by him in any subsequent deed or other legal
instrument by which the Grantor transfers or divests itself
of all or any part of its interest in the Protected Property,
and that the Grantor will notify Grantee in writing at least
thirty (30) days prior to any sale or transfer of any
interest in the Protected Property.
6. NOTICE. Any notice required in this Conservation
Easement shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the following addresses or such address as may
be hereafter specified by notice in writing:
Grantor:
Grantee:
7. IB-~ALIDIT¥. If any provision of this Conservation
Easement or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is found to be invalid, the remainder of the
provisions of the Conservation Easement and the application
of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than
those as to which it is found to be invalid shall not be
affected thereby.
8. GOVERNING LAW. This Conservation Easement shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
9. ASSIGNMEB"f. The Grantee may assign or transfer this
Conservation Easement and the rights conveyed herein,
provided that: (a) the Grantee requires, as a condition of
such transfer, that the original conservation purposes of the
Conservation Easement continue to be carried out in
perpetuity; and (b) any assignment is made only to an
organization qualified to acquire or hold a conservation
easement at the time of transfer under the provision of
Section 170 (h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as it may be
amended from time to time, and any regulations promulgated
thereunder. This Conservation Easement is fully valid and
enforceable by any assignee or successor of the Grantee,
whether assigned in whole or part.
-8-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
10. THIRD-PARTY RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT. The parties
agree that a third-party right to enforce the terms of this
instrument shall be granted in favor of the Land Preservation
Society, a charitable association, and the Teal Pointe
Homeowners' Association, a charitable association. The
parties also agree that said third-party right of enforcement
may be granted to any other entity chosen by Grantee from
time to time, if the entity is qualified under the Uniform
Conservation Easement Act, Minnesota Statute 85C.01-.05.
11. POWER OF APPOINTMENT. The Grantee shall nominate a
resident of Mound as a voting member of the Teal Pointe
Homeowners' Association. Whenever possible, said resident
shall live within reasonable proximity of the Protected
Property.
12. DEFINITIONS. The terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" as
used herein shall be deemed to include, respectively, the
Grantor, Grantor's heirs, successors, personal
representatives and assigns, and the Grantee, Grantee's
heirs, its successors and assigns.
The term "native plant" shall mean a plant indigenous to
the State of Minnesota at the time of European settlement,
adapted to the hardiness zone appropriate for the City of
Mound and the physical characteristics of the site.
13. HEADINGS. It is expressly understood that all
paragraph headings are for convenience only and do not change
or alter the terms of this Conservation Easement.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said Conservation Easement unto
the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Grantor has executed this
instrument this day of , 1993.
President
Teal Pointe Development Co.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1993, by ,
President, Teal Pointe Development Co., Grantor.
Notary Public
-9-
Drafted by: Thomas E. Casey
8-31-93
ACCEPTANCE
The foregoing Conservation Easement is hereby
accepted by The City of Mound, Grantee, this day of
, 1993.
THE CITY OF MOUND
by:
its:
by:
its:
and
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1993, by , and
, for The City of Mound, Grantee.
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by:
-10-
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1994 PRELIMINARY GENERAL
FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,366,950;
SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVY AT $1,783,620;
LESS THE HOMESTEAD AGRICULTURAL CREDIT (HACA)
OF $494,800, RESULTING IN A PRELIMINARY
CERTIFIED LEVY OF $1,288,820;
APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1994;
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following 1994 Preliminary
General Fund Budget appropriations:
City Council
Promotions
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections & Registration
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Emergency Preparedness
Planning and Inspection
Street
Shop & Stores
City Property & Buildings
Parks
Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
63,130
2,000
1,380
180,330
11,320
48,350
151,080
24,200
81,500
795,240
5,400
157,850
397,520
--0--
102,860
136,620
33,930
40,000
134,240
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
2,366,950
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 1994:
SPECIAL LEVIES
Bonded Indebtedness
114,990
Unfunded Accrued Liability of
Public Pension Funds
33,350
Total Special Levies
148,340
TOTAL PRELIMINARY LEVY
1,635,280
PRELIMINARY TOTAL TO BE LEVIED
FOR 1994 1,783,620
Less Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA)-494,800
Preliminary Certified Levy 1,288,820
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the preliminary overall
budget for 1994 as follows:
~ENERAL FUND
As per above
2,366,950
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Area Fire Service Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
Capital Projects Fund
Cemetery Fund
Dock Fund
Pension Fund
270,190
328,880
37,500
5,240
53,680
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
695,490
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Recycling Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
104,330
340,230
834,990
1,390,280
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS
2,669,830
SUMMARY
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Enterprise Funds
2,366,950
799,820
2,565,500
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
5,732,270
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City_Council of the city
of Mound, Minnesota, hereby sets Tuesday, ~30, 1993, and
Tuesday, December 14, 1993, as the public hearing dates for
consideration of the 1994 Proposed Budget.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following voted in the affirmative:
The following voted in the negative:
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO
EXCEED $24~000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFI~,YING
THE COST OF OPEI~TION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY OF HOUND FOR THE YE~ 1994
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 1994 Pursuant to MSA
Chapter 469", and the other entitled, "Resolution Establishing the
Tax Levy for the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the
Year 1994; 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, 1993.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following voted in the affirmative:
The following voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
BILLS-
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
Batch 3083
Batch 3084
Total Bills
$164,400.86
413,127.95
$577,528.81
'~ 0 0 0 0
~2 ,4' '4' '4' '4'
~4
O0
'4'
I
!
0
~4
O0
0,.4
o
0
I
0
,4'
0
I
0
0
0
!
Z
N SO
o
oo
o
o
I
!
f~
0
Z
uJ
o
oo
oo
o
~4
ooo
0~o~
! I
oo
I~ I
o
0oo
0~o~
! I
oc~
oo
I I
z~
o e.40~
· .4 o
I ~q
el: ao
i J il
oo
!
o o
'
I
UJ
Z
ZZ ~Z
'CD ,0,0 ,0 Oo
O~
o
0
.4'
o
o oo
~. oo
Z
0
,(
ti.
I-
i II
~)
o I
~Z
B I
C~CI~
Z
m
o
oooo
Ill
II!l
0
bJt. J .J
Z v'l )< Z
0 I
't
,, L
L · I,
0~
o
o o
o~
o
!
o
o
oo
o
!
o
*4'
o
o
oo
o
!
c~
!
c~
o
oo
o
o
!
o
0
~r
Oo 0
O0 0
O0 0
O0 0
o
n
oO
,..4,-(
n
'i
~ oo oo oooo oooo ooooooooooo~oo o
! I I
i
.!
,
0oo~
I ! I
ooo
0oo
,ri ~.4 e.4
,<
tJJ
.J
<Il
,4'
I
oo
oo
..JZ
0
o
C~
0
--I
uJ
LB, ,A
oo
0,-4
o
!
o
o
I
o
o
o
I
z
V)
b.J
C~ (,8"'I)
h- f,~ P.,,,
h~
Z
~J
·
o
~ o
o
~0
0
n., CD
c:~ Z
Z
..J
~0
0
/
oo
o~-~
o
, o
!
o
!
~o
II
,it
~.0
0 ·
.J
O
k-
O
Z
Z
·
0
o
..J
)-
Z
0
08-Sep-93
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
AUGUST FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
INVESTMENTS
The following is the August investment activity:
Balance: August 1, 1993
$5,699,639
Bought:
CP 3.14 Dain Bosworth Due 11-12-93 198,272
CD 3.46 4M Due 1-31-94 300,000
Inst Govt Inc Piper - Income Reinvested 8,254
Money Market 4M - Income Reinvested 708
CD Purchase Fee 4M (372)
Matured:
CD 3.50 Norwest (200,000)
Money Market 4M (Bought 4M CD) (300,000)
Money Market 4M (TO CHECKING ACCT.) (200,000)
Balance: August 31, 1993
$5,506,501
Insurance Claims
In addition to working with the City Manager to finalize the
proposed budget for 1994, for some reason August was a busy month
in the area of insurance claims.
- The work to repair the damage done to the lift station located at
the corner of Co. Rd. 44 and Sinclair Rd. has been completed.
The total cost was over $19,000, which was paid to the City of Mound
by the other party's insurance company.
- On the 18th of August a branch fell on the City Hall's roof. A claim was
submitted to the City's insurance company but the damage cost was
estimated to be less than the $1,000 deductible.
- A big willow tree branch fell on a couple of boats on August 30th. The City
Insurance adjuster has determined that the city is not responsible for the
damage because the incident was an 'act of God'.
- Repairs have been done to the hydrant that was damaged on August 20th.
We had to bill the other party's insurance, because the City insurance
does not covered for that type of property.
- Although of a minor nature, a number of claims were submitted in the
area of workers compensation.
.......... k ·
Inv. # Vendor
000 4M
765 Dain Bosworth
766 First Bank
804 Dain Bosworth
809 First Bank
810 Dain Bosworth
826 Dain Bosworth
845 Shearson
856 Dain Bosworth
862 Marquette
876 Piper Institutional
887 Norwest
889 Shearson
890 Shearson
891 Shearson
892 Norwest
000 4M
893 Dain Bosworth
Type
MONEY MARKET
FEDL NATL MTG ASSN CPN
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
MN HFA TAXABLE HOME IMPT
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
FINANCING CORP CPN FICO
FEDERAL HOME LOAN
COUPON TREAS RCPT
COUPON TREAS RCPT
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT
INST GOVT INC
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
COMMERCIAL PAPER
COMMERCIAL PAPER
COMMERCIAL PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
COMMERCIAL PAPER
CITY OF MOUD
INVESTMENTS
August 31, 1993
Purchased
01 -19-90
01-31-90
12-10-90
01-29-91
01 -22-91
06-18-91
11 -13-91
02-18-92
04-01 -92
07- 20- 92
04- 05- 93
06- 23-93
06-25-93
07-15-93
07-22-93
08-03-93
08-3-93
Maturity
10-11-99
08-15-95
08-01-95
08-02-94
O6-27-95
06-27-94
05-15-96
02-15-95
04-03-95
10-05-93
09-22-93
09-22-93
11-18-93
01-22-94
01-31-94
11-12-93
Yield
9.00
9.2
8.60
8.46
8.25
7.50
6.67
5.90
6.375
3.50
3.23
3.23
3.14
3.50
3.46
3.14
,J [I
08-Sep-93
Gino Businaro
INVE~T93
Cost
$267~738
513,875
111,993
251,135
95,982
106,430
100,000
246,785
299,019
375,000
801,338
200,000
495,956
744,067
98,912
300,000
300,000
198,272
$5,506,501
CITY of MOUND
534! MAvWOQD ROAD
MOUND MffaNESOTA55364-!687
612~4-2 0600
FAX 6~2 472.-0620
MEMO________~DUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 9, 1993
City Manager, Members of the city Council and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building official ~0'
AUGUST 1993 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
In August 41 building permits were issued for a valuation of
$231,541, this brings year-to-date construction value to $2,726,476
and thats about 24% behind last year. The workload produced by the
construction activity is about the same as August 1992 with 44
building permits issued. There has been three demolitions of
single family dwellings this year, all on lakeshore lots and all
resulting in new residences. There were 22 plumbing, mechanical
and other miscellaneous permits issued for a total of 63 this month
and 419 to-date.
PLANNING & ZONING
The Planning Commission and city Council have been busy with two
subdivisions involving Dakota Rail property, variance requests, and
approval of the Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental
Properties. The Teal Pointe subdivision proposal consumed a great
amount of staff time and was presented again to the Council in
discussion of the EAW. The Council approved the EAW with
conditions for all of the 9 lots the developer had proposed.
Special conditions were placed on 3 lots with steep slopes.
RENTAL
Our ordinance is in effect and it is working! I have done
inspections on approximately 8 units and we are in the process of
working with the owners and occupants to rectify substandard
conditions.
JS:pj
~ (~ ~ printed on recycled paper
City of ~ound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: AUGUST Year: ;99~
THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE
~CTZON I P~R. MIT$ ~ UNITS VALUATION I UNIT~ VALUATION
SINGLE FAMILY D~TACNED 11 !, ! 82,792
$INGL~ FAMILY ATFACH£D (CONDO~
~ F~Y I D~
~AC~ ACC~SO*V ~U~ 2 2 0,8 8 8 X 5 1 ~ 0, 2 2 3
s~mo ~ 1 5,280 2 9 ~ 889
~c~ ~ 1 400 9 67,7~5
mDU~ , , 5 130 { 766
~ 1 400 15 235,961
D~O~X~XON~ ~ P~ J UN~ VALUA~ON ~ P~{ VALUATION
D~AC~ A~RY BU~D~O~ 2
NON-~L BU~D~OS
~ D~LITIONS 6
~R~XONS/C~O~ OF U~ I P~ I UN~ VALUA~N I PE~ V~UATION
~ P~ ~ UN~ V~UA~N ~ V~UA~ON
TOT~ ~ 0 23~,5~ ' 236 2.726.~76
S~NS 0 18
~ ~ 70
~~ 6 40
~ 63 ~ 19
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 ~667
(612~ 472 0600
FAX 6!2~ 472 0620
PARKS DEPARTNIENT
AUGUST 1993 MONTHLY REPORT
Parks
The fall season is coming up fast. August saw the beaches close and the
maintenance crew begin storing equipment for the winter. We lose two of
our mowing crew due to them returning to college. We now will have two
maintenance workers until October 15, then we will be down to one on a
part-time basis through the winter.
Cemetery
The general maintenance goes on at the Cemetery. Phil Haugen has done
a good job with the up-keep.
Tree Removal/Weed Cuttinq
Four trees were removed from city property and three were scheduled for
forced removal from one property.
Three notices were sent to private residences for weed and grass
trimming.
Docks
The Dock Inspector and Building official began
encroachments on public land and commons property.
continue throughout the winter.
the updating of
This process will
JF:pj
i~ .k I i, I, J
September 9, 1993
CITY of MOUND
To:
From:
Subject:
Ed Shukle
city Manager
Greg Skinner
Public Works
August Activity Report
Street Department
We have finished sweeping up the seal coat rock. This
took two weeks. After this we have been patching potholes,
gatevalves, and manhole in preparation for winter. We will
have this completed by Sept. 13. 1993. During the patching we
had some problems with our roller. First, the rings on the #1
piston broke and damaged the cylinder and the valve in the.
head. We had Gary's Diesel do the repair work for $1,200.00.
Two weeks later it spun a rod bearing. The roller is still
out being repaired at this time. I have rented a roller until
we get ours back.
In between sealcoating we have been installing and
repairing street signs along with tree and brush trimming.
Water Department
Really nothing new here. Meter repairs. FR, Locates,Etc.
We did have another ins. claim. At 4333 Wilshire Blvd. two
party's were be chased by Orono Police and one missed the
turn and took out a fire hydrant. This has been summitted to
their insurance co.
Sewer Department
We have finished the repair on the damaged Lift Station
on Westedge and Sinclair. This was also a insurance claim. We
have received the check in the amount of $19,034.71 for
damages.
On the 18th we had 4 lifts stations down due to the
storm. We had to pump trucks form Sullivans and Peterson to
pump down the stations. Power was out in the Highlands for
most of the day.
We have been concentrating on sewer line cleaning and
maintenance and have been making good progress.
printod o;~ tecyc.'.ed/'~K, or
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
Len Harrell
Monthly Report for August 1993
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,267 calls for
service during the month of August. There were 48 Part
I offenses reported. Those offenses included 1
criminal sexual conduct, 9 burglaries, 2 aggravated
assaults, 35 larcenies, and 1 vehicle theft.
There were 72 Part II offenses reported. Those
offenses included 3 child abuse/neglect, 1 forgery/NSF
check, 1 narcotics, 12 damage to property, 4 liquor law
violations, 5 DUI's, 15 simple assaults, 7 domestics (5
with assaults), 9 harassments, 3 juvenile status
offenses and 12 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 117 adult citations and 0
juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for
an additional 31 tickets. Warnings were issued to 46
individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 7 adults and 5 juveniles arrested for
felonies. There were 21 adults and 8 juveniles
arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 7
warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 9 vehicular accidents, 4
with injuries. There were 30 medical emergencies and
148 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies
on 15 occasions in August and requested assistance 12
times.
Property valued at $12,966 was stolen.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - AUGUST 1993
II.
III.
IV.
INVESTIGATION
The investigators worked on 8 child protection issues
and 3 criminal sexual conduct cases in August. Those
cases accounted for 74 hours of investigative time.
Through the first two-thirds of the year, the
department has investigated 48 child protection issues
and 13 criminal sexual conduct cases.
Other cases investigated involved burglary, forgery,
possession of stolen property, auto theft, damage to
property, a swindle, thefts, and harassing
communications.
The investigators used 128 hours of vacation during the
month of August.
Personnel/Staffing
The department used approximately 58 hours of overtime
during the month of August. Officers used 40 hours of
comp-time, 268 hours of vacation, 17 hours of sick
time, and 6 holidays. Officers earned 57 hours of
comp-time.
Training
Officers attended 21 days of training in the month of
August. Training included the Wilson Leadership
Course, EMT-First Responder retraining for several
officers, the State Bars Legal Issues Update Conference
and Police Crime Regional Competition. "Rambo" was
recertified and qualified for National Competition in
St. Louis, Missouri.
OFFENSES
REPORTED
CLEARED
UNFOUNDED
AUGUST
EXCEPT.
CLEARED
1993
CLEARED BY
ARREST
PART I CRIMES
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Aggravated AssauLt 2 0 0 2
Burgtary 9 0 0 0
Larceny 35 0 3 0
Vehicle Theft 1 0 0 0
Arso~ 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 48 0 3 2
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect 3 2 1 0
Forgery/NSF Checks 1 0 1 0
Criminal Damage to Property 12 0 1 0
Weapons 0 0 0 0
Narcotics 1 0 0 1
Liquor Laws 4 0 0 4
DWI 5 0 0 5
Simple Assault 15 1 8 0
Domestic Assault 5 0 0 5
Domestic (No Assautt) 2 0 0 0
Harassment 9 0 2 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 3 0 1 2
Public Peace 0 0 0 0
Trespassing 0 0 0 0
Alt Other Offenses 12 0 0 6
TOTAL 72 3 14 23
PART II! & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents 5
Persona[ Injury Accidents 4
Fatal Accidents 0
Medica[s 30
Animal Complaints 148
Mutual Aid 15
Other Genera[ Investigations 932
TOTAL 1,134
Heri~epin County Child Protection 4
Inspectic~qs 9
TOTAL 1,267
17
25
1
ARRESTED
ADULT JUVENILE
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
6 2
1 1
0 0
7 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
2 3
5 0
0 1
5 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
0 0
0 0
8 0
21 8
28 13
ii, ,L · I, i ,l
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT
AUGUST 1993
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
THIS
MONTH
Hazardous Citations 49
Non-Hazardous Citations 58
Hazardous Warnings 13
Non-Hazardous Warnings 26
Verbal Warnings 75
Parking Citations 31
DWI 5
Over .10 5
Property Damage Accidents 5
Personal Injury Accidents 4
Fatal Accidents 0
Adult Felony Arrests 7
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 28
Adult Misdemeanor Citations 10
Juvenile Felony Arrests 5
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 8
Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 3
Part I Offenses 48
Part II Offenses 72
Medicals 30
Animmal Complaints 148
Other Public Contacts 932
YEAR TO
DATE
392
423
109
133
944
260
51
40
57
16
0
29
180
21
31
52
9
230
463
260
676
6,159
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
494
200
96
302
780
437
46
32
50
14
0
41
305
90
30
68
29
233
501
194
712
4,456
TOTAL 1,562
Assists 55
Follow-Ups 36
Henn. County Child Protection 4
Mutual Aid Given 15
Mutual Aid Requested 12
10,535
338
223
38
87
19
9 , 110
628
185
42
95
34
CITATIONS
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
Illegal Passing
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
Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
MV/ATV
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
AUGUST 1993
ADULT
5
5
5
7
1
37
0
1
10
0
0
0
8
0
19
0
1
31
1
6
0
8
0
148
JUV
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
AUGUST 1993
WARNINGS
No Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
ADULT
0
13
15
0
2
6
0
0
0
8
44
JUV
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony Warrant
Misdemeanor Warrants
0
7
0
0
Run: 2-Sep-93 9:24 PRO03 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 1
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/93 - 08/25/93
Activity codes: All
Property Status: All
Property Types: All
Property Oescs: All
8rands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: All
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Prop Prop
Tp Oesc
Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date
SN Stat Stolen Value Recovfd
Recov~d Quantity Act
VaLue Code
8rand Model Off-1 Off-2
Assnd Assnd
BICYCL 93001527 01 01 S 8/10/93
BICYCL 93001628 01 01 S 8/21/93
BICYCL 93001628 01 02 S 8/21/93
BICYCL 93001654 01 01 S 8/25/93
93001587 01 04 S 8/18/93
93001587 01 05 S 8/18/93
PISTOL 93001545 01 01 S 8/12/93
SHOTGU 93001545 01 02 S 8/12/93
93001533 01 01 S 8/11/93
93001587 01 01 S 8/18/93
93001587 01 03 S 8/18/93
93001428 01 01 S 8/01/93
93001428 01 02 S 8/01/93
93001428 01 03 S 8/01/93
93001432 01 01 S 8/01/93
93001450 01 01 S 8/03/93
93001450 01 02 S 8/03/93
93001453 01 01 S 8/03/93
93001517 01 01 S 8/09/93
93001571 01 01 S 8/16/93
93001608 01 01 S 8/15/93
93001612 01 01 S 8/20/93
93001612 01 02 S 8/20/93
AMPLIF 93001607 01 02 S 8/15/93
SPEAKE 93001531 01 01 S 8/11/93
STEREO 93001607 01 01 S 8/15/93
93001450 01 03 S 8/03/93
93001578 01 01 S 8/17/93
93001616 01 01 S 8/20/93
93001400 01 01 S 7/26/93
93001462 01 01 S 8/04/93
93001483 01 01 S 8/06/93
93001514 01 01 S 8/10/93
93001539 01 01 S 8/13/93
93001576 01 01 R 8/15/93
93001587 01 02 S 8/18/93
93001614 01 02 S 8/20/93
93001399 01 01 S 7/26/93
93001453 01 02 S 8/03/93
93001481 01 01 S 8/09/93
93001609 01 01 S 8/13/93
LICTAB 93001563 01 01 S 8/16/93
93001500 01 01 S 8/10/93
93001528 01 01 S 8/11/93
165
125
125
160
15
1
5O
5O0
1,050
2,000
140
150
35O
25O
240
2OO
400
100
2OO
15
200
25O
250
lO0
4OO
lO0
3OO
8OO
3OO
10
22O
217
325
230
50
13
25
100
8O
5O
5OO
2O
115
110
8/16/93
5O
2 U3498 BMX 422
1 U3497 10 SPEED 411
1 U3497 CENTURY 10 SPEED 411
1 U3498 FREESTYLE 422
1 B3434 405
1 B3434 405
1 TC029 DURAMATIC .22 GA 421 415
1 TC029 S&W 1000 421 415
1 TC029 416
1 B3434 405
1 B3434 405
2 B3394 411
1 B3394 411
1 83394 ALESIS 411
1 TG159 PIONEER CD 404
1 TC159 411
1 TC159 411
1 TG159 ALPINE 422
13 TG159 416
1 TG159 ROYCE 23 CHANNEL 412 415
1 TG169 SONY
1 TG159 JVC JVCKSR418 422
1 TG159 JVC JVCKSR418 422
1 TG169 LA SOUND
2 TF159 ALPINE 405
1 TG169 SHERUOOO AM/FM
1 TC159 411
1 TC059 OLD TOI~N 422
1 TG169 411
1 TG021 412
1 TF021 421 422
1 TF021 421
1 TG021 416
1 TG061 422
1 TG021
1 83434 405
1 TG021 421
1 VEl11 404
1 TG159 422
1 TG159 416
1 TG169 EVINRUDE 15HP
1 TG159 404
1 B3894 422
1 B3794 422
Run: 2-Sep-93 9:24 PRO03
NOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Page
Primary ISN's onty: No
range: 0?/26/93 - 08/25/93
codes: Att
Property Status: At[
Property Types: Att
Property Oescs: Alt
Brands: Att
ModeLs: Att
Officers/Badges: Att
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Prop Prop Inc no ZSN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stoten Date Recov~d Quantity Act Brand Modet Off-1 Off-2
Tp Oesc SN Stat Stoten Vatue Recov~d Vatue Code Assnd Assnd
X 93001550 01 01 S 8/13/93 200 1 TC159 422
X 93001550 01 02 S 8/13/93 550 1 TC159 HILTY 422
X 93001550 01 03 S 8/13/93 300 1 TC159 MIKIDA 422
X 93001552 01 01 S 8/13/93 60 TG029 IC~IK SET 421
X 93001570 01 01 S 8/15/93 300 1 B3794 CAMPBELL 3HP 419
X 93001570 01 02 S 8/15/93 165 1 B3794 CRAFTSMAN 419
Y 93001453 01 03 S 8/03/93 50 1 TG159 422
Y 93001614 01 01 S 8/20/93 40 1 TG021 421
Y TELEPH 93001436 01 01 S 8/02/93 300 1 TF159 MOTOROLA MOBILE 415
**** Report Totats: 12,966 50 67.000
Run: 2-Sep-93 8:42 CFS08
Primary lSN's o~[y: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/93 - 08/25/93
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: ALI
Activity ResuLted: AL[
Dispositions: AL[
Officers/Badges: AK[
Grids: Att
Patrol Areas: AK[
Days of the ~eek: AK[
ACTIVITY CCX)E
DESCRIPTION
9000 SPEEDING
9004 RESTRICTED D/L
9012 OPEN BOTTLE
9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION
9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS
9022 EXHIBITION DRIVING
9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE
9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION
9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC
9040 NO SEATBELT
9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER
9150 NO TRAILER PARKING
9200 DAS/DAR/DAC
9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED
9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/ZMPOUNDS
9313 FOUND PROPERTY
9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS
9450 PROPERTY DAHAGE ACCIDENTS
9561 DOG BITE
9563 DOG AT LARGE
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors CaLLs For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOK
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
1
8
5
1
1
1
3O
7
10
19
5
10
4
5
3
1
6
Page
Run: 2-Sep-93 8:42 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
range: 07/26/93 - 08/25/93
each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: Ali
Dispositions: AIl
Officers/Badges: Att
Grids: Att
Patrol Areas: ALl
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors CaLls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9720 MEDICAL/DOA
9730 MEDICALS
9731 MEDICALS/DX
9732 MEDICALS/CI
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT
PUBLIC ASSIST
9900 ALL HCCP CASES
9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS
9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION
9945 SUSPICIOUS PERSON
9950 INFO/INT
9980 WARRANTS
9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS
9992 MUTUAL AID/8100
9993 MUTUAL AID/6500
9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER
A2325 ASLT 2-INFLICTS BOO ILY HARM-FIREARM-CHLD-ACQ
ASLT 2-THREAT BCX)ILY HARM-NO WEAP-POLICE
ASLT 5-UNKNOk,'tl ACT-NO ~EAPON-ADLT-ACQ
ASLT 5-1NFLT BOO ILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ
1
23
2
4
4
2
3
4
4
9
6
1
1
5
7
4
1
1
2
1
A5002
A5332
Page 2
Run: 2-Sep-93 8:42 CFS08
Primary ISN's on[y:
Date Reported range:
Time range each day:
How Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges:
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the week:
ACTIVITY COOE
DESCRIPTION
No
07/26/93 - 08/25/93
00:00 - 23:59
At
At
At
At
At
At
At
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Carts For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 5
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-NANDS-ASLT-AC 5
~5353 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-STR 1
~5500 ASLT 5-THRT 800ILY HARM-NO WEAP-UNK RELAT 1
A5505 ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HARM-NO WEAP-CHLD-ACQ 2
A5552 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-HANDS ETC-ADLT-ACQ 3
B1260 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-N-UN ~EAP-UNK ACT 1
B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP~COM THEFT 2
B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK ~EAP-COM THEFT 1
B3~94 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 2
B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COM THEFT 1
B4730 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1
~4760 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1
D8500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION 1
13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 3
J2500 TRAFFiC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 1
J2B21 TRAF-ACC-GM-NEG [NF ALCH-GR BOO HRM-MV 1
J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 1
J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 4
J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2
J3E30 TRAF-ACC-MS-A1 10 MORE-SUB BOO HRM-UN VE 1
L12~7 CSC 1-FEAR GRT BOO HRM-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F 1
Page
Run: 2-Sep-93 8:42 CFS08
Primary lSN's only: No
eported range: 07/26/93 - 08/25/93
each day: 00:00 - 23:59
HOW Received: AlL
Activity Resulted: All
Oispositioos: Ali
Officers/Badges: AIl
Grids:
Parrot Areas: At[
Days of the week: Ali
ACTIVITY COOE
DESCRIPTION
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors CalLs For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACT[V~TY COOE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER
M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER
M5313 JUVENIIE-CURFE~
M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS
N3220 DISTURB PEACE-MS-INTRUDE ON PRIV-HARASS-PURSUE
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBIIC-UNK INTENT
P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT
P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS
Q324A STLN PROP-MS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-250 OR LESS
Q3298 STLN PROP-MS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-201-500
TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
TC059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP
TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
TF021 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BUILDING-MONEY
TF159 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY
TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAILS-MONEY
TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-~ATERCRAFT'OTH PROP
2
2
2
1
8
1
8
2
2
2 a~
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
9
4
Page 4
Run: 2-Sep-93 8:42 CFS08 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/93 - 08/25/93
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: ALL
Activity Resulted: ALl
Oispositions: ALt
Officers/Badges: ALL
Grids: ALl
Patrol Areas: Ail
Days of the week: ALl
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE
DESCRIPTION
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
U1017 THEFT-FE-BY CHECK-201-500
U1062 THEFT-FE-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-$2501-$19999
U3497 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOr-200 OR LESS
VB021 VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO
VEl11 VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-PARTS-MOTOR VEH-AUTO
**** Report Totals:
370
Run: 2-Sep-93 11:48 OFF01
Primary ISN~s only: No
!eported range: 07/26/93 - 08/25/93
each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: Att
Activity codes: Att
Officers/Badges: Att
Grids: Att
MOUND POLICE OEPARTNENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
A2325
A2507
A5002
A5332
A5351
ASLT 2-INFLICTS BOOILY HARM-FIREARM-CHLD-ACQ
ASLT 2-THREAT BOO ILY HARM-NO WEAP-POLICE
ASLT S-UNKNOWN ACT-NO ~EAPON-ADLT-ACQ
ASLT 5-1NFLT BOOILY HARM-KNIFE ETC-ADLT-ACQ
ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC
A5353 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT'STR
ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HARM-NO WEAP-UNK RELAT
A5505 ASLT 5'THRT BODILY HARM-NO ~EAP-CHLD-ACQ
A5552 ASLT 5-THRT BOO ILY HARM-HANDS ETC-ADLT-ACQ
81260 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-N-UN ~EAP-UNK ACT
83394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC'U-UNK ~EAP-COM THEFT
83434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK ~EAP-COM THEFT
83794 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK gEAP-COM THEFT
83894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COM THEFT
B4730 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT
B4760 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT
D8500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION
13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD
d2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
TRAF-ACC-GM-NEG INF ALCH-GR BOO HRM-MV
J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INd-UNK VEH
J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DR1VE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
2 0 2 0
1 0 1 1
5 0 5 0
5 1 4 2
1 0 1 1
1 0 1 1
2 0 2 0
3 0 3 1
1 0 1 1
2 0 2 2
1 0 1 1
2 0 2 2
1 0 1 1
1 0 1 1
1 0 1 1
1 0 1 0
3 2 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0
4 0 4 0
Page 1
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
IO0.O
66.6
0o0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Run: 2-Sep-9~ 11:48 OFF01
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/93 - 08/25/93
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: ALL
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: ALL
MOUND POLZCE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 2
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-NS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
J3E30 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-SUB BOO fiRM-UN VE 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
L1277 CSC 1-FEAR GRT BOO HRM-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
M5313 JUVE#[LE-CURFEW 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASS]NG COMMUNICATIONS 8 0 8 6 0 0 2 2 2r
N3220 DISTURB PEACE-MS-INTRUOE ON PRIV-HARASS-PURSUE 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
P~110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 8 0 8 7 0 0 1 1 12.5
P3120 PRO~ DAMAGE-MS-PUSLIC-UNK INTENT 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 50.0
Q3298 STLN PROP-MS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-201-500 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTfi PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
TC059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
TF021 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BUILDING-MONEY 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0
TF159 THEFT-201-5OO-ON-MOTOR VEfi-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY 4 0 4 3 0 0 1 1 25.0
TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAILS-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEfi-OTfi PROP 9 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0.0
Run: 2-Sep-93 11:48 OFF01
Primary lSN's onty: No
Date Reported range: 07/26/93 - 08/25/93
~nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: ALt
Activity codes: ALL
Officers/Badges: Alt
Grids: AIL
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 3
ACT ACTZVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
COOE DESCRZPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDZNG
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTiON TOTAL CLEARED
TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-~ATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0.0
U1017 THEFT-FE-BY CHECK-201-500 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
U1062 THEFT-FE-BY S~INDLE OR TR[CK-$2501-$19999 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
U3497 THEFT-MS-BZCYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
VB021 VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
VEl11 VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-PARTS-MOTOR VEH-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
Totats: 112 3 109 67 19 6 17 42 38.5
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF
FIRE FIGHTERS )RILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE
8/9 8/16 · ~ HIRS H/RS P4~IE
JEFF ANDERS~lq X X 2 19.~ 1~ 46
G~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 3 45 &.~ 270.~
JmRY B~B X X 2 19.~ O 32 &.~ 192.~
DAVID ~ X ~ 1 9.50 O 26 6~ 156.~
~ BRYCE X X 2 19.~ O 35 &~ 50 227.~
S~ BRY~ X X 2 19.~ 0 33 6.~ 198.~
DA~ ~N X X 2 ~9.~ 2 3~ 6.~ ~86.~
J~ C~ X X 2 19.~ ~ 41 6.~ 246.~
S~ COL~S X X 2 19.~ 2 32 6,~ 192.~
~ ~T X X 2 19.~ 2 24 6.~ 144.~
S~ ~N X X 2 19 .~ 0 31 6.25 193.75
~L FI~ X X 2 19.~ 2% 29 6.~ 174.~
G~D ~V~S R~g ~ 8/2/)3 O ~- 0 1 6.~ 6.~
D~ G~ X X 2 19.~ 2 55 6.~ 3~.~
~ G~ X X 2 19.~ 2 33 6.~ 198.~
X X 2 19.~ 2 32 6.~ 192.~
CRAT~
X X 2 ~9.~ ~ 28 ~.~ 1~8.~
X X 2 19 .~ 2 34 6.~ 2~.~
X X 2 19.~ 2% 28 6.~ 168.~
X ~ 1 9.50 4 36 6.~ 216.~
j~ ~N X X 2 19.~ 1% 23 6.~ 138.~
~V ~ X ~ 1 9.50 1 13 6.~ 78.
B~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 1% 42 6.~ 252.~
G~ P~ X X 2 19.~ 2 37 6.~ 222.~
M~ P~ X X 2 19.~ 2 41 6.~ 246.~
T~ P~ X X 2 19.~ 2 ~ 6.~ 1~.~
~ p~ X X 2 19.~ 0 23 6.~ 138.~
~ ~SS~ X E 1 9.~ 2 12 6.~ 72.~
M~ ~VA~ X X 2 19.~ 3 42 6.~ 252.~
~ SIP~m~L X X 2 19.~ 2~ 34 6.~ - 204.~
R~ S~ X X 2 19.~ 8 31 6.~ 186.~
~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 2% 29 6.~ 174.~.
~ ~N ~I~ D .................
ED V~ X X 2 19.~ 2~ 41 ~.~ 246.~
RI~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 16 35 6.~ 210.~
T~ W~,LI~ X X 2 19.~ 2 37 ~,~ 222.~
D~S I~Y]C~ X X 2 19.~ 2 42 6.~ 252.~..
35 31
~ 87% 77% 165 627.~ 87% 11~ ~ _ 7,~.2
165 ~ 627.~
87%
~ 8,~
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
MONIIf MONIM TO DATE TO DATE
MONTH OF AUGUST 1993
NO'. OF CALLS
a 53 54 409 325
~OUND FIRE 11 10 80 66
~mmOgNCY Z4 20 160 111
MINNETONKA BEACH FIllg . :~ 3 1 8 7
D~RGENCY O , 0 2 3
FIRE 1 , 2 16 13
MINNETRISTA
EMtRGENCY 1 4 26 24
FIRE 8 1
ORONO
~ 2 2 22 16
FIRE ? I 4
SHOREWOOD
~IRGENCY fl D 1 1
FIRE 2 1 18 22
SPRING PARK
, I~.iLRG,I~?f 8 12 48 43
MUTUAL AID -- ,F,IRE 1 ,O 4 4
~GENCY 0 0 1 0
TOTAL FIRE CALLS 28 ~ 149 127
TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 35 38 263 198
CObI'~IRC I AL fl 0 § 8
RESIDENTIAL 11 ? .40 51
INIlJSTRIAL f/ fl O 1
GRASS & MISCELLANEOUS 7 9 45 27
AUIO O 1 7 8
FALSE ALARM / FIRE ALARMS 9 4 49 32
NO. OF }~0URS FIRE 217 177 1804 1808
- MOUND .I~GENCY 37(] 371 2969 2187
TOTAL ~87 548 4773 3995
FIRE 97 ~ 92 103
- MTKA BEACH fl~ERGENCY O Q 52 71
.... TOTAL 3? ~ 144 174
FIRE 31 37 305 388
- M' TRISTA I~tllGENCY 18 GQ 464 442
TOTAL 49 97 769 830
,FIRE 179 27 442 259
- ORONO I~GENCY 39 27 416 340
TOTAL 218 ~4 858 599
, .F_IRE 2~ 25 80 126
- SHOREWOOD FNERGENCY O 0 26 16
TOTAL 28 25 106 142
FIRE 54 8 392 471
- SP. PARK I~GENCY 151 ~80 906 877
TOTAL 205 188 1298 1348
FIRE 40 O 149 220
- Mb'i!3AL AID EMERGM~"Y O 0 30 0
TOTAL 40 O 179 220
TOTAL DRILL HOURS 165 165 1297{ 1382~
TOTAL FIRE HOURS 586 280 3264 3375
TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 578 638 4863 3933
TOTAL FIRE & EIMERGE~ h~DURS 1164 918 8127 7308
.MUTUAL AID RECEIVED ,. O 0 ~ 3
MUTUAL AID GIVEN
DATE
MOUND FIRE DEPARTbtENT
TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF
MEN ON DUTY
0
J. ANDERSEN
G. ANDERSON
j. BABB
D BOYD
D BRYCE
S BRYCE
D CARLSON
J CASEY
S COLLINS
R. ENGELHART
S. ERICKSON
P FISK
~) J GARVAIS
~ D GRADY
.~ K CRADY .~ ,. E. VANECEK
C HENDERSON
P HENRY
B. LANDSMAN
R. MARSCHKE
j. NAFUS
J. NELSON
M. NELSON
B. NICCUM
G. PALM
M. PALM
T. PALM
G. PEDERSON
T. RASMUSSEN
M. SAVAGE
K. SIPPRELL
R. STALLMAN
T. SWENSON
~TT ~TA~.
/~ ._ R. WILLIAMS
~ . T. WILLIAMS
~ D. WOYTCKE
z?A
TOTAL MONTHLY HOURS
DRILL REPORT
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT
)lsclpline and Teamwork
Critique of fires
pre-plan and Inspections
Tools and Apparatus Identify
Hand Extinguisher OperatIon
Wearing Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescue Operation
Use of Self-Contained Masks
Pumper Operations
Fire Streams & Friction Loss
House Burnings
Natural/Propane Gas Demos.
Ladder Evolutzons
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
House Evolutions
Nozzles & Hose Appliances
Hours Training Paid :
~ Excused
X Unexecused
O Present / Not Paid
PERSONNEL
~J.Andersen
G.Anderson
J .Babb
D.Boyd
D.Bryce
~i'Bryce
D.Carlson
J.Casey
.Collins
.Englehart
___S, Erlckson
P.Flsk
~ D. Grady
Henderson
~ P Henry
B. Landsman
R.Marschke
.Nafus
·Nelson
.Nelson
· N lccum
_~ ~/~.G. Pa im
~M.Palm
.~T. Palm
G.Pederson
~ T.Rassmusen
Slpprell
~_R Stallman
~/~T.Swenson
~.Vanecek
Wlll~ams
~----~T]Wliliams
~-r~D.Woytcke
DRILL REPORT
MOUND FiRE DEPARTMENT
Discipline and Teamwork
Critique of fires
pre-plan and Inspections
Tools and Apparatus Identify
Hand Extinguisher Operation
~earlng Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescue Operation
Use of SeIf-Conta~ned Masks
Hours Training Pa~d :
~ Excused
Pumper Operations
Fire Streams & Fr~ction Loss
House Burnings
Natural/Propane Gas Demos.
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
House Evolutions
Nozzles & Hose Appliances
X Unexecused
O Present / Not Pa~d
PERSONNEL
~J.Andersen
kG.Anderson
~J.Babb
LD.Boyd
~D.Bryce
~S.Bryce
kD.Carlson
k J.Casey
~r/~S. Col 1 ins
R.Englehart
S,Erickson
P.Fisk
__
~D.Grady
K.Grady
C.Henderson
P.Henry
B.Landsman
R.Marschke
Nelson
Nelson
_~B.Niccum
G.Palm
.Palm
.Palm
G.Pederson
T.Rassmusen
M.Savage
K.S~pprell
~ R.Stallman
T.Swenson
E.Vanecek
R.Wllliams
T.Wllliams
~D.Woytcke
i, · I, II,
CIT of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD P, OAD
MOUND M Nr;ESOTA
6~L 4-2 CE{,9
FAX:6~2 4-2 2,620
September 1, 1993
TO: MAYOR, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS MANAGER
SUBJECT: AUGUST MONTHLY REPORT
August has ended. The State Fair is on. The kids are going back
to school. Summer is over, that is, if you can call what we had a
summer. At least we had a few hot days in August where the
thermometer nearly reached 90 degrees. The summer of 1992 was also
similar to this year's cold and rainy months. Despite the adversity
imposed upon us by mother nature, we still were fortunate to have had
an extremely successful season. Our busiest stretch of the year begins
as soon as the ice clears from Lake Minnetonka and ends as soon as
Labor Day is over.
I shudder to think what would it have been like had we had a hot
summer like we did during the "Drought Years", of the late 80's. By
Thursdays, after we've had our last beer delivery, it's like a zoo around
here. Not counting the beer cooler, I have expanded our warehouse to
accommodate 2,000 cases of beer. That's 100 stacks, 20 cases high.
You literally need a ladder to get the top cases down. It is very difficult
to maneuver back there. Let's just say it is jammed packed. By the end
of the weekend, most of the beer has been sold. Then the ritual starts
all over again on Monday. It is a weekly game trying to figure out how
to get all this beer in here. I think I've created a monster!!
JK:ls
prinled on recycled paper
BOARD MEMBERS
David H. Cochran, Chair
Greenwood
Tom Penn. Vice Chair
Tonka Bay
Douglas E Babcock, Secretary
Spring Park
Scott Carlson. Treasurer
Minnetrista
Mike Bloom
Minnetonka Beach
Albert (Bert) Foster
Deephaven
James N. Grathwol
Excelsior
JoEIlen L. Hurr
Orono
William A. Johnstone
Minnetonka
Duane Markus
Wayzata
George C. Owen
Victoria
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Tom Reese
Mound
Robert E. Slocum
Woodland
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 ° WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
EUGENE R. STROMMEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SEP 1
TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE
SUBJECT: AUGUST REPORT - LMCD
1.0 Eura$ion Watermilfoil Task Force.
1.1 The season ended with a total of 601 acres having been
harvested. Nearly all the harvesting was done of weeds that had not as yet
matted out on the surface, a result of the high water and poor growing
conditions.
1.2 We are looking at the weed pulling concept of Jeff Evans. He
has a prototype machine that has had some limited success in the pulling of
weeds rather than cutting them. While only 15% or so are pulled out by
parts of the roots, most of the remainder are tom or broken off 8 to 15 feet
below the surface. This has the benefit of the area taking a longer time for
regrowth, and the disadvantage of slower rates and more weed to haul
away. Much study remains to be done. We are planning upon modifying
one of our harvesters to try this concept. It may have partial use in heavily
infested areas.
2.0 Lake Manaeement Plan
2.1 Board reorganization: A strawman concept document on
potential reorganization of the LMCD has been mailed out to the cities for
their comments. After you have had a chance to review it, I would like to
meet with the Council to gather your thoughts.
2.2 ,~,,g.e,z.~.lga3I~. The Mound term is one that has been allowed
to remain as expiring the end of 1994 as at present.
2.2 ~Lq2a~aItiXlg. I~ Bob Rascop has been nam, ed to replace Jo Ellen
Hurr as Chair of this committee. Dick Osgood, the environmental
consultant has commenced his work with the committee.
2.4 ~ The obtaining of the written agreements with the
cities for access parking proceeds slowly. It would help this program if
Mound could conclude its agreement.
3.0 Ql[her General Items
3.1 The Closed Throttle provisions caused by the high water
conditions were called off 8/31 when the lake elevation reached 929.79.
3.2 Tom Wortman the developer of Gideons' Bay has submitted yet
another request for variance for the four west end lots. There is not
significant change from the previous submittal which was denied.
3.30rono has signified that they do not intend to replace their
representative on the Board.
3.4 The Nomination Committee, headed by Scott Carlson has
returned its slate of single candidates for each LMCD officer position.
Nominees are as follows:
Chair: Bill Johnstone, Vice Chair: Tom Penn, Treasurer: Bob Rascop and
Secretary: Doug Babcock.
3.5 A Mayors' meeting has been set for 7:00AM September 24 at
the Layfayette Club.
4.0 Mound Specific Items
4.1 The Stocks have been granted a minor revision the their
variance changing the language which previously had prohibited their
~/ '-'T°m R&, ~toring~ a boat wider than 7 ft beam. Mound Representative - LMCD
cc. Gene Strommen
BOARD MEMBERS
David H. Cochran, Chair TO:
Greenwood
Tom Peqn, Vice Chair
Tonka Bay
Douglas E. Babcock. Secret[~rROM:
Spring Park
Scott Carlson. Treasurer
Mmnetrista
Mike Bloom
M~qnetonka Beach
Albert tBert) Foster
Deephaven
James N. Grathwol
Excelsior
JoEIlen L. Hurr
Orono
William A. Johnstone
Minnetonka
Duane Markus
Wayzata
George C. Owen
V~ctoria
Robert Rascop
Snorewood
Tom Reese
Mound
Robed E. Slocum
Woodland
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
August 2 7 , 19 9 3 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
R[6'[I AU6 3 0 1993
Mayors, LMCD Member Municipalities and
City Administrators
Chair Dave Cochran ~~ ~
SUBJECT: Analysis of Issues Brought to LMCD Board
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of
Directors is aware of certain concerns and
criticisms which have been brought forward by
various city officials and other persons.
A subcommittee report of August 22, 1993, was
reviewed by the Administrative Committee. It found
the report constructively focused on the issues
which the board has heard are a concern to the
cities and possibly other groups.
The board accepted the report August 25 for the
purpose of further discussion and consideration.
In fact it found the points made and options
suggested to be items the board wants to promptly
share with its member cities. The board did not
adopt or approve any of the conclusions or
recommendations contained in the report. It will
not do so until after it has received input from
the cities and the report has been fully discussed.
The board is therefore pleased to provide this
report to each mayor and city administrator as a
concept draft for each city's review, discussion
and evaluation. Early feedback from the cities is
invited and anticipated.
We trust that every council member will want to
share an interest in the thoughts presented in the
report as well. Thank you for quickly making a
copy available to each city council member.
The 3rd quarter mayor's meeting is scheduled for
7:00 am, Friday, September 24 at the Lafayette Club
~eedbac~ on the issues raised.
to encourage initial ~ ' "
We look forward to your comments and any position
your city will be prepared to express on these
issues.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITI'EE
REC'D AU6 0 199,3
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LMCD ORGANIZATION
AUGUST 22, 1993
The purpose of this memorandum is to report the discussions and
conclusions of the Subcommittee on LMCD Organization. The Subcommittee
consisted of Bill Johnstone, George Owen, Scott Carlson, David Cochran and, until
her resignation, JoEllen Hurr.
Background
The Subcommittee was created for the purpose of considering criticisms of
the LMCD's current organization and operation and suggesting possible changes
therein. The principal criticisms can be summarized as follows: (i) the board is t.oo
large to efficiently and effectively conduct its business; (ii) members of the board t.,oo
often reflect narrow interests of their member cities or other interest groups; (iii) the
board has failed to aggressively address the major environmental and other issues\
raised in the management plan; (iv) the board is not sufficiently accountable or ,
sensitive to the various lake constituencies; and (v) the funding mechanism used by /
~ LMCD does not fairly allocate the cost of management to all users of the lake. /
While the Subcommittee believes some of the criticisms are either
unfounded or exaggerated, it did not see its role as primarily to refute or validate
them, but rather to present them to the board and suggest possible responses thereto,
including changes in the LMCD's organization and operation. Without discounting
the criticisms or the need to respond to them in a responsible manner, it is
important to note several points to put things in perspective. The LMCD has
addressed a number of controversial issues in the past two years, often involving
multiple and conflicting interests. It is unlikely that we will be able to satisfy all
views in resolving the issues. The LMCD does not have broad authority or
jurisdiction with respect to most matters affecting the lake. It must work with other
governmental authorities and interest groups. Lastly, the LMCD has, often with the
assistance or cooperation of other authorities or groups, made significant progress in
addressing many major lake issues.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Subcommittee came to the following conclusions and makes the
following recommendations:
1. The board should hold a work session to discuss this report and determine
whether to support and pursue legislative changes in the organization and funding
of the LMCD and whether to implement other operational changes in the LMCD
not requiring legislative action. The session should be held prior to November 1,
1993 and after the board members have discussed the matters with the councils of
their member cities.
2. It is essential that the LMCD or an entity similar to the LMCD be preserved
to insure that a single local government entity has substantial authority and
responsibility for the management and oversight of the lake. The lake is a regional
and state resource and regional and state agencies have and should have
complementary authority. But, management of the lake has immediate and
significant impacts on the shoreline cities and their residents and those cities and
residents should have a major say in the lake's management. It is important that
local management of the lake occur through a single entity with a lake-wide
perspective.
3. There is no consensus on the Subcommittee as to whether the LMCD
should be reorganized. Assuming that the criticisms are valid, at least in part, there
is no assurance that reorganization would eliminate the causes of the criticisms or,
as discussed elsewhere, that there are not other more direct and simple means of
doing so. There was consensus that the LMCD should remain closely associated
with the lakeshore cities and that, if there is a reorganization, the board be selected
from districts comprising the cities and be selected by the elected council members of
the cities. While the LMCD is an independent legal body responsible for protecting
and promoting the interests of the entire lake, the board members are ultimately
accountable to the residents of their respective cities through the elected councils
thereof. Given the authority of the LMCD, the responsibilities of board members
and the existing multiplicity of elected governing bodies within the lake area, direct
elections are neither necessary or desirable.
4. For illustrative purposes, the Subcommittee developed two reorganization
'scenarios for the board's consideration. The scenarios have several common
//elements: (i) the board would consist of seven members selected from seven
districts; (ii) each district would consist of one or more member cities; (iii) the
districts would be created giving consideration to four factors - miles of lakeshore,
proximity of the member cities within a district, population, and tax capacity; and
(iv) the board member from each district would be selected by the councils of the
cities therein. It was assumed that the LMCD and the board would retain the same
powers that they presently possess and that the terms of the members would remain
at three years. If such a reorganization were to occur, it would be necessary to
\ consider whether a limitation on the term of a member from a particular city within
~ a multiple city district would be appropriate and to consider a method for resolving
votes in two or four city districts (perhaps by weighted voting).
The foregoing seemed to the Subcommittee to be direct and relatively simple
and to accommodate many of the interests of the residents and cities of the lake area.
Obviously there are a number of possible variations on the foregoing as well as a
many other ways in which to organize and select the board. The two scenarios are
set forth below for purposes of illustration only. By considering other factors or
giving different weight to the factors, the nature of the districts would, of course,
change.
~Scen~ar~0
District 1 Cities: Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood and Woodland
Shoreline Miles: 15.6 (13%)
Population: 7130 (8%)
Tax Capacity: $10,066,000 (9%)
District 2
Cities: Minnetonka
Shoreline Miles: 3.2 (3%)
Population: 48,730 (52%)
Tax Capacity: $57,528,000 (51%)
District 3
Cities: Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista and Victoria
Shoreline Miles: 23.1 (18%)
Population: 7012 (8%)
Tax Capacity: $8,356,000 (7%)
District 4
Cities: Mound
Shoreline Miles: 16.9 (14%)
Population: 9634 (10%)
Tax Capacity: $6,381,000 (6%)
District 5
Cities: Orono
Shoreline Miles: 43.8 (35%)
Population: 7285 (8%)
Tax Capacity: $11,739,000 (10%)
District 6
Cities: Shorewood
Shoreline Miles: 5.1 (4%)
Population: 5917 (6%)
Tax Capacity: $7,261,000 (7%)
District 7
Cities: Spring Park, Tonka Bay and Wayzata
Shoreline Miles: 17.3 (7%)
Population: 6849 (7%)
Tax Capacity: $10,952,000 (10%)
Scenario 2**
District 1
Cities: Deephaven and Greenwood
Shoreline Miles: 10.2 (8%)
Population: 4267 (5%)
Tax Capacity: $6,238,000 (6%)
District 2
Cities: Excelsior and Shorewood
Shoreline Miles: 7.4 (6%)
Population: 8284 (9%)
Tax Capacity $9,468,000 (8%)
District 3
Cities: Minnetonka and Woodland
Shoreline Miles: 6.3 (5%)
Population: 48,866 (53%)
Tax Capacity: $59,149,000 (53%)
District 4
Cities: Orono and Minnetonka Beach
Shoreline Miles: 47.9 (38%)
Population: 7858 (9%)
Tax Capacity: $13,050,000 (12%)
District 5
Cities: Victoria and Minnetrista
Shoreline Miles: 19 (15%)
Population: 6439 (7%)
Tax Capacity: $7,045,000 (6%)
District 6
Cities: Mound and Spring Park
Shoreline Miles: 20.9 (17%)
Population: 11,205 (12%)
Tax Capacity: $7,874,000 (7%)
District 7
Cities: Tonka Bay and Wayzata
Shoreline Miles: 13.3 (11%)
Population: 5,278 (5%)
Tax Capacity: $9,459,000 (8%)
** Shoreline miles include shoreline of islands within a city. The percentages are of
the total with respect to the relevant factor for all cities within the LMCD. By
agreement of the member cities, a city's tax capacity may not exceed 20% of the total
of all cities for purpose of allocating the cities share of the operating budget.
5. The LMCD, in cooperation with other interested groups, should seek
legislative changes to insure that all users and beneficiaries of the lake pay a fair
share of the cost of its management and that the burden on property taxpayers is
more balanced. It is easy to make this statement; it is harder to implement it. It is
important to note that a number of governmental entities in addition to the LMCD
provide services and benefits to the lake and taxpayers outside the member cities
help to pay the costs of those services and benefits. For example, the cost of policing
the lake is borne primarily by Hennepin County and all of the taxpayers thereof.
The Subcommittee tried to answer two question: (i) who are the principal direct
beneficiaries or users of the lake and (ii) what types of user charges or assessments
are available to charge for this benefit or use. Two groups of persons are the
principal direct users and beneficiaries of the lake: shoreline owners and boaters,
obviously many of the former are also many of the latter. Private shoreline owners
pay property taxes to the member cities and therefor pay a part of the cities'
contribution to the LMCD and arguably boaters who dock at commercial marinas or
multiple docks indirectly pay a part of the property taxes and license fees of the
marina owners and multiple dockowners. Boaters who use public access points do
not pay for that use. The Subcommittee identified three forms of user fees or
assessments that might be considered in lieu of property taxes: (i) a user fee for boats
that use the lake via public access or otherwise; (ii) a dock use fee applied to all
docks, both private and commercial; and (iii) an assessment based on shoreline
footage of all shoreline property. Other forms may be available.
While a boat use fee probably could be charged directly by the LMCD, if
authorized by the legislature, it seems more likely that such a fee would be charged
on either a regional or statewide basis and a portion of the collections would be
returned to local governments or lake districts pursuant to some formula. The fee
has the advantage of charging for all boat use and the disadvantage of being largely
beyond the control of the LMCD. It seems unlikely that a major portion of the
LMCD's financial requirements could be obtained from a boat use fee on public
access users. The dock use fee is self-explanatory, although it would require
legislation to insure that the fee could be based on revenue needs and not merely to
pay for the cost of licensing. There would be a cost associated with its collection. An
assessment of shoreline footage is another means of charging shoreline property
owners, presumably in lieu of property taxes, for the benefits arising from lake
management and preservation. At least in Minnesota, assessments have generally
been used to defray the costs of capital improvements not operating costs.
The Subcommittee did not try to quantify the need for funds in the future.
Most of the major expenditures necessitated by the management plan will not be
made by the LMCD. The LMCD's role is primarily that of facilitator. Absent major
expenditures to treat or otherwise clean the lake, it does not seem likely that the
LMCD's funding needs will increase significantly in the foreseeable future.
However, even if the funding needs do not materially increase, alternative funding
sources need to be obtained if reliance on the property tax is to be reduced.
Any change in funding sources will require legislative action and, particularly
if it involves collection of the fee by a state or regional agency, input and
cooperation from other interested groups. If the board decides to proceed to obtain a
new funding source, it should seek and encourage the participation of others.
6. Regardless of whether reorganization occurs, the board needs to consider
whether and, if so, how it can improve the operations of the LMCD to better serve
the needs of the lake. A number of suggestions were made and discussed during the
Subcommittee deliberations and at recent meetings of other committees. They
include:
a. Improving the communication with member cities and other interested
groups or parties, both the frequency and the quality of the communication.
b. Scheduling committee meetings to facilitate and otherwise encourage
participation by board members and the public in the committee process.
c. Reviewing the manner in which we administer the water structures
provisions of the code in a work session, particularly the procedure and
standards for granting variances.
d. Considering whether certain committee and board meetings should be
scheduled more frequently in the Spring to recognize the seasonal nature of
some business.
e. Reducing the length of meetings, both board and committee.
f. Continuing to focus on implementing the management plan objectives.
-6-
R[C"9 SEP 9 993
I~%KE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR
Thursday, 2nd
Saturday, 4th
Saturday, 4th
Sunday, 5th
Sunday, 5th
Monday, 6th
Monday, 6th
Thursday-Saturday,
9th - llth
Saturday, llth
Saturday, llth
SEPTEMBER 1993
6:15 pm
10:00 am
10:00 am
10:00 am
1:30 pm
10:30 am
10:00 am
12:00 pm
7:00 am-
4:00 pm
10:00 am
2:00 pm
WYC Sailboat Race, Main
MYC Sailboat Race, Main
UMYC BURTON CUP Sailboat Race
(Lower Mtka.)
MYC Sailboat Races, Main
WYC Sailboat Races, Main
UMYC Sailboat Race, East
MYC Sailboat Race, Main
UMYC Sailboat Race, East
Don Shelby US Invitational
Bass Tournament
WYC Sailboat Races, Main
MYC Sailboat Races, BIE
Saturday, llth
Sunday-Saturday,
12th - 18th
Sunday, 12th
Monday, 13th
Saturday, 18th
Saturday, lSth
Sunday, 19th
Sunday, 19th
Monday, 20th
Tuesday, 21st
Wednesday, 22nd
2:00 pm
10:00 am
1:30 pm
10:00 am
10:00 am
2:00 pm
2:00 pm
6:30 am
10:00 am
1:30 pm
10:00 am
10:00 am
10:00 am
UMYC Sailboat Race, West
MYC USSA Prince of Wales
Regatta
MYC Sailboat Races, Main
WYC Sailboat Races, Main
MYC Sailboat Race, Main
WYC Sailboat Races, Main
MYC Sailboat Races, Main
UMYC Sailboat Race, East
Operation Bass Tournament
MYC Sailboat Races, Main
WYC Sailboat Races, Main
MYC Sailboat Race, Main
MYC Sailboat Race, Main
MYC Sailboat Race, Main
Special Events Calendar, Page 2
Thursday, 23rd
Saturday, 25th
Saturday, 25th
Sunday, 26th
Saturday, 2nd
Sunday, 3rd
Saturday, 9th
Saturday, 16th
Saturday, 23rd
10:00 am MYC Sailboat Race, Main
10:00 am
2:00 pm
2:00 pm
WYC Sailboat Races, Main
!! !! !!
MYC Sailboat Races,
Big Island East
2:00 pm UMYC Sailboat Race, East
10:00 am
11:00 am
WYC Sailboat Races, Main
S¥C sailboat Races, Big Is.
OCTOBER 1993
10:00 am
WYC Commodore Cup sailboat Race
(CC-Commodore Cup Course)
7:00 am
Viking Bassmasters Invitational
Tournament
10:00 am
WYC Commodore Cup sailboat Race
(CC-Commodore Cup Course)
10:00 am
W¥C Commodore Cup sailboat Race
(CC-Commodore Cup Course).
10:00 am
WYC Commodore Cup Sailboat Race
(CC-Commodore Cup Course)
9/7/93
AUG :3 0
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Suite 160, Wayzata MN 55391
473-7033
L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE
SEPTEMBER, 1993
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
riday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Friday
11
12
13
17
21
22
24
Water Structures Committee
7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Excelsior Park Tavern Charter Boat Social
10:30 am, Excelsior City Docks
Lake Use & Recreation Committee
5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Technical Review Committee
8:00 am, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Minnetonka City Hall
Shady Oak Room, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd, Mtka.
Administrative Committee Meeting
5:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall
Public Hearing for Variance
7:00 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall
LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting
7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall
3rd Quarter 1993 Mayor's Meeting
7:00 am, Lafayette Club
2800 Northview Rd, Minnetonka Beach
08/24/93
$£P ! 0 1993
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
In Re: Application for ValAnce of Thomas and Roma Stocks
FINDINGS
On Wednesday, May 26, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., pursuant to due notice, a public
hearing was held by the Water Structures Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District at Tonka Bay City Hall in the City of Tonka
Bay, Minnesota. The hearing was held to consider the application of Thomas and
Roma Stocks, the owners of property located on Halsteds Bay at 3032 Highview Lane,
Mound, Minnesota.
The application of Mr. & Mrs. Stocks was for a variance from the setback
limitations provided by the LMCD Code of Ordinances. Mr. & Mrs. Stocks appeared
at the hearing on behalf of the application.
The subject lot was platted on December 3, 1974. It has 20 feet of shoreline.
Under the LMCD Code of Ordinances, lots platted after February 2, 1970 require a
10 foot setback from each extended lot line. Therefore, the subject property has no
dock use area without a variance. The board finds that this is a hardship within the
meaning of LMCD Code Section 1.07, subd. 1.
In determining whether to grant a variance, the board must conclude not only
that there is a hardship, but that granting the variance, along with whatever
conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, will not adversely affect the
purposes of the LMCD ordinances, the public health, safety, and welfare, and
reasonable access to or use of the lake by the public or riparian owners. Under
Section 1.07, subd. 6, the Board may only grant variances when it is demonstrated
that such action is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
The variance requested in this case is significant. There will be many cases
in which it is not appropriate to allow docks or boat storage on lots as small as 20 feet
Ct.T.55199
wide. Here, however, the Board finds that there are a number of factors which tend
to reduce the impact of granting the variance request. Among these are the
following:
1. Halsteds Bay is a remote bay on Lake Minnetonka which tends to reduce
the impact of boat storage on the public as a whole.
2. The subject parcel is located along a concave shoreline which reduces
the effect of a somewhat higher boat storage density on the public and
the lake generally.
3. The parcel is on the north end of Halsteds Bay. This end of the bay is
largely developed. Therefore, there is little reason to expect that
future development of this area, together with the effect of this
variance, will create too great a density of boat storage on this part of
the lake.
4. The subject lot is adjacent to larger lots. The adjacent lots to the west
and east are 79 and 160 feet in width respectively. Although there is
one other 20 foot lot in the same development, the remainder of the
shoreline has been developed at lot sizes which are substantially larger.
5. The District has determined that it is appropriate to grant the right to
somewhat greater boat storage in the case of single family residential
lots which are occupied by houses and where the watercraft are owned
by the residents of the site. See Code Section 2.02. In this case, the
site is occupied by a single family residence and the boats stored at the
site will be owned by residents of the site.
6. The variance preserves a 5 foot setback on each side. There is no
adjustment of extended lot lines and there will be no encroachment of
either docks or boats across extended lot lines or into neighboring dock
use areas.
7. The owners of adjacent dock use areas have stated that they have no
objections to the granting of the variance as long as it does not
encroach into their dock use areas. Additionally, there has been a
dock and boat on this site since 1975. Neither of these facts is
dispositive of the question whether to grant a variance; however, both
are evidence that constructing and maintaining a dock at this site has
not created any problems in the past, and therefore is not likely to do
so in the future.
8. The 1973 Lake Use Study Boat Density Indexes contained in the Boat
Density Policy Statement adopted by the Board on October 13, 1974
showed Halsteds Bay as one of the few bays on the lake not considered
to be in critical or potentially critical condition with respect to boat
density. It was one of the least crowded bays in terms of boats stored
per water acre and boats stored per mile of shoreline. Therefore,
granting the requested variance will not be contributing to substantial
overcrowding.
9. The restrictions imposed by the following order will help substantially
to reduce any potential adverse impacts. The dock allowed will be
small, and no canopy will be allowed. Additionally, the owner will be
limited to storage of one watercraft of moderate size at the dock.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Board concludes that there is a hardship
and that granting the variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the
purposes of the LMCD Code of Ordinances, the public health safety and welfare, or
reasonable access to or use of the lake by the public or by other riparian owners.
The Board further finds that granting the variance is in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the code.
3
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing, it is ordered that the variance requested be
granted subject to the following conditions and limitations.
1. The dock constructed at the site may be no more than 40 feet in length,
and must be a single straight dock with no "L", "T', etc. The dock may be no more
than 3 feet in width.
2. Only one boat or watercraft may be stored at the dock, and such
watercraft may not have a beam of more than 8 feet.
3. No canopy may be constructed in conjunction with the dock.
4. The dock and boat storage shall be so constructed, located, and
maintained that a 5 foot setback shall be maintained on each side of the subject
parcel.
The variance provided for herein shall grant no vested rights to the use of
Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the
District to assure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the lake.
By order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District this 28th day of July, 1993, as amended August 25, 1993.
Eug~e R. Strommen
Executive Director
,.~11o-4 4
ARNE H. CARLSON
G()\ ERNOR
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
130 STATE CAPITOL
SAINT PAUL 55155
August 24, 1993
State and local governments in Minnesota:
Last month I wrote every state and local government in Miruaesota to encourage budget
restraint.
With this letter, I am focusing specifically on salaries and urge you to hoM the line on salary
increases. Because personnel costs account for about three-fourths of most government
budgets, we must show restraint in our salary settlements to protect jobs and services,
and to avoid tax increases. We all must live within our means.
The budget I proposed last January called for a one-year freeze on compensation
increases, and a second year of normal inflationary growth o- no catch up. I am pleased
that the state and its AFSCME employees have responsibly met this objective.
Our recently ratified contract includes no across the board increase in the first year,
followed by a second year 3.5 percent increase in total compensation, including all across-
the-board, progression steps and benefit costs. This contract follows our 1992-93
agreement that provided 2.5 and 2.5 percent annual increases in total compensation, at a
time when many local contracts were granting 4 and 5 percent total annual packages.
The state and its largest bargaining unit have demonstrated that with responsible
leadership we can serve both the taxpayers and our employees. We can save services
and jobs without a tax increase.
The taxpayers are demanding salary restraint. We must listen.
Warmest regards, -
Governor
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
C,PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
MINUTES OF A M'F ET G OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 23, 1993
Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners Geoff Michael,
Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City
Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building official Jon Sutherland and
Secretary Peggy James. Commissioners Bill Voss and Jerry Clapsaddle
were absent and excused.
The following people were also in attendance:
and Greg Keller.
Peter Meyer, John Royer
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 1993 were presented for
approval.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weiland to approve the
Plannlng Commission Minutes of &ugust 9, 1993 as written.
Motion oarried unanimously.
Case ~93-040~ Dakota Rail, Ino. t Preliminary and Final Plat request for
"Dakota Rail 2nd Addition" for lands south of 2281 Commerce Blvd.
(John's Variety & Pets).
Chair Meyer clarified that the public hearing was formally closed at the
August 9, Planning Commission Meeting, however, questioned if there was
anyone present who wanted to be heard regarding this request. There was
no response from those present.
Building official, Jon Sutherland, commented that he has discussed with
Mark Koegler, City Planner, the Planning Commission's request that he be
present when reports are prepared by him, and Koegler will make an
effort to be present at those meetings. Sutherland reviewed Mark
Koegler's response to questions raised at the August 9, 1993 Planning
Commission Meeting relating to this request, as follows:
1. Q. Should items A. 3, 4 and 5 of Resolution $90-153 be included
as conditions for this proposal?
A. No. These conditions related to the other lots and blocks in
the proposed Railroad Addition.
2. Q. What impacts will the 20 foot westerly extension of the
proposed lot have on this subdivision?
A. None. This zig zag is not abnormal in commercial areas and
will not impede future development.
Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993
3. Q. What is the new lot to be combined with, Lot 52 or Parcel
(36)?
A. The intent of the combination was to have the lot combined
with Mr. Royer's property only, specifically, Parcel (36).
4. Q. Recommend that there be no park dedication fee, as the parcels
are being combined and the number of parcels is not changing.
A. We must be consistent with recent plats and a park dedication
fee applied to the recently platted Balboa Addition.
Mueller referred to item 2 and commented that he can understand a zig
zag in a commercial area, but this property abuts residential. He feels
this jog could be an obvious extension for someone else's lot to provide
access. Meyer commented that he walked the lot and feels the 20 feet is
insignificant. The Commission questioned the zoning district of the 20'
extension. Sutherland went to get a legible zoning map. Mueller
questioned if some screening or buffering should be required between the
parking lot and the adjacent apartment building. The Secretary referred
to Section 350:720, Screening and Buffering. After Sutherland returned,
it was determined that the B-1 zone extends another 75' west of the
alley, therefore, there should be no concerns relating to the use of the
property.
Item 4, relating to park dedication fees was discussed at length.
Mueller commented that by creating a combination they are actually
creating less lots. The city should be pro-development. What is the
impact of a parking lot?
Liz reviewed the City Attorney's interpretation of the ordinance and
commented that the Council will need to be consistent and require a park
dedication fee with this case. She stated that a change in code would
be required in order to not require a fee.
Meyer agreed with Mueller and stated that just because the attorney
decides to change how he interprets the rules is no reason to charge a
park dedication fee for this subdivision. The Planning Commission did
not agree with charging a park dedication fee for the Balboa Addition
either.
Weiland commented that nothing will impact the park use with this
subdivision, the use is not changing. This subdivision is actually
making the property better by bringing the lot area into conformance.
Mueller commented that if a subdivision increases the use or number of
lots, then a fee should be paid, however, this subdivision does not, it
does not increase the utilities.
A, · I, A
'Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 1993
A poll was taken to determine who was in favor of not requiring a park
dedication fee for this subdivision, due to these findings. The vote
was 5-1-1. Those in favor were: MUeller, Weiland, Meyer, Hanus, and
Michael. Johnson was opposed, and Jensen abstained. Jensen feels we
need to be consistent wit~ the city Attorneys opinion.
Hanus commented that there was not reference in the minutes to his
concerns regarding the need for a lot area variance; he has serious
doubts that a lot area variance needs to be recognized. Greg Keller
stated that no application was submitted for a lot size variance because
staff deemed it unnecessary. Weiland referred to staffs recommendation
on page 20 of the packet, item 1, which requires that the lots be
combined, he reflected that if this condition is not complied with, then
a lot area variance would need to be recognized.
MOTION made by Hanus, to recommend approval of the Preliminary
and Final Plat for Dakota Rail 2nd Addition, subject to the
following:
1. That the lot created by Dakota Rail 2nd Addition be
combined with and be made part of Parcel 0036, and
that it be subject to the same ownership and
security interests.
2. A park dedication fee not be charged due to the
following Finding of Facts:
a. There will be no increased burden for the
park system, and no change in park
utilization.
b. No change in existing use of the
property.
c. No increase in utilities.
d. Encourages improvement and development of
downtown.
e. Consistent with the plat approval in
1990.
f. No increase in n~mber of lots
Motion seconded by Mueller.
Greg Keller commented that the park dedication fee is money that John
Royer can put into paving the parking lot.
Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993
The Building Official commented that he agrees with the the city
attorney's interpretation, however, it is possible that the way our
ordinance is written, it could exceed the maximum park dedication fee
required by law.
Johnson stated that he has information in front of him from the Attorney
and the Planner stating that the law applies, and from his perspective
he has no other information disputing that the law do not apply,
therefore, he believes it ought to apply. He believes the possibility
exists for some downtown development that will impact the park system.
Meyer believes that the findings relating to this plat are unique and a
fee should be charged for future downtown subdivisions that propose a
change in the use of the land.
The intent of the park dedication ordinance and who interprets the code
was further discussed.
Motion carried $ to 1. Those in favor were= Meyer, Mueller,
Weiland, Jensen, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson opposed.
Johnson commented that he is not trying to disagree with anyone, but,
there are opinions from two people who's interpretations should be
trusted.
This request is scheduled for a public hearing by the City Council on
September 14, 1993.
TRUTH IN HOUSING DISCUSSION.
Building Official, Jon Sutherland, stated that he has good intentions of
bringing forward an implementation plan with the City Manager, however,
there has not been sufficient time available to do so. He stated that
he and Commissioner Mueller will schedule a Certified Inspector to
provide a question and answer session as soon as they are available.
Sutherland further noted that he has discussed with the Hopkins Building
official the status of their new Truth in Housing Ordinance. He stated
that they are having some problems with it, but they also require that
hazardous items be repaired. The Hopkins staff commented about the
amount of work being greater than they had anticipated. Mound's
ordinance is proposed to be different as we don't intend to enforce
hazardous items. Minneapolis has separate departments between building
and housing so there are no conflicts in witnessing a hazardous item.
Jon commented that if he sees a hazardous item he will have to condemn
the item. He suggested the departments be separated.
Relating to the zoning portion of the proposed ordinance, Sutherland
still has a problem with the lengthiness and suggested we review this
further in an effort to trim it down.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 1993
Mueller suggested that a part-time employee be retained to help with the
work 10ad and that the position can be paid for through funds collected
by the filing fees. The people retain an inspector and pay their fee,
then the inspector pays a fee to the city that could pay for staff time.
Sutherland emphasized that after discussion with city staff at Hopkins,
a computer system similar to theirs could aid in the efficiency of
processing the zoning reports.
FOR YO UR_ _ _ _I_ _NF_O__I~A. ~T3.?N~:' MINUTES OF ]% ~ JULY 13 1993
BRAINSTORMING SESSION TO DEVELOP DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE.
Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed that this meeting originally
resulted from a variance request of 50% hardcover to allow construction
of a conforming garage, and everything else on the lot was also
conforming to setbacks and lot area. It is known that Mound is in favor
of garages to allow for storage. Sutherland discussed this issue with
Ceil Strauss of the DNR who stated that other cities are having the same
problem with existing lots of record and that they were being inundated
with variance requests.
Basically, the result of the meeting was that the DNR is willing to sway
on the hardcover requirements for small lots, under a set of guidelines
to be developed, as long as there is no encroachment into the 50'
setback to the lake and, the City must also be working on a stormwater
management plan. ceil is due to write a letter back to each city with
the DNR's position.
Liz Jensen further emphasized that the city Council, at the August 17,
COW meeting discussed how the City can reduce the number of variances,
including hardcover variances. She stressed that the code needs to be
amended to allow more requests to be handled administratively. The
Council directed the Planning Commission to brainstorm this issue and
submit ideas to the City Manager who will then arrange a meeting with
the city attorney, planning staff and representatives of the Planning
Commission and city Council.
Jensen concluded that parameters need to be established to allow for
administrative approval of certain variances. The Planning Commission
determined to wait for the DNR Guidelines, they will then review the
guidelines and have a brainstorming session.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT
Jensen reviewed the City Council Minutes of August 10, 1993 which
included approval of the Rental Ordinance, approval of a Nature
Conservation Areas Plan, and review of the EAW for Teal Point which was
continued. The agenda for the August 24, 1993 meeting was also
reviewed. Jensen noted there will be a hazardous waste drop-off site
open September 17 and 18 in Spring Park at the Hennepin County storage
site.
Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 1993
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Bill Meyer
Attest:
6
k · I, it ,&
League of Minnesota Cities
3490 Lexington Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55126
(612) 490-5600
August 27. 1993
AU6 3 0 1993
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
Mayors, Managers, Councilmembers, Clerks
c/o City Clerk
J~ge~ F:faiMl:~::sEXe~utivcil3::i~9~r~eg~..~nal~Me~
Again this year the League of Minnesota Cities will hold twelve regional meetings to bring
city officials together from throughout Minnesota. At these meetings current policy issues
will be considered, as well as practical questions concerning the problems you face. We
cordially invite you to at~end a regional meeting to join in our discussions.
This year, the League's regional meetings are scheduled in Appleton, Luverne, Springfield,
Ha!lock, Ada, Wadena, Grand Rapids, Sandstone, Avon, Austin, Lonsdale, and Brooklyn
Center. You may receive an invitation from more than one host city, depending upon your
location. Please feel free to choose the one which best fits your schedule.
The afternoon program will begin at 2:30 p.m. with a panel made up of representatives
from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Trade & Economic
Development, Department of Transportation, and Department of Public Safety. After a
briefing by each state department, there will be a period of questions and answers. Some
of the issues to be addressed are:
· Hazardous waste accidents/spill procedures
· Regulation regarding landfill closings
· Trunk highway construction agreements
· DTED-new initiatives
· Tourism assistance to local communities
· Part-time police, current trends
· Changes in charitable gambling laws
· Highway patrol arrests within city limits
The social hour is scheduled to begin at 5:00 p.m., and dinner will be served at 6:15 p.m.
After dinner and a welcome from the host city mayor, League President Leland Swanson
will address the group. This will be followed by a Truth in Taxation video, and a fun and
informative 'LMC by the Numbers' presentation on League services.
I hope you will be able to join us at one of our regional meetings. If you plan to at~end,
please RSVP the city contact person identified on the et~ched regional meeting schedule
to make your reservations. Come for the afternoon, the evening, or both. I look forward to
meeting you there.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
1993 REGIONAL MEETING PROGRAM
AFTERNOON PROGRAM
2:30-3:30 p.m.
3:30-3:45 p.m.
3:45-4:45 p.m.
4:45-5:00 p.m.
Panel presentations by representatives of State Departments
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department of Public Safety
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Break
Question and Answer Session
Program wrap-up/Preview of evening session
EVENING PROGRAM
5:00-6:15 p.m.
6:15-7:00 p.m.
7:00-7:15 p.m.
7:15-7:30 p.m.
7:30-7:42 p.m.
7:42-7:55 p.m.
7:55-8:30 p.m.
9:30-9:00 p.m.
Social Hour
Dinner
Welcome by the host city mayor
LMC President message - Leland Swanson
LMC Video - Truth in Taxation
Discussion and questions about Truth in Taxation
LMC by the Numbers
General questions and meeting wrap-up
League of Minnesota Cities
3490 Lexington Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55126
(612) 490-5600
I.~&GUE OF MINNESOTA crrlES
1993 REGIONAL MEETING SCHEDULE
DATE
Tuesday, September 21
Wednesday, September 22
Thursday, September 23
Tuesday, September 28
Wednesday, September 29
Thursday, September 30
Appleton
Luvcrne
Springfield
Hallock
Ada
Wadena
LOCATION/CONTACT PERSON
Civic Center
323 West Schlieman
Appleton, MN 56208
Roman Fidler
612/289-1363
Luverne VFW Club
705 South Kniss (Highway 75)
Luverne, MN 56156
Marianne Ouverson
507/283-9422
St. Paul Lutheran Church
2 East Central
Springfield, MN 56087
Marian Schwieger
507/723-4416
City Hall (basement)
163 South 3rd Street
Hallock, MN 56728
Hank Noel
218/843-2737
Ada VFW
415 West Main Street
Ada, MN 56510
Brian Kranz
218/784-2211
Wadena Elks Lodge No. 2386
Highway 71 North
Wadcna, MN 56482
Bradley Swcnson
218/631-2383
(OVER)
PAGE 2
1993 REGIONAL MEETING SCHEDULE
(continued)
DATE
Tuesday, October 5
Wednesday, October 6
Grand Rapids
Sandstone
LOCATION/CONTACT PERSON
Sawmill Inn
2301 South Pokegama Avenue
Grand Rapids, MN 55744
Karlene Gale
21 $/326-76O0
Sandstone American Legion
225 Washington Street
Snndstone, MN 55072
Doug Schulze
612/245-5241
Thursday, October 7
Tuesday, October 12
Wednesday, October 13
Thursday, October 21
Avon
Austin
Lonsdale
Brooklyn Center
Rascals
311 Blattner Drive
Avon, MN 56310
Lisa Heinen
612/356-7922
Holiday Inn
1701 4th Street NW
Austin, MN 55912
Kris Busse
507/437-7671
American Legion
North Main Street
Lonsdale, MN 55046
Joyce Skluzacek
507/744-2327
Park Inn International
1501 Freeway Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Cathy Dovidio (LMC Office)
612/490-5600
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE DAYS
Friday Sept. 17 & Saturday Sept. 18, 1993
9 a.m. - 3 p.m. each day
Hennepin County Public Works Site
3880 Shoreline Drive
...~~ County Road 15
Paints and Paint Xh,nners.
Solwats aad Wood Preservatives
Pesticides and Garden Chemicals
Cleaaiag Solvents
Motor Oil
Car Batteries
Button & Rechargeable Batteries
Rcchargeable Stol. Appliances
Hobb~ Chemicals
Tlrel (small fee)
Automotive Chemicals
Electronic Goods
Pool Chemicals
Explosives
Radioactive Materials
Compressed Gas
Unidentified Wastes
Infectious (Medical) Wastes
Business Hazardous Wastes
Phone West Hennepln Recycling Commission at 476-0012
for information.
Sponsored by Hennepln County Board of Commissioners
Printed on Recycled Paper
CITY of MOUND
September 9, 1993
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Mr. John Seorum
11327 Vessey Circle
Bloomington, MN 55437
RE:
PROPOSED TRUTH IN SALE OF HOUSING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY
OF MOUND
Dear Truth in Housing Evaluator:
The City of Mound is in the final stages of developing an ordinance
requiring a Truth in Housing inspection at the point of sale for
residential properties. This ordinance is proposed to be
informational only, a buyer beware tool modeled after the City of
Minneapolis ordinance. It will include information regarding the
current zoning status and will not require any corrections to be
made. Any corrections would be at the option of the buyer/seller.
The City does not intend to do any enforcement of current building
codes.
We have scheduled a question and answer session for Monday,
September 27, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. to be held at Mound City Hall, and
as a current evaluator you are invited to attend. The meeting will
be held as an open forum where you may ask relevant questions of
our staff, Planning Commission and City Council. We would
appreciate any comments or suggestions you can make and will also
be posing questions to you about your procedures, suggestions, and
our proposed ordinance.
We sincerely hope that you can attend this meeting and we look
forward to meeting you and possibly working with you in the future.
Copies of our proposed ordinance are available at your request, and
copies will also be available at the meeting. Please call Peggy at
472-0607 if you plan to be present.
Building Official
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Planning Commission
Monorable Mayor and City Council
.Tohn Soorum
884-9397
Dan Loew
~61-21~1
926-7548
CITY OF HOPKINS
TRUTH-IN-HOUSIHG EVA.LUATOR$ LIST
~on~d D. Zac~d, ~0n DoV
.i__869,2~73 .... 5~8141
DaSd B.
Leroy H~quist
828-9829
922-28S0 '~Z"I '.OC, ~(JF'tq'~l['d. /th //,
'; ( %'M.._ [- ~-/
653-5976
' ?atrieia McDonough
938-3238
825-8016 fY/L604
..~ ger Kefl
20-9771
~44-4ooo
ITY OF M UNI
SUN MON TUK WED THU FRI SAT
August I 2 3 4
S M T W T tr S
I 2 3 4 $ 6 7
8 g I0 ti 12 13 14
IS IS 17 18 I~J 20
22 23 24 2S 26 27 28
2~J 30 ;31
9 I0 II
i~ PARK
~;~l~ll~ COMMISSION
MEETS 7 PM
~ MONTHLY
HOLIDAY REPORTS
OFFICE SCHOOL DUE
CLOSEB STARTS
12 13 14 15 ,16 17 18
*PLANNING CiTY ECONOMIC
COMMISSION COUNCIL DEVELOP
MEETS MEETS COMMISSION
7:30 PM 7:30 PM MEETS 7 AM
19 20 ZI 22 23 24 25
NO STAFF
MEETING
NO C.O.W,
26 27 28 29 30 October
PLANNING CITY s H t u t
COMMISSION COUNCIL
MEETS MEETS 3 4 s ~ 7
7:30 PM 7:30 PM to fl t2 13 14
FULL MOON 24 25 26 27 2e
31
*SEPT. 13, 199:3 PLANNING COMMISSION:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: MOVI.O
IIL_ .eUmLDI.o PEr. IT FOr OARAGE -
September 8, 1993
SEP I 5 1993.
,IL ·
National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
League Washington, D.C.
of 20004
Cities (202) 626-3000
Fax: (202) 626-3043
Officers
Pres,cent
Donas M F,aser
Mayor Mmneapol s Minnesota
Mayor Newark New Jersey
Mayor Orlando For~da
Dear Mayor:
I am writing to enlist your support in a comprehensive effort to
reduce the burden of unfunded federal mandates on our cities and
towns, and our taxpayers. This will require an unprecedented
effort. As leaders in our communities, we must increase public
understanding and organize actions 'that will force the federal
government to respond to our concerns.
Dealing with unfunded mandates has been an NLC priority for a
number of years. After many years of discussion and frustration,
it is clear that we must join together in a much broader effort
to make a difference. For more than a decade, we have witnessed
a steady decline in technical assistance and federal grants to
help pay for the cost of complying with unfunded mandates. What
was once a joint undertaking between levels of government has
become an uneven relationship where the federal government not
only requires our cities and towns to perform specific tasks, but
also tells us exactly how those tasks must be done to avoid civil
and criminal liability.
This campaign is designed to educate our citizens about the
impact of unfunded mandates on local budgets, to organize grass
roots support for significant change in how the federal
government implements laws that will affect local governments,
and to develop a long-term strategy for a new federal-local
partnership. In an effort to draw significant attention to this
continuing problem, I am asking you to participate in a national
unfunded mandates day on October 27. Please mark your calendars
and begin to plan an activity or activities that will help
educate your constituents and Congressional delegation about
unfunded mandates. We will provide you with an information
package before the end of the month to help you organize an event
and participate with local leaders from throughout the country.
The package will include a sample press release, a draft speech,
(over)
Past Presidents; Sidney J. Barthelemy, Mayor. New Orleans. Louis,aha · Tom Bradley, Mayor. Los Angeles. Californ,a · Ferd L. Harrlion, Mayor. Scotland Neck. North Carolina · Cathy Re/nolde,
Councilwoman-at-Large. Denver. Cotorado · Dlreclol"~: Joseph L. A~lams, Councilmember. University City. M,ssourl · Victor A~he, Mayor. Knoxville. Tennessee · Kenneth Bullock, Executwe
Director. Utah League of Cities and Towns · Jimmy Burke, Mayor. Deer Park. Texas · William D. Burney, Jr., Mayor. Augusta. Marne · Jori C. Burl'ell, Executive D~rector. Maryland Municipal
League · Anthony Caplzzl, Comm;ssloner. Dayton. Ohio · Pat,lois E. Castlllo, Mayor. Sunnyvale. California · Peso Chavez, Counc~ior Santa Fa. New Mexico * E. W. Cromartle, II, Couno[man.
Columbia. South Carolina · Charles A. DeVaney, Mayor. Augusta. GeD,gte · William Evem, Mayor. Bradenton. Florida · MI,tin Gll:~on, Alderman. North Little Rock. Arkansas · Ch-,les K.
HIzama, Mayor. Rochester. Minnesota · Frances Huntley-Cooper, Mayor. Fitchburg. Wisconsin · Rol:~rt R. Jeffemon, Councilmembe Lex ngton-Fayette Kentucky · Able Land, Councilmember.
West Hollywood. California · Christopher G. Loclmm4:~, Executive Director. Maine Mumcipal Association · MIIIla MIcLeod, Counc~i Member. Moo,head. Minnesota · Gary D. McCaleb, Mayor.
Abilene. Texas · Thomae Menlno, Councilor. Boston. Massachusetts · J. Ed Morgan, Mayor. Hattiesburg. Mississippi · Meyers Ober~dort, Mayor. Virginia Beach. Virginia · Judith P. O1~o11,
Councllmember. Madison. Wisconsin · Sin<Ira Pickett, Mayor Pro Tempore. Liberty. Texas · Mary Plnkett, Council Member. New York C~ty. New York · Lynn Rex, Executive Director. League
of Nebraska Municipalities · Raymond Slttlg, Executive Director. Florida League ol Cities · Wood,ow Stanley, Mayor. Flint. Michigan · Frank SturzJ, Executive Director. Texas Mumopal League
Alaska Mun c pal League · anlel K. Tibor, Councdmember. Inglewood. Catitornia ' Dan Thompson, Executive Director. League of Wisconsin Mumc~pailties
:Kent E. Swisher, Executive Director. ~: Ward, Supervisor. San Francisco. California · Wellington Webb, Mayor. Denver. Colorado · Jim W. White, Councllmember.
PIul E. Thornton, Counciimember. Vienna West Virginia · Do
Kent. Washington · Jack Williams, Mayor. Franklin Park. Illinois · Alice K. Wolf, Mayor. Cambridge. Massachusetts · Robert G. ~oung, Jr., Mayor. Henderson. North Carolina
Recycled Paper
a draft resolution for action by your governing body, background
information on unfunded mandates, and a worksheet that you can
use to estimate the cost of some of the most burdensome unfunded
federal mandates in your community.
In addition to the activities on October 27, NLC will be
organizing an ongoing program of information, discussions at the
local and national level including a series of sessions on
mandates at the 1993 Congress of Cities, and reports to increase
awareness and produce significant change over the long run. We
need your continued involvement in this effort -- on October 27,
in December at the Congress of Cities, and throughout 1994 as
this effort builds momentum.
NLC will be working with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National
Association of Counties, International City/County Management
Association, National Governors' Association, and National
Conference of State Legislatures on this grass roots effort.
Other national and regional organizations have also expressed
interest in joining with us, including the National School Boards
Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and
the American Public Transit Association. I encourage you to draw
together a coalition in your community that will add strength to
our effort.
To begin this public education process, I have enclosed two
background papers on mandates and a "COUNT ME IN" card. Please
return the card to NLC to indicate your willingness to organize
activities in your community on October 27 and to participate in
this important effort.
I thank you for your continuing commitment and look forward to
working with you on this campaign.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Fraser
President
Mayor of Minneapolis
Enclosures
P.S. Please return the "Count Me In" card today!
A PREVmR MANDATES
Adapted from "Mandates: Keeping Citizens Aware," by Janet M. Kelly; An Issues and Options report by the National League of Citie~
Of all the issues that engage local govern-
ment officials, none is more contentious
than mandates. Mandates go to the heart of
what governing is all about--autonomy and
money. Local officials recognize the need
for the policies that ensure basic and equal
ixotection for all citizens and are willing to
help implement those policies. In return,
they generally ask for two things. The fu~t
is the ability to implement the policy con-
sistent with local needs and conditions,
fund the requirement.
Unfunded mandates place a__~ilional bur-
dens on already fiscally stressed local gov-
ernments. They have also strained the in-
tergovernmental relationship, making
innovative partnership approaches to pro-
viding services and paying for them simnl-
taneously more necessary and more diffi-
cult.
What Is a Mandate?
The two most broadly used definitions are
definitions begin with some variation of
the theme "any statute or rule requiring a
local expenditure of funds or restricting 1o-
A weakness of a simple cost-based deft-
nition is that it reduces important argu-
ments about mandates to money. When
the definition is cost-based, discussions
will center on whether or not the man-
date has a cost and what that cost will
be. This is especially troublesome as
many mandates require localities to use
their existing resources differently or
more intensively. Because of the prolif-
eration of mandates, local governments
bear very high cumulative costs but
very low marginal costs. A cost-based
definition might not recognize the bur-
den of these mandates at all.
An alternative approach is a penalty-based
definition. Rather than ask "will it cost
money?" a penalty-based definition
asks "must I comply?' The latter is
much easier to answer decisively than
the former. This test for the mandate is
whether the locality can legally resist it.
For instance, some would argue that if a
law impacts the private sector as well as lo-
cal governments, it cannot be considered a
mandate. A penalty-based definition settles
that argument in short order. The only dis-
advantage is that a definition based on pen-
alty tends to reveal the volume of existing
mandates, some of which ate not important
to the local government. However, there is
a strong wgument to be made that if you
aggregate all the "little" ma~_~t~ their
cost would approach if not exceed the cost
of the few '~oig~' mandates.
So What?
Is this whole issue, as some contend, really
all about money? Well, yes and no. Money
spent on compliance with federal man-
date~ is money that cannot be spent on lo-
cal priorities. So cost is a central issue, but
it is opportunity cost displacement mused
by the mandate that chafes--the preclusion
of spending the money on programs or ser-
vices valued by the local constituency. If
local priorities were equivalent to federally
mandated lmofities, money spent on com-
pliance with mandates would not be co~-
te~d. In fact, localities willingly accept re-
when there is popular support for them at
the local level. So the mandates issue is
more accurately about diffenmt priodties
However, the fiscal implications are enor-
mous. There is the loss of local tax dollars
that might have been applied to other more
dates that limit the ways in which locali-
ties raise revenue, putting some potentially
lucrative and relatively pain free taxes off
limits. These revenue exclusions and ex-
emptions have the effect of facing more in-
tensive use of the much hated property tax.
Another serious and often ignored fiscal
consequence of mandates is that of loss of
flexibility. When mandates ate procedur-
al--telling the locality not what to do, but
how to do it--it should not come as a sur-
prise that Congress or federal agencies are
not the best judge of how to nm the busi-
ness of local government. Some local
governments call this "mandated ineffi-
ciency" -qbe preclusion by law or rule
from taking the most efficient path toward
the service or program goal. Not surprising,
the administrative routines mandated for a
city of 500,000 may not be as wodcable for
a city of 500. Even seemingly innocuous
procedural man~te~ have their come-
quences. One law requires a social service
agency to keep a copy of certain records. A
copy is defined by statute in such a way as
microfiche, alternatives far less expensive
than the maintenance of paper copies.
F'mally, and m~t critically, the biggest
"so what" of m~_ate~ is the loss of re-
sponsiveness in local government toward
its citizens. Local governments have consis-
tently been shown to be more responsive
to citizen preferences for taxes and services
than the federal government. Poll respon-
dents are far more likely to say that their
local government is more responsive to
their needs and is more open to their input
than federal government. Loc~ officials of-
ten point out that they see their comtitu-
ents on the street, dine with them, wo~hip
Governing, for these elected officials, is
about the ability to respond to constituent
with conflicting goals in negotiation and
compromise. When mandates p~clude the
use of local resources toward the essential
function of government, local government
loses the trust and the confidence of its
people.
All that having been said, it is critical to
note that mandates are a necessary ~ of
intergovernmental relations. No locality
should have the right to pollute the envi-
drea, deny benefits to eligible residents,
deny due process and voting rights to citi-
zeos, or operate a justice system that is not
dates are a necessary means by which to
achieve these goals and are both the fight
and the obligation of Congress. However,
the proliferation of mandates has also made
it clear that local governments ate being
.~laled with an ever expanding load of
rules and requirements whose cost over
A PRIMER ON MANDATES
Adapted from "Mandates: Keeping Citizens Awsre," by Janet M. Kelly; An issues at~d Opno~t~ ~po~ by the Nat~Oml League of Citie~
Of all the issues that engage local govern-
ment officials, none is more contentious
than mandates. Mandat~ go to the heart of
what governing is all about--autonomy and
money. Local o~ciais recogniz~ the need
for the policies that ensure basic and equal
help implement those policies. In return,
they generally ask for two things. The fi~t
sistent with local needs and conditions,
Unfunded mandm___~ place additional bur-
dens on aheady fiscally ~ local gov-
ernments. They have also strained the in-
teegovemmental relationship, making
innovative partnership approaches to pro-
viding services and paying for them simul-
taneously mo~ necessary and mote diffi-
cult.
Whnt Is a Mandate?
The two most broadly used defini6om are
definitions begin with some variation of
the then~ "any stnn~ or rule requiring a
cai revenue mes or bases...."
A weakness of a simple cost-based deft-
nition is that it reduces important argu-
ments about mandates to money. When
the definition is cost-based, discussions
will center on whether or not the man-
dat,~ has a cost and what that cost will
be. This is especially troublesome as
n~ny mal~lnt,~ require localities to use
their existing resources differently or
more intensively. Because of the prolif-
eration of mandates, local governments
be~ very high cumulative costs but
very low marginal costs. A cost-based
definition might not recognize the bur-
den of these mandates at ali.
An alternative aplxonch is a penalty-based
definition. Rather than ask "will it coat
money?" a penalty-based definition
asks "must I comply?' The latter is
much casic~ to answer decisively than
the former. This test for the m~*_e is
wbether the locality can Icg'ally resist it.
For instance, some would argue that if a
law impac~ the private sector as web as lo-
cal governments, it cannot be comidered a
mandate. A penalty-based definition settles
that ar~ment in short order. The only dis-
advantage is that a definition based on pen-
alty tends to reveal the volume of existing
masaru_, some of which are not impomnt
to the local govemmenL However, thev~ is
a strong argument to be made that if you
cost would approach if not exceed the c(~t
of the few 'SIC' mandates.
So What?
Is this whole issue, as some contend, really
all about money? Well, yes and no. Money
spent on compliance with federal man-
cJ~__~ is money that cannot be spent on lo-
cal p6ofities. So cost is a central issue, but
it is opportunity co~t displacement caused
by the ma~ttae that chafes--the preclusion
of spending the money on programs or ser-
vices valued by the local constituency. If
local priorities were equivalent to feda, ally
mandated priorities, money spent on corn-
when the~ is popular support for them at
more accura~ly about different priorities
dates that limit the ways in which locali-
lucrative and relatively pain f~e taxes off
limits. These revenue exclusions and ex-
emptions have the effect of
tensive use of the much hated lxope~ tax.
how todo it---it should not come as a su~-
ness of local government. Some local
governments call this "mandated inet-
ciency" --the preclusion by law or role
from taking the most efficient path toward
the service or program goal. Not surprising,
the administ~ve routines mandated for a
city of 500,000 may not be as workable for
a city of 500. Even seemingly innocuom
agency to keep a copy of certain t~ords. A
copy is defined by statute in such a way as
micwficlm alternatives far less expensive
than the maintenance of paper copies.
Finally, and most critically, the biggest
"so what" of tmu~t~ is the ~ of re-
spomiven~s in local government towant
its citizens. Local governments have comis-
tently been shown to be more responsive
to citiz~ preferences for taxes and services
than the federal government. Poll respon-
dents are f~ more likely to say that their
local government is more responsive to
their neech and is rnore open to their input
than federal government. Local officials of-
Governing, for these elected officials, is
use of local m~tces towattl the essential
function of government, local government
loses the tmst and the confidence of its
people.
All that having been said, it is critical to
note that mandates are a necesaa~ part of
intergov~ relations. No locality
should have the right to pollute I~ eavi-
clren, deny behests to eligible residents,
deny clue process and voting rights to dti-
_~_~ a~ a necessary means by which to
achieve ~ goals and are both the fight
it clear that local governments a~ being
rules and ~iui~ments whose cost over
Reversing F eral
Mandates
Unfunded mandates have become the single largest financial
burden on the nation's cities and towns. The increasing number
of federal mandates has forced many local governments to raise
taxes, increase utility bills, and cut services to pay for the costs
of implementation.
Over the past few years, the number of mandates has increased
substantially while funding from federal and state governments has
decreased dramatically. At the same time, the federal government is
actively pursuing compliance with these legislative mandates.
No city can afford to fund all the pending federal requirements within the
foreseeable future, let alone within the legislated timetables.
When there was a federal-state-local partnership to finance the costs of
federally-imposed mandates, the nation made great progress in meeting
national goals and objectives. This partnership has ended and has been
replaced by dictates from the federal government to states and local
governments.
We need to change the nature of this debate.
When federal standards are established, the federal government must
assure that local governments have adequate capacity and time to
achieve those standards. We need to work together to achieve these
shared goals.
Percentage of Public Expenditures by Level
of Govemment for Environmental Standards
1981-2000
State 6%
7~%
State 5% State 5%
82% 87°0
1981 Total Spending=
$35 Billion
1987 Total Spending=
$40 Billion
Source A Pretcm¢nary .4nalys¢s of :'~e Pulohc Costs o! Enwror'menta/ Protechon 1981-2000 U S EPA May 1990
2000 Total
Estimated Spending=
$55 Billion
Increase in Water and Sewer Bills in Quincy, Mas~
Annual Charge Per Househdd
1400
1200
1000
8OO
6O0
4OO
2OO
$587
$181
$t,300
1986 1993 Proj. 2000
NATIONAL UNFUNDED
MANDATES DAY
October 27, 1993
COUNT ME INI.
{~] YES, our community will participate in
National Unfunded Mandates Day on October
27, 1993. We will organize events in our
community to educate citizens and members of
Congress about the tremendous financial and
administrative burdens unfunded federal
mandates impose on our local government and
our taxpayers.
[~l YES, please send me a kit with background
materials to help us get started immediately in
our community.
Name
Title
Address
City
Zip
Signature
Tel:
State
Note: To receive your local organizer's packet
of information on mandates, return this
postage-paid reply card today!
For more information, call (202) 626-3020.
Join the Mandates Militia!
Estimate! Agitate!
Demonstrate! Edurate!
Stormina'
coffee p6t
Afton meeting
violation ruling ',5,'
creates a stir "..,.
By De-nb C~sLDo
Sufl'Wri~
~ ~c evcflinS Of lunc l I,
~on Ci~ H~. .,, -
~ led to w~at one h~'er d~
~ "~e Humane ~ew of ~
Minne~ ~n M~ ~w.'
It ~ ~nt ~mon of f~ ~rou~
dal~ ~d M~k ~fin~, attorney
~ the Minn~ Nc~r A~
adam. and I~l hmnik of~e Mi~
~ ~ague of calla. -...
~1 ~in~ finding ~t me m~
~[ I ~n~ to re.ir thc wc]~. ~d
must ~ ~ o~ altome~ s'~
have ~d silflificant questions'
a~ut who should ~ for enro~nl
~ ~w ~d how stl~ ~e ~d of
ka~ 5uunne ~n~b and Nkh~
~ Mu~a~i~o uch owe ~elr
~er, ~udsoa Jones, $30 000
13t,~. ' ..,.::,
Bul ~ey ~ not ~e only oho ~.
We ~ ~ la~e~ · .. ~.~.
P~y ~um~ ~ ~om~ ~b~
·em for b~akln[ ~e ~w, ~d
I EL:
y~k u~hcld I findinl by Wishing.
ion Count~ ~std~ Jud~ I.E. ~-
)h~ ~hd, ~in~h and Mull,c-
cairo unlnlcntlonally viol~ted the
hw b) mvproHnl ~ ~n~
)hould ~'Rn~ ~e mm~imum
~c d~ision clo~ thc way for ~e
mp~ of ~c im~nt ~n of ~e
~y ~ola~ the la~, the thr~ o~-
~s instead of havial Anon
em ~y them, ~c.mp~als
~avc never sled on that issue.
~o~hel ~id hc and his ~rc have
ukcn m ~ond moflpge off ~cir
~ome and ~11 ~y S232.~ a
~r ~e next ~0 yea~ Wi~ five
drcfl under qc 13, ~hcn ~ou ma
If he had ~n m~u~ of just one
violation, he u~d, he would ~vc
~id ~c S1~ ~nalty for viohfinl
thc hw ~nd drop~ ~e manor, But
when ~uma'l lUil tccu~ him of
kick him out of o~. his
was questioned and "I couldn't
,
~o~hcl now uys thlt Sifl~ O~
d~id~ he viol·zed ~c law onl~ on~
he I~rore shoulders to ~y only
one-third of his all.ay f~, ~th
the dry or its insu~ omar ~y-
~ the other ~nd, ~umz wonde~
why private Cleans shiuld have to
~t t~e biff to k~p ~eie~public
dal~ in line, She ~ ~o ~a~R for
when officials do
ff o~c~s ~vc to ~y ~cir
Cx~n~ ~ aid. ~ey a~ ~s likely
d. T~ irony would ~ ~inM if a
ci~n~id a ~er to enfo~
yf ~e o~cMJ found $uilty ~ vi0m.
~s il h, cnfor~ment of ~e ~y~r-
o~ O~p M~dni bw is Icfl ~ p~-
~a~ c~tlzefls, tin~ violations at~ civ-
a, ~thcr ~mn ~minal. off~n~.
~w Drovides t~ ez~pl m
qimums~t, I quorum of most
public ~ies such u a city ~uncil
.~ay m~t onl~ in punic m ~ive
mfo~n~on, dt~uu iuues and make
~ch violation a~ ~ ~mov~
~Jep
Aa Thuml'~ k-$tl fees illustrate, filial
~ open meetir~ ca~e can be a costly
adventure, cffecUvdy limitiq
two-O~ir~s oft~e c~ses btoul~t under
the Olx:n Meednl Law, the plaintiff
has be~n a me~im or. nil·tiaa o.r
Foup wi~ a political u to Inn&
laid Anfinson, thc ncwsl~Pcr associ-
ation ¼w~er.
Thuma herself il pan of · faction
in a bitter political dispute that has
divided ^tiaa t'or ycan.
Althou~ tome of her ~ends art
helpinl pay ~he $2i,000 b. iil, ~uma
said Lc is pay~nL most otis "t can't
afford i~ either, she said, but lac
h~et 'ts leuing mcpay it offjust a
little bit each month,--
The cost or bringing such us~s may
be addressed in an unrelated can
that is to be mJlued to the Courl of
Appr. ah this ,,eel in that car~, the
~ judge decided that HibNnl City
Council memlxr~ v~olatcd the Open
MtttinI Law and ordcr,~_ them to
pay about $10,000, half of the attor-
ney' re~s for the Stoup of union offi-
cials who sued them.
In the long lena, however, said
flnson and Samnik, such issues prob-
ably' ne~d the attention of the Le~sla-
While on the one hand Anfin~on said
be knows of cltizen srou~ thai can't
afford to challenge blatant violations
of the law, he al~o worries thai Cass'
rullr4 fotcin~ ~oe~hel and the otb.
m ~o pa), their own lepl fees could
frijbten people away Bom public
on)c~.
Similarly. Samn~k ~ai(l the costs have
la be hil,b enoush to dlscourale
wron~doinl, but not so hath that they
discourage people from runninl for
public office on the chance they
misbt unintentionally violate the
law.
Jamnlk sa~d the state of the law and
the balancinl or various faceu of the
public interesl "ia jusl a me~. ! don't
want to ~ay ifs intractable and has
no solution, but there's nm one jun
starin& me in the lace.'
~oschel, who Is adamant ~n den~n[
that he and the othen held an illt-jEAl
meetln$, has his own interpret·boa
of thc couri decision. 'h's open sea-
~on on punic o~cials," ~e said.
"AnYone with al~) money who wanl$
to i~dmidate lof. al officials has the
backln$ of thc court."
Thus·, who is steadfast in her ~lief
that the Aflon offidals purposely vio-
lated the law, said, "T~tt must be
something we can do. The iaw).ers
are the only ones who have ~ined on
this thin/,"
15,'-J.5 '-J:bU No.uu2 F.U3
T, Fo
%11
SEP 1 $1993
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
Agenda
8:30 am, Friday, September 17, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg. Conference Rm 135, Wayzata
1. Introductions, Chair Tom Penn
2. Review, acceptance/amendment of 8/20/93 minutes as mailed
Review of Management Objectives for LMCD's EWM Operations
per concept proposal to be presented by Consultant Dick
Osgood as part of environmental objectives review to
strengthen that portion of the LMCD Management Plan;
LMCD operations wrap-up progress, Strommen:
a. 1993 Season Report update:
b. Equipment modification status for weed pulling test;
c. Questions, comments;
MN DNR report on aquatic exotics control, Chip Welling:
a. U S Army Corps of Engineers grant confirmation for
EWM biological control; (Congr. Ramstad announcement)
b. U S Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station (WES) Chemical Control Technology Team (CCCT)
confirmation on Lake Minnetonka triclopyr herbicide
field dissipation study; (per enclosure)
c. Additional exotics control program reports;
Biological control study update, U of M Dept. of
Fisheries & wildlife, Dr. Ray Newman and/or staff;
7. Hennepin Parks report, John Barten;
8. Lake Association reports;
9. Additional business
10. Meeting schedule, next meeting (Fri, Oct. 22 -- 4th
Friday?)
OPTION 2
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93-
cc: City Council
handout at meeting
9-14-93
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
FOR "DAKOTA RAH, 2ND ADDITION"
INVOLVING LANDS OWNED BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC.
LOCATED SOUTH OF 2281 COMMERCE BLVD.
(JOHN'S VARIETY & PETS),
AND NORTH OF ~ RAH,ROAD TRACKS
P&Z CASE #93-040
WHEREAS, a request for Preliminary and Final Plat for Dakota
Rail 2nd Addition has been submitted in the manner required for
platting of land under the city of Mound Ordinance Code Section 330
and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes 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 subject property is located within the B-1
Central Business Zoning District, and;
WHEREAS,
approval of
conditions.
the Mound Advisory Planning Commission recommended
the preliminary and final plat request, with
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
To approve the Preliminary and Final Plat for Dakota Rail 2nd
Addition as shown on the attached Exhibit A, and subject to
the following:
A lot variance of 1,662 square feet is hereby granted
with the condition that the lot created by Dakota Rail
2nd Addition be combined with and made part of Parcel 36
and that it be subject to the same ownership and security
interests.
be
Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in
accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of
Ordinances.
Proposed Resolution
Page 2
Case #93-040
DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION
The existing legal description of the property to be platted
is attached as Exhibit B.
Needs %o be submi%%ed.
The proposed legal description is as follows:
That part of Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way in
Government Lot 8, Section 14, Township 177 North, Range 24
West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota
described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Government Lot 8;
thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East, assumed
bearing along the east line of said Lot 8, a distance of
850.03 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly
measured at right angles to the main track center line of said
Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way; thence South 87
degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West parallel with said main
track center line a distance of 33.14 feet to a point on the
west line of the east 33.00 feet of said Government Lot 8 said
point being the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West,
continuing parallel with said main track center line a
distance of 144.53 feet; thence South 2 degrees 33 minutes 02
seconds East a distance of 41.50 feet to a line parallel with
and 8.50 feet northerly measured at right angles to said main
track center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58
seconds East parallel with said main track center line a
distance of 132.65 feet; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32
seconds East parallel with said east line of Government Lot 8
a distance of 10.04 feet; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes
58 seconds East parallel with said main track center line a
distance of 8.03 feet; to said west line of the east 33.00
feet of Government Lot 8; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32
seconds East along said west line a distance of 31.64 feet to
said point of beginning.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this resolution to the owners and subdivider after
completion of the requirement of their use as required by
M.S.A. 462.358.
Proposed Resolution
Page 2
Case #93-040
DAKOTA RAIL 2ND ADDITION
Se
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.
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 330 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.
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 compliance with M.S.A. 462
and the Ordinances of the City.
· I, II, ,&
REB'D SEP 1. 3 1993
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
Agenda
8:30 am, Friday, September 17, 1993
Norwest Bank Bldg. Conference Rm 135, Wayzata
1. Introductions, Chair Tom Penn
2. Review, acceptance/amendment of 8/20/93 minutes as mailed
Review of Management Objectives for LMCD's EWM Operations
per concept proposal to be presented by Consultant Dick
Osgood as part of environmental objectives review to
strengthen that portion of the LMCD Management Plan;
LMCD operations wrap-up progress, Strommen:
a. 1993 Season Report update;
b. Equipment modification status for weed pulling test;
c. Questions, con~nents;
MN DNR report on aquatic exotics control, Chip Welling:
a. U S Army Corps of Engineers grant confirmation for
EWM biological control; (Congr. Ramstad announcement)
b. U S Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station (WES) Chemical Control Technology Team (CCCT)
confirmation on Lake Minnetonka triclopyr herbicide
field dissipation study; (per enclosure)
c. Additional exotics control program reports;
Biological control study update, U of M Dept. of
Fisheries & Wildlife, Dr. Ray Newman and/or staff;
7. Hennepin Parks report, John Barten;
8. Lake Association reports;
9. Additional business
10. Meeting schedule, next meeting (Fri, Oct. 22 -- 4th
Friday?)
Storm in
p6t
coffee
Adlln meeting '-"
ruling
violation
creates a Stir,....,:
B! Dennis Cassino . '
Staff Writer '.
On the evening of ~une !!, i~i,
Mayor Jun K~oschel and two cminci]
members chilled by the coffee pot ~n
Atica City Hall.
The .ei.l, ht. minute conversation al~out
repalnng a well in the village park
lm led to what one lawyer d~cribe~
as "the Hurricane Andrew of the
Minnesota Open Meeti~ Law."
It has scat trcmon of fear throu&h.
~e r'anJcs of Ioc~ elected public offi.
Ciils, said M~rk Anfinson, atto.may
for the Minnesota Newspaper Assc~-
atlon, and Joel Jamnlk of the MitlJ~
acta League of Cities. ': .':"
Xhhou~ often on opposit~ ~id~'
opeg-mecting issues, ~_ey a~te~
~in~s finding that lie
~io~the m~etlnS hw by appro¥-
b~g ~ntm~ to repair the we]!.
must pa~, their own attorney s :'.fees,
hive raised significant qucstion,~
about who should pay for enfordnG
~e law and how stilt the cos~ 'of.
viola6ons should be. . ..L: ..
l~'o~hel s~id he owes his law'jar,
Kingstad, about SIS,000. His C~F'
leagues, guzanne Ftinsch &nd Nich°'
las Mucciacclaro each owe their
t ar, gudson Jones, $30.000
But they tre not the only ones
have to pay lawyers. .- .-.',.
Peggy Thuma, the womnn wha
them for breaking the law, snld she
owes $21,000 to her XaWTCT, John
lk~nni~an,
~eck upheld a finding by Washing-
Ion County District lud~ I.E,
cinro unintentionally viomteo me
h~ by npp~ov~n~ ~e ~nt~
)houl~ ~ ~n~ ~c maximum $1~
Thc d~ision cl~ thc way for
ap~ o~ ~e im~nl ~ of the
~ey ~oln~ the la~, the thr~ o~-
orals should ~ their own mttomey
~s instead of ~avini Atica
em ~Y ~cm. The spoils
~nve never ~led on tha~ ~ssge.
~o~hcl ~id hc ~nd his wife have
~ken a ~ond mo~ge on ~eir
~ome and ~!~ ~y $232.99 a mo~th
~r ~he next 10 ~ea~. Wi~
dren under ~e 13, ' ~hen ~ou mate
l~ he had ~n accu~ of just one
violation, he ~id, he ~oed
~id the ~i~ ~nnlty for
the law nnd ~op~ the manet,
~hen Thumn s suit ~ccu~ him of
~ violations and ,t~mpt~ to'
kick him out of o~, his in~ty
was questioned ~nd "] couldn't ~ck
~o~hel now ~ys th~ sin~
d~id~ ha violated ~e ll~
he theodore should~ve to ~y only
onc-thltd of his att~ey f~s, ~th
the city Ot i~S insu~~ ~mer
ln~ the ~t.
~ ~he ot~er hand, ~um~
why private citizens sh6¢d have to
~t thc bill to k~p thei~public o~-
~ah in line, She ~ no ~a~n for
cities end their residers to pay
when o~cieh do wron~
~ offices ~vc to ~y t~cir own
~ vlo~ ~e law. I dion't '$~ the
ity ~u~ we ~re ~c dry." she
d. Th~ irony would ~ ~in~l if a
ci~n ~id a ~er to enfor~ thc
~w ~nd then al~ ~id ~e ex~n~
~f ~e o~cinl found 8uilty of vio~-
~s il is, onfor~ment of thc 3~yea~-
old O~n M~xin8 ~w is
n~ c~tkzens, sin~ violations nrc civ.
, ~thcr ~ap ~minnl, off~n~.
bw provides t~t, ex. pt
~i~ums~, n quo~m of mo~
public ~ies such u ~ city ~uncll
9r ~h~l ~ or iu ~mmitt~s:
~ny m~t onl~ in public to ~vc
'~fo~on, &~u~ i~ues and make
~t~t~ officials ~n ~ fin~ S'l~ for
~ch violation and ~ ~mov~ from
O~ on ~e Ihi~ riordon.
:Oep 16, ~36 9:6U
Al Thuma's le/~! fe~s [llus.tr&te, filial
advcntu~. ~vely ~miti~ who
~n a~od m punue such iuu~, In
· c ~p ~tin8 ~w, ~e plaintiff
~d An~n~n, ~c newsier
~um8 he.if Is ~'of I faction
in 8 bitter ~l[ti~ atspute t~at ~s
~v[d~ A~oa for
Althou~ ~me of her ~endt ~
affo~ ib either,' ~e ~id, but ~e
~et "is letting me ~y it offjua~ a
little ~ii eac~ month."
The cost of b~n~n8 such ~s may
~ addres~ in an un~lat~ m~
md juage decided ~at Hibbi~ City
Co,~cil mcm~ ~olatcd the ~n
M~ng ~w and orde~ ~¢m m
~y a~m $10,~, half 9f thc att~-
ney f~s for ~e ~oup of union om-
cials who sued them.
In ae long te~, however, ~id A~-
finch nad Jamnik, such isaues pro~
ably n~d the ~ttentioa of the ~sl~-
~ile on ~e one hand Anfin~a ~id
he knows of citizen ~onps ~at can'l
afford ~o challenge bla~nt ~ioladons
of the law, he al~ wo~es ~al Cass'
em m Dy their o~ leal fees could
~te~ ~ople a~a~ ~om public
Similarly, ~amaik ~id the ~sts have
~ ~ _hi~ enou~ to discourage
~ongdoing. but not ~ hi~ iha~ they
~ourage ~ople from ~nniM for
public o~ on thc chance they
might unintentionally violaic the
Jamaik ~id the s~e of the law and
the balancing of va~ous face~ of ~e
public inxerest ]'is just a mess. ! don't
w~t to ~y ii s immc~ble and has
no mlotion, but there's nm one just
sunni me in the fa~.'
~o~hel, who is a~mant in den~n~
thai he and the o~ca held an ill~
mectlnk has his own in~re~6on
of th~ ~ua d~ision. "IC~ o~n ~a-
~n on public o~cials,' he ~id.
"~yone ~th any money who
to intimidate l~l o~cials has the
~c~n~ of thc coug.'
~.ma, who is stcadfasl in her ~lief
~at xhe Aflon o~cials pu~l~ vi~
laled the law, ~id, "The~ must
~mcthini we ~n do. ~e la.em
.~ the only onc~ who have ~ined on
this think"
,~ 1,1
No.UU2 F.U5
WPLUM
/I
9:50
No .002
P .02
September 8, 1993
National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
League Washington, D.C.
of 20004
Cities (202) 626-3000
Fax: (202) 626-3043
Officers
President
Donald M. Fraser
Mayor, Minneapolis. Minnesota
First V¢ce President
Sharpe James
Mayor, Newark, New Jersey
Second Vice President
Carolyn Long Banks
Councilwoman-at-Large, Atlanta, Georgia
Immediate Past President
Glenda E Hood
Mayor, Orlando, Florida
Executive Director
Donald J Borut
Dear Mayor:
I am writing to enlist your support in a comprehensive effort to
reduce the burden of unfunded federal mandates on our cities and
towns, and our taxpayers. This will require an unprecedented
effort. As leaders in our communities, we must increase public
understanding and organize actions 'that will force the federal
government to respond to our concerns.
Dealing with unfunded mandates has been an NLC priority for a
number of years. After many years of discussion and frustration,
it is clear that we must join together in a much broader effort
to make a difference. For more than a decade, we have witnessed
a steady decline in technical assistance and federal grants to
help pay for the cost of complying with unfunded mandates. What
was once a joint undertaking between levels of government has
become an uneven relationship where the federal government not
only requires our cities and towns to perform specific tasks, but
also tells us exactly how those tasks must be done to avoid civil
and criminal liability.
This campaign is designed to educate our citizens about the
impact of unfunded mandates on local budgets, to organize grass
roots support for significant change in how the federal
government implements laws that will affect local governments,
and to develop a long-term strategy for a new federal-local
partnership. In an effort to draw significant attention to this
continuing problem, I am asking you to participate in a national
unfunded mandates day on October 27. Please mark your calendars
and begin to plan an activity or activities that will help
educate your constituents and Congressional delegation about
unfunded mandates. We will provide you with an information
package before the end of the month to help you organize an event
and participate with local leaders from throughout the country.
The package will include a sample press release, a draft speech,
(ove r )
Past Presidents: Sidney J. Barthelemy, Mayor. New Orleans. Louisiana · Tom Bradley, Mayor. Los Angeles. California · Ferd L. Harrison, Mayor. Scotland Neck. North Carolina · Cathy Reynolds,
Councilwoman-at-Large. Denver. Colorado · Directors: Joseph L. Adams, Councilmember. University City. Missouri ,, Victor Ashe, Mayor. Knoxville. Tennessee · Kenneth Bullock, Executive
Director. Utah League of Cities and Towns · Jimmy Burke, Mayor, Deer Park. Texas · William D. Burney, Jr., Mayor. Augusta. Maine ·Jon C. Burrall, Executive Director. Maryland Municipal
League · Anthony Caplzzi, Commissioner. Dayton. Ohio · Patrlcla E. Caatlllo, Mayor, Sunnyvale. California · Peso Chavez, Councilor. Santa Fa. New Mexico · E. W. Cromartle, II, Councilman.
Columbia. South Carotina· Charles A. DeVaney, Mayor, Augusta. Georgia · William Evers, Mayor, Bradenton. Florida · Martin GIpson, Alderman. North Little Rock. Arkansas · Charles K.
Hazama, Mayor. Rochester. Minnesota · Frances Huntley-Cooper, Mayor, Fitchburg, Wisconsin · Robert R. Jefferson, Councilmember. Lexington-Fayette. Kentucky · Abbe Land, Councilmember.
West Hollywood. California · Christopher G. Lockwood, Executive Director. Maine Municipal Association · MIIIle MacLaod, Council Member. Moorhead. Minnesota · Gary D. McCaleb, Mayor.
Abilene. Texas · Thomas Menlno, Councilor. Boston. Massachusetts · J. Ed Morgan, Mayor. Hattiesburg. Mississippi · Meyera Obarndorf, Mayor. Virginia Beach. Virginia · Judith R Olson,
Councilmember, Madison. Wisconsin · Sandra Pickett, Mayor Pro Tempore. Liberty. Texas · Mary Plnkett, Council Member, New York City. New York ,, Lynn Rex, Executive Director. League
of Nebraska Municipalities · Raymond Slttlg, Executive Director. Florida League of Cities · Woodrow Stanley, Mayor. Flint. Michigan · Frank Sturzl, Executive Director. Texas Municipal League
· Kent E. Swisher, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League · Daniel K. Tabor, Councilmember. Inglewood, California · Dan Thompson, Executive Director. League of Wisconsin Municipalities
· Paul E. Thornton, Councilmember. Vienna. West Virginia · Doris Ward, Supervisor. San Francisco, California · Wellington Webb, Mayor. Denver. Colorado · Jim W. White, Councitmember,
Kent. Washington · Jack Williams, Mayor. Franklin Park. Illinois · Alice K. Wolf, Mayor. Cambridge. Massachusetts · Robert G. Young, Jr., Mayor. Henderson. North Carolina
Recycled Paper
a draft resolution for action by your governing body, background
information on unfunded mandates, and a worksheet that you can
use to estimate the cost of some of the most burdensome unfunded
federal mandates in your community.
In addition to the activities on October 27, NLC will be
organizing an ongoing program of information, discussions at the
local and national level including a series of sessions on
mandates at the 1993 Congress of Cities, and reports to increase
awareness and produce significant change over the long run. We
need your continued involvement in this effort -- on October 27,
in December at the Congress of Cities, and throughout 1994 as
this effort builds momentum.
NLC will be working with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National
Association of Counties, International City/County Management
Association, National Governors' Association, and National
Conference of State Legislatures on this grass roots effort.
Other national and regional organizations have also expressed
interest in joining with us, including the National School Boards
Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and
the American Public Transit Association. I encourage you to draw
together a coalition in your community that will add strength to
our effort.
To begin this public education process, I have enclosed two
background papers on mandates and a "COUNT ME IN" card. Please
return the card to NLC to indicate your willingness to organize
activities in your community on October 27 and to participate in
this important effort.
I thank you for your continuing commitment and look forward to
working with you on this campaign.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Fraser
President
Mayor of Minneapolis
Enclosures
P.S. Please return the "Count Me In" card today!
a draft resolution for action by your governing body, background
information on unfunded mandates, and a worksheet that you can
use to estimate the cost of some of the most burdensome unfunded
federal mandates in your community.
In addition to the activities on October 27, NLC will be
organizing an ongoing program of information, discussions at the
local and national level including a series of sessions on
mandates at the 1993 Congress of Cities, and reports to increase
awareness and produce significant change over the long run. We
need your continued involvement in this effort -- on October 27,
in December at the Congress of Cities, and throughout 1994 as
this effort builds momentum.
NLC will be working with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National
Association of Counties, International City/County Management
Association, National Governors' Association, and National
Conference of State Legislatures on this grass roots effort.
Other national and regional organizations have also expressed
interest in joining with us, including the National School Boards
Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and
the American Public Transit Association. I encourage you to draw
together a coalition in your community that will add strength to
our effort.
To begin this public education process, I have enclosed two
background papers on mandates and a "COUNT ME IN" card. Please
return the card to NLC to indicate your willingness to organize
activities in your community on October 27 and to participate in
this important effort.
I thank you for your continuing commitment and look forward to
working with you on this campaign.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Fraser
President
Mayor of Minneapolis
Enclosures
P.S. Please return the "Count Me In" card today!
A PRIMXR ON MANDATES
Adapted from "Mandates: Keeping Citizens Aware," by Janet M. Kelly; An Issues and Options report by the National League of Cities
Of all the issues that engage local govem-
ment officials, none is more contentious
than mandates. Mandates go to the heart of
what governing is all about---autonomy and
money. Local officials recognize the need
for the policies that ensure basic and equal
protection for all citizens and are xvilling to
help implement those policies. In return,
they generally ask for two things. The fu~t
is the ability to implement the policy con-
sistent with local needs and conditions,
and the second is financial assistance to
fund the requirement.
Unfunded mandates place additional bur-
dens on already fiscally stressed local gov-
ernments. They have also strained the in-
tergovernmental relationship, making
innovative partnership approaches to pro-
viding services and paying for them simul-
taneously more necessary and more diffi-
cult.
What Is a Mandate?
The two most broadly used definitions are
based on either cost or penalty. Cost-based
definitions begin with some variation of
the theme "any statute or role requiring a
local expenditure of funds or restricting lo-
cal revenue rates or bases...."
A weakness of a simple cost-based deft-
nition is that it reduces important argu-
ments about mandates to money. When
the definition is cost-based, discussions
will center on whether or not the man-
date has a cost and what that cost will
be. This is especially troublesome as
many mandates require localities to use
their existing resources differently or
more intensively. Because of the prolif-
eration of mandates, local governments
bear very high cumulative costs but
very low marginal costs. A cost-based
definition might not recognize the bur-
den of these mandates at all.
An alternative approach is a penalty-based
definition. Rather than ask "will it cost
money?" a penalty-based definition
asks "must I comply?" The latter is
much easier to answer decisively than
the former. This test for the mandate is
whether the locality can legally resist it.
For instance, some would argue that if a
law impacts the private sector as well as lo-
cal governments, it cannot be considered a
mandate. A penalty-based definition settles
that argument in short order. The only dis-
advantage is that a definition based on pen-
alty tends to reveal the volume of existing
mandates, some of which are not important
to the local government However, there is
a stxong argument to be made that if yon
aggregate all the "little" mandates their
cost would approach if not exceed the cost
of the few "big" mandates.
So What?
Is this whole issue, as some contend, really
all about money? Well, yes and no. Money
spent on compliance with federal man-
dates is money that cannot be spent on lo-
cal priorities. So cost is a central issue, but
it is opportunity cost displacement caused
by the mandate that chafes-4he preclusion
of spending the money on programs or ser-
vices valued by the local constituency. If
local priorities were equivalent to federally
mandated laiofities, money spent on com-
pliance with mandates would not be con-
tested. In fact, localities willingly accept re-
sponsibility for programs and services
when there is popular support for them at
the local level. So the mandates issue is
more accm'ately about different priorities
and the foregone opportunities they create.
However, the fiscal implications are enor-
mous. There is the loss of local tax dollars
that might have been applied to other more
preying and popular uses. There are man-
dates that limit the ways in which locali-
ties raise revenue, putting some potentially
lucrative and relatively pain free taxes off
limits. These revenue exclusions and ex-
emptions have the effect of foming more in-
tensive use of the much hated property tax.
Another serious and often ignored fiscal
consequence of mandates is that of loss of
flexibility. When mandates are procedur-
al-qelling the locality not what to do, but
how to do it--it should not come as a sur-
prise that Congress or federal agencies are
not the best judge of how to mn the busi-
ness of local govemment. Some local
governments call this "mandated ineffi-
ciency" ~the preclusion by law or role
from taking the most efficient path toward
the service or program goal. Not surprising,
the administrative routines mandated for a
city of 500,000 may not be as workable for
a city of 500. Even seemingly innocuous
procedural mandates have their conse-
quences. One law requires a social service
agency to keep a copy of certain records. A
copy is defined by statute in such a way as
to prevent the use of computer records or
microfiche, alternatives far less expensive
than the maintenance of paper copies.
F'mally, and most critically, the biggest
"so what" of mand_at~s is the loss of re-
sponsiveness in local govemment toward
its citizens. Local governments have consis-
tently been shown to be more responsive
to citizen preferences for taxes and services
than the federal government. Poll respon-
dents are far more likely to say that their
local government is more responsive to
their needs and is more open to their input
than federal govemment. Local officials of-
ten point out that they see their constitu-
ents on the s~eet, dine with them, worship
with them, and hear about problems daily.
Governing, for these elected officials, is
about the ability to respond to constituent
demands or at least to engage constituents
with conflicting goals in negotiation and
compromise. When mandates preclude the
use of local resources toward the essential
function of government, local government
loses the trust and the confidence of its
people.
All that having been said, it is critical to
note that mandates are a necessary pan of
intergovernmental relations. No locality
should have the right to pollute the envi-
ronment, deny adequate education to chil-
dren, deny benefits to eligible residents,
deny due process and voting fights to citi-
zens, or operate a justice system that is not
in conformance with other localities. Man-
dates are a necessary means by which to
achieve these goals and are both the fight
and the obligation of Congress. However,
the proiderafion of mandates has also made
it clear that local govemments are being
saddled with an ever expanding load of
roles and requirements whose cost over
time is enormous.
MANDATES GLOSSARY
Mandate Type
Vertical
Horizontal
Legislative
Administrative
or Regulatory
Judicial
Constitutional
Active
Restrictive
Traditional
Direct Order
Condition of Aid*
Programmatic
Procedural
Meaning
Applies to one program or activity
Applies to many or all programs or activities
Enacted by Congress
Imposed by agencies empowered to make
rules
Imposed by the courts
Contained or based on the Constitution
Requires the recipient unit to do
something
Prevents the recipient unit from doing
something
Not in law, but custom
(presumed enforceable)
Locality is subject to penalty for
noncompliance
In order to receive a benefit, must comply
Require provision of'a program, its
quantity or quality
Set forth how a unit implements a program
Example
Discharge standards for wastewater
treatment plant effluents
Compliance with provisions of
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Most federal mandates fall
into this category
Clean air, water and landfill
regulations. They are often "passed
through" from federal to state to local
The Garcia decision - compensatory
time may not be substituted for hours
worked beyond normal
Commerce Clause precludes local regula-
tion of truck sizes and weights
Testing for broad range of drinking water
contaminants
Volume cap on Industrial Development
Bonds; restrictive definition of eligibility
for public purpose municipal bonds
Providing police security for visiting
government officials
Fines and sanctions for noncompliance
with ADA requirements
Require lead paint testing and abatement
in local housing plans to receive
federal housing and community develop-
ment assistance
Locally administered food stamp
program requirements
Corrosion control (lead abatement)
procedures for drinking water distribu-
tion systems
* Because conditions of aid may be resisted without penalty, they would not be considered a mandate under a penalty-based definition.
IL · I, t ,&
A PmMER ON MANDA S
Achp~l from "M~nda~es: Keeping Citizens Aw~r~." by .Mn~ M. Kelly; An Issues and Options ~pon by ~h~ N~tion~l Le~gu~ of Cifi~
Of all the issues that engage local govern-
ment officials, none is more contentious
than mandates. Mandat~ go to the heart of
what goveming is all about---autonomy and
money. Local officials recognize the need
for the policies that ensure basic and equal
protection for all citizens and are ~villing to
help implement those policies. In return,
they generally ask for two things. The lust
is the ability to implement the policy cou-
sistent with local needs and conditions,
and the second is financial assistance to
Unfunded manda~s place additional bur-
dens on already fiscally stressed local gov-
ernments. They have also strained the in-
tergovernmental relationship, making
innovative partnership approaches to pro-
riding services and paying for them simul-
taneously more necessary and more diffi-
cult.
What is a Mandate?
The two most broadly used definitions are
based on either cost or penalty. Cost-based
defmifiom begin with some variation of
the theme "any statute or nde requiring a
local expenditme of funds or restricting lo-
cal revenue rates or bases...."
A weakness of a simple cost-based deft-
nition is that it reduces important argu-
ments about mandates to money. When
the definition is cost-based, discussions
will center on whether or not the man-
date has a cost and what that cost will
be. This is especially troublesome as
many manda_!es require localities to use
their existing resources differently or
more intensively. Because of the prolif-
eration of mandates, local governments
bear very high cumulative costs but
very low marginal costs. A cost-based
definition might not recognize the bur-
den of these mandates at all.
An alternative approach is a penalty-based
definition. Rather than ask "will it cost
money?" a penalty-based definition
asks "must I comply'?." The latter is
much easier to answer decisively than
the former. This test for the mandate is
whether the locality can legally resist it.
For instance, some would argue that if a
law impacts the private sector as well as lo-
cal governments, it cannot be considen:d a
mandate. A penalty-based definition settles
that argument in shor~ order. The only dis-
advantage is that a definition based on pen-
alty tends to reveal the volume of existing
mandates, some of which are not important
to the local government. However, thee is
a strong argument to be made that ff you
aggregate all the "little" mandat~ their
cost would apl~:~ch if not exceed the cost
of the few %ig" mandates.
So What?
Is this whole issue, as some contend, really
all about money? Weft, yes and no. Money
spent on compliance with federal man-
dates is money that cannot be spent on lo-
cal priorities. So cost is a central issue, but
it is opportunity cost displacement caused
by the mandate that chafes~the preclusion
of spending the money on programs or ser-
vices valued by the local constituency. If
local priorities wee equivalent to federally
mandated priorities, money spent on com-
sponsibility for programs and services
when there is popular support for them at
the local level. So the manda__t~ issue is
more accurately about different imodties
and the foregone oppommities they create.
However, the fiscal implications are enor-
mous. The~ is the loss of local tax dollars
that might have been applied to other more
dates that limit the ways in which locali-
ties raise revenue, putting some potentially
lucrative and relatively pain free taxes off
limits. These revenue exclusions and
emptions have the effect of forcing mc~ in-
tensive use of the much hated property tax.
Another serious and often ignored fiscal
consequence of mandates is that of loss of
flexibility. When mandates are procedur-
al--telling the locality not what to do, but
how to do it~it should not come as a sur-
prise that Congress or federal agencies are
not the best judge of how to nm the busi-
ness of local government. Some local
governments call this "mandated ineffi-
ciency" ---the preclusion by law or rule
from taking the most efficient path toward
the service or program goal. Not surprising,
the administrative routines mandated for a
city of 500,000 may not be as workable for
a city of 500. Even seemingly innocuous
procedural mandates have their conse-
quences. One law requires a social service
agency to keep a copy of certain reconts. A
copy is defined by statute in such a way as
to prevent the use of computer records or
microfiche, altemative~ fax less expensive
than the maintenance of paper copies.
F'mally, and most critically, the biggest
"so what" of manclat~s is the loss of re-
sponsiveness in local government toward
its citizens. Local governments have consis-
tently been shown to be more responsive
to citizen preferences for taxes and services
than the federal government. Poll respon-
dents are far more likely to say that their
local government is more responsive to
their needs and is more open to their input
than federal govemment. Local officials of-
ten point out that they see their constitu-
ents on the streeL dine with them, worship
with them, and hear about problems daily.
Governing, for these elected officials, is
with conflicting goals in negotiation and
compromise. When mandate~ preclude the
use of local resources toward the essential
function of government, local government
~ the trust and the confidence of its
people.
All that having been said, it is critical to
note that mandates are a necessary pa~ of
~tta~ovemmental relations. No locality
should have the right to pollute the envi-
ronment, deny adequate education to chil-
dren, deny benefits to eligible residents,
deny due process and voting fights to citi-
zens, or operate a justice system that is not
~t~ are a necessary means by which to
achieve these goals and are both the tight
and the obligation of Congress. However,
the proliferation of mandates has also made
it clear that local governments are being
saddled with an ever expanding load of
roles and requirements whose cost over
Reversing Federal
Mandates
Unfunded mandates have become the single largest financial
burden on the nation's cities and towns. The increasing number
of federal mandates has forced many local governments to raise
taxes, increase utility bills, and cut services to pay for the costs
of implementation.
Over the past few years, the number of mandates has increased
substantially while funding from federal and state governments has
decreased dramatically. At the same time, the federal government is
actively pursuing compliance with these legislative mandates.
No city can afford to fund all the pending federal requirements within the
foreseeable future, let alone within the legislated timetables.
When there was a federal-state-local partnership to finance the costs of
federally-imposed mandates, the nation made great progress in meeting
national goals and objectives. This partnership has ended and has been
replaced by dictates from the federal government to states and local
governments.
We need to change the nature of this aebate.
When federal standards are established, the federal government must
assure that local governments have adequate capacity and time to
achieve those standards. We need to work together to achieve these
shared goals.
Percentage of Public Expenditures by Level
of Government for Environmental Standards
1981.2000
State 6%
~ EPA
Local ~
76%
1981 Total Spending=
$35 Billion
State 5% State 5%
~ EPA ~ EPA
Local ~ Local ~
82% 87%
1987 Total Spending= 2000 Total
$40 Billion Estimated Spending=
$55 Billion
Source A Preliminary Analysis of the Pubhc Costs of Enwronmental Protection 1981-2000 O S EP~ May 1990
Increase in Water and Sewer Bills in Quincy, Mass.
Annual Charge Per Household
1400
$1,300
1200
1000
8O0
6OO
$587
400
2OO
$181
0
1986 1993 Proj. 2000
NATIONAL UNFUNDED
MANDATES DAY
October 27, 1993
COUNT lVlE IN!
[~1 YES, our community will participate in
National Unfunded Mandates Day on October
27, 1993. We will organize events in our
community to educate citizens and members of
Congress about the tremendous financial and
administrative burdens unfunded federal
mandates impose on our local government and
our taxpayers.
{~] YES, please send me a kit with background
materials to help us get started immediately in
our community.
Name
Title
Address
City
Zip
Signature
State
Note: To receive your local organizer's packet
of information on mandates, return this
postage-paid reply card today!
For more information, call (202) 626-3020.
Join the Mandates Militia!
Estimate! Agitate!
Demonstrate! Educate!