1977-09-20CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
8:00 P.M.
Mound City Council
September 20, 1977
City Hall
Public Hearings
1. Langdon Heights-Beachwood Area (See Beachwood Rd. Report)
2. Three Points - North & South (See Preliminary Report July 77)
3. Langdon Lane (See Preliminary Report)
4. Winter Dock Storage - Commons Pg. 389-394
5. Lynwood Blvd. Subdivision Pg. 385.
6. Minutes Pg. 380-384
7, Water System Report Pg. 379
8. Water Account 124-6048 (Tabled from 9-13-77) Pg. 378
9. School Property for Sale Pg. 376-377
10. Certification of Sewer Bills Pg. 374-375
ll. Delinquent Water and Sewer Bills Pg. 369-373
12. Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (2 Minute Limit)
13. Information Memorandums Pg. 330-368
14. Committee Reports
MIN{~'FES OI,' MAI~(;t! 14, I',';';
ROANOKE ACCESS COMMIT'I'I.;I,; Mt-.t' I
Location: Dale Johnson
Time: 7:30 p. m.
Committee chairman: Ed Built
Committee Members:
l)ick Ambrose
Para Anderson
Bernard Benz
Gary Ingle
Dale Johnson
:: Bob Swanbe rg
":: Not present
4704 Island \iow l)r~,
4746 Island
4107 Island
4708 Island View l) ri~
4087 Island ~'ic~' l)ri~c
468t~ Island View
Mound citizens present in audient e:
Tim Lovaasen, Mayor
Bob Polston, Gouncil person
Maggt~ Ingl~
Linda Johnson
Jean Ambrose
Tom and Linda Morrison
ldarv and Judy Janicke
F rank Ahrens
Steve Erickson
General discussions were held regarding Roanoke access and commons
safety and maintenance requirements. It was fi. It that safety and maintenance
were closely linked to dock density and, therefore, the numbers of
families using the commons. In addition, the following points were
considered during many discussions held when motions we re made:
1. No parking available
Steep ac cess
Five foot retaining wall at lake end of access
4. Majority of usable commons being 15-~0 feet deep
5. Close proximity of access lane and commons to abutting
owners~ homes,
,,~. MXN $ OF MOUND A~¥ISORY
~ . COMMI~;ION MEL~ING
~'ch 17, 1977 M~d Cit~ ~
~e~eat:
and Ca~e~ Council Rep. Withha~,
citizens in audAence were: ~ve E~icks~
T~ ~ ~ Morris~
~dy
~ ~rome
~~d B~
~A~ ~o~s~
~rie
Gor~ S
N~: The~ ~e 9 ab~g p~ope~
preo~ at ~a meet~g,
Chah-ma~ ~rson, Commissioners Bubr, Bailey, Lyaol=, ~th.
Youth Con~n. Rep. l~Ae~g, Dock ]nap.
4705 Island Viow Drtw
4649 "
4645 "
4704 "
4708 "
4720 "
~701 "
4687 . "
1.'366 F~ag~e L~m~
~O~aO~
C~amgow,
involved in the Roanoke ~cea~ and 6
~ern
Meeting called to or~e~ by
Ag~ ~o~ ~e me~g ~o~ce~ as follows:
~em I
6 - Yo~h Co~ami~ ~port
T - ~~g Com~set~ Repo~
~em 8 - Tr~m C~smi~
~s~ ~ed ~at ~j~i$ ~eters~ had a r~at to ~ke o~ ~e P.C. ~d to ~~e
her ~oq~lt,
Petera~m cequeated tha~ ~ ama11 po.vti~u ot t~d cow m ~e c~ous be ~o~d r~ovd
~d ~ had been out to
ruling ~aos do~ ~ ~eir
~*~e for S~c~ Use ~r~t.
Pl~ Co~iesio~ ~eco~n~d to C~c~
~8 3, 4 &5, Bl~k2 Woo~d ~o~. Th~
area be ~e~to~ed, where ~$~.~rbe~, by app~rt~te measures us~g gz'aas, aod~, chips etc~
~em I - Committee Chalern~n Repor~ - ~oa~oke Access - Ed B~ ~,
~e ~es of the Roa~ke .~c~ Committee Mee~.g of 3-14-77 were read bF ~' ~d
~ p~'~gvaphs were t~e~ individually roi, approve.
~1 - ~ge Z - let ~ag~aph: B~th~ a~a~a ~oao~ ~h~t i~ be ~c~pted as ~,'~ ~
,,'lViin,~.es el Meted Advisory k, Commi~t~ l%fea~h:g, of 7 ~uod,: : -~ge Z
~a~. Wt~ ~e o~ce as tt is sow ~i~en, ~ly those boats registered ~ dock holder
- ~4 - l~t paragraph - page 3: B%,i~' made mo~t~-~ ~,o accep: ao ~i~en,
ed th~ wo~g be ch~d ~i: :~sad, "That da:k p~n~its o~ commons se;'ved
#5 - Page ~- Z~d paragraph: Mo~.~io~ made by B~ ~o ac~ep~ as ~i%t~ $~ m~.e
#& - 3~d paragraph - page ~: Buh? made nto:ion to accept, aN ~en, tec~ed
passage, ~h lake at 1~ wai~ level it is possible to ~vak ~vo~d ~ the out~i~e; :~.o~m~
do n~ co~cidz. Fac~g ~e v~e~, ~e ~tep~ st..to the !eft ~ the ~cess, i?,
o~ tho app~c~t.~ fo~ ~ x~t~e pe~ ~igh~ d~y ~e b~,ng o~ ~e~u~'~g o~ ~e
be c~stru~ed as they coati pottibly ba on p~ivalo prop~7 ~o~. Voice vot~
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS BI LAND SURVEYORS · SITE PLANNERS
September 16, 1977
~,~. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Subject: Assessments - 1978 Street Projects
Dear Mr. Kopp:
As requested, we have calculated alternate methods of
storm sewer assessments for the pending street projects.
The results are tabulated below.
1) Assess all storm sewers within each project on same
basis (no separate assessment for different drainage areas
within same project).
Langdon Lane - cost per sq. ft. in drainage area = 5.6¢
Tonkawood East -
Tonkawood West -
(Combined Tonkawood) -
Three Points -
Beachwood -
Island Park -
6.2¢
9.1¢
8.1¢
4.1¢
2.8¢
8.2¢
2) Assess all storm sewers in all pending projects to the
combined drainage areas of all projects.
Cost per square foot = 6.3¢
3) Assess all storm sewers in all pending projects to the
total area of all properties abutting the improvement.
Cost per square foot = 4.14¢
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-3700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 879-8029
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532-5820
prir~ted on recycled paper
Mr. Leonard Kopp
September 16, 1977
Page Two
4)
30 basis.
Project Unit Cost
Langdon Ln. .$ 813.00
Tonkawood
East & West 1,281.00
3 Points 667.00
Beachwood 1,216.00
Island Park 1,007.00
Assess storm sewer as part of street project on 40-30-
Area Charge Footage Charge
3.6¢ $ 6.45
8.4¢ 7.65
6.9¢ 6.40
4.8¢ 6.58
6.5¢ 6.20
5)
projects lumped together.
Unit Assessment
Area Assessment
Footage Assessment
Assess storm sewer as part of street projects with all
$ 1,001.00 per unit
6.8¢ per sq. ft.
$ 6.77 per foot
For summary purposes the following is a tabulation of
the street and storm sewer assessments as they appear in the
Preliminary Engineering Reports for the various projects.
Pro~ect Streets Storm Sewer
unit area footage
Langdon Ln. $500/unit 2.5¢/sf $4.45/ft 5.6¢/sf
Tonkawood
E&W $933 6.2¢ $5.57
east 6.2¢
west 9.1¢
3 Points $599 6.2 $5.74 area 1 4.7¢
~ area 2 3.5¢
area 3 4.1¢
Beachwood $1175 4.1¢ $5.98 2.8¢
Mr. Leonard Kopp
September 16, 1977
Page Three
Island Park $863 5.6¢
$5.31 area 1 5.6¢
area 2 4.8¢
area 3 21.3¢
area 4 2.6¢
area 5 30.7¢
area 6 9.7¢
area 7 10.5¢
area 8 18.3¢
area 9 6.2¢
area 10 48.4¢
area 11 3.5¢
If you have any questions on this, or need any additional
information, we will be pleased to discuss this further with
you at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Swanson, P.E.
LS:sw
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS mi LAND SURVEYORS · SITE PLANNERS
September 16, 1977
~,~. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Subject: Assessments - 1978 Street Projects
Dear Mr. Kopp:
As requested, we have calculated alternate methods of
storm sewer assessments for the pending street projects.
The results are tabulated below.
1) Assess all storm sewers within each project on same
basis (no separate assessment for different drainage areas
within same project).
Langdon Lane - cost per sq. ft. in drainage area = 5.6¢
Tonkawood East -
Tonkawood West -
(Combined Tonkawood) -
Three Points -
Beachwood -
Island Park -
6.2¢
9.1¢
8.1¢
4.1¢
2.8¢
8.2¢
2) Assess all storm sewers in all pending projects to the
combined drainage areas of all projects.
Cost per square foot = 6.3¢
3) Assess all storm sewers in all pending projects to the
total area of all properties abutting the improvement.
Cost per square foot = 4.14¢
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-3700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 879-8029
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532-5820
pri~ted o~ recycled paper
Mr. Leonard Kopp
September 16, 1977
Page Two
4)
30 basis.
Project Unit Cost
Langdon Ln. -$ 813.00
Tonkawood
East & West 1,281.00
3 Points 667.00
Beachwood 1,216.00
Island Park 1,007o00
Assess storm sewer as part of street project on 40-30-
Area Charge Footage Charge
3.6¢ $ 6.45
8.4¢ 7.65
6.9¢ 6.40
4.8¢ 6.58
6.5¢ 6.20
5)
projects lumped together.
Unit Assessment
Area Assessment
Footage Assessment
Assess storm sewer as part of street projects with all
$ 1,001.00 per unit
6.8¢ per sq. ft.
$ 6.77 per foot
For summary purposes the following is a tabulation of
the street and storm sewer assessments as they appear in the
Preliminary Engineering Reports for the various projects.
Pro~ect Streets
unit a~ea footage
Storm Sewer
Langdon Ln. $500/unit 2.5¢/sf $4.45/ft
5.6¢/sf
Tonkawood
E&W $933 6.2¢ $5.57
east 6.2¢
west 9.1¢
3 Points $599 6.2 $5.74
area 1 4.7¢
area 2 3.5¢
area 3 4.1¢
Beachwood $1175 4.1¢ $5.98
2.8¢
Mr. Leonard Kopp
September 16, 1977
Page Three
Island Park $863 5.6¢
$5.31 area 1 5.6¢
area 2 4.8¢
area 3 21.3¢
area 4 2.6¢
area 5 30.7¢
area 6 9.7¢
area 7 10.5¢
area 8 18.3¢
area 9 6.2¢
area 10 48.4¢
area 1i 3.5¢
If you have any questions on this, or need any additional
information, we will be pleased to discuss this further with
you at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lyre Swanson, P.E.
LS:sw
%
~0
A THOMAS WURST
DONALD R. BUNDLIE
GERALD t. CARROLL
FORD W. C~OUCH
THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD
ALBERT FAULCONER ~
LAW OFFICES OF
WURST, BUNDLIE, CARROLL AND CROUCH
812 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
September 19, 1977
AREA CODE 612
TELEPHONE
The Honorable City Council
City of lz~
5341 Ma~ Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Gentlemen:
Be advised thmt I represent Mr. and Mrs. John Schulz, 3192 Westedge
Boulevard in Mmund, who have advised me that they have received notice
of a hearing to be held on the evening of Wednesday, September 21st, 1977
at 7:00 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of determining amounts to be assessed
to benefited properties in conjunction with the installation by the city
of Mound of water serxrice to a new subdivision owned and being developed
by Mr. and Mrs. Willi~n Lovkvist, adjoining County Road 44.
This project has been the subject of a number of different studies
and proposals since 1974, generally involving t~o alternate water main
locations, one inmediately adjoining County Road 44 and the other bisecting
property owned by my clients, and an adjoining tract owned by Mrs. June
M~Carthy. The latter location was selected, and the main has now been
installed.
Both the Scbulz and tbs McCarthy property bad existing water
services, and therefore could gain no benefit whatsoever by the
installation of the new min.
A 1974 engineering study by MmCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc.
indicated the desirability of the installation of a new water main from
the standpoint of fire protection, however our client's property is
served by an existing fire hydrant on County Road 44, approximately
one hundred feet from the boundary of their property. The fire hydrant
installed on the new water main, as I understand it, is located
substantially further from my client's property than the existing
water main, and thus would not constitute a benefit to my client's
property.
The Schulzs accepted an offer in the amount of five hnndred
dollars from your city attorney for an easement for water main purposes
across their property. They would have preferred ttmt the water main
WURST, BUNDLIE, CARROLL AND CROUCH
City Council of Mound -2-
September 19, 1977
be located upon an existing easement adjoining County Road 44, but from an
engineering standpoint, furnishing water to the Lovkvist property from that
location was not feasible. The existence of the water main bisecting my
client's property t~s no doubt, depreciated the value of that property.
In any event, there are no circumstances surrounding this entire project
which could in any manner or form be considered to be a benefit to the
Schulz property. Both services, water and fire protection were available
to our client's property prior to the installation of the subject water
main. Our clients will receive no use whatsoever of the new water main,
which very obviously is intended to facilitate the development of the
I~v~st property. This being true, the benefited property should pay
for the improvement. The Schulzs do not intend to contribute to the
cost of the installation of the water main for the lovkvist property.
I ~ould appreciate your advice as to your conclusions concer~ing
the spreading of the assessment for this project.
cc: Mr. and Mrs. John Schulz
Ctn:tis A. Pearson
aPPLIC~ fIO~
FOR
YOUTH
THE ~'~OL~D-~.~ST! ~L~ Y ~,~,TH C3~',frSSIO}' IS
~0~UTH) ~ISORY-BO~PDj~.~ THE
ilar; THE E~NSIBILITY..OF aCT~ELY S~P,~RT~'G YoU~ S~'.~G ,,GENCIES
~.,~HICH PkD~E S~VIC~ TO f{O~ESTON~ YOUTH, ~.d~ FOR THE CO,~'~KSSION
TO PROVUE P~ECR~TIOi~L"~CT~.ITI~.FOP~.T~ .Y~H OF T~ ~-[Ob~-~'~ESTO[~
D~TE OF :~PPLIC~TION ~:: - ............
IF ~ULT' - ~CUPATION
nEE YOUR REaSoNS FOR ~'~I"TJ~' G ;~ S~T ,.)N T~ COi~,IWSSION? . ~_
For ,,uministrative Purposes only
So~mmission Position # Date of Term '-Lxpiration
D~,te of Commission ?~c~--~~n ~ouncil Appo~t:aent Date
Ter~ination by r~s~mation or dismissal - Da're nf , Co,am. action
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS BI LAND SURVEYORS Ia SITE PLANNERS
September 16, 1977
~,~. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Subject: Assessments - 1978 Street Projects
Dear Mr. Kopp:
As requested, we have calculated alternate methods of
storm sewer assessments for the pending street projects.
The results are tabulated below.
1) Assess all storm sewers within each project on same
basis (no separate assessment for different drainage areas
within same project).
Langdon Lane - cost per sq. ft. in drainage area = 5.6¢
Tonkawood East -
Tonkawood West -
(Combined Tonkawood) -
Three Points -
Beachwood -
Island Park -
6.2¢
9.1¢
8.1¢
4.1¢
2.8¢
8.2¢
2) Assess all storm sewers in all pending projects to the
combined drainage areas of all projects.
Cost per square foot = 6.3¢
3) Assess all storm sewers in all pending projects to the
total area of all properties abutting the improvement.
Cost per square foot = 4.14¢
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-3700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 879-8029
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532-5820
prig%ted on recycled paper
Mr. Leonard Kopp
September 16, 1977
Page Two
4)
30 basis.
Assess storm sewer as part of street project on 40-30-
~ Unit Cost Area Charge Footaqe Charg_~
Langdon Ln. -$ 813.00 3.6¢ $ 6.45
Tonkawood
East & West 1,281.00 8.4¢ 7.65
3 Points 667.00 6.9¢ 6.40
Beachwood 1,216.00 4.8¢ 6.58
Island Park 1,007.00 6.5¢ 6.20
5) Assess storm sewer as part of street projects with all
projects lumped together.
Unit Assessment
$ 1,001.00 per unit
Area Assessment
6.8¢ per sq. ft.
Footage Assessment $
6.77 per foot
For summary purposes the following is a tabulation of
the street and storm sewer assessments as they appear in the
Preliminary Engineering Reports for the various projects.
Pro~ect Streets
unit area footage
Storm Sewer
Langdon Ln. $500/unit 2.5¢/sf $4.45/ft
5.6¢/sf
Tonkawood
E&W $933 6.2¢ $5.57
east 6.2¢
west 9.1¢
3 Points $599 6.2 $5.74
area 1 4.7¢
area 2 3.5¢
area 3 4.1¢
2.8¢
Beachwood $1175 4.1¢ $5.98
Mr. Leonard Kopp
September 16, 1977
Page Three
Island Park $863 5.6¢
$5.31 area 1 5.6¢
area 2 4.8¢
area 3 21.3¢
area 4 2.6¢
area 5 30.7¢
area 6 9.7¢
area 7 10.5¢
area 8 18.3¢
area 9 6.2¢
area 10 48.4¢
area 11 3.5¢
If you have any questions on this, or need any additional
information, we will be pleased to discuss this further with
you at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Swanson, P.E.
LS:sw
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · SITE PLANNERS
September 16, 1977
~,~. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Subject: Assessments - 1978 Street Projects
Dear Mr. Kopp:
As requested, we have calculated alternate methods of
storm sewer assessments for the pending street projects.
The results are tabulated below.
1) Assess all storm sewers within each project on same
basis (no separate assessment for different drainage areas
within same project).
Langdon Lane - cost per sq. ft. in drainage area = 5.6¢
Tonkawood East -
Tonkawood West -
(Combined Tonkawood) -
Three Points -
Beachwood -
Island Park -
6.2¢
9.1¢
8.1¢
4.1¢
2.8¢
8.2¢
2) Assess all storm sewers in all pending projects to the
combined drainage areas of all projects.
Cost per square foot = 6.3¢
3) Assess all storm sewers in all pending projects to the
total area of all properties abutting the improvement.
Cost per square foot = 4.14¢
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-3700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 879-8029
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532-5820
p¢ir~t~d on rec¥cted paper
Mr. Leonard Kopp
September 16, 1977
Page Two
4)
30 basis.
Assess storm sewer as part of street project on 40-30-
Project Unit Cost Area Charge Foot~ge Charge
Langdon Ln. '$ 813.00 3.6¢ $ 6.45
Tonkawood
East & West 1,281.00 8.4¢ 7.65
3 Points 667.00 6.9¢ 6.40
Beachwood 1,216.00 4.8¢ 6.58
Island Park 1,007.00 6.5¢ 6.20
5)
projects lumped together.
Unit Assessment
Area Assessment
Footage Assessment
Assess storm sewer as part of street projects with all
$ 1,001.00 per unit
6.8¢ per sq. ft.
$ 6.77 per foot
For summary purposes the following is a tabulation of
the street and storm sewer assessments as they appear in the
Preliminary Engineering Reports for the various projects.
Project Streets
Langdon Ln.
unit area footag_~
$500/unit 2.5¢/sf $4.45/ft
Storm Sewer
5.6¢/sf
Tonkawood
E&W $933 6.2¢ $5.57
east 6.2¢
west 9.1¢
3 Points $599 6.2 $5.74
area 1 4.7¢
area 2 3.5¢
area 3 4.1¢
Beachwood $1175 4.1¢ $5.98 2.8¢
Mr. Leonard Kopp
September 16, 1977
Page Three
Island Park $863 5.6¢
$5.31 area 1 5.6¢
area 2 4.8¢
area 3 21.3¢
area 4 2.6¢
area 5 30.7¢
area 6 9.7¢
area 7 10.5¢
area 8 18.3¢
area 9 6.2¢
area 10 48.4¢
area 11 3.5¢
If you have any questions on this, or need any additional
information, we will be pleased to discuss this further with
you at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lyre Swanson, P.E.
LS:sw
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 16, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-291
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Winter Dock Storage - Commons
Information Memorandum No. 77-102 discussed Winter Dock Storage
Ordinance and a hearing date was set for September 20.
The Public Hearing will be Tuesday night and a copy of the proposed
ordinance is attached.
Leonard k. KopP / /
ORDINm~CE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ~NDING SECTION 26.9304
SUBDIVISION 10 OF THE CITY CODE PROVIDING
FOR WINTER DOCK STORAGE
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 26.9304 Subdivision 10 of the Mound City Code of
Ordinances is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision'10. Winter dock storage by permit holders:
A. Docks may be left in the water during the winter mOnths
providing'the followinq conditions are met:
1. The required dock license for the...fol!owing year
must be.applied fOr and paid by the tenth day of Jan.~ary.
2. Docks may be partially removed, provided that
those sections left in public waters are complete. No poles, posts,
stanchions or supports standing alone shall remain in public waters.
3. Docks must be ~ought qp to %he construction
standards outline~ in this ordinance within 2 weeks after the ice
goes out in the spring of the year. If not, the proc~.dures as
specified in subdiVision 8 of this ordinance will apply.
4. Docks..maY not be left in the water or on public
land if they conflict with, the fol!ow..ing uses as sho%~ on the dock
location map-
a. Slide area
b. Snowmobile crossings
c. Skatinq riDk~.
d. Trails
e. Road access
B. Docks may be stored on commons d.u. ring. the winter months
providing ~he"following conditions are met:
1. Docks ~ay not be stored on the commons if they
conflict with the followin~ uses as shown ~n"the 'dOCk l'ocation map:
a. Slide area
b. Snowmobile cr~
c. Skatinq_ rinks
d. Trails
e. Road access
2. Docks m__m~ not be stored on commons shown on the
dock lo~ as havin~ic conditions which are too
steep, or have fra ile flora or where tree damage may occur due
t--6~e~r[ ~-~r[ i~ ~-~t~. -
3. Docks may be stored only in areas designated for
dock e~-~nd as~ on t-~ dock lOcation.map.
4. All storage shall be done in an orderl ,com
and unobtrusive manner.
5. Docks and associated hardware must be removed from
the commons andT~ public lands between June 1st and September 1st
of each year.
6. ~e shall be restricted to dock materials, dis-
mantled docks and dismantled boat 1-~.
7. The Park Commission, City Dock Inspector and City
Council shall review t--~ dock location ~year ~nate
areas available for winter storage and also desig-~e ~-~ a-~
restricted because of the conditions heretofore stated.
MAYOR
Attest:
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council
Published in the Official Newspaper
-2-
February 20, 1975
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mound Park on ~
Commissi ~'
Alan Greene, Chairm~i~-_~
REVISIONS TO THE SHORELINE ORDINANCE
The Mayor and council have requested that.the Park Commission
develop a provision.in the public shoreline ordinance whereby~
citizens may store dock materials dUring the Winter.. while
there was no specific directive stating what the provision
should or should not contain, my interpretation~ of the request
is that the following conditions should be considered:
1. A fee wo~,ld be charged for~ storage.~l6-~ ~v~ ~L.-~ ~ ~--~
2. Areas should be designatec%/for storage and
, should be subjected to some logical criteria
,that .would ,not despoil the shoreline.
3. 'Storage should be allowed in only those instances
in which c~mplete removal would be an unnecessary
hardship. ~
4. E~forceab!e specifications should be established
to insure against unsightliness, hazardous conditions,
, or impediments to general public use. ·
In order to accelerat~ this request and tb generate some specifics, .~..~-
I would like to suggest (not recommend) the following specifications.
With your revisions, I will then request the city Manager to forward
them to the City Attorney for appropriate ~drafting and incorporation
into the proposed public shoreline Ordinance:
Specify in Section 26.9304 that the dock location
map shall designate Winter Dock Storage ApProved Areas.
Specify the duties and responsibilities of the dock
inspector ~nsofar as advising ~and inspecting Winter
storage of dock materials.
Revisions to The
Page 2
February 20, 1975
line Ordinance
The storage of d~ck'materials shall include any
dock or dock section, dock lumber, dock hardware;
but shall not include assembled boat lifts,
assembled boat canopies, or such other materials'
used for docking, mooring, or lifting of boats
that cannot be stored so as to form a neat and
compact stock no greater than three (3) feet high.
4. A miscellany of dock materials will be considered
neat and compact when such items as poles and'
small odd shaped pieces of any kind are covered
by larger plankings, dock sections, or in some
way bundled so as to not become easily separated
from the storage.
5. Storage 6f dock materials by adjacent storage permit
holders must be combined into one common storage
!oc~tion so as t~ appea~ as one such stored dock
whenever~th'e opportUnity for such combining exists.
The dock inspector may so require that two or more
storage permit holders comply with this requirement
as he. deems necessary.
6. Sto~age locations shall be covered by natural plantings
and Qther sight barriers as seen from the water, as
seen from the adjacent property owners, and as seen
from the abutting property owners in that respective
order, when possible.
7. Dock storage is specifically forbidden that would
%mpede or inhibit the public use of the public shore-
line and is limited to those areas in which such use
! ~is' n~'a~iiabl~ to any but abutting property owners,
qr to such areas where ample space is provided and
would'not inbibit or impede public use or be unsightly
or hazardous.
A permit fee of $20.00 for 'Winter season shall be
issued annually for both dock storage on public
shoreline and allowing docks to be left in the water
in those areas designated Winter approved dock area
on the Dock Location Ma~.
Revisions to the Shoreline Ordinance
Page 3
February 20, 1
Provide fgr ~' "
penalties as with other such dock provisions.
No permit holder of a boat'house shall be permitted
dock storage permit. Such storage would be required
to be contained inside of the boat house if stored on
the public shoreline.
C, er' trol Comtruotion Conifer't,/
September 16, 1977
0ity Council
City of Mound, Minnesota
Re: Proposed Subdivision - 9 Residential Lots
Southwest of Lynwood Blvd& Southview Drive
Gentlemen:
We enclose plans for our proposed subdivision for approval
by the City Council.
Title to the property is held by John C. Webster, Excelsior
and William C. Webster, Golden Valley. McCombs-Knutson Assoc.
are doing the engineering work.
If there are any questions, please call me at 5q6-3947 or
my home, 377-0827.
Sincerely,
William C. Webster
Encl
612--~46~47
3
148
REGULAR ~EETINB
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
September 13, 1977
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at
5341Maywood Road in said City on September 13, 1977 at 7:30 p.m.
Those present were: Mayor Tim Lovaasen, Councilmembers Orval Fenstad,
Gordon Swenson, Robert Potston and Benjamin Withhart. Also present
were City Manager Leonard L. Kopp, City Attorney Curtis Pearson and City
Clerk Mary H. Marske.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of September 6, 1977 were presented for con-
sideration. Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion to accept the
minutes of the meeting of September 6, 1977 as presented. The vote was
unanimously in favor, so carried and accepted.
PLANNING COHMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Fence Height Variance-Lot 9 and Part of Lot 10, Block 3, Pembroke
Fenstad moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-399 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE WITH THE STIPU-
' LATION THAT IT BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE.
The vote was thnee in;favor With Polston and Lovaasen voting nay. So carried.
Side Yard Variance - Lots 6 & 7, Block 3, Lakeside Park Crockers 1st Div.
Swenson moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-400 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE
SIDE YARD VARIANCE AND LOT DIVISION.
The vote was four in favor with Withhart voting nay. So carried.
Subdivision - Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 4, Lakeside Park Crockers 1st Div.
Fenstad moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-401 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNLNG
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE
SUBDIVISON OF LAND AS REQUESTED.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Special'Use Permit - Lots 7-11, Part of 6 and 14-13, Block 1, Shirley Hills A
Withhart moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-402 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE
T SPECIAL USE AS REQUESTED.
he vote was four in favor with Fenstad temporarily absent. So carried.
~ence Height Variance - Lot 1, Block 2, Highland Shores
/llWithhart moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
ESOLUTION 77-403 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMt.~ISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE
VARIANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT.
The vote was four in favor with Lovaasen voting nay. So carried.
Subdivision of Land - Lots 12,13,14 & Part of 15, Block 4, A.L. Crockers 1st Div.
Fenstad moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-404 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE
SUBDIVISION.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Side Yard Variance - Lot 23, Block 5, Shadywood Point
Fenstad moved and Polston seconded a mo(ion
RESOLUTION 77-405
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNI~IG
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE
6.2 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE H.W. SIDE YARD
AND ALSO A 1.5 FOOT VARIANCE ON THE OTHER
SIDE YARD.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Street Front and Rear Yard Variance - Lot 56, Aud. Subd. 168
Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-406
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMHISSION RECOMME~DATIOH TO DENY THE
VARIANCES REQUESTED.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Stack Height Variance - Tonka Toys
Fenstad moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-4O7
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COM~IISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
THE STACK HEIGHT VARIANCE.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Sign Variance Northwestern Preparatory School, 2900 Highland Boulevard
Swenson moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-408
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE
SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Sign Variance - Lots 2,3,4,5,6,36 & 37, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit F
Withhart moved and Polston seconded a motion to approve the sign variance
as requested with the stipulation that the sign be reduced in size by 25%.
The motion failed with Swenson, Fenstad and Lovaasen voting nay and With-
hart ~~l~voting aye.
Fenstad moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-410
RESOLUTION TO-CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE
SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED.
The vote was four in favor with Withhart voting nay.
Subdivision of Land - Lots 7-13, Block 16, The Highlands
Fenstad moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-411
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION
(REPI.ATTING) OF LILTS 7 THROUGH 13, BLOCK
16, THE HIGHLANDS.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Street Front Variance - Lot 8, Block 7, Shadywood Point
Polston moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-412
RESOLUTIO[I DENYING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE
ON THE GROUP, DS THAT NO UNDUE HARDSHIP WILL
BE SUFFERED BY THE PROPO~IENT.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
150
PRELIMIFCARY STREET REPORT - NORTH ISLAND PARK AREA
Mr. A1 Shendel of Mcgombs-Knutson appeared before the Council to present
the preliminary report for street improvements in the North Island Park
a rea.
Polston moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-413
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY
REPORT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON NORTH
ISLAND PARK AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR OCTOBER 18, 1977 AT 7:00 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Swenson moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-414
RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 19, 1977
AT 7:30 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING
THE 1978 BUDGET.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
COUNTY ROAD 125 - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The City Manager briefly summarized the proposed projects to be undertaken
by the Itennepin County Highway Department in the near future.
Withhart moved and Fenstad seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-415
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HEBNEPIN COUNTY
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TO TIME STAGGER THE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 125
SO AS TO CAUSE LESS INCONVENIENCE FOR THE
RESIDENTS OF MOUND.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Polston moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTIO~I 77-416
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPEC-
IFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF COUNTY ROAD
125 AS PRESENTED BY THE HENNEPIN COUNTY
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
~ithhart moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-417
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND MANAGER
TO ENTER INTO A CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT WITH THE HENNEPIN COUNTY HIGHWAY
DEPARTHENT.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Lovaasen moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-418
RESOLUTIO~I RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ON C.S.A.H. 125 FROM ESSEX LA.NE TO ANGLESSLY
LANE IN THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA.
The vote was unanimously in favor .
151
AHTI-TRUST REFUND
NeJs Schernau, liquor store manager, appeared before the Council to ex-
plain the check from Famous Brands, Inc. in the settlement of an anti-
trust suit.
gens~ad moved and ~thhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77 - 419 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE
CHECK FROM FAMOUS BRANDS, INC. IN THE
AHOUNT OF $529.92 AS A PAID iN FULL SETTLE-
MENT
Vote was unanimously in favor.
NO PARKING - ALDER, PECAN AND DRIFTWOOD
Polston moved and Withhart seconded a motion to ordain in the following
section be added to the City Code as Ordinance 368
ORDIHANCE NO. 368
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SUBSECTIONS 50, 51 AND 52
TO SECTION 46.29 (b) OF THE CITY CODE, RESTRICTING
PARKING ON ALDER ROAD, PECAN LANE AND DRIFTWOOD LAND
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 46.29 (b) of the City Code is amended to add
Subsections 50, 51 and 52, which' shall read as follows:
50. No parking on the south side of Alder Road from
Bellaire Lane easterly to Commerce Boulevard and
no parking on the north side of Alder Road from
Bellaire Lane easterly 200 feet.
51. No parking on Pecan Lane, both sides of the street,
from Edgewater Drive, south to Railroad right-of-way.
52. No parking on Driftwood Lane both sides of street
from Bartlett Boulevard south to Seton Lake.
The vote was unanimously in favor, so ordained.
DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS
Withhart moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-420 RESOLUTION PROVIDING STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE OF HARDSHIP FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS
The vote was unanimously in favor.
COHMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Mrs. Janet Gellman commended the staff and Council for their devotion
and hard, work in attending many long Council meetings.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Swenson moved and Fenstad seconded a motion to approve payment of the
bills as presented on the prelist in the amount of $104,581.55 where
funds are available. The vote was unanimously in favor.
COVER THE CLOCK
Fenstad moved and Polston seconded a motion to waive the requirements of
Resolution 77-16 and ignore the time. The motion carried unanimously.
TAX FORFEIT LAND
The Council briefly reviewed Council Memorandum 77-2~7 regarding additional
tax forfeited land
152
RESOLUTION 77-L~21
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING APP-
LICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROH THE STATE
LOTS 40 AND 41, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 167
FOR GREEN SPACE.
The vote was four in favor with Fenstad votin9 nay. So carried.
DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-422
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
Itl REGARD TO DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS TO
BE HEARD OCTOBER 4, 1977 AT 7:30 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
CAMBRIDGE LANE - COUNCIL MEMORANDUM 77-286
The Council discussed the Cambridge Lane street, utility and walkway
easement.
Lovaasen moved and Withhart seconded a motion to table this item pending
further information. The vote was unanimously in favor.
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY - LOTS 18, 19 AND 20, BLOCK 10, ARDEN
Lovaasen moved and Polston seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 77-423
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PROCEED TO TAKE WHATEVER
STEPS ARE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PUR-
CHASE TRANSACTION OF LOTS 18, 19 and 20,
BLOCK 10, ARDEN
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Fenstad moved and ~.lithhart seconded a motion to adjourn the Council
meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor, so carried and adjourned.
Mary H. Marske, City Clerk
Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 14, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-288
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Water System Report
Attached is a copy of the Water System Report as requested by the City
Council.
Recommendations appear on Page 27.
CITY OF NOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 9, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-278
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Water Account 124-6048
The subject water account has requested a credit on his service billing
for the summer quarter of 1976.
This request comes about because his meter was not read for three quarters
including the summer quarter of 1976, when he used a considerable amount of
water for watering during the drought.
He has been billed as follows:
Reading
March 76 (Read) 133,000
June 76 (Estimate) 158,000
Sept. 76 (Estimate) 168,000
* Sewer based on March quarter
Dec. 76 (Estimate) 178,000
March 76 (Read) 276,000
June 77 (Read) 293,000
Gallons Used Billing
24,000 18.81
25,000 31.42
10,000' 21.84'
10,000 16.24
98,000 108.24
17,000
The owner feels that 18,000 gallons is his normal usage and his sewer billing
should be based on that for all quarters.
If that would have happened, his
billing would have been: Billing wQulq be
Billed Usage Was ]~ Meter Ream Difference
June 76 31.42 25,000 --31.42 --
Sept. 76 21.84 62,000 41.18 + 19.34
Dec. 76 16.24 18,000 25.17 + 8.93
March 77 108.42 18,000 25.17 - 83.25
177.92 122.94 " (54.98)
In effect, the home owner is requesting a $54.98 sewer credit and has requested
to be heard.
This will be listed on the September 13th Agenda.
LeC/lqar(l L. Ropp
/
cc: Account # 124-6048
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 13, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-285
TO:
FROM'
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
School Property for Sale
The Council has been discussing the purchase of the 5.48 acres owned by
the School along County Road #llO as shown on the attached map.
It is believed the School will take $34,000 for the property. The neigh-
bors have requested the City acquire this land to keep the woods.
It is possible to subdivide this land and sell off a part, if the portion
in yellow is divided into 4 lots about 75 feet wide (based on scaling the
area). The City Ordinance requires 80 feet width, so these lots would be
undersize in width, but could exceed lO,O00 square feet in area.
Cost of platting the lots is estimated at $2,800. Cost of storm drainage
to make the lots buildable would be another $2,000. Before we are finished,
our cost would be around $39,000.
One real estate man has offerred $8,000 per lot and another has indicated
he would pay us $9,000 per lot. On the basis of $8,000 per lot, we would
be returned $24,000 if we only end up with 3 lots or at $32,000 with 4 lots.
If the $9,000 offer comes through, the take would be $27,000 or $36,000,
depending on the number of lots.
Neither real estate man has put his offer in writing.
The School Board has authorized the sale of the land at the corner of
Maywood and Wilshire to the City and are being pressured by other potential
buyers to sell the Highlands property.
~m ~ Joht~on
IZ O~ Ac
School
,~o. Z 7Z
SE .
· ' 355.,
Bessie S!i¢~ney__
J. oo ~e.
19
I?
16
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 15, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-289
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Certification of Sewer Bills
Attached is a list of unpaid sewer bills and some water bills that are
unpaid that should be certified to taxes.
A resolution certifying these for collection with the taxes is requested.
only or sccounts '~. ' .he
~:~.a~ cannot turned off
13-1713
13-1736
16-i741
22-1716
2.5~.721
193.2128
289-3025
33Y-59oo
3~926
343-2630
40~-5294
404-5305
472-~A3Z
~84-4992
h8~-5o~3
5o3-4432
53~-~852
551-3167
572~9!2
590~'~6
6~7~223
Vi dosrr
Peter Ueisen
L.$. Deman,es
R. Diamond
Helen Nugent
Penn Ave. Corp.
John Lasker ~O ~ ~ _-/-~
Freems~m
C. PaL~er
P~and y B~e~
Bob's B~t Shop -
Koe~en's Standard~~ ~~
Jo~ Vander Hagen (No~h Star)
John Hoogesteger
~bert ~ Vall
J.H .Hanson
State of 5~inn. ~~~
~l-~n Zuc!~an
Ponald Rogers
H~ry L,~d
~chael Gray
State of ~'~.~.~ ~~
P~lpj Braagelm~
John Hiller
Gerold ~ngley
43.oo
43.oo
32.00
8%.%%
44.00
5~.44
92.63
4h.O0
~4.oo
36.80
h8.o2
~.oo
25.30
~4.oo
37.95
l~.oo
50.60
5o.6o
h4. oo:
63.2:;
44.00
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 16, 1977
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 77-290
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Delinquent Water and Sewer Bills
Attached is the list of delinquent water and sewer bills, The Council
has called a public hearing for October 4th to determine whether or not
these accounts should have their water turned off.
In all likelihood, some of these will have to be certified to taxes; as
an example - 310 2624. Inasmuch as all certification of special assess-
ments must be made by October 1, it is suggested the Council certify the
entire list and we can have them deleted as paid.
In the event we have to turn them off, these can go into the taxes.
D~
....~ ~nt water and ~ ..... ~ o, v,~. 9-12-?
22-1705
2~-!601
28-1667
52-5oo~
55-~o37
67-1890
67 -2_025
85-4960
1~-6o4~
133-619o
~75-5~5~
~5-5~8
190-2~0
196-21~
196~148
211-2!36
P~ ch ~rd .~Lansiug
Suzett~ Mc Gill
~a B~rs
Y~eth Ketch~
Donald
Jerry Pehrson
Bob ~tson
DaSd ~er
132.13
61~73
3~.48
49.~5
58.37
34.08
34.08
.57.76
Terra_nee Kingston
~6.68
(v~aiting an adjustment) ~
(Rev. Woodard's house) 307.63
Tom Harty
l~oger Bryan
D. }[~inlin
IJerner Homut h
James Kincaid
Elvin Holmgren
Eon P/~eiruhart
W.u Tol!efson
S.E~ Erickson
~onsa Linq~s t
Richard ~%ckrison
Glen Reger
( Jack Hibbard-o~mer)
86.43
117.02
34.o8
57.31
75.16
35 .,31
86.58
2~~s. ~ ~arp
~3~-4997
24~-5oo~5
259-4958
2S9-497~
2~9-6601
280-~880
2~2~0J~
~O~-2~JO
3Z~624
3!0-2695
31o-3198
311-63~%
343~052
George Baker
~"~ureen Mc ~'~hon
M,~ry Heese
~,~rtin Heinsch
Keith Weeks
A1 Jeppeson
( will pay all Sept. 23)
62.9~.
34.08
~6.3~
88.19
73.08
JLm Krotzer 34.08
Terry Heller 111~57
F. Todd Warner 51~82
Alan Golz 50.32
Frank Esposito (c~ot locate hLm) 34.74
S~u,~uel Fox 84.65
J~ne Mc C~thy 63.43
S~th Const~ction 34.08
~on Finifrock 49.92
Tom ~ ~
Tom Thumb
343-~.~383 ~
3'73-~063 O. Kelly
388-2390 Jeff Korab
418-2617 Calvin Sc kmidt
~18-2629 Isabelle M= Grath
~ .... ~: ~' ~a~.L*O~.~---
~63-46¢1 Barbara Bedel!
87.48
3~.o8 '
34oO~
101.18
136.56
Norbert .r. Zr ti~
9 .28
'0 r ~.
i~,~l:sin Zuc k~,u.mu hO. 70
Jerry Olson 37.89
Diane Larson 58.62
S. Kokol~ 104.~2
Jim Wil!er 33.89
Gero!d ~o~s 35.08
H.D. Sch~tz 136.!P
Wm. Noor
P~lph Co~oton
Barbara Halsted 67.9~
Teri Ho~s 35.68
David Moehler 34.08
Joe Koepp 87.26
Anthony E~ckson
Bobby ~S~ 88.52
~is M~ t imka 59.30
Blaiue Fivelaod 1~Z.56
Steven Beatty 52.07
~l ~dskoog 53.63
Douglas Na!son 77.68
623-5238
6~ ~8
6a3-5342
63%-5129
63 B-3246
6~-5~5~
Don E!lingson
David Hagen
Jo ~Bickert
Roger Kesteloon
Richard Juhl
James Farquarson
Stanley ~4aas
~.?&
~5.34
153 .23
34.08
39.66
34.08
48.70
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
September 16, 1977
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 77-173
TO:
FROM:
SUBOECT:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
The City Manager
Bus Shelters
Attached is a copy of a letter relative to bus shelters.
The MTC is looking for recommendations for locations. The criteria
is that at least 40 riders use the stop per day and the City pay 20%
of the cost.
The last time this survey was made the City suggested - Three Points
Boulevard at Finch, Shoreline Boulevard at Bartlett and Wilshire at
Brighton. None of the areas met the 40 passenger per day requirement.
If there is a location to be suggested, we can pass it along to the
Metropolitan Transit Commission.
.... 'Leonard L. Kopp
· · ·
Metropolitan Transmt Commmssmon
801 American Center Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/221-0939
september 13, 1977
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp
City Manager
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Passenger Waiting Shelters
Recommendations for Sites
Dear Mr. Kopp:
The Metropolitan Transit Commission is currently investigating poten-
tial shelter sites for future passenger waiting shelter projects. We
invite your City to submit recommendations of bus stops which appear to
have need for passenger waiting shelters.
If the average weekday number of boarding passengers equals or exceeds
40, the necessary site conditions exist and the necessary approvals
can be obtained, the MTC will assume responsibility for shelter in-
stallations in your City. If the loading requirements of 40 or more
persons per day are not met, recommended sites may still be given
consideration if the City or other group are willing to ass~e financial
responsibility for part of the local funding of the shelters (20 percent
of the total cost).
We will be most happy to assist you in any way we can to identify
potential shelter sites. If you wish to discuss our shelter program
or submit recommendations, please do not hesitate to call. If you
are interested in having any sites included in our next project, which
will begin in early 1978, please contact us prior to October 1, 1977.
Sincerely,
David R. JesS/U~
Civil Engineer
DRJ/LRS/kam
LAKE MIN-NETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA
REPORT ON EXAMINATION
OF THE DISTRICT'S RECORDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER_R_R_R_R_R_R_~31 1976
AL O. OLSON CO}IPANY
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
NII N N EAPOLIS
LAKE MI~N-NETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA
REPORT ON EXAMINATION
OF THE DISTRICT' S RECORDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1976
CONTENTS
~CCOUNTAN~S ' REPORT
LXn~B iT A
'2XHIB IT B
Balance Sheet
Summary of Cash Receipts, Disbursements
and Balances
'D~HiB IT C
Statement of Revenue
EXHiBiT D
'iXHiBIT E
Statement of Expenditures
Notes to Financial Statements
27, 1977
O. Onsox Co> Px -Y
C~ERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
1455 wEST LAKE STREET
MINNEAPOLIS 55408
Board of Directors
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
402 East Lake Street
Wayzata, Mn. 55391
Gentlemen:
We have examined the accounting records of the Lake Minne-
tonka Conservation District, Wayzata, Minnesota, for the year ended
December 31, 1976. Our examination was made in accordance with
~enerally accepted auditing standards and accordingly included such
tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures
5s we considered necessary in the circumstances.
In our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet presents
fairly the financial position of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
Dl~lct as of December 31, 1976 and the related statements of cash
~eceipts and disbursements 'correctly present the cash transactions
for the year then ended applied on a consistent basis.
Respectfully submitted
AL O. OLSON COMPAN~Z
By . . _ . P.A.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EXHIBIT A
BALANCE SHEET
AS OF DECE~mER 31~ 1976
ASSETS
2ash
%ccounts receivable (note 2)
Investments (note 3)
Fixed asse%s (note 4)
TOTAL ASSETS
Total
$ 2,272.71
2,811.00
15,177.78
2 573.5--0
General
Fund
$ 878.89
2,811.00
8,807.67
2,573.50
$15 071.06
Save the
Lake
Fund
$1,393.82
6,370.11
LIABILITIES
~ccounts payable
Total Liabilities
SURPLUS
~vailable
invested in Fixed Assets
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
$20,261.49
2,573.50
$12,497.56
2,573.50
$7,763.93
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATiOH DISTRICT
SU~V~Ry OF CASH RECEIPTSL DISBURSEMENTS AND BALANCES
FOR THE YFE~AR ENDED DEC~V~BER 31L 1976
General Fund
Save the Lake
Balance
Fund Jan. ll,__~976
$ 7,589.95
5_~5i5.30
Receiots
$49,877.81
s6
tans ferS
In
-0-
Total
$57,467.76
12,660.16
$_!0.127.~....92
Disbursements
$48,588.87
5 , 266.34
$.5 3..~8~.5...
Transfers
Out
EXHIBIT
Balance
Dec.31,1976
$ 8,878.89
7~393.82
$16,27.2.7!
B
I~%KE ~NETONKYA CONSERVATION DIOICT
STATemENT OF REVENUE
EXHIBIT C
GENERAL FUND
Receipts
Budq~.t
L~ICD Communities - Dues 1976
Other income
Various Fees
interest Income
Total Other Income
TOTAL RECEIPTS - GENERAL FUN~
$1, 160.75
277.06
$48,440.00
_._1,437.81
$49,877.81
$49,925.00
1,800.00
$51,72.~.0Q
SAVE THE LAKE FUND
"Save the Lake" Sticker Campaign
Interest Income
TOTAL RECEIPTS - SAVE THE LAKE FUND
$6,947.63
197.23
$.7, 144~. 86
IzAKE MIN~NETON~qA CONSERVATION
STATKZENT OF EX. ENDITUR~S
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1976 THROUGH DECF~MBER 31,. 1.9.76
EXHiBiT D
Sheet 1
GENERAL FUND
Administration
Personal Services
Salaries
Auditing services
Total Personal Services
Contracted Services
Telephone
Postage
Printing, publishing, advertising
Utilities
Janitorial services
Other contracted services
Total Contracted Services
Commodities and Supplies
Office supplies
Books and periodicals
General supplies
Total Com~modities and Supplies
Other Charqes Office rent
Office equipment rent - Xerox
Insurance and bonds
Memberships
Employer contributions
Mileage and expenses
Total Other Charges
Caoital Outlay
Office adding machine
Total Capital Outlay
Total Administration
Leqa!
Legal services
Total Legal
~o~mittees
Lake Use Committee
Total Com~ittees
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND
Expenditures
$29,519.20
300[00
29,819.20
370.53
790.23
403.21
321.33
320.00
.1~204.82
3,410.12
860.73
52.25
98.64
1,011.62
1,980.00
1,509.21
466.00
110.00
3,824.24
552.70
8,442.15
132.95
132.95
42,816.04
_4,898. 90
4,898 .'90
873.93
873.93
$48,588,87_
Budqet
$29,400.00
300.00
29,700.00
405.00
800.00
1,400.00
360.00
360.00
600.00
3,925.00
75 0.00
105.00
80.00
935.00
1, 980.00
1,200.00
265.00
120.00
3,300.00
1,000.00
7,865.00
300.00
300.O0
42,725.00
~,,~000.00
5,000.00
_4, ooo_Qo
$53~,775,0~
LAKE MWETONKA CONSERVATION DIST
STAT~mNT OF EXPENDITURES
~T
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1976 THROUGH DECEMBER 3,1, 1976
EXHiB IT D
Sheet 2
SAVE THE LAKE
Administration
Printing & publications
Postage and other expenses
Awards
Total Administration
.Project ExDense
Litter barrel placement
Advertising
1976 boat counters
Legal fees
Total Project Expense
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - SAVE THE LAKE FUL~
Exp. Dnditures
$ 774.79
913.26
15.44
1,703.49
52.00
5.75
904.00
.2,601.10
,3,562.85
$5,266,, 33
Budqet
LAKE MiNNETON~i% CONSERVATION DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECF~MBER 31, 1976
F~XHIB iT E
Note 1-
Note 2 -
Kote 3-
.~ote 4-
Accountinq Method
The accompanying balance sheet is presented on the accrual
basis, while the revenue and expenditures statements are
shown on the cash receipts and disbursements basis.
The requirements in Section VI~ parts 1, 2, and .3 of the
By-Laws dealing with the Control of Funds were followed
during the year under review.
Accounts Receivable - Dues - $2,811.00
This represents the amount due from Laketown Township as
its share of the 1975 and 1976 budgets - its share of the
1975 budget being $1,326.00 and of the 1976 budget -
$1,485.00. It is expected that these amounts will be
collected.
Investments - $15,177.78
District funds were invested at December 31, 1976 in certi-
ficates of deposit with Wayzata Bank & Trust Company as
follows:
Certificate of deposit %8586
Certificate of deposit %8812
$ 4,168.29
11,009.49
$15,.177.6~.
Of the above total, $8,807.67 belonged to the General Fund
and $6,370.11 to Save the Lake Fund.
Fixed Assets - $2,573.50
One item of equipment, an adding machine for $132.95, was
purchased this year. An analysis of the fixed assets is
shown below:
Fixed asset balance Jan. 1, 1976
Adding machine purchased in 1976
Depreciation Reserve
Balance January 1, 1976
Depreciation for 1976
$1,314.68
429.56
$4,184.79
132.95
4,317.74
1,744.24
Net fixed assets balance December
31, 1976
$2,573.50
ON LAKE: MINN.'TONKA
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
September 14, 1977
INDIAN BURIAl.. MOUNDS
TELEPHONE
(612) 472-1155
Mr. Lawrence P. Sawatzke
5240 Pike Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Sawatzke;
Thank you for your letter of September 9 relative to Pike Road and
Cardinal Lane.
It is my suggestion that you appear at the Public Hearing and address
your concerns to the Council.
In addition, I am forwarding a copy of your letter to the Engineer as
well as the Council and I am requesting the Engineer to try to get a
reply to you prior to the hearing. Also, the Public Works Director will
be asked to contact you about snow plowing.
Sincerely,
City Manager
LLK/ms
CC:
McCombs Knutson
City Council
R. Miner
September 9, 1977
Mr. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Attention: Mound Planning Commission
Dear Sir:
We attended the informational meeting last month in regard to proposed
street improvements in the Lincoln addition (Lakeside Park) area.
It was discussed Pike Road would be improved from Cardinal Lane west
only. What about East of Cardinal Lane? If we 5240 Pike Road are going
to be assessed for this project then I am asking that the portion of Pike
Road east of Cardinal Lane be included and improved with a permanent
street, maintenance and snow removal the same as any other tax paying
parcel.
I have enclosed some plat sheets which indicates the area I am concerned
with.
Very truly yours,
LPS:rkh
eno1.
l
OF PROPERTY OF L~'~rep. c~ P. and
'~'~a~ f~'J_~_~?~r~_~ oo,athwff~terlv llno of salu Lot 2~ d~stant 17.62 feet
~.>.: ll}~o'ta', .... ly Froa Lbo 3outbt¢oe;t~rls' corner thereof' t,) a point in t,~ front or ...
',.~,rth-as~.er],v 1!~ of .~alq Lot 2, -lirtant 1'7.~ leal Easterly fro~ th~ ?iorthw~st
corner thereof, aa~d 1'7~ t'9~-,t beJn~r ;neasuro,! along the Northeasterly lin~ of
sa~d_ . ~,c· 2~ ail in ~lork ~, ~braha~a
/
,//?
/
?
CERTIFIC;hTE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING
! hereby certify that on
this gurvey, plan, or report was prepared by n~ er under ray
dtr~ct sul~rvlsion and that i sm a duly Registered Land Sur-
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ... '.'-';
I hereby certify that on 19
this survey, plan, c~ report was prepared by me or under m,y
direct supervision and that ! am m duly }~egi~tered Land-
unde~ tim laws ~ th~ Stat~ o[ Minnesota.. t-, , '~ '-~,
'"" ' Jotul II~,Reli~M~~ I,~ 111~9 "' "' '" " i ' '"' ' "":
k..] . : . · , .,~ "! ~' ' .;' ", . . .':.', '..'
· ' p,.,.ll..Cr~, lelN~.tedL~l~i~r.,~,,/~,,No.~.449 , ..~ , . ;.~' .;-., , ,...~..,.
'-.. , ,- · . . . . ,~ . ii'. , . ~ ,,,,, ' . .
' ' ', -r.i'~':.~-~::- ~' ":"'~*";-";'" ~:,~ ' '~' ::~,'"'" ...... ~ 6'~ .~, ~':: :,' ,'l,.; *,~'. %"
£
OAgB
Z
~NV"I
~3'gBON ~
O00?w~SSV8 ~ ~
INOi493B ? '
NEI3~
i
C E DAR
LAKE
402 EAST LAKE STREET
MINNETONKA
WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
TELEPHONE 612/473~703~
FRANK MIXA. EXECUTIVE DIREC fOR
BOARD MEMBERS
Thomas S. Maple, Jr.. Chairman
Oeepllaven
Robert S. MacNamara, Vice Chairman
Wayzata
Alan W. Clark, Secretary
MInnetonka Beach
Robert T. Brown, Treasurer
Greenwood
Edward G. Sauman
Tonk~ ~
fl. Jon Ehnllan
Minnetrtata
Orwal R. Fenstad
Mound
Frank R. Hunt, Jr.
Spring Park
Myron (Jerry) Johnson
Excelsior
William C. Keeler
Shorewood
An~ua T. Morfleon
Woodland
Norman W. Paurua
Orono
Robert K. Pillsbury
Minnetonka
Richard J. So~ef'oerg
Victoria
David F. Ntxon
Laketown Township
August 19, 1977
The Honorable T~ Lo~e, asen
5~1 ~o~ ~o~
M~d ~ 55364
Des~ Mmyor Lovaasen:
Thank you for the opportunity afforded by the budget hearing the
other night to review I.MCD a~tivities and p=o~ as well as the
1978
In response to you request, the breakdows of salaries and employe~
contributions of the bu_~et a~e ~s follows:
1977 1977 1978
197~ 6 moM. Estimate Budget
~Sala=ies
Executive Director $21,600 $11,~8 $22,896 +~
Secretary/Clerk 7,919 4tl.80 ~,359 +6~o _
Total $29,519 $15,628 $31,255 $32,600
Employer .Contributions
Group Instt~ance $ 840 $ 541
PERA 1,621 859
Social Secm~ity 1,363 914
Total $ 3,824 $ 2,314
$ 1,081
1,719
$ 4,5oo $ 4,7oo
We a~e also enclosing a copy of the 1976 m~d~t of the District, the
I~CD Lake Management P~og~am P~iorities (~ brief of ongoing LMCD
a~tivities as well as those efforts to receive emphasis d~ing
1977), and ~ copy of the legal brief on dock moratorium issues
currently ~der discussion.
We app~ecimte you~ interest and cooperation in ou~ "Save the Lake"
p~og~am.
Sincerely,
Chairman P~ nted on Paper Made w h Recycled Fibers
cc: O~val ~enstad 3~'- ~
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
"SAVE THE LAKE"
LAKE MANAGEM]~NT PROGRAM PRIORITIES
Lake Environmental Improyem_ent Prog~ .am
a. Improve solid waste and leaf disposal program; expand litter barrel, portable
toilet and cleanup programs.
bo Develop shoreland appearance and tree programs.
c. Encoumage adoption of State Shoreland Regulations by Villages.
d. Encourage open sp~ce land use in the shore lando
e. Encourage completion of sewage systems where needed.
fo Apply Harza Study to pollution and land use problems.
go Encourage proper septic system maintenance°
ho Enforce Pollution Ordinance°
i. Develop d~edging, riprap and fill programs, and weed and algae control
programs Coordinated with other agencies having jurisdiction.
Continue to seek assistance of agencies, such as MCWD and Soil Conservation
District, to develop upper watershed program.
k. Review oil spill emergency procedures and outline fuel storage standards
within 1000 feet of Lake.
1. Support develo~nent of FWBI program.
mo Review discharge permits.
n. Encourage a~r and noise pollution control programs.
Public Information Program _Em. Rhasis
a. Meet with groups and organizations to promote LMCD programs.
b. Continue to develop informational sign tmogram.
c. Develop "Save the Lake" Sticker Campaign.
d. Develop consolidated water quality report.
e
R_egulatory Responsibilities Review
a. Review and implement Boating Safety Ordinance.
b. Review Docks and Structures ordinance and develop construction standards.
c. Review Snowmobile Ordinance to control noise, vandalism, and trespassing,
and review need for winter fishing regulations.
d. Continue to develop Boating Density criteria.
e. Develop improved year-round Water Safety Patrol program.
f. Encourage development of supplemental Patrol service with local police reserves
District Recreation Policy_ Implementation
a. Continue development of District Base Map with the following overlays:
1) Environmental Protection, Demographics, and Transportation.
2) Boating Safety and Lake-related recreational uses.
b. Encourage installation of lookouts and fishing piers.
e
4-26-76
Long Range Goa~_~ ._and 0~jectives
a. Recognition and preservation of the unique aesthetic, recreational, and
environmental value of the Lake.
b. Lake use management by LMCD to ensure equality of use opportunity and a
balance of competing use demands.
c. Continued citizen education encouraging greater participation in Lake area
restoration.
Development of ways to measure the Lake's progress.
LAKE
MINNETONKA
CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
LAKE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PRIORITIES - Page 2
1_9y7 Emohasis
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Stabilize the Water Safety Pat-~ol p~og~am on a long-term basis.
Establish LMDD long range boating density and storage policy.
Quantify, delineate smd improve wheme possible, public access to Lake
Minnetonka with coordination and cooperation of involved public bodies.
Continue development of water management program with the MCWD.
Improve visibility of the LMCD.
Continue regula.~ business of the LMCD.
12-8-76
CUI~TI$ A i'[;A~SON
JOHN 19., 0 E ~, N'
DAVID J. K[NNEDY
L/~W OFFICES
LEFEVERE, LEFLER. pEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
MINNEAPOLIS: MINNESOTA 55402
August 11, 1977
Mr. Frank Mixa
Executive Director
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
402 East Lake Street
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Re: LMCD Boat Storage Regulations
Dear Frank:
I understand that the Lake Use committee is meeting Saturday
morning and I wanted to make a brief progress report to you about
the proposed ordinance amendments on boat storage. As you recall,
we discussed the matter at length in our office on July 22. In
that discussion I think you'll recall that we emphasized strongly'
the need for a thorough, comprehensive ordinance, based on the
soundest of policy grounds and upon the best information research
data from studies available. Since the new regulations will be an
outgrowth, to some degree, of the recently enacted moratorium on
dock and mooring areas, this sort of extensive underlying rationale
will make the moratorium and the final regulations more legally
defensible.
The basic elements of the proposed ordinance as we see them
are as follows:
1. Policy considerations. The ordinance should contain
rather complete recitals to the effect that
a)
Extensive platting and development of the lakeshore
has occurred and is likely to continue in the future.
b)
Such development has the effect of increasing boat
storage on the lake shore.
c)
There is a demonstrable relationship betweenboat
storage on the Lake and the intensity of boat usage
on the Lake.
d)
The intensity of boat storage beyond certain levels
has the effect of
3Y7
LAW 0FF1££$
LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
Mr. Frank Mixa
Page Two
August 11, 1977
1)
diminishing the aesthetic and recreational
qualities'of the Lake;
2)
increasing congestion along the shoreline
causing safety problems to users;
3)
diminishing the total area of Lake surface
available for public use;
4)
adversely affecting wildlife and its habitat
on the Lake and lakeshore; and
5) polluting the Lake and its shore.
e)
The ordinance is enacted to carry out the L~CD's
statutory obligation to secure the safety of the
public and the most general public use of the Lake.
2. Types of Boats affected: definition. The state standard
of boats of 16 feet and 10 h.p. should be used. Non-motorized
watercraft not customarily stored in the water would be excluded.
The final definitions would rely extensively on similar definitions
prepared by the DNR.
3. Basic Storaqe Rule. The ordinance should provide for
the storage of one boat for each 50 feet of shoreline, or portion
'thereof. Some adjustments to the formula may have to be included
since it may permit an owner with 53 feet of shoreline to store
the same nu~nber of boats as one with 99 feet. The measurement
is to be the straight line distance at the 929.4 datum line.
4. Application of Rule. It should be made clear that the
storage rule applies to boats, not docks or slips. The theory
is that boats cause the density problem, not storage facilities.
Also, the rule should have uniform application to all types of
lakeshore uses; outlots, private docks, marinas, etc., and there
would be no variation for the situation where property owners in
a newly developed area may have retained riparian access rights.
5. Administration: Grandfathering: Variances. Consideration
must be given 'to the application of the basic storage rule to
existing storage facilities. Should they be allowed to continue
LAW OFFICES
LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN ~
Page Three
Mr. Frank Mixa
August 11, 1977
indefinitely? Should expansion or replacement be prohibited?
Should their use be authorized over a period of time? A system
of variances from the strict application of the rule should be
included.
6. Related types of r~gulations. The' following possible
additional types of regulatory provisions are being examined for
inclusion in a comprehensive set of amendments to the LMCD Code:
a) Reduced 'speed limits to 20 mph/day and 15 mph/night.
b)
Prohibition of waterskiing on weekends and holidays
between June and September.
c)
Prohibition of high speed hulls (hulls capable of'
excess of 40 mph.
d)
Additional requirements at multiple docks and mooring
areas of safe navigation lanes, provision for
transient slips, more specific regulation of boat
shelters.
e)
Maximum automobile parking areas at commercial
marinas (cooperative effort of LMCD and cities.)
f)
A system of continuing monitoring and analysis of
the effect of boat density regulatory measures on
lake use.
I hope this summary is useful to you in reporting to the
committee. Mr. LeFevere and I will be anxious to get the committee's
reaction to these general principles so that we can begin to put
them in final ordinance form for their consideration.
Your~ery ~truly,
David J. Kennedy
DJK:dar
~ 7../ED ,g\"~
'
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesola 55391
BOARD OF ~ANAGERS:
David H. Cochran, Pres. · H. Dale Palmatier - Albe~ L. Lehman * James S. Russell · Jean Williams
ti, K[ MINNEIONK%
August 15, 1977
Mr. Frank Mixa
Executive Director
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
402 East Lake
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Re:
Proposed Headwaters Control Structure
Minnehaha Creek
Dear Mr. Mixa:
Enclosed is a copy of the letter, dated August 11, 1977,
from Dave Cochran, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
to the'Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, describing
the subject project. Also enclosed is a draft copy of
the proposed management plan. I would emphasize that the
management policy is subject to modification as a result
of current and continuing discussion with interested
groups.
We are trying to keep all interested parties informed as to
the project. If you have any further questions please call
473-4224.
Sincerely,
EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCLATES
Engineers for the District
E. A. Hickok, P.E.
EAH/cml
Enclosures
cc:
D. Cochran
G. Macomber
T. Maple
MEMO TO:
Minnehaha Creel~ Watershed District
Boa rd of Managers
FROM:
E. A. Hickok & Associates
DATE: August 10, 1977
SUBJECT:
Control Structure at Grays Bay Dam
Proposed Operating Policy
For a control structure at the site of the existing Grays
Bay Dam, it is proposed to construct a walkway/sill at
elevation 930.0 MSL with a control slot capable of manipula-
tion from elevations 930.0 HSL which is 0.5 feet below the
historic waterlevel to 928.6 MSL, the lowest point on the existing
dam. Control slots would'consist of ten-foot wide components
providing a maximum dischar9e capacity approximately equivalent
to the existing structure.
This design, with a bridge structure spanning the waterlevel
control components, provides several features:
At 0.6 feet above the O.HoW.L. for Lake Minnetonka
the walkway/sill would allow dry access to all parts
of the structure throughout .a normal year for
mai ntenance.
At 1.5 feet below projected regional flomd levels
the walkway/sill would not constitut~ a barrier
· to regional flood flows.
One of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
requirements is prevention of downstream migration
of adult fish and the resulting nuisance caused in
the forebay area. A fish screen would be incorporated
into the proposed structure.
The walkway/sill would provide year-round access to
any trai] system the City of Hinnetonka might develop
for the perimeter of the headwaters area.
Proposed management coordinates Lake Minnetonka levels with
seasons of the year. Dividing the water-year into quarters
these are:
SEP-OCT-NOV
Discharge'to creek only at lake levels
over 92 9.3 MSL.
DEC- JAN- FEB
Discharge to creek at minimum rates of
25 cfs down to a lake level of 928.5.
3
MAR-APR-MAY
Lake levels over 929.8 - Open discharge
Lake levels 929.8 - 929.6 - 250 cfs
Lake levels 929.6 - 929.3 - 50 to 25 cfs
JUN-JUL-AUG
Continue previous three-month rates except
for large, general storms when discharge to
the creek would be stopped for up to 36
hours allowing for dissipation of peal< flows
in the creek.
Fall quarter discharges would be adjusted to maintain storage
for winter flows. Recreational creek use would be considered
until freeze up.
Winter quarter discharges would be aimed at maintainin9 sufficient
flow to keep a channel open thereby reducing mid-winter
flooding from intermittent ice build-up, in the event of
relatively low lake levels, discharge to the creek could be
delayed to December 15 or January 1' to 'bracket the critical
period of mid-winter flooding from mid-January to mid-February.
Discharge would be adjusted in excess of the 25 cfs base rate
depending on anticipated spring runoff.
From the foregoing it can be seen that the proposed new
structure could control discharge to Hinnehaha Creek at from
0 cfs to 250 cfs corresponding to Lake Hinnetonka levels up
to 930.0 MSL. in a normal year this would result in a slower
summer recession of Minnetonl<a lake levels and extended
Minnehaha Creek flows.
WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. Box 387, Wa~ata, Minnesota 55391
~OARD OF
D~vid H, ~h~n, P~. · H. Dale ~lmatier
August 11, 1977
The Honorable John Derus
Ch airman
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
2400 Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
RE: Proposed Minnehaha Creek Improvement Project
Dear Chairman Derus:
This letter is to update the members of the Hennepin
County Board of Commissioners regarding recent developments af-
fecting the status of the Minnehaha Creek Improvement Project,
particularly the proposed headwaters control structure for
Minnehaha Creek, which is contemplated as a part of the overall
Project. I intend that this letter will be the first of periodic
reports to the Board of Commissioners regarding the activities of
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
In 1973, the cities of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Hop-
kins and Minnetonka, as well as the Minneapolis Park and Recrea-
tion Board, petitioned the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to
undertake a series of improvements along the Creek in conformity
with the Overall Plan of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
as part of the basic water management plan of the District. These
improvements included a new headwaters control structure, rehabil-
itation of the existing Grays Bay dam site, various creek, shore-
line and culvert improvements and the construction of trails,
canoe landings and picnic areas in downstream municipalities. At
the same time, the petitioning governmental units and the Minne-
haha Creek Watershed District entered into a joint powers agree-
ment to implement the projects identified in the petition.
The Honorable John Derus Page Two August 11, 1977
The key improvement envisioned by the petition was the
proposed headwaters control structure for ~nnehaha Creek. Es-
sentially, the headwaters control structure would temporarily
store water during the spring snow melt and during severe summer
rain storms to prevent flood damage to downstream property.
Later, during the dry season, %he surplus waters would be grad-
ually released to augment creek flow and improve its recreational
and aesthetic potential.
In its preliminary engineering report, the District's
engineer, Eugene A. Hickok & Associates, recommended a preferred
site for the structure near the Minnetonka Civic Center, approxi-
mately 8200 feet downstream from Grays Bay dam. Our engineers
also recommended two alternative sites for the proposed structure
- a site adjacent to Highway 1-494, and at the existing Grays Bay
dam site. Thereafter, engineering specifications and environmental
assessments were prepared at the direction of the managers. Both
the engineering specifications and the environmental assessment
were filed with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council. A permit application
for the headwaters control structure was submitted to the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
After considerable review by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, the department recently advised the managers
that it would not issue the necessary permits for the headwaters
control structure at the site downstream of Grays Bay dam near the
Minnetonka Civic Center. The Department requested that the managers
consider the existing Grays Bay dam site as a more desirable loca-
tion for the headwaters control structure project. Department of
Natural Resources' representatives have advised the managers that
they would recommend that the DNR Commissioner grant a permit for a
new headwaters control structure at the Grays Bay dam site upon de-
velopment of a management plan acceptable to the department.
The action of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
thus necessitates our consideration of use of the existing Grays Bay
dam site for the proposed headwaters control structure. Since this
property is owned and managed by Hennepin County, I wanted to advise
you promptly of these developments.
The District's engineer is reviewing the recommendations
of the DNR. Our preliminary review indicates that the headwaters
control structure can accomplish its intended purposes at 'the site
recommended by the DNR. We therefore believe that the project
should proceed if the County will authorize the use of the Grays
Bay dam site. The managers have directed the District engineer
to prepare a draft management .plan' for the headwaters control
structure located at the Grays Bay dam site fOr review by the mana-
gers and the County Board.
~ne Honorable John Derus Page Three August 11, 1977
The managers of ~he MC~qD would be pleased to meet
with you, or any committee, or the full board, in order to
review this mather further if you so desire. If the County
Board supports the project at the Grays Bay dam site, we
would request that the District engineer and attorney meet
with their counterparts in the County in order to implement
the desires of the managers and the Hennepin County Board
of Commissioners to proceed with this project.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources hopes
to schedule a public hearing on the proposed project at the
Grays Bay dam site for the end of September. The managers
also desire to hold a public hearing on the proposed project
at ~he s~--~.e time, in order to economize staff and financial
resources. Accordingly, we would appreciate the opportunity
to discuss this matter with you and other members of the
County Board at the earliest practicable time.
Very truly yours,
David H. Cochran
President
CC:
Richard Kremer
Nancy Olkon
E. F. Robb, Jr.
Sam S. Sivanich
Jeff Spartz
Thomas E. Ticen
Ronald D. Harnack, DNR
LEOne A. Hickok & Associates
H. Dale Palmatier
James S. Russell
Albert L. Lehman
Jean Williams
Popham, Haik, Schnobrich,
Kaufman &Doty, Ltd.
Minnesota Pollufion
612-296-7274
,,.,,,,P
co roi Agency
Dear Honorable Mayor:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency held public information
meetings.on July 19 and 21, 1977 to receive comments on the
existing open burning regulation APC-8. The record for the
meetings will remain open until October 1, 1977. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency is interested in obtaining a valid
critique of~the open burning regulation and solicits comments
on the regulation.
Comments on Air Pollution Control Regulation, APC-8, entitled
"Open Burning" should be addressed to Edward M. Wiik, Director,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of Air Quality,
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota, 55113. Comments
must be received by the Agency by October 1, 1977.
A copy of the open burning regulation, APC-8, is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Director
Division of Air Quality
EMW: RJS/mp
1935 West Counb' Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 551'13
Regional Offices · Duluth / Brainerd ,' Fergus Fall~ / Marshall / Rochester / Roseville
Equal Oppo~:unity Employer
337
Dear Mayor and Councilmen:
August 1!, 1977
As you know, the controversy over the management of the Boundary Waters Canoe J~ea
is of great concern among most Minnesotans today. Because the City of Babbitt lies
adjacent to this area, we are concerned that any proposed change in the multiple-use
policies of the B.W.C.A. will adversely affect this region.
We in Northeastern Minnesota are convinced that the ~altiple-use concept that
prevailed for the past decades is a workable concept. It sets aside a vast area of
forest lands and ls~es for all type of recreational uses, allowing for common sense
management of the B.W.C.A. and its surrounding area without placing undue hardship on
the local people r. ud its industries.
Our area is concerned about the Total Wilderness Bill introduced by Congressman
Donald Frazer of P~nncapolis. His bill will definitely have an adverse affect not only
on this beautiful ~ilderness, but also on the many businesses that depend on the present
multiple-use policy and the f~ily oriented recreational needs of this area.
His bill will expand the boundaries of the B.W.C.A. and mandate Federal acquisition
of priva'te lands and business v~thin the newly formed boundaries. Of course, this will
further reduce taxable land for our municipalities. It would also completely destroy
the logging industry of our area, an.' industry which we depend upon for employment for
many of our people and tax dollars for our districts. But most importantly, it would
suppress the growth of the tourist industry of this district.
We hope you ~11 help us by writing your congressman and expressing your opposition
to the Frazer bill by supporting the B.W.C.A. bill introduced by Congressman James
0berstar. Oberstar's bill is carefully drafted to maintain a balance for all types
of uses in the B.W.C.A. by keeping the management of this area in the hands of the
people who can best manage it. We want to keep this area as beautiful as possible for
future generations, yet we also want people of all ages, including the handicapped and
elderly alike, to be o~le to enjoy it. If we sit back and allow people from the Outside
of our state to t~e over the management of this area, where ~lll they go next?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Mahal, Mayor
City of Babbitt
RESOL~i0N ~77-16
SUPPORT~G ]~fJLTI?LE USE OF
THE BOUk~D~RZ UATERo C:~'IOE _~L~,ZA
,~,=m~.~,~, The Boundary ~.,~a+c~-,~ Canoe :~trca lies entirely within the
~.mnnesota mmgh~h Congressional Distrlct, and
Y~R~%%S: The Boundary Wavers Canoe ~krea is the principal recreation
area for all Vhe people of the Unived States of America-, Minnesota, and of
the Eighth Congressional District, and
%~q~RW-.~%S: ~ne people of i~innesota rely on limited motorized recreation
vehicles for transportation and recreational purposes in the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area, and
k~..~: Limited mechanical transportation vehicles have been proven
not to cause environmental d~mage, and
~'E~-~°_~: Thu Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a principal outdoor area
for sportsmJn's activities, and
I, ff,~ERF~&S: Legislation introduced by Minneapolis Congressman Donald
Fraser would close off the area to mosv Americans, Minnesotans, and recreational
users of tho Ei~mth Congressional District, and
k~$'~S: ~ach legislation would severely limit access to the Boundary
Waters Ct~nee ~ea by elderly ~mericans, handicapped persons and families, and
]'~n~v~lS: Legislation has also been introduced by Eighth District
Congressman Oborstar that would establish a fair and equitable management plan
for the Boundary Wavers Conservation Alliance.
~FORE BE IT RESO~D: That wc of the Eighth Congressional District
wholeheartedly support Congressman Oberstar's ~altiple use concept.
Thc foregoing resolution, offered by Councilman Lassi, and upon
his motion, supported by Councilman Thompson, was declared adopted this 4th day
of August, 1977, by tho following roll call. Further, that copies of this
resolution and the accompanying fact sheet be forwared to municipalities of
~.~nnesota.
Ayes: Co'm~ciimen Lassi~ Murphy, 0!son, Thompson, and MayorMahal.
~yes: None.
Absent: None.
Richard Mahal, Mayor
Published: Babbitt Weekly News
Au&~asv !0, 1977
Recrea%iona! Uses - Past & Pres.mt
Prior to %he 1964 Ni!dcrness '~
~ all recreation, motorized and nonmotorized (except air
~,rave! ~undar ~,000 rt., which~s banned in 195~) was allowed in t.he BWCA. Presently
regulations limit outboard moto~'s to - '~' areas,
Sp~cm._~c ~nile all other forms of motorized
recreation, including snovnnobiles, are banned.
Timber Harvesting
Timber harvesting is an accepted practice of forest management. In the BWCA no timber
harvesting is allowed within 400 ft. of' any waterway or the m~litary crest, which ever
is the farthest. Tin~cr harvesters have agreed ye a moratorimm on cutting until the
BWCA controversy is resolved. In the past, the Forest Service has planted 25 trees for
every i that is cut.
0berstar bill - Pe~n£ts managed ti~er harvesving in the National Recreation ~ea only,
~,~th total protection for all virgin timber. Docs not advocate uncontrolled fires.
Fraser bill - Would allow no -timber harvesting anywhere in the BWCA. Supporters of the
Fraser bill advocate management of the forest by fire, and oppose fire control.
Snowmobiles and ~torboats
~otorboats and sno~mobiles have been an accepted means of recreation travel in the portal
zones of the BWCA long before ~e 1964 Wilderness Act. Since the 1976-77 season the
snowmobile has been banned despite proven data show~ng that snowmobiles do not cause
physical damage to ~]e terrain or vegetation. Motorboat limitations at present allow
a 25 horsepower motor on large lakes and no more than 10 horsepower on all other lakes.
0berstar bill - Motorboats and snowmobiles would be allowed in the National Recreation
~mea, on large l~es, and along the international border.
Fraser bill - Would ban all motorized travel and motors in the entire BWCA. Fishermen
would have to fish in l~Xes outside of the ~CA.
MiniB5
Present laws prohibit all mining in the BWCAunless there is a declared national emergency,
according to ~nnesoLa Statute.
Oberstar bill - Upholds the prohibition on mining.
Fraser bill - Upholds thc prohibition on mining.
Pa~n_~t~ ~ i8_' Li e.u_~ of. ~a_.w.22~s
Counties receive a payrm_;n!; in lieu of taxes from the federal gover~ent for all federal
lands held ~thin thc r:om~Ly. ~e present payment is 75~ per acre in the t~ee co,ties
(St. Louis, Cook, Lake) wiehiu which the BWCA lies.
9~,erstar bill - ~e 0berstar bill would continue to allow con, ties to receive the full
75~ per acre.
Fraser bill - Paten-ss in lieu would be reduced from 75~ to 58~ per acre. ~is would
cause a s~vere hardshiu~ to counties which must provide essential public~ services such
as road maintenance, rescue, and emergency medical ia~ a'~.mmltles'' ' .
Handicapped and Seniors
Wilderness status weald d~s~..~.]m~nate against the hand~capped, the very young, the aged,
the poor, and the weekend user, by limiting accessibility into the BWCA. Public law
states that provisions must be mmde for ~1] handd, eapped persons on projects which
involve federal monies.
0berstar bill - Would provide accessibility for h~ndicapp~d and seniors by allowing the
use of movorized recreation.
Fraser bill -- l, ln~,ld make ie ¥irN3al].? .impossib!e for seniors and handicapped persons to
utilize the BWCA.
Resorts
There are appro×~mate]y 50 resorts in -the periphery of -the present ~WCA to provide the
services needed to enjoy a wilderness experience.
Oberstar bill - Prcs,xr~ resorts would be able to continue their business as usual, kny
business loss would bc compensated.
Fraser bill - Approximately 2/! of these resorvs would be forced %o close and the
remainder would do a limited business. There would be no compensation for business losses.
Eminent Domain - Government Acquisition of Private Property
~uinen't domain is th,~, condom~at~ion o~' private lands by the federal government. At the
present time La/~e County is 80~ in public o~a~crship, Cook Counvy is 9~ in public
ow~ership, and St. Louis County is 65~ in public o~wer, ship.
0b._~rs%nr bill _ Protec~3s the private property o%~aer against cm~e~nation of his l~nd.
~'~aser bill - Would co~demn thousands of acres of privatu land.
33
CITY OF MOU.qD
Mound, Minnesota
1972 FIRE FORMULA
Calculation of Fire Charges on Man-Hour Basis:
C = Prior Year's Operating Cost (1976)
(Contributed to Fire Plan 1977)
$78,727.19
E = Cost of Equipment $52,675.00 $52,675.00 2,633.75
2O
P = Cost of Bldg&Physical Plant $75,000.00 3,000.00
25
F = Equipment Purchased 1976 $12~227.98
(depreciation starts 19780 final yr 1982) 5
F = Equipment Purchased 1975 $18,441.00
(depreciation starts 1977 final yr 1981) 5
Sub Total =
11 = 10% for Administration
10 (Total cost to be divided)
E P F 11 U+V
Formula: S = ( C + 2~+ 25 + 5 ) (~) (' 2 )
2,445.60
3,688.20
$90,494.74
9,049.47
$99,544'.21
Tota 1
Assessment
ASSESSED VALUE IN FIRE DISTRICT
CITY Dollars
Minnetonka Beach $4,795,376
Minnetrista 7,016,675
Orono 18,211,715
Spring Park 6,591,373
Shorewood 327,547
Mound 31,100,O12
$68,542,698
USE
OF FIRE DEPARTMENT MAN HOURS
1971- Less Plus
1975 1971 1976
Percent
7.OO
10.23
26.57
9.62
1.21
45.37
100.00
Minnetonka Beach 790 30 ---
Minnetrista 2549 447 902
Orono 4431 1117 844
Spring Park 3559 774 902
Shorewood 453 76 22
Mound 11,448 2156 3262
23,230 4600 5932
Total
Percent
760
3004
4158
3687
399
12,554
24,562'
3.10
12.23
16.93
15.01
1.62
51.11
100.00'
Minnetonka Beach 7.00 + 3.10
= 10.10
2
U+V
Minnetrista 10.23 + 12.23 = 22.46
2
Orono 26.57 + 16.93 = 43.50
2
Spring Park 9.62 + 15.O1 : 24.63
2
Shorewood 1.21 + 1.62 = 2.83
2
Mound 45.37 + 51.11 : 96.43
2
5.05
= 11.23
: 21.75
12.315
= 1.415
: 48.24
100.O0
Minnetonka Beach 5.05 $ 5,026,98
Minnetrista 11.23 $11,178.80
Orono 21.75 $21,650.86
Spring Park 12.315 $12,258.50
Shorewood 1.415 $ 1,408.55
Mound 48.24 $48,020.08
100.00 $99,543.77