1990-07-24 CC Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL PACKET - -7 -24 -90 #1
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
• A O E N D A
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7 :30 PoN. TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
CITY COUNCIL CnNBRR8
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
2.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 10, 1990
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING.
Pg.
2126 -2130
3.
PUBLIC EEARINGt DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS.
Pg.
2131 -2132
4.
CURB & GUTTER ISSUE - MR. JIM LUGER, 6195
SINCLAIR ROAD.
5.
CASE #67 -6531 JOHN NED & DIXIE DOW, 4994 MANCHESTER
ROAD, LOT 12, BLOCK 33, WYCHWOOD,
PID #24- 117 -24 42 0005.
REQUEST: VARIANCE - LOT SIZE
Pg.
2133 -2153
6.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
AN ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS
•
AND PROPERTY, 4748 HAMPTON ROAD.
Pg.
2154 -2169
7.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
8. PnOPOSED TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR CITY HALL AND OTHER
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES. Pg. 2170 -2191
9. REPORT FROM CITY PLANNER, MARK KOEGLER, ON SHORELAND
MANAGEMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE DNR SHORELAND
MANAGEMENT RULING. Pg. 2192 -2205
10. REPORT OF THE 1990 MISSION AND MEMBERSHIP SERVICES
TASK FORCE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITIES (AM). Pg. 2206 -2228
11. REQUEST TO ALTER LOCATION OF COMMONS DOCK -
WATERSIDE COMMONS - MELVIN & BRAD SOHNS Pg. 2229 -2269
12. RESOLUTION — CDBG SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT —
YEAR XVI. Pg. 2270 -2295
13. RESOLUTION RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS TO
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC ALCTION AND CERTIFYING
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Pg. 2296 -2300
• 14. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM
THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS. Pg. 2301 -2303
Page 2124
15. BID AWARD: 1990 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
(TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING)
16. APPROVAL OF LICENSES: 'WR LADY OF THE LAKE CATHOLIC CHURCH
- PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT
- TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR Pg. 2304
17. PAYMENT OF BILLS. Pg. 2305 -2319
18. INPORXAT I ON, /NI BCa LLANNOUS
A. Financial Report for June 1990, as prepared
by John Norman, Finance Director. Pg. 2320 -2321
B. L.M.C.D. Mailings. (NOTE: Public Officials
Lake Tour i Luncheon - August 4, 1990.) Pg. 2322
C. Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 1990. Pg. 2323 -2326
D. Park i Open Space Commission Meeting Minutes
of July 12, 1990. Pg. 2327 -2329
E. Brochure on the 1990 Congress of Cities and
Exposition (National League of Cities).
If you are interested in attending, please
contact Fran soon so hotel reservations can
be arranged. Pg. 2330 -2334
• F. gNNUMQa$: C.O.W. meeting is schhed for
om_ _ _- �
Tuesday, August 21, 1990. - Q D
G. ZMLM $: Joint meeting of the City Council, Economic
Development Commission and Planning Commission,
Tuesday, August 7, 1990, at 7:00 P.M.
H. $$: The first meeting of the Smoking Policy
Committee will be held on Tuesday, July 24, 1990,
at 6:00 P.M., preceding the City Council Meeting.
I will bring in some pizza for dinner so plan on
eating during the meeting. The Committee is:
Councilmember Andrea Ahrens
Councilmember Skip Johnson
Fran Clark, City Clerk
Greg Skinner, Sewer i Water Supt.
John McKinley, Police Investigator
Judy Fisher, Senior Account Clerk
Ed Shukle, City Manager
•
Page 2125
105
• July 10, 1990
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 10, 1990
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, not in
regular session on Tuesday, July 10, 1990, in the 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., City Clerk
Fran Clark, Attorney Curt Pearson, Finance Director John Norman,
and the following interested citizens: Jim Costello, Jim Luger,
Tom Berry, Meredith Betlach, Marjorie Hoag, Ted Stallman, Doug
Anderson, and Peter Johnson.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcored the people in
attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 KIM38
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to approve the
minutes of the June 26, 1990, Regular Meeting, as submitted.
• The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1 CASE 90 -924: FRANE BOESE, WESTONEA FOODS, 5229 SHORELINE
DRIVE. LOTS 7 -20 AND 26 -35, SHIRLEY HILLS
UNIT F PID #13- 117 -24 34 0072. SIGH VARIANCE
The City Manager stated that the applicant is requesting 20
square foot sign variance. The total area of the sign is
approximately 120 square feet. The code permits wall signs up to
a maximum of 175 square feet in area with each individual sign
not exceeding 100 square feet. The standard sign combined with
the existing IGA sign appears to be under the maximum 175 square
foot of sign area allowed by the code. The Staff and the
Planning Commission recommended approval because the 120 square
foot sign seems to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the ordinance.
Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -76 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE
FOR WESTONRA FOODS, 5229 SHORELINE
BLVD., LOTS 7 -20 AND 26 -3S, SHIRLEY
HILLS UNIT F PID #13- 117 -24 34 0072, P i
2 CASE #90 -924
4 0
de #ae`
306
JULY 10, 1990 0
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NO PAR =IUD ON TEE NORTE 01i)E O!
LESLIE ROAD BETWEEN MARMSTER ROAD AND BRIGHTON BLVD
The City Manager explained that several residents on Leslie Road
have requested that the "no parking" area be changed from the
south side of the road to the north side of the road. This would
alleviate the problem of people blocking resident's driveways
when using Swenson Park for ball games. The residents also
suggested that the City make an effort to have Community services
restrict the number of games played at this park and to request
that they not overlap games so that two sets of teams are trying
to park and leave at the same time.
Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded tfie following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -77 RESOLUTION ANENDING RESOLUTION #87 -16
WEICE DESIGNATES NO PARKING ZONES
The vote was unanix..,usly in favor. Motion carried.
1.3 REPORT ON NETROPOLITAN TggNgIT COMMISSION'S (MTC) UPCOMING
PUBLIC BEARING ON SERVICE ISSUE
The City Clerk explained that the MTC's public hearing is to •
consider subcontracting service on Route 51 weekend service
between Ridgedale and Mound. The reason for this proposal is
because of the high subsidy paid per passenger for this service.
The Council discussed this item. Mayor Smith will attend the
public hearing to convey the following to the MTC: Mound wants
no cuts in service on this weekend route; no fare increases; and
would like to see more information given by the MTC in the future
on any changes proposed in service for this area. No action was
taken on this item at this time.
The Finance Director explained that this item has been under
consideration since 1989 and now that the building addition is
being done it should be addressed. The current system is 16
years old, not efficient, and has had numerous repair problems.
Other systems have been looked at by the study committee. Four
of the systems were key systems (a box is installed in each
location and the software is run through those boxes). The other
system is the Centrex system where the software is run through
the Contel system at their central office. The Committee is
recommending the Centrex system because of the cost and the many
1 0
Al 27
107
• July 10, 1990
advantages over the key systems.
Jim Costello, Contel, was present and explained the system and
the proa:csal. They would lease the telephone sets to the City
for 6 months and apply that entire lease amount toward the
purchase of the sets beside giving a municipal discount making
the in place purchase price $9,912.00.
The Council discussed the proposal and asked that another quote
be obtained for the Northern Telecom telephone sets that must be
used with the system. This will be brought back to the Council
at the next meeting.
Mr. Jim Luger, 6195 Sinclair Road, and his attorney, Mr. Tom
Berry were present giving background on Mr. Luger problem and
requesting that the City not make him repour the curb and gutter
section of his driveway. The City Attorney suggested that rather
than have the Council make a decision tonight, this item be
referred to the Staff i.e. Street Dept., City Engineer and
Prosecuting Attorney, so that they can be present and advise the
Council on this item.
• NOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to refer the Luger
curb and gutter item to the staff for further input at a
future meeting. The Kay 21st letter from the Prosecuting
]Attorney requesting the curb and gutter be replaced by July
is, 1990, if temporarily suspended pending a decision by the
City Council. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
The City Manager reviewed the background. Mr. Peter Johnson was
present and encouraged the Council to try to get the parking lot
areas out of railroad hands.
The City Manager asked for direction from the Council on whether
to pursue the petition for acquisition of the lots further. The
Council instructed the City Manager to make direct personal
contact with the property owners in the Central Business District
and ask if they want the railroad property parking lots or not.
No action was taken at this time.
•
108
July 10, 1990
Z . .
The City Manager referred to the report asked if the Council was
in favor of hiring an additional staff person which will result
in a dues increase. He stated he feels the AMK is a meaningful
vehicle for the Metro cities and provides many benefits for those
cities. The Council asked how such the increase in dues would
be. The -City Manager stated he will find out and bring this item
back to the Council in the near future.
t,
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve Payment
Request $3 from Shingobee Builders for the City Hall
Addition i Remodeling in the amount of $131,854.54, as
recommended by Steven Jantsen, McCombs Frank Roos. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
•
NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to approve the •
final payment request from Minnetonka Portable Dredging for
the 1990 Maintenance Dredging Project in the amount of
$1,030.50. The vote wa.: unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS
NOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorise the
payment of bills as presented on the pre -list in the amount
of $286,655.06, when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Y3tion carried.
INFORMATIONZMI6CELLANE008
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for June 1990.
B. L.M.C.D. Representative's Monthly Report for June 1990.
C. L.M.C.D. Ma::lings.
D. 1991 Adopted Budget of the L.M.C.D.
E.' Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 1990.
al2q
109
July 10, 1990
F. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) has invited
us to attend a breakfRst meeting on Wednesday, July 18,
1990, 7 :30 A.M., at T. Wrights in Minnetonka. The purpose
of the meeting is to be able to provide direct input to the
AMM on what you think about the organization and its
efforts.
G. NDER No C.O.w. meeting in July. Next C.O.W. meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday, August 21, 1990, starting at 6:00
P.M. with a tour of the Anthony's Floral site.
H. Joint meeting of the City Council, Economic Development
Commission a d Planning Commission, Tuesday, August 7, 1990,
at 7:00 P
NOTION made #y 1hrens, seconded by Jansen to adjourn at 9:25
l[
P.. The v01 Was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
0
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
•
Fran Clark, CMC,
•
N`
00
� t S
Arai
7/19/90
Delinquent Water and Sewer
33
4060 122
$206.11
33
4210 021
74.16
33
4394 244
109.78
33
4600 091
159.80
33
4600 212
136.22
33
4630 212
143.41
33
4630 966
157.28
33
4660 361
79.66
33
4660 421
122.60
33
4690 151
96.01
33
4720 392
123.01
33
4840 513
330.22
33
4842 571
92.87
33
4842 783
217.89
33
5000 183
105.48
33
5030 302
108.69
33
5060 032
102.79
33
5070 061
100.22
33
5150 211
97.64
33
5180 331
98.02
33
5180 392
135.09
33
5300 361
135.44
33
5300 423
207.03
33
5450 051
218.00
33
5510 211
106.83
33
5540 091
122.22
33
5404 486
120.04
is
33
5600 062
.19.91
Arai
0
0
33
5600
121
33
5630
422
33
5630
725
33
5780
121
33
5870
489
33
5900
091
33
5900
181
33
5960
211
33
5990
752
33
6200
961
33
6202
485
33
6202
813
33
6206
031
33
6206
091
33
6206.211
33
6440
062
TOTAL
99.78
154.90
118.29
93.65
93.04
131.78
70.86
150.28
109.33
132.50
162.14
82.83
154.90
86.83
121.50
1414 an
7 -19 -90
a
0213A
7/24/90
Delinquent
hater and Sewer
33
4060
122
Don Pallies
Pa
$206.11
2605
Tyrone Ln.
33
4210
021
Ron Eikaas
Pd.
74.16
4704
Cavan Rd.
33
4394
244
Stefanic /Wolf
Pd.
109.78
4800
Wilshire Blvd.
33
4600
091
James Brou:
159.80
4657
Suffolk Rd.
23
4600
212
Dave Shenkyr
136.22
4669
Suffolk Rd.
33
4630
212
Brad Mc Intyre
143.41
4660
Bedford Rd.
33,4630
966
Kim.Sandberg
157.28
4924
Bedford Rd.
33
4660
361
~ James Grady
79.66
4937
Brunswick Rd.
33
4660
421
.Scott Bischke
Pc+Z.
122.60
4957
Brunswick Rd.
33
4690
151
Peter Surkan
Pd.
96.01
4743
Richmond Rd.
33
4720
392
Robert Ankny
13.01
4555
Dorchester Rd.
33
4840
513
Teresa Torvik
330.22
3073
Tuxedo Blvd.
33
4842
571
Alan Johnson
92.87
4609
Tuxedo Blvd.
33'%R
2
783
Robert Forrest
- 44F.jj
r 94 108.95
4821
Tuxedo Blvd.
33
5000
183
Cindy Smith
105.48
4440
Radnor Rd.
33.503Q
302
Paul Reiland
Pd.
108.69
4452
Lamberton Rd.
33
5060
032
T.J.Williams
102.79
3135
Ayr Ln.
33
5670
061
Leanard Lindblom
Pit.
100.22
4524
Stirling Rd.
33
5150
211
Vince Forystek
97.64
3131
Inverness Rd.
33
5180
331
Ray Coleman
98.02
4709
Hampton Rd.
33
5180
392
Charles Ham
135.A9
4717
Hampton Rd.
33
5300
361
)euan Fowler
135.44
4810
Donald Dr
33
5300
423
Bark Orvik
Pd.
207.03
4823
Donald Dr.
33
5450
051
Dennis Desmond-
218.00
4812
Lanark Rd.
33
5510
211
Richard Maxwell
Pc.
106.83
3087
Alexander Ln.
33
5540
091
Steve Sundquist
PJL
122.22
3033
Dundee Ln.
33
5404
486
Berg /Hayes
Pd.
120.04
3077
Dundee Ln.
33
5600
062
Ken Linquist
219.91
4831
Dale Rd.
33
5600
121
Ralph Burlingame
99.78
4E43
Dale Rd.
33
5630
422
Norman Dbmholt
154.90
3021
Devon Ln.
33
5630
725
Tammy Neuschwander
118.29
3213
Devon Ln.
33
5780
121
Joan Conkey
93.65
2871
Marlboro Ln.
33
5870
489
Bill Sours
93.04
3041
Brighton Blvd.
33
5900
091
Bobbie Robinson
131.78
5110
Windsor Rd.
33
5900
181
Judy Kvalston
70.86
5125
Windsor Rd.
� t
33
5 %. 0
211
Kevin Smith
$150.28
4724
Hanover Rd.
33
5990
752
Dan Mc Anninch
Pd.
149.33
4773
Aberdeen Rd.
33
6200
QA1
R.P.Navarrete
Pk
132.50
4539
Island
View Dr. ,
33.6202
485
Occupant
162.14
4686
Island
View Dr.
33
6202
813
Carole Aunson
Pd.
82.83
4729
Island
View Dr.
33
6205
031
l Kevin Hetchler
Pd.
154.90
4913
Island
View Dr.
33
6206
091
Joe Andrews
86.83
4921
Island
View Dr.
33
6206
211
Mark Werimont
Fj�
121.50
4936
Island
View Dr.
33
6440
062
John Hodena
143.90
$4554:9
3siy.6g
July 24, 1990 •
RESOLUTION 90 -
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE FOR LOT 12, BLOCK 33, WYCHW000,
PID f24- 117 -24 42 0005 (4994 MANCHESTER ROAD),
P i Z CASE NO. 87 -653.
WHEREAS, J. Ned Dow, owner of the property with a total area
of 4,700 square feet has requested a variance in lot size to add
an two story addition of 6.5 feet.to the south of his property and
construct a new deck on the property, all with conforming setbacks
to the property line under the provisions of the Mound Code of
Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, The subject property is located in the R -2 Single
Family Zoning District which requires 6,000 square feet of lot
area, a 6 foot interior side yard setback and a 10 foot side yard
setback abutting the Manchester right -of -way, a 20 foot front yard
setback to Cambridge, a 15 foot rear yard setback to the west with
a 10 foot deck setback; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and •
does recommend approval of the lot size variance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the City does hereby authorize the 1,300 square foot
lot size variance to allow construction of a two story
addition with conforming setbacks for the property
located at 4994 Manchester, PID #24- 111 -24 42 0005.
2. The City Council approves the lot size variance and
authorizes the alteration set forth below pursuant to
23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful
nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 23.404 of the Mound Code of
Ordinances.
3. It is determined that the livability of the residential
unit will be improved by authorizing the following
alterations to a nonconforming use property due to the
size of the parcel:
A two story addition and deck as shown on Exhibit A.
i s
a1063 1
•
4. This variance is granted for the following legally
described property: Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood, PID #24-
117-24 42 0005.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder
with the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant
to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595,
Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction
on how this property may be used.
5. The property owner shall have the responsibility of
filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying
all costs for such recording. Proof of recording shall
be filed with the City Clerk prior to issuance of a
building permit.
E
r:1
DOW.R51
2
w)l33A
EIA
a
Q
r -
x _
w
NW 'v� N M dP40U=25 *40LW\3Ta NW 'ao� tvcu�aov N
s3�►rc�d•� Noy ���°� _— - --- - - -' -- -- -- - -
1
0
N
(
I.
i
M
•
r�
U
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
July 9, 1990
b. Case No. 87 -653: John Ned a Dixie Dow, 4994 Manchester
Road, Lot 12, Block 33. Wychwood, PID 924- 117 -24 -42 0005
VARIANCE: Lot Size - to allow second story addition
The City Manager reviewed the City Planner's recommendation. The
applicant is requesting clarification of Resolution #87 -141, this
resolution does not specify number of stories allowed to be con-
structed. Mr. Dow wishes to construct a two story addition. The
Planner quoted minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July
13, 1987 where Mr. Dow stated "hi-! home is too small to add a
second floor; the first floor would be ruined." Therefore, the
Planner recommended that this request be treated as a new
variance application. not a clarification of previous actions.
The Planner concluded that the proposed second story portion of
the home is along the south side of the lot which has a conform-
ing setback from Manchester. Since the second story wall in this
area will have a conform Ing setback and the addition will not in-
crease the building coverage of the lot, approval of the lot size
variance is recommender. If decking Is part of the new addition,
it should be requireo to observe the required 10 foot setback
from the rear property Ilne.
Thal commented that he recalls this case from 1987, and his
recollection of the case is that the applicant did request a two
story addition, and the two story addition was approved. Mr. Dow
reviewed his recollection of the case.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to approved
staff recommendation for approval of the second story
addition. Motion carried 7 to 1. (Those In favor were:
Clapsaddle, Welland, Mueller, Meyer, Jensen, Voss, and
Michael. Thal abstained.)
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 24, 1990.
ai33C
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: July 2, 1990
SUBJECT: Variance Clarification
APPLICANT: J. Ned Dow
CASE NUMBER: 87 -653
VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A22 -ZO
LOCATION: 4994 Manchester Road
• EXISTING ZONING: Single- Family Residential (R -2)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: In 1987 Mr. Dow received variance approval to
construct an addition along the south side of his property. Since
that time, only the foundation of the structure has been built.
He is now seeking a clarification as to whether the approval was
for a single story addition or for a two story addition. His
desire is to construct a two story addition from the new south wall
of the home to the mid -point of the existing structure.
COMMENT: In reviewing this case, the minutes from the meeting seem
to imply that the approval was for a single story addition. At the
Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 1987, Mr. Dow stated that
"his home is too small to add a second floor; the first floor would
be ruined." kcsolution 87 -141 which was adopted at the time makes
r.o mention of a second floor. Based on this information, this case
becomes a request for a new variance, not a clarification of what
happened in 1987.
The existing lot has a total area of 4700 square feet. Includiny
the footprint of the new addition, the house, garage and deck
consume 62% of the lot area The second floor addition will not
add to the building coverage on the lot since is lies above either
existing portions of the home or the addition approved in 1967.
;.13y
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg II. Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447 -2175 612/553-1950
Dow Planning Report
July 2, 1990
Page two
RECOMMENDATION: The
along the south side
Manchester. Since t
conforming setback a
coverage on the lot,
decking is part of
observe the required
00W.P51
proposed second story portion of the home is
of the lot which has a conforming setback from
ie second story wall in this area will have a
id the addition will not increase the building
approval of the variance is recommended. If
the new addition, it should be required to
10 foot setback from the rear property line.
•
•
•
A►3 T
June 25, 1990
0
John Ned w Dixie Dow
4994 Manchester Rd.
Mound, MN 55.64
City of Mound
Planning & Zoning Commission
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55
Dear Honored Members of the Commission:
Prior to purchasing my house in 1987, I discussed various
possibilities for remodeling. I met with Jan, and then had a
member of my church give me some ideas. I was either led to
believe, or concluded on my own, that to do the remodeling I had
in mind I only needed a variance in side yard setback.
The plan has always been to widen the house 6' & add a second
story from what is the centerline of the house over the side
that is widened, running the length of the house. (See attached
drawings).
The purpose of reconvening this issue is to clarify the issue of
a second story :ghi.ch apparently should have been discussed at
the original hearing (case 1187 -653) during the summer of 1987.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
incerIy,
J .
V Dow
•
42 13L
June 8, 1990
•
J. Ned Dow
4994 Manchester Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
City of Mound
5:41 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Peggy:
Please schedule us on the planning commission agenda for July to
clarify our variance. I am at two weeks of Army Reserve duty.
I will bring in the necessary information for the planning
commission to review when I return. Jan said there would be no
additional charge as it is to clarify things.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
•
•
21137
*TY OF MOUND PART I1 Case No. Ls�)
Date File
Fee •tiVSAs��
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING 9 ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the ffwo��l��llo��wlling information.)
Address of Subject Property Q� /(/�stWAL Q•Q
Lot 1 Z Block
Addition P I D No . Z V1 +� Z4 4Z 0
Owner's Name n-ED 1W Day Phone 072
owner's Address ggR4 MA0e14esM-p 9D
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address Day Phone
i sting Use of Property:
Zoning District
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? es no If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s)
7
(Copies of previous resolutions must
this application.)
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
applicat.lon 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. Q
Applicant's S i gnat a Date 2 �Q' 7
///
FOR OFFICE USE ON Y:
Planning Commission R mmendatIon_
Date
W unc I I Action:
Resolution No.
Date
J13S
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No. i�3 - 0
oIL-19 _q 0
1. Does the present use of the property conform to ail regulations for
the zoning district in which it is located? Yes IVQ, No $*. If We
specify each non - conforming use:
S IM VA06 ZT O.4 AS bSE tJf4E0 - BASSe 04
—rL e A Je_% L /v ]C A A ^.A.... A, ,
2C Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located?
Yes( ), No P). If no, specify each non - conforming use:
Lit = s ma 1l
3. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent
Its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
(x) too small ( ) drainage ( ) sub- surface •
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
I 1r A / .
4. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone
having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was
adopted? Yes ( ), No ( If yes, explain
S. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the
relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No �). If yes, explain
•
X%"
&RIANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance
peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ),
No ( ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
T. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and
setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of
your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ-
ten explanation.
8. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in
the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
0 wo
PART I 1 I
J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documen such as sketch plans,
attachments, etc., must be submitted V 8 -1 /2"x11" size. If larger
d_rawina_s are submitted, one must be 8 /2 "x11 ", and 15 larger size
copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure,
a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show-
ing the following information:
1. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s),
building(s), driveways) /street access, off - street parking, and
utilities.
2. Existing and proposed elevations.
3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines;
principal building and accessory buildings; principal building
and principal buildings on adjacent lots.
4. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
5. Indicate "north" compass direction.
• 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
AI yv
Lake e6ak-on
as of 4 -11 -0
9t6 ZS
d
.c
a
J
A
I L�10
w:
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR JOHN NED DOW
LOT 12, BLOCK 33, WYCHWOOD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
t 7
rtx r4a'%) T C F Nt e
is
o
:i
�
o �
w
;L .,
s
K �
t
s• � -
.�
. 0
` 9,
�
.
t 7
rtx r4a'%) T C F Nt e
is
R+h cg931�
L ah o „
M
I hereby certify that this is a true and a correct representation
of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 12, Block 33, WYCHWOOD, and the
location of all existing; buildings thereon. It does not purport
to show other improvements or encroachments.
•
•
Scale: 1" = 30' COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Date 4 -16 -81
o : Iron arker
�;:•_2�' Sp
: Spot elevation
Datum: Mean Sea Level Mark S. Cronberg Lic. No. 12755
Engineers, Land Surveyors & Planners •
Long Lake, Minnesota
�
. •' • N
;L .,
v
K �
�
.
b
i Pa. 0
R+h cg931�
L ah o „
M
I hereby certify that this is a true and a correct representation
of a survey of the boundaries of Lot 12, Block 33, WYCHWOOD, and the
location of all existing; buildings thereon. It does not purport
to show other improvements or encroachments.
•
•
Scale: 1" = 30' COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Date 4 -16 -81
o : Iron arker
�;:•_2�' Sp
: Spot elevation
Datum: Mean Sea Level Mark S. Cronberg Lic. No. 12755
Engineers, Land Surveyors & Planners •
Long Lake, Minnesota
• • . _ I 1�-t'l-1111 1 0
r• . 1 L `
Di
A-
< �/ ' AGGIT1Of
\ i-
N Q v,
PDpIT1c�N fGR: MR R5 -- -- ANDEr•S.�TJ t •A6��- IA 'T�5
9�t MA� � - EVI�CT10N5 SF�CTIONS FAN Y� A, MN 55'�o M3
vrv D, M N — 55364 — _ — - - - - -. _.._.
7v
L I I
IF!
A flat
I�LI _
36
II
ell
jyl
NOLOVAsIg HIZJON
1 * 0 0
RIFT
I I
:77=
'I � a I���Ir'�i
IF]
ll"F=T F
a
�L 1. 0
1 !I
7. --a-
LT III 11 1.- 1 1 L 1 11 1 11 L_4� W- - J-" 4 r" J. 4
4Zn4M T I I AA. L I L I 1 1 1
0 0 0
P.-S II i i
cow
tilkYOIVIIIT51E J rib/� O^DDVF-
9
f-T3 "l,
f - 7 K EXTE PL^T C
7
-+r
r
2<v1kFATFZ) PLATF- - TrL.ATf_C ) RATE 214 TRW El PLKE
Kf 1.11.1 I 1 601 [30_�, I � t�r6�� ty-K.
L5�) 4-e- [3L_1 Lz r_ .
.2or -dr e�� FMI, 4_e� F*rd.
T 4 V - 6; -V I'C� FTIL LNEX�IVATF_P] 60f r_ Fl
T4
L)N ftARtu oA.L ABom
F LA Nl
r -
- - -- �� n
, 0);
'Tit
2 0
T
VINYL-
pky
EA
New
0
lig
yrrH TcJIs
w
E-L;
NEW
4 1 r -
GvHc, New
ZONEW
q--PNo"
L.- IS
ANY'—
C I
2 0
T
VINYL-
pky
EA
New
0
lig
yrrH TcJIs
w
E-L;
NEW
4 1 r -
GvHc, New
ZONEW
q--PNo"
L.- IS
-A-K- F — T -
2 0
T
VINYL-
pky
EA
New
0
lig
yrrH TcJIs
w
E-L;
NEW
4 1 r -
GvHc, New
ZONEW
q--PNo"
L.- IS
193
July 28, 1987
RESOLUTION 87- 141
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE A LOT SIZ_ VARIANCE FOR LOT 12, BLOCK 33, WYCHWOOD:
PID 124- 117- 24420005 (4994 Manchester Road) P 6 Z COMMISSION
CASE 0 -653
WHEREAS, J. Ned Dow, owner of the property has requested a
variance in lot size to add an addition of 6.5 feet to the South of his
property and construct a new deck on his property all with conforming
setbacks to the .property line under the provisions of the zoning ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, the R2 zoning district requires a 6 foot interior side
yard and a 10 foot side yard abutting the Manchester right-of -way, the
20 foot front yard setback to Cambridge, a 15 foot rear yard setback to the
West with a 10 foot setback to a deck; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend the lot size variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the lot size variance to build on the
lot an addition with conforming zoning setbacks in the R2 zoning district for
Lot 12•; Block 33, Wychwood; PID N 24- 117 - 24420005 (4994 Manchester Road).
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Abet and
seconded by Councilmember Jensen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Abel, Jensen, Jensen, Johnsen and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
r
May r
Attest: City Clerk
PAI
CASE NO. 87 -653
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
. FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official �t
Planning Commission Agenda of July 13, 1987
CASE NO. 87 -653
APPLICANT: J. Ned Dow
LOCATION: 4994 Manchester Road
LEGAL DESC.: Lot 12, Biock 33, Wychwood; PID 24-117 -24 42 0005
SUBJECT: Lot size variance
EXISTING ZONING: R -2 Single Family Residential
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to add an addition of 6.5 feet to the
south of his property with conforming setbacks to the property lines on an under-
sized 47 by 100 foot lot.
The R -2 Zoning District requires a 6 foot interior side yard and a 10 foot side
yard abutting the Manchester right-of -way, a 20 foot front yard setback to Cam-
bridge and a 15 foot rear yard setback to the west Brighton Commons with a 10
foot setback to a deck. The existing dwelling has a 6.5 foot setback to the north,
a 16.2 foot setback to the south, a 15.8 foot setback to the Lakeshore on the west
• side from the rear property line and a 9.0 foot setback to the deck, and a 20 foot
setback abutting Cambridge.
RECOMMENDATION: A variance of lot size was granted for the property to build
upon the lot. Staff would recommend that the addition requested be granted and
that it conform to all Zoning setbacks for the R -2 District. Recognize the
existing 9.0 foot setback from the property line to the existing deck. Any
addition to the deck should conform with the 10 foot setback requirement to the
rear lot line (on the west side) to afford the owner reasonable use of his land.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council on July 28, 1987.
JB/ms
2iso
REVISED .
MINUTES OF THE 8 -4 -87
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 13, 1987
3. `Case No. 87-653 Lot size variance for 4994 Manchester Road; Lot 12, Block 33,
Wychwood; PID 24-117 -24 42 0005; J. Ned and Dixie Dow were present.
Mr. Dow is requesting addition of 6.5 feet with conforming setbacks. Dow states
that his home is too small to add a second floor; the first floor would be ruined.
Smith states that this is ack to the commons problem again ". The Council is
riot in favor of expanding on 4700 square foot lots; it's a case of practical dif-
ficulty. With the commons and two roads on either side, there is breathing room.
Weiland favors the comment that he can't consider it as his property for enlarge -
ment--it is part of the commons. The commons are for everyone's use. •
Andersen moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the variance. The
vote was unanimously in favor.
This goes before the Couacil on July 28, 1987
•
IL 1 S'
Ao y7 - G s3
• June 2:1, 1987
John Ned Dow
Di -c i e A. Dow
4994 Manchester Rd.
Mound, MN 55364 -919S
City of Mound
Planning Commission
5341 Maywood Rd
Mound, MN 55•-64
Honored Members of the Commission:
Attached is my application for a zoning variance at the
residence I just purchased at 4994 Manchester Rd.
Prior to pt-trchasing the property my wife and I both agreed that
the neighborhood and location on the laF::e were nice, but the
size of the house was insufficient for our needs. Before making
an offer on the house I conferred with Jan Bertrand as to the
remodeling possibilities that could be persued in accordance
with the local ordinances.
• The house is on an undersized lot for R -- which apparently
requires a 6,01-O sq ft minimum lot size. Setbacks for that
are 15' rear, 6'side, 20' front, lo' from the street.
Fart or the plan is to move the driveway and Garage (-entrance from
Manche-=' F�r to Cambridge. When Manchester was widened the
driveway was cut down to 16.5 feet. If I pAr i: my van in the
driveway, the baO is in the street. This c.o -_tId be a problem
when it comes to winter. Also by moving the driveway and garage
opening I would be able to install standard 9' garage doors
rather than the 8' that currently e;<i st. In addition It wot_tl d
help eliminate some of the congestion that oCCUrS when people
park: on Manc: to use their docks on Ear i ghton Commons.
Widening t'r tc�usc out to the lo' setbar_F: from Mr:ncheser wot.tld
me a. inore standard house si:e for remodeling. It. wot..tld
l r wer 1.`,F cost far pl �.nni ng and rive me more actt'al 1 i •ii ng
space.
1 Mat e thi - Appeal basµ -d nn the iofr:�rmat:i �r gathered du,r :ng my
discuii-.ion with Jan Bertrard. r'ri.nr to drawing Lip rei7,ridpl:ing
ai,d SUbMi tt i ng for t)ui 1 di ng per rut 1 nF the approval
for the Jar ] are( -F.
• tanl y -,t_i fr)r yi�._tr ?st i ,t.arce 1i_t this mf�ttor - .
Jo Ned Dow
\ 40
\ W 1 HIRE BLVD ,,� 14
..:. +o _ _• 25 P LAT
60 •' V Jr e e r ( e s 44 + j y, �, t 10 E. /
y �I p fj low, 3 t s so IJ
ly ° r 2i 3r ?�i
2 O t1 tt his block is ON marsh
16
14
4 ,t ) ' 40 - r
• 1.
.0 4 4lrl
' 14 /Qy �l2 Se • O J 1 2 ��L 310
0 e 9 . sH 1 I 0 40
.s 63 f2
.
o ~ 7 - CA ° 11 - .1 ..�
S•. sj 3 A '� i � • I) A T 6 ' 4 � • _�� l� Q 13
'••? . 1 / , a _ N
to block is ON marsh J
0. N ,� ; :2+✓" � ��, . � ,�., , , , to ,, la 17 17 A
s:
. i. A, , e _ ZI •.
7 : • : R ! / �; * -- 174 N
1 14 • t 13 1 i 15 k \
I QI
�
1 , �. a 's� w• 17 M L I�. - ��� ki,zoso 7 O • \
L t - -- 1 ) � i N Ts • I � � � � "l t s - � `S � : 6 (� ). fit k ' •3
�SpO x .. � 1 '• i � d ' ! � 1 1� p KI) k�' • � ° Q • ..
401 1 10 Q 17 1 )o 41.7 1 '
e • �' � 16
} b6 Q 1 10 1 a - 4
d�•(�` 0'1)1 12
y9 1 12 13 14 1�1/ 17� 1 I - - ~ 1 • e 14 — -• 1 0
10 3•� o 13
• �.
too RD 31 ft
». W, S . g'I 3 �N � This block is ON marsh f2 � E 9 �;
L{�[ i i +
'� 1�4k 1 y� X5 1. 1S sa I � Q ooc �"toe.. a.,
** t di
`o •{ ° ^ • w: Sz972fo M N HESTER '6 ° a 3 , 4 3 2 See.
r ' 1� loo. e i - N •�. as
1. O 9 7 3 2 1 •.12
-z L o• h� a.
• S
RECEIVED J UL 1 71990
LAW OFFICEs
WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOO 6 MERTZ
A ►ANTN2ASMI► INCLVOINO ►AO►266NSNAL A660CIATION•
1100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
TOMAS WURST. P.A. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
* -- -
T1S A PEARSON, P.A.
JAMES D. LA PA
THOMAS F. UNDERW P . July 13, 1990
CRAIG M MERTZ
ROGER J FELLOWS
Ms. Peggy James
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Walter K. Jarl Property
4748 Hampton Road, Mound, Minnesota
TELE'MONe
16121 336 4ROO
rAY NUM8[R
16121 336.24986
r ��
Dear Ms. James:
As per your request that the City commence hazardous building
proceedings for the demolition of the buildings on the Jarl
property, I enclose a proposed City Council order for demolition.
If you find this document to be in order, please submit it to
the City Council for approval. When you submit this item to the
Council, I recommend that you include copies of the inspection
report that staff prepared in connection with the property. If the
City Council approves this action, please have the City Clerk sign
• five copies of the demolition Order. Four copies should be
forwarded to me and the fifth copy should be retained in the City
files. One of the interested parties is a James Held. I have a
post office box for Mr. Held in California. I do not have an
actual residential address for James Held. Thus, it may be
necessary to obtain service of the demolition Order by posting the
property and by four weeks publication in the city newspaper. I
will send you further information on posting and publication later.
If the owners do not comply with the demolition Order, we will
petition the District Court for an order authorizing demolition of
the buildings. If you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON,
UNDERWOOD & MERTZ
Craig M. Mertz
CMM:lkg
• Enclosure
a)sq
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE is
CLERK TO EXECUTE AN ORDER
FOR THE REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Mound City Council:
1. That the attached Order for Removal of Hazardous
Buildings sets forth in detail the facts which determine that
certain structures are hazardous buildings and property as set
forth in state statute. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to execute said Order and shall work with the City
Attorney to serve said Order on all interested parties.
2. A copy of said Order marked Exhibit X is attached hereto
and made a part of this resolution.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk •
•
A I SS'
CITY OF MOUND
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
TO: Walter K. Jarl and the persons and parties listed on Exhibit
B attached hereto and made a part hereof.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City of Mound has determined
that the residential structure and garage owned or occupied by you
on the premises described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a
part hereof, are hazardous buildings and hazardous property as
defined by the laws of the State of Minnesota, said determination
being based upon the following facts:
1. The subject premises lacks an operable heating unit.
2. The electrical service is not in working order.
3. The gas service is not in working order.
4. The roof boards are rotted and there is a hole in the
roof .
5. The windows are in poor condition and some cannot be
opened.
6. Some of the window sills are rotted.
7. The load bearing walls have structural damage and the
residential structure is leaning.
8.
The
exterior
paint has blistered.
9.
The
water service is not in working order.
10.
The
sanitary
facilities are in poor condition.
11.
The
cooking facilities are in poor condition.
12.
The
interior
lath and plaster is in poor condition.
13.
The
premises
lacks fire protection equipment.
14.
The
detached
garage has deteriorated beyond repair.
15. The residential structure has deteriorated to such an
extent that the cost of repairs would exceed more than 50% of the
value of the structure.
16. The interior of the subject premises is littered with
junk and debris.
17. Interior ceilings are water damaged and sagging.
18. The foundation of the residential structure is cracked
and the garage has only a dirt floor.
19. An uncapped and unused old water well is located on the
subject property.
20. The residential structure and garage are a fire hazard
because of the conditions outlined above, also because the
structures are unattended and unsecured from access from intruders.
21. The residential structure and garage is a hazard to
public safety because they are not secured from entry by intruders,
rodents or vermin.
22. The residential structure and garage are a hazard to
public health and are unfit for human habitation because of the
conditions outlined above.
THEREFORE, IT I5 ORDERED, that the above described buildings
and property be made safe and not hazardous to the general public,
welfare and safety by being razed within thirty (30) days from the
date of service of this Order upon you, said razing to include
removal from the premises of all personal property, fixtures and
debris, the filling of all excavations to grade with clean fill,
disconnection of utilities, cutting water and service lines at the
curb, regrading the premises to match existing terrain, and the
capping of any wells and /or septic systems serving the subject
premises in accordance with state regulations.
Unless such corrective action is taken to comply with this
Order within the time hereby specified or an answer is served upon
the City Clerk within twenty (20) days from the date of the service
of this Order upon you, a motion for summary enforcement of this
Order will be made to the District Court of Hennepin County, and
the costs of such enforcement, including without limitation, the
City's filing fees, service fees, attorney fees, and witness fees
shall become a lien against the real property on which the subject
buildings and property are located.
By Order of the City Council
Dated: By:
Fran Clark, City Clerk
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
(612) 472 -1155
(OrdForRemov)
MC
•
A157
Exhibit B
I* Walter K. Jarl
Richard E. Held
Esther B. Held
James Held
All heirs, and devisees of any of the aforenamed persons who are
deceased, and all other persons or parties unknown, claiming any
right, title, estate, lien, encumbrance, or interest in the real
estate described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
U
Exhibit A
Lot 25, 26, and 27, Block 10. Pembroke, according to the plat
thereof on f ile or of record in the office of the Registrar of
Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(Certificate of Title No. 530561)
•
•
CIS'
LAW 0MCCS
WUR P KMS ON, LARSON, UNOERWOOD & MCRTZ
A PASTIOGROW n/CLYM.N 1 .IAL &00=111p1.e
* TmomAs WuwsT. P A
CuwT1s A. PC1wSOw. P.A.
JAwtf 0 LAIISOw. P.A.
Twow^* V UuDenw000. PA,
CRAIG M. MtwTI
*MCC J. FULL
P.O. Box 9
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Mr. James Held
P.O. Box 2888
Del Mar, California 92014
Mr. Richard Indritz
Attorney at Law
Re: Premises at 4748
(Lots 25, 26, 27,
Hennepin County,
Greetings:
July 13, 1990
Hampton Road, Mound, Minnesota
Block 10, Pembroke,
Minnesota)
TtLKP.lOwt
W R 1 440.4800
IF AX wYMS[A
141=1 3" - &Gts
This office represents the City of Mound. We understand from
an examination of records on file at the Hennepin County Government
Center that Mr. Held and Mr. Indritz' client, Walter R. Jarl, claim
some interest in the above- referenced property. We are in the
process of commencing proceedings under the Hazardous Building Act
(Minnesota Statute Section 463.15 et seq) to accomplish the
demolition of the house, demolition of the garage, and closure of
the private well on the subject premises. Upon the successful
conclusion of these proceedings, the City's out -of- pocket costs
(court filing fees, witness fees, attorney fees, demolition costs,
and landfill disposal costs) will be certified against the �roperty
as additional taxes.
Please contact me within 10 days of the date of this letter if
either of you have any interest in attempting to reduce some of
these costs by arranging for private demolition of the house and
structures. If appropriate arrangements can be made with this
office, the next step would be to obtain a demolition permit at
Mound City Hall.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
very truly yours,
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON,
UNDERWOOD 6 MERTZ
•
Craig M. Mertz
CMM:lkg
cc: Mound City Hall.
1100 IIRST 8AMK PLACE WEST
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA ss40=
4 140
CITY OF mum
SITE ADDRESS
REPORT Ol I1ISPECTIOH RELATIVE TO HAZARDOUS AND DANGEROUS BUILDING(s)
4748 Hampton Road
DATE 6 -25 -90
WHAT INSPECTED exterior and interior of principal building and detached garage
PRINCIPAL USE singl family dwelling with detached garage
USE ZONE R -2 Single Family FIRE ZONE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 25, 2 6, and 27, Block 10, Pembroke, Plat 37910,
P.I.D. #19- 117 -23 -33 0203
OWNER Richard E. Held etal / Walt K. Jarl PHONE (612) 471 -9255
ADDRESS 3740 Togo Road, W ay za ta, MN 55391
AGENT
PHONE
ADDRESS
OCCUPANT Gladys Sapp (has now been moved to PHONE
Indian Knoll Manor, 2020 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN 55364)
ADDRESS
HEIRS
PHONE
ADDRESS
GUARDIAN
ADDRESS
LIEN - HOLDERS
ADDRESS
PHONE
CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING frame type - wood
NO. OF STORIES 1}
TYPE OF HEATING gas furnace
CONDITION OF HEATING UNIT appears to need repair
OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
CONDITION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT poor
is
Page 1 of 4
9214/
ELECTRIC LIGHTING & WIRING No electrical service at this time.
CONDITION OF ELEC. LIGHTING & WIRING Appears to be intack, but old.
RIND OF ROOF Asphalt shingles.
IDONDITION OF ROOF Rotted roof boards, hole in roof.
CONDITION OF BASEMENT Damp, musty, no water leakage
CONDITION OF WINDOWS Poor - some could not be opened
ADEQUATE LIGHT & AIR PROVIDED Maybe.
CONDITION OF SILLS Some rotted.
CONDITION OF CHIMNEYS Did not see.
ATTIC: HOW USED None.
CONDITION OF FOUNDATION WALL Okay.
CONDITION OF BEARING WALLS Appears to be some structural problems as the home seems to
leaning.
CONDITION OF NON- BEARING WALLS
CONDITION OF EXTERIOR WALLS Blistering, needs primer and painting.
CONDITION OF PLUMBING P oor - no w ater service to check.
W NDITION OF OTHER SANITARY FACILITIES P oor.
CONDITION OF COOKING EQUIPMENT Poor.
MUNICIPAL WATER Yes WELT
CONDITION OF INTERIOR LATH & PLASTER, ETC. Poor.
MUNICIPAL SEWER Yes
TYPE AND CONDITION OF FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES None present.
DIMENSION OF BUILDING 25' x 26'
SETBACKS: front appears okay rear appears okay sides appears okay
DISTANCE FROM OTHER BUILDINGS
RFJfARKS IN GENERAL The home has been in need of repair for some time. The lack of up-
keep and cleaning has cause the home to deteriorate, poss beyond repair. The
needed repairs will mos likely be more tha 50% of the value of the st
The detached garage is beyond repair.
s
Page 2 of 4 A /gat
LIST SEPARATELY ALL PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE SUBJECT BUILDING:
BUILDING PERMITS None on file.
HEATING PERMITS None on file.
PLUMBING PERMITS None on file.
CONCLUSIONS:
IS BUILDING A FIRE HAZARD? Yes WHY Structure is unattended and easy access for
vagrants Electrical and gas service apparently shut off (or doesn't work).
IS BUILDING A HAZARD TO PUBLIC SAFETY? Ye WHY Building should be secured, ro dents
and /or ve.-min could easily enter structure.
IS BUILDING A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH? WHy_ utilities, un -fit to rent.
RECOMMENDATION: (check one)
XX REMOVE
REPAIR - LIST ALL REPAIRS REQUIRED
WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN? YES . IF YES, ATTACH COPIES TO THIS REPORT.
•
OR 10 Page 3 of 4
LIST NAMES OF ALL INSPECTORS WHO INSPECTED THE PREMISES AND FILED REPORTS:
1. Jeff S. Melberg, Building Inspector (Metr West Inspection Services)
2. June Hyland, Co de Enforcement Officer
03.
4.
S .
SIGNATURE -
TITLE Acting Building Inspector
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY
ATTORNEY REVIEW
ATTORNEY ACTION
COUNCIL BEARING
COUNCIL ACTION
&UILDING POSTED
ORDER SERVED
TIME FOR COMPLIANCE
NOW SERVED
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
COURT ACTION TAKEN
FILED WITH CLERK OF COURT
FILED WITH COUNTY RECORDER
•
Page 4 of 4
DATE
DATE
.alt y
0
4748 Hampton Road
6 -22 -90
0
•
•
02147
4
LAW orrICES
Tt E rn L t}
WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ
A PAATN2A *NIP INCLUDING PAO.95510NAL ASSOCIATIONS
•A. TNONAS WORST. P.A.
CURTIS A. PEARSON. P.A.
JAMts D LAR PA.
THOMAS F. UNOERWOOD, P.A.
CRAIG M MER
ROGtR J.F9LL0WS
1100 FIRST •ANK PLACE WEST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 Ttl[�MONt
161:1 336.4200
rAi NUM6ER
16121 336.2629
July 18, 1990
Ms. Peggy James
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: 2142 Belmont Lane, Mound, Minnesota
Dear Peggy,
We talked to the City Manager regarding the above premises.
He indicated that the preferred course of action would be to close
this fourplex and secure the building from further entry. The
Hazardous Building Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 et seq)
allows the City to secure vacant buildings which are deemed to be
• hazardous. The act also allows the City to abate hazardous
conditions by either razing the building or correcting the
hazardous conditions. The enclosed proposed City Council Order
directs the owners to either correct the hazardous conditions or
remove the building.
If the owners fail to comply with the order to correct these
hazardous conditions, the City would petition the District Court
for an order confirming the City Council action and directing the
City to secure the builL.ng until such time as the hazardous
conditions are abated.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
WURST, PEARSON, LIARSON,
�IUNDERWOOD & MERTZ
Craig M. Mertz
CMM:lkg
i Enclosure
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 0
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN ORDER
FOR THE REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Mound City Council:
1. That the attached Order for Removal of Hazardous
Buildings sets forth in detail the facts which determine that
certain structures are hazardous buildings and property as set
forth in state statute. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to execute said Order and shall work with the City
Attorney to serve said Order on all interested parties.
2. A copy of said Order marked Exhibit X is attached hereto
and made a part of this resolution.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
CITY OF MOUND
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
TO: Karen J. Rustad and the persons and parties listed on Exhibit
B attached hereto and made a part hereof.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City of Mound has deterained
that the residential structure owned or occupied by you on the
premises described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hazardous buildings and hazardous property and contain
hazardous conditions as defined by the laws of the State of
Minnesota, said determination being based upon the following facts:
1, The exterior of the subject premises is overgrown with
weeds, is full of broken glass and miscellaneous debris, and the
landscaping on the front side of the subject premises is washing
away threatening the integrity of the front stairway leading into
the subject premises.
2. The building contains broken windows which are open to
the elements and which permit the subject premises to be a haven
for vagrants and runaways.
3. Several of the windows on the subject premises lack
proper locking mechanisms making it impossible to secure the
subject premises from unauthorized entry by vagrants and runaways.
4. The apartment doors on the subject premises lack proper
locking mechanisms making it impossible to secure the apartment
premises from unauthorized entry by vagrants and runaways.
5. The exterior roof facia has rotted away leaving the
interior of the structure exposed to the elements.
6. The roof on the subject premises is leaky and needs
replacement.
7. The front stairway on the exterior of the subject
premises lacks safety railings.
8. The heating plant on the subject premises is believed to
be inoperable.
9. The smoke detectors in the individual apartment units are
either disconnected or are inoperable due to the lack of batteries.
10. The fire exit on the rear of the building lacks proper
lock mechanisms and has been screwed shut so as to not allow exit
in the event of fire or other emergency.
11. The exterior apartment doors are hollow core doors and •
are not proper fire rated doors.
12. The subject premises lacks required fire extinguishers in
the common area hallways.
13. Many of the electrical outlets and recepticles are
damaged and lack proper plates.
14. The bathrooms in the apartments of the subject building
are not in working order.
15. The toilets in some of the apartment units in the subject
premises are not in working order.
16. The interior of the subject premises is generally in a
filthy condition.
17. The occupants of the subject premises appear to be using
the gas stovetop burners to supply heat to the individual apartment
units.
18. The window sills are in very poor condition.
19. The interior sheet rock walls and ceilings are damaged or
deteriorated in many areas.
20. The rear exits from several of the apartments have been
screwed shut thereby preventing proper exit in the event of fire or
other emergency.
21. Failure to provide proper trash /garbage recepticle on
subject premises.
22. Common hallway and entrance is being used to store bags
of garbage from time to time.
23. one of the apartments in the subject building appears to
lack water service.
24. The boiler /mechanical equipment room from time to time
has been used for the storage of combustible materials.
25. Some of the apartment units in the subject building
appear to lack electrical r:ervice.
26. From time to time the attic of the subject building is
inhabited by raccoons who enter through holes in the facia.
27. The baseboard heating units are lacking in some of the
apartment units.
-2-
28. The building on the subject premises is a fire hazard
. because of the above described conditions and accumulations of
refuse and bed clothing.
29. The building on the subject premises is a hazard to the
public saafety because the building is not secure from unauthorized
entry.
30. The building on the subject premises is a hazard to the
public health because of the above described conditions.
31. The building on the subject premises, the personal
property contained therein, and the conditions described above
constitute a hazard to the public health and safety because of the
physical condition, delapidation, dangers of fire, unsanitary
conditions, and inadequate maintenance; and thtL by reason of the
above facts, said buildings and property so situated on the above
described premises and the conditions described above constitute
hazardous buildings, hazardous properties, and hazardous
conditions, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15
through 463.26.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the above described buildings
and property and conditions be made safe and not hazardous to the
general public, welfare and safety, by either remedying said
conditions or razing the building on the subject premises within
thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order upon you,
and in the case of any razing of the subject building, said razing
to include the removal from the premises of all personal property,
fixtures and debris, the filling of all excavations to grade with
clean fill, disconnection of utilities, cutting water and service
lines at the curb, regrading the premises to match existing
terrain, and the capping of any wells and /or septic systems serving
the subject premises in accordance with state regulations.
Unless such corrective action is taken to comply with this
Order within the time hereby specified or an answer is served upon
the City Clerk within twenty (20) days from the date of the service
of this Order upon you, a motion for summary enforcement of this
Order will be made to the District Court of Hennepin County, and
the costs of such enforcement, including without limitation, the
City *s filing fees, service fees, attorney fees, and witness fees
shall become a lien against the real property on which the subject
buildings and property are located.
By Order of the City COL -Icil
Dated:
0 (OrdForRemov)
By:
Fran Clark, City Clerk
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
(612) 472 -1155
MIM
Exhibit B
Karen J. Rustad
Mark S. Rustad
BANCBOSTON Mortgage Corporation
All other persons or parties unknown, claiming any right, title,
estate, lien, encumbrance, or interest in the real estate described
on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
•
•
Exhibit A
(2142 Belmont Lane, Mound, Minnesota)
Tats 20 and 21, Block 6, Lake Side Park: A.L. Crocker's 1st
Division Mound, Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof
on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
(Abstract Property)
CJ
0
0 AL
�;iTY Of MOUND
July 19, 1990
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: PHONE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
534 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA SMU
(612) 472 -1155
At the July 10th Council meeting, a proposal from Contel was dis-
cussed regarding a Centrex Phone System for City Hall and other
City facilities. The direction from the Council was to obtain a
competitive quote from ano. - �r vendor on the telephone sets. I
contacted two sources:
1. Northern Telecom - They were going to have an agent get
back to me, but I received no response.
2. Mankato Citizens Telephone Company - see Lnelosed
proposal.
The following is a recap of hardware sets purchase price:
Contel Proposal
$11,983.00
is
Mankato Proposal
$12,406.40
The Mankato proposal. did not offer a 6 month lease with credit
given against purchase price as proposed by Contel. Also, the
hardware installation in the Mankato proposal did not include any
wiring of cable and setting up of phone jacks in the remodeled
portion of City Hall. Contel's proposal includes setting up of
all the phone cabling and jacks in the remodeled portion of City
Hall.
Based upon the proposals received, I recommend that the proposal
from Contel be accepted for the purchase of a Centrex Telephone
System for the City of Mound.
JN :ls
0 170
RESOLUTION fl0. 90- July 10, 1990
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSAL FROM CONTEL
FOR TES CEETREZ TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF MOUND
•EERSRB, the current phone system being used in city
facilities has been in use since 1974 and is obsolete; and
EZEREIB, a Committee was set up to analyze needs and
study various systems; and
•EERSA8, in 1989 the Committee met with 5 vendors and
looked at different systems and received proposals from 3 vendors
ranging from $16,000 to $20,500; and
•ESRERB, since approval of the City Hall addition and
renovation, the staff felt it necessary to speed up the analysis
of the telephone system so that a system would be in place when
the addition and subsequent remodeling is completed; and
REERZAS, after careful analysis of systems available,
it appears that Contel's Centrex system offers a number of
advantages to the City over key systems; and
WINRERB, the Staff is recommending the attached
proposal from Contel (Centrex System), marked Exhibit A, be
approved.
EOI, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the attached
proposal (Exhibit A) for a new telephone system (Centrex) as
outlined from Contel for city facilities. Further, that since
this is a capital expenditure, a "fixed asset ", it shall be paid
for out of the City Capital Improvement Debt Service Fund.
•
A171
•
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPOSAL
PRESENTED TO:
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
PRESENTED BY:
INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. INC.
(A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF HICKORY TECH CORPORATION)
221 EAST HICKORY STREET
MANKATO, MN 56001
JULY 18, 1990
0
9179
TELEPSONZ EQUYPXZNT PROPOSAL
Northern Telecom Equipment to work with Centrex service.
21
- M5009
10
- M5209
3
- M5112
1
- M536 add on
2
- M518 add on
3
- Unity III
Total purchase price of above: $12,406.40
Tax (if applicable): 744.38
* Installation: 1.000.00
$14,150.76
* Includes delivery of phones, key cap, labeling and plugging into
jack and testing.
all's
Additional Telephones
.7
•
Ott 79
With Cut
Purchase Price
Post Cut
Unity III
$ 85.00
$ 116.00
Meridian
5009
$199.00
$ 272.00
Meridian
5209
$437.00
$ 598.00
Meridian
5112
$379.00
$ 518.00
M518 add
on
$332.00
$ 454.00
M536 add
on
$736.00
$1,006.00
.7
•
Ott 79
•
t ✓:..,v= RCIAG
CI � o j I D h�i� .4, , UND A�!NNES 'f ".36
July 5, 1990
TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIF.ECTOR SVrJ
RE: PHONE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
For some time, we have been analyzing the telephone system for
City Hall and other municipal facilities. About one year ago a
Committee consisting of several employees began studying various
telephone systems to eventually replace the existing telephone
system.
The current system is obsolete and has had numerous repair
problems in recent years.
Upon approval of the City Hall addition and remodeling project
staff felt it was necessary to speed up the analysis of the
telephone systems so that a system could be in place when the
addition to City Hall would be completed and subsequent
corpletion of the remodeling phase.
CURRENT SYSTEM
The City of Mound has had the same phone system since 1974. They
are keypunch style phones manufactured by Stromberg- Carlson. The
phones are obsolete and have movable parts which has led to many
repair calls. The features of the current phones are limited,
some of the deFiciencies are:
1. Intercom path - cannot use intercom without taking up
entire intercom path within the system.
2. No interconnection between city departments.
3. No privacy on calls - Line 1 on your phone is line one
on all phones. 0
1
4. Lines are limited in number for incoming calls
(outgoing calls use same lines). We get many
complaints from residents saying they get a busy
signal.
5. Routing of calls can be confusing - no display of
routing, ring back features.
I think we can all agree that there is a great need for a better
phone system for the entire city.
The committee met various times during 1989 to assess our phone
needs and meet with various vendors. We talked with the
following companies:
Contel - Centrex (single line sets)
Communications World - Toshiba Strata DK
A T & T - Merlin II
Executone - SRX
Telephone Specialists - Premier ESP
The Contel Centrex system was looked at and did not look
attractive because the single line sets were somewhat limited in
their capabilities. The other key system phone units were all
impressive and basically could do all of what we were looking for
and more.
We received proposals from three of the vendors (before the City
Hall expansion was approved) ranging from $16,000 to $20,250. We
put the phone system search on hold once the City Hall expansion
was moving forward. It made sense to incorporate the expansion
area into the phone system search.
LCg SYSTEM ys CENTREZ SYSTEM
Key System - A phone system where each location (city hall,
public works, etc.) has a phone system "box" where all business
lines for that location enter. All phone sets are connected to
that "box ". The features offered on key systems are excellent
but interconnection between facilities is limited and expensive
(off - premise extensions).
Centrex System - This phone system uses the local phone company
central office as the phone system "box ". There are no separate
boxes at each city location. In effect, all locations within the
city are within the same phone system.
P. 17G
1990 COIOQTTEE ]1CTIVITY
Contel came out to make an updated presentation regarding Centrex .
and the Northern Telecom Meridian Business sets used with
Centrex. Linda Strong and I went out to see the business sets
and Centrex in use. The business sets have most of the
capabilities of a key system and Centrex offers a number of
advantages over key systems. The following are some of the
advantages that the Contel Centrex System has to offer:
1. Unlimited intercom paths within entire city facilities.
2. Calls can be transferred to any phones located within
the city (the person calling can be taken care of with
one call instead of given numbers to other city
departments).
3. The only equipment onsite are phone sets - no other
equipment necessary.
4. Power failure will not impact phones since Centrex has
no electrical requirement.
5. Direct -In -Dial feature - Each phone set is actually
assigned a separate telephone number (this can
eliminate time spent by receptionists that they could
use to perform other duties).
6. Phone will not become easily obsolete (Centrex is
software driven and new updates can be programmed into
existing phone sets).
7. City can save on business line trunks by pooling lines
for the city locations (for example, instead of using 6
lines for police, 6 lines for city hall, 4 lines for
public works, 1 line for liquor store, etc., 10
business lines shared by all should be sufficient under
Centrex).
8. One vendor (Contel - locally based) will be responsible
for all lines and equipment.
The propcsal from Contel includes all City Offices except the
Fire Department. The Fire Department needs have to be analyzed
and would be ideal to incorporate into Centrex in the future.
Contel has given us a good discount on the list price for the
phone sets. They have also offered to allow us to lease the sets
for six months and give us 100% credit off the purchase price of
the sets when the sets are purchased. This is important because
3
a%??
it is hard to tell which of the 4 types of business sets are best
suited for our use. If after six months we want to switch to a
40 number of different sets, Contel would exchange the new sets for
us at that time.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the employees' committee
that a new telephone system is required as we enter the new City
Hall facility. In addition, the system would be incorporated
into other city facilities as mentioned above.
Furthermore, it is the Committee's recommendation that the
attached proposal as outlined from Contel be approved by the City
Council.
It should be noted that the system, since it is a capital
expenditure, a "fixed asset ", be paid for out of the City Capital
Improvement Debt Service Fund.
I would like to thank the members of the Phone Committee for
their time and involvement into recommending this phone system.
The members of the Committee are: Linda Strong, Receptionist;
Joyce Nelson, Public Works Secretary; Shirley Hawks, Police
Secretary; and Fran Clark, City Clerk. I an confident that the
Contel Centrex system will be an excellent asset for the City now
and into the future. The Centrex system will give the City
excellent interconnection between departments and improved
service to the community.
• a
A179
June 25, 1990
Mr. John Norman
Finance Directory
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear John:
Contel Business Systems. Inc. is pleased to provide the enclosed proposal for the
City of Mound. Contel has been the local telephone company servicing the
Mound area for over 20 years. During these years. Contel has shown our
commitment to provide our customers with state of the art technology back with
local service to provide quick response time. Those of us at Contel share a
commitment to excellence in providing you, the customer. With quality service
and technology.
The proposed service is Contel's Digital Centrex Service. This service is
sophisticated. efficient and inexpensive. Because the services are digital, they
represent the most advanced :ethnology available. This is made possible by the
powerful computers operating in our telephone company'., central offices. These
computers connect you to the telecommunications network and allow you to
share in the sophisticated communication service they offer.
John, if after reviewing this proposal you have any questions or would like to
finalize with Centrex, please contact me at 681 -2566.
Sincerely.
T es. Costello
Senior Sales Representative
JMC:cw
A116
1 ^nesofa Inc
He,gh!� k,
COQ EL Telephone
Operations
June 25, 1990
Mr. John Norman
Finance Directory
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear John:
Contel Business Systems. Inc. is pleased to provide the enclosed proposal for the
City of Mound. Contel has been the local telephone company servicing the
Mound area for over 20 years. During these years. Contel has shown our
commitment to provide our customers with state of the art technology back with
local service to provide quick response time. Those of us at Contel share a
commitment to excellence in providing you, the customer. With quality service
and technology.
The proposed service is Contel's Digital Centrex Service. This service is
sophisticated. efficient and inexpensive. Because the services are digital, they
represent the most advanced :ethnology available. This is made possible by the
powerful computers operating in our telephone company'., central offices. These
computers connect you to the telecommunications network and allow you to
share in the sophisticated communication service they offer.
John, if after reviewing this proposal you have any questions or would like to
finalize with Centrex, please contact me at 681 -2566.
Sincerely.
T es. Costello
Senior Sales Representative
JMC:cw
A116
elecommurtkatio►u No ►nodetn
company can operate uitbout it.
)et telecommunications cart be
one of doe most costly and ine,QtciOnt
areas of businm
Some etecuth yes sm, dxu deer seem to
spend as much time on doe purdwse,
installation and maintenance of a
pru rue stste►n as d)et• do on nta»aging
Mr business.
Fo twuueh- tberr is art q*roacb to
business teleiconimimicadons dxu is
simple, flexible, cow- effecthrjrtjulh'
featured. Arad it is ofjemd by Cbmel, the
people ubo /"r pmtided rota uid-1
dependable conmtunicruions sertice
for bears.
Contel Centrex is often rejerred to
as central office - based business
services It is made possible 11 - the
pouv?ful computers operating at doe
telephone contpai?r's central offices
77ese computers cointect you to doe
telecommunications ►tent -ork and allote
t+ori to sbare in die sophisticated
coiiii ninications "ices thwi offer.
Here Are The Facts
Contel Centrex services are
sophisticated, efficient and inexpensive.
Because the senices are digital, they
represent the most advanced technology
available.
• Contel Cenn is niaintained b) , doe
telepboiie compalnv at 11w central office,
tlxiejore dire is no need to piirdxue
et, !nshv, complicated devices to be
ii stalled at t our compapir 77iere ai a no
corrce 7b id)otit floo►• sprtce, poser
coiteintption, iaoitnoiing slveiits or
emplowe training )bra• telepbone
compaiiv 1.xnidlo- ervii•tbing at its
ctw al office.
• Contel Cenm is aaVonimd to ft tour
unique business rag &VmeM ynu PM'
for only thaw sertices,yoa use
• Cot ate/ Centt v operates over a ui*
range of t - Ace and data equonteru,
irultaling common touch -tare and
rotary dial telepbortes.
• Contel Cenntzac can be added to n wo
e.Y'ong pru,cae seems for tyrmeri
services utbout abandoning current
equipment ipmewnents.
Easy to Understand
Learning the basics of Contel Centrex
is easy. most people understand the
features they will use after a quick re%iew
of the operating materials.
Easy to Maintain
The operation and maintenance of
the complicated equipment remains at
the telephone company site, where it is
monitored 2-1 hours a day, seven dais a
week.
Easy to Install
Since installing Contel Centrex
requires so little time and on -site
equipment, it can be in service within a
matter of weeks, not months.
Easy to Change
Centel Centrex is designed to esoie
easily and effrxtively as your company's
telecommunications needs change. It's
"future proof **
C7
•
SI I
• City y of Mound
Table of k z)ntents
I. Centrex Benefits
II. Centrex features
III. Investment Summary
IV Warranty Service and Maintenance
V. Equipment Descr► a
•
•
02 1 A
CENTREX SERWE BENEFITS
•
Centrex Digital Service is not a system you buy. but a group of services you can choose to
create a phone system idealiy suited to your business.
Benefits of Centrex include:
- No equipment to buy or maintain. therefore no investment.
- No equipment to be damaged or stolen.
- No equipment at the customer location, no floor space required.
- Service tailored to your needs.
- Add or drop lines as needed.
- Fast responsive service.
- Tie geographically dispersed locations together.
- Monitored 24 hours a day. reliable. no charges.
- Latest in technology. no update costs.
- No power requirements.
- Unaffected by power oi!tages.
- Directed inward dialing. allowing outside calls to come directly to
your desk.
Any single line touchtone telephone can be used with Centrex Service. Conte! offers a
variety of Northern Telecom Unity single or multi -line analog or digital telephones that
can be rented or purchased.
•
X«
CONTEL
•
r; r
CALL PICKUP
Allows you to answer any ringing phone in your office. So. your customers don't get
a busy signal. they get through.
CALL FORWARDING ALL CALLS
Allows you to receive ca* wherever you are. It keeps you in touch with business. as
you conduct business.
CALL FORWARDING BUSY
Allows you to have calls diverted to another station when you are on the telephone.
CALL FORWARDING NO ANSWER
Allows you to have calls diverted to another station when you are away from your
telephone for a short time.
CALL HOLD
Lets you put a caller on hold. That give you privacy. and time to solve problems.
while customers are on the phone.
THREE -WAY CALLING
Adds a third party to phone conversations. So. you can hold meetings. solve
problems. and close sales.
INTERCOM
Gives you access to everyone in your company... fast. You simply dial a two or three
digit number!
CALL TRANSFER
Allows you to transfer calls to other extensions so customers are always put in touch
with the right person.
CALL WAITING
Doubles your phone capacity! When you're already on your phone and someone
tried to reach you ... they will.
My
C =_EL
SPEED CALLING 0
Reduces important phone numbers to one or two digits. It's ideal for frequently
called customers and suppliers.
RING AGAIN
Allows you to be notified when a busy extension or busy outgoing line is available.
CALL PARK
Allows you to hold a call while freeing -up your telephone. You can retriever the
"held" call from any telephone.
CONSULTATION HOLD
Allows you to put a call on hold. call a third part and consult privately. then return to
the original call.
•
J
21
•
•
•
City of Mound
Investme Summary
Quantity
21
Description
M5009
10
M5209
3
M5112
1
M336 add on
2
M518 add on
3
Unity III
Total list price
Less 6 month rental
Less municipal discount
In place purchase price
Installation charges
Total one time charge
List Prim EL
5264.00
5596.00
S504.00
S 1.006.00
5453.00
S117,00
$1 5.279.00
$2.071.50
3
$9.912.00
$1.300
S11.212.00
Discount Price Ea.
5171.00
5387.00
5327.00
5654.00
5294.00
576.00
Monthly Recurring Sum_ mare
*45 Centrex Lines $675.25
These numbers are based on the city
using 10 businesses to serve the
Centrex group.
One time facility administration charge
$397.00
Rental Price
$5.751 mo.
513 25imo.
S 11. 25/mo.
S22 25 /mo.
59.75/ mo.
55.501mo.
*This tariff rate does not include trunking and can vary by the type of telephone to be
used.
OR 186
C O== = EL
WARRANTY •
Contel warrants all equipment supplied within the outline of this proposal to be free of
defects :n material and workmanship for a period of 365 days from date of system cutover
into service.
Contel warrants that the equipment. when installed. will demonstrate in a satisfactory
manner the features and capabilities outlined in this proposal.
Contel will make all necessary equipment adjustments, repairs and secure part(s)
replacements, without additional charges to maintain equipment in working order, for the
duration of the warranty period.
The following conditions are not covered under the warranty period:
(1) Usage other than intended
(2) Unauthorized access
(3) Unauthorized modifications
(4) Willful or accidental damage to equipment or acts of God
J
k1 :1n&1
Contel will provide maintenance service to keep the equipment described in this proposal
in working order for a period of 365 days from date of cutover into senice at no ex►ra
charge.
RESPONSE TIME
Contel will provide T. Repair Service on the average within 24 hours and Emergency
Repair Service on the rage within 4 hours of reported failure to Contel's repair
service.
IMPORTANT NUMBERS
For repair service call 472 -8890
For additions or changes to your system call 681 -2599
TRAINING
Complete training is provided by our Customer Service Ad%isor for you and your staff at
no charge. 0
A100'
0
�J
•
wfmmw �
communicatioits. In the unlikely event
that a problem occurs, calls and service
are routed through another s%stem.
In addition to equipment backup, the
central office also maintains emergency
power to keep phones ringing even
when the local power is out.
This built -in redundant%• is one
example of why a central office -based
system is the intelligent choice for your
business telecommunications needs.
V bat if demands change? What if
b-ner and faster methods are developed
for handl -ng voice and data needs? Will
you be "stuck" with equipment that no
longer approaches state -of -the art?
Conte] Centrex ends the wom• of
obsolete equipment. Improvemen s in
digital communications become part of
the central office system. Your service
improves as the central office improves.
PU I_
M"
Flexible Sophistication
People o en have strong preferences
regarding features, color and style. Within
a single office, personal choices in
telephones can range from the simplicity
of the touch -tone phone to more
sophisticated model~. Most private
telecommunications wStems limit the
choice of phones. Contel Centrex offers
flexible options in phone models and
features for each person, job or
environment.
Contel Centrex gives you choices.
Expandable Sophistication
A sophisticated telecommunications
system groats with a company, line by
line, phone by phone, feature by feature.
The executive should decide when to
Expand the system and when to cut back.
The services of Contel Centrex can
change to meet the evolving and seasonal
demands of the modem business.
•
•
Companies equipped with a private
»*stem can easik add features offered
with Contel Centrex without purchasing
additional equipment.
Contel Centrex groats with the
customer.
Feature Sophistication
An ads anted telecommunications
sen•ice should allow feature customizing.
And the choice of features should be
from a % large menu.
Contel Centrex is feature -rich, seeing
the needs of businesses for %vice and data
services "a la carte." The customer selects
from hurdreds of features ranging from
the very basic to the highly refined.
Contel Centrex offers iust what is
needed.
►�qo
•
Systems Comparison
Contel Centrex is the choice for
business executives wfio want:
To have the latest in
telecommunications technology.
The advanced swit=ipment
at I central office is being
upgrecA to provide the latest in
telephone services.
With pr* are systems the equipment
may become outdated or the capacity
surpassed by growth, requiring costly
changes or replacement.
To save valuable office space.
All of the bulky equipment is located
at the central office.
With prkate systems the equipment
consumes office space and often
demands special environmental
requirements and power systems.
To save money.
Since the equipment is located at
the telephone company central office,
savings are easily realized on training,
insurance and utility bills.
Withpnrate systems there are often
"hidden' expenses that are all -but-
forgotten until after the system is in place.
To avoid service interruptions.
A backup power supply at the central
office keeps the equipment up and
running even during power failures.
With pr* ate systems businesses must
purchase a special back -up power supply
to prevent power loss downtime.
To forget repair bills and downtime.
Since the main equipment is
maintained and serviced at the central
office, telephone company personnel can
correct problems even before a customer
notices a disruption.
With pruate systems business
executives may well experience delays
and downtime. When a problem arises,
there is often an annoying wait for parts
and repairs.
To gradually add to their system.
With Contel Centrex, lines and
services can be added when desired,
even one at a time if necessary.
With pr* ate systems flexibility for
growth is constrained by the switching
capacity, circuit design, contractual
specifications and floor space.
To use a wide variety of voice terminals.
Thanks to the flexibility of central
office business services, business
executives can choose the telephones
that meet their exacting needs and those
of everyone else in the company. One of
those choices can be a familiar basic
phone that is inexpensive to buy and
simple to use.
With pprruu systems frequency there
is little choice regarding the telephone
that can be used. Often these phones are
complicated and quite expensive to buy
and maintain.
•
•
at, l
iftt: u JUL 19 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mound City Council and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: July 18, 1990
SUBJECT: Shoreland Management Ordinance - Pelican Point
At the meeting on June 26, 1990, the City Council requested that
staff review the determination that was made regarding a shoreland
management ordinance when Pelican Point was under consideration.
I have reviewed the available file information and have the
following comments to offer.
In approximately 1978, the City of Mound approved a 27 unit
development on the Pelican Point site. At that time, the project
consisted of 13 single family homes and 14 attached patio homes.
Despite extensions of the original approval through 1982, the
project was never constructed due to economic conditions.
In 1982, the State of Minnesota adopted a new set of environmental
rules with references to shoreland management ordinances. Those
rules (3.039M) which are still in effect contain the following
threshold for projects requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS):
Mandatory EIS Category
Construction of a permanent or potentially permanent
residential development of 40 or more unattached or of 60 or
more attached units if the local government unit has not
adopted state approved shoreland, floodplain, or wild and
scenic rivers land use district ordinances, the Mississippi
headwaters plan, or the Project Riverbend plan, as applicable,
and either:
a. The project invo'ves riparian frontage, or
b. 10 or more acres of the development is within a
shoreland, or delineated floodplain, or state or
federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the
Minnesota River Project Riverbend area or the Mississippi
headwaters area.
•
211 62
3030 Harbor Lone North 81dq.11, Suite 104 Minnaapolio, MN, 66447 -2176 612/663 -1960
Shoreland /Pelican Point Memorandum
July 18, 1990
Page Two
In 1985 as is the case today, the City of Mound did not have a
shoreland management ordinance in place. Because of this, the 1985
project was required to prepare an EIS which was determined to be
unrealistic due to cost ( ;50,000 - $100,000) and the fact that it
would add up to two years to the project approval process. As an
alternative, the City of Mound expressed the possibility of
adopting the model ordinance that was available at that time. In
January of 1985, City Manager Jon Elam stated, "As a city though,
we will have to face the Shoreland Management Ordinance issue
sooner or later. I would propose that we begin to draft up, over
the next four to six weeks, language that might be involved in such
an ordinance and forward it to the DNR for their reaction." In
February of 1985, a packet of materials pertaining to shoreland
management was presented to the Planning Commission for their
review and consideration.
Through a series of meetings, the Planning Commission and
ultimately the City Council became more familiar with shoreland
management ordinances and their potential impact on Mound.
Gradually, there was a realization that adoption of an ordinance
was not a simple matter and certainly not one that could be quickly
addressed. At about this same point in time, the developers
decided not to pursue the Pelican Point project and the pressure
on the City to act quickly was removed.
Since all cities are required to adopt shoreland management
ordinances, efforts to resume preparation of an ordinance for Mound
resumed in late 1987. It was decided that a prudent time to review
the issue of shoreland regulation was during and after preparation
of an updated comprehensive plan. In 1988, preparation of a
shoreland ordinance for Mound was derailed again, this time by the
LMCD who initiated the comprehensive planning process for Lake
Minnetonka. The plan was to contain standards for the lake
communities that differed from the ONR guidelines for shoreland
management. As the Council is aware, that plan is now complete in
draft form and is undergoing a review process.
At this time, Mound is still without a shoreland management
ordinance since the framework for the ordinance (the LMCO plan) has
not been formally adopted. The situation today remains very much
the same as it did in 1985. Mound still needs to adopt an
ordinance regulating shoreland management. If Pelican Point was
proposed today as it was in 1.985, it would still require the
preparation of an EIS due the environmental rule thresholds.
Recent history has shown that the City of Mound is committed to
fulfilling its requirement of adopting a shoreland management
ordinance. The ordinance can not be completed, however, until the
LMCD plan is finalized. 0
$03
SHOREPEL.L51
CITY of MOUND MO N1D. MAYWOOD MI NESOTA 55364
(612) 472 -1155
January 15, 1985
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
RE: SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
As most of you know by now the City has received a proposal to develop the
16 acre site South of Lakewinds into condominiums.
This 126 unit project would consist (as proposed) of three buildings, 85 feet
high and would create a wall about 800 feet long over the 1300 foot length
of the site.
• Not surprising, a development like this causes major involvements on the part
of a number of other agencies. Most of these are relatively routine in
nature, i.e. Metro Waste Control, Health Dept., LMCD, Watershed District,
etc. Others ordinarily do not get involved in our day to day planning
process. Primarily, the major agency of concern is the DNR.
It would appear that they have the power to review and approve a number of
Issues posed by this project, over and above the City's review. These
include, height (not to exceed 35 feet), density (maximum 80 un;ts), set-
backs at least 50 feet from lake, docks (26, LMCD could grant up to 60),
etc. This is where the confusion and complexity of all this develops.
If the City has a [DNR approved Shoreland Management Ordinance, the approval
process for most activities would be retained by the City. DNR would still
retain the review right for large projects like Pelican Point, but that
would be a review right not a veto, unless we greatly va +:ed from the
Shoreland Management Ordinance.
The Plariiiiny Commission did vote, I believe, unanimously against the zoning
and variFnces Pelican Point was seeking.
For this large project it means going back to the drawing boards and re -doing
their plan or dropping it altogether. At this point, I do not think they
know what they want to do.
As a City though, we will have to face the Shoreland Management Ordinance
issue sooner or later. I would propose that we begin to draft up, over
the next four to six weeks, language that might be involved in such an
ordinance and forward it to the DNR for their reaction.
A,' i
Page 2
City Council
January 15, 1985
Clearly this could be a process that could go on for months, but I do not
see how anybody could gain from that.
In summary, the issues a Shoreland Management Ordinance would govern would
be:
Lot Size
Height
Setbacks
Density
Review b Approval Process
Subdivisions of Lots
Plats
I may have missed something, but i hope I have not. I will keep you
informed on this as we move ahead.
The Council and Planning Commission may want to jointly appoint a Committee
to develop this as was done earlier on the Wetlands Ordinance.
JE: -`c
•
C7
1
•
piss
IN
A e
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRIM
102 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA. MINNESOTA SS..191 TELEPHONE 612/4n?=
O
EUGENE A. iTROMMEN ENECUTWE DIi1ECTON
•)rte 31AV M%
Oerd N. Ceaben. CAW
°r " VWO Ch
June s, 1990 in JUN 990
an meow~ tewol"
„mw LOWFAM. Vewww
00 =
The Honorable Steve Saith
ia,M Sw
Mayor, City 4f Mound
"""' N. otermef
exceN+o►
2710 Clare Lane
ieft^ L. Hun
oftww
Mound MN 55364
am O. maw"
VIawy
TAa^ea "" nonson
Dear Steve:
M►wlas
Wass K vw.w,r
r.�•rnognYa
aoe�n R�seop
SAw�.000
Thom"
The MN DNR Statewide Standards for "Management of Shoreland
10b"' E
Areas" were adopted July 3, 1989. These revised standards are
and
expected to be adopted by all cities.
As a special accommodation co the 14 ..ake Minnetonka cities,
the MN DNR invited your Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
to facilitate the adoption of the shoreland standards among
its member cities.
Coincident to the development of the Long Term Management
Program for Lake Minnetonka, the Shoreland Rules study was the
first to be conducted. Your city participated in this
shoreland rules assessment in the winter of 1988 -89.
Profressional staff and some elected official partic+pation
in this study resulted in the recommended Shoreland Management
guide distributed with eight other study areas in November, 1989.
Workshops sponsored by the MN DNR were held in late January,
1990. We believe all lake communities participated in these
workshops. The process for each community's responsibility
in adopting the revised Shoreland Rules was reviewed in detail.
LMCD's role as the facilitating agency for the Lake Minnetonka
communities was also explained by DNR offic`•. ^ls.
The Shoreland Grant Agreement is now ready after a careful
review of its contents with the ill DNR. Your LMCD hoard has
r ^viewed and approved it for ycur subsequent review and, we
trust, adoption.
•
AM
e.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERV *TION DISTRICT
LMCD Municipalities
DNR Shoreland Rules
June S. 1990
Page
Certain funding reimbursement for eligible costs is being
provided by the MN DNR through LMCD as the facilitating agency•
A provision to fund necessary consulting service to assist the
cities in the adoption process is also included ar part of the
agreement. Eligibility for the tk -itching funds is available
through July 31, 1991. That id the deadline for all LMCD
cities to complete their sboreland rules adoption. This
leaves just a year to accomplish this task upon your prompt
review and signing of the agreement.
May we count on you and your City Council to favorably adopt
this Shoreland Grant agreement in June so we may move ahead
with the maximum time available? You may direct questions to
me personally at 474 -4743, or to Executive Director Gene
Strommen. 473 -7033.
Thankyou for your positive and early response.
Sncerely. 9
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
David H. Cochran
Chayr
DHC:am
enc:agreement
c:city administrator
•
AIt7
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SHORELAND GRANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEM.'NT is entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting by and
through the Commissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the
"State"; and the Lake Minnetonka Cons%rvation District, hereinafter referred
to as the "LMCD "; and, the Cities of Deephaven. Exceisior, Greenwood,
Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring
Park, Tonka Bay, Victorii, Wayzata and Woodland, hereinafter referred to as
the "Cities ".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the State has been granted certain responsibility for regulation
of shoreland development, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 105.485 and
Minnesota Rules parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900 pertaining to "Statewide
Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas "; and
WHEREAS, the State is authorized by the Laws of 1989, Chapter 335,
Article 1, Section 21, Subdivision 3 to provide grant assistance for local
governments to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with
statewide standards, and to develop comprehensive lake management strategies
and plans; and
WHEREAS, the LMCD has prepared a Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive Lake
Management Plan which includes a strategy for shoreland area management; and
- a coordinated, comprehensive approach to shoreland standards for
the shoreland areas of Lake Minnetonka will result in greater local
consistency and a(ceptance of the controls, and
WHEREAS, the LMCD and the Cities have submitted an application for grant
assistance.
ou ?8
t
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SHORELAND GRANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting by and
through the Comissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the
"State"; and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, hereinafter referred
to as the "LMCD "; and, the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood,
Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring
Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Wayzata and Woodland, hereinafter referred to as
the "Cities ".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the State has been granted certain responsibility for regulation
of shoreland developrix nt, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 105.485 and
Minnesota Rules parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900 pertaining to "Statewide
Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas "; and
WHEREAS, the State is authorized by the Laws of 1989, chapter 335,
Article 1, Section 21, Subdivision 3 to provide grant assistance for local
It
governments to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with
statewide standards, and to develop comprehensi lake management strategies
and plans; and
WHEREAS, the LMCD has prepared a Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive Lake
Management Plan which includes a strategy for shoreland area management; and
- ,WHEREAS, a coordinated, comprehensive approach to shoreland standards for
the shoreland areas of Lake Minnetonka will result in greater local
consistency and acceptance of the controls, and
WHEREAS, the LI:CD and the Cities have submitted an application for grant
assistance.
0 V U
1
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto:
1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. CITIES' RESPONSIBILITY
1. Shoreland Ordinance Adoption. After the official two year notice
has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., and before
July 31, 1991, the Cities agree to adopt a shoreland management ordinance
consistent with statewide standards and the Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive
Management Plan.
2. The Cities shall document all eligible costs defined in Section
II.A. of this agreement, and report them to the LMCD for payment.
B. LMCD RESPONSIBILITY
1. Local Government Coordination. After the official two year
notice has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., LMCD
agrees to coordinate the shoreland ordinance adoption for the shoreland areas
of Lake 11nnetonka (I.D./27-133) of the following local governments:
City of Oeephaven City of Orono
City of Excelsior City of Shorewood
City of Greenwood City of Sp���g Park
City of Minnetonka City of Tonka Bay
City of Minnetonka Beach City of Victoria
City of Minnetrista City of W;,yzata
City of Mound City of Woodland
2. Ordinance Certificatioo Checklist. Within the adoption schedule
described in item A.I. above, the LMCD also agrees to ensure completion of all
the tasks and return the attached ordinance certification checklist for each
City to the State.
at9q
3. The LMCD shall pay to the Cities from funds received pursuant to
Section II.A of this Agreement 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption
expenses (described in item 4, below) up to a maximum of: a) $2,500.00 for
each of the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka
Beach, Mound, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata and Woodland, and b) $5,000.00
for each of the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood and Victoria.
4. Documentation of Actual Costs. The LMCD agrees to provide to the
State documentation of all actual eligible costs, defined below, in the
adoption of shoreland ordinances for the Cities, and the coordination of
shoreland ordinance adoption by the local governments listed in item B.I.,
above. Examples of allowable costs are:
a) Publishing costs for hearing notices and ordinance provisions;
b) Consultants fees and /or legal fees involved in the ordinance
adoption process;
c) Flailing costs associated with ordinance adoption and publication;
d) Education and training costs including, expenses for attending
the DNR workshops;
e) Costs of holding public information meetings;
f) Costs of shoreland classification reviews, including map
revisions and ordinance development;
g) Costs for comprehensive plan development and revisions pertaining
to the shoreland district only, unless combined with the
,_
Floodpla d and /or Wild and Scenic Rivers programs.
h) Costs for upgrading zoning administration forms such as: permit
application, permit certification, variances, conditional uses,
special uses, zoning changes, amendments.
i) Costs resulting from tasks performed by local appointed
• officials, employees or staff involved in the adoption process of
a shoreland ordinance. AROO
3
J) Coordination costs of local government shoreland ordinance
adoption relating to: meeting attendance, training and
explanation of county codes and ordinances for compatibility,
lake and stream classification review for county wide
consistency, review and comments on local government controls and
ordinances for county consistency and state compliance, and
review and comments on local government administrative procedures
for consistency and compatibility with the county.
k) Office computerization relating to shoreland management.
5. The LMCD shall return to the State any grant funds advanced which
are in excess of 50% of actual costs and which have not previously been paid
to the Cities. Funds which have been previously paid to the Cities which are
in excess of 50% of actual costs shall be returned to the State by the Cities.
6. If any City does not adopt a shoreland ordinance by July 31,
1991, then all
grant funds for
the
purposes of adopting a shoreland ordinance
for that City
shall be returned
to
the state.
7. Each City shall provide to the Department for review a draft
ordinance at least 60 days before the deadline date defined in item 6, above.
II. GRANT
A. The State shall pay to the LMCD up to a maximum of $45,000.00 for
payment to the Cities of 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption expenses for
the services authorized hereunder.
Invoices will( be submitted for double the requested payment amount
to demonstrate both the local and state share. Final payment will be made
after the Work has been completed and if costs and Work for which invoices are
submitted are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. This
also includeb submittal of the Ordinance Certification Checklist.
�' 4
Advance payments to the LMCD by the State not to exceed 50S of the grant
amount may be authorized if a listing of anticipated incurred expenses are
submitted by the LMCD to the State. The LMCD and /or Cities agree to pay all
expenses not paid for by the grant.
B. The State shall pay $15,000.00 costs of coordinating the adoption
of local controls up to a maximum of $15,000.00. Examples of allowable
expense are described in Section I.B.4. of this contract.
III. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
I. The LMCD agrees that in the hiring of common or skilled labor for
the performance of any work under any contract, or sub - contract hereunder,
neither it nor any contractor, material supplier or vendor shall engage in any
discriminatory employment practices as such practices are defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 181.59 and Chapter 363, or in any practices prohibited by
Minnesota Statutes Sections 177.42 and 171.43 (1988).
9 2. The LMCD shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the State,
its agents and employees from all claims or actions which may arise from
performance of this Agreement.
3. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures, and
practices of the LMCD relevant to this Agreement shall be subject to
examination of the Uepartment of Natural Resources and the Legislative
Auditor.
4. The State agree, to provide technical and coordinative assistance
to the L14CU and /or Cities for the adoption of shoreland controls for non -Lake
Minnetonka shoreland areas within the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood,
and Victoria.
•
d2A0A
5
5. The State intends by this Agreement to eliminate unnecessary
duplication of ordinance adoption procedures by requiring all ordinance
standards prepared by the Cities to be coordinated with the LMCD prior to
submittal to the State for approval. Failure by the Cities to coordinate with
the LMCD will result in non - payment of eligible costs to the Cities by the
LMCd.
IV. TERM
This Agreement shall become effective when all signatures required
have been obtained and when the funds have been encumbered by the Commissioner
of Finance, and shall continue in effect until the agreed tasks are completed
or until July 31, 1991, whichever is earlier.
V. TERMINATION
The State may terminate this Agreement "with cause ". "With cause'
shall mean that the L14CO and /or Cities are not performing the Work in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement or the Work is not being pe.!ormed
to the satisfaction of the State. If this Agreement is so terwinated, the
State shall only be liable to pay for Work found acceptable.
In the event of termination of this Agreement as heretofore
provided, the LMCD and /or Cities shall have seven (7) days prior written
notice and if the Agreement is being terminated "with cause" the LMCD and /or
Cities shall have until the date of termination to show cause why the
Agreement should not be terminated. If it is determined by the State that the
LMCD /Citi,.i default was beyond its control or it was not otherwise in default,
the Agreement shall not be terminated.
•
' -r
•
17,�
CITY OF MOUND
By:
May or
Date:
By:
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF ORONO
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF SPRING PARK
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
er
Date:
CITY OF TONKA BAY
By:
Mayor
Date:
By: er
Date:
CITY OF VICTORIA
By:
M ayor
Date:
By:
Date
CITY OF WAYZATA
By:
Ma yor
Date:
By:
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF WOODLAND
By:
•ayor
Date:
By:
Cl er
my
8
ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST
Once all the below listed tasks are completed, please sign and return the
checklist and all required documents to the State. This must be returned before
final payment will be authorized. 0
1. Date of published he &iron notice.
2. Date of postmark of hearing notice to
Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources /Area Hydrologist.
3. Date of hearing(s).
4. Date of ordinance adoption.
S. If ordinance is published in entirety,
date and affidavit of newspaper
publication of adopted ordinance.
(Include three copies of ordinance)
6. If only ordinance summary published,
date and affidavit of newspaper
publication of ordir -nce title and
summary along with certified copy of
adopted ordinance in its entirety from
the Clerk.
(Include three copies of ordinance)
7. Date of official filing of adopted
ordinance with County Recorder
( record book number
p age number).
8. Board of Adjustment /Appeals has been
established.
*Note: Cities under charter must also submit a list of any additional
requirements for hearings, notices, etc. stated in their charter. Please
specify:
BY:
Mayor
DATE:
CITY:
AMAW
as�oc �n of
m�uniC�i�it�e5
July 2, 1990 FW JUL 5 IM
TO: Edward Shukle, Jr. - City Manager
RE: 1991 DUES FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES
(ANN)
The AMM Board, in accordance with the By -Laws, is responsible for
establishing the Annual Budget and Work Program and setting the
corresponding membership dues rate. The process for 1991 is more
complicated due to the impact of the recommendations contained in the
final report of the Mission and Membership Services Task Force which
you recently received under separate cover. The Board voted at the
June 28th Board Meeting to recommend implementation of the major
Ir fission Task Force recommendations. Implementinq the major Task Force
ecommendations, including the additional staff person has a total cost
of about $38,000 which would result in a 19% dues increase for member
cities over the 1990 dues paid. Consequently, the 1991 AMN dues for
Mound based on this decision would be $2,592 and I would ask you to use
that amount when preparing your 1991 budget.
The Board recognizes that this is a large increase but believes it is
essential for several reasons detailed in said report including the
following:
1. The need for the AMM to become more p--oactive and visible in
helping set the metropolitan agenda. we need to be 'there' to
represent the AMM member cities adequately at the Council. We need
to have a staff person there 12 -15 hours per week. Increased
responsibilities at the legislature have made it impossible for our
small staff to maintain that kind of commitment.
2. The AMM also needs to increase its presence at the State
Legislature. The AMM has been 'spread to thin' with the number of
policy issues involved and with outstate groups promoting tax
policies detrimental to the collective interests of metropolitan
area cities, the AMM staff needs to increase the amount of time it
can spend 'one -on -one' promoting AMM policy positions. we also
need to hold metropolitan legislators more accountable to the AMM
agenda.
AOV
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008
3. If the AM is to achieve the status of being recognized as the
organization that saka t and represents the collective interests
of metro litan area cities t s important that the association
ncrease is v s b 1 tyithe eyes of the Legislature, City
Officials, the general public and the Metropolitan Council. An
enhanced public relations system must be implemented and this
cannot be done effcrtively without an additional ataff person.
A dues increase of such magnitude however, requires membership approval
and there will be a special AMM Membership Meeting on Thursday evening
September 6, 1990 to vote on this matter. (a two /thirds majority of
those present and voting is required for approval). It is intended that
the new staff person would handle a lot of the enhanced communications
and public relations effort thereby 'freeing -up the Director of
Legislative Affairs and the Executive Director for more •one -on -one•
contact at both the metro and state levels.
A back -up budget based on a work program and staffing level similar to
our 1990 level of activity and effort has also been prepared in case
the 19% dues increase is not approved at the membership meeting. The
dues for Mound to support the back -up budget would not exceed $2,276
which represents a 4.5% increase over the 1990 dues. The Board
appreciates your continued support of the AMM efforts and strongly
endorses the enhanced work program and resultant increase in dues. Do
not hesitate to call me or our Executive Director, Vern Peterson should
you have questions. 9
We would also encourage you to make plans now to assure that your city
has representation at the September 6th. meeting to vote the will of
your city.
itan Municipalities
-2-
Xao7
Thank you.
.1
of
� i an
rnmici aalities
June 4, 1990
Dear Chief Administrative official:
•
RECD JUN 5 10
I NEED YOUR HELP NOW! 'The AMM must become more proactive, more
collaborative, more focused and more assertive. The AMM provides the
only meaninciful vehicle for the cities of the metropolitan area to
express in a united voir- this important perspective of local
government.'
The above quote, perhaps more than any other statement, capsulizes
the major conclusion of the 12 member AMM Mission and Membership
Services Task Force which just completed a year long evaluation and
assesment of the AMM's mission, focus and general operations. The
Task Force, in its final report, concluded that the AMM has been a very
effective 'voice' and provides many benefits for the cities in the 7-
county metropolitan area. However, the Task Force feels that we (The
AMM) are at a crossroads and must not rest on our laurels as the
problems and challenges facing us in the 90's are likely to be even
more complex and difficult than the problems of the last decade.
The enclosed Task Force report contains a 'blueprint for action' which
if implemented should enable the AMM to remain a reliable and relevant
tool for member cities as we enter the 90 The bottom line,
however, is that to follow this 'blueprint' we must hire an additional
staff member which could result in a dues increase of 20 to 25 %. The
current three member staff does an outstanding job but the work load
has increased so dramatically in recent years that to maintain current
programs and increase our effectiveness at the Legislature and to
become mere proactive at the metropolitan level as recommended in the
report, an additional staff member is mandatory.
The Board would like to implement the Task Force recommendations and
have the additional person on board by early 1991 but will not do so
unless there is strong membership support for such action. Here is how
your help is needed as asked for in the opening sentence of this
letter:
1. Please provide copies of this letter and report to your Mayors and
Councilmembers.
-1- A�d8
183 university avenue east, st, paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008
CITY COUNCIL PACKET - _7 -24 -90 #2
•
2. Please place the report on your Council's Agenda for discussion
and action prior to August 1, 1990. (If you would like an AM
board member to attend your council meeting when this item is
discussed, please contact an AM staff member to make the
arrangements.)
3. Please inform the AM Office by no later than August 15th. as to
whether your city supports or opposes adding a staff member and
the resultant dues increase. (You will be notified as to the
exact amount of such increase by no later than July 6th.)
4. Please have a representative from your city attend the special AM
Membership Meeting pre- scheduled for Thursday evening, September
20th. to consider and vote on this matter.
I thank you in advance for your help and thoughtful consideration of
this proposal.
Sincerely,
Larry Bakken, President
Golden Valley Councilmember
is
22 -2-
aeowkition Of
POO
muricipalit WS
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES
REPORT OF THE 1990 MISSION AND MEMBERSHIP SERVICES TASK FORCE
•
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Kevin Frazell, City Administrator, Cottage Grove, Task Force Chair
Mentor "Duke" Addicks, Legislative Liaison, Minneapolis
Bob Benke, Mayor, New Brighton
Gary Jackson, City Manager, Coon Rapids
James D. Prosser, City Manager, Richfield
Marilyn Corcoran, Mayor, Dayton
Nancy Jorgenson, Councilmember, Fridley
Tom Spies, Councilmember, Bloomington
Katherine Trummer, Mayor, South St. Paul
Larry Bakken, Councilmember, Golden Valley
Bob Long, Councilmember, St. Paul
Lu Stoffel, Mayor, Hastings
•
2410
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008
r
r
r
F
INTRODUCTION
The League of Metropolitan Municipalities (LW) was originally created in 1967,
as a subsection and affiliate organization of the League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC). The impetus for forming the LMM was the creation of the Metropolitan
Council, and the growth in importance and power of the regional operating agen-
cies. It was felt that the cities of the seven - county metropolitan area needed
an organization, separate from but complementary to the LMC, to interact with
those agencies. In 1974, the LMM merged with the Suburban League of Municipali-
ties to become the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (ANN).
As the needs of AMM member cities have changed over the years, the Board of
Directors has strived to keep the organization relevant. During the late 1970's
and throughout the 1980's, the Association's focus has broadened from strictly
"metropolitan" affairs, to protecting the interests of menber cities in state-
wide issues with unique impacts for the metropolitan area. The most prominent
recent example is the distribution of state aids to local governments.
In 1984, the Association convened its Mission and Membership Services Task
Force to do an in depth study of the AMM and recommend needed changes. The
major concern of that Task Force was the proliferation of splinter municipal
lobbying groups within the metropolitan area. The 1984 Task Force was concerned
that the AMM could lose its viability as an umbrella organization for all metro-
politan cities in the face of a growing number of smaller groups with differ-
ences of opinion on the allocation of state aid resources. The group made 13
recommendations, all of which have since been implemented, with the exception of
expanding the staff. The final recommendation of the 1984 report was that the
Mission and Membership Services review process should be revisited every five
years.
Fortunately, predictions of any demise of the Association were ill- founded.
Since the 1984 report was issued, five additional communities (Nest St. Paul,
South St. Paul, Arden Hills, Blaine and Shoreview) have joined AMM. The Member-
ship now includes 68 metropolitan cities, covering over 90 percent of the popu-
lation in the seven- county area. This is an all -time high for the Association.
Ironically, one of the splinter groups which existed in 1984, the Municipal
Caucus, has since gone out of existence after concluding that its aims and
purposes were not that different from those of AMM.
The meetings of this year's Mission and Membership Services Task Force, however,
have taken place within the context of an increasing split between the metropo-
litan area and Greater Minnesota over taxation, local government aid, and other
state fiscal policies. The Task Force has studied carefully how the AMM might
be a more effective and united voice at the legislature on behalf of all cities
in the seven - county metropolitan area. The Task Force has also considered the
Association's relationship to the League of Minnesota Cities, and how it might
help strengthen that organization in serving the interests of all cities
throughout Minnesota.
At the same time, the Task Force has not neglected the original focus of AMM,
which was to monitor and work with the metropolitan agencies. Of particular
i .ern is the observation that as AMM has become involved in more and more
.atewide issues, the staff has had a very noticeable decrease in the amount of
time available to be spent in the area of metropolitan affairs. The Task Force
/ fots strongly that the AMM should not only correct its decreased activity'in
*e"-ional tropolitan oversight, but should actually become proactive in helping set the
agenda.
Richfield City Manager Jim Prosser and Golden Valley Councilmember Larry Bakken
have drafted a revised •PURPOSES" Statement for incorporation in the Association
bylaws. This document, attached as Appendix A, has been adopted by the Task
Force as a recommended mission statement for the Association. In a nutshell,
the recommended mission is well- summarized in the first item of that Purposes
Statement:
To serve as the exclusive and imar representative of the collec-
tive interests oralT an c ties on metropolitan -wiTe
statewide issues wTW unique metropolitan significance.
To further that goal, the Task Force has made several observations and numerous
recommendations for specific actions to enhance the success and performance of
the Association. Those are set forth by topical area as follows,. and prefaced
by brief background material.
During its deliberations the Task Force received input and advice from a number
of resource persons. They are listed -in Appendix B. The Task Force wishes to
express its gratitude for their time and counsel.
•
0
- 2 -
m
J RELATIONSHI TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
As indicated in the introduction, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
was originally created as a subsection of the League of Minnesota Cities and
remains in that status today. As .such, we are the only organization entitled to
an ex officio (with voting privileges) seat on the League Board of Directors.
Me are considered an "affiliate organization" of the League for the purposes of
adopting9 legislative policy. The Association offices are located on the first
floor of the LMC building. Cities in the seven - county metropolitan area
comprise approximately 15 percent of the LM membership, but because of their
size pay about one -half of the LMC dues.
The Task Force met with LNC President Millie McCloud, as well as Executive
Director Don Slater. A member of the Task Force, New Brighton Mayor Bob Benke,
currently serves as vice president of the League.
The Task Farce observations are that the League of Minnesota Cities and the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities have maintained a very positive
working relationship. Despite the split in the LMC membership over local
government aid policies, the AMM has never taken a legislative position in
direct opposition to any adopted policy of the League. In fact, LMC and ANN
lobbying staffs work cooperatively in many areas of policy agreement (such as
pay equity, labor relations law and tax increment financing).
Officials from Greater Minnesota have raised concerns about the relationship
between the league and AMM. Specifically, it has been questioned whether the
AMM should have the ex officio seat on the Board, and whether the relationship
between the staffs of the two organizations has been compromisingly close. We
to these concerns, as well as our own concerns about the effectiveness of AMM as
a subsection of the League, the Task Force considered carefully whether the AMM
should be incorporated as a separate entity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Because of division in its membership, the LMC has been neutralized from
effective lobbying on some critical issues like local government aid. This
means that the AMM must become more vocal and assertive on behalf of its
member cities in these policy areas.
At the same time, we wish to support the efforts of LMC to bring together
its membership on divisive issues, and recommend that the LMC develop
effective consensus building and dispute resolution procedures that enable
it to adopt policy positions that have credibility with the legislature.
We encourage AMM member city officials to become more actively involved in
the LMC, creating a metropolitan constituency group and perspective within
the LMC.
2. We recommend that the Association not be incorporated as a legal entity
separate from the League of Minnesota Cities. We wish to be supportive of
the LMC, and to encourage AMM member city officials to become more active •
in the League. We feel that this goal can be best accomplished in our
current status as subsection of the I.eague.
AM*) - 3 -
•
r1
C
3. We recommend ths! the AM reject any requests that it give up the ex Officio
seat on the LMC Board. The Task force feels strongly that we have lived up
to the guidelines and spirit under which we are an affiliate organization
(i.e. not taking contrary lobbying positions).
4. We recommend that, as long as possible, the ANN offices resin in the LMC
building. We feel that to move from the building would undermine much of
the cooperative working relationship that exists between the staffs of the
two organizations. It would also be expensive for the ANN to acquire the
overhead !nd support services that it currently purchases from LMC.
However, expansion of the AM staff may make a move from the existing LHC
wilding unavoidable.
S.
We recommend that the AM Board and Mdibership focus its agenda by refer-
rin more of the non- divisive statewide issues to the LMC for lobbying
on if of all member cities, both metropolitan and Greater Minnesota.
- 4 -
L_
Legislative policy adoption and lobbying have become the major focus for the
Association, growing steadily over the years. When the Association was farmed
In 1974, it had two standing policy comittees and 35 legislative policies.
Twiny the Association has five standing committees, and the membership has
adopted over 100 legislative policies for the current biennium. In addition,
several ad hoc study committees for specialized topics (i.e. land use legisla-
tion, metropolitan significance rules, group homes) have been formed in the past
few years.
lstrusion by the legislature into local affairs has increased dramatically in
recent years. At the same time, other municipal lobbying groups, most notably
the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, have aggressively promoted tax poli-
cies that are detrimental to the collective interests of the metropolitan area.
Consequently, the ANN lobbyists have been challenged to accomplish more and more
at the legislature, without any significant increase in resources.
Legislators with whom the Task force met described our lobbying staff as com-
petent and well respected. At the same time, the legislators admitted that the
aggressive, and sometimes even abrasive tactics used by other municipal lobbying
groups have probably led to more success in accomplishing their agendas. In
response to these concerns, the AMM for the first time hired contract lobbyists
during the 1990 session.
Legislators expressed their frustration with the increasing regionalism of city
lobbying groups, and urged us to show a concern for the entire State at the same
time we more actively pursue the interests of the metropolitan cities. It was
also suggested that having a better data base for lobbying would be helpful in
pressing the AMM position.
RECOKif NDATI ONS
1. The AM should seek to be seen as the organization with the authority and
credibility to speak on behalf of aff cities in the seven - county metropoli-
tar: area.
2. The AMM has become "spread too thin" in the number of policy issues it is
lobbying, and needs to limit active involvement to three types of issues:
a) Issues of concern only to metropolitan cities - i.e. interaction
with Metropolitan Council and operating agencies, Chapter 509
Watershed Management Organizations, etc.
b) Statewide legislation with unique impacts in the metropolitan
area - i.e. land use, solid waste, tax increment financing, etc.
c) Statewide issues where the interests of the metropolitan area
may be different than, and at times even contrary to, those in the
remainder of the State - i.e. local government aid formulas
Specific suggestions
to these topjcs are
adoption process.
IS
for limiting our most active legislative agenda items
included in the section on committees and the policy
- 5 -
•
t
3. The AW S lobbying efforts in the property tax area have been hindered by
lack of immediate access to a computerized property tax model. The Task
Force recommends that the AM hoard of Directors closely monitor the
progress of the League of Minnesota Cities in developing a property tbx
model that is useable and immediately accessible to all cities. If this
• proves inadequate to meet our needs, the AIM membership should be prepared
to bear the expense of developing its own property tax modeling system.
4. The AIM should be proactive, and not just reactive in its legislative posi-
tions. For example, the AIM has never produced its own recommended formula
for distribution of local government aids, and should consider doing so.
S. At the same time we become more proactive, we should also stay on the high
road, adopting positions that reflect responsible public policy for the
entire State of Minnesota.
6.
AM member city officials should become more active and involved in the
League of Minnesota Cities and its policy study committees. In some cases,
we may find ourselves lobbying the LMC, rather than the State legislature,
to pursue particular policy positions that are of common interest to all
cities in the metroplitan area.
7. The AIM should increase the amount of time it spends one- on-one with
legislators explaining AM positions. We should also hold metropolitan
legislators more accountable to.the AM agenda by developing and publish-
ing a "scorecard" following each legislative session.
S. In pursuing our legislative agenda, we should "pace ourselvt. ". realizing
that lobbying is an ongoing process. Policy positions should be pursued
not only for immediate gains, but for maintaining a long -term positive
relationship with the State government and with the League of Minnesota
Cities.
•
6 - =
COIMITTEE STRUCTURE AND POLICY ADOPTION PROCESS
The Association currently follows a procedure whereby potential legislative
policies are brought forth and considered for adoption i►i the five standing
policy committees (revenues, metropolitan agencies, transportation, housing and
economic development, general legislation). As indicated earlier, the Associ-
ation currently has over 100 adopted legislative policies. The policies have
been divided into categories as to level of effort in lobbying.
The ANN now finds itself actively involved in issues that are not limited in
interest to the metropolitan area, even where our positions are similar to those
of cities in Greater Minnesota. The best recent example is pay equity, where
the AM! position is almost identical to that of the League of Minnesota Cities.
Yet because of the high visibility and strong feelings surrounding this issue,
many member cities expected the AM staff to be active in lobbying on this issue.
There is also the dilemma of issues that are of interest to a single city, or a
limited number of cities. The AIM (bard and staff have attempted to be respon-
sive to the needs of each member city, but a question is raised as to whether it
is fair to take time and resources away from issues that are of more importance
to the broader membership.
The Task Force discussed at length what to do about issues that are divisive
among our own members, for example fiscal disparities or funding for combined
sewer overflow abatement. A majority of the committee concluded that the AMM
should not avoid taking definitive positions on these issues, as it would be
left neutralized on issues of high importance to a large number of city offi-
cials and thereby foster the growth of still more splinter groups.
Finally, the Task Force examined the five standing policy committees, concluding ,
that they are working well and that none should be eliminated. In fact, it was
speculated "that as new social and legislative problems appear (i.e. the drug
crisis) there will likely be a need for additional standing or ad hoc committees.
The Task Force further suggests that there may be utility in having a broad -
based 'futures' committee to sigoly help the organization anticipate and be
prepared for pending issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Association needs to focus most of its resources and effort on the few
issues of very highest priority to the entire membership. At the same
time, the AMM should not narrow its agenda to the point that it loses the
interest and support of its broad base of cities.
2. In order to accommodate the legitimate interests of all member cities, we
recommend that AMM create an "endorsed" category of policies. These would
be policies of interest to a limited number of cities, or those where the
League of Minnesota Cities or some other group might reasonably be expected
to adequately represent the interests of metropolitan cities. With the AMM
"endorsement ", the AMM would be officially on record as supporting these
policies, but not actively involved in lobbying or initiating legislation. is
;A11 -' -
3. The existing legislative Coordinating Committee MCC) should ka the
escreving and div! ding" group for determining lobbying priorities and
deciding which policies will be •endorsed" and referred to other groups
(i.e. CMC) for lobbying.
. 4. We recommend that the Association strive to achieve real consensus on
divisive issues, and not merely concurrence through a majority vote.
Committee chairs as well as Board members eight benefit from professional
training in disputs resolution.
The AM should not avoid taking definitive positions on issues that are
controversial among its own membership. While such avoidance may 'buy
react• in the short term, in the long term it neutralizes the effec-
tiveness of the organization, undermining its credibility with legislators
and causing the proliferation of splinter groups surrounding special
issres. The MM should make use of dispute resolution services, such as
the Office of Dispute Resolution in the State Planning Agency and the
Mediation Center, a private non- profit community mediation service based
in St. Paul.
S. The two- thirds majority vote requirement for adoption of legislative
policies should be retained.
U
-8-
OTWR METROPOLITAN LONYING GROUPS
The Task Force met with Minnetonka City Manager Jim Miller, regarding the Nuni-
cipal i-egislative Commission, and Brooklyn Park Mayor Jim Krautkramer repre-
sentins the Northern Mayors' Association. The Task Force observation is that
tht AM ;pis been able to form effective and cooperative relationships with these
specialized groups, and that they should not be seen as a threat to the AM.
As indicated in the introduction, an additional splinter group which existed in
1964 the Municipal Caucus, has since gone out of existence.
RU MNOATIONS
L We recommend that the AIM strive to be the organization seen as the legiti-
mate voice to speak on behalf of all cities in the seven- county we ropoli-
tat area, while recognizing the l need of some breakoff groups for
special purposes.
2. The AIM should not perceive existing specialized groups as a threat, but
attempt to maintain a cooperative and mutually supportive relationship.
3. He recommend that the AIM maintain its openness
county metropolitan area, resisting any impetus
more limited group (i.e. suburban caucus).
to all cities in the seven -
to limit membership to a
•
•
J
JAIII - 9 -
RELATIONSHIP TO THE METROPOLITAN MOCK AND OPERATING AGENCIES
As indicated in the Introduction, monitoring and oversight of the Metropolitan
ouncil and regional operating agencies was the original focus of the
Association of Netropolitan Nunicipalities. Yet in recent years, involvement
with the Council and agencies has suffered appreciably as the AMM staff has had
to spend more and more time supporting the work of its own committees and
lobbying on statewide issues. In fact, the staff indicated that it now has
almost no time for any involvement with the Metropolitan Council during the
legislative session.
The ANN currently nominates to the Netropolitan Council eight names for appoint-
ment to the Transportation Advisory bard. The Association actually appoints
ten to the Transportation Advisory Committee. That system seems to be working
well. In contrast, the MM, along with several other metropolitan area asso-
ciations, was recently given legislative responsibility for suggesting appoin-
tees to the Regional Transit Board. That process did not go well. The Board of
Directors did not limit the number of people recommended for appointment to the
vacant seats, and the Metropolitan Council heeded very few of its recommen-
dations in making their selections.
During its background work, the Task Force discussed the Metropolitan Council at
some lecoth with several lelislators, as well as the current Chair of the
Netropolitan Council and a former executive director of the Citizens League.
There was a general feeling among the legislators that the Council has not been
effective in performing its functions well. At the same time, it was suggested
that the Councilmembers are frustrated due to their lack of a "real clout" and
, constant legislative undercutting of their authority to accomplish the work for
which they are responsible.
With no consensus in the legislature or in the metropolitan area as to the
appropriate amount of authority that should be vested in the Council, many
metropolitan regional issues get resolved vis -a -vis the political process of the
legislature. The shortcoming of this approach is that the metropolitan area is
giving up some of the authority to set its own agenda. There is also some con-
fusion and ambiguity over the relationship of the Council to the Governor, who
is responsible by law for appointing its members. It was suggested that the AMM
could very definitely be of help in defining the proper role for the Council and
the operating agencies, and in mustering legislative support to enact needed
changes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The AMM should become more proactive in helping set the metropolitan agenda.
Historically we have placed ourselves in somewhat of a watchdog or adver-
sarial role with the Council and operating agencies, merely reacting to the
proposals put forward. We should become more positive in identifying areas
of legitimate regional involvement, and help to set the goals and objec-
tives to be pursued by regional government, as well as the parameters
within which that work will be carried out.
• 2. We need to "be there ". It is estimated that an AMM staff member should be
at the Metropolitan Council and agencies from eight to sixteen hours per
-10- =20
reek, interacting with the Councilmambers and the staff, and keeping
affected cities informed and up -to -date as to what is happening in
regional ggoovvernment. Other responsibilities have kept the staff from a
full co■eitment to this vital role, and this shortcoming should be
corrected expeditiously.
3. The appointment of members to the Transportation Advisory Board and
Technical Advisory Committee seems to be functioning well, and should
continue as present.
4. The AM should continue to support its legislati%e responsibility to nomi-
nate persons for appointment to the Regional Transit Board. The AM Board
of Directors should do a better job of screening the applications which are
feceived, so as to indicate to the Metropolitan Council those people that
1t truly rants appointed to the RTB.
S. The Task Force reconmends that the AMM pursue the possibility of the
creation of a metropolitan appointments review committee for the merit
review of persons beipg considered for appointment to the Metropolitan
Council and other regional agencies. The selection board would include
representatives appointed by the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities, the Metropolitan Intercoupty Association, the Citizens
League, the league of Women Voters, etc.
6. Finally, the Task Force reca @wJs that the AM be the impetus for creation
of a blue ribbon committee to study and better define the mission, role and
purposes of the Council and regional agencies. While AM would be the
host, it would be important to involve other government associations and
"good goverment• groups. Also, the the task should be approached in a
spirit of cooperation with the Metropolitan Council members. The study of
the blue ribbon committee should include alternatives for the selection and
appointment of Metropolitan Council members.
•
.7
•
411A ' . - 11 -
PUBLIC RELATIONS
v
If, as suggested in the revised Purposes statement, the AM is to be the
exclusive representative of the collective interests of the metropolitan cities,
then it is important that the Association increase its visibility in the eyes of
the legislature and the general public. The Task Force reviewed and endorsed
the work of the AM's Legislative Coordinating Committee Public Relations
Subcommittee to establish a public relations system to inform the public,
Including media, legislators, and ANN legislative contacts about metropolitan
city issues..
RECOMIENDATIONS
_
1. Nadia contacts should be identified in each AM-member city vis -a -vis a X
legislative contact response form. Legislative contacts in each city
should be responsible for interaction with local newspapers,.radio, city
newsletters, cable television, etc.
2. The ANN staff should identify and establish relationships with contacts
within the major metropolitan area media, both print and electronic.
3. A delegation of the AM staff and Legislative Coordinating Committee should
maeet with major newspaper staffs early in legislative sessions to discuss
AMM priorities and positions. Media contacts, both local and metropolitan
• wide, should be invited and encouraged to attend our legislative breakfasts.
4. During legislative sessions, we should issue specific press releases on AM
priorities, and response to important issues (i.e. tax policy) as changes
are proposed.
5. At the conclusion of each legislative session, we should issue press
releases on the AM's legislative agenda, and how well we believe the
legislature met the needs of metropolitan area municipalities.
6. We recommend that AMM develop a "report card" of priority issues with
ratings for each legislator. These should be distributed to member cities
with suggestions for potential local use.
7. We need to identify potential allies on important issues, i.e. Chambers of
Commerce, League of Women Voters, etc.
•
-1z- AU2
COMMUNICATIONS WITH MEMBER CITY OFFICIALS \
The Task Force feels that the ANN needs to develop a metropolitan "conscious-
ness" among member city officials, so that they will buy into and promote the
AMM's agenda. Unfortunately, Councilmember time is scarce, making it difficult
to insure that each and every member city official is well- informed and aware
of AMM activities, policies and priorities.
The first recommendation of the 1984 Task Force report was that the AMM should
expand its effort to communicate directly with all elected officials in member
cities, as opposed to only mayors and city managers. Since that time, the ANN
has had differing distribution lists for different types of commnications.
Apparently, this is causing a great deal of confusion, and may actually be
causing a decrease in consistent communications.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The ANN should strive to publish a short executive summary of legislative
positions that could be quickly read by member city officials who don't
want the "full shot".
T. An ANN contact person, preferably the City Manager /Administrator, should be
developed in each city. All communications should be sent to that one con-
tact person, plus the Mayor, with the contact person taking responsibility
for seeing that the material is duplicated and sent to all members of the
governing body. The AMM contact person will also be responsible for
reporting on AMM activities at the Council meeting. AMM should work
with the Metropolitan Area Managers Association (MAMA) to enlist the
support of Managers /Administrators for reproduction and distribution of
these
3. Member cities should be encouraged to place discussion of AMM policies and
issues on regular City Council agendas to ensure that all elected officials
are kept aware of AMM activities, as well as to increase the Association's
visibility with local med a.
4. Each member of the AMM Board of Directors should commit to make a brief
presentation at four or five surrounding City Council meetings once each
year on AMM policies and activities.
- 13 - 0
L A =V
WORKLOAD AND STAFFING
When originally formed, the ANN had four full -time staff members. Shortly
je thereafter, in response to a financial shortfall, the staff was cut to three and
has remained at that number since.
During that time, the number of legislative policies has increased from 35 to
over 100, and the number of legislative study committees from two to five. The
Association has taken on other responsibilities including the license and permit
survey, and coordination and administration of the Metropolitan Salary Survey.
With more time being spent on lobbying of statewide issues and support for
committees, there has been a decided time shift away from interaction with the
Metropolitan Council and operating agencies. Yet the ANN is the only organiza-
tion providing any real oversight of these agencies. For example, we are
usually the only commentor on the Metropolitan Council's annual work program and
budget.
The ANN Membership has come to expect more involvement by the Association, not
only in metropolitan issues, but in tax policy, pay equity, tax increment
financing, and other areas of statewide concern and involvement. The 1984
Mission and Membership Services Task Force report recommended very strongly that
the Board of Directors seek ways to add a staff member. Yet this is the only
one of the 1984 recommendations that has yet to be implemented. To quote that
report, "the present staff simply cannot adequately cover all the critical
issues, agencies, committees and the legislature." The present Task Force
report, if ultimately adopted and implemented by the Board and membership, will
only serve to increase the workload significantly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Task Force strongly recommends that the Board of Directors add a staff
person. We further recommend that this person have responsibilities in:
a. communicating with member cities and maintaining the legislative
contact system
b. public relations, including media contacts
c. staffing some of the standing and ad hoc legislative committees
d. some monitoring of Metropolitan Council and agency activities,
particularly during the legislative session.
?, With regard to lobbying at the Capitol, the Task Force observes that this
effort will fluctuate from time to time. Therefore, it is recommended that
increased efforts in this area be handled through use of contract
lobbyists.
•
- 14 -
y
ODES
The membership dues for the Association are currently set at 46 percent of a
member's dues for the League of Minnesota Cities. Since the league dues are set
in part on a per capita basis, this works out to AMM dues ranging from a high of
30 cents per capita for Woodland to a low of 4 cents for Minneapolis. The dues
for an average sized city of 30,000 population are $5,100, or about 17 cents per
capita.
Compared to other city lobbying organizations, the AM is a bargain! For
example, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities charges its members 40 cents
per capita, plus from time to time, an additional 20 cents per capita for
•special projects". Dues for the Municipal Legislative Commission are approxi-
mately 35 cents per capita, to a maximum of $12,500.
If the AM Board of Directors and membership are to implement our recommendation
to add a staff person, a dues increase beyond the rate of inflation is inevi-
table. In addition, the cost of developing the computerized property tax model,
if determined necessary, will be a considerable initial expense, and require
ongoing personnel and data gathering costs.
RECOMMENDATION
1. In order to implement the other reconmendatio•.s in this report, the AM
Board of Directors and membership should be prepared to adopt a dues
increase in the range of 20 to 25 percent above the rate of inflation. The
Board may wish to look at ways of phasing the dues increase over a two to
three year period.
2. The Board and membership should also be prepared to provide financial sup-
port for development and maintenance of a property tax modeling system, if
the LMC system fails to materialize or is determined inadequate to meet the
lobbying needs of the AM M.
- 15 -
7.79179
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is now in its 16th year. During
its relatively short existence, the Association has experienced many diffi -.
culties and challenges. Examples include the 1976 Metropolitan land Planning
*Act and the more recent debates over local government aid.
Despite predictions for the demise for general purpose organizations like
the Association, the ANN is now at an all -time high of 68 member cities, repre-
senting over 90 percent of the population in the seven - county metropolitan area.
The cities of the region apparently believe that they are getting a good value
for their membership dollars.
However, despite the successes of the past, the twelve members of this years
Mission and Membership Services Task Force have concluded that this is no time
to rest on our. laurels. We face challenges from other city lobbying groups
whose interests are contrary to those of the metropolitan area, as well as a
generally hostile attitude by the State legislature toward cities. At the same
time, the complexity of governing the metropolitan area is increasing geometri-
cally, meaning that it is more important than ever to work together if we are to
effectively serve the citizens of our respective communities.
The Task Force concludes that in order to remain viable and relevant, the AMM
must become more proactive, more collaborative, more focused and more assertive.
The AM provides the only meaningful vehicle for the cities of the metropoli-
tan area to express in a united voice important perspective of local govern-
ment. The issues at stake are simply too important to abandon the playing field
and leave all the important decisions to others.
The Association was originally formed out of several metropolitan area splinter
groups who had originally felt that they had little in common, but came to
realize that the things they did have in common were far more than those that
divided them. The challenges of today are certainly no less than those that
faced our cities in the past. Our test will be whether we can continue to be an
effective voice for the collective interests of the cities in this metropolitan
area, and to pass that test will require two things:
1. A renewed ability and commitment to come together through our com-
mittees and 19- member Board of Directors to reach a consensus on
the critical issues that face us.
2. The ability to effectively, and with a united front, promote the
policies we do adopt to the Governor, the legislature, the
Metropolitan Council and the regional operating agencies.
The Mission and Membership Services Committee feels that the recommendations
set forth in this report will set us well on a course to accomplishing Just
that. We commend it for your consideration and thoughtful action.
C7
- 16 -
APPENDIX A
�t - . : '4_
The purpose of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities shall
be to:
1. Serve as the exclusive and primary representative of the
collective interests of all metropolitan Cities on metropolitan
vide issues and state vide issues with unique metropolitan
significance.
2. Promote collaborative problem solving efforts between and among
cities, the State, the Legislature, private interests and other
public interests.
3. Effectively express in a unified voice, policies concerning the
structure, ers and other matters relating to municipal
government or the municipalities in the metropolitan area to
the Legislature, Metropolitan Council and agencies, LMC, media and
cities.
4. Serve as a forum through which all municipalities or groups of
municipalities may develop and propose policies and positions on ,
matters on concern to the metropolitan municipalities and develop
strategies for advocating those policies and positions.
•
S. Serve as a forum for the interchange of ideas and information
among municipalities in the metropolitan area and to foster
intermunicipal cooperation. 0
6. Assist member cities resolve disputes with other cities and
agencies.
7. Develop and provide, either alone or in concert with League of
Minnesota Cities or other organizations or agencies, programs of
technical assistance to member municipalities.
I. Establish specific prioritised agenda, including Legislative
proposals to address member community needs.
9. foster, generate and promote information and data concerning the
problems and issues and proposed solutions affecting municipal
government in the metropolitan area to the State Legislature, in
particular, and to the public at large.
10. Xnhance the effectiveness of municipal government in the
metropolitan area by holding conferences and by fostering
pertinent research projects.
il. Coordinate the efforts of AMM members to promote their interests
within the League of Minnesota Cities.
12. Enhance the quality of life in the metropolitan area and its
cit ;es by promoting efficient and progressive service delivery
systems for our residents. 0
AAA?
APPENDIX B
O ist of resource persons who consulted with the Task Force:
Vern Peterson, Fvecutive Director, Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities
Roger Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs, Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities
Donald Slater, Executive Director, League of Minnesota Cities
Jim Miller, Minnetonka City Manager and Representative of Municipal
Legislative Commission
Jima Krautkramer, Brooklyn Park Mayor, President of Northern Mayors'
Association
Millie McCloud, President, League of Minnesota Cities
State Representative Phil Carruthers (DFL -478), Chair of Metro Affairs
Subcommittee of House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee
State Representative Alice Johnson (DFL -51A), Vice Chair of House Local
Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee
Al Loehr, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Bob Schmitz
(DFL -36), Chair of Senate Local and Urban Affairs Committee
Steve Keefe, Chair, Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities
Ted �olderie, Former Executive Director, Citizens League of the Twin
Cities
LAKE
MILJUE
CHARRISOU BA-Y)
� gti9
W AT�FZ51 D'E
L.P.'
1 32
o
II
II
dVl
I �I
i
I
hi
I Q y
I NI I
I IJ
I �4
Is
I<
i
I
d
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. �'f WAT
i C. CGMMoIus
16050 23rd An. K Engin"rs CITY OF
mo
Fp^ MN 56447 PWWWS
- -
GI V476-4010 tlun.r•NS 014 S 1 MOu M o I M I N kAF —Sor q
DOSHAN, LORD & BREMSETH
0(Irwjr r1•r•
UWwd D. Omit 310 East Lake Sweet
J F Lard Weyz&W 33391 FAX 6 41D S-3=79
s
Rabic A Emma 612- 475 -2500 �`®
June 27, 1990
Park and Open Space Commission
City of Hound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been formally retained to represent Melvin Sohns and
family regarding a dispute over Waterside Commons docksite #20700.
In brief, Mr. Sohns' dock rights have been adversely affected
as a result of the Mound City Dock Inspectors' measurements in the
commons area which were made after the docks were put in this
spring. It should be pointed out that Mr. Sohn *' dock is essen-
tially in the same position it has been for the past 52 years. Its
location is consistent with markers which have been in the ground
for years along with other such points of reference. Following
these new measurements by the dock inspector, Mr. Bob Johnson (who
coincidentally works with Parks Department at the City of Mound),
relocated his dock and canopy this spring less than one foot from
Mr. Sohn *' dock. The relocation of Mr. Johnson's dock, based upon
what we believe to be erroneous measurements, now prevents Mr. Sohn&
from utilising both sides of his dock.
With respect to the June 14, 1990 Park and Open Space Commission
meeting (at which this dispute was discussed in detail), we kindly
request that you preserve the audio tapes f these discussions for
possible future reference. We shall be pl used to reimburse the Park
and Open Space Commission fora new set of audio tapes. In addition,
we kindly request a copy of the Minutes of the meeting on June 14,
1990.
By copy of this letter to Mr. Edward Shukle, Mound City Manager,
we kindly request a copy of the Dock Location Map (referred to as
"Master Plan ") as cited by the City Code Section 437.10. This Master
Plan, according to the code, should include the identity and location
of "official shoreline markers for the purpose of establishing dock
.locations" and "variations from perpendicular dock to shoreline
configurements ", among other such conditions.
•
.2,30
Park and Open Space Commission
June 27, 1990
page Two
in addition, pursuant to 1437.10 (2), we request a copy of the
Park Advisory Commission recommended 1990 dock location changes
which were 'referred to and considered by the City Council on or
before January 1S [19903.'
Your joint assistance in providing us with this information and
in hopefully bringing to a full and prompt resolution this dispute
will be very such appreciated by all concerned.
Thank you.
truly yours,
MDD /ckg
cc. LAAayor Smith and City of Mound Council Members
Mr. Edward Shukle, City Manager
C �
•
2P431
T I#='
CITY of MOUND 'UN . MINN : A 5
MOUt3D. M1NtV£�pTA 55:iEe
E•.
June 25, 1990
TO: NOMW CITY 000ZCI�
YVAN: DELL RODOLPR DOCK IMBPZCTOR
RE: DOCK RITZ #20700 - WATERSIDE CONNOW
I an sorry I will not be able to attend the Council meeting on
June 26, 1990. I have asked the City Manager or Parks Director
to read these few comments at this meeting in order to give my
views on the controversy at the above dock site.
40 My letter of June, 1990, to you and the Park Commissioners
explains all of the background on this matter and I won't go over
that again. I sat through the one and one -half hour presen- ration
by Brad Sohn to the Park Commission at their June meeting, so I
am up -to -date on that. I also have a copy of the June 20, 1990
letter that all of you received from Brad Sohns. I will not
respond to anything in that letter except paragraphs 6, 7, 8 i 9
(attached) which I believe gets at the crux of the problem.
Parag Points out that the right side of their dock is near
the storm drain. This is correct and has caused them some sand
build up under their dock in the past. I believe they are trying
to avoid this by having their dock further to the left (north)
than it was. I can understand this, but if this is allowed to
happen, there will not be adequate space for all the 18 docks to
their left. They will all have to be moved and one site
eliminated If site #20700 is subject to the hazards stated in
paragraph 6, let's eliminate this site and move the Sohns' to
site #20550, as offered.
Paragraph 7 is not a correct statement. During my only contact
with the Sohns' and the City Manager, at the site, after
listening to their explanation of how they measured from the
"old" concrete marker (most of these markers are gone, have been
moved or are irrelevant), I told them how we measured the whole
• area. The Park Director and myself started at the presumed
property line on the right (south) by site #20730 and measured
off each of the 21 docks to the north. It is impossible to hit
exactly 30 foot spacing on each site because of the shoreline
An equa opportunity Employe' that does not discriminate on I basis of race color na! rn:y • , • d• d; : ms "��
in the admission or access to or treatment or employment in its progra aril, act:. • e<
•
variance, but they ire all within a 3 foot tolerance of each
Other.
Parag - a The comment on the willingness of the Dock Inspector
and his supervisors to discuss the situation is uncalled for.
Much time by myself, the Park Director and the City Manager has
been spent trying to resolve this dispute. Had I been contacted
bs&2= any docks were put in, for a ruling on positions, I do not
think this problem old be here.
Paragraph 9 I believe that there has been an honest attempt to
carry out all Sections of the Dock Ordinance by myself, but there
must be some flexibility for unusual circumstances (i.e. low
water) . Section 437:10 referred to is adhered to with the
exception of the reference to the shoreline markers in (a.) i
(b.) and it would be impossible to note on our dock map
variations froze perpendicular docks to shoreline configurations
(h.). This would take too such detail on such a large area.
I believe that a fair attempt
Sohn' needs are met. They have
are and putting up with the storm
offered them, 6 dock sites away.
DR; f �
has been made to see that the
the choice of staying where they
drain or moving to the new site
�J
•
ast 33 2
Mound City Code Section 417 :10
Sesties 437siS. 0mIa ions
. Subd. 1. peck Ir Mao Definition There shall be on
file in the City hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is
maintained by the Nek Inspector shoring the approved
locations of private docks that may be constructed on or
abutting public shorelands under the control of the City.
Suc master plan shall contain the following information:
Q Official shoreline markers for purposes of establishing
dock locatioass
Indication of approved dock location scaled to
proximity with the shoreline markers;
CO Types of docks permitted and any restrictions
applicable to said locations
d. Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown;
�. Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of
licensees and addresses, as i -the same number shall
ap w the sass location each year as far as
Ales
. f. his• topo�pbr depth of ester, soil conditions,
jAjtat, access, and other relevant information as is
necessary to review dock locations and to allow the
City Council and the Dock Inspector to protect the
public lands and public raters;
q. Shorelin areas designated "winter approved dock
locations•.
Variations from perpendicular dock to shoreline
configurations.
su _. nu .j jUj w of Mao Approved dock location saps
shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall
be review" by the Park Commission at least once a year.
The Park Advisory C ommission shall review the dock location
map between July 1 and December 1 before each new boating
season so their recommended changes say be referred to and
considered by the City Council on or before January 15.
Maps shall contain ail. approved private dock locations as
established by the Council upon the advice and
recd mendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory
Cow4ission. final approval of the dock location map and the
nuaaer of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be the
responsibility of the City Council.
Aa3y
om both sides present. Ito oonoerns Were expressed. A second set of
stapes were pet in days later and Bob Johnson vas allowed to move his
• dock and oeaopy within less than 2 feet of our dock, preventing us from
Using the left (north) side. With the perpendioular extension of the
OO Om boundary marker between the Johnson and the Bohns dooksites
(sling either first staking, second staking, or historical concrete
markers) we are still okay to store a boat on both sides of our dock.
N were then told that our oommon boundary extension did not go
perpendioular into the water, but at an angle cutting through our moored
Additionally. we were told that if we wanted to use sides of
oar dock we would have to move our look to the south.
r8tOT 8 the faOt that it would take slot of time and expense to move the
it would also subject us to the delta that forms straight out from
sever. In addition. any boat moored to the right side would
bs blasted with the force of the water that comes out of the storm
drain. along with sand, silt, bottles. cans and assorted other
materials. i
Throughout the couple hours of discussion related to this. we never have
been able to get the DoOk Inspector to explain the measurements and the
reference po!.ats that were used to arrive at the two separate sets of
stakes .
most important point is that this entire ordeal could have been
Prevented had the rules and regulations in Section 437:10 of the Mound
City Code (which I have attached) been followed by the city. Even
without these rules, a willingness on the part of the Dock Inspector and
his superiors to openly discuss this situation from the beginning and to
work towards a fair solution for all would have avoided this lengthy .
process and expense to the taxpayers. Changes could have been properly
made before the current 11 of 21 docks were put into the water.
"section 437:10 speoifioally indicates that the City Dock Inspector has
the responsibility of maintaining a Book location map (master plan) with
quite detailed 1af7rmatiOn regarding docks oonstruoted on public
shorelauds under the control of the city. Please review letters a thru
IL ender subdivision 1. Additionally, subdivision 2 indicates the
Procedure for reviewing the master plan, recommending changes and
gaining approval for suoh ohanges from the City Council.
while trying to figure out what was going on with waterside Commons, we
Officially requested a copy of the master plan, including the
information as required under letters a thru h, and were given a very
basic map that only showed where there is public land used for commons
docks. Pursuing this further, we were told by the Parks Directs that
the information stated under 437:10, letters a thru h. did not exist.
To believe that had the responsibilities of the Dock Inspector been
carried out as required, and had the approval procedure been followed,
none of this would have happened regarding Waterside Commons. That is,
the two separate stakings of docksite locations this spring would not
have been allowed. Neither stakings matches the city's historical
concrete markers that they had used for decades to decide docksite
•
;t &0A so
4
Mosed, � age '�
E 4" 2954 W
S b
W JUN 2 1 so s
June 20, 1990` ` 5
City Counoilmembers
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, NX 58364
Dear Counoilmembers:
The intent of this letter is to indicate some of our oonosrms regarding
the Waterside Commons dooksite #20700 vase that you will be revimKq on
Tuesday, June 26th, 1990, The Sohn family has used this dooksite for
the past 52 years. The dockowner is my father, Melvin Bohns. I an taw
docksharer.
On June 19th, my father and I received a letter from Dell Rudolph which
you were copied on. A few comments. My father and I have no
- recollection of any conversation with Jim Fackler regarding the offering
of dock space #20550 during last winter. We, can't imagine why we would
even be interested in another site, knowing that the commons area was to
be dredged, including the area in front of our 82 year old site.
We appreciate the offer, but find that our ezisting site offers what
0 we need. A number of reasons ooze to mind immediately:
i) The dooksite is one of the best sites on Waterside Commons because
it is just to the right (south) of what we have called for years
the "sunken island" and sandbars; that is why my grandfather and
father chose that sit6 82 years ago.
2) The shoreline area in front of our docksite is a nice, large area for
our children to play on when down at the lake, for guests to sit on,
and for picnicking; we have maintained that commons area, either
solely. or in more recent years with Bob Johnson and Doug Coleman,
for 52 years.
3) The flatness of the area in front of our docksite allows my parents,
who are not in the best of health. to easily get to the dock when
they have occasion to.
4) The navigability to the docksite is probably the least affected of
those on the Waterside Commons during periods of low water.
5) After 52 years, the docksite is like a member of the family; it has
served us well and we have taken good care of it.
6) I may be getting a larger boat in the near future and it allows me
the navigability that the other sites along Waterside Commons do not.
A brief description of the events that led to this follows. I called
the Parks Director before putting our dock in to make sure I was clear
on things. Bob Johnson and I put our docks in (literally standing in
the water at the same time) such that we were within the stakes and no
conflicts existed. I put our dock in in good faith with the doekowners
0
2,234
on both sides present. No concerns were expressed. A second set of
stakes were put in days later and Bob Johnson was allowed to move his
dock and oanopy within less than 2 feet of our dock, preventing us from
using the left (north) side. With the perpendicular extension of the
common boundary marker between the Johnson and the Sohns dooksites
(using either first staking, second staking, or historical concrete
markers) we are still okay to store a boat on both sides of our dock.
We vere then told that our common boundary extension did not go
perpendicular into the water, but at an angle cutting through our moored
boat. Additionally, we were told that if we wanted to use both sides of
our dock we would have to move our dock to the south.
Besides the :act that it would take slot of time and expense to move the
dock, it would also subject us to the delta that forms evraight out from
the storm sewer. In addition, any boat moored to the r!ght sid#9 would
be blasted with the force of the water that comes out of the storm
drain, along with sand, silt, bottles, cans and assorted other
materials.
throughout the couple hours of discussion related to this, we never have
been able to get the Dock Inspector to explain the measurements and the
reference points that were used to arrive at the two separate sets of
stakes.
Oa.- most important point is that this entire ordeal could have been
prevented had the rules and regulations in Section 437:10 of the Mound
City Code (which I have attached) been followed by the city. Even
without these rules, a willingness on the part of the Dock Inspector and
his superiors to openly discuss this situation from the beginning and to
work towards a fair solution for all would have avoided this lengthy
process and expense to the taxpayers. Changes could have been properly
made before the current 11 of 21 docks were put into the water.
Section 437:10 specifically indicates that the City Dock Inspector has
the responsibility of maintaining a dock location map (master plan) with
quite detailed information regarding docks constructed on public
shorelands under the control of the city. Please review letters a thru
h under subdivision 1. Additionally, subdivision 2 indicates the
procedure for reviewing the master plan, recommending changes and
gaining approval for such changes from the City Council.
While trying to figure out what was going on with waterside Commons, we
officially requested a copy of the master plan, including the
information as required under letters a thru h, and were given a very
basic map that only showed where there is public land used for commons
docks. Pursuing this further, we were told by the barks Director that
the information stated under 437:10, letters a thru h, did not exist.
We believe that had the responsibilities of the Dock Inspector been
carried out as required, and had the approval procedure been followed,
none of this would have happened regarding Waterside Commons. That is,
the two separate stakings of docksite locations this spring would not
have been allowed. Neither stakings matches the city's historical
concrete markers that they had used for decades to decide dc
•
A 37
locations. The second staking 000ured after Bob Johnson's, Doug
Coleman's and my father's docks were in the water. The second staking
- was followed ay the city telling Bob Johnson to move his dock so aloes
Ao my father's that it does not allow us to use the left side of our
That is when the first notice from the city of a perceived
NW
roblem came in the form of a threat to impound our boat.
In addition. the arbitrary, after- the -fact variations on perpendicular
lines would not have been allowed (and applied only to the Sohns
docksits) unless officially approved uhrough the required procedure.
I would have to believe that the rules and regulations regarding a
master dock location map, along with the approval prc lure, was setup
to avoid such disputes and to provide the public with input during the
process, •before• the beginning of each boating season (on or before
January 16th is stated in subdivision 2).
Since I was told 2 -3 years ago by the City Manager that this Waterside
Commons dredging was scheduled for the spring of 1990, this surely left
adequate time for the Doak Inspector to have the Waterside Commons
properly planned for, and there wouldn't be this mess of trying to push
aside a commons dock owner who has had a dock at site *20700 for the
past 52 years.
To respectfully request that the rules and regulations, and associated
procedures be followed so that future problems can be avoided and so
that no more citizens have to be put through what we have. We look
forward to being able to provide input during the process.
�Ie feel strongly that we have been treated very unfairly from the
ginning. We feel that we have been defamed in this process and that a
written apology to my father and myself is appropriate from the Dock
Inspector and the Parks Director.
We would like to request that we be allowed to use both sides of our
existing dock for the mooring of our boats and that the Waterside
Commons area be properly laid out and maintained according to 437:10.
To hfllp understand this situation better, and the process- related
problems associated with it, and to avoid us needing to give a long
presentation at the City Council meeting, please consider meeting with
us at the dooksite to explain what has happened and to answer any
questions that you might have. We will try to make ourselves available
as much as possible, and can be reached at either phone number shown at
the top of this letter.
We appreciate you taking the time to review this situation.
Sinoer y,
64Z XeA
Brad Sohns
420700 Dock Sharer
•
A238
ac: Zd Shuttle, City Manager
gin Fackler, Parks Director
Dell Rudolph, Dook Inspector
Parks and Open Space Commission
•
•
AP43T
Mound City Code Section 437:10
0 Lou 437110. klas n kean iations .
Subd
. 1. There shall be on
file in the City Hall a drawing of the Cityy of Mound that is
maintained by the Dock Inspector shavingpver
locations of private docks that may be constructed on
abutting public shorebands under the control of the City.
Such master plan shall contain the following information:
a. Official shoreline markers for purposes Of establishing
dock locations;
b. Indication of approved oreline dock location scaled to
Proximity with the
C. Types of docks permitted and any restrictions
applicable to said locations;
d. Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown:
e. Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of
licensees and 6&2* ; location uch gas* r far a as
apply. to to
p�iblo;
f. � topagsapby� �pbd of rotes, soil conditions,
habitat, access, and other relevant information as is
necessary to review dock locations and to allow the
City Council and the Dock t = to protect the
public lands an d public
q. Shoreline areas designated "winter approved dock
locations ".
h. Variations from perpendicular dock to shoreline
configurations.
Subd. 2. Approved dock location maps
shall be kept and sain azk n ��ission D at least on
The Park Advisory ce f a year.
be reviewed by � shall review the dock location
map between July 1 and December 1 before each new boating
season so their recomended changes y b� fore January 15a
considered by the City Council an or
Maps shall contain bs C puncil private locations
as
upon the advice and
established by t
recommendation of a pproval al Inspector and
dock location and the
Commission. final aPP p ermitted shall be the
respon
numbs p be
of the City Council.
22 y0
June 18 1990
Mr. Melvin Sohns
2155 Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Sohns:
` ` 53.- OJA�.. - ROAC
C IT ♦� ( ■� N IOU ND MC�ND M•h'.e50TA SSA
Y ` / 111 •• ` J X 6'2 - _ •ASS
After watching your presentation and listening to your comments
at the June 14th Parks and Open Space Commission meeting, I have
made the following observations:
think it was obvious to everyone present that you have three
main areas of concern. They are the spacing between docks, the
angle of your dock and the proximity to the storm drain. I share
these concerns also and have a suggestion that may be a solution
to all of them.
The dock space, 120550 that Jim Fackler mentioned he had offered
YOU last winter was assigned earlier this year, but has now been
given up. The person that had the spot decided to share a
different site. It is six docks to the left (north) of your
present site. There is 30' between docks on both sides, it is
perpendicular to the shore, no storm drain and would handle two
boats very adequately. You can have this site immediately by
calling me at city hall. Your boating needs now and in the
future would be met by this switch.
The recent rains have increased the water depth so this whole
Waterside area has become very navigable. It appears to be a
good solution for all concerned.
You mentioned several times that you thought my various
correspondence on this matter was uncalled for and threatening.
I assure you it was not meant to be that. The letters and memos
were only meant to bring out information on what had gone on. As
I read them over again, I believe that's what they do. It is not
my nature to be hostile or threatening and if it appeared that
way to you and your family, I do indeed apologize for that. I
have never had and do not wish to have that kind of a reputation.
I took this job because I enjoy people and love this area and
Lake Minnetonka. It is unfortunate that we didn't get togetho'r
A2141
Mr. Melvin Sohns
June 18, 1990
•
earlier to solve the problem before it got out of hand.
I hope you will seriously consider my offer of the available dock
site near you, that would solve all of our problems.
Respectively,
hzz� .
Dell Rudolph
Dock Inspector
cc: Mr. Brad Sohns
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Parks and Open Space Commission
City Council
DR:la
OUP
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK i OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
JUNE 14, 1990
Park Director, Jim Fackler, revJewed his recommendation that the
Park and Open Space Commission recognize the location of Dock
Site #20700 as outlined by the Dock Inspector in the letter dated
May 17, 1990 to Melvin Sohns and in, the Memo to the Parks and
Open Space Commission dated May 17, 1990. Fackler clarified that
the Dock Inspector has the authority to determine dock site loca-
tions and angles as outlined In Mound City Code Sections 437:10,
Subd. A, 437:05. Subd. 3, and 437:156, Subd. 11.
Weber questioned Brad Sohns if he was understanding the two
Issues of his request as being: 1) the location was staked in-
correctly by the Dock inspector based on historical location of
the dock, and 2) the Dock inspector should not dictate the angle
of the dock if It does not correspond with the approved Dock
Location Map. Sohns added that the City wants him to move his
dock to the right to solve the problem, however, their dock would
then be placed in front of the City's storm sewer exit which
causes other problems. Weber surmised, that the question is,
where is the 30 feet that belongs to dock site 20700?
Weber question Sohns, "To solve the problem, what do you feel has
to be done ?" Sohns suggested that official permanent makers be
placed where they are missing, and that the markers are main-
tained so everyone knows where their area is as the ordinance
states. Also, that the Sohns family be allowed to use both sides
of their dock in Its existing location. Sohns commented on the
angle of their dock and stated that he received permission from
the Park Director to place his dock at an angle. The Dock in-
spector commented that It is okay to angle your dock, as long as
you do not infringe on the neighboring dock site.
Brad Sohns made the following points in his presentation:
1. The Sohn's dock site has existed for the last 52 years.
2. They placed their new straight dock In the same historical
location of their old 'U' dock.
3. The Sohn's family is requesting an explanation as to why two
different stake settings were placed this year that do not
match the historical concrete markers.
NOTION made by Veber* to recoswen to the City Council
the followings the exact location of the south edge of
Waterside CoNlsons at the 929.5 elevation is determined
and fras that point the 30 foot intervals be measured to
detenslno the exact dock location sites, and that the
City Counc 1 1 request the City Attorney to draft an
opinion as to how the ordinance reads as to weather the
Dock inspector has the author 1ty to set the ang1a of a
dock based on the current conditions of the lake and
shoreline on a year to year basis. Motion seconded by
Salley.
Sohns commented that he would Iike some consideration for the af-
fect that the storm sewer has on their dock site. Fackler com-
mented that it would be nice to have the storm sewer exists main-
tained and cleaned on a rotating basis.
Bailey confirmed that their dock will remain as presently
situated, and Sohn's will be able to use the right side of his
dock only until this situation is resolved. Sohn's commented
that If Bob Johnson would not erect his canopy and use the other
side of his dock, then he would be able to use both sides.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 26, 1990.
aw
4. Treatment received from the Dock Inspector, and Indirectly
from the Park Director and City Manager, has been im-
plorable.
S. They would like to see official permanent markers installed
where they are missing and see that they are maintained.
6. The Sohn's family would Iike to have permission to moor a
boat at both sides of the dock.
7. Brad and his father would Iike to receive a letter of apol-
ogy from the City for the treatment that they received.
S. In 1975 permanent concrete markers were placed at each dock
site to clarify the dock locations.
9. The only reason their original dock was removed was because
of the dredging.
10. Brad stated that he asked Fackler prior to installing his
dock, if he should angle his dock, and he claims that Fack-
ler said he was familiar with the site at that it was okay
to angle his dock, but It was not required.
11. If Sohns were to move his dock to the right as requested by
the Dock Inspector, the right side of his dock would be
unusable because of the storm sewer exit. Right now he is
only able to use the right side because if a boat is moored
on the left side, it would encroach into Johnson's 30 feet
of dock space. The Dock Inspector argued that he would
still be able to use the right side of his dock if the dock
was moved.
12. The City has not followed their own City Codes.
13. He angled his dock to benefit Bob Johnson.
Fackler commented that he did offer tie Sohns' another dock site
away from the storm sewer, however the Sohns' were not inter-
ested. Brad Sohn's denied ever receiving such an offer.
Fackler suggested that the commons be surveyed to eliminate dis-
pute over the placement of the stakes, and that an opinion letter
be requested from the City Attorney to determine if the Dock In-
spector has the authority to dictate the angle of a dock.
NOTION made by Veber* to recoswen to the City Council
the followings the exact location of the south edge of
Waterside CoNlsons at the 929.5 elevation is determined
and fras that point the 30 foot intervals be measured to
detenslno the exact dock location sites, and that the
City Counc 1 1 request the City Attorney to draft an
opinion as to how the ordinance reads as to weather the
Dock inspector has the author 1ty to set the ang1a of a
dock based on the current conditions of the lake and
shoreline on a year to year basis. Motion seconded by
Salley.
Sohns commented that he would Iike some consideration for the af-
fect that the storm sewer has on their dock site. Fackler com-
mented that it would be nice to have the storm sewer exists main-
tained and cleaned on a rotating basis.
Bailey confirmed that their dock will remain as presently
situated, and Sohn's will be able to use the right side of his
dock only until this situation is resolved. Sohn's commented
that If Bob Johnson would not erect his canopy and use the other
side of his dock, then he would be able to use both sides.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 26, 1990.
aw
2236 Southview Lane
Mound, AN 55364
H 472 -1954 W 228 -5708
June 4, 1990
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr
City Manager
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Shukle:
The intent of this letter is to request that we be put on the June 14,
1990 agenda of the Park and Open Space Commission meeting. We wish to
appeal the seemingly arbitrary placement of stakes and docks that has
resulted in us being threatened with the impounding of spy boat and told
that we can only use the right side of the dock located at site 120700.
•
We were appreciative of your willingness to visit the docksite on
Monday, May 14th, so that we could explain the situation to you.
The follow -up meeting at the docksite, with Del Rudolph, on Wednesday,
May 16th, was totally frustrating, since we did not see any willingness
on either of your parts to discuss the facts of the case. Hopefully
the appeals process will generate a true discussion of what is really
going on with the Waterside Commons situation.
Please share this letter with the Park and Open Space Commission. To
best understand this situation, we believe it is important that they
visit the docksite for an onsite viewing and discussion. I will make
myself availah'e after 5:30 PM each night during the week of June 11th.
They can reach me at either phone number indicated at the top of this
letter.
Sincerely,
Rrad Sohns
N2G700 Dock Sharer
j *e4-4- j_l' .
Melvin ohns
D
N20700 Dock Owner
ATS
•
CITY of MOUN
5 341 MOUND. . MINNESOTA 55
MOvNO. MINNESOTA Si364
46121 472 -1155
June 1, 1990
TO: CITY MANAGER, PARK COMMISSION AND MOUND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DEL RUDOLPB, DOCK INSPECTOR
RE: DOCK LOCATIONS, WATERSIDE COMMONS
This memo is intended to give a little background information and
my position on the dispute over the dock positioning at Waterside
Commons.
As all of you are aware, this area was dredged during February of
1990, so all docks holders had been notified to remove their
docks last fall. In April of this year, the Park Director and
40 Myself spend sometime staking out all 21 docks so that all docks
would receive as close to even spacing as possible. There is a
variance of not over 3 feet in any one site, due to the low water
situation. We started measuring from the south end and worked
towards the north.
The end dock on the south end, Doug Coleman's, was the first dock
in the water, positioned on the stake as requested. The second
dock, the Sohns, and third dock, Bob Johnson's, were next to go
in. My understanding is that all three parties had met in
advance of putting in their docks and discussed what they were
planning to do. Apparently, some misunderstanding developed from
the conversation and I received a complaint from Mr. Johnson that
his space on the right side of his dock was being used by the
Sohns to moor a boat. I checked this out and agreed and sent
Sohns a notice that the boat had to be moved and as their dock
W83 positioned they could only use the right side of their dock.
In order to use both sides, their dock had to be moved to the
right. There is ample space to do this without interfering with
Mr. Coleman's space to their right.
The Sohns; Melvin, Brad and Bruce contacted the City Manager and
met with him to protest this decision of mine. A day or so
later, the same group and myself met, on site, for another one
and one -half hours to measure and discuss the problems. No
solution was arrived at so the City Manager informed the Sohns
they could appear before the Park Commission and the City Council
to appeal. A second, registered mail, notice was sent to move
��o
the boat and was complied with by the Sohns. At the request of
Councilmember Skip Johnson, Bob Johnson has held off putting in
the balance of his canopy on the right side.
All three docks, as they are now positioned, are within their
allotted space, nothing illegal. If Sohns' are only planning to
use the right side of the dock, there is no problem. If they
plan to use both sides, the dock must be moved to the right to
accommodate a second boat. There is plenty of room to do this
and is the simple solution to this problem. Allowing the Sohns'
more space on the left side of their dock would mean moving all
of the other 20 sites to accommodate this.
There are other examples of disputes over spacing and have all
been settled with cooperation from the parties involved and
myself. I have been designated by the City to resolve these kind
of disputes and have been doing so for the past 6 year.
During this dispute, many other items have come up such as angler
from the shoreline, storm sewer run -off, favoritism to city
employee, length of docks in a given area, at what point is the
measuring done from, etc. Some false accusations, by phone, have
been made by an anonymous female caller refusing to identify
herself and her purpose of the call.
I applied for and received :.his position as the City Dock
Inspector 6 years ago. I was hired because of my ability to
lead, make decisions and deal with people. No one can please
100% of the people, but I feel I have a good track record in this
area. I have tried to be firm and fair in all decisions without
showing any partiality. I am not required to settle personality
disputes between citizens. Only uphold the dock ordinance and in
some cases make judgment decisions.
I urge all Park Commission and City Council members to examine
the site in question and I believe everyone will agree with the
Positioning of the docks in question.
DRR:ls
0
VLV.%%l 2
4
s
do
•
tr-is -90
Tov►Ksovk, /Srows
SoW�so � / S� �'1►K s
•
May 17, 1990
TO: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
FROM: DELL RUDOLPB, DOCK INSPECTOR
RE: DOCK SITE 020700
We have a real problem with one of the shared docks at Waterside
Commons held by Melvin and Brad Sohns.
The correspondence sent on this disagreement is attached. There
have been several on -spot meetings by Jim Fackler and myself, Ed
Shukle and the Sohns, and finally Ed Shukle, the Sohns' and
myself. The Sohns disagree with how I have staked out the area
for the 21 docks in this area.
Their dock, as positioned now, is perfectly legal if they use the
right side only. If they want to use both sides, the dock must
be moved to the right, there is ample room to do this. If they
are allowed to leave the dock where it is, and use both sides,
all 19 docks to their left would have to be moved to accommodate
their space. The last dock would be lost because of the extra
space used for the Sohns' site.
The site in question is #2D700, near Waterside Lane and Tonkawood
Road, near the storm drain. Please take the 'time to look at this
spot so you can visualize how simple it would be to resolve this
problem by moving the boat or the dock if they wish to moor two
boats.
The low water has created some space problems in certain areas
and I am using my judgment as the Dock Inspector to try to
satisfy the needs of all site holders so some spaces may be less
than the 30 feet available at normal water levels.
My understanding is that the Sohns'
and angle of their dock at the next
sion meeting. You will be asked to
City Council.
plan to contest my placement
Parks and Open Space Commis -
recommend a settlement to the
k
CITE' of MOUND MOUND MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 4:2 -1155
May 17o 1990
Mr. Melvin Sohns
2155 Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Sohna:
This letter is a follow -up of our meting at Waterside Commons on
Yednesday, May 16, 1990. You and your sons, Brad and Bruce, Ed
Shukle City Manager and myself met to discuss the position of
your dock at site 020700.
After one and one -half hours of discussion, measuring and reason-
ing, it ended in an impasse. Your dock, in its present position,
is perfectly legal, as long as you use the right side only to
moor a boat. The left side is too close to the dock space next
to you to allow for a boat. There is ample room for you to move
your dock to the right, staying within your allowable space, and
moor a second boat on the left side. This also enables all the
other 20 site holders to have their allowable space.
The boat, now tied to the left side of the dock, is moored
illegally and must be moved in the next 72 hours or it will be
impounded.
If you wish to appeal the rulings made here, you may appear
before the Park and Open Space Commission on June 14, 1990 with
your case. Your letter of appeal must be in to the City Manager
by June 8, 1990. They will review the case and submit a
recommendation to the City Council for their decision. The boat
must be moved as stated above, even if this has not been resolved
yet.
Respectively,
Dell Rudolph
Dock Inspector
cc: Brad Sohna, 2236 Southview Lane
,-td Shukle, City Manager
Park and Open Space Commission
DR: Is
1
11
CITY of MOUND
DATES May 9, 1990
TO: Ed Shukle, City Manager
FROMs Dell Rudolph, Dock Inspector
It is unfortunate that all this hassle has come up over the
Sohns /Johnson dock locations. As my notice to Mr. Sohns stated,
he has no problem if he is only using the right side of the dock.
1. }:st year his dock was much further to the right, in front of the
storm drain, probably why he moved it to the left this year. He
stated that the stakes put in earlier this year have now been
moved, not true. They were removed by whoever installed the
dock and then when the problem arose, I measured again and re-
staked in the same position.
Sohn's boat is definitely infringing on Johnson's dock space, it
must be moved to the right -hand side of the dock. If Sohns plans
to use both sides of their dock, it must be moved to the right or
all 21 sites will be off and the last site will be lost because
of the move, not to mention 20 unhappy people having to move
their docks.
Thir Waterside area was the first area staked out this year (mid -
April) because of the winter dredge. No docks had been installed
at that time. Jim and I measured, very carefully, the whole area
and staked out each of the 21 docks. If any one had any ques-
tions it would only have taken a phone call to resolve any future
problems. The second staking was done after the hassle started,
the week of May 7. My understanding was that Coleman, Sohns and
Johnson had talked over what they were doing with their docks
prior to putting them In.
I do not think that any changes in my notice to Sohns would be
fair to the rest of Waterside Commons dock holders.
Please note the highlighted areas on the attached letters, dock
ordinance, etc.
Thanks.
DRspj
Attachments
CITY of MOUND
te A s
Dear Dock Permit Holder:
Subjects 1990 Dock Site
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472 -1155
a i/
i ✓j
Boating season is upon us once again, the dock site number listed above has
been assigned to you for this boating season. If you need help locating this
site, please call me and i will give you some assistance.
C ,
•
Because of the low water situation, we are allowing some spe - dispensations
this year to allow you to put in your dock. We will allow docks to be ex-
tended out further than normal, in some locations.
dbiti liw 441W W
I have dock constrAct ion gu I de I i nes . t f needed. JR
Mp coroW yolk a' wk ON
at 4wtm.
Please read the Information on the back of this letter regarding your respon-
sibllitles as a dock holder and the Mound Dock Ordin.3nce #437.
Thanks for your cooperation in making the public commons safe and attractive
to help you have an enjoyable boating season.
Sincerely,
Dell Rudolph
Dock Inspector
DR:pj
I c
You will note your tag is not enclosed. 1 will personally attach your tag to
the dock after I have inspected it to see that it conforms to the City Or-
dinance in construction and placement. if your dock does not pass inspection,
1 will issue a notice listing the deficiency and you will have ten (10) days
to correct ft. If you neglect to do so, you could lose your mock site permit.
11_ _ J ly� 1 1 •L Y a!L 1 w 1� IL_ 1 1 A --N-L
I. Put In your own dock that meets the Mound specifications for safety,
size and materials.
2. Maintain the cleanliness of the commons area by your site, including
grass cutting and weed trimming.
3. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other material cannot be stored
on commons during the boating season. They must be In the water or
removed from commons property b y June I . No tires w i l l be allowed on
docks.
4. Response to request to correct I mast be m3de during thme
sated or dock permit will be In ,jeopardy.
S. Only boats registered to your dock site may be kept moored there.
Others are In danger of being impounded.
SECTION 26.437, SUBDIVISION I3, OF THE MOUND DOCK ORDINANCE #437
"Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may
be used only by the licensee or members of th�.Ar household. No dock licensed
by the City of Mound located on public streets, roads, parks or public commons
may be rented, leased or sublet to any person, partnership or corporatior}, If
the licensee or permit holder rents, least.* or sublets or In any manner
charges o or t ves . cons I derat Ion for the use of the dock, the I i ceme sher 1 I
b
•
Moun4 City Code
F_7
Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance Licensed
p rivate docks shall be erected and maintained by the
licensee at his or bar sole expense.
Section 637:10, Subd. 1
aubd. k Immuntnr tn aawcaw
•oop spec ca ons of the a pprov
_ w•
aubd. S. 8usoension of Eligib ld=tion The City Council
may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location
as established on the dock location map reasonably
interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a
hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or
public commons.
Subd. 6. One Dock Par Fa nliX j Aoartmnt suildino. N more
that one dock shall be permitted for each resident family.
An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall not
apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or
she is entitled to apply for an individual private dock
license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of
the City.
Subd. 7. Construction Materials: Use of Car T iter. All
private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by
the Building inspector and the Dock Inspector and in
accordance with -all building codes of the City. The
standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare
and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved
licensed private dock shall result in docks being located on
public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or create a public
nuisance. No tiro or tires shall be hung or attached on
dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on
or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City.
(ORD. i40 -1990 1- 29 -90)
Subd. t. InSWUMIons -
Rwocation motor r such other officer as may
be designated by the City Manag r or the City Council
at-�M11�"'rfisaeiatile - m - - cause to is �iipibkid any,
look .erected or Uinta upon -ent4abuttiny - 110a boy- .public
atra* "id, Pea e* fta o ..'and if it shall appear that
any such dock has not been constructed or is not being
maintained in accordance with thf. application or the license
granted therefore, or with the p.�ans or location approved by
the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a
condit "on that no longer complies with the requirements of
this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by
its City Manager or any other officer designated by hin
1 -29 -90
e _rrp�
4 � K64 � '
01�56
Mound city code section 437 :10, Subd. 9
with fit the owner tbereot i
or
tie terms - - ot the . City' Or - dlh� _ _�' _
the licat W issuance of the lice tid ,
to M : in W ev"L s uvb owuetl a i;'
AMleot� �i. use to rekOvi e110h dock or make the •
snolr� —' - AM W zarl his "�► lM ljO4jR@ # #and said notice shall be
issued' the City Manager or any other officer designated
by his or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and
submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by
personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her
consideration.
;d. 9. Notice of Revocation All notices herein required
shall be in writing by certified sail, directed to the
licensee at the address given in the application.
Subd. 10. Minter Dock Storage Winter dock storage by
permit holders:
a* rocks may be left in the water during the winter months
providing the following conditions a "&e met:
1. The required dock license for the following year
must be applied for and paid by the tenth day of
January.
2. Docks may be partially removed, provided that
those sections left in public waters are complete.
No poles, posts, stanchions or supports standing
alone shall remain in public waters.
3. Docks
must be
brought up to the
construction
standards outlined in this Section
437 within 3
weeks
after the
ice goes out in the
spring of the
year.
If not,
the procedures as
specified in
Subd.
8 of this
Section 437 will apply.
4. Docks may not be left in the
land it they conflict with the
shown on the dock location map:
as Slide area
b. Snowmobile crossings
c. Skating rinks
water or on public
following uses as
1 -29 -90
d
G�
c Af
•
•
213?
Nound City Code
d. Boat license
docks
e. Such other
application
UMM. More dock permits are
[ants entitled to permits of the
then the following conditions
shared
first
Mall
a• That duplicate information (including boat licenses)
for each of the licensees be included on the license
application=
b. That each of the licensees retain priority rights to
Individual dock permits as vacation occurs in the
immediate subdivision shoreline:
c. That the fee for each licensee shall be one -half the
fee as set by the Council in section 510:00.
subd. 4. . lication riling Applications for licenses
shall be filed with the Dock Inspector at the City offices
and he shall recommend to the City Council that the license
is be approved or denied. No license will be recommended or
authorised until the Dock Inspector determines that the
proposed dock complies substantially with the term of all
City ordinances.
subd. S. - po licens shall be secomme
nded
have fir �✓Z�" le
#IMt tMo ro ed oof, is sn#��tblt
Mi , Hid dh " 06 off ich dock
subd. 6. Denia of llpoli� If the applicant has not
maintained a previously licensed dock, the Dock Inspector
b y revoked, and the he city,
ant* s that priorities existing license
this
Section 437 be forfeited for the current year and for the
next boating season.
subd. 7. License Priorities The following priorities
govern the issuance of dock licenses and other dock
locations:
•
Section 4370S, subd. 3
number for each boat to be moored at said
Information as may be required on the
form.
1 -29 -90
x2st
and seoond priority,
apply:
name city Code Sect 437 :20
must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than
24 vide or more that 72 in width. The la:gth shall be limited
to a setback of 10 test from private property or not to infri
on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail
construation. Dock posts shall be of egnal height above the dock
boards and shall be at least two rail construction and
to comply to standards and specifications approved by
IF ikistence June
all provisions of
is roquested, or
that is damaged,
1 -2 -90)
i 19t9, shall
the city Code
replacement of
destroyed, or
Seetiom 437:20. Penalties Any person or persons who shall
violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. in addition to any criminal
penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause
to be removed any dock erected without a license as required by
this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as
provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or
docks which fail to comply with the City Code rill be at the
a:cpenos of the owner or licensee. go person convicted of
violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock
license for the present or for the next boating season, and said
person forfeits any priorities sat forth in this Section 437.
YON. 437:25. License lee The annual license fee shall be as
set by the Council in Section 510:00. Residents of the City of
Mound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50% of the required
license fee for a straight dock. A full license fee shall be
charged to all persons for all L. T. or O docks and boathouses.
1 -29 -90
•
,r
go/ G
•
�1
be Oeo!ht -nto compliance with
vhea towwion or modification
500 or more of any such dock
deteriorated. (ORD. #38 -1989 -
Mound City Code Section 037:10
We Loa 017110. files wd leauiatioms
Subd. 1. Dock Location Mao Definition There shill be on
file in the City Mall a drawing of the City of Mound that is
maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved
locations of private docks that may be constructed on or
abutting public shorelands under the control of the City.
Such master plan shall contain the following information:
ao official shoreline markr►4s for purposes of establishing
dock lovatioe:s;
b. Indication of approved dock location scaled to
proximity with the shoreline markers;
c. Types of docks permitted and any restrictions
applicable to said locations;
d. Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown;
e. Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of
licensees and addresses, it, qWr the same `Iftition i4 yeas as few. as
f.1~aQiir'4 Nwtet, soil conditions,
tat, aocess, and other relevant information as is
necessary to review dock locations and to allow the
City Council and the Dock Inspector to protect the
public lands and public waters;
g. Shoreline areas designated "winter approved dock
locations".
h. Variations from perpendicular dock to shoreline
configurations.
gam. 2. Annual Review of Mao Approved dock location saps
shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall
be reviewed by the Park Commission at least once a year.
The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location
map between July i and December i before each new boating
season so their recomended changes may be referred to and
considered by the City Council on or before January 15.
Maps shall contain all approved private dock locations as
established by the Council upon the advice and
recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory
Commission. final approval of the dock location map and the
number of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be the
responsibility of the City Council.
1 -29 -90
MAYWOOD CITY (f M OU ND ND MOUND MINNESOTA S6 TA SS :612) 472.11
1 �
Dear pock Permit Molder:
Subject, 1990 pock Site
Boating season is upon us once again, the dock site number listed above his
been assigned to you for this boating season. If you need help locating this
site, please call me and 1 will give you some assistance.
Because of the low ester situation, we are allowing soma special dispensations
this year to allow you to put in your dock. We will allow docks to be ex-
tended out further than normal. 1n some locations, but proper spacing between
them must be maintained, etc. You must contact me before doing this or you
my have to remove the dock If It is not correct. t
You will note your tag is not enclosed. 1 will p somIIy attach your tag to
the dock after i have inspected it to see that it conforms to the City Or- L`
dinance in construction and placement. If your dock does not pass inspection,
I will Issue a notice listing the deficiency and you will have ten (10) days
to correct it. if you negleci to do so, you could lose your dock site permit.
I have dock construct Ion gu I de 1 i nes, i f needed. " ° vow do* %n \
ftp .UVW W erl i M it you hM any 4uastowwat 472 -I IBS.
Please read the information on the back of this letter regarding your respon-
sibllities as a dock holder and the Mound pock OrdiAme #437.
Thanks for your cooperation In making the public conrnons safe and attractive
to help you have an enjoyable boating season.
Sincerely,
/&a'
Dell Rudolph
Dock Inspector
DR :pj
22`I
IduoRIYTIa wRNT a TU lmis ool01nu DOCC noun
710 City of Ibuad is licensed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (L11CD) to
Operate 400 multiple docks and 6 mooring buoys. To be eligible to lease one of these
situ . you must be a permanent or summer resident of Mound. Applications are available at
City Nall from January ]rd through February 28th this year for now applicants, and are
wiled to licensee from prior year during December each year. gee dock application for
eurrest dock site sad sailboat buoy fees. These fees are due with the completed
applicatism by February 28th. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock
lieesses and sailboat buoys per the Mound City Code.
A. nW PRIORITT As abutting owmer has first prisrity for any location withia him lot
lines extended to the Shoreline. lseke shall be located in accordance With the dock
lseatiaa mom:
S. SUM PRIORI!! A licensee or shared wner bas second priority wham applying for a
dock permit for the same location bold by the licensee or shared owner, the
immediately precesdiag year. Second priority licensee has so priority of dock
locations where a first priority license is in effect.
C. TNIRD PRIORITY A duly gaalifiod applicant has third priority on locations vacant after
the first sad second priority applications have boom made witbia the prescribed time
limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants is the
order of application dates. There shall be so third priority where the first and
second priorities are is affect. Residents owing private frosts&@ shall have the
last priority each year for a dock on public lands.
D. ADMINISTRATION Or PRIORITT The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the
applicants upon complianco with tbis-ordiaance and subject to reasonable eoaditioss
and Council approval.
All applications received after Feb. 28th, shall be subject to a late fee of $20.00, and
will be placed in a third priority category. There will be no late fee charge# to now
residents vim apply after Feb. 28th of the calendar year in which the resident'aoves to
the City. Residents of the City of Mound, 65 years of age or older. shall pay SOX of the
required license tae for a dock.
Pon Or onium f437 an mm AND RNOOLTioNB
SUBDIVISION 1. Dock Location Map Definition There shall be on file at the City Nall, a
droving of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock inspector shoving the approved
locations of docks that may be constructed on or abutting public sborelands under the
eoatrol of the City.
SODDITISia 2. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock
Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park Commission at least once a year. The park
Advisory Commission shall review the dock location nap between July 1 and December 1.
before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and
considered by the City Council on or before January 1S. Maps shall contain all approved
dock locations as established by the Council upon the advise and recommendations of the
Dock Inspector and Park Commission. final approval of the dock location map and the
number of dock licenses to be permitted shall be the responsibility of the City Council.
SUBDIVISION S. PSAMOU ewNrTt detetmims and ppiewi VW - tuatioa '*f'4Aa1psn1t
MrMlt 'AM peaifieaiieet 409 ta''!p}MGS dock ldcAflss mid.
WNDIRSta 4. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at big sole
espemse.
2
0
•
May 7, 1990
Mr. Melvin 3ohn3
2155 Noble Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Sohns:
CITY t 0f MOUND MOUND. M NNE O SOTA SSW
(6121472-
RE: Dock site 020700
It has been called to my attention that you disagree with the
Position allowed for your Mound Commons dock site 120700. As you
are aware, each site holder at the Waterside Commons has a 30
foot space allowance at the normal shoreline level. There was a
dredge done last winter on Waterside Commons so this spring I
Measured and staked out the whole area. Most docks are put in
centered on their stake, giving them 15 feet each way. It is
allowable to offset your dock to either side, as long as you stay
within your 30 foot allowance. It appears you have chosen to
Offset your dock to the left, making it possible for you to only
use the right side of your dock. You have registered two boats
at this site. If you are planning to keep one on each aide, the
dock will bite be centered on the middle stake to do this. Your
dock is perfectly legal the way it is installed, if you use the
right hand aide only. No boats will be allowed on the left hand
aide. The boat that is moored there now must be moved in the
next 72 hours, or it is in danger of being impounded.
I noticed that you had put a stake in at the waterline to
indicate where you think the angle of your dock should be. It is
Incorrect and I moved it to the proper angle, which follows
perfectly the angle that you installed your dock. The low water
level has caused some areas to have less space at the waterline
than at the normal shoreline spacing, but this usually doers not
affect boat mooring.
•
Mr. Melvin Sohns i
May 7 1990
As you are aware, we have cleaned out the store drain area and
cemented it for better run -off control,. so .this sbould help lam`
site in the future. \
Your cooperation with the c ONE eats above will be appreciated._ It
you have any questions, please call •e or Jim Fackler at #72-
1155.
Thank you
Dell Rudolph
Dock Inspector
cc: Bradley Sohns
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
0 DR:ls
•
t
_
•
CITY of 1 rND MO S UND M NE O SO ASS 64
o6ib 4,'2-1155
May 17 1990
2% Melvin 3ohns
5 Noble Lose
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Sohns:
This letter is a follow -up of our meting at Waterside Commons on
Wednesday, May 16 1990. You and your sons, Brad and Bruce, Ed
3hukle City Manager and myself met to discuss the position of
your dock at site 020700.
After one and one -half hours of discussion, measuring and reason-
ing, it ended in an impasse. Your dock in its present position,
is perfectly legal, as long as you use the right side only to
moor a boat. The left side is too close to the dock space next
to you tot allow for a boat. There is ample room for you to move
your dock to the right, staying within your allowable space, and
moor a second boat on the left side. This also enables all the
other 20 site holders to have their allowable space.
The boat, now tied to the left side of the dock, is moored
Illegally and must be moved in the next 72 hours or if will be
impounded.
If you wish to appeal the rulings made here, you may appear
before the Park and Open Space Commission on June 14, 1990 with
your case. Your letter of appeal must be In to the City Manager
by June 8 1990. They will review the case and submit a
recommendation to the City Council for their decision. The boat
Must be moved as stated above, even if this has not been resolved
yet.
Respectively,
Dell Rudolph
Dock Inspector
ac: Brad Sohns, 2236 Southview Lane
Ed Shukle, City Manager
Park and Open Space Commission
"M r SRS is
170
•
Jessen moved, Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION /89 -143 RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF SCOT
A. MC KENZIE FOR A FENCE HEIGHT
VARIANCE AT 4861 HANOVER LANE (CASE NO.
89 -844)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Counellmember Liz Jensen explained that based on a joint meeting
of the Council and the Planning Commission and a public hearing
on how to determine a method to address problems with housing
maintenance, the Commission had come to the following conclusions:
1. We as a community need to do something- regarding the
external appearance, maintenance, and safety of some
properties in the City of Mound.
2. Rental properties are a bigger probleim than owner occupied
properties.
3. In no case should a resident or property owner's rights be
violated by such things as unjustified entry.
4. Those attending future public hearings on this issue would
like to have -a document to review before the meeting.
5. • We need a way to advise potential purchasers about such
things as zoning restrictions, zoning non - conformities, and
water bill balances.
The Planning Commission is rzquesting the Council to direct staff
to work with the Planning Commission along with the City Attorney
to draft the official document.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to direct staff and
Planning Commission to work together with City Attorney to
prepare a document to be implemented in three phases: (1)
Truth in Housing; (2) Inspection and Licensing of rental
property; and (3) Housing Maintenance Ordinance. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
•
jfp ovAL & nmsl Mt>► t t con
City Manager Ed reviewed the November 9, 1989 minutes of
the Park Commission where the Commission voted to leave the 1990
Dock map as iL.
MOTION by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to approve the 1990
Commons Dock Map for 1990 as presented, The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
;.A.& G
2
�Q
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 9, 1969
Present weret Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Nell Weber,
T m Casey. Steve Burke, Sh 1 r 1 ey Andersen, Ala w*f AAwao and Sr i an
A_iesoni Council Representative Phyllis Jesseni Park Director Jim
Facklsrs City Manager, Ed Shukle, Dock inspet: tor, Deli Rudolph,
and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was: Commissioner
Cathy Bally.
The following citizens were also in attendance: ;anet Johnson,
Brian Johnson, Mark Schiel, Jim Ostman, Kay Ostran, Bryan Clem,
Paul Glynn, Donna Easthouse, Gayle Grady, Skip Johnson, Harvey
Rider, Carolyn Schmidt, Cliff Schmidt, Ron Johnson, Jim Grady,
Doug Easthouse, Gert Gerold, Don Henry, Claudia Henry, Ken
Hasselfeldt.
Chair Byrnes celled the meeting to order at 700 p.m.
Ala
iM n
The minutes of the Park Conmission meeting of October 12. 1989
were presented for changes and /or additions.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Asleson to approve
the Park Cammisslon Minutes of October 12, 1989 as writ-
ten. Motion carried unanimously.
-, m.
The Park Director. Jim Fackler, reported that there are no
changes being proposed from the 1989 map. He surmized that there
are 443 dock sites listed on the map, however only 360 of these
sites will be usable in 1990 due to the low water level. Fackler
also reviewed the number of docks located on City parks.
Chair Byrnes asked the citizens present if anyone wished to speak
on the issue. Gert Gerolo of 4600 Manchester Road questioned If
docks could be installed on the property by the Black Lake
bridge. Fackler explained that this property Is either County or
privately owned.
Ron Johnson of 4416 Dorchester Road questioned why there was ever
a problem with the docks being located at Avalon Park. Chair
Byrnes explained the history of the Avalon dock issue. Council -
member Skip Johnson asked to speak on the issue of Avalon Park.
Skip explained that he raised the issue at a council meeting
since he was aware at one time that the park was owned by an as-
sociation and they did not went docks at the park. Johnson ex-
plained that when the area was used as a swimming beach It had e is
nice sand bottom, however, lack of use and dredging from Goose
A2L?
Park Commission Minutes
November 9, 1989
Page Two
\ Y
a
island has destroyed the sand bottom which is now covered with a
soot type material. He stated that the docks dominate the park
and have changed the usage of the park. Johnson added that after
the docks were installed at Avalon, 100 people signed a petition
to remove the docks and limit the use of the park. Bryan Clem of
4464 Manchester confirmed that there was a petition dated May 4,
1982 and it did have 100 signatures on it.
Gert Gerold stated that she uses Avalon park, however does not
have a dock or a boat. She has a day care with twelve children
and would like to see a bench or picnic table and some playground
equipment at the park. She stated that the kids walk on the
docks because their Is nothing else to do at the park. She added
that the docks are not a problems, however, the park needs equip-
ment.
Fackler informed the Commission that there is a very low turnover
rate for the dock holders at Avalon, there is a limited amount of
dock space available for non - abutting property owners on the Is-
land.
Ron Johnson added that it would be nice to have a picnic table or
bench at the park. * Fackler stated that there was a picnic table
at the Park this last summer. Johnson also questioned If the
well could be made usable again, he believes the casing is still
there.
Cliff Schmidt of 3001 Island View Drive stated that the docks are
dangerous for the kids. Jim Ostman of 2945 Island View Drive
stated that the older kids fish from the docks.
Chair Byrnes read a letter written by Dell Rudolph, Dock Inspec-
tor, recommending that the docks remain at Avalon Park.
Donna Easthouse of 3042 Island View Drive stated that she helped
walk the petition in 1982 and would prefer to see Avalon Park
used for a swimming beach.
Weber questioned Fackler on the possibility of relocating the
dock holders at Avalon. Fackler stated that it would be almost
impossible, especially due to the low water, and since the dock
holders are non - abutting residents, a relocation would mean that
their docks could be across town. He added that there is a high
demand from non - abutting property owners for dock sites.
MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Burke to appro, the
Dock Inspector's recommendation for approval of the 1990
Dock Location Map as submitted. Motion carried unanim-
ously.
AA(j
Park Commission Minutes
November 9, 1989
Page Three
Asteson added that it was bad timing to request the removal of
these City docks when the water Is so low and docks are high I n
demand. in addition, the LMCD may freeze the number of dock
sites for the City of Mound at our current number of docks,
therefore, it is not favorable to eliminate any dock sites at
this time.
This issue will be reviewed by the City Council on November 14,
1989.
Policy on Appointments and /or Reappointments to the Park Commis
slon end Amendment to Section 255:05.
The City Manager explained the reason for adopting this policy
and the advantages of adopting it. He also informed the Commis-
sion of the City Council's decision to remove the provision from
City Code Section 255:05 which limited the number of terms a mem-
ber is allowed to serve on the Park Commission.
Budoet up -date. 0
The City Manager explained that the City Council has scheduled
budget hearings for November 28th and ,December 5th.
City Manawer's Report
The City Manager informed the Park Commission that the Planning
Commission has recommended not to have the P u b l i c works outdoor
storage materials site located at City Hall.
The Manager also reviewed a recommendation from Steve Jantzen
regarding potential remodeling at the Mound Say Park Depot. He
added that Jantzen estimated the remodeling project to cost
$50,000 which would allow the building to be serviceable for 5 to
10 years. The City Manager suggested contacting local organlza-
tions such as the lions and Rotary Club for contributions to the
project. Burke suggested that this may be a good project for a
votech class. it was determined that this issue would be dis-
cussed at the December 14th meeting, and the historical society
should be contacted so they may participate in the discussion.
Park Director's Report
Fackler reported that the improvements tc Pembroke Park are al-
most complete and all the signs for the parks have been con-
structed, however will not be installed until Spring of 1990.
%�"*i
0 RESOLUTION 30. 90-
July 24, 1990
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS/
1990 CDBG PROGRAM (YEAR ZVI)
•MEREAS, the City of Mound has executed a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of
participating in the 1990 (Year XVI) Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program; and
EZSREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual
grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
for purposes of the program and the City is a subrecipient of
those funds; and
MREAS, program regulations require that the City and
County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the
specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken
with program funds.
WOW TAEREPORE, aE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council
of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes and directs
the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the Subrecipient
Agreement, County Contract Number A05690, on behalf of the City.
•
1]
ou 70
HENNEPIN
LM
DATE: July' 16, 1990.
[Z•3
•,
Urban Hennepin County Cooperating Units
Hennepin County Office of Planning 6 Developme ,
SUBJECT:SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS /1990 CDBG PROGRAM
(YEAR XVI)
The accompanying three copies of the subject agreement are presented for
appropriate execution by your local officials. Return all three signed
copies along with the resolution of the governing body authorizing execution
with official seal imprint as necessary to:
Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development
Development Planning Unit
822 South Third Street, Suite 310
Minneapolis, MN 55415
A sample resolution is provided for your convenience.
The executed agreements should be returned no later than Friday. August 24,
1990.
A copy will be sent to you after the County has signed them.
The agreements are a regulatory requirement of the CDBG program. Before
disbursement of any Year XVI CDBG funds can be made, the agreement must be
signed between Hennepin County (the recipient) and your community (the sub -
recipient).
In instances where your CDBG activity is implemented by a third party, an
agreement similar to the Subrecipient Agreement must be executed between your
community and that party. Third Party Agreements are being prepared and will
be transmitted for execution a- necessary.
Your County CDBG representative is prepared to answer your questions.
RI:tf
Enclosures
0
•
WT JUL 18 IM
9171
_
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Contract No. A azao
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
CONKUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLACK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF
H4WIX. Stat of nnesota, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT." and the
of K111 hereinafter referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT,"
said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of
Minnesota, and is made pursuant to M4 sota Statutes, Section 471.59:
WITNUSETH
WHEREAS Recipient has received'a Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community develop-
ment activities in cooperation with Subrecipient; and
WHEREAS, S from Federal Fiscal Year 1990 CDBG funds has been
approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of
eligible and fundable community development activity /Les as included in and a
part of the 1990 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program and as set forth in
the Statement of Work described in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for
the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said
responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement
executed between Recipient and Subrecipient and in the 1990 Statement of
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County CDBG program and
the Certifications contained therein.
NOW, THEREFGAE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows:
1. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation
only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1.
2. The Uniform Administrative Requirements, as promulgated in 24 CFR
570.502, shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Sub -
recipient provided for in this Agreement or by any program income
generated therefrom.
3. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all
supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for
implementation of its activity /iss. Procurement shall be carried
out in accordance with the "Colon Rule" provisions (24 CFR 85)
(which replrce OMB Circular A -102 for the purposes of this Agree-
ment), the procurement requirements of the Subrecipient, and all
provisions of the Community Development Block Grant Regulations, 24
CFR 570 (the most restrictive of vhich will take precedence). The
Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertise
AA 742
scents, negotiations. notices, and documents; enter into all con-
tracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences. and interviews as
necessary to insure compliance with the above described procurement
requirements. The Recipient shall provide advise and staff assis-
tance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- funded activity /ies.
4. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisi-
tions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity/
ies. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its
name and shall hold title to all properties purchased. The Subre-
cipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices,
appraisals. and documentation required in conducting acquisition
udder the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG
Program. The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing
all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said
regulations. Th* Recipient shall provide advice and staff assis-
tance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDW- funded activity /ies.
The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 574.606(a)
and KJD implementing regulations at 24 CPR 42; the requirements in
24 Cn 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and
relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the lousing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation require-
ments of 24 M 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section
104(k) of the Act; ana the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d)
governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of
the Act.
6. The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the expenditure of all
CDBG funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance
with OMB Circulars A -87 and the 'Common Rule' provisions (24 CFR 85)
and in accordance with OMB Circular A -110 and A -122, as applicable.
All records shall be made available, upon request of the Recipient,
for inspection/s and audit /s by the Recipient or its representa-
tives. If a financial audit/* determines that the Subrecipient has
improperly expanded CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development disallowing such expenditures, the
Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such
disallowed expenditures from non -CDBG sources. Audit procedures are
specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement.
7. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to
comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply
with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being
understood that the Recipient has responsibility to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for insuring
compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will
promptly notify the Recipient of any changes ir. the scope or
character of the activity/ies which it is implementing.
X213
S. a. The Subrecipient does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and
hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs,
expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing
out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or
corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property
of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection
with the tasks carried out by the Subracipient under this
Agreement.
b. The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect
Itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement
provisions bersinabove set forth it will at all times during
the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and
keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess
umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of
an amount of not less than $600,000 for property damage arising
from one occurrence, $600,000 for damages arising from death
and/or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and
$600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occur-
rence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability
coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and
employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between
the Subrecipient and the Recipient.
9. The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipiant with Community
Development Block Grant funds in such amounts as agreed upon in this
Agreement to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- eligible
activity /Les as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the
Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expendi-
ture of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall
therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw
no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activ-
ity /Les, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant
Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as
wall as copies of all documents and records needed to insure that
the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and
requirements.
10. The Recipient shall maintain the environmental review record on all
activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing
necessary information to the Recipient to accomplish this task.
11. The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all
requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities
undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the
Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising
for contractual services which will include costs likely to be
subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal
Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The
Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to
insure compliance with these requirements.
12. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subre-
cipient in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site
ax?y
assistance regarding Community Development Block Grant procedures
and project management. This assistance will be provided as •
requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times, at the initiative
of the Recipient, when new or updated information concerning the
CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be
provided to the Subrecipient.
13. The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures
and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the
Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecip-
lent agrees to provide all information required by any person
authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the
Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same.
14. In accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR 85.43, suspension or
termination of this Agreement may occur if the Subrecipient materi-
ally fails to comply with any term of this Agreement. This Agree-
ment may be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR
85.44. This Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by
either party hereto by giving thirty (30) days written notice of
such termination. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under
this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient
following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the
Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or
unspent following such date of termination shall automatically
revert to the Recipient.
15. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been
reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed and
approved by the respective parties, governing bodies and properly
executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All
Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement
by inclusion in Exh!bLt 2 which shall be attached at the time of any
Amendment.
16. All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated
for any purposes by the activities of the Subrecipient in the
performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Govern-
ment Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all
other statutory provisions governing data privacy, the Minnesota
Rules implementing such act now in force or hereafter adopted, as
well as Federal regulations on data privacy.
17. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to
the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative
Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against
Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment
rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service
or activity on the grounds of race, color, :reed, religion, age,
sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference,
public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin;
and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws
against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
18. The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1990. The termins-
S ties date of this Agreement is December 31, 1991, or at such time as
the activity/Les constituting part of this Agra eme at are satisfac-
torily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient
shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or
uncommitted for the activities described in Exhibit 1.
19. If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the
expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall
apply, as well as the following specific stipulations:
A. The Subrecipient recognizes that it must notify the Recipient
of any program income within ten (10) days of the date that
such program income is generated. Men program income is
generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with
CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the
percentage of CDBG funds used.
b. That any such program income mast be p -id to the Recipient by
the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program
income is generated or may be retained by the Subrecipient, as
specifically identified in Exhibit 1.
C. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the
responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use
of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate
. recordkaeping by the Subrecipient sad reporting to the Recip-
ient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is
hereby recognized by the Subrocipient. The Recipient agrees
to provide technical assistance to the-Subrecipient in estab-
lishing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting
system, as required by HUD.
d. That in the event of close -out or change in status of the
Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received
subsequent to the close -out or change in status shall be paid
to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is
received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient,
should close -out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur.
20. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was
acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in
excess of ;25,000 shall either be:
a Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.206
until five ;ears after expiration of this Agreement; or
b. Disposed of in a manner that results in the Recipient's being
reimbursed in the amount of the current fair alrket value of
the property less any portion of the value attributable to
expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improve-
s ment to, the property.
5 RA'L
21. The following standards shall apply to real property under the
control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole
or in part, using CDBG funds:
a. The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty
(30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the
real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or
improvements including disposition.
b. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an mount
equal to the current fair market value (less any portion
thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of
property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or
transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG
regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the
Licipiert at the time of sale or transfer of the property
referenced horein.
c. Any program income Generated from the disposition or transfer
of property prior to or subsequent to the close -out, change of
status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement
between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to
the Recipient at the tams of disposition or transfer of the
property.
22. The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit
consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law
98 -502) and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A -128,
Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB
Circular A -110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities,
Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations.
a. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year
this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance
affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecip-
ient within six (6) months of the provision date.
b. The audit is not required, however, in a ose instances where
less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all Federal
sources in any one fiscal year.
C. The audit may not be paid from CDBG funds.
d. The Recipient reserves the right to recover, from non -CDBG
sources, any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by the audit.
23. The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR
570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing
Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out
Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concern-
ing Church /State Activities).
•
I\r I
A�17 6
�
24. The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead -basod Paint notifica-
tion, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in
24 CFt 570.608.
25. The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBC funds for
activity /ies subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively
further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impedes action
taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification.
26. go federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or
on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employs* of any agency, a
Member of fempess, an officer or empley" of Congress, or an
employe of a Member of Congress in coommetion with the awarding of
any Federal contract, the making of my Federal grant, * the =king of
any Federal loan, the entering into of amendment, or modification of
my Federal contract, grant, loan, or.cooperative agreement.
27. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or
will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influ-
*nce an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an
officer or employs* of Congress, or an employee of a Member of
Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant loan, or
cooperative agreement Standard Form -LLL, •Disclosure Form to Report
Lobbying,' will be completed and submitted in accordance with its
instructions.
28. The use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies against any
individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within
the jurisdiction of the Subrocipient is prohibited.
4
�J
49z4?4
SUIRECIPIENT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County board
of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
19, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official's having
signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions
hj-ein set forth.
Upon proper execution, this
Agreement will be legally,
valid and binding. /
Assistant Count- Att j
Date:
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
COUNTY OF HENNEPL;,
STATS OF MINNESOTA
Sys
Chairman of its County board
And:
Deputy /Associate County Administrator
Attest:
Deputy /Clerk of the County board
SUUZCIPIENT : J
OF ma nQ
By:
Its Mayor
And:
Its City Manager
Attest:
Title City, . _k
The City is organized pursuant to:
_ Plan A L Plan b _ Charter
•
•
aA11 8
Contract Ho. d0-
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
MG1IBIT 1.
STATEMENT OF WORK
The following activity /ies shall be carried out by the City of Mound
under the terns of this Agreement and fte details and processes set forth
below.
Up to $62,002 are to be provided in Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds s
to the City of Mound to assist in the funding of the following activity/iss in
the count and under the stipulations individually specified: .
Attachment
A.
0063
Rehab of Private Property
$31.754
Attachment
B.
#064
Sr Counseling/Case Mgat
4.457
Attachment
C.
0065
W*stonka Community Action
4.800
Attachment
D.
0066
Westonka Intervention
5.700
Attachment
E.
0067
Westonka Sr Canter /Open
15.291
$62.002
•
•
;touo
ATTACHNINT A
1. ACTIVITY: Rehabilitation of Privsta property
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: NA
3. NUMER: 063
4. BUDGET: $31,754
S. BENETIT: L/M (Housing)
6. DESCRIPTION:
Provide deferred loans to low /moderate income homeowners for improvements
to their home consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Procedural Guides
for Housing Rehabilitation. the activity will be operated by Hennepin
County. Program income will be returned to the activity.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an 'X• are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
Type: (j Non- Profit Agency
j Public Agency
[ j Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi-
ant. Said agreeeent must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
[Xj sch4dull
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1991.
[XI Environmental Review Record
Par 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[ j Exempt (EX)
[XI Categorically Excluded (CE)
[ j Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE /EX)
[ J Assessment Required (AR)
J Funds Released (FR) Data:
•
xx41
( Lhor Srandardsf�aual AQlovment O000rtunit'
• All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), ti,. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti - Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CPR Part 60.
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CPR Part $5.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rats quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
. the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost-
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
The standards described in 49 CM Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement o! persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be rR0 *ced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced lov- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti- displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
Ll
A aa26
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
commmity, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[X] Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicabld Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate- income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, masts one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ ] Area Benefit
[ ] Limited Clientele
[X] Housing
[ ] :ob Creation. or Retention
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: 9)
(J Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b) (1).
[ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or phy3ical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must to described.
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
•
AA63
ATTACHMENT B
•
I. ACTIVITY: Senior Citizen Counseling/Case Management
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: NA
3. NUMBER: 064
4. BUDGET: $4,457
S. BENEFIT: 1^ (Limited Clientele)
6. DESCRIPTION:
Provide counseling and case management assistance to low- income elderly
and their families to help them in utilizing public services available in
the community.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an •x• are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
(XJ Supplemental Agreement
Type: [XI Non - Profit Agency Senior Comity Services
( J Public Agency
[ ) Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi-
ant. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
(XJ kch edule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1991.
(X) Environment. aview Record
Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
(XJ Exempt (EX)
(J Categorically Excluded (CE)
(J Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX)
(J Assessment Required (AR)
( J Funds Released (FR) Date:
•
ao%ay
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part •
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti- Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulation. issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CPR Part 60.
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part $5.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
- Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost -
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
The standards described in 49 CPR Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
All occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti- displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
C`
Aa1s
( ) Property Manag2M=
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBC funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
( ) Land Disgosition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
commnu►ity, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[Z) Im and Moderate IW&
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be damonstrated that a low- and moderate - income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
( I Area Benefit
[XI Limited Clientele
J Housing '
(J Job Creation or Retention
0 It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets: one of the following criteria:
j Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and most the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b) (1).
Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
•
A28C
1. ACTIVIV: Hestonka Community Action
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: 5600 Lynwood Boulevard
CENSUS TRACT: 276.01
3. NUMBER: 065
4. BUDGET: $4,800
5. BENEFIT: L/M (Limited Clientele)
6. DESCRIPTION:
Assist a social service reforral office serving low- and moderate - income
households within the Nestonka area. Project funds will be used for
rental of office space, payment of telephone bills and salary support of
a part -time office worker.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an 'X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
(X) Suvplemental Agreement
Type: (X) Non - Profit Agency Westonka Community Action Network
[ J Public Agency
[ ) Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi-
ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
[X) Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1991.
[XJ Envigonmental Review Record
Per 24 CFR Pt - t 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[X) Exempt (EX)
[ ) Categorically Excluded (CE)
[ ) Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE /EX)
[ ) Assessment Required (AR)
[ ) Funds Released (FR) Date:
•
C
•
$12e7
(j Labor Standards /Equal &Ulo3=nt O000rrtuni z
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -Bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti - Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employ&ent Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CFA Part 60.
Stand!-Tds and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
precut -i nt of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construct. {on bids.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost -
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
( ] Untfoo Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displace:4ent caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
( ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low - moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBC Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 1O4(d) of the Housing and Community Develop -
Ilent Act of 1974, as amended.
01aft
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[Z] UM and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate- income activik -y so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ ] Area Benefit
(X] Limited Clientele
( ] Hv',is ing
(j Job Creation or Retention
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, seats one of the following criteria:
[ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and most the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b)(1).
[ ] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
•
ATTAC1=NT D
1. ACTIVITY: Vostonka Intervention
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: NA
3. X MBER: 066
4. BUDGET: $5.700
S. BENEFIT: L/K (Cliaited Clientele)
6. DESCRIPTION:
Finance office support costs for a community -based organization which
acts to prevent family violence through intervention.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an •X• are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
[X] Supplemental Agreement
Type: [XJ Non- Profit Agency Vestonka Intervention
[ J Public Agency
[ ] Other
An agreement exist be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipi-
ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
[XJ Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by December
31, 1991.
[XJ Environmental Review Record
Per 24 CFA Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[XI Exempt (EX)
[ J Categorically Excluded (CE)
[ J Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE /EX)
[ J Assessment Required (AR)
[ J Funds Released (FR) Date:
•
�61to
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis -bacon
Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
end the Copeland (Anti - Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CYR Part 60.
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase /s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed -price or cost -
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procuring professional services.
The standards described in 49 CFR Part 24 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low- moderate income dwelling units
damnlished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low- moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBC Program Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act cf 1974, as amended.
•
X211
The standards described in 24 Cn Part 570.505 Subprrt J shall apply to
all real property which was acquired or improved in wbols or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[ j
Land DIMgosition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the -terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
(XI Low and M ode rate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate - income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CM Part 570.208,
relating to:
[ ] Area Benefit
[XI Limited Clientele
[ ] Housing
[ J Job Creation or Retentinn
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
( Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b)('i.
( j Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
( [ Urgent Community Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
��92
ATTAGNM E
1. ACTIVITY: Vestod a Senior Center /OperaLlons 1 6
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: NA
3. DER: 067
4. RUMM: $15,291
S. IM17!I7,: LA (United Clientele)
6. DESCRIPTION:
Provide funds to assist in the operation of the Vestorka Senior Center.
7. CEi00" TS: Requirements with an 1 1" are applicable to this
a and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
aar&oment.
(XJ Suonlemental Rsraament
Typo: (X) Non- Profit. Agency oandent School District No. 277
( 1 Public Agooncy
I J Other .---
An agreement must be executed between subrocipient and any other agency Is
providing a service or implementing an acri-ity on behaV of subrecipi-
ent. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrocipient Agreement acid such other roquirements as are identified
herein.
(X) tel:
Activity must be implemented in a timely z weer and •ompleted by December
31. 1991.
(XJ Environmental Livia w Record
Per 24 CFA Part 58 Subpart E the onvirotm *atal review status for this
ac. *..ivity has been determined as follows:
( ] Exempt (EX)
(J Categorically Excluded (CE)
(Xj Categorically Excluded /Exempt (CE/EX)
J Ab3essmynt Required (AR)
J Funds Released (FR) Date:
11
ASL13
Il
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the proviaiow of the Davis -Bacon
Act (prevailing wage). the Contract Vork Hour• and Safety Standards Act
and the Copeland (Anti - Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or "stated construction contracts or subcontracts
of $10,000 or more shall comply with executive Order 11246, Equal
employment Opportunity, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant
thereto, 41 CPR Part 60.
tl
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CPV Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies. equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the
follwring ethods. The method used shall be adequately documented and
contracts shall contain standaid conditions as appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase
of services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not
acre than $25.000. If small purchase procurement is used, written
price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of
qualified sources.
• Competitive Sealed 8 (formal Adverts %ing) To be followed when
the purchase /a, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25.000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed -price contract is
to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
• Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost -
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically
used for procurir; professional services.
I Uniform 4s1ocation Assistance and teal Pronerty Accuisiticn
The standards described in 49 CM 7 %rt 24 shall apply to activity teat
involves the acquisitiou of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation a&A demolition.
I , & g .taa n tnat Antidisnlacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low•soderate Income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of -activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance st.,all be provided to each
displaced low - moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDSG Pro6ram Anti - displacement and Relocation Assistance
Policy, pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Act of 1974, as amended.
•
All
The standards described in 24 CPR Part 570.$05 SWipart J stall apply to
all real propertf which was acquired or improved in whole or in part
using CDBG funds in excess of $25.000. These standards apply for a
period of five (5) years after the termination of tMa agreement.
This agreement, executed between Hennepin Count' and the subrecipient
community. contains the terms wader which the community can acquire sad
bold land for a specified use and time period.
fxl IA.wW Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it stall
be domonstrated that a low- and moderate - income activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meta one of the four criteria of 24 CPR Part 570.208.
relating to:
l Area Benefit
(Zl Limited Clientele
Housing
l Job Creation or Rot a
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in
5. Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria: 0
(l Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area
must be defined and met the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208
(b) (1).
l rpot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity. so indicated in S.
Benefit. above, is designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
•
•
July 24, 1990
RMLOTION NO. 90-
RZYOLUTION RZLZmn CZRTAIN TAZ romn &a=
TO ZZNNBPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION 7►MD
CNATIrTINO TNZ BPICIIL As/n/11ZNTs
VZZRSAB, the City of Mound has been informed by the
Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain
lands within the City have been forfeited for non - payment of real
estate taxes; and
•MERZAf, the parcels do comply with the City's zoning
ordinance or building codes and are not adverse to the health
safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and
VZZR1=, all special assessments were cancelled at the
time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is
returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S.
444.076); and
MMRRM, all special assessments that have been levies
since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added
to the appraised value of any such parcel of land at the time it
is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3);
XOW, TZZRZFORZ, Hi IT RZ9OLVZD by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota:
1. That the following parcels of tax forfeited land are
released to the County of Hennepin for public auction
and the City hereby certifies the following special
assessments.
AMOUNT DRIORZ AMOUNT AMR
FORTZITURZ rORFEITURN
PARCEL PID # i DZSCRIPT. LM # JuWUNT j # AMOUIRT
13- 117 -24 12 0176 6703A $ 1,743.25 NONE
(Lots 4,5, Q S 1/2 of 3,
Block 10, Woodland Point)
23- 117 -24 34 0087 6952 $ 617.75 NONE
(That part of Lots 6 i 7928 $ 5,207.70
7 lying Wly of the SEly
112.5 feet thof Except.
the NEly 10 feet of said
Lot 6, Block 9, The Highlands)
tull
30- 117 -23 22 0026
(Lots 13 i 14, Block
4, Devon)
30- 117 -23 22 0027
(Lots 15 i 16, Block
4, Devon)
8297 $ 5,144.11
8297 $ 4,037.50
July 24, 1990
NONE
NONE
2. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale
at public auction subject to the County imposing the
lien of special assessments on said lands.
3. The City of Mound is releasing the above properties
subject to street and utility easements being retained
by the City of Mound and the above notes acknowledged
and abided by.
•
s
•
017
IW r ,,..
WE51 ..
G
.
Z4
23 ,�_ - 2: 6 2 4 I _ •• q (
3 Z3 ' 10 23 7 ` 23 • 6 c T pN�
1
tt N , y INN
t Is 2211 4 e _1 v
I 21 IZ !o� r
& t! 16 ` 20 v zo
7 9 � ►•
0'M 8Gf
�AbN 4CM i . s; __ `r► .�t
s AL
6 4 q �V /• 2
23
7 4 a s Z Y
sr ^'e. 9 � + t� Q . (� •� �• RD
ry r
17 6 .9 2t 3 x �' W � 1��� 11 12- r: � 4Q '17
� 1a 2 2 t� ► « i
/ , 7
�'Api
c - ' • 5 ! s q
. e7:• Y �, q n 1 ) e Is s / s a,� 11 to c. •i
RfStV .� � , •° �� r � a 1 t
4 3 �'► `' `� "u' RD 22
s � ' 17. s � ' • r s , t a� • L 1 � � �fNN� �� �' � f6 = 1v i � r � � ys S "'S •, 7 ���> � � 29 '
r q N`� 17 14} . 13 1� �:• •S� pta S .. • .
+ 7 12 i �!• i' J►
` •� b 1 1 1 N J � . 3 9
{ ; f 1 7 V s 11.1 • 7� scl 2
.rr'�� �w t
I's��••a A t 11 M / L e 1t t b S 2 1 >> cu
bp -r • ' '� . .rs ti� is
5 af
O V
Is
1p1 ,
�3RI0fiE RD
In 94 3
. OS
► ••
-
.l t3
=
4
an
so '6
17 1s 1� 2 1
Me-
m N �tN�
•
Los Mis
PIS so
w ` �1S RD
IL
' IL 1 Tw
4k--
�A
anew
1
r �. •1 RO
AR
: J s 1.
- O
z 6�
4,
1s
0
Q P
\,
M
IW
e �•
60 -
CITY
i t 0 4 n
err „
v•
f /60S 80 Res _ ff,c
41J4, t l Z Ii S, 4 S • f t • //
i IT ° " i ' •
N M.m , (N �,As 1 ' ills ' 1T 20 1 2�3• ' 3 �L��
( 71 }
SAL AL HAMMER V .r p _ " S
lot
2 • 1 '4 (� .
CI
1 - ,t t • T S• S S. 4 S (�� 9 Detail of
'•' - » ►, I IZ y 10 7 ) 2 A Rd ( ;1
Is- At - ♦ ' _, s 111•` \
/ (4 1 ! / ♦0
`3 � t CQ � n t� . • . 3
1tILA11p VIEW OR
i CITY OF rAOUNO
I
t
1
tt
CQ I
Or
July 24 , 1990 •
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION AUTHORISING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE
FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS
WHEREAS, there are certain lots in the City of Mound
which are tax forfeit; and
WHEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council
either release these lots for public auction; release for private
sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be improved because
of non- compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance;
and
WHEREAS, it appears in the best interest of the City to
obtain certain lots for various reasons, i.e. wetlands, storm
sewer drainage, street or park purposes, or topography..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and
City Clerk to make application to the State of Minnesota for con-
veyance of the lots listed below for the public purpose listed:
7JUM LEGAL DESCRIPTION PU'a._`OSE •
19- 117 -23 22 0053 Lots 2,3,4,5,37,38 & 39, Wetlands
Block 10, & N 1/2 of Lots
1,2,3,4, Block 14,
Seton
Please combine the following parcels into one tax parcel:
25- 117 -24 12 0012 Lot 4, Block 25, Devon Wetlands
25- 117 -24
12
0013
Lot
5,
Block
25,
Devon,
Wetlands
25- 117 -24
12
0014
Lot
6,
Block
25,
Devon,
Wetlands
25- 117 -24
12
0016
Lot
10,
Block
25,
Devon,
Wetlands
25- 1; - -24
12
0017
Lot
11,
Block
25,
Devon,
Wetlands
25- 117 -24
12
0018
Lot
12,
Block
25,
Devon,
Wetlands
25- 117 -24
12
0019
Lot
13,
Block
25,
Devon,
Wetlands
•
X301
U2 SCSI
��.
21
J
, M1 1 (1 1 2 2 21 M 17 Is I
!' 41' 47440 ' 41 40 39= 30 37. 3e 35 34 33• 2 31 • Oil 2 24 � �1 :3t al l
21
Of 97
-. s s• se s
40 �• �t•� S•i ` _ at :N
' K es v� \ 79 ly • \
so ( I 1 7e r
- ? 70171 74 6 � , it
2
7e �e . 77 41P
Up 410
y
' r M 1 •ill y N .� ~ 4 •• ---
' M 7 p a ! � 4 � �� e ,p� {,i�� 1 Y ` ? ' _� _ - - - _ _ - - - •; �- � " .. s Ib7 a /
Q li
to f• S S I • /
Owl 310 I
$ t ~ 1 Za 1 lej h K is M, 1 11 10 !� 7 • 1 20 y l i• 17 1• 1!f' 1 1 w
3 = 21 3 24 2 2• � 7 27 32 34 • � , 1 1272 30 31 >Z ( SI 3. 34,
3 z • �'
• M kr ri +YC. MARM ,
� I2 7 2 'J 1 M W ! • •1 •1 • ,)s 4 3 ` �
T 3 1 • 1r' 3 ! 1 •f Y� It2 1 M 1S ••
.t {s�1• 1 su , �.1, ,, 41 K 17 I1 le
- - -- IY - �•.•t7. �11 1 1'31 I�M1 . v r. \ — ..... ..... ..� .� .a. ...�..�
� Mc Combs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 3rd Avenue North r ^ lymou ?h Minnesota 55447 Telephone Eny veers
612 476 6010 Planners
612 476 -8532 FAX Surveyors
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Mound
534 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
July 24. 1990
SUBJECT: Mound, Minnesota
1990 Lift Station Improvements
Contract Award
MFRA #8635
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
On July 20. 1990, bids were opened and read for the subject project. Three
bids were received and the bid tabulation for those bids is enclosed. The low
bidder is Northwest Mechanical, Inc., at $90,000.00. We have carefully checked
the proposal and find that it is correct.
The low bid, as noted above, gives a total cost for the project of $90,000
as compared to the engineer's estimate of $91,800 as stated in the Preliminary
Engineers Report, dated December 12, 1988. The $91,800 includes 10 percent
contingencies which were included in the preliminary report to cover unforeseen
circumstances that might show up later in the final design and construction.
S'nce December, 1988, the construction costs have increased approximately 3.7
percent and our estimate of June 25, 1590 was $97,600 including 10 percent
contingencies. We, therefore, feel that Northwest Mechanical's bid is
acceptable.
We have talked to other engineers who have had experience with the low
bidder. They have indicated that Northwest. Mechanical. Inc. provided an
acceptable product for them. Therefore, we recommend that the contract be
awarded to them at the price of $90,000.00.
US.
RG:aju
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Rodney Gordon, F.E.
An E qu,rl'!(� 1
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
1990 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BID TABULATION
MFRA #8635
Northwest Mechanical, Inc.
1.
Base Bid for
Lift
Station. E1
$
48,000.w
2.
Base Bid for
Lif;
Station P1
$
42,000.00
TOTAL BASE BID
$
90,000.00
3.
Alt rnate A -
:rnate
ABS
Pumps for E1 - Add
$
2,80C.00
4.
Alt B -
ABS
Pumps for P1 - Add
$
3,900.00
5.
Alternate C -
Alternative Protective Coating - Add
$
1,500.00
Gridor Construction, Inc.
1.
Base Bid for
Lift
Station E1
$
49,050.00
2.
Base Bid for
Lift
Station P1
$
41,350.00
TOTAL BASE BID
$ 90 p Op
3.
Alternate A -
ABS
Pumps for E1 - Add
$
4,300.00
4.
Alternate B -
ABS
Pumps for P1 - Add
$
2,900.00
5.
Alternate C -
Alternative Protective Coating - Ad3
$
1,500.00
1.
Base Bid for
Lift
Station E1
$
63,246.00
2.
Base Bid for
Lift
Station P1
$
59,484.00
TOTAL BASE BID
$122,730.00
3.
Alternate A -
ABS
Pumps for E1 - Add
$
2,700.00
4.
Alternate 3 -
ABS
Pumps for P1 - Add
$
4,000.00
5.
Alternate C -
Alternative Protective Coating - Add
$
2,000.00
• For July 24, 1990 Council Meeting
July 17, 1990
Our Lady of the Lake Church requests the following Licenses for the
Incredible Festival July 28 6 29, 1990.
Public Dance Permit
Temporary On -Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit
•
•
6930
CITY COUNCIL PACKET - '7 -24 -90 #3
$ILLS ------- JULY 24, 1990
BATCH 0071
BATCH 0072
William Hudson
John Breitner
58,816.45
77,344.12
School expenses 77.38
Plumbing inspections 377.40
TOTAL BILLS 136,615.35
- � F
f
,1 .
•
L -
A3os
! I
ONJRCNASE JOYAIIAL
f
Q-0Oi3.0i
CITY A N=
VNGO
INVOICE
a Nu
PM40
14. INVOICE MOt
OI1TE
OCHE STA11$
am
DETx WIVI 1
AMR NUMN
4018
am D
/[419
PIE -PAID
945.01
LID
71- 7100.9310
P'
•
7117190
7/17/90
495.81
JK_a
lo10
"5.81
31615
?100110: '
:s
PIE -RAID
3,326.39
LID
71- 7100-9510
r
7!17/
7117/00
3,326.39
JK-0
1010
3926.39
30693
7/11/% _
BB.m CORPORATION Vow TOTAL
4322.20
= =:
IM71
VNE-pAIO
34.99
CAIL1LAIM
01-4190-2200
7117/90
7/17/90
34.99
AL-0
1010
31.99
30704
7/W"
IM ]PITT C"v
VENDOR TOTAL
31.99
00019
PIE -PAID
3,700.00
CR UNION 7/7 PR
01- 2040.0000
7/17/90
7/17/90
3,700.00
JBL-0
1010
3700.00
30715
7AV%
CITY COURT► CREDIT
UNION YENNIR TOTAL
3700.00
01001
PIE -PAID
162.10
SIT -21 SP¢ PR 7/1
01- 2040.0000
,
7/17/90
7/17/90
162.10
JIM. -0
1010
162.10
30103
7/03/90
PRE-KID
2,330.51
SIT 7 -7 PR
01-2040-0000
7/17/90
7/17/90
2.MD.51
,ALA
1010
2330.51
30700
7/12/!0
comi9SIOIERt OF IE9EU VB TOTAL
2692.61
01219
PRE -PAID
209.14
30.3 CONIN T MA115
h -4350 -3100
7/17!90
7117190
209.14
AL-0
1010
209.14
30701
71101"
*ax"T AUOLPM
VOW TOTAL
209.14
01235
PPE -PAID
1,276.00
JILY DENTAL
01- 2010-0000
16.20
JLT DEf4TAl -ATIREE
01- 41WISIO
41.60
JILT WAL-IETIRFE
01- 4200-1510
41.60
JILT DBRAL- RETIREE
01- 4140-1510
57.00
JILT DENIAL- IETUEE
71-7100-1510
7/17/90
7117/90
1,433.20
JAIL-0
1010
1433.20
30722
7/12/90
BTA DENTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
1433.20
E1429
PIE -PAID
157.00
MINE
71- 7100 -9=
7/17/90
7/17190
157.00
JK_CD
1010
157.00
30608
7/04/90
PIE -PAID
615.11
LID
71-71'10 -9310
12.29- DIE
71. 7100-9560
7/17/90
1117/90
602.82
AL-0
1010
602.02
30692
7/06/90
PRE -PAID
147.02
LID
71-7100-9510
421.0
MIRE
71-7100-9520
2.94- DISC
71-7100-9560
7111 /a0
7117/90
565.93
JAIL -CD
1010
565.93
30698
7110/90
PREPAID
$32.40
LID
71- 7100-9510
97.55
MINE 007/
71 -7100 -9520
10.64- DISC L PL _ 7
71 -7100 -9580
7113190
7!17/°0
7 /1
609.31
JRNL-CD
10f0
809.31
30724
0
A30t
"K 2
PUACNAIRE JDUANAL
@6
CITY W NOIM
T1K tMif!
-
1oNio11
INVOICE OBE HOLD
PRE -ma
on
`
10. NOICE WOR
DATE DATE STATUS
MW
WERIPTION
Amm ow
ANI w
am 0
IN
PIE -PAID
200.36
LID
71- 7100.4510
4.00-
DISC
71-7100 -9550
711 7/17/90
2 0 6.36
Jo<-CD
1010
101.36
)M7
T1; ?f90
EC NUIPS 6 SONS
VENDOR TOTAL
21 31.4:
61840
PRE -PAID
64.03
HOSE i FITTINGS
01- 4310-::20
7/17/90 7/17/90
64.03
JN1.-CD
1010
64.03
30699
7/10140
BOVINE PARTS CO
VENDOR TOTAL
64.03
61955
PIE -PAID
1,135.00
DEF COIF 7/7 PR
01- 2010.0000
7/17/90 7/ 17190
1,135.00
AIL-CO
1010
1155.00
30713
7/12M
GREAT VEST LIFE AS&RVICE VENDiTt TOTAL
1175.00
G1971
PREPAID
21.00
ORPVLTH 717 PR
01-2040-0000
7/17/90 7/17/90
21.00
JAIL -0
lot0
21.00
30710
7/12@0
OADIP NEALTH PLAN
VEUDOR TOTAL
21.00
6192
PRE -PAID
365.93
LID
71- 7100-9510
800.02
VINE
71- 7100 -M
23.34-
DISC
71- 710109569
17.15
FRT
71- 7100 -%00
7/17/90 7/17/90
1,160.76
AL-CD
1010
1160.36
30606
7103/90
PRA: -PAID
10.79
928.99
LID
NINE
11- 7100 09510
71- 7100-9720
.
24.98-
DISC
71- 7100-9560
22.72
FRT
71 -7100 -%00
309.17
HIS
71-7100-9540
7/17/90 7/17/90
1,246.69
JK-CD
1010
1246.69
306%
7/10/90
PREPAID
2,868.40
LID
71- 7100-9510
77.37-
DISC
71-7100 -9%0
17.43
FRT
71- 71009600
7/17/90 7/17/90
2,828.46
AL-CD
1010
2820.46
30723
7/13/90
PREPAID
1,060.47
NINE
71- 7100-9520
21.21-
DISC
71- 7100 -9560
17.15
FRT
71-7100%00
7/17190 7/17/90
1,056.41
AL-0
1010
1056.41
30725
7/17/90
BRIMS COOPER 1 COIMT VElO1Qt TOTAL
6292.12
IC145
PRE -PAID
288.46
00 717 PR
01- 2040-0000
7/17/90 7/17/90
288.46
JOL -CD
1010
268.46
30710
7112/90
WM CO WORT i COLLECT# VENOOR TOTAL
288.46
!ZVI
PREPAID
512.90
ICM 457 717 PR
01-2040 -W
7/17190 7/17/90
512.90
J1NL-CD
1010
512.90
30711
7'::!Qo
ICNA RETiSE"EW WT-457 N NDOR TOTAL
51:.9+?
•
aaow)
PRE 3
PURCNASE JOURNAL
M1t ¢UAL'
44"
CITT OF No10
T115 JOAL44
YNOR
INVOICE ONE HOLD
LIE -MID
am
NN. INVOICE MAR
DATE DATE STATUS
MOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOW NUMIER
AMOUM
04D 0
GATE
PREPAID
91.98
ICNA 401 7/7 PR
01- 2040 -0000
7/17/90 7117/00
91.98
jK_CD
1010
91.99
30712
7112190
We RETIREMENT TW-401 W= TOTAL
91.98
E X71
PRE -PAID
46`.06
69 CONTRACT HOURS
01- 4340 -3100
7/17100 7/17190
465.06
JK-M
1010
465.06
30703
7/10/90
AM TAFFE
Yew TOTAL
465.06
M79
PRE -PAID
1,017.30
LIQ
71-7100-9510
639.61
NINE
71- 7100.9520
43.38-
OISC
71- 7100 -9560
7/17190 7/17/90
2,443.76
AL-M
1010
2443.76
30687
7103/90
PRE -PAID
5.00-
LIQ
71- 7100-9510
864.93
NINE
71- 7100.9520
I.W
DISC
71- 7100-M
7117190 7/17/90
851.29
JIL-0
1010
051.29
30691
7/05/90
PRE -PAID
1,132.67
LIQ
71- 7100.9510
151.77
NINE
71- 7100-9520
24.41-
DISC
71-7100 -9560
7!17/90 7/17/90
1,260.00
JIL-0
1010
1260.00
30697
7/10/90
PRE -MID
901.60
LIQ
71- 7100-9510
60.05
ON
71-7100 -9520
111.00-
DISC
71- 7100 -9560
•
7/17/90 7/17190
950.93
AL-0
1010
950.93
30726
7/17/90
JRMON PROS NU SALE LIf YEW TOTAL
M06.01
L2817
PRE -PAID
44.00
UNION 7/7 PR
O1- 2010-0000
711700 7/17/90
44.00
J1N. -L9
1010
44.00
30721
7/12/90
uw ENFO1O7M LABOR SERI NEIWt TOTAL
44.00
0O051
PIE -MID
449.46
FIT-21 9M PR 7/1
O1- 2040000
7/17/90 7/17/90
4".4ti
AL-M
1010
449.46
30682
7/03/90
PREPAID
10,906.78
FIT 7/7 PR
01- 2040-0000
7/17/90 7/17/90
10,906.78
AL-M
1010
10906.70
30707
7/12/90
NONQUETTE IAN( - MEtm VEMWN TOTAL
11356.24
MM
PREPAID
97.04
LED C 7/7 PR
01-2010-0000
7/17/90 7/17/90
97.84
JML-0
1010
97.04
30719
1112/90
'ED CENTER HEALTH
PLAN VEf 0 TOTAL
97.84
93170
PREPAID
1,186.00
JAE SAC
78-2304'0000
7/111 1117/90
1.I8A.00
.JRIL -CD
1010
1199.00
30 1 'r.
1 110 , 90
PVRO WASTE COYrn COMMI; VENDOR TOTAL
1198.00
•
A3ot
4
►NRCNADE JOURNAL
s Stf -ys
f'C"
CITY OF wn
TlW
WAU
INVOICE
DBE HOLD
PIE-Mill
ONK
a. 111101m m
DATE
DATE STATUE
AUNT
DESCRIPTION
Ammo am
Amw
Da •
WE
NMI
PIE-MID
288.00
DEF WIP 7n PR
01- 2040-0000
7117/90
7/17/90
286.00
JINL-0
1010
288.'.x')
30714
7/12M
00 PCTIKW. SYSTEM VEWDOR TOTAL
1 .$8.00
N3475
PRE -PAID
545.65
UNION 7/7 PR
01-2040-9000
7/17/90
7/17/90
645.65
at-co
1010
643.63
30720
7/12/90
NN YEIN TERS LOCAL
320 VEMW TOTAL
645.65
N3320
PIE -PAID
10.35
REPLEN POSTS PETER
01-1070-3210
55.30
REPLEN POSTG PETER
01-4020-3210
17.50
PERO POSTS METER
01-4040- 32210
28.75
REPLEN P01i1G METER
01-4080-13210
54.05
IEPLBI P05T6 PETER
01-4090-3210
7.27
Asks PD81O PETER
22- 4170-3210
9.25
FOU31 POSTS NM
71- 7100-3210
67.30
NUU31 POM PETER
01-4340-3210
65.95
IRS POSTS METER
81-1350-3210
81.40
REPI.EN Pam METER!
01- 4190 -3210
48.99
POSTS MEEK
73- 7300 -3210
49.00
REPLEN POEM PETER
78- 7800 -3210
66.00
FOU31 POSTS METER
01-4140 -3210
1.75
REPLEN POSTO NETER
01- 4280 -3210
3.00
FOU31 P05T8 PETER
01-4270 -3210
10.50
RE1'1.EN Pam METER
01-4090-3210
23.44
IEFLEN POSTS METER
01-4320-3210
7/17190
7/17/90
600.00
Jil-CD
1010
600.00
30691
7/10/90
OW POSTNAW
YEW TOTAL
600.00
•
►3950
PRE -PAID
1,221.90
NW21 SPEC PR 7/1
01- 2040.0000
7/17/90
1/17/90
1,221.90
JK-0
1010
1221.90
30894
7/03/90
PIE-PAID
6,693.92
PERA 7/7 PR
01-2040-0000
7/17/90
7/17/90
6,693.92
AL-CD
1010
6693.92
30709
7/12/90
P E R A
VENDOR TOTAL
7915.82
P1030
PIE -PAID
516.59
PIP 7/7 PR
01-2040 -0000
7/17/90
7117/90
516.58
JK-CD
1010
516.58
30717
7/12190
RMICIANS OF IN
Ym TOTAL
516.58
81171
PRE -PAID
1,675.31
LID
71-7100-9510
522.87
NINE
71- 7100 -9320
38.68-
0190
71- 7100 -9560
7/17190
7/17/90
2,159.50
JDL-CD
1010
2159.50
30689
7103/90
PRE -PAID
870.38
LID
71- 7100 -9510
256.50
NINE
71 -7100 -9520
20.33-
DISC
71-7100-9*AO
17.7,
MIX
71- 7100-9540
7/17/00
7/17/90
1,13:.030
JK -CD
1010
1132.80
30693
7 /05o0
POE-PAID
!,!43.41
LIO
71- 7100-%310
►301
Pw S
PURCNASE- JOURNAL
1p-x 01
CIT1 OF OW
Vm
INVOICE 611 HOLD
ND. I NDICE IM DATE DATE STA7W
A1011T
DESCRIPTION
0
159.00
23.05-
MINE
DISC
26. -5
NIl
71 17/4 0 7117/90
1,334.11
JRNL-CD
MITT VINE i SPIRITS
VEWOR TOTAL
4620.41
009
PRE -PAID
516.48
48 CNINCT TORS
7/17190 7/17/90
516.48
JRNL-CD
NOWT E ,DIi501
am TOTAL
516.46
54511
PRE -PAID
508.42
CR UNION 7/7 PR
7/17/0 7/17/90
505.92
J1DL-CO
STATE CAPITOL CREDIT UNION VBW 10TAL
505.92
9Q30
PIE-PAID
525.48
2 QTR SUAC INAGE- LD,0EN PRITIS
310.61
2 QTR 9117WW -CITI PERMITS
7/17/90 7/17/90
536.16
J11L-CD
STATE TREAND
VEIIO1 TOTAL
836.16
16129
PIE-PAID
85.27
Nm OVERPTNTiMTER
7/17/!0 7/17/90
85.27
ik-0
AODAl/E CON10
WIM TOTAL
85.27
16132
PIE -PAID
552.16
REII! ORNAIE {ADDER TW ACCIOT
•
7/17/90 7/17/90
382.16
J111-CD
IRENE U1IENIC2
VEIOZA TOTAL
582.16
TOTAL ALL VBM
58,816.45
s
P11 -fNIO 0►�c
ACCO w NUNDER Alm ow t WE
71- 7100 -
71-7100 -9560
71-7100 -q40
1010 1334.11 3073 1117/00
014340-3100
1010 516.48 30702 7/10190
01- 2040-0000
1010 501.92 30716 7/1200
01-ZZ22 -M
30-6000-5000
1010 536.16 30706 7111/90
79-1191.0000
1010 85.27 30690 7103/90
22-4170 -3620
1010 582.16 30700 7/10/90
-- 2310
r'
MR I
PURCNAtf JBURNAL
1tP- COQ-o1
cm w mm
mom
INVOICE ME !LLD
ND. INVOICE NO
DATE BATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
40060
1.92
OFFICE SUPPLtIES
.%
OFFICE SUPPLIES
.96
OFFICE SUPPLIES
.%
OFFICE SUPPLIES
7124/90 7124f0
4.80
jK-CD
V1-WIMI EST 1A6IVESS •VEND TOTAL
4.80
40=
215.00
275 GAL TAC
7r 712Na1
275.00
AL
ALLIED ILACKTOP CO
YENDI TOTAL
275.00
X0±71
302.25
CONCAETE
7/24/90 7/24/00
302.25
AL-CO
NPLE YALLET IEADI
R11 1'.:u ?' :•.
302.25
80321
30.00
02 FWDG LEAK
30.00
AM PM!NS LEAK
30.00
NA PARiCINPi LEAK
710190 7/24/90
90.00
JK-CD
rim MINIMA COMP4>Ifl VBM TOTAL
90.00
mm
5.50
JAE OA9tK4
5.50
ME DIM
5.30
AK Om
7M/90 7/24/90
16.50
J8L-CD
PTWE COMM
VENBOR TOTAL
16.50
10377
6,560.00
.AK AEL'fl M ALAN
7124/90 7/24/90
6,560.00
ik-C8
EI RECTMINE SI5IEI6 OF M YB40 TOTAL
6560.00
11000
103.88
ME pAfIBI E4V
44.52
,AAE view- STREETS
65.72
JAE OARMtE -FIRE
710/90 741
214.12
JML-CD
1<ACROIIIAK AND SON
VENDOR TOTAL
214.12
10130
451.66
RIP RAP
710/90 7/24/90
451.66
JIK-CD
■I►AN On PRMUCTS
YENDQI TOTAL
451.66
apt
16.50
6-7 -8 NINOM CLEAN
7 /24/10 7/24M,
16.50
JiNI -CD
C'T►NIIE NINM SWCES VEN" TOTAL
1b.50
CO%0
69.67
JANE IQE
PRE -?All 08K
ALC081T ww am In
01- 1040.2100
01- 4190.2100 1*
O1-M.►90- 21'�0
01-4140-1110
1010
01- 4290 -2340
1010
01-4280 -MM
1010
01 -42*00
73- 73004200
78- 7800 -M
1010
73-7300-2200
78-7800 -2200
01- 4290 -2200
t010
01-4270-4200
1010
01- 4290-3750
01- 4280 -3750
22- 4170.7150
1010
01-4280-2340
1010
71-7100-2200
1010
0
2:- 4170 -2:00
78- 79M -.'VO
•
r�
U
uW
t4 =
ECACMAll JOYROAL
ON lox
f6C"
cm r MII<0
Tog OLV Ai
4a11oJt
Ji1 UCE ME mu
JADE -mm on
ML INUMCE MMt
MTE lInTE PAIN
MW
mnipTim
ACMIQI/1t loNet
NOIN DID 0 HATE
5.39
JK IME
of- CW2710
3.09
J1E HK
01- 621D-2T00
34.08
CHAIN
01-4270.2200
9.78
PAINT
01-4290-'1''90
4.79
WILL
Ol- 4290 2250
121.41
.11E HK
01- 4310-2:00
9 2.25
WAS SEED
01- 4340 -2350
129.81
DEPOT OC IEIWK
01- 4320.2200
16.06
IOM 5101 SIJPPL
Ol- 4320-2200
26.70
MOM SIM
01- 2300.02`''0
M%190 7124/90
533.4
,tai -0
1010
MW To MIST
VEMLOt TOM
533.
0097+
174.00
COLE OIIECTORT
01- 4140 -214
7/24/90 7/24/90
174.00
JJIL -0
1010
M E PILICATIM
VENIM TOM
174.00
C09%
907.00
JDE COlPU1E1t LEME
a 4095 -5000
515.25
JJ1E CO11'IM RAINY
01 v93-3M
7414/90 7/24/90
1,452.25
AL-M
1010
COMM MICE K
r@Mi0 TOTAL
1452.29
01010
1x3.24
PAIN WAM
22- 4170-3410
7/W/90 7/24/90
193.24
JIL-fM
1010
CO1MlIICATION 41111711t YEW TOIIIL
193.24
9079
35.08
IRE
01- 12x0.3220
101.79
IRE
73- 7300 -3220
17.54
ME
71-7W3220
199.39
IRE
01- 4140-3220
63.38
TELE
01-1310-3221
145.53
TELE
71-7100-3220
66.77
TELE
22- 4170 -3220
67.70
TELE-CDf M
22-4170.3220
322.70
IRE
01-1320-3220
18.91
TELE
01- 4040.3220
5.61
IRE
01- 4190.32D
30.00
TELE
01-/0 3.3220
1.67
TELE
01- 4340 -3220
7124/90 7/24/90
1,078.67
AL-CD
1010
C1I TmffAL TELEF E VEEM TOTAL
1078.67
01170
408.65
M LEASE TO 8/15
40-6000-3410
204.35
AR LEASE TO 8/15
01-4320-3910
7/ -4/90 7/24/90
613.00
AL-CD
1010
DAKOTA RAIL INC
VENDOR TOTAL
613.00
0173:+
140.4:
VLUORiDE
73-7300 -2260
7/44/ 7124/90
140.4:
,1W -CD
1010
•
X312
EAE 3
►NRCNASE JBNANAL
E#
94"
Cm s IOM
111E M.lt
YBM maim of NQ9
PRE4" dEEDc
1N. ERM[CE NMI 891E 891E SIAfl6
MITI
IWI►TIO1
ACCOIR WW
am OM 0 am
we M61RIE5. M. VE Mt TOTAL
140.42
awl
1,928.00
NOIOR 100111
73-7300 -3A00
7r24M 7/24,A0
1, ".J0
AL-M
1010
no IIOASIRIES, INC. YEM TOTAL
M.00
EI490
471.00
VMHXE COYER.RM
7 8- 7 900 -2300
7/24/10 7/14/!0
471.90
JNL-0
1010
E56 W All 06 K YOUR TOTAL
471.00
$17"
354.70
U811M MW IM -OPEN
78- 7!00.3610
7/241" 7/24/"
154.50
J IL-0
1010
W MISIA 6 SERV MS YAM TOTAL
354.30
61740
257.73
*+4 OBUCIL
22- 4170-20
MAIM 7/'!4/!0
257.73
M-0
1010
6 v C OBIICAL COT► IBM TOTAL
257.73
611!0
35.83
M NAIER CMIOf
01-4140 -410
40.70
M NAIER ORB
01- OW220o
18.64
JME NAI89 can
01- 420.2'301
7.63
M WM CUM
73- 7300.2200
7.63
M NAIER COM
71-7100-2201
7/21/40 7/24M
110.26
J K-C8
1010
I fit INRBM Yew TOTAL
110.25
•
61905
275.00
M OE CAL WN
734300-4200
7/14/!0 7/24/90
275.00
JA1-8
1010
MI81 STATE Ole-ML, 11[ YENOt IOTA.
2M.00
617/0
29.67
MQLAIO! -Mp
01-420 -2101
10.M
A E"LLE NI6-SRIN181
73.7300.4110
7/24/!0 7/24M
40.25
AL-0
1010
M wine V M TOTAL
40.25
NM
15.75
STM
01-4110 -2310
7/14/90 7/14/90
15.95
JANL -0
1010
OEM NAOw SIQ YE1M1 TOTAL
15.75
12400
10e.64
REPAIR AIC -FIRE CAR
22- 4170-2100
298.40
REPAIR Ott -Two 15
22- 4170.2200
7/?4 M. 7124/90
407.01
_MA-M
1010
ISM PARK SKELLT Yom TOTAL
407.04
J24 ?1
5°0.00
,ALT JANITOR SERV-C HALL
01- 4320 -4210
50.66
,ALT JANITOR SEW-ft
01-4280-4200
, M7
ALT JANITOR SEW-CM
•
X313
w 4
POIC11411 JIVRNAt
ME Imm
04"
CM s IM
TK WV
Eau
RE- M1a m
IL MM 11 1
WE 181E smw
aw
m1pli 11
ACC011E IMI
441411 an 0 ON
50.0
,A v J11IT01 99111%ft
71-7101.4200
•
7/24/90 712410
7x2.00
AL-0
1010
J i S CtEum OL
1 TOTAL
74.00
xw
?13.30
C GRICILS
01- 4:90-2"
712110 7/24/90
_13.30
AL-0
1010
J I NsaIOIm
19= TOTAL
:13.30
J140
229.0
IAItiw aimpFmxm
01- 4310.2240
7010 7/24/90
229.0
AL-0
1010
An ROM
WK
229.0
J!o
265.56
C Vt
WM11 - 2300
70/0 7/"
265.56
AL-0
1010
An Nw 10110
UK
265.56
051
MW
Nm O1II wL am
01-4290-2310
70/0 7/24/0
144.07
AL-0
1010
001�IS
Y TOTAL
1M.07
10720
69.16
1016t WEDS
01-4310.3120
7 /2411 7/1410
69.16
AL-0
1010
am CO.
YEI■Qlt IOTAL
69.86
186.23
JAB: 11ARIIE
22- 4170-2210
70/0 7/1410
106.23
JK-O
1010
tAMTT'S sit IL( ro T TOTAL
116.23
12010
4,113.00
tIC ■ES
01-4020.4130
70/0 7/1410
4,163.00
AL-M
1010
LME OF M CITIES
Wm TOTAL
4163.00
t891
130.00
310 IM
01-4020-3640
70.00
310 1TR -Il/C
01-4040.3600
71.00
= QIR -11/C
01-4090.3600
4,762.0
310 1TR-M/C
01- 4140 -3600
275.00
3AO 9IR-61/C
01- 4190-3600
3,075.00
310 QTR -M/C
01- 4210.3600
257.50
3M IM-M/C
01- 4290.3600
742.50
30 UM-M/r;
01-4310.3600
3,000.00
3110 9TR -M/C
22- 4170 -36M
461.00
310 911-N/C
71-7100-3600
867.30
AD QTR -M/C
73 -7300 -3600
1,250.00
AD QTR -M /C
78-110010
mvx0 74/90
14,481.00
JK-CD
1010
' �A6't1E OF ON CITIES
INS T• VEldgt TOTAL
14"'.00
r
NNE S
/YRCNA =E J /YRRAt
R 1p1/N ,
lQi�?�t
cm f on
T1E M.1lr/0
Wom K w
13 -IAI/ oex
i. ANOI s M
WM ROTE STARE
AN011T
�[011 �
AOODtINi 11 M
AIOMT QW 0 126E
LM
W."
im Am MIS
01-42!0-2310
3.14
J11E AUM MM
22-4170-2200
7/24/!0
644.49
JUL
1010
UNUIS MITONOTNiZITMI V VOR TOTAL
644.49
L.
1,200.00
CLEM RIONT OF MT
78-7000-M
7/24x00 7/24/90
1,200.00
AL
1010
LYR TW SMICE
VBa TOTAL
1300.00
MM
170.00
46 8FO15 MO1T
01- 4095 -300
7/24/90 7/31"
170.00
JILL -/
1010
on aWMATION
VBWI TOTAL
170.00
1aM0
15.00
STIM M
01-4140-310
7/24/90 7 124/90
15.00
AL-0
1010
llWWS NNAME d<
V11W1 TRIM.
15.00
am
3.20
BIB RF TUB
3.25
/ts W OF T>1ES
73 -73*- M
3.21
DOW OF TINS
W70M-47M
3.29
/ISM OF TRES
01- 4141-43M
3.20
Nva1E OF Two
01- 4310 -M
71MA0 71x"
111.43
AL-0
M!0
ON TIRE 4-TYMN OF M VBOM TOTAL
191.43
IM
106.00
JI1E OWN STRT UMBIMM
35700-3100
40.00
JUNE BOIM-MEMAL1E
331M-3100
212.00
JYIE 100-M
3.51/0.31100
64.00
JIM MI-SKM
D- 300-3100
64.00
JK WIMM Em
OL- 23W01M
120.00
J K 01i1NNI M WIN
01 2300 4l42
201.00
J111E M IBIMM400B
3-iN0 -0000
16.00
.00E awr RNNE MOM
01- 4310.3100
4,131.00
AE BNKM MW OT
WMO -3100
4, 121.00
.11E 80MMM (MI,TN MW
73-7300.3100
224.00
J K M 5101 SIZE
40-000-3100
2,12!.00
J11E B61- M M7Yl INUTIM
34000 -5000
064.00
JOIE BaHtA1.OAiAMMTS
01-41W31%
532.00
,10E But-NM sm
01-4320.3100
32.00
J K BM VMIK @006
01- 43W3100
7/24/90 7/24/90
14,346.06
AL-M
1010
ACMIS FRK AM Ad$I* MW TOTAL
14346.00
C10
12.00
FM 1116 441
01-4040 -4120
7124190 7/24100
12.00
J10L-0
1010
'E'40 AREA n)iT Am VEt W TOTAL
12.00
W 7
83.28
TIP AOWM,1AU91,OWr
01- 4290 -::'SO
?-:4' 7 /.4/ 0 ;
A"..8
Jt -CO
1010
•
Dais
0
►YRCNRtE JYYRNAt
r
ECM
cm i =I
Tw ILVA
mm ME mu
NEB»
on
a. I NBICE N1M1
NATE 241E StAlm
am
I3mr1RI
ALM It MIMAt
MW G®( t I11E
&NOT ILT S a mT Ww TIT%
6.21
"No
29.96
.ALT Pam wo
01 - 4 140 -3950
7/3/90 7/24/90
29.x0
AL-0
1010
Rm cm
YENDIrI TOTAL
20.96
mm
2.0
JAE ON
01- 4326-3•3
7.02
JAE 6245
01-4910-3720
7.33
JAE 6796
224170-vn
7.02
JAE 06
71- 71613710
7.24/90 7/24/96
24.30
JIL-0
1610
IRIIeIIeCO
YEmw IWAL
24.30
ow
210.00
STATE FOE CIM F CAF-2 N31S
22- 4170-4110
7/N/90 7/14/90
210.00
AL-0
1010
0 UK FIRE Cliffs Cap YEt10t 209111
210.00
Wo
51.50
am MIT PC
71- 7100-3120
7124/90 7/24/90
51.30
JIL-Co
1010
NU I@RI83wm
tow 10T1L
51.31
243710
9.20
NNE-mm ECK
01-4326.2240
17.03
ME
01-42112200
•
26.45
11.74
124E
NAE
01-4290-2240
70-7100 -2200
1.%
241E
22- 416.220/
7/14/90 724/90
73.6
AL-0
1010
WANK WM\
low T11TN.
73.31
1#00
479.09
JAE EiEI:TRICITT
01- 4210-3 10
71.57
JAE ELECT [CITY
01- 43119710
661.36
JIE ezmtclTT
014320.9710
425.57
JAE EISIRICm
71- 71241.3110
966.94
JAE E EMKITY
22- 416.3710
2,537.0
At GEMICITT
73- 7300.3710
1,m.13
JAE EISIRICITT
WMI1 .3710
7/24/90 724/90
6,344.V
JIL-C1
1010
10111E111 STATES Me co VENDIAt TOTAL
6314.67
►4001
35.00
am CASE
01- 4140-ZNC
80.00
1EUER Coym
717600-2300
7/24/90 7/24/90
115.00
jW-CO
1010
x^tNA TOP
VENOM TOTAL
115.00
X4031
205.95
XG N05P -N TNA kSON
Al-4140 -1510
7/24/90 7n4/90
:05.45
AL -CD
1010
GUTSICIANS 7 FIN
VETrDOR TOTAL
205.46
•
SUM
•
1111
M W
rata
cm w �
TK M.1�r11
ea
IMM E t9E KU
R*M
on
Im wim m
9111E WE smm
am
mcWI ll
ACC w meet 1111111
= 9 in
wo
0.00
LM SMIC sty -iMF
01 -414M110
7/.410 7/2110
0.00
,AL-CD
1010
91♦tIa i A6>CIAM, Be YOM MT4L
0.00
put
11.87
19U I,FIL7c'R
01 43W
7/14/90 7/24/90
81.87
JK-CD
1010
ww w i we
VE.IM 70TAL
81.87
'1399
2,300.42
116 ADIT
71- 7110-3040
7/21470 7 AI"
2,305.
JK-%
1010
9MK PLAZA
Ve Tma
2305.42
91130
3.00
FU
01-0040 -2200
712410 7/14/90
3.00
AL-C9
1010
w PR1MTUi
VE1Wf TmAI
3.00
91417
:1.00
711/7( Dom
01-4340 -2300
714/90 7/24/90
79.00
JK
1010
119:iA1!T'J�1116
V9WI10TAl
79.00
91630
37.73
JIE BNOLI E
01-OW2210
737.47
JIE MITE
01-4290 -2210
25.06
.11E MKIIE
01 -4200 -2210
3".13
JIE GMULDF
01-4310-2210
•
324.07
JIE MINE
73-7300 -2210
1,250.46
,AE SMULIIE
C1 4140
S."
WIMIES
73- 7300 -nM
174.13
JIE 01IOLDE
70-7800 -2210
7/24/90 7/24!00
2,905.34
AL-CD
1010
!l9weicA
%ow TOTAL
2905.34
T4710
221.81
IND GLUM
01- 4290 -2250
7 AI" 7/21/!0
221.84
J9L-Cl
101
1EM LAMMATI 1i C►E7IICILS VEIWI WAL
227.84
Tat
3.06
DI9iS,�
01-4290-2250
7/14/90 7/14/90
29.06
JK-m
1010
TILL COlMl
VE WI 70TIL
29.06
u5050
330.00
POLICE PATDES
01- 4140-2240
7/71/90 7/24/90
330.00
JNL-o
1010
'A!"M 11LIN11ED
YEW TQTAL
350.00
M40
13.50
A/C SEAL
01- 1290 -2310
712410 7/24/90
13.50
JOL - CD
1010
•
1111
i
►URCNASE JOUR MAL
Ul*N
CST DF IOM
10UM1� RO mu
MI. l4MOME M
IN NOW Slalm
mm
DOMPTIN
R� 0~
VEMMR TOTAL
13.30
1,050.00
ROOF4W 116E 7
74140 7114/90
1,060.00
JRNL-0
■ c "m cv61a lON YOM TOTAL
1050.00
am
198.54
2 LIDS,EKTFIMIW
7/24140 7/24/90
148.54
AL-CD
WO FROM CIM, YOM TOTAL
198.34
M',l560
36.65
COFFEE
46.02
PINE SOL,DAMI
784/% 7/21/90
8.''.67
J IL-CD
93NM FM
VE TOTAL
02.67
16571
45.00
mm UVEI ER -5995 BENUM
7121/90 7/21/0
45.00
JRNL -O
63MWA RED 101.
CDNIIM MM TOTAL
49.00
/6630
602.50
RIP NAP -3 PTS
010.00
REPLACE STARIIPIPE
262.90
REPLACE STAIMPIPE
1,076.25
EAL106OD
1,076.25
MELON
7/21190 7/24/90
3,937.30
J4 L-CD
TIC
VE18]QI TOTAL
3937.50
16690
1,494.72
BLACKTOP
41.86
CQOEM SAW
7/24/0 7/24/90
1,336.31
AIL-M
M1 R EUD 106
VEM001 TOTAL
1336.58
43700
2,320.50
JIBE PROSE I ION
7/24/0 7/14/0
2,320.30
J O L -CD
WV- PEARBIMiJMM Yew TOTAL
2320.50
cm
402.08
LEASE -5062 1EA01
7/24/90 7/24/90
402.06
AL-CD
1001 CW MTMN
Yew TOTAL
402.88
19850
38.82
76.39
PLI95,WDES
7/24190 7/24/90
115.17
AL-CO
MIS INC
YENDOR MAL
115.17
2133
40.00
RAISE QOL7c
7/24/90 7/24/90
40.00
,1114. -CD
•
' 7NE N.17.
PRF -/Aa Omf , r�.
Acmw ow MOOT am $ off . .
73-730"M
1010
73- 7300-2300
1010
01 -42DD -2200
22- 4170-2200
1010
73- 7300.4100
1010
01- 4280-4200
79- 7300-3800
73- 7300-3800
7 }7300.3000
78- 7800-3800
1010
01- 4280 -2340
01- 1280-2340
1010
01- 4110-3120
1010
01- 4320 -5000
1010
01-4280-2200
01- 4290-2290
1010
01-4340-3800
1010
r�
i
f
PAK 9 PURCHASE JOURNAL LATE
AT-0OQ -OI CITY OF "M TUE 10.11.11
vow INVOICE DUE HOLD FIE-Mis ola
NO. INVOICE 00 DATE DATE STATUS WOW OESCRIPTION ACCOUNT mm Maw ow 0 OBE
DEAN ESN G VENDOR TOTAL 10.00
TOTAL All. VENDORS 7 -7,344.12
r�
�J
X3N
WFI I HOU"Em au t LU012S t NC.
CFIANUW OF VWn
PROJECTr Mound City Hall
CIIANIM ORDER NEI. _4A___
nATFs July 13, 1990
TO City of Mound rRI).1Ft ;T Htls_ 90QA_
Is wmdesoe with the bns of this Ceatreot. the 1.1161161 she" ere syreeeN
This Change Order replaced previous Change Order $4 dated June 8, 1990 which
was issued and approved in the amount of $13,500.00.
Per directions from the Architect and the City of Hound, the only addition
will be to build out the overhang in the Southwest corner.
This Change Order will extend the completion date by an additional ten (10)
working days.
c�
THE TOTAL OF THIS CHANGE ORDER IS $6,350.00
PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS
Orfllssl Frew Costs s 763, 97.40_ -
►rrlese ChoW Orders it Ore 8 _ ADD _ _L.O,1j6 : 00
This Chap Order 1_ 4A _ ADD - - 6 AV, QQ _ -
f" Project Costs d: 780
11 1ITIIESS to NUN the said parties ha" cee6ed this 19reesenl to be execeted a6 of the day sad rest signed below.
SHINGOBEE BUILDERS INC.
Contractor
279 N. KAina Street
Address
Citv of Mound
Owner
5341 Maywood Road
Address
Mar>:d MU 55364 n
Loretto MN 55357
BY:
DATE? July 11, 1990
BY:
DATE:
ARCHITFCT APPROY
BY: �vl
DATE:
McCombs Franc Roos Assoc. Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North
Plymouth MN 55447
011 iHU;C"OW128 XHU.
CtIANZOW 0111OWR
I•RUJECT r Hound Cit.,.- Hal l
(;IIAHI;E IInDEn HU. _9_ -
IIATF ! July 13, 1990
TUr City of Mound Pn1),IFt.T MOO 900$__
10 swer6we elt% the town of we Coetroot. the 1e11NtN ew qe� are IWGV dl
Additional exhaust in Room 105
ADD $517.20
PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS g 76_3, 297.00
W118I1 project Costa _ 17,126.00
►redoes Chomp. Were 11 thro _8_/4A _ -__ - --
this CMegeRrder 1_9 __ - 517.20 _ - __._
fee ?reject Coots 4 780 -- - - -___
IA IlIK S WNW the slld prtles hoe@ cooled this 19reeseet to be e+:ecoted Is of the dill Ied ►esr elgeed Ieloe.
ShINGOBEE BUILDERS INC.
Contractor
279 N. Medina Street
Address
Loretto M 55357
/ 0
BY: d 06 o�
DATE: July 13, 1990 -
City of Mound
Owner
5341 Maywood Road
Address
M MN 55364
BY: I (' -
DATE: � � e
ARCHITEC ,APPROVAL:
BY:
DATE: � -' �� �'� ✓ L
McCa:bs Frank Roos Assoc. Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North
Pl ymrx:th W 55447
sfttratoUIt*MM avx"uH:r:s trzu.
cFaA NC1z onowR
PROJECT Mound City Hall CIIANUE ORDF'. NO.
DATE: July 13, 1990
Tot City of Mound Pptl.IF.t:T Ntlt_9008 _
Is smwdonoe elth the terse of thlo Cootroot. tAo folloel" chw" ors opffevsdt
Paint metal cap flashing a non — standard stock color ADD $1,130.50
PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS
0091021 Protect coot*
PteeleseC%$W. Orders 11 thro _ 9_
Thls Chomp "rder 1_ 1 0 _ _1lti(? . 50
Mee Project Cost• g 782,070_70____
11 VITMESS NEW the mid pttles here closed thls egreeeent to be executed as of the day end Teor signed /elev.
_ SHINGOBEE BUILDERS INC. _
Contractor
279 N. Medina Street
Address
Loretto MN 55357
BY: "A!wz
DATE: July 13, 1990
Citv of Mound
Owner
_ 5341 Maywood Road
Address
Houpd, MN j 55364
BY: 71, — i ( -- --
DATE: .� Zr
ARCIIIT T APPROVAL: �.
BY: f�
DATE:
McCanbs Franc Roos Assoc. Inc.
15050 21rd Avettue North
Plymouth W 55447
SH I N00103W011i:
EBU x Lp0Enw ZINC.
u FI A Nt a isc U Tt U m fZ PLEASE RIGN AND RETURN ONE COPY
PROJECTr MOUND CITY HALL
CIIA1413C ORDER NO.'
DATE: July 24, 1990
TUr City of Mound PROJECT No: 9008
Is seaerdosoe with the Was of this Cestreet, the following eherq" are agKendr
Additional cost to lock the City Council Chambers, per the Jobsite meeting
held 7/17/90. The doors were not specified with locks. Change door #301A
from passage to lock /key set A1, change one pair of doors #302A from push —pull
to locks and flush bolts /key set A1. Change door #302C from push —pull to
lock /key set A1. Additional door preparations at the supplier and frame
preparations at the jobsite is included.
ADD $1,102.00
Acceptance of this change order will add four (4) working days to the
contract. We need to know on July 25th if this change order is approved,
as it is necessary to order the material for the above.
PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS
Original /relict Coats
Orrwiew Chow Orders 11 thre . T j U ADD
This Change Order 1 -Usmen ADD __..._ 4783,172.70
der Project Costa
11 VITM n1EW the said parties how@ caved this sgrleslnt to he wa wcwtld as of the day sod year Signed 6001.
SIIINl3O8EE BUILDERS
CORTRACTOR
__279 N. Medina Street
Arl
rlrwaw
_ t.orotto MN 55 . 157 ----- _._... -- •_ -_ -.-
DATES______Luly_�4
CITY OF MOUND
- ------------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
SUPCUNTRACTOR
Art t rAan -- !-/-� -----------
---------------- -
fly.-
F -5
•
A320
CITY OF MOUND
1990 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
JUNE
1990
50.004
JUNE
YTD
PER CENT
BUDGET
REVENUE
REVENUE
VARIANCE
RECEIVED
GENERAL FUND
-- - - - - --
-- - - - - --
-- - - - - --
-- - - - - --
-- - - - - --
Taxes
1262190
0
2172
1260018
0.17%
Intergovernmental
780860
0
22567
758293
2.89%
Business Licenses
9950
1634
3152
6798
31.68%
Non - Business
Licenses and
Permits
86700
5983
28781
57919
33.20%
Charges for
Services
34800
615
4385
30415
12.60%
Court Fines
95000
6295
29500
65500
31.05%
Charges to Other
Departments
20000
1497
9672
10328
48.36%
Other Revenue
49300
-337
5061
.44239
10.27%
010TAL REVENUE
2338800
15687
105290
2233510
__ _ ==
xss�a=
—= ====
_4_50%
LIQUOR FUND
900000
96497
435408
464592
48.38%
WATER FUND
360000
27228
150574
209426
41.83%
SEWER FUND
590000
46176
286298
303702
48.53%
DOCKS FUND
62950
1815
57570
5380
91.4::$
CEMETERY FUND
2000
0
3000
-1000
150.00%
•
A320
/ II1
CITY OF FOUND
1990 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURES
JUNE 1990 50.003
Area Fire
Service Fund
214290
JUNE
YTD
97808
PER CENT
Liquor Fund
BUDGET
EXPENSE
EXPENSE
- - - -
VARIANCE
- - --
EXPENDED
- - - - --
GENERAL FUND
- - - - --
- - - - --
--
- -
58.85%
Council
63890
5995
34867
29023
54.573
Cable TV
10150
0
9024
1126
88.913
City Kanager /Clerk
166310
11523
90570
75740
54.463
Elections
11400
17
1654
9746
14.513
Assessing
43320
25
360
42960
0.833
Finance
162030
11462
81461
80569
50.283
Computer
22150
1797
14938
7212
67.443
Legal
80900
5003
28296
52604
34.983
Police
7.17850
55508
390288
327562
54.373
Civil Defense
2750
0
355
2395
12.913
Planning /Inspections
145000
9469
63297
81703
43.653
Recycling
60670
6665
32414
28256
53.433 •
Streets
382890
25436
192478
190412
50.273
Shop & Stores
61440
2858
32894
28546
53.543
City Property
84200
3576
41974
42226
49.853
Parks
148560
14978
55673
92887
37.483
Summer Recreation
11310
0
0
11310
0.003
Contingencies
30000
398
4156
25844
13.853
Transfers
122270
- - - - --
10048
- - - - --
60288
- - - - --
61982
- - - - --
49.313
- - - - --
GENLRAL FUND TOTAL
2327090
164758
1134987
1192103
48.773
zza
zaazazz
aaaaza:
raze = ==
aazzz :z
Area Fire
Service Fund
214290
19554
116482
97808
54.363
Liquor Fund
163450
11503
83157
80293
50.883
Water Fund
347930
37169
204771
143159
58.85%
Sewer Fund
771560
62656
311025
460535
40.313
Cemetery Fund
3680
732
1569
2111
42.643
Docks Fund
62950
1446
56799
6151
90.233
•
RIA/
1"Mmot a.
OFFICIALS LAKE TOUR AND LUNCHEON
-.
i r , ., - Ww
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTR
0
wla& 10 wn
RetunIS Pon at 1. pin
, *0
r Auair gust 4,11990
Aw, -INNER ,
LAFAVETTE CLUB DOCK
• County Road 15, Minnetonka Beach
(please observe designated parking areas)
Please RSVP by Tuesday, July 31,
Including guest's name, 473-7033
"� `I .I � �I S' .I a f � Y ',:.''IAA �e wf!..j � , ' •,�.• � � w
EUGENE ft. sirft)t�IMEN.
9 a w In r 11 w1wen 4F 0 9
A
tA
MINUTES OF A METING OF THE
MOUND ADV 1 SORY PLANNi I NG OONlI i SSION
July 9 1990 is
Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners Geoff
Michael, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Thal, Bill Voss. Frank Weiland
and Michael Mueller, Council Representative Liz Jensen, City
Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy
James. Absent and excused was: Commissioner Ken Smith.
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m.
The following citizens were present: Mr. a Mrs. Bill Schumer and
John Ned and Dixie Dow.
MINUTES:
MOTION made by Weiland. seconded by Clapsaddle, to ap-
prove the Planning Comm i ss i on Minutes of June 2S, 1990
as shitted. Nation carried unanimously.
0
a. Case No. 90 -923: Bill Schumer. 2885 Cambridge Lane. Lot 10.
Block 36, Wychwood, PID f24- 117 -24 -42 0017 VARIANCE:
Front 3 Side Yard Setback - to allow construction of a
de tached garage.
The City Manager reviewed the City Planner's recommendation. The
applicant is proposing a new entry vestibule on the south side of
the structure requiring a 1.5 foot variance from the required 6
foot setback, and a detached garage measuring 23' x 27'. The
proposed garage is located 2 feet from Cambridge Lane requiring a
6 foot variance, and approximately 1 foot from the north property
line requiring a 5 foot variance.
The Planner's report revealed that the garage is an oversized
structure resulting in substantial intrusion Into the required
open space areas of the north and east sides of the lot. Staff
recommended approval of the vestibule as proposed including the
1.5 foot setback variance along the southern side of the
property. Denial of the variances for the proposed garage was
recommended since it does not represent a "minimum" situation.
As an alternative. staff did recommend approval of variances for
a 22' x 22' garage which wouid result in a north side setback
variance of 4 feet and an east side variance of 1 foot if the
southwest corner of the garage was held to its present location.
Bill Schumer, applicant, commented that they did not proposed an
attached garage due to the windows at the east side of the house
which they need for light and ventilation, and to allow them to
use of both entrances to the house. Thal added that a slab is
also less expensive than footings which are required for an at-
tached garage. The applicant also compared is request to neigh-
boring garages which appear to be too close to the street.
A 623
171
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1990
Page 2
The consensus of the Commission wa
building on the lot, that the
Welland commented on the fact that
there would only be 7 feet between
hazard.
s that there would be
proposed garage is
if the vestibule is
the two houses which
too much
too big.
added on,
is a fire
Schumer Informed the Commission that h could l i v e with a 22' x
22' garage as suggested by the City Planner. The Commission
reviewed possible alternatives for positioning the garage. Some
commissioners felt that a single -car garage would be the best
solution. Clapsaddle would like to see an attached garage.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to deny the
applicants request to construct a vestibule and a
detached garage as proposed, and to deny the City
Planner's recommendation. And, if the applicant wishes
to return with an optional plan, the application fee is
to be waived.
After further discussion, it was determined that the applicant
should have the opportunity to submit a new proposal prior to
being denied.
Clapsaddle withdrew his second, and Voss withdrew his
motion.
NOTION made by Voss. seconded by Clapsaddie to table the
variance request to give the applicant the opportunity
submit a revised plan. Mot ion carried 7 to 1. ( Those
In favor were: Clapsaddle. Mueiler, Weiland, Thal, Jen-
sen. Voss, and Michaels those opposed were: Meyer.)
0
Meyer commented that he feels a recommendation could have been
made.
b. Case No
87 -653:
John
Ned 3 Dixie
D 4994 Manchester
Road, Lot
12,
Block
33, wychwood,
" ID #124- 117 -24 -42 0005.
VARIANCE:
Lot
Size -
to allow second
story addit
The City Manager reviewed the City Planner's recommendation. The
applicant is requesting clarification of Resolution #87 -141, this
resolution does not specify number of stories allowed to be con-
structed. Mr. Dow wishes to construct a two story addition. The
Planner quoted minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July
13, 1987 where Mr. Dow stated his home is too smeII to add a
second floor; the first floor would be ruined." Therefore, the
Planner recommended that this request be treated as a new
variance application, not a clarification of previous actions.
#I I it Y
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1990
Page 3 •
The Planner concluded that the proposed second story portion of
the home is along the south side of the lot which has a conform
ing setback from Manchester. Since the second story wall in this
area will have a conforming setback and the addition will not in-
crease the building coverage of the lot, approval of the lot size
variance is recommended. If decking is part of the new addition,
It should be required to observe the required 10 foot setback
from the rear property line.
Thal commented that he recalls this case from 1987, and his
recollection of the case is that the applicant did request a two
story addition, and the two story addition was approved. Mr. Dow
reviewed his recollection of the case.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to approved
staff reom m idet i on for approval of the Sacroo :c! story
addition. Nation carried 7 to 1. (Those in favor were:
O apsaddie, Welland, Nuelier, Meyer, Jensen, Voss, and
Michael. Thal abstained.)
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 24, 1990.
C. Case No 90 -924: Frank Boese U GA), 5229 Shoreline Drive
Lots 7 - 20 b 26 - 35, Block 1. Shirley Hills Unit F. PID
#13- 117 -24 - 34 0072 VARIANCE: Wall Sian - size.
The City Manager reviewed the City Planner's recommendation. The
applicant, Frank Boese of Westonka Foods, is requesting to erect
a wall sign approximately 120 square feet in area. The maximum
size sign allowed is 100 square feet, therefore a 20 square foot
variance is being requested. The sign requested is a standard
"Jubilee Foods" sign.
Staff recommended approval of the 20 square foot sign variance
for Jubilee Foods.
Meyer commented that he recalls when the sign ordinance was writ-
ten, and it was written with the intent to control the downtown
area signs, meaning Commerce Blvd. area.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to ap-
prove staff reconmmendatIon for approval of the variance.
Motion carried 6 to 2. (Those in favor were: Clap -
saddle, Mueller, Meyer, Smith, Voss and Michael. Those
opposed were: Welland and Thal.)
Thal explained that he feels Jubilee Foods should be able to
supply a sign which complies with the sign ordinance. Weiland
agreed.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 10, 1990.
.13 AS
Planning Comnission Minutes
July 9. 1990
• Page 4
City Council Representative Report.
Jensen reviewed the minutes of the June 26th City Council meet-
ing. and the agende for the July 10th meeting.
MOTION made by Welland, seconded by Mlcheei to adJourn
the westing at 9 :25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Bill Meyer
Attest:
i s
OVOU
M 1 NUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOIAID ADVISORY PARK i OPEN SPACE CORMISSION
JtlLY 12, 1990 0
Present were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Tom Casey,
Neil Weber. Shirley Andersen, Brian Asleeon, Steve Burke, and
Carolyn Schmidt, Council Representative Phyllis Jessen. Park
Director Jim Fackler. and Secretary Peggy James. Absent was:
Cathy Bailey.
No citizens were present.
)mutes
Two changes in the June 14. 1990 minutes were noted: 1) Jane
Chiesl was not a citizen present, but Juli Hunter was, and 2) on
page 5 under topic of "Adopt a Park ." "Jensen" should be
"Jessen."
MOTION mode by Casey, seconded by Asleson to approve the
Park Commission Minutes of June 14, 19%. Motion carried
unanimously.
1990 Park laiarovements .
The Park Director reviewed the proposed improvements as follows:
Avalcn P ark: _
418
t ees improvements 1.200
bumpers (24 - concrete a chain) 500
stairway /walkway (8 timbers) 100
storm sewer alteration 100
picnic table — 214 2,532
Chester Park: _
bench
play structure (Inca. shipping) 6,48
be d rm a sand (30' x 30') 1,2 p 0
4
5
concrete 400
8.834
Phtlbrook Park: move light so Ice rink can
be in the softball in -field 450
Repair basketball courts at Langdon Park and
Seton Park 2,060
Seal coat basketball courts at Swenson Park,
Phi lbrook Park, and Three Points Park 810
Baby Swings (10) - two styles, 5 of each 865
Bounce toys (4) - includes concrete 2,200
Backhoe toys (2) - Includes concrete 553
23A7
��a
. Xj
t Y3 y
i
iY
Park Commission Minutes
w
July 12. 1990
Page 2
4
�yj
Centerview Beach:
65 vehi le Pumpers SkAn
cement
&chain 5
corner posts for boat rasp
,
lifeguard stand 21 0
replenish beach sand (120 tons) thV4
landscape (black dirt, seed i rock) 7 ►'
3.364
Ballfield in -field Improvements
Swenson, Philbrook L Three Points
A
(150 tons of agrllime) 1
MOTION made by Weber, morn O by lieinsidt to that
Proposed 1990 Park Improve vts. ilOtienn cried wwnft -
ously-
Purchasing a new refrigerator for the Depot was discussed. Fack-
l er commented that a new refrigerator could be purchased with the
Park Improvement funds by making a few minor adjustments. *0
Commissioners agreed that the refrigerator is needed6
i cu sions Park Tour on Aunust
Significant stops to be made on the tour were discussed, and It
. was determined that we will visit parks and beaches which have
recently received improvements, or need Improvements. The Com-
mission will also visit potentiat nature conservation areas and
potential sites for a demonstration lot for native plants.
The Commission will meet at the depot at 5 :30 to board the senior
bus for the tour. After the tour, subway sandwiches and refresh-
ments will be available at the depot. The Planning Commission
and City Council will be invited.
Discussions "Adopt a Park green Area. Planter, Aoproach_or
Street R i aht- of- iisY_-
Council Representative Phyllis Jessen addressed this issue. Jes-
sen referred to a memorandum received from the City Clerk, Fran
Clark, which included information on a similar program for the
City of Ottumwa, Iowa. Ways to organize such a program was dis-
cussed by the Commission. it was suggested that groups such as
the girl scouts, boy scouts, garden clubs, schools, neighbor-
hoods, seniors, etc. can get involved. it was also suggested
that articles be published in the local paper to urge participa-
tion.
A subcommittee was formed, including: Marilyn Byrnes, Tom Casey.
• and Phyllis Jessen (it was rioted that Fran Clark should be in-
volved also). The subcommittee is to draft specific details on
how Mound can initiate such a program.
Park Commission Minutes
July 12, 1990
Page 3 is
ive's R
Jessen reviewed recent Park related issues which the City Council
acted upon. There was some discussion relating to the Shoreland
Management Plan and the Brad b Melvin Sohns dock issue.
City Manaeer's Report
Ed Shukle updated the Commission on the progression of the City
Hall addition, and informed them that their September meeting
will probably be held at the school. He informed them of the
public hearing being held on July 23, 1990 at the Planning Com-
mission Meeting on the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the
1991 budget is In Its preliminary stages, and 1991 will be a
tight year. In addition, the deck on the depot will be replaced
yet t h i s summer.
Park Director's RePwA
Fackler informed the Commission that two of the three drinking
fountains installed at various parks are not working, he is
trying to get them repaired. The flag donated by the American
Legio., was erected in the cemetery for the 4th of July with a
small planter at the base. Fackler reviewed the repairs needed
to be made to the Park Department Garage.
Casey questioned Fackler if the playground structures being pur-
chased for Mound Parks meet Consumer Product Safety Guidelines.
Fackler confirmed that he did contact the company who supplies
them with the equipment, and the equipment does meet the
guidelines.
MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Weber to adjourn the
Park IL Open Space Commission Meeting at 8 :47 p.m. Mo-
tion carried unanimously.
62321
Cities Ems b
Uftw
PA ID
f� 1�
woff"K 0 t
rw�rrw, taut
Niliml LeW d Cis WOW
1301 Pem y*v hm, N.W.
Walnnglon.O.0 20001
OF?9 DM MN367
EDWARD J. SMUKLE. JR.
CITY MANAGER
5341 MAYWOOJ RO,
MOUND. MN 55364
*1330
If
10 REAS IS INNY =SNOt�D ATTEND OM CONGRESS OF CITES
AW*mbW&w mf>It)ad►mwrtaitaas - H=Tay. TaJ6tShfMlfyeeyouwIlotobeAeanlber1 -5,1990.
�l� a f�ktAfaafa�s Ataftfdttds aappons � ytgv ro lawn and ShNe idbmfatfgn taffy yqur careayurs about loaf posNf►MflEn1
0*W old **M — dblWW Mme' WW d WZ m0 * Theme "h s som WV of 1 liar suety, with poi * a pradial fflWW W yW
ray► �Irfirrnar�►llwee a�)rrr! lAffit�lNf�IneAAC he larpalst amlpl mD an ►ur►icipal
7 W * )er►a ym mm Aft 7" elb dAbgals f1410 addkobal btT m Wle bltdf ro mf lalaalaship skirh, renew bi om
aydme ahe neMteslpfna & AWWrm that 1* an put to use in their momilies .
ft cWJW andpnur how.
• � • M brae at1aM ba►
wra W Mbirtttlth�attb
frtwaautrwwW
Its ataMa� lht awllag wi
byre eaae Nit siy prdal.
'hwio
orllM'fllMylidY / rNbaNe/Nry
fayapect
faa,pdciKarep, &W
teebtkhMea.fa/a>taeaie
IafMapatattpep>M..esrwllpb
byres dh sarioe .. dngabrae p
wttll0n tlleega .. aartprrurtd
wt umpinicom itdralegic ..
stWairgalytaorraferfelNlgs..
ailNeelomMag t elbe
i ammd tat o al, ypll ium how b
tatlr bebG sokiiork back home so
"Un be avpked a yw an air a
mm
2 Nta'1ttmf"E
etettt W nthtrl dr lw
Po% nwo bath Mae
+Naga is d d tit
ONION lb eaal7, cma and
bats mi si aiia — mo neft
n NO dkcials ThA wth ft
Cages d Ctka d m a wide miay
d tarairws, Duertw melMlM, std
socief etas laTaM b your ukque
aela e i loaf diewL Througtr
IMoittlrsaganddtieb
OWyss 11*066.gwbteol-
"WiftlNattbtlter fnsaeb
fi Tts "VMNilfa-
lAM
i yw awm* wg Me dtau
W OW
somtllOttlydetmma
IMMAdNW pow
■ ahlbhb%Wd w
r/e mpowilu +bow
y4o ttllAmpt lIm baablfet aad ptl
lop OWN I M yauanbeat
maeCOOsld f tAMUbeak
b you halts btn.
IL Ir A M aMM
rmpdtt� dNMp�aM lupW 1p
I ptla7d --- Mfag
b) atbo baea. b sane ways
ek Calm d CMS a like i nsion-
a poibW camarti0n — nerrtcpa
'purls' on rrpalan WOW"
are debsbd a pMiry and raolulipe
rsnrlilil "
+g�vt ciMM 'tl +tyros
barwes malrtg. Adopbd OdW
pile IICt mrocery eaae b
m belkl d Ohm am
towns 111 ak yea Y vane
are va "PoflifA. Pke, yowl be
abb b dwe the callectue loaf w
arnrrerM pirvift on aital mpon-
a no mm your com am you
Mal mdp what you get home.
L wnp mpobbra
Mille t d w aetfeeal" M
Maliayd wpdMu W *d
Oft b1Na Hal 011 We
ship Onslias m up fa gW ie yk
r or,"lion, so lI - I ... I grin e
for eras of im p aim mar o ul-
Ibb ba (m illo 1:017+ gee, ll s.
trbrab anghign meleriels, sm wod
had b win ae m, im like grey do
a have. ill OWN, ift K",
W As fun.
6 . hsa'N M pd d a etyer
aawiakht mM kft mW-
w - 11 in eeae i
Dun of rkwspapa. N• aw ado
Fel orkrs will be in Mmdaat AN
NLC opasa an on -W Homaown
Haas Rdese' se m gw sends your
kal make a press ragas aboul you
atlerrdsroe at"mow Am
bang h roma and addresses d you
Mal mdia am mm you b
Horebrr, and tlC gets ew word to tee
idle Olds hM
76 vin u a r later° b
MGM, tielrMrrlp, W ■r'
*U bfWe*Md ts
ma dw gM N1a The a hm,
oven fa Tree days drying nk conrerr-
MI. is a pea 02 b do your 'Coy
stroppig - yon to direply to ere
mrvbwws. can III sla, and sve.
aft who an Mp you ptA new
products to work u you aanrre y
8. ,bit IM NINIK
AeatM"t Mfr bfpsM eNp.
Known br iu OowlMame iy
and 'an do' spill. HOW on
visitors kid -suss ergaWmrad.
dropping and rauuaras, world -
Imous balks. W& and muAM,
mo a tad d oft adraawns that v:
appeal 10 the whole lanly War is
innoorot iWorhm to commurory
problem-solving will bt hrgtrhghkd i
a rmay d mobil Works* tar
Conpras d cira Megla Spoil
tars will we you 10 usoon
Conb01' a WSM Jdrsorr Space
Cato• It Asbodome, Ile rao*
TANI' ton set M hm c
San km begot M pat of
Houston. end gk Bile t`p Us. A
short nde falls you in Ca Aft,
Ito t1l; mgft by ere set +man
IN Rs Vow a itleaur tote
$elood rrstauxis, std 32 ,riles d
aistaring heidla 0 r
9. ftlhMO"d
b owm b bb Rats & M.
The ddegfe kits, wrrl" hsrdauls•
std adibisa ltwbrkts are pactkd wilt
useful mfom" sou wai to take
NO and review. And M wabhop
season a recorded std aver M on
41111 the Maiq.
You amply vidr out ek son you
weront able to attars. and Ion b
MOM at you cawerrierae track honk.
10. VII-1 IN Im
MMIt, W alas+ m tlw d
M COW= d CNa the pro-
gym is o""- but mots A*
tack Mr you to kick back ray,, and
fte war We we your c01.
holofted
WW AV roMikaft
A3,S)
E
-, i
E
lb
P• .
pftuft"Ift
9mtm-12:39p.m.
(R*I*dbvm
%*Am Fee: SM
The mip and ft murd ffeft bob pby mWW
Mlbft roles in bob m4saW gW mwd-
iDMolpmvnot lnj*bWrgmrpisjWmW
Ml!w "WWAIM"M. ki to hk ft
brwhr halpebiaiure htdoftsinh 0ov r
— MkxwpAmvdbgft I* fi-M A—
lb"Wdft*W�
90.m-ift.m.
p4wift Fu: $85
This ukk macm nmmg mm WA top poc-
penb = h slops dmw I I ip.
iopww vision W4 Pik br pubic
Oftou"s 'IPA aiL
ts Ira pubic w bade anti dftiWpmW=wand
WWL ImNsara *plD=ftp""pie
AM6
, so . 'i;: a.
o ---a - — ... , _—, 11
n
lk
low
*I be aim ft
lilt
win
This 3wkw will f%rft app roedres bd Nre beNr Mr l ir-
rbn
MOCM*hfft ftt"
"a owm* *I*a A Nghwo
No" proem* W" bft capes vm
xwft
MENNEWFUk
IWAA -ImpAt,
R Hill in Fit 95
SO =*W b*N rIA40ing F* hr* Mang
ad ft A* IM aW* ID ok mp al be p
WShWil tepees OfiwM and nikmnp,w
Ila
•
oualZ
171
No Pabst hft 4ual pod
1 "u alt dwdhhg f Congress of Cities, you
c m wab ILC pelage blimp nude - and
� w# Id in h pro0aa ymesef.
111 1damoeSaafy wth hemeetings
d NLC1feeShm"pftNg om ' - pig —
Firmne Alahfrhanwaaorh acrd l Iv ilo armwl{a1
IralioR Eft, Erwiremllel and Ilim
fMaouott I g n him n ad Cawrenirr
Nona
ft= Doren PNK and, Cornw*
ad boon* Dwubp wt During t yea,
On 3154neler swing comet i m of Bair of
kn poly► conCn '111 hwe debadd possible At
dwolloftft Car Mo lCiaa oft
enlace met h hum oft= all *4
ttMy core ' (erannherhdti0rs for p licy
dwW of CO R Mu may all d poky
arinrflle e�lega are. Ain in fee dgasvion;
only wq coenan limiters. howyff, may
vo! at h p0agy camhilbe business ses-
sio4t.
Pohq ce11 hi0a mcom a ndabams are
Conmoe, whuhh in
w I 6ftie*Ew0ft to ad on at
Will R Annual Business Mating. You
Mir/ *o Mw ft Resolutions Comhmifa
meeting, d only eherroas of b Resolmns
Cwft can spark mike emotions, and vote.
At WWwdq'a Arrow Business
weft fit voting manDershp adopt five
NWW amicio Policy ad elects d item
ad nw ffrmhba of ft Board of Directors.
Again, I you ae ngislered for the LNo o f
CNIa, you MW attend ft busaress meelag.
But any foe of Tai rating r>m- v,;sres of
died nneula thlia and marhber stale tumid
pd Wqm are avowed on the floc ;ermft
ID spelt on the issues, ad role at ii; uW
no mabq Each mrrcber stare municipal
049 is cerfFied to cas120 votes, and each
OW member city may cast from 1 to 20 votes,
based on ft city's sin.
I
•
For atormahm on how to 4odua poli-
cy proposals for consWerabon at th Cwgm
of Cities, write m: BiN Davis, Dirm Policy
Analysis and Develop t National Lague of
Citia,13101 Penrsy au Avenue, N.W.,
Washer", O.C. 20004.
Job llaM uflfl O idim bbnMu
Atirrrp � ��AI�eAu facet
Cities arena all alike — and letter are l0al
owls. NLCIS MISI emy, alfdgle, and
advisory groups npresent a rurmhbe► a special
iMresls Wft ft wide mge of Cities NO
krcal antic als that nail up fa Ndional
Lop of Cities. MCOng fese groups are ft
datianal tNaCk Cahuaus d scat Retied
Officials (NBCAI✓J), yyalen in IClhnicipd
Goverrrnemt (WIMGI. Now Boded Local
Owls (hhLO), Asian Pacific Meehan
Mik" 011iuials (ARM), University
Communities Caucus (UCC), National
Association a Okers
and Advisors (NATOA), and Mayors' Fxecutive
Stalf. Macy of hose groups will fold busi-
ness meetings, seminars, or social everts dur-
ing ft Cagross of Cities. Sono of these
events will be open to anyone mpsbed for the
Congress of Cities, while others whll be open
only h membeCS a l e gmu p.
Bbb Mob" LM1ee 111111111
Marry side municipal leagues fall meetings
and reoegions for their delegates afend rig five
Congress a Cities. For iaormakon on the
lime and pica of any meeting glared for your
stale delegation, consult your seta won
aecrtfve director .
S ww I"M Iw heal M" 0
While most cities share t same basic wob-
lerrs, we know fal who is a run the -mill
problem for a large city an be a crisis for a
small one A N fire, an almost daily occur-
rence in large cities, an be a disaster for a
small one The loss of one business, a pin
prick in ft emmy of a by Uy.. an paralyze
IN economy of a small town.
Although nearly all workshops deal with
issues that eagle to cities of all sizes. we have
made a special dhort to induce wakstrops
designed sperifially for small cities. Those
workshops are marked wily he VW Smell
Cities symbol *. The W Cities Council
will also no dog ft Congress of Cities.
LOCAL D(CFIANGE,1ne raaornl o0narhunica
lion *m for bql govemm�ernt alfiaais
will be ddlThonstiabd during ft Congress of
Caries in he rogishaUm area. LOCAL
D(CWWA induces messaging, timely news
bulletins and kgiswive sleds, access to flC,
ICMA. PTI. GHK ad carneoial dabbeses
on -line r wp& cmrkrorrncrng and much
more. This is your opporkmiq to toftlard
at more than 700 oily officials are using
LOCAL B(CWNGE regularly to solve tleir
probldrw and hem from heir peers. Visit he
automated message an0er ro bale oher 0W
ferees, lave and pick up messages, and try
LOCAL B(CWINGE firshad.
II_'I " 1
In addition to the bainKg aui Worm"
sharing during workshop sessft one of t
frost integral pats of the congress of Cities is
the acposition. This annual twat brings you
the lag new prouls, services, ad idles —
direct from t manufacturers, consu nls. and
specialists who can help you put than to work.
Several activities am planed in ft erdtbt
hall during the conference to prov* you an
opportunity to meet and talk with our
shbitors. You are encouraged to use his
once a year opportur* to its fullest.
AdueebOe d Our Oats"
LowdlillrPm
Air lies vary on ft corrrby. That's why
the NLC Travel Services Group guarantees to
WO you on t lowest air fare available when
your reservations are made. The fare might be
a restricled published discount or an unpub-
lished, unrestriged special fare that tle Travel
Services Group his mgotited. Diacoft
could range from 5 pmt d any applicable
Or.* reriictiorh1 b40paN
without mi ridions. These fares are ony awl-
able hmmdh NLC Tenet Savioes Grail. Call
to Ron (soot XIM7; from Aloft ffwaa,
VW Vigink d collect (703) 684.2M.
Mm* bough FrW4 it00r A b &30p n.
ES.1
ffis In lbW ft ANIW Tilalfala
Some lucky fravder who pudmes a tides
hough ft NLC Travel Services Gallup for
yard to h Cdhp a of Cities will win frvo
rand htp kw to ft * 010* Choice ie
hue centiuertal U.S. The drawing will be held
at ft Congo of cities, ad ft tickets may
be used VON WO t 12 monks follow -
ing ft Conpcas of Cities. Travel Services
Group reserves ft right to stied fee Wae,
and of idiom may apply.
ftm ae1 shale h lip
Twenty oifffm 101115 Will be oferw to
acquaint you will t sights and afrachons
Houston has to ft
Youtl angry he Houston Museums —
ft Muspum Of Natural Science, mom a
Fire Arts, Bayou Bend, Menil, and Children's
Museum — plus Ihn'll be shopping, visiting
historic homes, traveling down our famous
ship channel. visiting t famous Taros
Medial Gala, and aperieru"NASA, home
of Mission Confrol and Astronaut Trai"
Center.
Be sue to cane a day early ad spell t
in merby Galveston for thei an eel Dfdie s on
are S MW Festival held on Sahrday and
Surday. The historical district comes alive in
Charles Didnas' London with coloW dress,
food, and eruldfairvrent.
As3y
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA RECD JUL 200ju
• Regular Meeting, 7 :30 .m., Wednesday, July 25, 1990
8 P Y
Tonka Bay City Hall
4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19)
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. heading of Minutes: 6 -27 -90 Regular Meeting
4. Public Casments - from persons in attendance not on agenda
5. Reports
A. Standing Committees
1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol
a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 7-14 -90
b) Temporary low water variance adjustment for Wayzata Yacht Club
District Mooring Area, relocating six slips to Site 2, recommending
approval subject to being in accord with Wayzata CUP and neighbor
• Rosekrans.
c) City of Deephaven Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) recom-
mending that an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed.
d) Dock license renewals for Crystal Bay Service, Crystal Bay, Orono;
Harrison Harbor, Harrisons Bay, Mound, to include back - licensing to
1989; and Seton Twin Homes, Mound; recommending approval.
e) Additional business recommended by the committee.
5. A. 2) ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese
a) Proposal for extending hours of weed harvesting operation to
accellerate production during peak use months of July and August,
terminating production early to meet existing or adjusted operating
budget.
b) Additional business recommended by the committee.
5. A. 3) LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury
a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 7 -16 -90
b) Hennepin County Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the Sheriff's
Water Patrol and LMCD recommending a subcommittee to review the
agreement consisting of JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Bert Foster, Deephaven;
and Sgt. Bill Chandler, Water Patrol.
c) Deposit refunds, recommending approval for Minnetonka Bass Club,
American Scholarship Foundation, Minnetonka Crossing, and Mound
City Days having met conditions of their event permits.
(over)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LMCD Board Agenda 7 -25 -90 2•
,
d) Water Ski Ordinance Amendment recommending approval to reduce •
the observer rule for all forms of towing persons on the Lake
as detailed in the 7 -16 -90 Lake Use Committee minutes.
e) Additional business recommended by the committee.
5. A. 4. ADVISORY, Chair Rascop
a) Public comment review still in process - no report.
b) Next meeting (possibly final) 5:30 p.m., Wednesday 8 -1 -90, Tonka
Bay city hall (RSVP for box lunch).
5. B. Chair Cochran
1) Public Officials' lake inspection tour, Saturday, August 4, 10 a.m.
to 1 pm, reservations invited at this time.
2) Inter - Agency Dredging Agreement followup meeting with MN DNR and
MCWD, planned for noon, Friday, July 29, place to be announced.
5. C. Prosecution Progress report, Attorney Steve Tallen of Holmes & Graven
5. D. Financial Report, Treasurer Lewman
1) Statement of Cash Transactions, month ending 6 -30-90
2) Audit of vouchers for payment
3) Professional Fund Raising Service recommendation for payment .
4) Second quarter financial summary and year -to -date budget progress
5. E. Executive Director, Strommen
1) Staff progress
2) Management Plan presentation to Wayzata Rotary by Cochran & Executive
Director
3) Mississippi Headwaters Board sponsored seminar for Hubbard County
Coalition of Lake Associations, Saturday, August 18, Little Sand
Lake, Nevis.
6. Unfinished Business
7. New Business
8. Adjournment
7 -19 -90 0
R'O JUL 20X90
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., June 27, 1990
Tonka Bay City Hall
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair
Cochran at 7:35 p.m.
2. Roll Call.
Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Jan
Boswinkel,Secretary, Minnetonka Beach (as noted); David Cochran,
Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; James
Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; John Lewman, Treasurer,
Minnetrista; John Malinka, Victoria; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata;
Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thomas
Reese, Mound, Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Sgt. Wm.
Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Charles LeFevere, Counsel;
David Arndorfer, Consultant; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director.
Members Absent: None
3. Reading of Minutes: Grathwol moved, Foster seconded,
approval of the minutes of the May 23, 1990 regular meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Comments
Duane Markus, 405 Bushaway Road, Wayzata, requested a poll
of the members to show who belongs to various yacht clubs.
Cochran responded - that the request is out of order, and members
are selected to vote their conscience based on the best interest
of Lake Minnetonka. Markus was advised he could contact the
various organizations at his own initiative to obtain the
information.
5. Reports
A. Chair Cochran
1) Agenda Order of Business. Cochran requested
consideration for amending LMCD By Laws or an administrative
prerogative to change the ordc of business for Board agenda to
allow public participation earlier in the meeting. He also
suggested institution of a consent agenda for certain i +ems in
committee reports. A consent agenda lumps non - controversial
items in one motion, allowing any board member or member of the
public to request removal of any item from the consent agenda for
individual conr'deration.
Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to move items 5A and 5B for
consideration after 5C. Motion carried unanimously.
The Executive Director is to report on a restructuring of
the Board agenda to allow a co; ent agenda.
LMCD Board of Directors
June 27, 1990
5. C. Standing Committees
1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol
Grathwol reported there are no minutes as the
Commies tee did not meet in June.
a) Temporary Dock Extension Requests.
Grathwol moved, Hurr seconded, approval of the
following temporary dock extensions:
• Hary T. Kreslins, Greenwood, St. Alban's Bay, for 8'
• St. Alban's Bay Marina, Inc., four foot dock platform for
gas dock access from boats.
• Shorewood Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., eight foot dock
platform for gas dock access from boats.
• Tonka Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., four foot dock
platform for gas dock access from boats
There is no navigation interference involved. Motion
carried unanimously.
2) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury
a) Minutes. Reese moved, Grathwol seconded,
approval of the minutes of the Lake Use Committee meeting of June
18, 1990. Motion carried unanimously.
b) Wayzata Chamber of Commerce - Special Event
Permit - July 4 Fireworks
Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, approval of Special Event
Permit to allow the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce to present a July
4 fireworks display in Wayzata Bay from a barge, maintaining
1,000' clearance to and from spectators, subject to approval by
the City of Wayzata, Water Patrol and other applicable laws.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Executive Director noted Water Patrol approval is still
pending.
c) Deposit Refunds
Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, to approve refunds of the
Special Event deposit to Westonka M.D.A. fishing contest, no
incidents reported and to Lord Fletcher's, the special event
Canoe Race application denied by the Board. Motion carried
unanimously.
•
2
LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990
d) Water Level Reference Point
Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, to approve the Committee
recommendatian that the Water Patrol use the 928.6' figure in
determining hiw far down the water level is at a given date.
Hu-1r indicated concern that use of that figure could lead to
other uses by the public such as filling. Babcock could see
confusion with the normal reference of 929.4' for determining
property lines. Foster expressed his opinion that 929.4' is
unrealistic because that is a normal high water line and does not
reflect the actual lake level.
Grathwol moved, Hurr seconded, to table the water level
reference point back to the Committee. Motion carried
unanimously.
Rascop asked about a contract with MCWD for managing the
dam. There was no answer to his question. Staff will research
the subject.
Boswinkel arrived during the following discussion.
e) Water Skiing Observer Rule
Foster moved, Reese seconded, to rescind the Board action of
5 -23 -90 denying a Code change to modify the waterski observer
rule for certain low -use days, with a further recommendation for
staff to develop a waterski- observer rule modification under
certain low lake -use conditions including a requirement that the
operator be 18 years of age or older.
LeFevere explained that under Roberts Rules of Order a
motion to rescind at the same meeting action was taken requires a
motion by a person on the prevailing side. At a subsequent
meeting any member can make the motion. Cochran ruled the motion
in order.
DISCUSSION; For information Chandler stated currently the
operator and observer must be 12 years of age (for watercraft of
24 hp. or less.)
Babcock: Safety requirements should supersede any
suggestions of convenience.
Hurr: Beiieves safety standards of the proposal are
questionable. It subjects other people who would like to be on
the lake to a hazard for the convenience of a few. The City of
Orono Council opposes the change.
Slocum: His area is quiet in the evening and he would favor
the change.
Martinson: Believes there is good visibility behind a good
mirror.
Bjorlin: The Gideon's Bay area is busy in the evening with
skiers from the Excelsior area.
Reese: Submitted draft language for an amendment which
could be adopted. - continued
3
LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990
Cochran clarified the motion as being a motion to direct
staff to prepare an amendment. 0
AMENDMENT TO MOTION; Rascop moved, Bjorlin seconded, to
amend the motion to have the code amendment sunset at the end of
the 1991 boating season. The Chair declared the motion carried
on a hand vote.
MOTION AS AMENDED; Motion carried, Hurr, Rascop, Boswinkel,
Bjorlin and Babcock voting nay.
f) Personal Watercraft Information and 8ducation
Program Request
Pillsbury moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the Committee
denial if a request by Kawasaki jet ski dealers for a personal
watercraft information and education program. It could be a
violation of the Prolonged Operation section of the Personal
Watercraft Ordinance. A Special Event permit application was not
submitted by the applicant. Motion carried unanimously.
g. Charter Boat Liquor License Requirements
The Executive Director furnished members with a copy of the
notice sent to Charter Boat operators regarding requirements for
serving intoxicating liquor and non - intoxicating malt liquor.
h. Water Patrol Report
Sgt. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol reported as follows:
* Twenty -five of the twenty -six Boating While
Intoxicated citations issued by the Water Patrol this year were
on Lake Minnetonka.
* It takes about three months to receive the reports
from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension but indications are that
activity is up.
* There have been no serious accidents on Lake
Minnetonka.
* A detective has been assigned to the Lake to work on
thefts. The detective is coordinating activities with the
cities.
* There are problems with the Sun -Kat rentals at Lord
Fletcher's. There have been incidents of equipment malfunction,
inebriated operators and inexperienced operators.
Pillsbury moved, Babcock seconded, to authorize a letter to
the fee owner of the rental operation advising him that there is
a sunset on his operation and there is a possibility his permit
could be rescinded. Motion carried unanimously.
* The safety broadcasts have been well received. The
Water Patrol will respect LMCD directions and use 928.6' Normal
Outlet Elevation when indicating the how far down the water level
is at a given date.
4
LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990
. j. Liquor License Transfer - Al & Alma's
The Executive Director reported Al & Alma's I has been sold
and has been replaced with Al & Alma's XII.
Rascop moved,•Biorlin seconded, approval of the transfer of
the liquor license from Al & Alma's I to Al & Alma's XII, subject
to inspection by the Water Patrol. Motion carried unanimously.
The Executive Director will determine the disposition of Al
& Alma's I charter boat.
k. Letter of Appreciation
Rascop moved, Cochran seconded, to send a letter to Sheriff
Omodt expressing the District's appreciation for the assignment
of a detective to Lake Minnetonka. Motion carried unanimously.
5. C. 3) ADVISORY COMMITTBB, Chair Rascop
a) Progress on Public Review Comment to the Long -
term !Management Program
Arndorfer reported nine communities have sent in comments
following the June 6 Public Hearing. Five communities cited
areas of opposition,and four communities offered supportive
comments. The Metropolitan Council and MNDnr are supportive of
the study.
The three main areas of concern are Shoreland Management,
Board membership and the tax district. All of these issues were
addressed in preparing the Plan, Arndorfer added. The MNDnr
indicated an interest in including something on upland wild life
habitat. Arndorfer sees a need to spend time with the cities in
opposition within the next thirty to sixty days.
Rascop said the Advisory Committee will respond in writing
to the comments received. He encourages Board member
participation, particularly those whose city has a problem. He
offered to meet with the five city councils which cited areas of
opposition.
Martinson said reasons for the program's positions have to
be detailed. His sense is the Program will not work if adopted
with less than unanimous City agreement.
Hurr asked about the final disposition of the plan - where
it goes after final approval of the LMCD. Arndorfer responded
that it does not come under land planning act, although it
will be used as a reference.
b) Advisory Committee Review of Public Comments
The Advisory Committee review of the consultant's response
to public comments is set for 7:00 p.m., 'Thursday, June 28 at the
Tonka Bay City Hall.
•
5
:-
�Yr
t ,
LMCD Board of Directors June 27, 1990 M1RA�SY
5. C. 4) KNVIHON M T, Chair Reese
a) Reese reported milfoil is spreading throughout
the area lakes. It appears there will not be any funding for
1990 from the Corps of Engineers. Their participation is still
unconfirmed.
Rascop moved, Bjorlin seconded, that letters be directed to
representatives in Congress detailing LMCD efforts and needs for
financial assistance. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Reese reported $39,000 has been received in
the private fund drive with $16,000 need to meet the goal. There
has been cooperation from the DNR and Corps of Engineers with
computerized mapping.
c. A research project with slow release aquatic
plant herbicide technology, approved for funding with over
$60,000 by the Greater Minnesota Corporation is now being
finalized. Lake Minnetonka is anticipated to be part of this
study. Lake Independence has had success with treating 18 acres
with 2 -4D to eradicate an isolated E: Water Milfoil
infestation. That method is limited to 5 of the total lake.
Babcock reported Sonar was tested on Grays bay. The results have
not been conclusive.
d. Reese reported the harvest operation is behind
schedule because of rain and severe weather and equipment
breakdowns.
e. The Executive Director reported insurance
premiums for 1990 -1991 will be $15,662 covering Worker
Compensation, equipment liability and the general liability
insurance for equipment operation. This cost was not fully
anticipated or known in budgeting for 1990. Approximately
$13,000 will be charged to the $25,000 contingency allowance.
5. A. 2) Public Officials Lake Inspection Tour
Cochran reported the Public Officials Lrke Inspection Tour
is scheduled for 10 a. m. to 1 p.m., Saturday, = !guust 4, from the
Lafayette Club docks. The guest list is the last year
and it is planned to use two boats from Al & Alma's
Hurr moved, Cochran seconded, to limit the guests to public
officials and not include spouses or guests, thereby using only
one boat.
Martinson suggested using one boat but having two tours, one
in the morning and one in the afternoon, encouraging Board
members to be on both tours.
Upon taking a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion
failed.
•
D
4
LMCD Board if Directors June 27, 1990
5. B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman
•
1). Statement of Cash Transactions
Lewman submitted the Statement of Cash
'"ransactions for the month ending 5/31/90 and it was ordered
filed.
2) Audit of Vouchers for Payment
Lewman moved, Rascop seconded, approval of bills in the
amount of $38,784.62, checks numbered 6146 through 6227. Motion
carried unanimously.
Later in the meeting, under the Executive Director's
Report, it was noted Check No. 6213 to Wausau Insurance was
billed unclearly and it should be $3,182.00. Lewman moved,
Rascop seconded, to void Check No. 6213 and replace it with Check
No. 6228 in the amount of $3,182.00 for a final total of
$40,375.62. Motion carried unanimously.
3) Annual Budget for 1991
Lewman submitted a draft of the 1991 budget along with an
explanation of the major changes. He noted the $45,000 grant
from the MN DNR is shown as a receipt and as a disbursement to
• the cities for their costs. This is to facilitate bookkeeping.
Reese said the $60,000 Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed
Harvesting Program budget does not reflect an inflation factor.
Hurr moved, Rascop seconded, to amend the proposed budget by
increasing the EWM expense budget by 5%, for $3,000. Motion
carried unanimously.
Rascop moved, Martinson seconded, to approve the 1991
budget, as amended, and authorize its submission to the cities.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. D. Executive Director's Report, Eugene Strommen
The Executive Director reported as follows:
* A clerical assistant, Aimee Meyer, has been employed
to perform E.W.M. clerical duties and assist in bookkeeper and
administrative secretaries responsibility during their vacation
absence.
* Rachel Thibault will join the staff full -time on
Monday, July 9, as LMCD's Administrative Technician. An
announcement of her selection was provided to the Board.
* Joan Mansk will be on vacation in July. Strommen
will take two weeks vacation in August.
* Strommen will attend a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
meeting 7- 25 -90, 2:00 p.m. to 5 p.m., regarding Federal Manual
• Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, at the St.
Paul campu. - continued
7
LMCD Board of Directors
June 27, 1990
* Starting in July another location will be found for
committee meetings, requiring use of the conference room in the
office to accommodate the Administrative Technician.
7. New Business
1. Rascop reporte. his observation that harvesting
equipment is being stored at launch areas on weekends. It not
only is blocking the launch accesses but it could be climbed on
and create a liability if someone is injured, as well cause
possible vandalism to the equipment. Strommen said he was not
aware that this has occurred, and it is not to be allowed. He
will follow up on the report.
2. Cochran will ask the Lake Use Committee to examine
Possibility of requiring the use of aeequate mufflers on a.
watercraft. Foster reported the new decibel meters have bees,
helpful to the Water Patrol.
8. Adjournment
There being no further business to bring before the Board,
the Chair ordered the r-eeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
David Cochran, Chair •
Jan Boswinkel, Secretary
•
n
NrG JUL 2 0 L99LO
LAKE MINNSTONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
• Action Report: Water Structures and Environment Committee
Meeting: Saturday, July 14, 1990, 7:30 a.m.
Shorewood City Hall
Members Present: James Grathwol, Chair, Excelsior; Bert
Foster, Deephaven; John Lowman, Minnetrista; Robert Pillsbury,
Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, Mound. Also present: Rachel Thibault,
Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director.
The meeting was called to order by Grathwol at 7:30 a.m.
1. District !boring Field temporary Low Water Variance - Wayzata
Yacht Club.
The agenda called for consideration of a temporary low water
variance application from the Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC) to
relocate 3 moorings from Site 1 to Site 2 to reduce the impact
of the 800' extension on Site 1, to include internal mooring
relocations within Site 1.
Robert Albright, Vice Commodore, WYC, presented an amended
application. The amended application is a compromise with
neighbors and the City of Wayzata to meet the requirements of a
Conditional Use Permit for the Club facility issued by the City.
. The CUP originally called for all moorings to be within 400' of
the shoreline. The City requires moving some moorings to withii,
600'of the shoreline for 1990. The present relocation would
place six moorings at 450' on Site 2, eight moorings at 600' on
Site 1, and eight moorings along the eastern side of the
property. This should enable the WYC to retain its existing 22
moorings currently .noored at 800'. The locations include the
swing of the boats. Albright also explained the westerly buoys
do not allow a swing into the public access channel. The mooring
field will have to be within 400' of the shoreline in 1991 and
thereafter. Albright said the WYC is not sure about the water
depth in all reassigned locations. It may have to make some re-
assignments, or possibly eliminate some moorings,and thus some
members could lose their Club access to the Lake.
The Executive Director reported the LMCD counsel advises a
mooring field is not restricted to its dock use area but should
be within reasonable proximity, the LMCD Board given discretion
to decide its location. Foster said the neighbors to the west,
Rosekranz and Eastman, have no objection to the realignment.
Rosekranz asked that the boats be kept within a sight line away
from their dock use area. Reese asked for written evidence that
the neighbors do not object. Duane Markus, 05 Bushaway Road,
was present in the audience and offered no comment.
Reese moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of a
temporary low water variance permitting relocation of the
continued
Water Structures and Environment Committee July 14, 1990
district mooring area from Site 1 to Site 2 as shown on the site •
plan dated July 12, 1990, subject to receipt of written approval
by Rosekranz, and also subject to the conditions governed by the
Conditional Use Permit issued by the City of Wayzata. Motion
carried unanimously.
2. City of Deephaven Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
The Executive Director reported the MN DNR comments on the
EAW submitted as a part of the review of a new dock license for
the City of Deephaven. Reese questioned the MN DNR comment that
no treated lumber is to be used that would contaminate fish or
other aquatic organisms. He would like further rationale : =r the
restriction. The MN DNR also recommends the LMCD consider
developing a long -range plan for dock ex ),ansions. The committee
would like a more detailed explanation of that recommendation.
Foster moved, Lewman seconded, to recommend that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not needed, to recommend
approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as submitted by
the Executive Director and approval of the new dock license and
special density license for the City of Deephaven. Motion
approved unanimously.
3. Special Density License Ordinance Relating to Public
Amenities.
The Executive Director presented the amendment to LMCD Code
Sec. 2.05, Subd. 4b relating to public amenities. Changes are
underlined.
Foster stated he could not vote for this amendment until
there is an evaluation of the effect on multiple dock licenses
which have been granted special density allowance in exchange for
various public amenities.
Foster moved, Lewman seconded, to table the special density
license ordinance amendment until the committee receives examples
of how the change in amenities would affect recent multiple dock
licenses. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Dock License Renewals
Reese moved, Lewman seconded, To recommend approval of dock
license renewals for the following:
Crystal Bay Service, Crystal Bay, Orono
Ilarri� Harbor, Harrison Bay, Mound
Seton Twin Homes, Mound
Harrison Harbor is being back licensed for 1989. Late fees
are included for the renewals with Seton Twin Homes being
credited for the $25 fee they paid earlier when low water
prevented the use of the docks. Motion carried unanimously.
2
Water Structures and Environment Committee July 14, 1990
ENVIRONMENT
(Taken Out of Order to accommodate Chair Reese)
Reese reported an improvement in weed harvesting progress as
the weed harvester repairs are solving problems encount-red in
the early weeks. The weather is also improving.
Reese had two recommendations for committee consideration.
He would like information on costs vs. budget on a more timely
basis. He also recommends accelerating the harvesting during July
and August by extending the hours of operation. This would
require paying overtime. The funds so expended could be
recouped by stopping harvesting in September.
The Executive Director said trucking costs will have to be
reviewed for overtime considerations if hours are extended. He
said the program is within budget on all aspects except equipment
repair.
Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend the Executive
Director prepare a more flexible plan of operation. Motion
carried unanimously.
Foster was excused.
5. Priority Item Study
Grathwoll noted there a °e eighteen months left in the
multiple dock moratorium. Daring that time ordinances are being
reviewed which affect multiple dock installations and
operations.. He suggested the following as priority items to be
studied=
1. Wetland Protection. A review of the national wetland
inventory and defir.itions will be made. It is necessary to
define the good wetlands and the bad wetlands. Aerial photos have
been taken in conjunction with the milfoil studies. It will be
necessary for someone to interpret them.
2. Two boat four boat rule. A physical inventory of
properties with more than three boats should be made and cross
checked with the aerial photos.
3. Inventory of permits. An inventory of permits issued to
docks in excess of 100' and 200'should be made.
4. Assembling Information. There should be a collection of
positive information which could be used to statistically support
the assertions about the Lake use. It was suggested applications
for special event permits, for example, show the anticipated Lake
use with a follow - up to show actual use. The Sheriff's Water
Patrol, charter boat manifests, and reports from parks were
suggested as additional lake use data sources.
5. Lake use laws from comparable states should be acquired
for study, such as Georgia, F'.orida, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Grathwol will appreciate input from other committee members.
•
3
Water Structures and Environment Committee July 14, 1990
6. Additional Items
1. Reese said he believes the Personal Watercraft Ordinance
has had a positive effect on noise.
2. Reese commented that he has noticed there is a decrease
in purple loosestrife this year. The Executive Director noted he
is aware that wetlands now filled with water have diminished its
growth.
3. The Executive Director reported an apartment complex,
Park Hill, did not renew its dock license. It has started
putting boats in now that the water is Up. The owner has
responded that he expects only about 12 of the 44 slips for which
he is licensed to be used. He does not wish to pay the full fee.
The consensus of the committee is to require the full fee
if the docks are used at all.
4. The Executive Director reported on a dock use area
conflict in Smithtown Bay is under consideration for a variance
application. The committee recommended the neighbors continue to
work among themselves
7. Adjournment
Grathwol declared the meeting adjourned at 9 a.m.
FOR THE COMMITTEE;
Eugene Strommen, Executive Director James Grathwol, Chair
•
•
1 ]
4
C
�J
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Action Report: Lake Use Committee
Meeting: Monday, July 16, 1990, 4:30 p.m.
Shorewood City Hall
Members Present: Robert Pillsbury, Chair, Minnetonka; JoEllen
Hurr, Orono; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Thomas Reese, Mound;
Robert Rascop, Shorewood. Also present: Lt. Larry Peterson and
Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault,
Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director.
The moeting was called to order by Chair Pillsbury at 4:30 p.m.
1. Hennepin County Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the
Sheriff's Water Patrol and LMCD
The Executive Director presented the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement between the County of Hennepin and LMCD providing for
the annual law enforcement services on Lake Minnetonka.
Pillsbury recommended JoEllen Hurr, Bert Foster and Sgt.
Chandler to serve as a sub - committee to review the agreement in
advance of the January 1, 1991 automatic renewal, requiring a 90-
day advance notice of an intention to change the agreement.
2. Charter Boat New Registrations
The Executive Director reported the following new charter
boat registrations have been received and inspected:
Elizabeth Ann, Charles E. Gross, Excelsior
Holiday Fair, David Witther, Plymouth
•
He also reported Jacks
for trips on the Lake but has
the charter owner,he was not
season. Chandler stated the
charter has not complied
requirements.
3. Water Patrol Report
R Wild charter has been advertising
not been registered. In talking to
6ure he would have.any bookings this
Water Patrol is aware Jacks R Wild
with registration and inspection
a. Citations - Citations appear to be up over the same
period last year, Chandler reported. A computer tally is not
available as yet but the Water Patrol has been making weekend to
weekend comparisons
b. July 4th Holiday Activity - Six BWIs, twenty -five
citations and forty warnings were issued. There were three
warrant arrests. There were two personal injuries. Chandler
commended the deputies for their prompt action in handling one of
the personal injuries which required removal of a propeller to
free the injured person in cruiser cove, Big Island shore
rafting area. The injured party is surviving remarkably well.
1
Lake Use Committee July 16, 1990
C. Other - Chandler reported fifty -one BWI citations have
•
been issued by the Water Patrol on the Lake and one citation by
the DNR conservation officer. Responding to a question from
Rascop, Chandler said he will check on the prosecution of the
citation issued by the conservation officers.
d. Chandler reported Smith's Bay Marina is renting personal
watercraft. Safety inspection is required on all rental units,
which is being processed. He also questioned inclusion of the
requirement in the ordinance for oar locks, oars or paddles on
personal watercraft. A committee member thought it was
eliminated from the ordinance. (Sec. 3.08, Subd. 3 appears to
require e ither oars 2Z personal flotation devices. Wording is
being checked.
Reese asked about a specific "cigarette' boat which is very
noisy with exhaust ports above the water line. Chandler responded
that the Water Patrol is tracking its operation.
Chandler said they have had many calls on the water ski
observer ordinance, and inquiries about including parasailing in
the ordinance to eliminate the observer. The committee consensus
was not in favor of recommending a change for parasailing.
Chandler said they have not had any further complaints about
the Sun -Kat pontoon operation. Pillsbury has talked to the
owner /operator.
The Executive Director reported an inquiry from the LaCrosse
County Harbor Commission requesting information about LMCD speed
enforcement regulations and radar equipment to enforce the law.
Strommen will furnish them with pertinent information. Strommen
asked about the number of citations issued for speed violations.
Chandler responded they frequently cite for speed and that it
often ties in with BWIs.
4. Deposit Refunds
Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of
refunds to the following for special event permits on which there
were no negative reports:
Minnetonka Bass Club (6 -9 -90 Tournament)
American Scholarship Foundation (6 -10 -90 Tournament)
Minnetonka Crossing (6 -16 -90 Wind Surfing)
Mound City Days (6 -17 -90 Fire Works)
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Water Ski Ordinance Amendment
The Executive Director distributed a proposed amendment to
the waterski ordinance,Sec. 3.10, Subd. 1, which would set out
exceptions to the observer rule for all forms of towing persons
on the Lake. The committee discussed the days and times for the
exception as stated in the proposed ordinance and amended it to .
except the observer rule from Monday a.m. through Friday noon
which are not holidays and to eliminate the Memorial Day through
Labor Day clause.
2
•
Lake Use Committee
July 16, 1990
Lt. Peterson advised he will make a referral to the County
Attorney regarding Subd. 1 -b) "Sheriff May Order Observer ",
to assure the County is not taking on a potential liability with
this provision.
Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of an
amendment to the waterski ordinance as corrected subject to
review by the Hennepin County Attorney. Motion carried, Rascop
voting nay.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
C]
•
FOR THE COMMITTEE:
Eugene Strommen, Executive Director
Robert Pillsbury, Chair
3