Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
1990-09-25 CC Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL PACKET - 9 -25 -90 #1
PAGE 2800
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
AENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30
SCHOOL
P.K. TVBBDAY BEPTMM R 35, 19
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
+ 1.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
2.
PRESENTATION OF WESTONKA DOLLARS TO MR. & MRS. THOMAS
HELGET.
2939 DICKENS LANE — RECYCLOTTO WINNER.
3.
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO WESTONKA
MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION (MDA) COMMITTEE. Pg.
2802
4.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 1990
1�
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING & THE SEPTEMBER 18, 1990,
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. Pg.
2803 -2814
5.
PUBLIC HEARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS. Pg.
2815
6.
PUBLIC HEARING$ ON ASONSOdENT8:
T CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE Pg.
2816 -2819
= DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER ,BILLS Pg.
2820 -2821
.
= DENBIGH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Pg.
UNPAID MOWING CHARGES Pg.
2822 -2833
2834 -2835
UNPAID CLEAN —UP CHARGES Pg.
2836 -2837
— UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES Pg.
2838 -2940
7.
RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL
ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING
PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT ; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR — LEVY #.1835 — $2,000. Pg.
2840 -2841
8.
RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL
ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING
PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT ; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION
TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR — LL, /Y #11836 — $2,600. Pg.
2842 -2843
9.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
10.
CASE NO. CRAIG HENDERSON, 4435 DORCHESTER RD.,
LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 17, AVALON,
PID #19- 117 -23 31 0106
REQUEST: VARIANCE; SIDPYARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONFORMING
ADDITION. Pg.
2844 -2853
11.
CASE N0, 90 -934: DENNIS & SHELLY DORION, LOTS 1,2 &
PART OF 3, BLOCK 5, SHIRLEY HILLS
•
UNIT B, PID #24- 117 -24 12 0023
REQUEST: VARIANCE: SIDE YARD SETBACK. Pg.
2854 -2865
PAGE 2800
12.
REQUEST FROM PAU-MR KOOSMANN, 6045 CHESTNUT ROAD
RE: BARRICADING TINIMPROVED SECTION OF SOUTHVIEW
LANE.
Pg.
2866 -2868
13.
COMMENTS ON DNR APPLICATION 191 -6051, BAYRIDGE
ROAD AND WESTEDGE BLVD. (COUNTY RD. 44).
Pg.
2869 -2876
14.
APPOINTMENT OF BOB POLSTON TO MOUND HRA.
Pg.
2877
15.
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
Pg.
2878 -2893
16.
INFORMATI01ZXI8CELLt=OV8
A. Financial report for August 1990 as prepared
by John Norman, Finance Director.
Pg.
2894 -2895
B. Planning Commission Minutes of 9- 10 -90.
Pg.
2896 -2901
C. Information from the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM). Please note annual membership
meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 1,
1990.
Pg.
2902 -2909
D. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of
September 13, 1990.
Pg.
2910 -2916
E. Comments from the City of Orono regarding
.
the LMCD Long -Range Management Plan.
Pg.
2917 -2920
Page 2801
•
•
•
WHEREAS, for the past three years the Westonka MDA
Committee has raised money for the Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon on
Labor Day Weekend; and
WHEREAS, the fundraising events include the following:
selling shamrocks; a State mud vollyball tournament; family
crappie fishing tournament; and a Westonka MDA Telethon on Labor
Day Weekend; and
WHEREAS, the Westonka MDA Telethon raised $24,000 the
first year; $39,000 the second year; and between $42,000 and
$45,000 this year; and
WHEREAS, the Westonka MDA Committee has many dedicated
volunteers who have contributed so much time and effort in making
the Westonka MDA Telethon a success.
ROW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby recognizes the Westonka MDA
Committee for all their hard work and dedication in the fight to
find a cause and cure for muscular dystrophy.
ASOz
137
September 12, 1990 •
mINOTE8 - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 12, 1990
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, September 12, 1990, at 7:30 P.M. in
the School District School Board Meeting Room at 5600 Lynwood
Blvd., 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, City Engineer John Cameron,
Finance Director John Norman, Sewer i Water Superintendent Greg
Skinner, and the following interested citizens: John Madson,
Darrel Monteith, Walt Wolfe, Tom i Stacy Hintz, Kerry Amundson,
Doug Johnson, Mark Mulvey, John Sheffield, Bruce Dodds, John
Scherven, Shelly Dorion, John Royer, Dennis & Kelly Hildebrandt,
Catherine Moynagh, Glenn Tilton, John i Michelle Olson, Tom
Reese, Dorothy is Bill Netka, Gene Strommen, Bruce Martin and
Elli Mills.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0 MINOTE8 •
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve the
minutes of the August 28, 1990, Regular meeting as
presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. motion
carried.
The Mayor read the proclamation for the Candlelight Vigils in
Observance of World Summit for Children.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following proclamation:
PROCLAMATION #90 -105 PROCLAMATION FOR CANDLELIGHT VIGILS
IN OBSERVANCE OF WORLD SUMMIT FOR
CHILDREN
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
•
A X03
138
• September 12, 1990
1.2 PUBLIC HE]I VG: CONSIDERATION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVZNZMT
PROJECT TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT
I[MICIPAL PACING TO 8ERVE THE CE11TR�1L
BUSINESS DIBTRI
The City Manager reviewed the background of the CBD Program as
written in the report prepared by the City Engineer, dated August
1990. He stated they have used the maximum amount that would be
spent to acquire the parking lots. The public hearing is to gain
input from the businesses in the Central Business District.
The City Attorney reviewed the basis for the public hearing.
There are two Minnesota Statutes that would be used to assess the
project, Chapter 429 and Chapter 459. Chapter 459 requires that
a minimum of 501 be assessed. The actual percentage to be
assessed will be up to the City Council.
The City Attorney stated that two years ago he and the city
Manager negotiated with Jerry Ross (former owner of Dakota Rail)
but could not come up with a price for the parking lots in
question. Mr. Mills has since purchased Dakota Rail from the
Bankruptcy Court and the price Mr. Mills wanted was substantially
higher than what the City considers fair market value.
• Negotiations have been ongoing between Mr. Mills, the City
Attorney and the City Manager to the prices that will be
presented by the City Engineer. Now appraisals have been done
by the City on the parking lots and they have come in
substantially lower than what Mr. Mills is asking. Mr. Mills
contention is that if the City doesn't buy these lots, he will
sell them to someone else. The lease on the lots is up September
15, 1990. Mr. Mills has granted an extension to the option
agreement to September 30, 1990, but he will expect the City to
lease the lots for the extra time at a rate of $2,000 /month for
the three parcels or $1,750 /month for two parcels.
The City Attorney further explained that the City can condemn the
property and Mr. Mills has stated he will not fight the
condemnation, but would disagree with the fair market value. At
this point the City needs to know how the businesses that would
be assessed feel about the acquisition and proposed assessments.
The City Engineer gave the descriptions of the parking lots
proposed to be acquired. He explained that Alternate A includes
all three parcels with estimated costs of $350,000. Alternate B
includes only 2 parcels (not the lot adjacent to the Johnson &
Wood law office) with estimated costs of $320,000. He submitted
Exhibits B & C showing the proposed assessments to the members of
the CBD District using the estimated costs in Alternate A and B.
O He further explained it would be a 15 year assessment at 8%
.ego y
139
September 12, 1990 •
interest. This would be a separate assessment from the CBD
Parki.,g Maintenance Assessment which is done annually.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Walt Wolfe, representing the Mound Masonic Lodge, stated that
whatever they have to pay in assessments affects what they have
to give to charities. He stated they do not need additional
parking for their meetings per month.
Mr. RIM. Mills, President of Dakota Rail, was present and gave
the background on how he acquired Dakota Rail. He stated that
one of the key reasons for the acquisition was the extensive real
estate portfolio that Dakota Rail had and that they need to
dispose of the excess property in that portfolio. He stated that
if this goes to condemnation he would not fight the condemnation
but would aggressively contest the valuation of the property. He
stated he has already dropped the price from $4.00 /sq. ft. to
$3.49/sq. ft.
The Council discussed the negotiated prices of Alternate A i B
and the fact that the businesses have not been responsive
expressing their desires on how they want the Council to proceed
or how such they feel should be assessed. They also discussed
whether the City should participate 50% in the assessment costs. •
Peter Johnson stated he would like to see the Council move
forward and obtain the parcels thru condemnation or negotiate a
reasonable price to assess.
Bob Polston urged the Council to proceed with the condemnation
because the businesses cannot afford to lose the parking lots.
Dennis Hildebrandt stated `hat he thinks the businesses should be
assessed more than 50% of the cost.
Jon Scherven stated he is in favor of proceeding with the
condemnation.
Walt Wolfe stated the Mound Masonic Lodge is against being
included in the Central Business District Parking Program.
John Royer stated that when the County stopped allowing parking
on County Road 110 and 15, the City should have acquired property
for parking lots. He further stated that other cities have
municipal parking lots which the city pays for and maintains.
The City Engineer stated that he has checked with Hopkins which
has municipal parking and their businesses were and are assessed
for this.
•
U Os
140
• September 12, 1990
Councilmember Jessen read a letter from Mueller /Lansing, owners
of the Tonka West Shopping Center stating that they provide
enough spaces for their tenants. They asked that if parking is
purchased by the City, its costs should be assessed to the
property owners whose provided parking spaces are less than those
required by code. They further stated they feel it would be fair
to distribute the costs of any parking in excess of the property
owners requirements to the total current membership of the CBD.
Bruce Dodds stated he would be willing to work with his landlords
to pay for the acquired parking lots.
The City Attorney stated that the Council has three options at
this point: 1) let the property go; or 2) negotiate a better
purchase price for the property; or 3) condemn the property. He
reminded the Council that 11 out of the 25 property owners
responded to the original petition to have a feasibility report
prepared. That has now been done, but there is still the
question of how much to assess and the businesses have not been
very vocal in that respect.
NOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to go ahead and
start a quick take condemnation. After some discussion, the
second and the motion were withdrawn.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to enter into a
Issue eztension for 30 days to explore other options on the
3 parcels. The second and the motion were withdrawn after
the City Attorney explained that a lease extension was only
offered by hills if the Option Agreement was entered into.
The Council, City Attorney and Mr. Mills agreed that they should
negotiate further.
There was a break declared in the Council Meeting at 9:50 P.M. to
allow two Councilmembers, the City Attorney, the City Manager And
Mr. Mills to negotiate further on the price of the property.
Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen volunteered to represent the
Council in these negotiations.
The Council returned from the break at 10:40 P.M.
1.3 MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorise the
Mayor and City Manager to esecute an Option Agreement with
Dakota Bail to acquire the 3 downtown parking lots plus all
Dakota Rail land south of the Coast to Coast at a price of
$235,000. Said Option shall provide that the City has until
November 1, 1990, to ezercise the Option with a closing on
or before December 1, 1990. The City to pay rent in the
Ato4
141
September 12, 1990
amount of #2,000 per mont from September 15, 1990, Until
the date of closing. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
The City Attorney explained that this will allow the Council not
to have to make a decision tonight and give the Council time to
explore options for selling some parcels to businesses in need of
parking. It will give the Council 45 days to try to work
something out and see how much money can be raised from the sales
of parts of these lots.
NOTION made b7 Ahrens, seconded by Johnson to continue this
public hearing until the October 23, 1990, Council Meeting.
The vote was unanimously-in favor. Motica carried.
•1: 1•t � ' r
r
The City Manager explained that this item was held over from tha
previous meeting to allow the Council to go out and look at the
property to see if there was another way to expand the garage and
not require a variance.
The Council discussed their observations and stated they
recognize the practical difficulty to allow the rear yard setback
variance.
Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following motion:
RESOLUTION #90 -106 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REAR YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION
OP AN 840 SQUARE POOT GARAGE ADDITION AT
5229 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 6, 7 i 8,
BLOCK 19, WEIPPLE, PID #2S- 117 -24 21
0138
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The City Manager explained the
Commission recommended approval
recommendations.
request and that the Planning
(6 -3) with the City Engineer's
0
•
2101
0
•
142
September 12, 1990
The applicant asked why he would have to blacktop Boxwood Lane.
The City Engineer explained that this would be necessary so the
City could maintain the watermain, sewer line and the fire
hydrant. The City Attorney pointed out that the City cannot
allow privately owned utility services in a platted unimproved
right -of -way which is public property. He further stated that
the only way the applicant would be allowed to have utility
services installed in Boxwood Lane would be in accordance with
City standards and then they would have to dedicate the utilities
to the City.
The City Engineer explained that Iis first recommendation would
be to extend Chestnut Road to the applicant's property and
install the utilities in that road. He further pointed out that
the if the owner of Lot 24 ever requests a building permit he
will have to dedicate a 25 foot right -of -way (the southerly 25
feet of Lot 24) for street and utility r;xrposes.
The Council discussed the possible exten - ion e` - -- _ niat Road as
being the better solution to the applica:-•'s problem and also
&W -Lter for the long -term problems that could arise.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -107 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OZ A
FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE EXTENSION OF
CHESTNUT ROAD
The Council asked that this report be brought back to the Council
at the October 23, 1990, meeting.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
NOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to allow a
portable sign at the Pond Arena from September S to
September IS, for the Mound Westonka Hockey Association.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried.
•
.1. 11 7,13
The City Engineer presented the Council with the Preliminary
Engineering Report for Water System Improvements. He reported
that the cost would be from $1.4 to $3.2 million depending upon
the whether- they went with the iron removal system or the lime -
soda water softening system. The Council accepted the report.
They briefly discussed increasing water rates and saving the
A6a 2
143
September 12, 1990
money for a system in the future. No action was taken at this
time.
, 110 • 'CID ( .1 [ .i
The Council asked that this subject be taken up at the Committee
of the Whole Meeting on September 18, 1990.
There were none
1.9 PAYMENT O �
NOTION made by Jes.4ra, seconded by Johnson to authorise the
paTaent ox biias as presented on the pre -list in the amount
of $202,667.93, when funds are available. A roll call vote
was wtanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SON ITEMS
1.10 CABS #90 -933: CATURINE N�OYNAH i OLENN TILTON, 2561 WEXFORD
LANE. LOTS 3 - BLOCK 7, BATON, PID #24 -117-
24 14 00011 SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO AN
E 110NCONFORNING LOT O7 RECORD
The City Manager explained the request. The Planning Commission
recommended approval upon the condition that the 8.3' x 7.5' shed
be removed and the house be removed down to the foundation at the
first floor level and be rebuilt to meeting current building
code.
Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resoluticn:
RESOLUTION #90 -106 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND APPROVE THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING LOT OF RECORD FOR 2561
WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 3 -13, BLOCK 7, OETON,
PID #24-117-24 14 0001; P i S CASE #90-
933
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
r�
2601
144
• September 12, 1990
1.11 PAYMENT RE =11 #S - CITY HALL ADDITION AND RZXODELING -
d130.747.34
NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve
payment request #s from Shingobee Builders in the amount of
$130,747.34 for the City Hall Addition and Remodeling. The
vote vas unanimously in favor. Notion carried.
1.12 REQUEST FEOm NTC
The City Manager explained that the MTC is preparing a marketing
plan for their Route 51 service and is asking that we allow them
to use our newsletter as a vehicle to get this information to
Mound residents. The Council agreed.
1.13 CHANGE ORDERS #13. 19 a 19 - CITY EALL ADDITION i RENUDEL_
The City Manager presented the following Change Orders:
Change Order #15
Move duct work and exhaust fan for
elevator room ADD $ 217.00
Change Order. #18
Horizontal transom bar and removable
vertical mullion to frame for
opening #308A. ADD $ 340.00
Change Order #19
Haul 6 loads of Class 5 @ Maywood and
haul away 60 yards of bad material. ADD $ 858.00
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -109 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS #13,
16 i 19, 8EINGOBEE BUILDERS, CITY HALL
ADDITION i REMODELING
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION /MISCELLANEOUS
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for August.
B. L.M.C.D. Mailings.
C. Planning Commission Minutes of 8- 27 -90.
is
A110
145
September 12, 1990 •
D. Notice from Triax Cablevision re: rate increase.
E. Notice from Metro Council on upcoming Regional Breakfast
Meetings. Our breakfast is scheduled for Wednesday,
September 19, 1990, 7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. at T. Wrights,
3310 S. Hwy. 101.
F. Economic Development Commission Minutes of August 6, 1990.
G. Letter of resignation dated September 4, 1990, frcm Dell
Rudolph, Dock Inspector, effective October 15, 1990. Dell
has been an excellent Dock Inspector for the City of Mound
for the past 7 years. He will be missed. Jim Fackler, Park
Director, and I will be searching for a replacement
immediately.
NOTION made by Jenson. sacanded by Johnson to ad;curn at
12:15 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion
carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk
i s
as 11
•
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - SEPTEMBER 18 1990
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM. Members present:
Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen,
Skip Joh.ison and Andrea Ahrens. Absent: none. Also present:
City Manager Ed Shukle, Gene Strommen, LMCD; Tom Reese, LMCD; Bob
Rascop, LMCD; Kerry Amundson; Mary Mcline, JEW Properties-; Mary
Johnson and Brenda Pearce, Image Now.
Ed Shukle, City Manager, introduced the representatives from the
LMCD to discuss the following issues:
1. --eland Management and Agreement
2. Long Term Management Plan
3. Eurasian Water Milfoil Harvesting
•
is
Strommen, Reese and Rascop discussed the Shoreland Management
Agreement that LMCD had proposed to all of the cities around Lake
Minnetonka to participate in a joint work project to work on
adopting ordinances on shoreline management within each of the 14
communities around the lake. They emphasized that the DNR had
recently established rules and regulations that are statewide in
nature and that Lake Minnetonka communities would have to comply
with the rules and regulations through their own shoreland
management ordinances. Basically, a shoreland management program
grandfathers existing conditions and restricts development in the
shoreland areas of each of the communities. The representatives
recommended that each city have a shoreland ordinance and recom-
mend that it would be in the best interest of cities around the
lake to participate in a joint project to get the ordinances put
in place.
Questions were asked with regard to the shoreland management
agreement to officially work on this joint project. Council,
after receiving answers to their questions, seemed to be comfort-
able with the grant agreement. The City Manager will be sending
the agreement to the city attorney for his review and comment.
The Long Term Management Plan is scheduled for discussion at the
LMCD September 26th regular meeting and it is anticipated that
the long term plan will be adopted. Council indicated their
basic support for the plan with some exceptions which are shared
by the City of Mounds representative Tom Reese.
Reese also reported on the Eurasian Water Milfoil harvesting
program and the type of work that was done this past summer.
a40/;).,�
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE VHOLE - PAGE 2
Mayor Smith then introduced Mary Moline of JRW Properties and
Mary Johnson and Brenda Pearce of Image Now regarding the
proposal to install a sign at the Commerce Place shopping center
that would advertise the businesses within the center as well as
serve as a community sign. Moline, Johnson and Pearce reviewed
the proposal with the idea that the sign could be used for
community purposes. They estimated the cost of the sign to be
approximately $45,000 and they were asking the City if it was at
all interested in participating. If so, the City would be asked
to financially support the cost of the sign in some manner.
Concern was expressed with regard to having City participation on
a sign project that would specifically benefit only certain
businesses within the downtown area that happened to be in the
Commerce Place shopping center. ' Council felt that the sign was
needed, but thought that there might be a different approach that
could be made. Mary Moline indicated that she would send a
proposal Lidicating the specific breakdown of the cost estimate
on the sign Caun ^il took the matter under advisement.
The issue of the gent; ai Busine..a Dis:,rict parking lots and the
possible purchase from Dakota Rail uas briefly Discussed. There
was concern expressed about the percentage of assessment that •
would be placed against the benefiting property own,-rs. No
action was taken on the item.
The Downtown Study was briefly discussed and was continued until
the next Committee of the Whole meeting.
City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed the location of the new sign that
was installed along with the tree plantings and other shrubbery
and landscaping. Council praised the appearance of the sign and
landscaping. The discussion then focused on what to do with
local service emblems and where they should be placed. This
matter was taken under advisement.
Other business discussed was the fencing that Mark Saliterman
placed adjacent to the Hardee's property and what the City could
do about removal of the fence. City Manager Ed Shukle provided
the background and updated the Council on this issue. Mayor
Smith specifically cited Sections of the Mound Zoning ordinance
that he thought were applicable to this situation. The pity
Manager was directed to review these with the city attorney.
Council also considered a pos:�ble moratorium on fences in the B-
1 zone.
n
' Q 9I3 2
0 MINUTES — COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — PAGE 3
Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried
unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM.
R Xhu ful submitted,
d 1 J e
Cite Manager
ES :ls
•
0
3 au /Y
33 4390 241
22 2350 212
22 2380 664
22 2380 963
22 2382 393
22 2560 452
22 2590 481
22 2594 872
22 2596 361
22 2598 571
22 2680 064
22 2740 032
22 2800 122
22 2800 301
22 2800 511
22 2860 152
22 2860 571
22 2860 601
22 2860 661
22 3010 034
22 3100 331
22 3102 366
22 3102 545
22 3220 122
22 3280 034
22 3430 182
22 3430 995
22 3820 183
22 3850 063
22 3880 752
22 3880 781
RM
Delinquent Water and Sewer
0
$213.38
66.54
87.00
73.06
153.97
134.66
112.07
167.02
226.85
164.46
129.38
244.48
66.84
242.90
108.28
284.14
92.86
75.26
96.70
157.45
157.14
86.46
264.35
163.84
205.58
92.86
133.10
146.37
110.41
102.78
88.66
$4448.85
9/17/90
0
•
•
9/25/90
$2698.02
Delinquent Water
and Sewer
33
4390
241
Paul Olsen
Pd
$213.38
2636
Wilshire Blvd.
22
2350
212
John Phillippi
66.54
2221
Chateau Ln.
22
2380
664
Jim Hultgren
87.00
4891
Edgewater Dr.
22
2380
963
Wm. Nunsinger
73.06
4924
Edgewater Dr.
22
2382
393
Ed 0 Brian
Pd.
153.97
5005
Edgewater Dr.
22
2560
452
Geo Papadakas
Pd. $65.00
134.66
4980
Northern Rd.
22
2590
481
H. Miller
Pd.
112.07
4949
Bartlett Blvd.
22
2594
872
Terry Tepley
Pd.
167.02
5656
Bartlett Blvd.
22
2596
361
L.R.King
226.85
5875
Bartlett Blvd.
22
2598
571
Rich Almquist
Pd.
164.46
6553
Bartlett Blvd.
22
2680
064
Sandy Weldon
129.38
5872
Glenwood Rd.
22
2740
032
Alan Burkness
244.48
2901
Meadow Ln.
22
2300
122
Sherri Bosma
66.84
5860
74 lewood Rd.
22
2800
301
Mike Simar
2-.2.90
5910
idlewood Rd.
22
2800
511
Scott Bryce
108.28
5955
Idlewood Rd.
22
2860
152
Tim Bell
284.14
5915
Hawthorne Rd.
22
2860
571
Maynard Maltz
Pd.
92.86
6037
Hawthorne Rd.
22
2860
601
Peter Solstad
Pd.
75.26
6040
Hawthorne Rd.
22
2860
661
Joetta Roehl ,'Pd.
X45.)00
96.70
6056
Hawthorne Rd.
22
3010
034
Al Strand
Pd.
157.45
2901
Hazelwood Ln.
22
3100
331
W.Lang
157.14
2630
Westedge Blvd.
22
3102
366
Tim Bell
86.46
3116
Westedge Blvd.
22
3102
545
Greg Oakland
264.35
3148
Westedge Blvd.
22
3220
122
Char Witham
163.84
6080
Rusticwood Rd.
22
3280
034
Dennis Wolf
Pd.
205.58
2710
Garden Ln.
22
3430
182
Dave Liebenow
92.86
1800
Commerce Blvd.
22
3430
995
Vern Gould
Pd. X42.00
133.10
2400
Commerce Blvd.
22
3820
183
Daryl JohnstonPd.
146.37
2352
Driftwood Ln.
22
3850
063
Doug Frost
Pd.
110.41
5022
Bayport Rd.
22
3380
752
Paul Stannard
102.78
5754
Avon Dr.
22
3880
781
Randall Geise
88.66
5061
Avon Dr.
9/25/90
$2698.02
•
September 25, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1990 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,569.80 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY #11832
WHEREAS, pursue t to proper notice duly given as
required by law, the Counci. Sias met and heard and passed upon
all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to -wit:
1990 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FROM JULY 1, 1989 TO JUNE 30, 1990
IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,569.80
NOW* TIEREFORNs, BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE CITY COUNCIL OF
TEE CITY OF MOUNDt
1. Such proposed special assessment as amended, copies of
which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are
hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named herein, and each
tract of land therein included is hereby found to be
benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of
the assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments as follows:
INT.
LEVY # IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS
11832 1990 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE 8% 1
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of
assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against
any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and
he may until November 14, following the assessment
date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of
Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December
following the date of the assessment.
After November 14, following the date of the
assessment, the first year's installment shall be added
to the taxes fpr the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
1 C2 940
September 25, 1990 0
4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to
be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and
such assessments shall be collected and paid over in
the same manner as other municipal taxes.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk 0
dil-I 0
2
0 0
1990 CBO ASSESSMENT Ralf
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(s)
(6)
(7)
(a)
(9)
(10)
(11)
112)
(13)
COST.
EMP.
% OF
% OF
1989
% OF
COST
COST
COST
PARK.
PARK.
SPACES
TOTAL
TOTAL
MARKET
TOTAL
x .7
x .15
x .15
REO'0.
RE0'0
PROP.
(7*2 -3)
OF (4)
FRONT
OF (6)
VALUE
OF (8)
x (S)
x (7)
x (9) (10011+12)
(30)
13- 117 -24 33 0066
FIRST MINNESOTA
a
6.s
6
6.5
1.65
100.00
5.13
239000
6.40
185."
125.67
156.79
464.14
(31)
14- 117 -24 " 0001
SNYM DRUG
19
2
10
11.0
2.10
50.00
2.57
133100
3.57
240.29
62.83
87.32
390."
(32)
14- 117 -24 " 0002
MEISEL'S
16
4
0
20.0
3.62
96.40
S.Os
119000
3.19
436.89
123.66
78.07
634.61
(33)
14- 117 -24 " 000
SHERBURNE BUILDING
40
10
0
SO.0
9.s6
50.00
2.57
313s0o
3.40
1092.22
62.83
205.66
1360.71
(34)
14- 117 -24 " 0004
KOENIG
24
S.5
0
29.S
S.64
51.60
2.65
14150.7
3.79
644.41
".85
92.83
402.08
(35)
14- 117.24 " 0006
SKRBANNNE PARKING
0
0
0
0.0
0.00
$0.00
2.S7
26200
0.70
0.00
229.37
62.83
62.83
17.19
41.33
80.02
333.53
(2)
13- 117 -24 33 0004
COOOEN 4LOG.
10
S.5
S
10.5
2.01
50.00
237
63000
1.69
10.72
1026.68
119.39
262.41
1408.48
(3)
13- 117 -24 33 0005
NOUSE OF MOT
30
22
S
47.0
6.s
a."
1.24
95.00
".00
4.86
2.S7
400000
61200
2.18
141.99
62.83
53.27
254.04
(4)
13- 117 -24 33 0006
CURTIS JOINISON
a
7.5
9
3
1s.0
2.47
125.00
6.42
124600
3.34
327.67
157.09
41.74
566.49
(S)
13- 117 -24 33 0076
CENTURY AUTO
12
6
19
10
25.0
4.75
100.00
5.13
160100
4.29
5".11
125.67
105.03
776.81
(7)
13- 117 -24 33 0011
POST OFFICE
16
6.0
1.1s
23.50
1.21
48000
1.29
131.07
29.53
31.49
192.04
(8)
13- 117 -24 33 0014
KEN PERBIx BUILDING
4
2
0
0
11.0
2.10
85.10
4.37
7SSOO
2.02
240.29
106.95
49.53
3".76
(9)
13- 117 -24 33 0015
LAUER
9
2
3
0
10.s
2.01
62.00
3.18
88400
2.37
229.37
77.92
57A9
366.27
(10)
13-117 -24 33 0016
LOMOPRE
7.5
S
0
Ms
2.39
74.00
3.80
SUN
1.S8
273.0S
93.00
36.57
404.62
(11)
13 -117 -24 33 0017
LONGPRE
7.S
0
0
0.0
0.00
70.00
3.59
15000
0.40
0.00
87.97
9.84
97.41
(42)
14- 117 -24 " 0046
MEISEL'S
0
0
47.S
9.04
".66
3.42
178900
4.79
1037.61 '
83.77
117.36
1234.74
(13)
13- 117 -24 33 0077
COAST TO COAST
37
10.5
Is
0
5s.0
10.52
207.91
10.67
387400
10.38
1201."
261.28
254.14
1716.86
(14)
13- 117 -24 33 0073
TONKA WEST
40
0
42.0
8.03
58.00
2.98
224800
6.02
917.46
72.89
147.47
1137 -W
(36)
14- 117 -24 " 0036
SEN FRANKLIN
36
6
0
1s.0
2.87
32.50
1.67
85400
2.30
327.67
40.84
56.29
424.79
(37)
14- 117 -24 " 0037
MUST IOUE
11
4
0
6
4.0
0.76
112.00
S.75
$1000
1.37
87.36
140.75
33.46
26138
(36)
14- 117 -24 " 0038
WAYZATA BANK
10
0
29.0
5.54
40.00
2.09
153500
4.11
633.49
50.27
100.70
784.45
(39)
14- 117 -24 " 0039
WEST. SPORTS
26
3
0
16.5
LIS
50.00
2.S7
171100
4.59
360.43
62.83
112.24
535.51
(40)
14- 117 -24 " 0041
IMMIG
9
7.S
13.0
2.49
27.00
1.39
96000
2.57
283.98
33.99
62.96
380.0
(41)
14- 117 -24 " 0042
NETKA
17
0
4
0
10.0
1.91
29.30
1.50
65900
1.77
21a."
36.42
43.23
2630
118)
13- 117 -24 33 0047
WEST. DENTAL (110RO)
4
6
4.0
0.76
80.00
4.11
tOSS00
2.0
87.38
10034
69.21
767.12
(19)
13- 117 -24 33 0049
BIG A
is
0
1/
4
13.0
2.49
60.00
3.08
101300
2.71
283.96
75.40
66.45
425.83
(20)
13- 117 -24 33 0030
RE HOLD A. LINOBUIST
13
2
6
11.0
2.10
49.99
237
23500
0."
240.29
62.82
15.42
314.53
(22)
13. 117 -24 33 0082
MOUND 1000E
14
3
"s
IS7
79
523.0
100.00
1947.96
100.00
3731600
100.00
11424.60
2"8
2"a
16`420.00
r
CREDIT FOR LAID CREDIT f TO BE
PROP KIT IOERTIFICATIOR AWAT LEASED TO CITT APPLIED ASSESSED
13. 117 -24 33 0066
"0.14
461.14
14. 117.24 " 0001
390."
390.44
14- 117 -24 " 0002
631.61
- 1170.00
$31.39
0.00
14. 117.24 " 0003
1360.71
- 614.90
- 74S.01
0.00
14. 117.24 " 0004
002.00
002.08
14- 117.26 " 0006
00.02
- 1300.00
1219.96
0.00
13- 117 -24 33 0004
333.53
33333
13. 117.24 33 0005
1406.40
1401.48
13. 117 -24 33 0006
256.09
251.09
13. 117.24 " 0076
S"At
566.49
13. 117 -24 33 0011
776.01
776.01
13- 117 -24 33 0014
192.09
192.09
13. 117.24 33 OOls
396.76
- 720.00
331.24
6.00
13. 117 -24 33 0016
36S.27
361.27
13- 117 -24 33 0017
401.12
- 210.21
196.41
14. 117.24 44 0046
97.01
-10.20
-79.61
0.00
13. 117.24 33 0077
1230.74
- 673.40
S6S.34
13. 117.24 33 0073
1116.16
1716.06 .
14. 117 -24 " 0036
1137:02
1137.12
14. 117.24 " 0037
424.79
424.79
14. 117.24 " 0030
26130
261.50
14- 117.24 " 0039
781.45
701.45
14. 117.24 " 0061
53S.51
$35.51
14- 117 -24 " 0042
300.00
300.89
13. 117 -24 33 0047
291.50
- 293.28
S.22
13. 117 -24 33 0049
257.12
2S7.12
13. 117 -24 33 0050
425.03
45.83
13. 117 -24 33 0082
310.53
310.53
16320.60 - 5007.99 1257.19 12569.00
•
VIF
0
September 25, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER
38E88MENT ROLL Ili THE AMOUNT OF $10,989.20 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY #11833
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as
required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon
all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to -wit:
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MOUND:
1. Such proposed spacial assessment, copies of which are
attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
2.
Such assessments
sha be
payable
in
equal
annual
installments as follows:
INT.
Pin 8
IMPROVEMENT
MOUNT YEARS
RATE
LEVY 8
13- 117 -24
12
0013
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
279.35
1
81
11833
13- 117 -24
12
0077
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
112.63
1
8%
11833
13- 117 -24
12
0103
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
245.95
1
8%
11833
13- 117 -24
12
0214
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
178.40
1
89
11833
13- 117 -24
31
0032
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
104.64
1
81
11833
13- 117 -24
32
0091
Del.
Wat,
&
Sew.
482.16
1
8%
11833
13- 117 -24
32
0094
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
796.43
1
8%
11833
13- 117 -24
32
0095
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.1,219.82
1
8%
11833
1-3- 117 -24
32
0142
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
179.88
1
8%
11833
13- 117 -24
34
0012
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
75.13
1
8%
11833
13- 117 -24
34
0072
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.1,002.24
1
8%
11833
13- 117 -24
43
0022
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
205.83
1
8%
11833
13- 117 -24
43
0049
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.3,898.28
1
8%
11833
14- 117 -24
42
0051
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
197.86
1
8%
11833
23- 117 -24
34
0021
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
185.95
1
89
11833
24- 117 -24
13
0007
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
84.40
1
8%
11833
24- 117 -24
41
0129
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
109.87
1
8%
11833
24- 117 -24
43
0017
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
63.16
1
8%
11833
25-117 -24
11
0064
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
44.05
1
8%
11833
25- 117 -24
11
0147
Del.
Wat.
&
Sew.
63.71
1
8%
11833
1
Of
1�0
September 25, 1990 0
30- 117 -23
22
6016
Del.
Nat.
i
Sew.
252.64
1
8%
11833
18- 117 -23
33
0029
Del.
Nat.
6
Sew.
239.10
1
8%
11833
19- 117 -23
24
0053
Del.
Wat.
i
Sew.
165.16
1
8%
11833
19- 117 -23
31
0006
Del.
Wat.
i
Sew.
97.61
1
8%
11833
19- 117 -23
32
0028
Del.
Nat.
4
Sew.
143.41
1
8%
11833
19- 117 -23
33
0204
Del.
Wat.
i
Sew.
231.32
1
8%
11833
19- 117 -23
34
0031
Del.
Wat.
i
Sew.
330.22
1
88
11833
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of
assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against
any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and
he may until November 14, following the assessment
date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of
Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December
following the date of the assessment.
After November 14, following the date of the
assessment, the first year's installment shall be added
to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to
be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and
such assessments shall be collected and paid over in
the same manner as other municipal taxes.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
OR 8a 2
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING TEE IMPROVEMEIIT O?
OF DENBIGH ROAD THAT RUNS EAST FROM
ASSESSMENT ROLL TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT
LEVY #11934
September 25, 1990
A PRIVATE PORTION
CARDIFF ROAD
0% INTEREST
WHEREA8, pursuant to proper notice duly given as
required by law, the Council has not and heard and passed upon
all objections to the proposed assessment for the following im-
provements, to -wit:
STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON A PRIVATE PORTION OF DENBIGH ROAD
THAT RUNS EAST FROM CARDIFF LKNE BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF CURB
AND GUTTER, CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRONS, AND STORM SEWER -
$44,848.51
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MOUND:
1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are
attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby ac-
cepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual in-
stallments extending over a period of ten (10) years,
the first oil the installments to be payable on or
before the first Monday in January, 1990, and shall
bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from
the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution.
To the first installment shall be added interest on the
entire assessment from the date of this resolution un-
til December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment
when due shall be added interest for one year on all
unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of
assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against
any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and
he may until November 14, following the assessment
date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of
Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December
following the date of the assessment.
a9a'1:
September 25, 1990 •
After November 14, following the date of the assess-
ment, the first year's installment shall be added to
the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified dupli-
cate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be ex-
tended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the
same manner as other municipal taxes.
The forgoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
U
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
•
a?U 3
0
PID NO.
LEGAL
NAME, ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
19- 117 -23 24 0023
LOT 88, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
HALDEN W LARSON
4400 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0024
LOT 89, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
JACK R & DEBORAH L WANG
4408 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0025
LOT 90, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
W WITHERS 4 L SANTA
4416 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0026
LOT 91, PHELPS ISLAND
JAMES JARE'MKO
PARK FIRST DIVISION
4424 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINK 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0027
LOT 92, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
ELMA K KLUTH
1 432 DENBIGH ROAD
' OUND MINI 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0028
LOT 93, PHEL-- ISLAND
PARK FIRST D: YSION
OSWDd C PFLUG
4440 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINI�364
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
1989 STREET IMPROVEMENTS — DENBIGH ROAD
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
MFRA !7064
AREA
UNITS COST S.F. COST
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00
FOOTAGE TOTAL
L.F. COST ASSESSMENT
40 S 1,016.00 S 5,009.08
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 50 E 1,270.00 S 5,263.08
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 S 5,263.08
1 $ 2 10 $ 1,780.00 50 S 1,270.00 S 5,263.08
1 $ 2 10 $ 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 S 5,263.08
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 50 S 1,270.00 S 5,263.08
•
•
PID NO.
LEGAL
AREA
NAME. ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
UNITS COST
S.F.
COST
19- 117 -23 24 0029
LOT 94 PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
PETER C ZUBERT
PO BOX 35077
MPLS MINI 55435
19- 117 -23 24 0030
LOT 95, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
1/2 S 1,106.54
3, - 217
S 572.63
PETER C ZUBERT
PO BOX 35077
MPLS MINI 55435
19- 117 -23 24 0031
LOT 96, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
1/2 $ 1,106.54
3,011
$ 535.96
PETER C ZUBERT
PO BOX 35077
MPLS MINN 55435
19- 117 -23 24 0033
LOT 99 AND E 1/2 LOT 98,
PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST
1/2 $ 1,106.54
3,770
S 671.06
JOHN F MORGAN
DIVISION
4400 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MINI 55364
SUBTOTAL 7 -1/2 $ 16,598.10 69,998 $ 12,459.65 490 $ 12,446.00 $ 41,503.75
19- 117 -23 24 0032 LOT 97 AND M 1/2 LOT 98,
PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST E 3,344.76
FREDA J OLSON DIVISION
4414 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MINI 55364
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED S 44,848.51
i
FOOTAGE TOTAL
L.F. COST ASSESSMENT
50 E 1,270.00 S 1,270.00
50 S 1,270.00 $ 2,949.17
50 $ 1,270.00 S 2,912.50
50 S 1,270.00 $ 3,047.60
N
Nuo
N
McCombs Frank Roos Assodates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
August 28. 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound. Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT: City of Mound. Minnesota
Denbigh Road
1990 Street Improvements
Preliminary Assessment Roll
MFRA COO
r�
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
TWillo to EnOnms
612/476.6010 Planiti s
612/476 -6532 FAX Surveyors
As requested, we submit herewith the Preliminary Assessment Roll for the
1989 Street Improvements on Denbigh Road.
The amount to be assessed has been calculated as follows:
•
Construction Cost
Easement
Engineering, Staking, Inspection.
Easement Preparation and Preparation
of Assessment Roll
Legal. including Easement Preparation
and Title Search Cost
Administration Cost
SUBTOTAL
Minus City Share of Costs (10%)
TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED
S 29.398.00
4,919.00
11.358.00
S 3,840.00
308.00
S 49,823. 00
4,983.00
0.00
?. P2�
An Equal 0oporturnty Emoloyer
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council •
August 28, 1990
Page Two
In 1976, the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under
Resolution No. 76 -77. The assessment criteria is as follows:
a. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed based on front footage.
Corner lots shall be calculated to include all front footage (front
and sides). All lots shall be deemed to have at least a minimum of 40
front feet.
b. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the
square footage of the property to be assessed.
C. 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on a unit
basis.
Since 1976 the City Council has added the following refinements to this
policy:
1. Triangle Lots - lots that form a triangle on two streets are to be
assessed for footage on the long side only.
2. Multiple units other than duplexes are assessed on the basis of 3/4
unit per each residential unit in the building (i.e., a 50 unit
apartment is assessed for 37.5 units plus footage plus area).
3. Lots that front on a County Road and a street improvement will be
assessed on the same basis as other lots except that the units and
square footage will be reduced by 50 percent.
4. Area of land formerly commons and now under private ownership is to be
assessed as part of the private property.
5. Large parcels (a number of combined lots) to be assessed one unit,
plus area and footage. Two separate parcels under the same ownership
will he assessed two units, plus area and footage if they both have
enough area to qualify as ' sites under the present zoning.
6. Single lots under separate ownership from adjacent pry arty that do
not meet the area requirements for a buildable site .1 be assessed
only area and footage.
7. Properties abutting alleys that are bituminous surface only, with no
curb and gutter, to be assessed the same as any other property except
the front footage will be reduced by 50% with a minimum of 40 lineal
feet.
2,97,1
Honorable Mayor and Member
of the City Council
August 28, 1990
Page Three
8. Properties which have the garage located across the street from the
house will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except the
parcel in which the garage is located will not receive a unit charge.
9. Lots that front on a street to be improved and which previously paid a
full assessment on another street improvement project will be assessed
for the foo::age only with no minimum.
10. Parcels which do not abut a street improvement project but received
benefits from the construction will be assessed for the project.
11. Lots that are adjacent to a 12' wide bituminous street installed for
City purposes which front on another street in the project will not be
assessed for footage on the side street.
12. Triangular lots that are combined with a rectangular lot are to be
assessed for footage on the long side of the triangular lot plus the
footage of the remaining lot or lots.
13. Duplexes are to be assessed on the basis of two units plus area and
footage, with a minimum on the footage of 80 feet.
14. Lots that have streets on three sides are to be assessed for footage
on the long side and the average length of the other two sides.
15. The cost of the driveway entrances over 12 feet wide are assessed
directly to the property owner.
16. Commercial or industrial property get 1 -112 units.
17. Credit is given for past storm sewer assessments except that when
credits exceed the assessment, no assessment will be levied and no
assessment paid.
18. There is a maximum of 250 feet and 25,000 square feet per residential
parcel.
19. Storm sewers are assessed as part of the street improvements and these
assessments are included in the unit, square footage and frontage
charges.
•
- Z g z
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Councii
August 28, 1990
Page Fot r
As part of the agreement signed with Freda Olson when the permanent
easement was obtained, a set amount for her assessment was established at
$3,344.76. A copy of said agreement is enclosed. Therefore, this amount was
deducted from the aforementioned amount to be assessed to arrive at a total to
be inserted in the City's assessment formula. The preliminary assessment roll
was then prepared as follows, using the assessment policy:
The cost per unit is:
($41,495.24 x 0.40) 1 7 -1/2 units - $2,213.08 /unit
The cost of the footage assessment is:
($41,495.24 x 0.30) 1 490 feet - $25.40 /front foot
The cost of the area assessment is:
($41,495.34 x 0.30) : 69.998 S.F. = $0.178 /square foot
If you have any questions or need more information on anything in the •
assessment roll, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
q *l — eA
John Cameron
JC:jmf
Enclosures
r1
�J
ogzq
•
PID NO.
LEGAL
NAME, ADDRESS
DESCRIPTION
19- 117 -23 24 0023
LOT 89, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
HALDEN W LARSON
4400 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0024
LOT 89, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
JACK R & DEBORAH L
WANG
4408 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
19 -117 -23 24 0025
LOT 90, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
W WITHERS & L SANNA
4416 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0026
LOT 91, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
JAMES JAREMK.O
4424 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0027
LOT 92, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
ELMA K KLUTH
4432 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINI 55364
19- 117 -23 24 0028
LOT 93, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
OSWIN C PFLUG
4440 DENBIGH ROAD
MOUND MINN 55364
i
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
1989 STREET IMPROVEMENTS - DENBIGH ROAD
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
MFRA #7064
AREA
UNITS COST S.F. COST
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00
FOOTAGE
L.F. COST
•
TOTAL
40 $ 1,016.00 $ 5,009.08
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 5,263.08
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 5,263.08
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 5,263.08
1 S 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 50 S 1,270.00 S 5,263.08
1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 5,263.08
PID NO. LEGAL
NAME, ADDRESS DESCRIPTION
19- 117 -23 24 0029 LOT 94, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
PETER C ZUBERT
PO BOX 35077
MPLS MINN 55435
19 -117 -23 24 0030 LOT 95, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION
PETER C ZUBERT
PO BOX 35077
MPLS MINN 55435
AREA
UNITS COST S.F. COST
FOOTAGE TOTAL
L.F. COST ASSESSMENT
50 1,270.00 $ 1,270.00
1/2 $ 1,106.54 3,217 $ 572.63 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 2,949.17
19- 117 -23 24 0031 LOT 96, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK FIRST DIVISION 1/2 $ 1,106.54 3,011 E 535.96 50 $ 1,270.00 E 2,912.50
PETER C ZUBERT
PO B3X 35077
MPLS MINN 55435
19- 117 -23 24 0033 LOT 99 AND E 1/2 LOT 98,
PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST 1/2 $ 1,106.54
JOHN F MORGAN DIVISION
4400 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MINN 55364
SUBTOTAL 7 -1/2 $ 16,598.10 69,998 E 12,459.65 490 $ 12,446.00 $ 41,503.75
19- 117 -23 24 0032 LOT 97 AND W 1/2 LOT 98,
PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST $ 3,344.76
FREDA J OLSON DIVISION
4414 WILSHIRE BLVD
MOUND MINN 55364
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED
3,770 E 671.06 50 $ 1,270.00 E 3,047.60
$ 44,848.51
0 0 0
0
STIPUL!►TED AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this Ls� day of September, 1989, between
Preda J. Olson, a single person, hereinafter referred to as "Olson ", and the
City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to
as Mound ".
It is stipulated and agreed that Olson and Mound have negotiated a
settlement for the acquisition of certain easement rights over Olson's
property and for the levying of assessments to cover the construction of
Denbigh Road. Olson has agreed to convey a permanent and a temporary
easement to Mound, a copy of which is hereby attached and made Exhibit A, on
the basis of the following terms approved by the City Council of Mound at its
meeting on August 22, 1989.
1. Mound shall pay Olson $4,129.01 for the permanent and
temporary easements that she is granting to Mound.'
2. Olson understands and agrees that Mound will levy special
assessments against her property in the amount of
$3,344.76. Olson hereby agrees to waive any objection or
right to appeal said assessment and acknowledges that the
• compensation paid by Mound and the agreed amount of the
assessments are a negotiated resolution of the rights of
the parties.
3. Mound agrees to replace a maple tree which will be removed
with the construction of Denbigh Road with a new maple tree
at least 6 inches in diameter and approximately 25 feet in
height.
4. Mound agrees to provide Olson and her attorney with a list
of any names of other residents who currently have private
rights over Olson's property for ingress and egress
purposes. Mound has gone further and has prepared a
document which is intended to resolve and waive private
rights against all the private parties, and said document
will be presented to Olson for her signature. If other
property owners abutting Denbigh Road all agree to execute
said document, Mound will place the document of record,
and this should waive most of the private rights. Mound.
does not guarantee that this document will clear the
title, and if Olson wishes to pursue this further, she and
her attorney, Clarkson Lindley, will have the names of all
of the parties.
•
aP3Z
Based upon the foregoing provisions, the parties hereby agree to
resolve their differences and Olson agrees to convey the easements to
Mound. Mound wishes to advise that they recommended a seven foot tempor ry
easement to slope the property, but Olson insisted that a four foot easement
was all she was willing to grant, since she felt this would save certain
vegetation on her property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the
day and year first above written.
Freda J. 01 'Won
Clarkson Lindley', Her Attorney
CITY OF MOUND
By
Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney
•
243 3
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID MOWING
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $335.00 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY #11837
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as
required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon
all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to -wit:
UNPAID MOWING CHARGES
•
NOW THEREFOREp BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THB CITY OF MOUND:
1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are
attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments as follows:
INT.
AMOUNT YEARS Wes$ JiEVY #
24- 117 -24 13 0009 UNPAID MOWING
CHARGES
$335.00 1 8% 11837
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of
assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against
any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and
he may until November 14, following the assessment
date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of
Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December
following the date of the assessment.
After November 14, following the date of the
assessment, the first year's installment shall be added
to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
•
1 Z 83'/
September 25, 1990 0
4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to
be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and
such assessments shall be collected and paid over in
the same manner as other municipal taxes.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk 0
2835
2
L J
September 25, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID CLEAN -UP
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $350.00 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY $11838
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as
required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon
all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to -wit:
UNPAID CLEAN -UP CHARGES
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY' THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MOUND:
1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are
attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby
accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land
t'.erein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments as follows:
PID #
25- 117 -24 11 0098
UNPAID CLEAN -UP
CHARGES
$350.00 1 8% 11838
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any tine
on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of
assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against
any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and
he may until November 14, following the assessment
date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of
Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December
following the date of the assessment.
•
After November 14, following the date of the
assessment, the first year's installment shall be added
to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
INT.
AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY #
1 293
September 25, 1990 .
4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to
be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and
such assessments shall be collected and paid over in
the same manner as other municipal taxes.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk 0
•
2 o 2
September 25, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $900.00 TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY #11839
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as
required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon
all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to -wit:
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES
U
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MOUND:
1.
Such proposed special assessment,
copies of which are
attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hereby
accepted and shall constitute the
special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land
therein included is hereby found to
be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment
levied against it.
2.
Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual
installments as follows:
INT.
PID #
IXPROV3MXNT AMOUNT
YEARS It x LEVY #
19- 117 -23
23 0120 TREE REMOVAL
CHARGES $450.00
5 8% 11839
24- 117 -24
41 0098 TREE REMOVAL
CHARGES $450.00
5 8% 11839
The first of the installments to be payable on or
before the first Monday in January, 1991 and shall bear
interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the
date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To
the first installment shall be added interest on the
entire assessment from the date of this resolution
until December 31, 1990. To each subsequent
installment when due shall be added interest for one
year on all unpaid installments.
0
1 Z 83�
September 25, 1990
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of
assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against
any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and
he may until November 14, following the assessment
date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of
Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December
following the date c_° the assessment.
After November 14, following the date of the
assessment, the first year's installment shall be added
to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to
be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and
such assessments shall be collected and paid over in
the same manner as other municipal taxes.
•
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember .
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Z 935
•
2
•
September 25, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED i SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF
ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR
LEVY #11835 - $2 1 000.00
0
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has
the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy
deferred assessments; and
WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially
levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for
supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the
property owner and delivered to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby:
1. Pursuant to its authority under Chapter 429, Minnesota
Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that
each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have
benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite
each of the said parcels ky virtue of the project as
indicated and that they be, 4nd hereby are, assessed in
the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and
each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be
payable in equal annual installments over such period
of years as shown:
INT.
ID # IMPROVEMENT MOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY #
24- 117 -24 21 0046 Supp. Sewer
Connection $2,000.00 10 8% 11835
The first of the installments to be payable on or
before the first Monday in January, 1991, and shall
bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from
the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution.
To tha first installment shall be added interest on the
entire assessment from the date of this resolution
until December 31, 1990. To each subsequent
installment when due shall be added interest for one
year on all unpaid installments.
•
1 Z 9(10
September 25, 1990 0
2. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of
assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against
any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and
he may until November 14, following the assessment
date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City
of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December
following the date of the assessment.
After November 14, following the date of the
assessment, the first year's installment shall be added
to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to
be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and
such assessments shall be collected and paid over in
the same manner as other municipal taxes.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember •
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
2-4 1 -11 2
•
September 25, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED i SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF
ABSTRACT; i DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR
LEVY #11836 - $2,600.00
•
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has
the power to levy supplemental assessrents and the power to levy
deferred assessments; and
WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially
levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality foi
supplemental and deferred assessments hav: been executed by the
property owner and delivered to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the Ciry of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby:
1. Pursuant to its authority under Chapter 429, Mir::asota
Statutes, the :ity Council does hereby determine that
each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have
benefited in an amount equal to the amount set orposite
each of '-:.e said parcels by virtue of the project as
indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in
the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and
each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be
payable in equal annual installments over such period
of years as shown:
INT.
ID # IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY #
23- 117 -24 43 0008 Supp. Water
Connection $2,600.00 5 8.$ 11836
The first of the installments to be payable on or
before the first Monday in January, 1991, and shall
bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from
the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution.
To the first installment shall be added interest on the
entire assessment from the date of this resolution un-
til December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment
when due shall be added interest for one
year on all unpaid installments.
•
1 2,9412
September 25, 1990
2. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time
on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of
asst •ments, pay the whole of the assessment against
any rdreel, to the City of Mound without interest; and
he may until November 14, following the assessment
date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City
of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December
following the date of the assessment.
After November 14, following the date of the assess-
ment, the first year's installment shall be added to
the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as
taxes with interest accruing from the date of the
assessment through December 31 of the following year.
3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified dupli-
cate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be ex-
tended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the
same manner as other municipal taxes.
.7
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember •
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
•
Z8g3
•
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 90 -932
RESOLUTION #90-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LIDE YARD SETBACK
FOR LOTS 19 3 20, BLOCK 17, AVALON, PID #19- 117 -23 -31 0106,
(4435 DORCHESTER ROAD), P&Z CASE NO. 90-
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recog-
nize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet to al-
low construction of a conforming addition for Lots 19 & 20, Block
17, Avalon, PID #19- 117 -23 -31 0106, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R -I
Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code
requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 15 foot rear yard
setback, a 10 and an 8 foot side yard setback for "lots of
record ", and a 30 foot front yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al-
terations may be made to a building containing a lawful, noncon-
forming residential property when the alterations will improve
the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the
number of units, and
•
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and does recommend approval to afford the owner reasonable use of
his land.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming 5
foot side yard setback to the northeast property line for
the property located at Lots 19 & 20, Block 17, Avalon, PID
##19- 117 -23 -31 0106.
2. The City Council authorizes the violations and authorizes
the alterations set Forth below, pursuant to Section 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.
Zbvy
PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 90 -932 •
Page Two
3. It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the - ol-
lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owner reasonable use of his land:
a. To construct a conforming two story addition to the
rear of the house.
4. This variance is granted for the following legally described
property: Lots 19 & 20, Block 17, Avalon, PID ##19- 117 -23 -31
0106.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min -
nesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). 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. The building permit shall not be issued
until proof of recording has heen filed with the City Clerk.
? g X1.5
• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
b. Case No. 90 -932: Craig Henderson, 4435 Dorchester Road
Lots 19 6 20, Block 17, Avalon. PID #19- 117 -23 -31 0106.
VARIANCE: Side Yard Setback - to Allow a Conforming Addi-
tion.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to
recognize the existing nonconfc,rming side yard setback of 5 feet
to allow a conforming addition. Staff recommended approval of
the 1 foot side yard setback variance.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Smith to approve
staff recommendation. Motion carried unanlmously.
• This case will be heard by the City Council on September 25,
1990.
•
2Wo
STA FF_ RECOMMENDATION
DATE: Planning Commis =ion Agenda of September 10, 1990
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official Y11
CASE NO.: 90 -932
APPLICANT: Craig Henderson
LOCATION: 4435 Dorchester Road
LEGAL Lots 19 8 20, Block 17, Avalon
DESCRIPTION: PID #19- 117 -23 -31 0106
SUBJECT: Side Yard Setback Variance to Allow a Conforming
Addition
ZONING: R -1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND
The applicant's property was given a 5 foot side yard setback
variance in 1981 (see attached Resolution #81 -266), thus creating
a nor- conforming lot. The non - conforming lot necessitates a
variance for any further construction on said lot.
The applicant's proposed addition does meet all required setbacks
and would allow the applicant reasonable use of their property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends recoonition of the variance above and approval
of the variance request for an addition to the existing dwelling
on a non - conforming lot.
NOTE
This case will be heard by the City Council on September 25,
1990. 0
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
28NI
291
August 11, 1981
Councilmember Swenson moved the following resolution.
0 RESOLUTION N0. 81 -266
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD
VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE - LOTS 19 b 20, BLOCK 17, AVALON
WHEREAS, the owner of property described as Lots 19 and 20, Block 17,
Avalon, PID #19- 117 -23 31 0106, is requesting a 5 foot side
yard variance for a garage, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of said
variance, and
WHEREAS, placing the garage on proposed west side of house would
alleviate water problems,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE rITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That the Council does hereby concur with the recommendation of
the Planning Commission and approves a 5 foot side ; rd variance
for the attached garage.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution wad duly seconded by
Councilment Polston and upor vote being taken thereon; the following voted
in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; the
following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was
declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature
attested by the City Manager.
s /Leighton Lindlan
Mayor
— z � /Z,- -
A e . City Manager
.&. _.
we z z Aso
CITY OF MOUND
CI TY OF MOUND PART I I Case No.
Date F i 1 ed__ _
Fee_ $50.00
VA RIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING a ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the following info mat ion.)
Address of Subject Property 1 0
Lott S 1 t- a V _ Block
1
Addition ( ,Vl _, PID No. ��C-11
Owner's Name ku If 4pL1 Day Phone L f 7�-
Owner's Address 1 4 t � 5 �I )ny — 4e—
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
Day Phone
Existing Use of Property: ! lesd e" J _
Zoning District
Has an application ever been made for zoning, varian onditional 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)
R Oc l
(Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)
1 certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any requlr , 3d papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. 1 consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound fc the purpose
of inspecting, or of posting, ma ntaining and removing such notices as may
be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date 2A 1 �o
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Commission Recommendation
Date
Council Action:
Re soIut ion No. - -- — - -- -- - - -- — U� ,e
2&q
16 VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No. =1naf
1. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district ' which it is located? Yes ( ). No K). If no,
specify each non- conforming
VQr«ih c .e L atra Q
2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district in which it Is located?
Yes ( ), No oo If no, specify ach non- conforming use:
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
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) sub- surface
( ) too shallow ( ) shape (� other: specify
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 OO . if yes, explain_ ___
5. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the
re I ocat i on of a road? Yes ( ) , No K) . I f yes, exp I a i
0
7,950
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No. �9 _�_ = 0
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 ?_
7. 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.
r
8. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental
the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
PART III
to property in
0
J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans,
attachments, etc., must be submitted i 8- 1 /2 "xil^ size. If larger
drawings are submitted, one must be 8- 1%2 ^xll ^, 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: Mot(s),
building(s), drIveway(s) /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. Ir "north" compass direction.
6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. .
2951
r "+
r, •
•
•
:0
I f
�J
• b
\ I hereby cerEify•that. his is a
/ t trine aad correot roprssaltatwo
of a surrey or the bouadaries•of
Lots 19 aad ?A, Mock 17 AYalon, and the location of all ezisting-buiLd-
1 thttroor - It does not- 1purport to show other improvemtsr•or sacroech-
l.
Gordon 8. 4WffU Beg,
soalet l" d 30► Alvin R. Rebder� Beg •>8.1329s
ad* -f 6.1379 Land Surveyors and Plana,rs
0 1 Ina aatimr Long Lake, Minassota
Grtifioatt of Sump.
f Lots 19 w T. 17, boa
N�pip Comta►, 1L +.nnssgta
Z96Z
' 1h I -2L -24 77 25 24� 2'. 19 20 21 2223 to 25 26 27 28 t9 3C 31 u 33 34 " J
A,
f�• N - _ RICHMOND RD
2 `
coo ! 13 f 12 It 10 9 6 7 6 5 2 { " llp
uj
s1 2 0 21 22 23 25 26.27 28 29, 30 14 17 i 9 20 21 Z 2 �6 2� 7 Ip
3z9 �,xx+os DORCHESTER ; R U- " ' (WT
• aS co 1 sA"s Q r N ( 1 (139
3
?✓� 1 I S 14 13 12 11 to 9' D 7r+� S ')1 d 1 Z1 M fJ` 6,7 !S
�/ / �2 o �' 4.
A
t K911 �1. (- - Ss i- - �, �.... .� . /o; rr s6
. > ,c T 4. rat. Z r tf
i n re t� 1e 190:21 22 23 24 25 26 12 2 29' 30 13 14 ;s l 1� , to 1 20 21 2a 3 . �; 2 ,
o a• c, {jD`' (.�) / 4. Sol {�1 fy' �a X511 54� 13� • ' \. 3E aaI j
MANCHESTER RD! ..... »;.� : ;' fr�r ` 39 /
.. �s
dt' I 15" 14 13 1 ft 10 9 �e I t s 1 ` - 9 ~ ; I 10' , 22 J \y • �� \` /
31"32 IC$ 1fl�\IIf"20,121 !22123124 25 2728 ?, 0, 11 �2 Ih10 tt ��7S e S- , t - 1 �• - 42 \`
CUM@ERLAN , - a �•` , ~' `' ��°� ,��.: �� c�z '\ - - 1
1 1M��9 ,,• _ a 5 •t4��
11` •� j
sO al 42 33 F4 45 46 fT 4p 4 10 b 4 90 4 ��•
I 9 50 '51 52 3 50 5 p111 � f • ° °, � . .
' 1 t0 1) i d 1 ,4 I til I 1�� �' J4r• •�' °` ' Nol
l�yl° • - `o ,�� `._ >• 4 <- - �SL i � l � \ 8 ',,• •�.. 13.�' 17 / 1 45(7 `
19 18 17 16 15 14 15 12 U N 9 8 `I IT ,�' 19 / p
. - J ( 6 i o %fAI �, 2t cc 4 o
a
.z2 2 17p 7 a ®✓ 2( 1 � 1 1 8435 DO�d"iStE�
e u ti�� :S`" ; 1651' �:,- �_�;� - ..• ' : ±l X110 u1'; 1 e ` 1,1 14 - --moo. 1 13 I
T 16� 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 6 5 4 1 '70 2 • ,: -♦ IIf'6) 1 x1' s� -1 0 I R J 4
�g' ,
4 W
�h 15 a1) 3. T
24 r /� .s ` { 2 ) - J' }w 2± l�� 3 ao) Ci_�ie��� Ilo l� ° �.� ° 51 (19 ?4 3Q 23 2� `^ t 1 (
1 22 :" v 23 2/6 2' �1., j ..� ti �16 i 1 . n A ;v 20 Z1 ..+K: S2 -�
17� rl ► r''' �!6 rz2 s'24
L 1 1 �' a• }
21 19 !
n,. i / ` 6(" '1 i9 :.� -► 1 n -; 8~ =3 �1� 54
2 cn i
7 ) �17(to * „ IN �o�P3C 2��_ _55 I 1 i FLJ
.tt 8 fiJ /6 19 1 l
.�
Ira., �' y. 2 O.1 . 1c�O• 1N)4 �.. 56 \,�nl
4 7 , 14 i g (llf) �`tIy IS `3� / •� 4 1' ` 1 . - _1r 1
10 a / /� .,. ~ 4 341 � {2) ,I A 1111►� ° 57 -Q. 1 i
OR L Ca)s f 5
n 12 ' 3
12 ��J IOv� e 6 >t♦ ti 1 ' 4(!M) , - 1 , 1 tl f1, •, gg ' I
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
d. Case No. 90 -934: Denis & Shelley r , ) rlon, Lots 1, 2, a part
of 3. Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B, ?ID #24- 117 -24 -12 0023.
VARIANCE: Side Yard Setback.
City Planner, Mark Koegier, reviewed the applicant's request to
construct a 26' x 28' detached garage on their property 8.5 feet
from the front property line facing Avon Drive. The Building Of-
ficial recommended to deny the variance request of 21.5 feet
based on the criteria for variances that the variance requested
be the minimum that would alleviate the hardship. Although there
appears to be a hardship, and the grating of a variance may be
warranted, it may be in the form of an attached garage.
Some Commissioners agreed that the garage size was too large to
warrant a minimum variance situation. The building envelope was
discussed. Mueller commented that the lot is an odd shaped cor-
ner lot which provides a hardship.
The applicants commented that they prefer a detached garage ver-
sus an attached, They prefer to have the garage placed 8 feet
from the house Instead of the required minimum of 5 feet to have
more room between the two structures. The reason they propose to
set the garage back, more towards Avon, is because of the place-
ment of the kitchen window.
MOTION made by voss, seconded by Michael to approve
staff recommendation for denial of the variance as
requested due to lack of hardship and it is not a mini-
mum variance situation. Motion carried 5 - 4 (Those in
favor were: Voss, Michael, Clapsaddle, Thal, and
Jensen; those opposed were: Meyer, Smith, Mueo.er, and
Weiland).
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 25,
1990.
Z?6Y
(,I I cat NIM NI )
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of September 10, 1990
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official
CASE NO.: 90 -934
APPLICANT: Denis & Shelley Dorton
LOCATION: 5033 Bartlett Blvd.
LEGAL Lots I, 2. a part of 3, Block 5, Shirley Hills
DESCRIPTION: Unit B, PID #24- 117 -24 -12 0023
SUBJECT: Side Yard Setback Variance
ZONING: R -1 Sin Family Residential
BACKGROUND
This is an odd shaped corner lot, Bartlett is the front yard,
Avon is the side yard. The required setback on both streets is
30 feet The southwest propert; l i n e is the s i d e yard w i t h the
required setback being 10 feet.
The location as pro; lc,.,_ L ' by the app l i cants for the new detached
garage results in a s, - yard variance request of 21.5 feet.
It is the request of the applicants to build a detached garage in
order to line up with the existing driveway and be able to retain
the existing side window in the house. This window provides a
desirable view, and light and ventilation for the home. In addi-
tion, the applicant stated a detached garage would allow easy
access to tha rear yard.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is to deny the variance request of 21.5 feat
to the side property line based on the criteria for variances
that the variance requested be the minimum that would alleviate
the hardship.
z, q,5!5
Staff Recommendati
on
Case No. 90 -934
Page 2
Although there appears to be a hardship and the granting of a
variance may be warranted, it may be in the form of an attached
garage slightly setback from the front line to provide for some
architectural relief, and therefore, providing a minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
L�
This case will be heard by the City Council: on September 25,
1990.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
r�
L�
Z 85Gv
El
CITY OF MOUND
PART 11
Cass
Date F i l e d — 643_9n
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING s ZONI COMMISSION
(Please type or print the following information.)
Address of Subject Property Q�Qr
Lot � i _ o� r c� a r _� � ` —_ _ B l o c k :S
Sl�T
Add t t i on , 1 <
�� a� C�a r a � _ P I D No . Z4 - II I - Z 0 0 'Z 3
Owner's Name n% ss _S�i c��c� �nrio, Day Phone `171 -S3s6 0- (4'7y-6
Owner's Address
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)__
Address _ Day Phone_______
Existing Use of Property: S, d enc e
Zoning D i str i ct _
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, con itIonaI use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ye s /,(no) . I f yes,
Iist date (s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution numbers)
(Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)
I certify that al; of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. 1 consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by law.
Applicant's Si gnature Q-4 Date Q 3 J_E%
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
P l a n n i n g Commission '?ecommendat i on__
Date
Council Action:-
Resolution No. _._ -__— Date
�80
0 VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
1. Does the present use of the property Conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which it is located? Yes Wf. No ( ). If no.
specify each non - conforming use:____-____
2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback s� regulations for the zoning district in which it Is located?
Yes (✓). No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use:_
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
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) sub - surface
( ) too shallow ( V4 shape ( ) other: specify
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
5. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the
relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No (✓)' If yes,
•
ZP6?
VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. q 0 -9 3 •
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?
�.7. 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 map site plans with dimensions and writ-
ten explanation. �1J, (�Qe(� 0� VAC Arc .
C) m e ,,, 6 a �- \o__ A A c C (,k_ r ko \ 5 1 a 3- k v __
-- h L _� L
8. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in
fhp camp 7nnp_ nr fn fho onFnrr^amont nF fhic ^ - Ainnr, ro9
No
PART 111
•
SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans,
attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8- 1 /2 "xll" size. If larger
drawings are submitted, one must be 8- 1 /2 "xll ", 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: Mot(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. Iocation of: signs, easements, underground utilities. etc.
5. Indicate "north" compass direction.
6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the
city sta.f and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 0
7,05
CERTI FICATE OF SURVEY.
Pr d r • DORIAM RE
OLA spore or � _
Parcel is Lot 30 except that part thereof described as followsc Commencing
at the most Westerly corner of Lot 30; thence Northeasterly along the
Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 fi thence Southeasterly parallel with
the Southwesterly line of said Lot�30 to the Easterly line of said
Lot
30, thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said lot to the
most Southerly corner of Lot 30; thence Northwesterly along the
Southwesterly line of said Lot 30 to point of beginning, Block 5,
SHIRLEY HILLS, UN(T B, according to the recorded plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for said
County.
I
Parcel 2; Lots 1 and 2, and Lot 3, except the Southwesterly 10 feet
thereof, Block S. SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT B, according to the recorded plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles
in and for said County.
Torrens Certificate No. 620959
AREA a 16,663 /
- 1
SQ. V1.
I
0
rant enaeuhomf
,
/0 tncYOlCh' ;
y}� R4f11 �
GENERAL NOTES
` W
IZ
O
Q
i
'� g000
:s•
- E RTI F ICAT E OF SU RVEY_.
Prepared for: OCR IA N REST FEN
Parcel it Lot 30 except that part thereof described as follower Commencing h+
at the most Westerly corner of Lot 30, thence Northeasterly along the
Northwesterly line of said Lot Hlft; thence Southeasterly parallel with
the Southwesterly line of said Lot 30 to the Easterly line of said
Lot 30, thence southerly along the Easterly line of said lot to the
*wet Southerly corner of Lot 301 thence Northwestorly along the i
Southwesterly line of said Lot 30 to point of beginning, Block S,
SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT S, according to the recorded plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles,
County. in and for said
Parcel 21 Lots 1 and 2, and Lot 3, except the Southwesterly 10 feet
thereof, Block 0, EHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT B, according to the recorded plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles
In and for said County.
Torrens Certificate No. 620909
AtEA • ts,ss! s�• /Y. ,OVA
1
•� 2y�
� Q
lo t
r�
I I Q
3
z
Q
r .�
�9 tncree0 );
�t 4 •
Fil•tl Wl t•n,tr �,� � ,
GENERAL NOTES
4
ornnncol Ins
O rl8MA#o4k irn.• Tnn,imen/
T h. s s 4
P7 �urc- o�
W , % n 60 W W er .
w e_ LtoU-k&
Oo C— 1 o
Da drea����nc�
louk;•.� b�� �h�S
w ...c��w.
AMC W, ow - \f C�
- T h M a y b A
f'Qaso n - �o
�aC c
c.ow
U
o y60 ,
rI
� _fee
9z.
zg100Y
91 1;01 Q o 1 °w t pt►\
it 91
ij
)IbVd TV,
Y '
° r o w w 9� r -y'N 't -
� o
0 7 � � � ` dl *• SZ LI •tip t• ;� _ .
OZ
o � qr '• ti Z ZI` \ �
.r 9z �b -1
one' - 42�y� 3Q 1S SP i °� 04 az t�s >; ,\ n
't1a►i�� 3415 ail j�4n{{ ' �) y
/ (b )
VJ
C9 ,N `, o .� r, g•, 1,
/ . t� ^ rt•. 'i \ O a T ' w '9 L • 'i tt t5 �Liti4
�
/ ZQ�
`Y \ — — `
ALI
ow F `mi 7 0 ,
I ?- tt ��ZI t1 ' I • �—
Fez
'L o f �` ,
e �
4.'
;a
ism
• to ro. w
a r j M Y
AO
Wi
lat ' . 1011.
1
rr .
/p
0 —..�
l az
- pl, f1f
•
2
t vl
.� 1 `� r.• I �l
y rt1 • �
4. f
S LOT
co
'
JS /
I
r 3 ' 3) f
:Apo ; . • 0 it I61 of �� Ia. 1.2 S 71
4� e5 ••►•� .O.L�H a. � 1 1 •� • � ' i
{ /
(F 1'41
It
S'
2,
ooh• i •,�97:- (r ,orb- - -- 3 f 2
! A
�� �m tea) `f n.. ' 1 ,, ' All
S'F°•SaOC ` i � � C t' � r � �'
C �
tt .
A ve t oo
t -M
t
. / r
LOT 2
0 3�4
Alk
CITY of MOUND MOUND M1 NESO A 5361
1612) 172 .1155
DATE: September 13, 1990
TO: Park Commission (9- 13 -90)
Planning Commission (9- 24 -90)
City Council (9- 25 -90)
FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director
RE: DNR Application #91 -6051
Bayridge Road b Westedge Blvd. (Cty. Rd. 44)
•
The subject property in the Halstead Acres 2nd Addition is on private
lakeshore. The Project Sponsor, Don Phillips, is requesting to dredge
800 feet of channel to an elevation of 923.6 (see Project Description).
City of Mound property will not be affected by this work.
pi
- g 0 0
. , - - .,.�• ,.., s., ,.•.4'-- , r one r - s's :,I race ceUr naUo a� o n or nanr),cappec Varu$
P"O"E NO
0
s
STATE OF �5s
�
� A
I HIES©U EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO REGION WATERS - :200 VARNER ROAD, ST. PALL, KN 55106 FU Np
296 -7523
DNR PROTECTED WATERS PER.X:T A. NUMBER
2e REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND CO.`^f-r.KTs
DATE: _ , - 1 9 ? i
T0: VSccE- k�r1 h�ar�rt►
�-
M�e- WSJ - RON GvA►j►3cq
C "rY or mcumi)-
HENNEr!J 5wC0 LI"cM ZfU(
Flom: CEIL STTRAUSS, AF ZA HYDROLOCIST
A IAIri c, r-4 PA�i
/1F N - pAvE 2A FlCRILC)
WATERS AFFECTED to (Z i -15,5 )
ff� ACY('S tC(:z�fiU.�
PROJE-T SPONSOR: j,���
NATURE OF WORK:
fired q e- V)C� of Chdnre to
'0 1 tt)afi-()n g 2 3 t o; b tom W; d4-h o f 15' W►-�h
3:1 SAde s0,DeE;.
30 da(lS
X000
Z 00
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
NA 0:b11 -U4 i1Fi ��t 4 ,. —
it
Rev. 10/89 PERMIT APPLICATION P A NO
DEPARTMENT OF TO WORK IN PROTE4TED WATERS ON WETLANDS
rMIAZOT/A 1111CLU01N to i DAN MI ❑C,C
NATURAL RESOURCES ❑SWCD
b. Please read instructions before attempting to complete this application O W D USCOE
t. J Appl icant's Name (last, First, M.I.) Authorized Agent (it a pp lic able) Telephone Numberaa•F;:
Hiaia,BlM Acres 2nd Ater&. Dull Priltlipe: tiil� GJ1 .,TI,t
II. LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (BE SURE TO INCLUDE SKE TCH SHOWING HOvi TO U ET TO TF : )
Government L• P Sy pon(s) i • SeotioNs) No .ow h No aoge Lq', B1 S bpivision
7 L,. lA cLa k cah � —CL
Fire No., Box No. or Project Address County Pro,ecr wdlaffect ,Ike 0hef C.^..r
i , lic -oil. Ina- eanumtbr iitllf'Giilr�3
I k no* n
III. TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED (CHECK ONE) IV. TYPE OF PROJECT CHECK ONE)
excavate O repair ❑ shoreline O shore- proteclion ❑ obstruction C dam j
• fill O remove channel O harbor O bridge C other
• drain , O abate O sand blanket O permanent dock O culvert (specityr
• construct O other (specify)
O riprap O wharf
• install
V. ESTIMATED MIDJECT COST $ 9,i;/(,tG.uti VI. LENGTH OF SHORELINE AFFECTED (IN FEET) D
IAN. VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (IN CUBIC YARDS) 2,00
VN1I- BRIEF EXPLANATION OF PROJECT (EXPLAIN WHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOW WORK WILL BE GONE)
Jree'sttectlEX2 ; _ _
IX. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: (Explain !±y this project is needed)
To itx;iaira Ltia) of fu „walel c:emd in 1 59 cut a Pf,�: -1 ram 1l: (�s)
w � t ti:e � � ct
wininers adjazait LO i:1W tcl CAA M&81111 ewes Lo l.aitZe.
X.IEIMRONMENTAL IMPACT (Anticipated changes to the water and related land resources, Including unavoidable but detrimental eftects,
I
XI. I ALTE (Other alternatives to the action proposed)
IN.
,A hereby make aMicairon bws4*0 b Mff4soU.Statlitesthapter 105 42 aril all supportrng for pet trill to work in or -0ecl the abo ve named brot "ec
water(S) m accordance weth all supWing maps. plans, and other information Submitted with this application The Information submitted and slaterrir is made
Concerning this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
Signature of Owner or Authorized Agent Da'►
STAT t11111�St?t8
(QTY OF Ftlaritw-pin Signature of Leasee Dee
Subscribed and swore to before me thirs —
day of — �_ i t I � i .r.....
Illy commission elrprrfla
Signature of Notary
PAIAI(.; d ,i BELL
Nprunv PUBLIC
SCOTT COUNTY
COMMISSION EXPIRES r2&95
I. I I ..
Distribution
White:
DNR 0
Blue:
SWCD
Green
Watershed District
Goldenrod
City or County
Pink.
Army Corps of Engineers
Casty
Al :K)hc;ant
A 1990
C1, Rf C+
Project Description ►�igrfR
To re- excavate and remove earthen materials from the bed of
Lake Minnetonka to elevation 923.6 sea level datum to reopen
an 800' portion of the original 1200' channel dredged in 1959
under DNR permit 59 -19 (copies enclosed).
To construct a channel having 4 bottom width of 15' with 3:1
side slopes a distance of B00' commencing at intersection of
projected lot line between lot 3 Halsted 1st Addition and l.t 9
Halsted 2nd Addition and a line paralled to existing shore 25'
from said shore. The proposed channel will follow both of
existing channel approximately 25' lake ward from original
shore.
This permit also allows for eight (8) access spurs to each
of eight lots of Halstad Acres 2nd Addition adjoining this
project. These spurs will be 10' wide bottom with 3:1 side
slopes and bottom depths at 924.6 sea level datum, and each
will be 20' long measured from land ward side to new proposed
channel and perpendicular to same.
•
Z8 7L
14J;
0 3 1 1I J 1 , f °11 f
a RIDGE RD
X11 �1� S4� J t •o Io' . 3ij 4 11! '
All 00 14 0 48 ,� '
� (• \
.� 14
..•.,5 I �c� �, 6 ti Co
d o -
��
t 0. Ld
�r1 • f o ;I ,�, �� / - t1? 1028 7
- dL
,O IQ 1
�o ,� • 4 �� 2� Uj
2 W �!
C
, o R
•,,,
�rvoce \
It
1
b 1
Scarf
11
0 6e re/np�.'G tl: /BDD e��• � �u�N R
f �
ISO
'A
2 ..
_
i
J
31 1.� o A � if 84 iilft Z, 2, - 1 6D
BRIOGE R $
J 46 t
L3
IZ
sue►
1 , s . • q
- 1 1
1. ' +
(j9 * "y '
(45) B e
y
��
t oo
r• -104-- w -
2. (� 8�r j Ic +
` e 9 ` ---- ( =
., 6 r
J Q ���� �`' _ 1 bt 2 ,� - i 114 I
J ^22 M if
•,� �� _ ' stRDGEW00D`�
1 .
c �66�eS. ! N0c3jw • fjQ.. mo o} �\ !� I St as S T .
w IL 4L
,
� J
( NAB.
( 1967 Aerial Photo
CITY
828. ? -
Res of
33
i
1, gi.
51
C'
R�D - —�
l f r
04) 7 �.s,
WIAllris�� •
n
�L
FREMONT INOUSI
Shakopee. Minn. 55
•
n
1
A
II ��
�t N
'0
01Z c ha i7/7 s
92 -�-, '
92 3.6 '
n
G
n
0
i
ZS!5
cross s e c ti0' -C
O / G G 7* �.: �! j/ir. G �u/l c
CL G GGf At, a /1 eaG/j ZO �O
eGLG/!
C- /Z ,,_#-h.o
930'
92 ¢. 6
N
Q
N
cj Q
? N
N �
_W CD
Q
H �
� C
Z C
H
Z
0
2 0
W sc
Q G
LL w
9 20 .1
e7F, T/l�l''� �•
N
30
1.
4 0
0 0
cl
•
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
R 'SOLUTION TO APPOINT BOB PO'L,STON
TO THE MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A
FIVE YEAR TERM - TO EXPIRE 8-29 -95
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Bob Folston to the Mound
Housing & Redevelopment Authority for a five year term, to expire
August 29, 1995.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor i
Attest: City Clerk
o vol
9
1
BILLS- - - - - -- SEPTEMBER 25, 1990
•
BATCH 0091
233,501.57
BATCH 0092 111,753.37
•
TOTAL BILLS 345,260.94
287 9
PAU 1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE
9117/90
W02
CITY OF IQND
TIME
13.36.46
YElE(JT
INVOICE ME HOLD
PREPAID
CHECK
NO. INVOICE LAMER
DATE DATE STATUS
WANT
DESCRIPTIM
ACCOIM N1118ER
KM
DECK t
DATE
80549
PRE -PAID
899.81
UQ
11-7100-9510
9/17/90 9/17/90
899.81
JRw-CD
1010
899.81
30869
9/04/90
PRE -PAID
704.87
LIQ
71-7100-9510
9/17/90 9/17/90
704.87
,Jitl -CD
1010
704.87
30898
9/11/90
IELIBOY CORPORATION VETQtOR TOTAL
1604.68
00888
PRE -PAID
3,773.00
CR UNION 9/1 PR
01-2040-0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
3,773.00
JK-CD
1010
3773.00
30884
9/06190
CITY COINTT CREDIT
UNION VENDOR TOTAL
3773.00
00920
PREPAID
48.75
REPLEN P/C-PQ
01-4140-2200
9/17/90 9/17/90
48.75
.JK-CD
1010
48.75
30665
9/04/90
PRE -PAID
25.57
REPLEN P/C -LIQ
71-7100-7100
9/17/90 9/17190
25.57
JRNL-CD
1010
25.57
30906
9/11/90
CITY OF SM
VENDOR TOTAL
74.32
C1001
PRE -PAID
2,424.67
SIT 9/1 PR
01-2040-0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
2,424.67
,JK -CD
1010
2424.67
30676
9/06/90
PREPAID
113.59
AM SALES TAX
73 -3592 -0000
7,566.40
ALE, SALES TAX
71-3592-0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
7,679.99
JNL-CD
1010
7679.99
30910
9/14/90
COMNISSIOtER OF REVM VENDOR TOTAL
10104.66
81170
PRE -PAID
666.66
RR LEASE TO 9/30
40-6000 -3910
333.34
RR LEASE TO 9/30
01-4320 -3910
9/17/90 9/17/90
1,000.00
,JK-CD
1010
1000.00
30914
9/17/90
DAKOTA RAIL INC
VENDOR TOTAL
1000.00
01219
PRE -PAID
161.16
17 CWTRACT HCILJ'S
81- 4350-3100
9/17/90 9/17/90
161.16
,JUI -CD
1010
161.16
30867
9/04/90
DEBERT RUDOLPH
VENDOR TOTAL
161.16
D1_
PRE -PAID
1,343.00
DENTAL 9/1 PR
01- 2040-0000
16.20
DENTAL-RETIREE
01-4190-1510
41.60
[MAL-RETIREE
01-4280-1510
41.60
DENTAL- RETIREE
01-4140 -1510
57.80
WITAL-RETIREE
7 1-7100-1510
9/17/90 9/17/90
1,500.20
,JOL -CD
1010
1500.20
30891
9/06/90
DELTA DENTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
1500.20
E1429
PRE -PAID
203.84
LIQ
71 -7100 -9510
59.20
MINE
71-7100-9520
4.07
DISC
71- 7100 -9560
9 /17/90 9/17/90
2°8.97
Y L -CD
1010
258.97
30272
9 /0A/90
PRE -PAID
569.21
L10
71- 7190-9510
0 0
9 /
30`43-
30 9
y
Zk?�
PAM 1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE
9/17/90
AP-0O2 -01
CITY OF MQND
TIME
13.36.46
WN Ot
INVOICE
DUE HOLD
PRE -PAID
CHECK
NO. INVOICE NMER DATE
DATE STATUS
NaW
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT KM
IMM
(HECK I
DATE
80549
PRE -PAID
899.81
LID
71- 7100-9510
9/17/90
9/17/90
899.81
JK-CD
1010
899.81
30869
9/04/90
PREPAID
704.87
LTD
71-7100-9510
9/17/90
9/17/90
704.87
JRK-a
1010
704.87
30898
9/11/90
BELLBOY CORPORATION
VENDOR TOTAL
1604.68
00888
PRE -PAID
3,713.00
CR MINION 9/1 PR
01-2040-M
9/17/90
9/17/90
3,773.00
JK-CD
1010
3773.00
30684
9/06/90
CITY MNTT CREDIT
UNION VE)M TOTAL
3773.00
CDM
PREPAID
48.75
AMD P/C -PCL
01-4140 -2100
9/17/90
9/17/90
48.75
JK-CD
1010
48.75
30865
9/04/90
PREPAID
25.57
REPLEN P/C-1.12
71-7100 -2200
9/:7/90
9/17/90
25.57
JK-CD
1010
23.57
30906
9/12/90
CITY OF Pf)UND
VENDOR TOTAL
74.32
C1001
PRE -PAID
2,424.67
SIT 9/1 PP.
01-2040-M
9/17/90
9/17/90
2,424.67
JK -CD
1010
2424.67
30816
9/06/90
PRE -PAID
113.59
AUG SALES TAX
73 -3592-0000
7,566.40
AUG SALES TAX
71- 3591-0000
9/17/90
9/17/90
7,679.99
JK-CD
1010
7679.99
30910
9/14/90
COMISSIOER OF REVENUE VETNDOR TOTAL
10104.66
D1170
PRE -PAID
666.66
RR LEASE TO 9/30
40- 6000 -3910 -
333.34
RR LEASE TO 9/30
01- 4320-3910
9/17/90
9/17/90
1,000.00
JRK-M
1010
1000.00
30914
9/17/90
DAKOTA RAIL INC
VENDO► TOTAL
1000.00
D1219
PRE -PAID
161.16
17 CONTRACT HOURS
81-4350 -3100
9/17/90
9/17/90
161.16
,IRK -CD
1010
161.16
30867
9/04/90
DELBERT RUDOLPH
VENDOR TOTAL
161.16
DIM
PRE -PAID
1,343.00
DENTAL 9/1 PR
01-2040-0000
16.20
CENTAL-RETIREE
01- 4190.1510
41.60
DENTAL- RETIREE
01-428D-1510
41.60
DENTAL - RETIREE
01- 4140 -1510
57.80
DENTAL - RETIREE
71-7100 -1510
9/17/90
9 /17/YJ
1,500.20
JK-CD
1010
1500.20
30891
9/06/90
Ml DMAL
VENDOR TOTAL
1500.20
E1429
PRE -PAID
203.84
LID
71 -7100 -9510
59.20
NINE
71-7100-9520
4.07-
DISC
71-7100 -9560
9/17/90
9/17/90
M.97
04L -CD
1010
258.97
30872
04/90
PREPAID
569.21
LIO
71-7100 -9510
O O
9 /
30 P4 s
30
•
•
is
2 0 � /
2
AP -0O2-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
9/11/90
CITY
CITY GF MOUND
TILE
13.36.46
VENDOR INVOICE DUE Hu
PRE-KID
OEM
40. "NICE WBR DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMER
NVUNR
CHEM 1
DATE
11.38- DISC
71- 7100-9360
9/!1/90 9117/90
557.83
JRIL -CD
1010
557.83
30674
9/05/90
PRE -PAID
861.34
LID
71-7100 -9510
679.15
MINE
71-7100-9520
11.21- DISC
71- 7100 -9560
9/17/90 9/17/90
1,523.28
JRNL-CD
1010
1523.28
30901
9/11/90
ED PHILLIPS i SUNS VENDOR TOTAL
2340.08
F1711 PRE -PAID
301.40
AUG FRT
71-7100-96M
9/17/90 9/17/90
301.40
JRNL-CD
1010
301.40
30897
9/11/90
FRANCKS TRUCKING VENDOR TOTAL
301.40
G1 PRE - PAID
1,155.00
DE COMP 9/1 PR
01- 2040.0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
1,135.00
J K-M
1010
1155.00
30882
9/06/90
GREAT WEST LIFE ASM4IR4LE VENDOR TOTAL
1155.00
61911 PRE -PAID
21.80
HOSP 9/1 PR
01-2040-0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
21.80
J K -CD
1010
21.80
30887
9/06/90
GROIP HEALTH PLAN VENDOR TOTAL
21.80
61972 PRE -PAID
132.76
LID
71- 7100-9510
101.57
MINE
71- 7100-9520
5.48-
2.73
DISC
FRY
71- 7100-9560
71- 7100-9600
9/17/'N+ 0 117/90
231.58
J K-CD
1010
231.58
30870
9/04/°0
PRE -PAID
170.06
MINE
71-7100-9520
-
2.29-
DISC
71- 7100 -9560
4.06
FRY
71-7100-9600
58.47
MIX
71- 7100-9540
9/17/90 9/17/90
230.34
JRNL-M
1010
230.34
30899
9/11/90
6RIGGS COOPER 6 COMPANY VEMiOt TOTAL
461.92
HIM PREPAID
39.16
LAND
22- 4170-3830
9/17/90 9/17/90
39.16
JRNL -CD
1010
39.16
30911
9/14/90
H % H INDUSTRIES. INC VEW TOTAL
39.16
H2145 PRF -PAID
288.46
BED 9/1 PR
01-2040 -MM
9/17/90 9/17/90
288.46
JRNL -CD
1010
288.46
30878
9/06/90
HENN CO SLFF% T t COLLFCT# VENDOR TOTAL
288.46
H2160 PRE -PAID
851.00
JULY BOARD
01-4110 -4250
9117190 9117190
851.00
JRNL-CD
1010
851.00
30894
9/11/90
HENN CO lREA9UR9 VENDOR TOTAL
851.00
IM M -PAID
512.90
i�W 457 OEF CONE 9/1 PR
01-2040-0000
0 G%�1 /90 4/17/90
512.
JRNL -CD
1010
512.90
30880
9/06/90
29 90
PAM 3 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/1//90
P-002-01 CITY OF MOUND TIW 13.36.46
ww IMICE ME HOLD PRE -PAID CHECK
NO. INVOICE M DATE DATE STATUS ALARM DESCRIPTION A3[AIINT NLIMER AIblE1T CHECK I DATE
ball RETIRVM TRUST -457 VDIDOR TOTAL `1..90
12304 PRE-DAID
91.98
ICNY1 401 9/1 FR
9/11190 9/17/90
91 94
JRNL-CD
ICMA RETIRMIT TRUST -401 VENDOR TOTAL
91.98
J2511 PRE -PAID
.'/39.20
9D M(TRACT HO RC
9 1 17M 9/17190
539.20
im'cD
JIM TAFFE VENDOR TOTAL
539.20
.2579 PREPAID
844.20
LIQ
463.50
MINE
21.54-
DISC
9111140 9/17190
1,286.16
Jft -CD
P.E -PAID
1,247.52
!19
1,975.99
WINE
44.71-
DISC
9/17/90 9il7/90
9,178.80
.lPNL
J MM EROS MESALE LI# YDM TOTAL
4464.96
J2610 PREPAID
30.23
COFTEE It SUPPL
30.70
WINDEX
°.31
SOAP
8.11
CDIYIES FOR MS
8.12
CRIES FOR MTOS
9/17/90 9117/90
86.47
JRIL-CD
JIEILEE FOODS VENOM TOTAL
66.47
1.2752 PREPAID
83.67
AUG GASOLINE
9/17/SO 9/17/90
83.67
JRNL-CD
LMATT'S SPRING PART( SPUR %%JOR TOTAL
83.67
L2817 PRE-PAIC
44.00
UNION 9/1 PR
9/17/90 9 /17r
44.00
JR L -CD
LAM 04FORCEMENT LABOR CfR+ VENDOR ,JTAL
44.00
1.1930 PRE -PAID
690.02
AUG ALRO PARTS
20.54
AUG A RO PARTS
9/17/90 9/17190
71^ 56
JX-CD
'_DWF1.1'S AlJ_fCMTIVE /IITC0' VEMV 70TPL
710.56
'#OSI PRE-PAID
'0 724.?1
FIT 9/1 PR
9117/9 9/1119(+
10,724. ?l
5-c-CD
'4 METI E 9" - IfKT WNDM TOTAL
107"
MX )O PPE • Pv ;
97.A
Hn_ 9 1 PR
,7
O1- 2040 -0000
1010 91.96 3(kq91 9 /06/90
01 -431. , -3100
1010 s .:0 XIM 9 /04190
71-7100-9510
71-7100 -95,0
71- 7100 -9560
1010 1266.16 30871 9/04/90
71- 7100-9510
71 -7100 -9520
71 -7100 -9560
1010 3178.90 30900 9 , 1 11190
L
78- 7900-1200
22-4170-2700
01 -4320 -2200
01- 4020 -2200 S
01-4190-2200
1017 86.47 30903 9/1
22-4170 -1.210
1010 83.67 30843 9/11/90
01- 2040-
1010 44.00 30M 9/06/90
01- 4290 -2310
22.4170 -220n
!010 710.56 30909 9/!3/90
01- 2040 -00()0
1010 10724.[1 30875 9/06/90
01-21
•
, ,
PA PURCHASE
-002 -01
JOURNAL
DATE
/17/yp
CITY OF MOUND
TIME
13.36.46
yv'a INVOICE DUE. HOLD
N0. INVOICE NMER
PRE -PAID
DEN
DAI DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCONT WMBER
NOW
DECK 1
DATE
9111190 9/17/90
97.84
JK-0
1010
97.84
30888
9/06/90
DEL CENTEP ►EALTH PLAN vi ".)m TOTAL
97.84
M31 PPE -PAID
2,376.00
AUG SAC
78- 2304 -0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
2,376.00
JUML -CD
1010
2376.00
30892
9/10/90
METRO MASTF CONTR(.l COMM[# VEW TOTAL
2376.00
M WI PRE -PA;D
268.00
DEF COMP 9/1 PR
01- 2040 -0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
288.00
JK-CD
1010
288.00
30893
Y /06/90
MN RE IREMENT SYSTEM VENDOR TOTAL
288,00
M3455 PRE -PAID
645.65
UNION 9/1 PR
01-2040-0000
9/17/9, 9/17/90
645.65
JRNL -CD
1010
645.65
30889
9/06/90
44 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 YOM TOTAL
645.65
M3500 PRE -PAID
46,024.00
2% INS-FIRE AID
95-9',100 -1400
9/11/90 9/17/90
46,024.00
JRNL-CD
1010
46024.00
30895
9/11/90
MOKI It RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL
46024.00
P3950 PIE -PAID
6,468.45
PERA 9 PF,
01 -2040 -0000
9/'7/90 9/17/90
JK -CQ
1010
6468.45
30877
9/06/90
P E R A VENDOR TOTAL
0 4030
6468.45
PRE -PAIi
539.04
PW 9/1 PP.
01 -2040 -0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
539.04
JK -CD
1010
539.04
30886
9/06/90
PHYS7CIAHS OF MN VENDOR TOTAL
339.04
04171 PREPAID
1.221.26
LIU
71-7100-9510
73.75
MINE
71- 7100-9520
25.20-
DISC
71- 7100-9560
9/1 9/17/90
1,269.81
JRME -CD
1010
1269.81
30873
9/04/90
PREPAID
1,573.13
LTG
71-7100 -9510
344.90
MINE
71-7100 -9520
35.17-
DISC
71 -7100 -9560
17.2°
MIX
71- 7100 -9540
9/17/90 9/17/90
1,900.01
JK-0
1010
1900.01
31002
9/11/90
QUALITY MINE 6 SPIRITS VEW TOTAL
3169.82
84237 PREPAID
80.00
OED 9/1 PR
01- 2010-0000
9/17/90 9/17/90
80.00
JUK -CD
1010
80,00
30879
9/06/90
ArED & POND,LTD IENDOt TOTAL
80.M
R4251 PRE -PAID
602.56
56 CONTRACT QRS,
01-4340 -3100
9/17/90 9/17/90
602,56
JRMI -CD
1010
602.56
30866
9/04/90
ROBEr E JOk" YEW TOTAL
0
602,56
z10 of
PAGE 5 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/17/90
AP- CO2 -01 CITY OF MOUMD TIM 13.36.46
%ow INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE -PAID DECK
NO. IMICE NMRR DATE DATE STATUS AMOURT DESCRIPTION ACCOLKT KIM AlQXT DECK t DATE
54381 PRE -PAID
130,747,34
PYMT #5-CITY HALL ADOTN
9/11/90 9/17/90
130,747.34
J:OL-CD
SH;NGOBEE BUILDERS VENDOR TOTAL
130747,34
54511 PRE -PAID
508.92
CR lJNION 9/1 PP.
9/17/90 9/17/90
500,92
JTTL -CD
STATE CAPITOL CREDIT ANION VENDOR TOTAL
508.92
54619 PRE -PAID
608,00
TKnS BY CITY SIGH
9117/90 9/17/90
608.00
JRYL -CD
SLPM HILL TREE FARM VENDOR TOTAL
608,00
15100 PRE -PAID
53.64
AUG TOWELS
64.50
AUG RUTS
89.93
AIIG INTFOFMS
17.99
ALE
45 •
' -'O
V
31J14IFORMB
9/17/90 9/17/90
31,.,
CD
UNIIOG RENTAL SYSTEM VE)w TOTAL
317.99
95520 '% -PAID
6.00
CHAMBRJt MM
6.00
CHAPIO R MTG
9/17/90 9/17/90
11.00
01L-CD
NESTOWA CHAMBER OF alM VENDOR TOTAL
11.00
16096 PRE -PAID
33.75
RUIN-DOCK FEE
9/11/90 9/17/90
33.75
JRNL -CD
CAROLINE GUIST VENDOR TOTAL
33.75
16135 PRE -PAID
36.70
REFUND -EST BILL -DALE RD
9/11/90 9/17/90
:.'..70
JRHL-CD
OILY FLATEH VENDK)R TOTAL
.,.7C
16140 PRE -PAID
16.72
WITNESS FFE -GRAY
9/17/90 9/17/90
16.72
JtfL -CD
ROFERT J OHN GRAY VENDOR TOTAL
16.72
TOTAL ALL VENDORS
233.507.5
30-6100-5000
1010 '30747.34 30903 9/12/90
01-2040-0000
1010 508.92 30885 9/06/90
01- 4320 -2200
1010 608.00 30912 9/14/90
01-4290 -2150
78- 7800 -2200
01-4280-2240
01- 4290 -2240
73 -7300 -2240
78- 7800 -2240
1010 317.99 30696 9/11/90
01- 4040-4120
01- 4140-4120
1010 11.00 30904 9/12/90
Bi-3160-0000
1010 33.75 30907 9/13/90
79 -1191 -0000
1010 36.70 30908 9/13/90
01-4140 -4100
1010 16.72 30913 9/14/90
o `1/
•
2 00-3'
PAGE 1
OP-002-01
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 9/19/90
CITY OF M UND
TIME 9.13.41
wxOR INVOICE OLE HOLD
NO, INVOICE WBR
PRE -PAID CHECK
DATE DATE STATUS
NDU(T
DESU7iIPTION
ACCOUNT NU16fR
AMDU?M!T CHECK t DATE
em
24.23
FILE FOLDERS
01- 4190-2100
1.47
TELS HOLDER
01 -4040 -2100
4.47
TELE HOLDER
01-4090-2100
4.47
TELE HOLM
01- 4190-2100
4.47
TELE HOLDER
01-4140-2100
9/19/90 9/19/90
42.11
JNL-CD
1010
AMO BUSINESS 0 Yom TOTAL
42.11
A0170
595.00
PL B -IP HALL
01- 4060 -3100
9/19/90 9/19/90
995.00
JRNL-CD
1010
ALEX MDLZER PL MB-MG YEW TOTAL
995.00
A0102
450.00
CABLING FOR COMPUTER
30- 6000 -3100
9/19/90 9/19/90
450.00
JNL-CD
1010
ALL SYSTEMS INSTALLATION VENDOR TOTAL
450.00
A0190
283.00
BI.AC.TOP OIL
01 -4280 -2340
9/19190 9/19/90
283.00
JNL-CO
1010
ALLIED BLACKTOP CO VENDOR TOTAL
283.00
A0300
545.00
TEST AERIAL TRICK
22 -4170 -2200
9/19/90 9/19/90
545.00
JNL-CO
1010
AMERIMJ TEST CENTER VE)VOR TOTAL
545.00
&21
30.00
OCT PARKING LEASE
01-4280 -4200
30.00
OCT PARKING LEASE
73-7300 -4200
30.00
OCT PARKING LEASE
78- 7800-4200
9/19 9/19/90
90.00
JRML-ClD
1010
BALBOA MN COPANY425 -0000 VEtOOR TOTAL
90.00
80640
5.50
AUG OXYGEN
73- 7300-2200
5.50
AUG OXYGEN
78- 7800-2200
5.50
AUG OXYGEN
01- 4290-2200
9/19/90 9/19/90
16.50
JR1L-CD
1010
BATWE COMPANY YEW TOTAL
16.50
son
6,560.00
AUD RECYCLE SEW
01- 4270 -4200
9119/90 9/19/90
6,560.00
JR L-CD
1010
BFI RECYCL ING SYSTEMS OF N VENDOR TOTAL
6560.00
r 600
44.52
PUG GARBAGE
01- 4280-3750
103.88
AUG GARBAGE
01- 4290.3750
65.72
AUG GARBAGE
22 -4170 -3750
9/19/99 9/19/90
214.12
JRML -CD
1010
BLACKODUTAK AND SON VETmU)R TOTAL
214.12
po 9
8
0 0701
81.03
PAPER ROLLS
01-4060 -2200
a0F ay
PAGE 2
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 9/19/90
AP- 002-01
CITY OF NOM
TIME 9.13.41
VENDOR
INVOICE DUE HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
ID. INVOICE NPM
DATE DATE STATUS
NMOIM
DESTFIPTION
ALCOLKT Nl1W
NW CHECK t DAY'
9/19/90 9/19190
81.03
JU -CD
1010
K ELECTIONS-MIDWEST REG[ YEW TOTAL
81.03
80730
821.02
RED ROCK
78- 7800 -2340
1,392.87
M.LFIELD ROCK
60 -6000 -5000
9/19190 9/19/90
2,219.89
JOL -CD
1010
WYAN ROCK PRODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL
2219.89
00960
15.53
AUG HOW SUPPL
22-4170-2200
39.00
ALE HOWE SLPPL
O1- 4340 -2200
6.77
AUG HOWE IM
01 - 4340 -2300
67.28
AUG HIM SUPPL
01-4320 -2200
5.61
AUG H71E SIPPL
O1 4280 -2310
4.06
UPS-HATCH
01-4280 -3210
18.98
AUG HIM SUPPL
01 -4290 -2200
6.78
AUG HOWE SIPPL
O1- 4290 -2310
5.79
ALE NOW SIPPL
73- 7300 -2200
84.93
AUG HIM SLPPL
73- 7300 -233D
22.68
ALE HIM SIPPL
73 -7300 -2300
6.69
AUG HDIE SUPPL
78 -7800 -2300
9/19/90 9/19/90
284,10
JtL -CD
1010
MAST TO COAST
VENDOR TOTAL
284.10
00990
907.00
COlFM LEASE
01- 4095 -WM
468.00
COMPUTER MAINT
01- 4095 -3800
9/19/90 9/19/90
1,375.00
JNL-CD
1010
ILPUTOSERVICE INC
VENDOR TOTAL
1375.00
D1170
1,333.32
RR LEASE TO 10/31
40- 6000 -3910
666.68
RR LEASE TO 10/31
01- 4320 -3910
9/19/90 9,19/90
2,000.00
JiNL -CD
1010
DAKOTA RAIL INC
VENDOR TCTrk
2000,00
01190
44.54
RE STOCK FEE
73- 7300 -2300
9/19/90 9119/90
44.54
JRML-CD
1010
DAVIES WATER EOUIPMEM VENOtit TOTAL
44.50
01280
64.00
DICTAPHONE MAINT - -I YR
01- 4340 -3800
120.00
DICTAPHONE MAINT - -1 TR
01- 4190 -3900
9/19/90 9/19190
184.00
J1NL-CD
1010
DICTAPHONE
VENDOR TOTAL
184.00
01332
10.00
CYL CHARGE
73- 7300 -2260
9/19/90 9/19
10.00
JRNL-CD
1010
OPC IhMTRIES, INC.
VENDOR TOTAL
10.00
E1485
425.58
CLEAN FIFNACES -IP
01- 4060-3100
9/19/90 9/19/90
425.58
JRHL -CD
1010
•
•
•
J
0101
03 -W
00'ZtL
06/61/6 06/61/6
OOlt- 008L-8L
331AUS 8011NV1' ld3S
L9'06
004-00EL -EL
3311835 8011NV1' 1d3S
X%a
00Zt- 08Zt-10
33IA83S 8011W 1d3S
99'09
011t-OZEt -10
33IA83S 8UIlW la
00'065
IZtzr
00'201
1V101 do"
IV 13 SNO113300
0101
M -W
00
06/61/6 06/61/6
0000- 0611 -10
SSM- INOW - M WZ 040M
00'90'1
SZEZ1
99'LtOZt
lVllll 80"
8381ISV3dl 03 NM
0101
m -
%
0616116 06/61/6
OOZt-OL0t -l0
13d81NO3 SOM 0661
9S'LtO'Zt
0912N
SZ'Zl
1V101 800]43A dONS 3NI10V1 T3SXBl
0101
83-1111'
971
06/61/6 06/61/6
00EZ- 084-10
In
u'ZI
OWN
06' %I
1V101 MM 3NI 'TWJ -3NO 31VIS MMM
0101
(O -7R!<`
06' %1
06/61/6 06/61/6
OSb£- OOEL -EL
tam TM -340 X111
06
90619
18 1 9Z
7110180OT43A SNOl1V31WHO1VB4
0101
00-781'
l8'9Z
06/61/6 06/61/6
OOZt- OOEL -£L
010V8 W1F108d
18 1 9Z
OZB19
6£'OOZ
1V101 800N3A
Si31SAS UTNA @i
0101
013 -W
6E'OOZ
06/61/6 06/61/6
OOZZ- 008L -8L
1NIVd 133110
L8'£E
OOZZ-OBZt -l0
IMY 30M
£9'It
OOZZ- Ot£t -l0
iNIVd 30M
£9'It
OOZZ-OOEL-£L
1NIVd 31118
9Z'E8
OOLIi
00'111
1V101 800N3A
AlINM35 UrU
0101
83 -7411'
00'111
06/61 /6 06/61/6
00l£-008L -8L
Rd-A83S w6" 1711E
9L'LZ
OOl£-OOEL -£L
Ph-AM Wh" 11d1D
9L'LZ
OOIE-06Zt -10
Rd-ADS WW AW
9L'LZ
001£- MZt-10
Ad-A83S NWIV 11N1D
SL'LZ
09911
00
1V101 Sam
15181 1S8Ii
OlOI
03-W
00'01
06/61/6 06/61/6
OZ19- OOEL -EL
9L 00 -S333 M
O9'LS
OZ19- 0009 -0E
SL U) -S33i ON08
OS'LS
lE9li
8S'SZt
1V101 800N3A 3NI 11MM IMIM16
31VO 1 10310 1N101V
83M IMMOV
NDIldI83S30
IMUN
Sll1ViS 31VO 31V0
8811 3310MI 'ON
X1313 EIVd -38d
M 310 3110M4I
Waft
WEV6 3111
ONl>C114 i0 1113
10-MO-dV
06/61/6 31V0
1VN8f10(' 3SV1'38f1d
E x13
PAGE 4 PURCHASE JOURNAL
AP-0O2-01 CITY OF MOlJND
VENDOR INVOICE ME HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
J i S CLEANING CO. VENDOR TOTAL 742.00
J2572 90.00 RESET STONES
9/19/90 9/19/90 9( 4) JK_CD
JOHN J NILHELM VEND TOTAL
K2651
9/19/90 9/19/90
KAR PRODCJCTS VETID(It TOTAL
L2810
9/19/90 9/19/90
LANO EGUIPMENT INC VENOM TOTAL
L.2940
9/19/90 9/19/90
LUTI TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL
OW40
9/19/90 9/19/90
MASYS CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL
Mm
9/19/90 9/19/90
MCCOMBS FRAM( ROOS ASSOCI• VENDOR TOTAL
M3710
90.00
198.63
RISC NUTS,BCLT5
198.63
J K-CD
198.63
71.48
BOBCAT PARTS
1,060.69
REPAIR MOT
1,122.17
JRNL-CD
1122.17
1,290.00
TREE REMOVALS- ASSESS
1,290.00
JK-0
1290.00
170.00
OCT ENFORS RAINT
170.00
JO L-0
170.00
393.60
ALIG ENOR -KI
206.00
AUG ENOR- OESINUT RD
64.00
AUG ENOR- APRONS EST
126.00
AUA 00 -LWER
96.00
AUG ENOR-AIM AAW PARK
64.00
AM DIM- NDRNOOD
112.00
AUG ENOR -90 SEALCOAT
336.00
AUG ENIR- DENBIIIH-A SESS
1,588.00
AUG ENOR-GAB TANG CONTAM
126.00
AUG ENOR-FIRE STA ADDTN
384.00
AUG ENGR- STREET DEPT
4,177.60
AUG ENCR-C HALL ADDTN
970.00
AUG EMIR -MATER DEPT
1,056.40
AIIG ENR -SNR -LIFT STA
135.00
AUG ENR- WATERSIDE
528.20
AUG 90 -IP GARAGE
1,231.00
AUG 00 -DEPOT REHAB
1,567.20
AUG 00 -CBD LOTS
128.00
A1IG ENOR- MATERIAL STORAGE
13,293.00
JRNL-CO
13293.00
56.70
AUG HDWE SIJPPL
5.18
AUG HONE Sl1PPL
14.98
AUG HDWE SIJPPL
1.25
AUG ME SUPPL
583.80
DEHUMIDIFIERS
DATE 9/19/90
TIME 9.13.41
PRE -PAID CHECK
ACCOINT NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK # DATE
80- 8000 -3100
1010
01-4290 -2250
1010
01-4340 -2310
01- 4340 -3820
1010
01- 1190-0000
1010
01- 4095 -3800
1010
01-4190-3100
01- 4190-3100
01 -4190 -3100
01-4190-3100
01- 4190-3100
01-4190.3100
27- 5800-3100
26- 1190-0000
30- 6000-3100
22- 4170 -3100
01-428D -3100
30 -6000 -5000
73- 7300 -3100
78. 7800-3100
81- 4350-3100
30 -6000 -5000
30- 6000 -5004
40- 6000 -3100
60-6000 -3100
1010
01- 4280 -2300
78-7890-2240
78- 7800-2300
01- 4290-2300
30-6000 -4100
n
•
a 4
c� 5
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 9/19/90
�'CO2 -01
CITY Of PM
TIME 9.13.41
Yom INVOICE ME HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
NO- INVOICE NO DATE DATE STATUS
MOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOW Nl19dER
AMOUNT CHECK MM DATE
9/19/90 9/.9/90
661.91
JRN.-CD
1010
WMVW HARDI E VENDOR TOTAL
661.91
KT7o0
48.05
TRAILER JACK
01-4340 -2310
9/19/90 9/19/90
48.05
,AN. - CD
1010
NORrWA HTDRALLICS VENDOR TOTAL
48.05
mm
2,961.35
SUBSIiiEACE INVESTIGATION
73-7300 -4200
2,961.35
SIIBSIAFACE INVESTIGATION
78- 7800 -4200
9/19/90 9/19/90
5,922.70
JRIL-CD
1010
NOW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL.
5972.70
03896
82.06
BALING THINE
71-7100-2200
9/19/90 9/19/90
82.06
JRML -CD
1010
MW USA, INC. VENDOR TOTAL
82.06
03915
330.00
MDNING-ASSESS
01 -1190 -0000
9/19/90 9/19/90
330.00
JRN- -CD
1010
WrOGM ENVIRONMENTS, INC VENDOR TOTAL
330.00
P3959
508.03
ANTIFREEZE
01- 4290 -2250
9/19/90 9/19/90
506.03
JRN- -CD
1010
o r OIL, INC VENDOR TOTAL
508.03
P3993
107.20
DEDUCTABLE-89 BONN REPAIR
01- 4140-3810
9/19/90 9/19/90
107.20
,APL -CD
1010
POLL BROW PONTIAC -K VENDOR TOTAL
107.20
P4031
221.75
OCT HOSP -M TMiWSON
01- 4140-1510
9/19190 9/19/90
221.75
AL-CD
1010
PHYSICIANS OF MN VENDOR - ITAL
221.75
P4049
30.00
9 -10 -11 EXTERM
71- 7100-4200
9/19/90 9/19/90
30.00
,APL -CD
1010
PLIMM'S, INC VENDOR TOTAL
30.00
84199
82.65
REPLACE LTGNTS -IP HALL
01- 4060-3100
9/19/90 9/19/90
82.65
.APL -CD
1010
R.C. ELECTRIC, INC. VENDOR TOTAL
82.65
c i2QQ
100.00
BOND RE/EWk-NO;?M
01-4090-3660
9/19/90 9/19/90
100.00
JRPL-CD
1010
R L TOUNGOAHL h ASSOCIATES VENDOR TOTAL
100.00
P4240
781.00
KENNEL FEES
01-4140-42'0
•
i
PAGE 6
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 9/19/90
AP-0O2-01
CITY OF ROUND
TIME 9.13.41
VET
INVOICE ME HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
NO. INVOICE NMBR
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
AlQW CHECK 1 DATE
9/19/90 9/19/90
781.00
JO L -CD
1010
IED-RAJ KENNELS
VENDOR TOTAL
781.00
54390
2,305.42
OCT REM
71 -7100 -3920
9/19/90 9/19/90
2,305.42
JRNL-CD
1010
SHMELINE PMA
VENDOR TOTAL
M.42
54430
2
PAPER
01- 4060 -2100
15.64
RELIEF INDEX CARDS
22-4170 -35M
9/19/90 9/19/90
17.64
JRNL-M
1010
SOS PRINTING
VENDOR TOTAL
17.64
54440
3.50
AM CAR MASHES
01-4190 -3810
7.00
AUG CAR MASHES
01-4280 -3810
3.50
AUG CAR MASHES
01- 4040-3810
161.00
AUG CAR MASHES
01- 4140 -3810
9/19/90 9/19/90
175.00
JRNL_CD
1010
SPRING PARK CAR MASH VENDOR TOTAL
175.00
sw
404.00
DRIVR TRAIN-BOS,HJG,NIC,MEU
01 -4140 -4110
9/19/90 9/19/90
404.00
JOE -CD
1010
ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY VENDOR TOTAL
404.00
54630
23.39
AUG GASOLINE
01 -4040 -2210
687.85
AUG GASMINE
01- 4280 -2210
43.09
AUG GASOLINE
01- 4290 -2210
457.92
AUG GASOLINE
01- 4340-2210
188.27
AUG GASOLINE
73- 7300 -2210
191.49
AUG GASOLINE
78- 7800 -2210
1,053.17
AUG GASOLINE
01- 4140 -2210
9/19/90 9/19/90
2,645.18
JRNL -CD
1010
SPfRAMERICA
VENDOR TOTAL
2645.18
T4716
63.75
TEMP HELP
01- 4270 -1300
59.50
TEMP HELP
73 -7300 -1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
123.25
JRNL -CD
1010
TEIPORARIES TO 00
VENDOR TOTAL
123.25
T4717
505.95
MOVE COMPUTER
30- 6000-3100
9/19/90 9/19/90
505.95
JRNL -CD
1010
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC.
VENDOR TOTAL
505.95
r+790
1.69
PAD
01-4290.2310
9/19/90 9/19/90
1.69
JRNL -CD
1010
MM BROS CHEVROLET
VENDOR TOTAL
1.69
16 190
1,885.00
AUG PLAN CONSULT
01.4190-3100
0
•
•
Z�,�y
RAGE 7
FURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 9/19/90
AP-002-01
CITY OF HOUND
TIME 9.13.41
Vr:NI m
INVOICE ME HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
N0. INVOICE NO
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOW NUMBER
AMOUNT DECK t DATE
9/19/90 9/19/90
1,883.00
JiK.-m
1010
WNREN- HALARD-STALLINIS VENDOR TOTAL
1885.00
wmo
2,720.00
RE90M COURSE
22- 4170 -4110
9/19/90 9/19/90
2,720.00
JTNL-CD
1010
W ONIA RIDGEVIEY HOSPITAL VE701QR TOTAL
2720.00
V%30
396.00
3 PTS BREAK
73 -7300 -3800
840.50
BEA IWOOD TAP
73 -7300 -3800
2,521.50
BEACWOOD TAP
78- 7300-3800
2,791.00
CARDINAL LN
78- 7800 -3800
1,353.00
CARDINAL LN -BILL MINNEGASCO
78- 1190 -0000
9/19/90 9/19190
7,904.00
JRNL-CD
1010
YIDMER INC
VENDOR TOTAL
7904.00
1!5690
217.98
BLACKTOP
73- 7300 -2340
218.73
FILL SAO
73- 7300-2340
7 6.22
BLACKTOP
01-4280 -2340
619.36
CONEXTE SAND-PARKS
60- 6000 -5000
9/19/90 9/19/90
1,772.29
JK-CD
1010
IM KILLER i SOVS
VENDOR TOTAL
1772.29
1!5700
3,081.00
AUG PROSECUTION
01-4110 -3120
9/19/90 9119/90
3,061.00
JRNL-0
1010
O VURST-PEARSON-tARSON
VEN=i TOTAL
3081.00
om
409.88
LEASE 5052
01- 4320 -5000
75.46
FUSER LUKE
01- 4320 -2200
9/19/90 9/19/90
485.54
JtIL -CD
1010
XEROX CORPORATION
VENDOR TOTAL
485.54
13850
381.25
CI.EANER,NAX
01- 4290 -2200
9/19190 9/19190
381.25
JUL -CD
1610
LACK'S INC
VENOM TOTAL
381.25
16002
46.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01- 4060-1300
9/191% 9/19/90
46.00
JRNL-CD
1010
LEATRICE COOPER
VEND(XR TOTAL
46.00
16004
99.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01- 4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
99.00
JRK.-CD
1010
ANN SCHMINGLER
VENDOR TOTAL
99.00
16005
89.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19,
89.00
JRNL -CD
1010
SANBARA SIDOERS
VENiX1R TOTAL
99.00
i ..
�J
00' 16
14101 2 mwm
3X11108 I VA
0101
(3-781'
00'16
06/61/6 `6/61/6
000- 0901-10
11/6 390r NOROM
00'16
ZZ091
00' OL
14101 111"
1131%1 1108 1N
0101
a3- 181'
00
06/61/6 06/61/6
00£1-0901-10
11/6 3W N0113313
00'OL
IZ091
00'►9
14101 2dimm
SM31M "IHS
0101
03-78!'
00'►9
06/61/6 06/61/6
OOCI-0901 -10
11/6 3W N0113313
00'19
OZO92
00'89
14101800N3&
N3188,01H10lm
OIOI
03-78!'
00'89
06/61/6 06/6116
00£I -M -10
11 /6 3OCkT N0113313
00'89
61092
00`99
7H01 111010&
W - OM 3113ON4
0101
a3-w
00
06/61/6 06/6116
O0BI- 090►-10
11/6 3MW NOIL'1313
00'99
5 ►042
00
14101 11)043&
101SI1 W %3A
0101
03 -78!'
00'8Z
06/61/6 06/ "/G
OOCI- 0901 -10
II /6 390(1' N0113M
00'6Z
HOW
00'99
IhO1 2111113&
NDSIlDB1I9 NOIM
0101
a3-781'
00'99
06/61/6 06/61/6
000-M-10
11/6 Mr NOIL3M
00'99
01092
00'01
14101 210@13&
131XM 1
0101
a3 -781'
00'OL
06/61/6 0616116
OOEI- 0901-lo
11/6 30(11 N0113313
00'01
z 109
00' 16
14101 210"
NOS12Al3 183MV
0101
(13 -781'
00'16
06161/6 06/61/6
OOCI- 090*-10
11/6 Mr N0113313
00'16
11091
00
1ti101 NOmm
aNr IDOAS 31130411
0101
a3-781'
00'99
06/61/6 06/61/6
000- 090 -10
11/6 3WW NOII3313
00'99
L0091
00'19
14101 HIMA
NOSa30N4 VIM
0101
a3-w
00'19
06/61/6 06/61/6
OOf1- 0901 -IO
'i /6 3MT N0113313
00'19
90092
3140 I )0313 111101(4 H33ft IWM
NOI1dlHOS30
11110W
SI1141S 3140 3140
W& 3310&41 'ON
X1310 al4d-3dd
0711 311Q 3310ANI
UMN36
411'6 31111
aNI1Wl 3D U13
to- Z03 -dN
06/61/6 3140
14NMt10P 3S4HiNnd
8 3144
P41 9
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 9/19/90
AP- 02 -01
CITY OF MOUND
TIME 9.13.41
VDIOM
INVOICE RJE HOD
PRE -PAID DM
NO. INVOICE NMBR
DATE DATE STATUS
NOW
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
AMOUNT CI{pC I DATE
66.00
ELECTION ,AJDGE 9/11
01- 4060.1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
66.00
,FX -CD
1010
ELSIE WESSEL
VENDOR TOTAL
66.00
16024
66.00
ELECTION JLIDGE 9/11
01- 4060 -1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
66.00
JRNL -CD
1010
ARLENE GiLMORE
VENDOR TOTAL
66.00
16025
68.00
ELECTION JIM 9/11
01-4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
68.00
JRNI-CD
1010
JEA*m JOINSON
VENDOR TOTAL
68.00
16028
66.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01- 4060 -1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
66.00
JRNL -CD
101C
EW BRANDENBURG
VENDOR TOTAL
66.00
IW31
68.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01- 4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
68.00
JRNL -CD
1010
KATHY OIAN
VEIW TOTAL
68.00
16002
20.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-4060-1304
9/19/90 9/19/90
20.00
M-CD
1010
LY BOSTROM
VENDOR TOTAL
20.00
16033
26.00
ELECTION JUDM 9/11
01-4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
26.00
AL-CD
1010
GAIL DIPUIS
VENDOR TOTAL
26.00
16062
284.23
i(TR REFUND -PD TWICE-BRIC,3ITON
79- 1191 -0000
9/19/90 9/19/94
284.23
JRPL -CD
1010
NOEL FREEMAN
VENDOR TOTAL
284.23
16466
23.00
PLANTS- VETERANS PARK
01-4340-2350
9/19/90 9/19/90
23.00
JRNL-CD
1010
BONNIE BLAIR
VENDOR TOTAL
23.00
16150
66.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
66.00
JRNL -CD
1010
LOIS BROWN
VENDOR TOTAL
66.00
16153
64.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01- 4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
64.00
JRNL -CD
1010
FWYLLIS ORN
VENUF TOTAL
64.00
16154
22.00
E1ECTIIN JJDGE 9/11
01-4r)kA -1300
0
z9gz
PAGE 10
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CFTE 9/19/90
AP-CO2 -01
CITY OF MW
TI,E 9.13.41
VENDOR
INVOICE OUE HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
NO. INVOICE WBR DATE DATE STATUS AlUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NINM
AIU INT CHECK 4 DATE
9/19/90 9/19/90
22,00
J(NL -CD
1010
SUZANNE HICNiWE
VENDOR TOTAL
22.00
16155
64 -U0
ELECTION ,JUDGE 9/11
01- 4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
64.00
JRNL
1010
JEAN ROBINSON
VENDOR MTAL
64.00
16156
66.00
ELECTION ,JUDGE 9/:1
01
9/19/90 V19/90
66.00
JRNL -CD
1010
CLIFFORD WILSON
VENDOR TOTAL
66.00
16157
95.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01- 4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
95.00
JRM -0
1010
BOB B YRNE S
VOW TOTAL
95.00
16158
66.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
66.00
JRM - CD
1010
.LINE HESSICK
VENDOR TOTAL
66.00
16159
66.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
66.00
,AHI -CD
1010
PHYLLIS RUDOLPH
VENDOR TOTAL
66.00
16160
66.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-4060 -13DO
9/19190 9/19/90
66,00
,RNL -CD
tm0
WIRCELLA HALL
VENDOR TOTAL
66.00
16166
64.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-400 -1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
64.00
JRHI -CD
1010
BETTY STRONG
VENDOR TOTAL
64.00
16168
50.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-40!0-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
50.00
JRM -CD
H010
EDYTHE KIINIG
VENDOR TOTAL
50.00
16169
56.00
ELECTION JUDGE 9/11
01-4060-1300
9/19/90 9/19/90
56.00
J M -CD
i010
ELLA RICHTER
VFNDOR TOTAL
56.00
TOTAL AL', VENig)RS
111,73.37
0 0 y�-
w
•
•
�� r3
WPLOM TEL: 338 -2625
a RESOLUTION 1990-
Sep 21.90 9 :24 No.001 P.05
RDp -M
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A WAIVER
OF MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a city in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a full -time police department
which aggressively enforces Minnesota criminal laws, including all
of the recently enacted gross misdemeanors, and
WHEREAS, the practice in Hennepin County of waiving the
requirement to conduct the omnibus hearing on gross misdemeanors
within 14 days has resulted in more expeditious and efficient
procedures for dealing with the large number of gross- misdemeanors
in Hennepin County, and
WHEREAS, the proposed change to Rules 8.04 and 11.07 of the
Rules of criminal Procedure will require that the omnibus hearing
be held within 14 days of the initial appearance, which will result
In the additional appearance of the city prosecutor and city police
officers, appearances which are not presently occurring under the
rules now in effect, and
. WHEREAS, the city believes that the criminal process now in
effect in Hennepin county is efficient, and affords the defendant'
all of the rights and process required by state and federal
constitutions, and that the changes to Rules 8.04 and 11.07 will
not improve an already excellent court procedure, but will simply
add unnecessary expense and cane load to an already busy court, and
may in fact adversely affect the ability of the Hennepin County
court system to deal with both civil and criminal case loads.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City
of Mound:
1. The City of Hound is strongly in favor of a waiver from
the 14 day hearing requirement in Rules 8.04 and 11.07 of
the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure for Hennepin
County.
2. The City Manager is directed to send a copy of this
resilution to the Criminal Rules Advisory Committee and
the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Mayor -- -- - - - - --
E
City Clerk
Council Mwmberc ir. Favor:
Council Members Against:
CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 9 -25 -90 #2
WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 21,90 9:24 No.001 P.02
A TMOMAI WORST, VA
CURTeS A PtAfteom, PA.
JAM94 0 I-MiOw, P.A,
TMOMA$ r. UwD[ww000, P.A.
CRAIG M. MtoTt
Roeta J. rt«owS
LAW OFFICES
WORST. PEARSON, L^RSON, UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ
A VA&Tft944.1r IM91.V9,k6 •AO•ltG-OftA► A&6etlAT*%4
1100 FIRST SANK PLACE W9ST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
September 21, 1990
Mr. Ed Shukle
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Velts-MoMt
lets) 32e tee
PAR MUMoRs
4041 S]e lets
Ra: City of Mound
Dear Ed&
On September 16, 1990, 1 attended a Meeting of the Suburban
Prosecutors' Association. Also in attendance Was Judge Charles
Porter of the Hennepin County District Court. The qubject of the
meeting was the change to Rules 8.04 and 11.07 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, scheduled to become effective on January 1,
1991.
Rules 8.04 and 11.07 relate to the omnibus hearing procedure
for gross - misdemeanors, a hearing which under the rules should be
held within 14 days, and at which time various pre -trial issues are
taken up and decided, such as whether there is probable cause,
whether certain items of evidence will be admissible, and the like.
The rules have allowed this hearing to be waived and held at the
time of the pre -trial conference. As you know, most cases are
resolved at the pre -trial conference and the practical result of
the waiver of the requirement to have the omnibus hearing in 14
days has eliminated the hearings altogether. If the cases were set
for triad, the hearing was deferred to the day of trial, a time
when all of the witnesses were required to come to the courthouse
for the trial. This waiver procedure has been an extremely
effective way to deal with the omnibus hearing. The waiver has
been so effective, in firs, that we have never had an omnibus
hearing before the date of trial where we had to call witnesses to
testify. All of this is now scheduled to change.
On January 1, 1991, the amended Rules 8.04 and 11.07 will do
away with the waiver of the 14 day requirement. If there is to be
an omnibus hearing, it must be held within 14 days. The waiver nas
been eliminated. The judges and prosecutors believe that a defense
WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 21.90 9:24 No.001 P.03
WuRST, PIANSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD 6 MERTZ
• Mr. Rd Shukle
City of Mound
September 21, 1990
Page 2
attorney's first contact with his client is usually at the first
court appearance. They arrange to meet at the courthouse by
telephone. The attorneyfs first exposure to the case is at that
first appearance. This is too early in the proceeding to expect
the defense attorney to waive the omnibus hearing. Bo everyone
expects that these hearings will be demanded in most cases, and it
demanded, they oust be held within 14 days. Witnesses will be
required to testify. If witnesses do not appear, cases will be
dismissed. If witnesses do appear, I would expect some attorneys
to waive the hearing at that point and others to cross examine
state's witnesses to see what they can find out. The Hennepin
County public Defender has announced that he will request a hearing
in every case.
The Hennepin County bench expects these hearings to last on
average 1 1/2 to 2 hours, and expects to assign 8 judges to conduct
these hearings on a 5 day per week, d hour per day basis. There
are about 6,000 gross misdemeanors per year in the county. Two
thousand downtown, and 4,000 in the suburban courts. Under the
present rule these hearings do not occur, or if at all, on the day
of trial. So this requirement to conduct these hearings is over
and above what is now being handled by the court system.
Why is this happening? Is the system under the existing rule
not working? The change is happening because the Supreme Court has
indicated that it will not grant a waiver from the new rule to
Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. Chief Justice Popovich has stated
that he wants uniform application of the rules on a state wide
basis. In reality, the change in the rule wont have a large
impact on 85 of the 87 counties. Only Hennepin and Ramsey will
have a dramatic change. The rule we now have works perfectly. No
change is required. Defendants* rights are not being compromised.
If he wants a hearing, he gets it but it happens on the day of
trial.
Why am I telling you about this? As you can well imagine,
there will be an added burden on your resources to conduct these
new hearings. First of all, the Court has indicated that the
hearings must be held downtown, because the suburban court rooms
are fully scheduled. This means more driving for your officers.
Second, under the union contract, you will be required to pa the
officers 2 hours at time and one -half when they are scheduled for
these new hearings. There goes your overtime budget. Third, your
prosecutor will be required to conduct these new hearings.
How much extra time is involved? In 1989 and so far in 1990,
there have been on average 3 gross uisdemeanors per month. If we
have one officer for each hearing, this means about 72 overtime
WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 21.90 9 :24 No.001 P.04
WURST, PEARSON, LAR S ON. UNDERWOOD & MfRTt
• Mr. Rd Shukle
City of Mound
September 21, 1990
Page 1
hours per year. If the hearings run 2 hours, my time will increase
about 72 hours per year. This is indeed an additional cost because
I don't expect that any of the oases will be resolved at the
omnibus hearing. To the extent that defense attorneys waive these
hearings, these costs will be reduced. But at this point, I see no
reason to be optimistic about the defense bar. These hearings
could result in a 15% increase in prosecution expenses alone
without considering the policc Overtime OkVense. I understand that
Minneapolis has estimated at least a million dollar increase in its
court budget.
I am writing this letter for two reasons. First to explain
the problem, and second, to let you know how you night address the
problem politically. There is an advisory committee on tho Rules
of Criminal Procedure that is meeting the first weekend in October.
The Prosecutors Association agreed to ask all suburban cities to
ask the rules committee to recommend to the Supreme Court that the
new rules be waived for Hennepin and Ramsey counties. I also
suggest that the Council adopt a resolution favoring a waiver of
the 14 day rule for Hennepin County. I have enclosed a draft
revolution which I suggest be adopted by the Council, and sent to
the Rules Committee with a letter from Ed requesting a waiver for
Hennepin County. The letter, together with 15 copies, should be
sent to Phil Marron, L.A.M.P., 95 Law Building, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, requesting that the copies
be distributed to the committee. I also suggest that copies be
sent to each of the Supreme Court justices. I enclose a current
mailing list for the court.
Please let me know if there is anything more I might be doing
on this.
very, truly
�1
ames' Larson
JDL: lkg
Enclosure
..
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472 -3711
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544 -9511
EMERGENCY 911
September 25, 1990
TO: Ed Shukle KRule FROM: Len Harrell
SUBJECT: Omnibus Hearing Change
1 7 -j
I have been in contact with Jim Larson regarding the proposed rule change
regarding the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure for Hennepin County
and am very concerned. To date, we have had approximately 150 court
appearances for our officers since the first of the year. If only one
half of these cases required an additional hearing appearance, the cost
would be a minimum of $3,900.00 in officer costs alone. Additionally,
there would be prosecutor and travel costs.
I have attached letters from the county attorneys office and the Hennepin
County Chiefs of Police Association. Both letters request that the rule
change not take effect and are concerned over the effects the change
would have in the system.
Please convey to the council my concerns and support for the resolution
prepared by `ir. Larson.
•
THOMAS L. JOHNSON PHONE
COUNTY ATTORNEY , ?�' *�} C 0 1 6121346 5550
4 _ ti ~A IL
• 'aA C >�
OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY
2000 GOVERNMENT CENTER
M INNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55487
September 21, 1990
Chief Len Harrell
Mound Police Department
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Chief:
This is to follow up the discussion at the last Hennepin
County Chiefs of Police Association meeting. At that meeting I said I
would send each Chief some background information regarding the
Omnibus Hearing Rule that will go into effect on January 1, 1991. The
new Rule is effective on that date unless the Minnesota Supreme Court
acts to either defer the implementation date or to otherwise modify
its current position.
The new Rule change mandates a full Omnibus Hearing within 14
days of every defendant's first appearance for all felony and gross
misdemeanor prosecutions. This includes a Hearing on all
Constitutional and other legal issues (the so- called Rasmussen
Hearing). Such issues now go through a Rasmussen Hearing only if the
defendant does not otherwise enter a guilty plea -- something which
happens in about 90% of all felony cases. To put some numbers on
this, about 250 felony cases go to trial each year in Hennepin County.
Only these cases are now subjected to a Rasmussen Hearing. However,
we prosecute approximately 4,000 felonies each year. So, about 3,700+
cases which now settle without a Rasmussen Hearing will be required to
have one. (A few cases will settle within 14 days after the Rulp
change, but very few.)
Each Rasmussen Hearing will require minimally the presence of
the arresting officer. It may also require the presence of the
investigating officer(s) and others as well. We estimate each Omnibus
will take a full half -day. So, your department will have 1 -4 officers
subpoenaed for perhaps as many as 3,700 felony cases where their
appearance is not now necessary. (This number will, in all
likelihood, be smaller than 3,700. But it is impossible to project
how much smaller and even if it i4, say, 50% smaller, it is still
significant.)
It would be very useful for you to analyze the cost your city
would incur because of the Rule change. Please note that the numbers
above are for felonies Qn1v You will need to consUIL your city
T. D. D. 612,348 fi015 HENNEPIN COUNTY 15 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER FAX X6121348 2042
Chief Len Harrell
Mound Police Department
September 21, 1990
Page 2
•
attorney to get gross misdemeanor figures. Then, a letter should be
sent with your cost estimate, along with any other explanatory
comments you would like to make, to:
Frank Claybourne, Chair cc: Chief Justice Peter Popovich
Supreme Court Criminal Rules Minnesota Supreme Court
Advisory Committee Minnesota Judicial Center
30 E. Seventh Street #2800 25 Constitution Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55155 -6102
Obviously, speed is of the essence. The Criminal Rules
Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet in October. It is critically
important that this Committee recommend to the Supreme Court that it
defer implementation or toss -out the Omnibus Rule now scheduled to go
into effect January 1.
As additional background for you, I have enclosed the letter
the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association authorized be sent to
Mr. Claybourne. Please contact Tom Frost (348 -5520) or myself if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
THOMAS L. JOHNSON
Hennepin County Attorney
cc: Tom Frost
[TLJLTRS]CHIEFS/CHIEFS MTG
P.S. I just received notice that the Advisory Committee is meeting
October 5 and 6 -- so, as I said, speed is of the essence.
OR
i The Heimcpi» Count Chief's u[ Police Assucia(ion
r :•- pl nml lot l u , 1 W411
frank Clayhoulne, Chairperson
Supremo Court Cr iminal Pules Advi c oimu i t t Pp
30 Ea-.t: Seventh Sti - pet - 1 20c11)
St. Paul, M innecol a 9 :51 o I
Dear Mr. Claybourne:
2 1 ' 1 1 1 c t Pl tPl 1 C w l i l l oll 1 - o PXIII'PCS: l isp iff 1 "he U-1111-p
rurlty I'll infs 11f VoI i4•P ARC4447iat -i"I rPy .1l(I in#4 11W WIt - nl i:lI I•h1119P
in t hp way fp l ally .11141 yr42cc n1 i sdPnln .1rulr 011111 i lluc 11na r i llgn a rP 11P I d
ill IlentiPp 1 ll county.
ify unanimous resolution of the Associaticnl mPlllbprship at its
monthly meeting September 6, 1990, 1 was asked to send this letter
requesting that the Supreme Court Criminal Rules Advisory Committee
reconsider this issue and recommend to the Supreme Court that the
new Omnibus Bearing Rule, presently schpduled to be effective
January 1, 1991, be rescinded.
In considering this issue, we urge the committee to take into
account the impressive record of the members of the Hennepin County
criminal justice system in working together to eliminate criminal
case backlog. At present, two - thirds of all felony cases are
resolved before they are set for trial. Since January of 1990, the
number of felony cases awaiting trial has dropped from over 300 to
about 180. These numbers alone are significant, but with the
history of 1,450 felony cases awaiting trial in Novemhor, 19It7, it
is obvious that dramatic changes have occurred.
Omnibus hearings involving live testimony now occur in about
250 cases a year. if the Rule change takes place and full. Omnibus
hearings are scheduled 14 days after first appearance, members of
the Hennepin County Public Defender's office have said they will
demand hearings in all felony and gross misdemeanor cases. If
demanded in all cases, it will increase the number of hearings to
about 10,000 cases Even if demanded in only half tile c as es, it
will require twenty times more hearings than under the present
system. With each Minibus hearing i nvo I v i nq ona or more po 1 i c.P
officers, the impact on the delivery of po l i cP sPry i ces and it .-,
resulting effect on public safety is apparent.
In summary, we urge the committee to consider the effect the
• rule change will have on police officers' time spent in and
awaiting court. Our agencies' ability to perform tilt- duties
expo -,�ted by our citizenry will be reduced significantly. The
current system has proven to be effective in res cases
• Frallk c I aybourne, Cha i rpe1-s11n
SuprPmp ('01 Cr i In i na l It if le-, All v i soi y Cc+nrlu i t top
Septellll►ei 19, 1
Page 7
expPllit iol.sly wit.h."'t .11lvPleoly IfF"Llt illy -it hel 1A 1•llnunlr►tityIs or
the defendant.'-- r ight.s. To sl-rap it ill favor (if null P c•osl 1 y all(]
less Pff ic-ieA systelll seems ullwisP.
Thank you for' your eonsideration, and wP trust that you will
act ill the public's interest cons i der.i ny this import ant issue.
Vol 1 1 - 11 1 y y .+lll s.
Doll 0111od t
Sher i f r of nPllnepi n County
Secretary /'Treasurer
IlQnnc+ pin County Chiefs of
PO l i co? Assoc i at i oil
DO: gk
• cc: Members of Supreme Court Criminal Rules Advisory Comm.ittc -e
Members of the Supreme Court
Chief Keith Wall, President, ilentnepin County Chiefs of i'olirP
Association
•
Supreme Court Advisory (.committee.
Rules of Criminal Procedure
2800 Minnesota world Trade Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Judge Robert E. II(Iwea
Judge Charles F. Cashman
nPnry 11. reikema
Judge Donovan W. Ft ank
David Graven
Judge Charles C. Juhtlsrnt
John E. MacGi boon
Judge lleiiry W. McCarr. , .Jr.
Ronald 1. Meshbesher
,Judge Bruce C. Stone
Paul Kp.nipa i riPii
Pit i 1 i p Mar roil
Pr ofPSsor Mayivii d F . V i rc i y
Supreme Court of Minnesota
230 State Capitol Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Chief 31
. Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
ustice Peter S. Popovich
Lawrence R. Yetka
Rosalie E. Wahl
John E. Simonett
Esther M. Tomljanovich
M. Jeanne Coyne
A. M. Keith
LI
•
CITY OF MOUND
1990 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
AUGUST 1990 66.67%
AUGUST YTD PER CENT
BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
-- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
1262190
0
552500
709690
43.77%
Intergovernmental
780860
57705
443206
337654
56.76%
Business Licenses
9950
230
3417
6533
34.34%
Non - Business
Licenses and
Permits
86700
6896
43791
42909
50.51%
Charges for
Services
34800
1352
6467
28333
18.58%
Court Fines
95000
7955
43460
51540
45.75%
Charges to Other
Departments
20000
1039
14390
5610
71.95%
Other Revenue
49300
3721
8859
40441
17.97%
10TOTAL REVENUE
2338800
78898
1116090
1222710
47.72%
LIQUOR FUND
900000
90393
611979
288021
68.00%
WATER FUND
360000
26942
210057
149943
58.35%
SEWER FUND
590000
46117
380527
209473
64.50%
DOCKS FUND
62950
754
58807
4143
93.42%
CEMETERY FUND
2000
1000
4400
-2400
220.00%
1, Fq �
CITY OF MOUND •
1990 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURES
AUGUST 1990 66.67%
Area Fire
Service Fund
214290
AUGUST
YTD
64245
PER CENT
Liquor Fund
BUDGET
EXPENSE
EXPENSE
VARIANCE
EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
Council
63890
3395
43981
19909
68.84%
Cable TV
10150
0
9024
1126
88.91%
City Manager /Clerk
166310
12585
114440
51870
68.81%
Elections
11400
54
1838
9562
16.12%
Assessing
43320
17
425
42895
0.98%
Finance
162030
12741
106476
55554
65.71%
Computer
22150
1628
18218
3932
82.25%
Legal
80900
4114
37127
43773
45.89%
Police
717850
45017
502507
215343
70.00%
Civil Defense
2750
77
597
2153
21.71%
Planning /Inspections
245000
10482
81635
63365
56.30%
Recycling
60670
177
49081
11589
80.90%
Streets
382890
26656
251071
131819
65.57%
Shop & Stores
61440
6021
43859
17581
71.39%
City Property
84200
2785
48333
35867
57.40%
Parks
148560
19441
91773
56787
61.78%
Summer Recreation
11310
-3924
8435
2875
74.58%
Contingencies
30000
5887
10043
19957
33.48%
Transfers
122270
- - - - --
10048
- - - - --
80384
- - - - --
41886
- - - - --
65.74%
- - - - --
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
2327090
157201
1499247
827843
64.43%
Area Fire
Service Fund
214290
14461
150045
64245
70.02%
Liquor Fund
163450
12743
107982
55468
66.06%
Water Fund
347930
21063
254339
93591
73.10%
Sewer Fund
771560
58190
431232
340328
55.89%
Cemetery Fund
3680
210
1779
1901
48.34%
Docks Fund
62950
3001
60466
2484
96.05%
i s
Zif-6
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
• MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 1Q, 1990
Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Vice Chair Geoff Michael,
Commissioners Ken Smith, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Thal, Frank
Weiland, Bill Voss, and Michael Mueller, Council Representative
Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John
Cameron, City Manager Ed Shukie, and Secretary James.
The following citizens were also present: Mark Mulvey, Julie a
David Willcox, Shelley E Denis Dorton. Glen Tilton, Catherine
Moynagh, John b Michelle Olson, StacSr3 Tom Hintz, and Craig Hen-
derson.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
MI NUTES:
The Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1990 were presented
for approval. Clapsaddle noted a change on page 2, second to
the last paragraph, should read as follows: "He stated that
economic studies show that there is a good opportunity for a
large grocery store-- sach-a-s- -w-C-ab;- is-needed In the Mound
area."
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to ap-
prove the Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1990
as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
a. Case No. 90 -931: Tom & Stacy Hintz (Boxwood Lane / Lynwood
Blvd.), Lot 23, Koehler's 2nd Addn., PiD #14- 117 -24 43 0005.
VARIANCE: No Frontage on an Improved Right -of -Way.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Officials
recommendation for this variance request. The applicants are
requesting a variance to allow construction of a single family
dwelling on a parcel which does not have frontage on an improved
right -of -way.
The Building Official recommended approval of the variance to
grant a building permit on a lot without frontage on an improved
street with the site plan being revised to be in conformance with
the City Engineer's report and the City's Street, Sewer and Water
Department recommendations.
The City Engineer's recommendation stated :hat he would still
like to see this property developed with the access and utilities
from an extension of Chestnut Road. However, due to lack of
easements and cooperation of adjacent property owners, this Is
not possible. It appears the only logical way for this property
to be served with utilities and access Is by way of Boxwood Lane.
289 (o
Planning'Commisslon Minutes
September 10, 1990
Page 2
The City Engineer recommended approval of the variance as
requested, upon the following conditions:
1. Fire Department approval of the driveway;
2. Utility construction permit approval from Hennepin County;
3. Approval by Mound Public Works for private utility services;
4. No furtheo subdivision of property, unless public access and
utilities are extended from Chestnut Road.
Greg Skinner, Mater and Sewer Superintendent, recommended ap-
proval of the variance request, subject the following conditions:
1. Sanitary sewer Installed according to City Standards:
a. Install manhole on Lynwood Blvd. over existing main.
b. Install manhole at northeast corner of lot.
2. Install 6" DiP with hydrant at the northeast corner.
3. Replace existing gravel driveway with a minimum of 2 -112" of .
blacktop.
The Commission discussed the Fire Chief's statement: "Fire
protection on Boxwood Lane is adequate for access to the house."
Some Commissioners interpreted this as meaning that there is not
adequate access for a fire truck, however, fire fighters can get
to the house since there is less than 300 feet to a fire hydrant.
Other Commissioners interpreted It as meaning that the fire truck
can access the property via Boxwood.
Mueller questioned, if Boxwood Lane is blacktopped, who will
maintain, and who will pay for improvement? Koegler informed the
commission that if the street was improved, the abutting property
owners would be assessed for the improvement. The applicants
commented that they do not wish for the road to be blacktopped,
they do not want to create a burden for the other property
owners. John Olson, an abutting property owner to Boxwood feels
the street is too narrow. Mr. Olson also stated that he was told
by the City in 1975 that Boxwood could not be improved, and the
plan then was to improve Chestnut Road for access.
The installation of sewer and water was discussed. Stacy and Tom
Hintz, applicants, confirmed that they have no Intentions of sub -
divlding�the property. 0
A private sewer and water line versus a City maintained sewer and
water line with an improved street was discussed.
29`
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 1990
Page 3
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve
staff recommendation. Note: we do not feel that using
the information supplied. we are qualified to make a
decision.
Mueller and Jensen commented that they feel that using Boxwood
for this property's access and utilities is short -term planning,
and using Chestnut road for access and utilities is long -term
planning.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Smith and Clapsaddle.
MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Smith to pass this
variance request onto the City Council without a recom-
mendation. Note: approval of this request would be a
short -term solution to a long -term situation.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Thal and Smith.
The City Engineer, John Cameron, arrived, and therefore, the dis-
cussion of this case was put on hold. The Commission agreed to
hear the other cases on the agenda before returning to this case.
b. Case No._ 90 -932: Crate Henderson, 4435 Dorchester Road
Lots 19 & 20. Block 17, Avalon. PID #19- 117 -23 -31 01,06.
VARIANCE: Side Yard Setback - to Allow a Conformin Addl-
tion.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to
recognize the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet
to allow a conforming addition. Staff recommended approval of
the I foot side yard setback variance.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Smith to approve
staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on.September 25,
1990.
C. Case No. 90 -933: Catherine Movnagh a Glenn T11
Wexford_ Lane, Lots_ 3 - 13, Block 7, Seton. PID #24-117-24
0001. VARIANCE: Side Yard Setback to an Existing b!oncon-
formina Lot of Record.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request as
outlined in the Building Official's report. The existing struc-
ture is setback 13.3 feet from Wexford Lane. the applicant
Proposes to demolish the existing structure. They would like to
rebuild in basically the same footprint, however adding a 26'4" x
30' second story, extend 2 feet more to the east, and extend 8
feet further to the north resulting in a 2.2 foot encroachment
into the required 10 foot side yard setback.
V9g
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 1990
Page 4
0
A practical difficulty exists by reason of the existing founda-
tion location and topography of this lot. Staff recommended ap-
proval of the variance of 2.2 feet to the required side yard set-
back of 10 feet to a nonconforming lot.
The applicant handed out a copy of his survey showing the build-
ing envelope highlighted. Jensen commented that he does have a
restrictive building envelope, therefore there is practical dif-
ficulty. She also commented that the structure is located on a
dead end street.
Mueller suggested building towards the wetlands. The applicant
noted that there are two large maple trees at the rear of the
house.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to approve
staff recommendation upon the condition that the 8.3' x
7.5' shed be r- moved and the house be removed down to
the foundation at first floor level and be rebuilt to
meet current building code. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12,
1990.
d. Cas No. 90 -934: Denis & ^._o_lley Dorion, Lots 1, 2, & part
of 3, Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B, PID 924- 117 -24 -12 0023.
VAR IANCE: Side Yard Setback.
City Planner. Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to
construct a 26' x 28' detached garage on their property 8.5 feet
from the front property line facing Avon Drive. The Building Of-
ficial recommended to deny the variance request of 21.5 feet
based on the criteria for variances that the variance requested
be the minimijm that would alleviate the hardship. Although there
appears to be a hardship, and the granting of a variance may be
warranted, it may be in the form of an attached garage.
Some Commissioners agreed that the garage size was too large to
warrant a minimum variance situation. The building envelope was
discussed. Mueller commented that the lot is an odd shaped cor-
ner lot which provides a hlydship.
The applicants commented that they prefer a detached garage ver-
sus an attached. They prefer to have the garage placed 8 feet
from the house instead of the required minimum of 5 feet to have
more room between the two structures. The reason they propose to
set the garage back, more towards Avon, is because of the place-
ment of the kitchen window. 0
v6 9y
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 1990
Page 5
MOTION made by voss, seconded by Michael to approve
staff recommendation for denial of the variance as
requested due to lack of hardship and it is x not a mini-
mum variance situation. Motion carried 5 -4 (Those in
favor were: Voss, Michael, Clapsaddle, Thal, and
Jensen; those opposed were: Meyer, Smith, Mueller, and
Weiland).
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 25,
1990.
a. Case No. 90 -931: Tom 8 Stacy Hintz (Boxwood Lane / Lynwood
Blvd.), Lot 23, Koehler's 2nd Addn., PID #14- 117 -24 43 0005.
VARIANCE: No Frontage on an Improved RlQht- of -W3y
Discussion on case 90 -931 continued.
The City Engineer, John Cameron, confirmed that if a private
utility service was installed, and the street was not Improved,
It would be the applicant's responsibility to maintain the
utilities. An agreement may need to be drafted to ensure that
the responsibility remains that of the property owner, not the
City. Cameron also confirmed that for one single family dwell-
ing, a private service would be adequate.
The Commission discussed the possibility of improving Chestnut
Road. The abutting property owners, Mr. Mulvey and Mr. Willcox
were both present and stated that they do not have the funds to
pay of the improvement.
Thal questioned the curve radius of the driveway , -: - - R,ice into
Lot 23, it appears to be too sharp, about a 90 degree angle. The
applicant confirmed they already planned on changing the entrance
to lessen the sharp angle.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to deny the
variance request for no frontage on an improved public
right -of -way, reason being: this is a short -term solu-
tion to a long -term problem. Motion failed 4 - 5 (those
In favor were: Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, and Michael;
those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Thal, Meyer, Voss, and
Smith).
MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Smith to approve the
City Engineer's. recommendation Including conditions 1
thru 4. Mot!an carried 6 - 3 (these in favor were:
Clapsaddle, Thal, Meyer, Michael, Voss and Smith; those
opposed were: Mueller, Weiland and Jensen).
Ze erg
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 1990
Page 6
is
Mueller, W-fland, and Clapsaddle commented that they feel this is
not a solution, but Just a band -aid. Chester Road should be ex-
tended to eliminate future variances, even I f it means condemna-
tion.
This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12,
1990.
City Council Representative's Report
Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of August 28th. She
enlightened the Commission on actions made on zoning cases and
discussion about the central business district parking.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn
the meeting at 10:24 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Bill Meyer
•
Attest:
?"q0/
asg of
metropolitan
munic�alities
RECT SEP 18 1990
BULLETIN
September 17, 1990
TO: Mayors and Managers /Administrators
FROM: Vern Peterson, Executive Director
RE: TAB Appointments, Dues Increase approved,
Annual Policy Adoption Meeting, etc.
1. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (TAB) NOMINATIONS:
Ten positions on the TAB are reserved for city elected officials
and the AMM harm the responsibility for nominating those
officials. The terms are for tuo years and the AM Board will
be acting on this matter at the October 4th. Board Meeting.
The TAB is a very important advisory body and provides advice to
the Metropolitan Council, Regional Transportation Board and
MNDOT. one of its most important functions is to annually
determine the FAU project funding priorities. It normally meets
the third Wednesday afternoon of each month in the Metropolitan
Council Offices.
REcOMMENDATIONS/VOLUNTEERS WANTED:
The AMM Board is soliciting recommendations for these
nominations via this Bulletin. While a number of incumbents
will be reappointed, there will be several new appointments and
recommendations are needed from all parts of the Metropolitan
Area. Recommendations should be in writing and submitted to the
AMM Office, to the attention of Vern Peterson, by no later than
October I 1990.
2. AMM ANNUM, pollCY ADOPTION MFETING IS SET FOR THURSDAY EVENING,
NOVEMBER 1ST.
The annual Membership Meeting to adopt the AMM's legislative
program for 1991 is scheduled for Thursday evening November 1,
1990. The location has not been selected as yet but it will be
a dinner meeting that will kickoff about 5:30 P.M. with a social
•
to get th meeting onsyourlcalendari later but we
now. The policy adoption
t g
-1 Ogoz-
163 ;:- -,, iWSity avenue east, st paul, rninnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008
Meeting is probably the most important meeting of each year and
we hope that all 68 member cities will be represented on
November 1st. The AMM policy committees have been meeting •
since July and will be making their recommendations shortly.
3. DOES INCREASE APPROVED AT SEPTEMBER 6TH. MEETING:
At the special membership meeting on September 6th. the
resolution to approve the 1991 dues increase which will enable
the Board to hire un additional staff person was passed by an
overwhelming majority vote of the membership ( 8 )
specific amount of increase for each city due to this approval
has been previously communicated to the city manager or
administrator. The AMM Board appreciates the membership support
and strongly believes it will enable the AMM to expand its
mission on behalf of member cities and make its voice at the
Legislature and Metropolitan Council even more effective.
Together the Am works!
4. ANN RECOMMENDS CHANGES To METROPOLITAN COUNCILS 1991 WORK
PROGRAM AND BUDGET:
Continuing a 16 year tradition, the AMM has thoroughly analyzed
and critiqued the Metropolitan Council's Proposed 1991 Budget and
Work Program. The AMM comments and recommendations were
presented at the September 10th. Public Hearing held by the
Council for that purpose. A copy of the AMM critique has been
included with the copy of this bulletin sent to the city
Manager /Administrator. The Board wanted to make each city aware
of our recommendations. This AMM critique was developed by the
22 member Metropolitan Agencies Committee under the direction of
Chair Sharon Klumpp and approved unanimously by the Board on
September 6th. The AMM critique is only five pages long and we
hope you will take time to read it. The AMM is the only
organization that annually analyzes and critiques the Met
Council's Budget and Work Program.
5. MISSIS51"PPI RIVER COORDINATION:
The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Coordinating
Commission created by 1988 Federal Law sponsored by Rep. Bruce
Vento and Sen. Dave Durenberger had its first public meeting
September 14, 1990. During the next few weeks study subgroups
are being established to gather data and start the process that
will lead to a comprehensive river coordinating plan targeted
for completion by the end of 1992, containing elements which may
control the public and private use of the Mississippi River.
The effort involves a number of Federal Agencies and will lead to
federal involvement to some degree in river and abuting property
activities. On the positive side because of the federal
designation, there will be federal. grants available for various
-2-
•
2 4o�>
types of development.
Local elected officials on the full commission include:
Tom Dimond, Councilmember, St. Paul
William Nee, Mayor, Fridley
William Saed, Mayor, Inver Grove Heights
Dennis Schulstad, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Lu Stoffel, Mayor, Hastings
The eight subgroups to study and gather information are as
follows:
1. Intergovernmental Coordination/Management Framework /NPS
Role.
2. Recreation and Open Space /Tourism /Surface Water Use.
3. City Planning /Land Use Changes and Development
Multiple Use Management /Resource Utilization
Compatible Economic Development.
4. Commercial Navigation.
5. Natural Resources (Wetlands and Upland Habitat, Water
Quality, Threatened and Endangered Species).
6. Cultural Resources Management.
7. Identity
Visual Quality.
S. Interpretation.
AMM Staff testified at the meeting on September 14th. We
suggested that the commission hold a meeting soon with all
affected Municipalities abuting the river, as well as, notifying
each about serving on the study subgroups. If you are interested
contact one of the elected officials named above or:
Norman J. Reigle, Superintendent
National Park Service
P. 0 Box 65456
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165 - 0456
Phone: (612) 290 -4160
The federally mandated commission could have far reaching impact
on the use of the Mississippi River and Development along the
river within cities abuting the river.
DISTRIBUTION NOTE:
This bulletin has been mailed to Mayors and
Managers /Administrators only. We would ask that it be
distributed to city councilmembers as well.
Thank you.
•
-3-
Z Hof
CRITIQUE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S
PROPOSED 1991 BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM
SECTION I. GENERAL COMMENTS.
1. The ANN notes with interest the paragraph in Mr. Benz's letter to
(page 1) Chair Steve Keefe which reads: 'Preparing this Work
Program and Budget has been more difficult than in recent past
years. The constraints of revenue limits, and reductions and
rising costs have resulted in this proposal for a Work Program that
is less ambitious than in the past few years. These same factors,
projected over the next three to five years, strongly suggest that
the Council must focus very specifically on those areas of greatest
importance and decrease programing in those areas that are less
essential. This proposal recommends that we have fewer staff,
decrease some services and target our work in carefully chosen
policy areas.' We are also aware that the proposed budget and work
program are based a tax levy that contains a small symbolic cut
(about $95,000) from the maximum allowable levy.
The AM does not have sufficient information to comment on the
advisability of making what we consider to be a symbolic cut but if
the Council is going to continue to have the revenue constraints as
noted by Mr. Renz then it is very important that the Council use
criteria that makes practical sense in determining yearly programs
and activities. We offer the following as a guide:
A. The issue or concern being address is significant to the well
? of the metro area.
B. r lncil intervention or activity will make a real difference or
h"ve an impact.
C. The Council effort is not a substitute for state level activity
nor does it duplicate state level efforts.
D. The Council is the most appropriate agency to intervene or
perform activity.
2. The AMM is cognizant of the continuing trend that property taxes as
a portion of the total revenue available to the Council has now
reached 60 + % or $8,289,314 (pages 4 and 48). The growth of local
revenues does afford the council more flexibility in determining the
yearly work program anc. activities. We also think it suggests that
the Council should be very selective in determining its priorities
and the activities to be undertaken. So that 'stakeholders' and
interested parties such as the AMM can better understand and make
more informed comments with respect to the Annual Work Program, the
Council should categorize the strategies (pages 14 -38) as to whetter
an activity is required, optional, has dedicated funding etc. We are
aware that a supporting document was provided to the Council's
Managems.-it Committee which separated the strategies into four main
natev,cies'. R =reav ;red by law, regulation, or other commitment;
DF- dedicated fund ng; PN- practical necessity or 0-optional. This
information should be contained in the Work Program /Budget document
-1-
•
Zq',56
4. The six major priorities as noted on page 13 and elsewhere seem to
address the major problems and non- revenue type issues that concern
most Alai member cities. We have somewhat of a vague uneasiness
about Goal 7 (Human Investment Framework) since it is hard to
measure accomplishment in this area. TL- council has put alot of
resources into this goal over the past t. ee years but
there is little evidence of concrete, meaningful progress based on
the page 21 summary. In general such of the emphasis and activity
in this area would be better handled at the state or county levels
in our judgement. We also have concerns with the number of
problems remaining in the solid waste management area in view of
the tremendous resouces the Council has poured into this program
over the past several years.
• In our comments last year, we noted that the ratio of 'support
staff' (Community Services, Administration and the Chairs Office)
to the total staff was over 40% and this, seemed high. We asked the
Council to examine that relationship. We note that the 1991
proposed staff complement contains seven fewer FTE's (207) than in
the 1990 complement of 214. Based on our analysis and comparison
of the 1990 and 1991 budget documents, it appears that five of the
seven FTE's eliminated come from the support departments. The AMM
believes that choice is appropriate.
6. The AMM is very pleased by the increased amount of information that
is contained in the 1991 document as compared to previous years.
The amount of financial detail provided including information on the
pass through funds, reserves, debt service, etc. is very beneticial.
We also appreciate the inclusion of information which shows the
progress or expected progress of carryover priorities. The 1991
budget and work program document probably contains more useful and
understandable information then any previous annual budget document
we have examined.
SECTION II. PROGRAM SPECIFIC COMMENTS
•
-2-
Z poly
itself for the 'stakeholders' to
see. The AM has requested this
information in previous years but believes it is even more essential
now due to the higher reliance on
the local property tax to fund
the Council's budget.
3.
We note as mentioned on page 13 that all six priorities for 1991 are
the same as the 1990 priorities.
As a matter of fact five are
carried over from 1989 and four go
back as far as 1988. During each
of the last two years, the AM has
suggested that when a program or
priority is carried over from a
previous year, there should be a
brief summary or listing of the accomplishments /progress that was
made in the previous year. We
are pleased that the Council has
accepted our recommendation and has provided such information for
each priority. (pages 14, 17, 18,
19, 20 and 21).
4. The six major priorities as noted on page 13 and elsewhere seem to
address the major problems and non- revenue type issues that concern
most Alai member cities. We have somewhat of a vague uneasiness
about Goal 7 (Human Investment Framework) since it is hard to
measure accomplishment in this area. TL- council has put alot of
resources into this goal over the past t. ee years but
there is little evidence of concrete, meaningful progress based on
the page 21 summary. In general such of the emphasis and activity
in this area would be better handled at the state or county levels
in our judgement. We also have concerns with the number of
problems remaining in the solid waste management area in view of
the tremendous resouces the Council has poured into this program
over the past several years.
• In our comments last year, we noted that the ratio of 'support
staff' (Community Services, Administration and the Chairs Office)
to the total staff was over 40% and this, seemed high. We asked the
Council to examine that relationship. We note that the 1991
proposed staff complement contains seven fewer FTE's (207) than in
the 1990 complement of 214. Based on our analysis and comparison
of the 1990 and 1991 budget documents, it appears that five of the
seven FTE's eliminated come from the support departments. The AMM
believes that choice is appropriate.
6. The AMM is very pleased by the increased amount of information that
is contained in the 1991 document as compared to previous years.
The amount of financial detail provided including information on the
pass through funds, reserves, debt service, etc. is very beneticial.
We also appreciate the inclusion of information which shows the
progress or expected progress of carryover priorities. The 1991
budget and work program document probably contains more useful and
understandable information then any previous annual budget document
we have examined.
SECTION II. PROGRAM SPECIFIC COMMENTS
•
-2-
Z poly
I. Page 3, Paragraph 3 And Page 21, Strategy 7D
Comment: The AMM supports the *spinning off' of the arts program as
we have advocated that action for several years.
2. Page 4, Paragraph 2).
Comment: The AMM supports the symbolic gesture of levying less than
the allowable levy. Cities have the "tightest" levy limits in
history and your *sharing of the pain* is welcomed.
3. Page 15, Strategy IF, Water Quality Management.
Comment: This is a very sensitive issue because of the many
possible 'turf' questions. We strongly recommend the establishment
of a local officials ad hoc advisory committee to work with the
Council on this strategy. Such committee should be formed very
soon.
4. Page 17, Goal 4, Solid Waste Management.
Comment: As noted in general comment 4 we believe the progress has
been slow in this program and many problems are not being addressed
adequately. We do not object to the staff reduction in this
program but urge the Council to give serious consideration to
supporting the establishment of a regional solid waste commission to
address concerns that are not being addressed adequately through the
current structure.
5. Page 19, 1991 Housing Strategies.
Comment: The AMM is very supportive of the Council's effort towards
helping to provide housing for low and moderate income people.
We especially support strategy 5C (neighborhood characteristics) •
and the council's intent to assess the impacts of the Council's
policy on dispersing affordable housing. The AMM is pleased that
Housing has once again become one of the Council's top priorities.
6. Page 20. Goal 6 (Metro HRA)
Comment: The AMM continues to strongly support the Metro HRA and
its pattern of cooperation and partnership with cities in addressing
housing needs of low and moderate income persons.
7. Pages 22 and 23, Goal 9 and 10.
Comment: The AMM believes the Council should take a very close look
at these goals. There are problems with the health care area and
certainly within the Criminal and Social Justice Area. However,
these are not regional systems in any sense of the word. If
additional efforts are needed in these a:eas and they may be, the
work should be concentrated at the state level. We do not believe
these goals meet the suggested AMM tests for Council effort as
discussed in general comment 1.
8. Page 25, Strategy 12A, Infrastructure Fund Concept.
Comment: The AMM does not oppose the 'examination' of such a
concept but we want to participate in such a study because cities
-3-
•
ZA91
are having major problems dealing with local infrastructure funding
needs.
is Page 25, Strategy 13A, Policy Plan Implementation.
Comment: The AMM is not necessarily opposed to issuing regional
bonds for the regional park system but we raise this issue as a
question of equity. In effect, if these bonds are paid off through
a levy on property vithin the Seven County Area Metro Area,
Property tax payers are paying for a regional system that takes the
place of a state system in the metro area plus we also pay our share
for the state parks in outstate Minnesota.
10.Page 27, Strategy 15B, Special Studies.
Comment: The AMM questions what the real purpose is for the conduct
of these fiscal studies and papers. Several similar studies and
examinations are being or have been conducted at the state level
with respect to the financing of local government. Is the Council
looking at it from a different focus and perspective? Who will
benefit from such Council examination and what are the perceived
uses for such information? Is it a cursory type examination or
will real new 'ground be plowed'? Will this examination include an
analysis of the impact of the export of tax dollars from the
Metropolitan Area on the ability of this area to maintain its high
quality of life and sustain economic development? The AMM urges the
Met Council to better define the purpose, scope and focus for the
fiscal studies before it begins such effort.
11.Page 49, Table 4. Question: What is covered in the line item
0 'members expense - misc.' that is not covered in the other three
member's expense line items?
12.Additional activities that should be considered for inclusion in
the 1991 Work Program.
A. This region is often singled out as a area with a high quality of
life and one that really works! Perhaps some study or analysis
should be conducted to determine what it is that makes this
region perform so well so that we can keep it working. Not
critical necessarily and this could be done over a longer period
of time or postponed until 1992.
B. A number of political jurisdictions in Hennepin County under the
auspices of the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization
(HECO) have been pursuing the concept of fostering an 800
megahertz trunked radio system for all public safety agencies
within Hennepin County. HECO believes this system might have
merit for all of the metropolitan area and has asked the
Metropolitan Council to get involved. The AMM believes that this
system and other existing communications systems as well should
be evaluated. We believe it is appropriate for the Met Council
to add this item to its 1991 Work Program.
zoo r
SECTION III. CONCLUSION
The AMM is once again pleased for the opportunity to have participated •
in the Council's budget process and the cooperation and assistance
provided to us by the Cour ^il staff. We especially thank Dave Renz,
Marion Angelica, Marge Hols, Roger Israel, Pat Pahl and Barb Stromer
who took the time, including their personal lunch hour, to meet with
the AMM's Metropolitan Agencies Committee. The meeting was very
informative and beneficial to committee members in gaining a more
thorough understanding of the budget and work program.
From a process and format standpoint, the 1991 Budget and Work Program
document does convey a lot of information to interested parties. We
believe it is well done.
-5-
•
r�
Zgoq
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK a OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 1990
Present were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Tom Casey,
Neil Weber, Shirley Andersen, Brian Asleson. and Cathy Bailey.
City Manager Ed Shukle, Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector
Deli Rudolph and Secretary Peggy James.
Absent and excused was: Council Representative Phyllis Jessen.
The following were also present: Jim Glasoe.
Chair Byrnes called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes
The Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of August 9, 1990 were
Presented for changes and /or additions. Casey noted a change on
page 2, under "Tax Forfeit Property ", last sentence, should be
amended as follows: "After a long discussion, it was the -Comm+ s-
sfon determined that they a malority of the Park CommisslQn would
prefer to retain this procedure as a policy, rather than an or-
dinance, since it works well as is. Casey was not in favor of
this determination.
10 The secretary noted another change on page 2. 1st paragraph, in
the 3rd sentence, the following should be deleted: "at the Sep-
tember 13th Park Commission meeting."
MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Casey to approve the
Park Cortmisslon Minutes of August 9, 1990 as amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
Report on Summer Parks & Recreation Program from Community Serv-
ices by Jim Glasoe.
Jim Glasoe first reviewed the lifeguard program. Glasoe stated
that Chester Park Beach was the least active beach, and that this
beach is not an appropriate swimming beach with Al & Alma's boats
being docked at each side. Wychwood Beach and Canary Beach also
had very low attendance this summer. Mound Bay Park Beach and
Centerview Beach had the highest attendance.
Lifeguard chairs were discussed, the Dock inspector suggested ob-
taining director chairs with "Lifeguard" printed on the back,
this would project a more professional image.
Glasoe then reviewed the Parks Program and handed out copies of
forms, schedules, and fliers used throughout the year to help
summarize events and activities offered.
0 47to
Park Commission Minutes
September 13, 1990
Page 2
Attendance at the parks was reviewed.
as follows:
Swenson Park 27.7
Highlands 19.5
Philbrook 15.4
Three Points 13.2
Belmont 12.9
Rovina Parks
Avalon
9.0
Tyrone
7.3
Pembroke
2.2
Seton
0
The average attendance is
Byrnes stated she wants to see more kids using the parks. Using
more advertising next year was discussed.
Tax Forfeit Properties.
•
Casey commented that it was too premature to ask if these parcels
should be released for auction since the Park Commission has not
established criteria for green space yet. He had the following
concerns, comments and questions regarding the release of these
tax forfeit parcels:
1. Is there a time constraint to release this property?
2. He is In favor of placing conservation restrictions on such
properties.
3. is it the City's policy to release tax forfeit parcels for
sale ,just because they are buildable according to the zoning
code?
4. Parcels in the Devon addition should be retained as green
space due to the lack of it in this area.
5. If this property was maintained as park property, who would
pay, City or taxpayers?
Casey suggested, if the surrounding neighbors were in favor of
having this property maintained as green space, couldn't the City
assess them for the cost of the parcel?
Weber debated Casey's opinions stating that the City already has
plenty of tax forfeit properties, and that it is not good public
policy to keep them.
L-1
Ldfll
Park Commission Minutes
September 13, 1990
Page 3
Bailey questioned Casey what the benefits are for having green
space? Casey stated his own reasons, as follows:
I. Provide a habitat for flowers, native plants, animals,
birds, etc.
2. Mound is too dense, it needs open areas to bring people
closer to nature.
3. Green spaces give people a peace of mind, freshness.
4. There are other uses for green space other than human uses:
plants and animals have rights too.
Weber agreed that green space and nature areas are nice to have,
but they require management. This is an urban situation. people
discard garbage, and people do not appreciate rag weed. To
manage and maintain these open spaces requires money. We cannot
depend on the neighbors to manage these areas. A plan needs to
be developed implementing a funding program.
Weber commented that the City Council will need a reason not to
release these properties.
NOTION made by Weber, seconded by Byrnes .:o recommend
that the tax forfeit parcels be released for sale. Mo-
tion carried 4 to 3 (those in favor were: Asleson,
Weber, Andersen, and Byrnes; those opposed were: Casey,
Bailey, and Schmidt).
Casey commented that Mound is losing more and more of its upland
property to housing development, and wetlands is not a justifica-
tion for open space, if that is all we have.
1991 Proposed Budget.
Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the 1991 Proposed Budget.
When the budget for the cemetery was being discussed, Bailey com-
mented that she would like for persons who reside in Mound for a
long time (most of their life) and then move away (to a nursing
home such as Twin Birch) to be allowed to pay the "resident" fee
for a cemetery plot. Staff commented that if they were to allow
this, it would be difficult to regulate.
The City Manager explained that the Council will hold public
hearings for the budget on November 20th and 27th.
•
Zq/ Z
Park Commission Minutes
September 13, 1990
Page 4
•
DNR Dredge Application #91- •6051: Halstead Acres 2nd Addn
The Commission did not have any comments on this particular
dredge.
MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Bailey, to have staff
write a letter to the DNR requesting criteria for
processing dredge applications and information on the
Impacts of dredges as Cell Straus stated she would
supply for us. Motion carried unanimously.
Casey rommented that he has already written the DNR two letters
and he has not received a response.
Nature-Co servation Areas
Byrnes commerted that the tour did not present a good showing of
the one nature area the city has; it was overgrown with weeds and
the sign was not visible.
Asleson requested to see a copy of the City Attorney's Opinion on
Nature Conservation Areas, he commented that this may give them a
better direction on how to proceed with implementing a nature
conservation area program.
MOTION made by Cr - 3y that the Park Comrission agrees
that the nature iervation area we do have needs legal
protection. DL :,) lack of z second, motion failed.
Casey also commented that he asked the City Council if iey want
nature conservation areas in Mound, but he never rLceived a
definite answer from them. He explained the legal protection he
Is lo:.king for is to keep the property from being sold; the use
of this nature conservation area could be changed at anytime.
MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Bailey, to recommend
that the existing Nature Conservation Area in Devon ad-
dition, Block Ii, Lots 13 b 14 be preservf.d in its cur-
rent state until a Nature Conservation Area Policy is
enacted. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION made by Casey stating that the Park Commission
wants more nature conservation areas.
Weber stated he would second the motion if it was
amended to say that the Park Commission wants to
preserve more open space in the City.
Casey was not in favor of the amendment, therefore Weber
withdrew his second.
Z�i3 Due to lack of a second, the motion failed.
Park Commission Minutes
Septebmer 13, 1990
Page 5
Commissioner Anderson was excused from the meeting.
Weber suggested that the Comm i ss i on refer to the C i ty Couric I I 's
recommendation of August 28, 1990. He commented that the Park
Commission needs to resolve if open spaces in the City are worth
preserving as nature conservation areas.
Asleson commented that he is willing to be part of a subcommittee
to organize a program to implement nature conservation areas. No
other Commissioners offered to be on the subcommittee.
Abutting Dock Sites
The Dock Inspector, Jell Rudolph, reviewed his memo dated Septem-
ber 12, 1990 regarding abutting dock site holders who paid no fee
In 1990.
The issue was discussed, and it was determined that the
priorities as listed in City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 8 and
Subd. 9 regulates this problem. Bailey explained, as stated in
Subd. 9, "All applications, . . . received after March 1 shall be
subject to late fees . . . and will be placed in a third priority
category." This also applies to abutting dock holders. There-
fore, if an abutting owner does not pay his fee by March 1, they
would then become priority #3 rather than priority #1, and their
dock site could be assigned to another individual.
The Park Director, Jim Fackler, stated that they have never en-
forced this for abutting dock holders in the past. And, if an
abutting site is granted to another individual, that individual
must be made aware that he could be bumped the next year by the
abutting owner, since he would be first priority. Staff con-
firmed that the abutting owners will be notified that these codes
will be enforced for the 1991 boating season, and thereafter.
Proposed Amendments to City Code Section 437 - Dock Licenses
Since approval of the Dock Location Map for 1991 is soon upon us.
it was determined that this is the time to up -date City Code Sec-
tion 437 as needed. The Dock Inspector, Dell Rudolph, presented
his suggested changes. The Commission reviewed the proposed
changes, and approved them with modifications. Staff is to sub-
mit these changes in draft form for review at the October Park
Commission meeting.
Casey requested that a copy of the DNR's response to the cutting
of vegetation below the 929.5 be included In th- October packet.
•
,7 9 /",V,
Park Commission Minutes
September 13, 1990
Page 6
0
Dock Inspector's Report
Dell reviewed statistics from the 1990 season. Dell recommended
the elimination of five dock sites for the 1991 season, as
follows:
1. Site #30010 & #30030 (Norwood Access). This area has become
unusable due to low water, silt, etc., and it would be too
expensive to dredge for Just two docks, vacant now.
2. Site #30270 (Inwood Access). There are presently two sites
(1 vacant) in this area now and are too close together to
meet setback rules.
3. Site #50685 (Brighton Commons). This site is directly in
front of storm drain and very difficult to access. Site
holders could be transferred to a vacant site (#150565) 4
sites away. It would also allow more room between the 13
sites in this area.
4. Site #04020 (Sunrise Landing). This site infringes on the
setback rule or the private property on one side and If it
is noted to avoid this it will partially block the boat"
landing. Site holder would have to be assigned a new site.
We could add a new site at the end of Three Points Blvd.
(#20930).
MOTION mane by Bailey, seconded by Asleson, to approve
eIImInatIon of the dock sites as recommended by the Dock
Inspector. These changes will be noted on the Proposed
1991 Dock Location Map. Motion carried unanimously.
Deli Rudolph then informed the Commission that he is resigning,
and his last day will be October 15, 1990. He thanked everyone
concerned for the privi;ege of serving as Dock Inspector for the
past seven seasons.
Letter from_ DNR denying funds for fishing pier proposal at Mound
Bay Park.
Staff confirmed that a letter would be sent to the DNR requesting
that the City be considered for funding in 1991.
City Manager's Report
City Manager, Ed Shukle, updated the Commission on the construc-
tion of City Hall, including the status of the gasoline con-
tamination in the City Hall parking lot. He also updated them on
the such issues as the Downtown Study and Central Business Dis-
trict Parking. 0
Z9l5
Park Commission Minutes
September 13, 1990
Page 7
Shukie informed the Commission about Steve Burke's resignation
from the Park Commission, and suggested they wait until the end
of the year to interview for a replacement.
Park Director's Report
Fackler updated the Commission on completed and pending park im-
provements. All of the signs Identifying the City parks are now
Installed.
Adopt a Green Space Update
Chair Byrnes informed the Commission that they had about 10
people show up at their meeting on September 10th who are inter-
ested in the concept of adopting a green space, a planter, a
park, etc.
MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Bailey to adjourn the
Park a Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:57 p.m. Mo-
tion carried unanimously.
Z�il�
nLL SEP 2 01990
C ITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Otfic*
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
REC'U' SEP 2 01990
September 19, 1990
Re: LMCD Plan
Mayors, City Council Members and Managers
The City of Orono remains opposed to the LMCD long -range
management plan in its present form. A copy of our response to
the LMCD is attached for your information.
We believe that this plan remains of great concern to all of
the lake communities, despite the fact that in the revised draft
the LMCD has, in our opinion, clarified its intentions, better
organized its proposed plans of action, and made every effort to
explain its intentions, which may have been misunderstood from
the original draft. We believe they have attempted to respond to
the concerns expressed by Orono and other communities, but, the
disagreement between us on the general philosophy and anticipated
outcome of implementing the plan remains unresolved.
While we have no desire to interfere with the decisions of
each of you on whether to support the plan, we ourselves do not
believe it should be supported. We urge you to familiarize
yourself as much as possible with its terms and the philosophy
underlying the plan, and to take conscious action to instruct
your LMCD representative about your wishes before September 26th.
Whether you ultimately decide to support or reject the plan,
we would also like to say to you that Orono regards this event
(the consideration of the LMCD plan) as a strong reminder of the
inter - dependence of our lake communities and of the necessity of
the community representatives to keep in close and if possible,
harmonious touch with their neighboring communities and affairs.
We are in receipt of the letter from the City of Wayzata
dated September 14th. The idea expressed of a meeting on the
subject to the LMCD Plan is an idea we had ourselves incorporated
in the actions at our City Council meeting of September 10th, as
some of you may have seen in the local press. we believe that a
meeting such as proposed in Mr. Gisvold's letter is a good idea.
for /7
JRG /tln
BUILDING & ZOSING - 473.7357
ASSESSING
Sincerely,
ames R. Grabek, .
Mayor of Orono
ADM ISIS IRAIION A FINANt t: - 473 -7358
FAX - 4734)510
Pt HI K %ORKS - 473.7359
•
CITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota %323•Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
September 19, 1990
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Attn: Gene Strommer.
400 East Lake Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Strommen:
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the LMCD in
responding to our earlier comments, and in giving time and
attenticn to Orono's concerns. while we find the second draft of
the LMCD to be much improved in clarity and organization, Orono
however, cannot support the LMCD plan in its present form. The
substance of our disagreement remains unchanged.
Our opposition continues in the general areas of concern
outlined below. First, the plan appears to concentrate the
0 LMCD's focus away from environmental protection and preservation
and on to implementation of lake use goals desired by the
Metropolitan Council and DNR. In other words, the plan still
appears to be rot a plan for the LMCD but an over -all plan for
some other agency to implement. Orono believes that some of the
plan's goals are contrary to the legitimate environmental and
aesthetic interest of the lake and communities which surround it.
For instance, it accentuates land use development on the lake for
recreation without considering its effect on the lake. While
discussed in the responses to Orono's comments, the plan still
does not specifically incorporate: 1) a definition of
Metropolitan Council's role in plan review; 2) the process for
changes in the plan that may require review by others in the
future; or 3) how actual or •ilieged differences between the plan
on the one hand and LMCD actions and ordinances on the other are
to be resolved legally.
Inherent in the plan is the view that it is impossible to
establish the maximum permissible number of boats on the lake at
either the current level or any other greater level of use.
Given that view, the approach of increasing restrictions while
allowing continued access conditioned on increased enforcement
until the boats on the lake increase from the present level of
1:8 useable acres (1:10 acres) to 1:5 useable acres is not likely
to prove successful. Nor will it improve the quality of the lake
or the user satisfaction level. Currently, over 50% of the users
complain of some fornt(s) of danger of annoyance. The fixing of
concentrations on other lakes in the state removed from
population centers appears to be 1:10. Someone found it
ei:URUfA&E,- � ?73�ake that det� �i � Ft*Gt c_t� "l S se lakes apparvi t tc ',Skky- n3
ASSUSsrvG MX -1 `w
LMCD
September 19, 1990
Page 2 of 3
Neither does the plan assure that the Metropolitan C
Hennepin County, or others will in the future agree t a u ffW
response required by increased boater concentration should be the
same as that envisaged by the LMCD or its constituent
communities.
The plan seeks to change both the emphasis and the structure
of an organization that has been stable for 23 years. Instead of
the legislatively - sanctioned system of checks and balances
derived from granting the powers shared among agencies concerned
with the lake, the proposed plan calls for legislative action.
There is real risk that the legislature will alter the LMCD
structure and authority in undesired ways once it is involved.
Orono believes that the creation of an LMCD power of review
and comment on land use decisions traditionally reserved to the
cities will have two unfortunate consequences: first, the
pressure of redevelopment will cause monentum toward the least
restrictive standard of communities within the plan. Orono is
among the most restrictive in lake shore development and does not
wish to dilute its restrictions explicitly or by implication.
Second, we belive this will add additional time to the variance
process, or in the alternative, additional and unnecessary staff
expense for the LMCD.
Orono is opposed to changing the governing body of the LMCD
by adding additional agency members. The impact of these members
on LMCD decisions would be disproportionate to their numbers.
And currently it appears to Orono that particularly in the
Shoreland Management Area, LMCD is either trying to become or is
unconsciously becoming an instrument of the DNR.
Orono also does not favor increased taxes for the LMCD for
the Purpose of carrying out the proposed plan. The concept tit
IT-everyone-ca use the__1ake everyone should pay for it has
obvious appeal. But, unless the funds are to be spent for an
agreed -upon purpose which existing agencies have not and cannot
carry out, the funds should not be sought.
In summary, Orono believes that the LMCD study hap evolved
into a good identifier of issues vitally important to the lake
communities. It is not, however, either satisfactory or
definitive in the proposed solutions. And the consequences of
the proposed solutions are unknown, but appear inimical to the
future of the lake and even to the LMCD itself.
•
zqlq
LMCD
September 19, 1990
. page 3 of 3
For the foregoing reasons although
ideas are excellent if they can be carried
its representative against the plan in
encourage LMCD to table considerati
disagreements can be resolved and urges i"
in that stance.
many of the individual
out, Orono will direct
its present form and to
on to see if further
rs sister cities to join
City of Orono
J mes R. Grabek,
Mayor
tln
0
•
�qzo