Loading...
1993-12-22December 20, 1993 SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE is hereby given that the Mound City Council will hold a Special Emergency Closed Council Meeting on Wednesday evening, December 22, 1993, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. The purpose of this special emergency closed meeting will be to discuss matters relating to litigation with Dakota Rail. Francene C. Clark, CMC, City Clerk This notice was called in to the following newspapers on December 20, 1993: The Laker The Sailor Wayzata Weekly. This notice was also posted at City Hall. , lZ,;ZO/93 14:30 P'AI 61Z 472 O§ZO CITY OF /~IOUND ~001 ACTIVITY REPORT TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE TIME PAGES RESULT 5869 12/20 14:29 01'11 2 OK 94720516 CITY of MOUND 534~ MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND M',NNESOTA 55364 ~612~472 0600 FAX,6~2 4720620 FAX COVER SHEET FAX #: FROM: DATE: SU~E~ # of Pages to Follow: COMMENTS: I I, ,I, L;l'l'~ UI~' IYI_UUINI) I~. UUI *** ACTIVITY REPORT $** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID START TIME USAGE TIME PAGES RESULT 5868 12/20 14:26 00'50 2 OK 99351452 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472 0620 December 20, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council Ed Shukle, City Manager DAKOTA RAIL - SPECIAL EMERGENCY CLOSED MEETING Pursuant to our telephone conversations held today, we are scheduled for a special emergency closed meeting on Wednesday, December 22, 1993, at 6:00 P.M. at Mound City Hall. Enclosed is the order signed by Judge Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum for your review. If you have any questions, please contact me. enc. J~ printe, d on rscVck-~ p~pet STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Dakota Rail, Inc., vs. City of Mound, Defendant. The above-entitled matter came on before the Honorable Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum on November 8, 1993 pursuant to the p~rties' cross-motions for Summary Judgment. Allen D. Barnard, Esq.'appeared on behalf of the plaintiff Dakota Rail, Inc. Jeffrey R. Brauchle, Esq. appeared on behalf of the defendant City of Mound. Based upon the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. 3. Defendant's Motion to have the Condemnation award limited to the contract price is denied. 4. Defendant's Motion to have the condemnation appeal declared moot is denied. 5. Defendant's breach of contract counterclaim is dismissed on the merits with prejudice. 6. Trial on the Condemnation Appeal will proceed as scheduled on the January 1994 trial block. 7. The attached memorandum is incorporated herein. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY ~arilyn-Br~n' Ro~enbaum Judge of District Court M~MORANDUM Standard for Summary Judqment: Under Rule 56 of the Minnesota Rules of civil Procedure, a party moving for s~,mmary judgment must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. M.R.Civ. P. 56.03. The moving party carries the burden of proof and persuasion to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc., 291 Minn. 145, 190 N.W.2d 77 (9171). The motion must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Any doubt regarding the existence of a material fact must be resolved in favor of its existence. Rathbun v. W.T. Grant Co., 300 Minn. 233, 219 N.W.2d 641 (1974). The Minnesota Supreme Court has long held that summary judgment is appropriate in contract disputes, where the terms of the provisions are not ambiguous or uncertain. Blattner v. Forster, 322 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. 1982). "Ambiguity exists if a contract is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction." I_~d. at 321, citing Employees Liability Assurance Corporation v. Morse, 261 Minn. 259, 264, 111 N.W.2d 620, 625 (1961). In order to be ambiguous, all differing interpretations of the contract must be reasonable. Collins Truck Lines, Inc. v. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 274 N.W.2d 123 (1979). The contract at issue here is clear and unambiguous. Statement of Facts: After extensive negotiations between the parties, Plaintiff Dakota Rail (Dakota) and Defendant the City of Mound (Mound) executed a Lease Extension and Option to Purchase (Agreement) on September 14, 1990. This Agreement related to property located in downtown Mound and provided for, among other things, an Option in favor of Mound to purchase four (4) parcels of land for the sum of $235,000.00. The Agreement provided in pertinent part: 7. TITLE. Within forty-five (45) days after execution of this agreement, Seller shall furnish to Buyer, at Buyer's expense, an Owner's Title Insurance Commitment naming Buyer as proposed insured ("Commitment"). Buyer shall have ten (10) days after receipt of the Commitment policy within which to determine the marketability of title to the Property and to make reasonable objections ("Objection") thereto, if any, which Objection shall be made in writing. If the title to the Property is found to be unmarketable, Seller shall have thirty (30) days to cure the Objection. If the Objection is not so cured or waived by Buyer, then this Agreement shall be mull [sic] and void and all earnest money shall-be refunded to Buyer upon demand. The Agreement also provided: 9. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE. At closing, Seller shall deliver to Buyer a quit claim deed conveying title. 18. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ...b. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contain the final and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the option to purchase, lease extension, and sale and purchase of the Property, and are intended to be an integration of all prior negotiations and understandings. Buyer, Seller, and its agents shall not be bound by any terms, conditions, statements, warranties or representations, oral or written, not contained herein. No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the parties hereto. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and is signed by the party against which it is sought to be enforced. On October 25, 1990, Mound exercised its Option to Purchase and Dakota furnished Mound with a title insurance commitment. The title opinion identified a certain mortgage, a contract for deed and liens. Mound notified Dakota of its objections to the condition of the title, specifically a mortgage held by the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") and a contract for deed with the McLeod County Rail Authority ("MCRA"). Two of the parcels were encumbered by liens which secured a mortgage held by MnDOT. On December 7, 1990, Dakota contacted the MnDOT, the mortgage holder, to request a release of the mortgages. MnDOT refused Dakota's request. Dakota continued to pursue the release and granted Mound-a two month extension of the closing date. Dakota offered MnDOT $18,000.00, estimated by Dakota to represent 100% of the proceeds from the sale of the two encumbered parcels. MnDOT again refused. Eventually, MnDOT was persuaded to release its claims on the property if 100% of the proceeds from the sale of the two mortgaged parcels was paid to the MCRA and MnDOT to reduce Dakota's mortgage. The MCRA valued the parcels at $50,000.00. Dakota rejected this proposal. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Dakota returned the earnest money it received from Mound. This litigation followed in the form of Dakota's Quiet Title action. Mound counterclaimed seeking specific performance of a contract to purchase land in the City (Count I); alleging a breach of contract (Count II); and alleging claims of fraud, misrepresentation and deceit against Dakota (Count III). Mound withdrew Count III. Count I was rendered moot by the condemnation proceeding brought by Mound on September 6, 1991. Decision: This is a simple matter wrapped in layers of confusion. The parties have focused on issues of quit claim versus warranty deed and the connection between a quit claim deed and ,,marketable title". The Court however will focus on the breach of contract claim by viewing the written agreement as the full evidence of the contract between the parties. Under the specific terms of the Agreement, once objection was made and not cured by Dakota or waived by Mound, the Agreement was null and void and the earnest money was to be refunded to Mound on demand. The Agreement required Dakota to convey and Mound to receive a quit claim deed at closing. However, closing never took place. The Agreement did not require marketable title, it only stated that after receipt of the commitment, Mound was to determine marketability of title and make objections. The remedies available to Mound were clear and fully negotiated between the parties. If the objection was not cured by Dakota or waived by Mound, the earnest money was to be refunded. Mound received its earnest money and no other remedy was available under the Agreement. Dakota did not breach the terms of the Agreement. Mound was made whole and received its full remedy. The issue of the type of title to be conveyed at closing is moot. M.B.R. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN city of Mound, vs. ~? ~EC I~ ~R~8 JUDICIAL DISTRICT .......... ~£~!~-- ~'~ mi ~ ....... Plaintiff, ORDER FOR JURY TRIAL File No. CD 2226 Dakota Rail, Inc., Defendant. The above-entitled matter is set for Jury trial during the period beginning January 10, 1994 and ending February 25, 1994, before the Honorable Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum. Cases will be called for trial in the order of assignment unless counsel is ~ngaged in another trial. III · IV. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: I. This case is subject to being called for trial on a two-hour notice during the time period it is scheduled. When the case is called for trial all attorneys and parties must be present. In addition, there must be present a representative with full settlement authority from any insurance company involved in this litigation. II. A continuance will not be granted except for the most extraordinary and unforeseeable events. Request for a continuance and reasons therefore must be submitted in writing to the undersigned within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice, and a copy of the request furnished to all other parties or their attorneys within the time provided. If the case is not heard during the time period indicated, an amended Order will be sent. Counsel shall immediately notify this Court in writing of any disposition of the case prior to trial. To assist the Court, counsel and parties in achieving a just, speedy and less costly determination of cases pending before this Court, IT IS ~EREB¥ ORDERED: that counsel shall meet and accomplish the following, and serve one copy of the following documents on opposing counsel and deliver two copies to Judge Rosenbaum's chambers on or before ~994, seven (7) days prior to the beginning of this trial period. If counsel have not met, they shall certify to the Court, in writing, the reasons for non-compliance. Compliance with this Order shall include: Exhibit lis~: Counsel shall exchange and file with the Court a list of exhibits which will be offered in evidence and produce exhibits for examination and copying. Pursuant to section Minnesota General Rules of Practice §12(d) (Minnesota civil Trialbook), all exhibits shall be marked for identification in a single series of consecutive Ar&~i¢ numbers without designation of the party by whom it is being offered. Counsel shall submit a list of agreed upon exhibits. If agreement cannot be reached as to the receipt in evidence of any exhibit, counsel shall identify these exhibits on a separate list and specify in a memorandum the grounds for objection, with authorities, for each such exhibit. This separate list and memorandum shall be filed with the Court. Exhibits to Jurors: Exhibits which a party contends are subject to cursory examination, or critical examination by the jury pursuant to Minnesota General Rules of Practice §12 (Minnesota civil Trialbook) shall be identified. If counsel do not agree as to cursory or critical examination by jurors, memoranda shall be submitted to the Court with copies of the proposed evidence to be published to the jury. e Witness list: Counsel shall exchange and file with the Court a list of witnesses to be called during its case-in-chief as well as possible rebuttal witnesses. This list shall include a short statement of the substance of the testimony of each witness. Expert witnesses: For witnesses proposed to be experts, counsel shall submit the curriculum vitae or resume of each such expert. Absent specific leave of the Court, the expert may not present more than five minutes of professional qualification. It is anticipated that the parties will stipulate to expertise, although in appropriate cases, voir dire or cross-examination of an expert's qualification may be permitted; said examination may go beyond the direct oral testimony as to qualification. List of deposition testimony: The parties shall file with the Court designated portions of any depositions, whether printed or videotaped, which are proposed to be offered at trial, citing specific pages and lines of each such deposition. At trial, a copy of deposition testimony read into the record shall be submitted as a Court exhibit. Aqreed upon deposition testimony: When counsel have reached agreement as to the content of any deposition which is admissible, they shall jointly draft a narrative statement of relevant testimony which would be given if the deponent were to testify. This narrative statement may be read to the jury as stipulated substantive evidence in lieu of the actual deposition. Objections to deposition testimonY: Counsel shall list objections to any deposition testimony in memoranda form, and shall specify separately as to each challenged portion of the deposition applicable case law and rules supporting the objection· If a party fails to comply with this requirement, the challenged deposition testimony shall be deemed admitted. Stipulations: Counsel shall stipulate as to, and list jointly, all uncontested facts, and matters not in controversy. Trial memorandum: Counsel shall furnish the Court with a trial memorandum that includes disputed issues of law with authorities. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Motions in limine: Counsel shall furnish the Court with memoranda regarding any motions in limine so that the Court may rule on these matters prior to the date set for trial. Charts or diaqrams to be used in openinq or closinq: Pursuant to Minnesota General Rules of Practice §8 (Minnesota civil Trialbook), these items shall be exchanged or made available for viewing by opposing counsel. Proposed ~ury instructions: Counsel shall furnish the Court with each proposed instruction. These shall be numbered and on a separate page and shall contain citation to legal authority. If the proposed instruction is contained in the Jury Instruction Guide, reference to the number of the instruction is sufficient. Proposed special verdict forms: Counsel shall furnish the Court with requested verdict forms. If the proposed question is contained in the Verdict Forms of the Jury Instruction Guide, reference to its number is sufficient. Jury selection: Counsel shall advise the court in writing as to issues regarding peremptory challenges and as to any requested jury voir dire, it being the intention of the Court to conduct the examination, allowing further inquiry as the Court deems proper, pursuant to Rule 47.01 of the Rules of civil Procedure. ComDuter Discs: Proposed special verdict forms and jury instructions may be submitted to the Court on 3.5 inch computer discs using either Word Perfect or Microsoft Works programs. Original hard copies must still be filed with the Court. Failure to comply. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions, to include striking of pleadings, refusal to submit certain designated claims or defenses, exclusion of exhibits, prevention of a witness from testifying or any other Order the Court deems appropriate, including dismissal of the action or entry of default judgment. A failure to furnish proposed jury instructions and/or proposed verdict forms shall be deemed a waiver by each party as to the right to trial by jury on the issue so omitted pursuant to the provisions of Rule 49.01(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Continuances. Counsel shall be prepared to offer evidence in a timely manner. The Court will not grant continuances to produce witnesses or evidence except in the most extraordinary circumstances. If a witness is unavailable to testify at trial, depositions shall be taken for use at trial, pursuant to the Minnesota Rules of Court, subject to Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 herein, and a copy shall be provided to the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that absent written objection filed with this Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, each counsel, on behalf of his or her clients, agrees that: 1. Entry of judgment on a general verdict or an order for judgment based on a special verdict may be stayed for 30 days from and after the date of the verdict. 2. A sealed verdict may be returned in the event that court is not in session. The jury will return the verdict at the next session of the Court. 3. The presence of the clerk and reporter, the right to poll the jury and the right to have the verdict immediately recorded and filed in open court are waived. 4. A 5/6ths verdict may be returned after six hours from the time the jury retires to commence its deliberations excluding time required for meals, recesses or further instructions. Se Dated: Any other judge of District Court may receive and accept the return of the verdict if the presiding judge is unavailable for any reason. ~arilyn B~$w~ Rbsenbaum Judge of ~istrict Court Refer all questions to: (612) 348-8779 ~2, .1 il I~ · It, ! ,I, MARTIN OLAV SABO 5th District, Minnesota 2336 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-4755 462 Federal Courts Building 110 South 4th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 348-1649 December 16, 1993 COMMITTEE ON BUDGET Chairman COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Subcommittees: Defense Transportation Treasury-Postal Service-General Government DEPUTY MAJORITY WHIP The Honorable Skip Johnson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 DEC 2 0 1993 Dear Mayor Johnson: Thank you for contacting me to express your conce~s about the impact of federal legislative and regulatory mandates on state and local governments. I appreciate hearing from you. As you know, budgets are tight at all levels of government. It is clear that we must examine our goals and find ways to achieve them with fewer resources. Intergovernmental cooperation is essential if we are to succeed. I also agree that Congress must become more sensitive to costs when examining the effectiveness of federal programs. In some cases, it may be appropriate to permit greater flexibility for state and local governments to meet federal goals. However, I do not believe that a ban on "unfunded federal mandates" would produce the universally desired result of more effective government at all levels° Congress shares with state and local governments the responsibility to ensure that basic needs and minimum standards of health and safety are available for all Americans. We must work together to accomplish these goals. Earlier this fall, Vice President Gore presented a report on ~he results of the National Performance Review (NPR), a study containing 800 recommendations intended to make the federal government more efficient and economical. A number of 9overnment reform proposals were incorporated into H.R. 3400, the Government Reform and Savings Act, which the House of Representatives passed on November 22, 1993. House committees will continue their review of the NPR recommendations when Congress reconvenes in January. In addition, Congress is reviewing a number of major environmental laws, including the Superfund, Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water laws. Successful reauthorization of these measures will require meaningful input from state and local 9overnments in the comin9 months. You may also be aware that the proposed Penny-Kasich amendment to H.R. 3400 would have increased Medicare recipients' costs, resultin9 in an indirect increase of $5.1 billion in the states' share of Medicaid costs. THIS PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS -- PLEASE RECYCLE The Honorable Skip Johnson December 16, 1993 Page 2 For this and a number of other reasons, I strongly opposed the Penny-Kasich amendment, which was ultimately rejected by the House. Thank you again for your letter. I understand your concerns, and I will keep them in mind as the House examines these important issues. Sincerely, Martin 01ay Sabo Member of Congress MOS:rb DEC 199;,.3 12-20-93 Edward Shukle City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Last year, in response to the LMCD license fee increase to the multiple docks, our group was formed and engaged legal counsel to prevent the LMCD from charging beyond their legal authority. After some discussion with the LMCD and several appearances by our lawyer, we agreed to accept a reduction in fees for 1993 by 33.5% (from $15 per WSU to $10 per WSU). Two other decisions were made during that time: 1) They will be implementing an accounting system to track the cost of issuing and implementing the multiple dock license; 2) They will defer 80% of the license fee to the spring of the year in leu of prepaying the license the year prior to the boating season. Several members of our group followed up on the agreement by meeting with the LMCD regularly. Grays Bay Marina, Rockvam Boat Yards, Shorewood Yacht Club, and Tonka Bay Marina attended most of the meetings. We are awaiting the final results of the LMCD accounting before we call a Multiple Dock meeting. As a point of interest, there are several law suits at the present time in the courts regarding the same issue with several municipalities that we are keeping an eye on. We feel these suits will reduce our litigating cost if it should become necessary. December 16, 1993 Garsten Management Corporation l~r(~fcssional real estate rnanagement Ferner Johnson, Mayor City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 On behalf of the Lakewinds Condominium Association and Garsten Management Corporation, I am writing to thank you for supporting the conditional use permit to allow Lakewinds residents to use the Donnies lot. This will provide much-needed overflow parking for Lakewinds residents and guests. Given the fact that the Lakewinds Association only has 266 parking spaces (including garages, handicapped spaces and visitor spaces) for 191 condominium homes, the option for residents to park their cars in the Donnies lot will alleviate a great deal of congestion. At the present time, we are doing everything we can to make certain that the conditions for this conditional use permit are adhered to. Specifically, we have asked the Turnquists to provide us with written authorization to tow and remove vehicles. Currently, we are unable to get a towing service to remove a boat from the site because we do not have written permission from the owners to show to the towing company. We are, however, using other means at our disposal. For example, a pontoon boat and trailer (with a broken axle) are currently parked at the site and have dealer plates. We have been able to track down the owner's wife. We learned, however, that he is seperated from her and living with his mother in Hopkins. We were not able to get a phone number from his wife. As soon as we are able to reach him, we will strongly ask him to remove this unauthorized boat and trailer. Any other unauthorized vehicles, boats trailers, etc. will be towed as soon as we are able to secure the necessary written permission from the Turnquists. In the mean time, we will attempt to track down owners of offending vehicles and ask them to remove their vehicles, trailers, or boats. Our on-site coordinator is available at the following numbers should any problems or questions Diane Maloney office: 472-7777 cellular: 720-4834 She is prepared to take immediate action if ever contacted regarding a problem. If she is unavailable, please contact our office at 646-1515. 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 110 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114-1052 FAX (612) 646-8947 (612) 646-1515 Thank you again for supporting and passing the resolution to approve a conditional use permit for the Lakewinds Association. Michael A. Koch Property Manager LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT December 21, TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 1993 City Administrators LMCD Member Cities Gene Strommen~~,~ "Shorezone" Public Education Signs at Accesses and 1993 LMCD Highlights Report ACCESS SIGNAGE ON VEHICLE SHORE TRAVEL. An effort to communicate a long-standing LMCD ordinance governing motorized vehicle travel on Lake Minnetonka is now underway. Signs have been placed at public accesses and certain accesses open only during winter months which state: NO MOTORIZED VEHICLE TRAVEL WITHIN 150' OF SHORE LMCD Ordinance 3.11, Sub. 4 Lake access is permitted where these signs are posted. message is directed at "TRAVEL" along the shore. The You will also find it helpful to review the "Shorezone" paragraphs in the Lake Minnetonka winter rules flyer on the inside pages 2 and 3. More detail is contained as to keeping vehicle speeds within narrow areas of the lake where the width may be 300 ' or less limited to ]5 mph. This would cover channels and other restricted lake areas. The Sheriff's Water Patrol knows of the public awareness we are trying to develop on keeping vehicle travel away from shore. This hopefully will preserve the near-shore area for passive uses such as cross country skiing, ice skating and walking.. If you have a winter access where you believe a sign should be placed, please let us know. 1993 LMCD REPORT HIGHLIGHTS. The enclosed news release covers highlights of LMCD's more significant actions dealing with public issues this year. They will be appearing in the weekly newspapers soon. We want you to have a copy so you are aware internally. You are encouraged to circulate them to your elected officials as well. Best wishes for the holidays and for a productive new year! P.S. If you need more sets of Winter Rules, please call Jan or JoAnn, 47,3~7033 j, · i,, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT December 20, 1993 News Release Contact: SUBJECT: 1993 Lake Minnetonka Report Highlights Gene Strommen 473-7033 Closing out the 1993 program year for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) board of directors marks the organization's 26th anniversary. Priorities have shifted during these years, but the needs are similar -- preserve the lake's environmental and recreational values. Anticipating these needs, as well as finding ways to correct the course this year under the leadership of 1993 Chair Dave Cochran, Greenwood, resulted in the following actions taken by the LMCD board: > New ordinance adopted prohibiting non-encased molded polystyrene foam in floating structures -- docks, boat moorings, swim rafts, similar uses. > Joint Lake Minnetonka Dredging Policy statement adopted by the MN DNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and LMCD. > Minimum wake area extended from the Kings Point public boat launch access to reduce nearby shoreline disturbance. > Agreement reached with Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management to place green navigational lights at the Narrows Channel entrances. > Three-year terms for board members adjusted so expirations occur on a staggered basis. > Quarterly meetings initiated with LMCD member city mayors. 1993 LMCD LAKE MINNETONKA REPORT HIGHLIGHTS, 12/20/93, P. 2 > Lake Access Task Force Study completed with recommendations to LMCD Lake Access Committee for final report compilation. > High water emergency "minimum wake" ordinance adopted to protect shoreline from erosion, lasting about seven weeks. > Watercraft decibel level limit reduced from 82 dba to 80 dba to improve the lakeshore aesthetic environment. Loud boats are not welcome! > Save the Lake Fund financed lake environment projects by: * Co-sponsoring an extensive 1993 "Secchi disc" water clarity/temperature monitoring with the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Assn. and the Freshwater Foundation -- * Providing a partial matching grant for a Hennepin Parks surface water runoff study from lake area golf courses - * Promoting water safety use of personal flotation devices through a "PFD" whistle supply to Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol -- * Providing "state of the art" radar guns to Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol to monitor boat speeds -- * Installing educational signs at winter shore accesses advising access users "No Motorized Vehicle Travel Within 150' of Shore" is allowed, in an effort to protect passive shore zone walking, skiing and skating. Vehicles are permitted on the ice with travel and speed restrictions. 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA REPORT HIGHLIGHTS, 12/20/93, P. 3 * Partially funded year five of the Eurasian water milfoil weed harvesting operation. * Continuing to supply winter and summer lake rules to lake users through public access boxes, city halls, bait shops and lake-related businesses. > Environment Con~nittee received board support to engage a technical specialist to develop an action plan addressing Lake Minnetonka Management Plan objectives and policies. Administratively, the board processed a range of variance requests and new dock licenses and amendments to licenses throughout the year. A watercraft inventory of boats stored in the water or slides contiguous to the water reached a 15 year high of 8,883, the previous high being 8,796 in 1986. 1994 LMCD Chair Bill Johnstone, Minnetonka, looks forward to building on the work in process. He continues to seek municipal, agency and citizen feedback on priorities which LMCD is addressing or should consider in its current and future plans. Comments may be mailed to the LMCD chair, 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Rm. 160, Wayzata MN 55391. LMCD staff may be reached by phone at 473-7033. Thank you for your interest, and the best for a successful new year!