80-07-01 CITY OF MOUN!
Meun~, Minnes~t~
REVISED
AGENDA
CM Je-223
CM Ie-221
CM JJ-225
':i~ 80-222
CM 80-224
MJUN~ CITY C~UNCIL
July 1, 1~
City Hall
7:30 P.M.
1. Minutes P~. 1534-1537
2. Al & Alma's lock P~. 1526-1533
3. Liqu®r License Renewal - Surfsile
4. Park C®mmissi®n Minutes P~. 152D-1525
~. Ne Pirkin~ on Se ~ Request Pg. 1516-1519
7. Plans & Specifications - Mound-Spring Park Water Interconnection
8. Fishing Contest Pg. 1514-1515
9. Comments & Suggestions by Citizens Present (2 Minute Limit)
10. City Hall Roof Pg. 1513
11. Payment of Bills
12. Information Memorandums/Misc. Pg. 1450-1512
13. Committee Reports
Page 1538
5042 Tuxedo Boulevard
Mound, Minnesota
June 30, 1980
Mr. Russ Peterson, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Mound
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Russ:
Regretfully, I am submitting my resignation from the
Planning Commission. In mid-July, I am going on leave
of absence from General Mills and we are moving to
Atlanta.
I have thoroughly enjoyed my tenure on the Planning
Commission and the opportunity to be involved in the
development of the new comprehensive plan for the city.
My best to all of you.
Sincerely,
Harriett L. Dewey
HLD:dm
cc: Mr. Tim Lovaasen, Mayor
Hr. Leonard Kopp, City Manager
7-1-80
CITY O~ ~OUND
Hound, H[nneso~a
June 30, 1980
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-226
SUBJECT: MOUND-SPRING PARK WATER CONNECTION
Attached is a copy of a letter from the Engineer for the Spring
Park Interconnection.
George Boyer has sent two sets of plans which the Council can
review at the July 1 meeting.
~LeohardL. Kopp
May 23, 1980
545 Indian Mound
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-4224
Mr. Leonard Kopp, ~ity Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Mound-Spring Park Interconnection
Dear Leonard:
Enclosed herewith please find two (2) copies of the plans and spe-
cifications relative to the above referenced project.
The plans and specifications have been reviewed with Bob Shanley
and Spring Park and have been approved by them. A permit has been
requested by the Hennepin County Highway Department and is
expected shortly.
In addition, copies of the plans and specifications have been for-
warded to the Minnesota Department of Health for their review and
approval.
Upon City C~uncil approval and a letter of authorization, we will
advertise for bids and proceed with the project.
If you have any comments and/or questions, please contact me at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
EUG~~ AND ASSOCIATES
George ~. Boyer,~ P~.E.
Vice President
GWB:lf
Enclosures
7-1-80
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 30, 1980
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-227
SUBJECT: Phillips Bookkeeping Machine
Attached is a letter from the City Clerk with a recommendation
what to do with the old bookkeeping machine.
CITY of MOUND
June 27, 1980
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
To~
From:
Subject:
City Manager
City Clerk/Treasurer
Phillips Bookkeeping Machine
All efforts to sell the Phillips Bookkeeping Machine have been
exhausted. The only way to realize any financial return would
be to sell it to Benchmark Inc. for $1,500,00. Considering the
poor service received from the company it would not be practical
to choose that alternative.
I recently served on the Business Education Advisory Committee of
the Westonka School District. They are in the process of purchas-
ing a Mini-computer. At that time I considered the possibility
of approaching the school about donating the machine as a practice
tool for the students. The school is receptive to the idea and
upon approval of the Council they will arrange to pick up the mach-
ine and miscellaneous supplies.
ALBERT H. QUIE
GOVERNOR
~TATE OF NIINNESOTA
OFFICE OF TIlE G()Vk~RNOR
ST. ISkUL 5:3155
MINNESOTA COMMUNITIES' PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
A Series of Community Development Forums
Forum Co-Sponsors:
Assoc. of MN Counties
Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development
Governor's Office of
Volunteer Services
Institute of Cultural
Affairs
League of MN Cities
League of Women Voters
of Minnesota
MN AFL-CIO
MN Assoc. of Commerce
and Industry
MN~Assoc. of Townships
MN Assoc. of Regional
Commissions
MN Board on Aging
~N City Management AssOc.
YN Community Education!
Association
~N Dept. of Agriculture
~N Dept. of Economic
Development
Dear Local Elected Officials and Community Leaders:
What steps do we need to take to help Minnesota communities build
for the future? How can we work together in each area of the state
to ensure wise investments are made? How can opportunities for
local initiative be encouraged? How do we maintain and improve
our existing community facilities, meet our housing needs, and
provide energy supplies for all our necessary activities?
These and many similar questions went through my mind as I
prepared the Community Development Statement for the legislature.
In order to obtain a broader range of opinions and ideas, I have
scheduled six community development forums in different parts of
the state. At these forums, local elected officials and citizens
will be able to participate in discussing community and economic
development issues facing Minnesota citizens in the 8Os.
The forum in your area will 23, 1980 at the Anoka
Senior High School, 3939 - 7th Avenue, Anok~. It will egb-'e~at
9:50 a.m. and end' by 4:'3D p.m. Lunch'will-be available at
the school. We do need your response in order to make appro-
priate arrangements, so we would appreciate it if you would
return the enclosed form by July 15th.
~NDept. of Transportation Legislators, local elected officials, and citizens from many
community groups will be participating in the forums. The co-
sponsors of the forums include private, voluntary and public
organizations that are concerned about the future of Minnesota
co,~nunities. We hope you will be able to attend the community
development forum in Anoka and encourage others to attend.
~N Education Assoc.
~ Energy Agency
~ Federation of
Teachers
~ Housing Finance
Agency
~ Planning Assoc.
~tate Planning Agency
' of M - Agricultural
Extension Service
L~eutenant Governor <[~- ~
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
BOARD MEMBERS
Norman W. Pauru$. Chairman
OroFto
Edward G. Bauman. Vice Chairman
Tonka Bay
Jerry JohnsOn. Secretary
Excelsior
Frank R. Hunt. Jr.. Treasurer
Spring Park
David Bo~es
Minnetonka Beach
Robert T. Brown
Greenwood
Walton E Clevenger Minnetrista
Richard J Garwood Deephaven
Robert S MacNamara Wayzata
Robert O. Naegele, Jr.
Shorewood
David F. Nixon
Laketown Township
Robert K Pillsbury M~nnetonka
Robert E. Slocum
Woodland
Richard J Soderberg
Victoria
Donald Ulrick Mound
LAKE MINNETONKA
402 EAST LAKE STREET
June 27, 1980
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
FRANK MIXA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
A1 & Alma's
c/o James W. Nolan, President
5200 Piper Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Nolan:
A recent inspection of your dockage for A1 and Alma's indicates
that you have expanded the facility by adding another section
on the south side of your licensed facility on another lot.
Please be advised that this is a violation of the LMCD Code:
Sec. 3.02: No person shall use any area of the lake outside
an authorized dock use area, for docks, moorings, boat
storage, swimming floats, ski jump storage or diving towers,
unless such use is specifically permitted under the pro-
visions of this chapter.
Sec. 3.08: No person may locate, construct, install or
maintain a dock of more than 100 feet in length or a multiple
dock or mooring area or a commercial dock on the shoreline
of the lake, or in the waters of the lake unless he is
licensed by the Board to do so. Any change in the length,
width, height,~or location of a structure requiring a license
under this chapter requires the issuance of a new license
therefor.
The LMCD will take no further action for seven days, provided that
we are advised you will cease to use the facility for restaurant
dockage and will remove the offending structure.
Sincerely,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Executive Director
cc: Leonard Kopp~ Don Rother
Sheriff's Water Patrol
Don Ulrick
Robert Brown
LMCD Inspector
June 27, 1980
7701 COUNTY ROAD 110 W Il MOUND, MINNE~0TA 553r~a ¢7Z-34~
Mr. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Kopp:
The City of Minnetrista held a special hearing regard-
ing police service on June 24, 1980. The purpose of
the meeting was to invite public comment and determine
if the City of Minnetrista desired to continue as part
of the Mound police service.
After reviewing information and receiving comments,
the Minnetrista Council determined that it did not
wish to continue as a member of the Mound police ser-
vice after December 31, 1980. In summary, Council
based its determination and disappointment upon the
unwillingness of the Mound Council to seriously dis-
cuss a viable joint-powers agreement.
If the joint-powers option has any remaining potential
for discussion in Mound, I would urge that discussion.
In any event, I would like to express my appreciation
for the information and time received from Chuck
Johnson, as was also' expresSed by Council.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MINNETRISTA
Eric B. So~ensen
City Administrator
EBS:bjs
cc Chuck Johnson
7o
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
June 17, 1980
Pursuant to due call and not[ce thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 5341Maywood Road
in the said City on June 17, 1980 at 7:30 p.m.
Those present were: Mayor Tim Lovaasen, Councilmembers Gordon Swenson, Benjamin
Withhart and Donald Ulrick. Also present where City ManageE Leonard L. Kopp,
City Attorney Curtis A. Pearson and City Clerk Mary H. Marske.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of June 10, 1980 were presented for.consideration.
Swenson moved.and--Withhar~seconded a motion-.to approve':the minutes of the meeting
'of-dUne::tO~ 1980-w}th~the, fol:low[ng corrections:' pag~ 66~ change1979 to 1978
in regard.to Resolutio~ 80-216;;page 67,.and inse~t "betweemthe street right of
way. and-the-channel~' between the words:'fence'~and 'and';' page 69, Change the
word "where" to "when" .in.-the payment of bills.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Special Use Permit -Car ~lash
The City. Clerk presented an affidavit of publication in the official newspaper of
the notice of. publ'ic, hearing on said Car Wash. Said affidavit-was then examined,
approved~.and, ordered..filed in the
office of the City Clerk. -The Mayor then opened
the public hearing for input on said Car Wash and persons present to do so were
afforded an opportunity-to express their views thereon. The following persons
offered comments or questions: John Grassberg, Excelsior-member of VFIq, Orville
Neal, 4970 Leslie Rd., Ray Borgens, Box 155, Spring Park, VFW, Bob Sorenson,
Maple Plain,i~:VFW. The Mayor then closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Pol~ton arrived at 8:25 p.m.
Lovaasen moved and Withhart seconded a'motion
RESOLUTION 80-231 ' RESOLUTION~APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A
SELF SERVICE CAR WASH AT 2558 COMMERCE BOULEVARD
Roll call vote was four in favor with Swenson voting nay.
Delinquent Utility Bills
The Mayor then opened the public hearing for in'ut on said Delinquent Utility
Bills and persons present to do so were afforded an opportunity to express their
views thereon~ No persons presented objections and the Mayor then closed the
public hearing.
Polston moved and L~vaasen seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-232 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY STAFF TO TURN OFF
SERVICE TO DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS
The vote was unanimously in favor.
BLACK LAKE BRIDGE
Ulrick moved and Polston seconded a motion
June 17, 1980 71
RESOLUTION 80-233 RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISED PLAN ALTERNATE "E"
SUBMITTED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR' BLACK LAKE
BRIDGE ON C.S.A.H. 125
The vote was'unanimously in favor.
FIRE PENSION PLAN - PROPOSED INCREASE
Polston moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-234 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INCREASE REQUESTED IN
THE FIRE PENSION PLAN
The vote was four in favor with Swenson abstaining.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Possible Appeal - Subdivision of Land - Lot 14, Halstead Heights
Polston moved and Ulrick seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-235 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE SUBDIVISION
The vote was unanimouslY in favor.
Conditional Use Permit - Lots 1-5 & 9-11, Block 19, Lakeside Park, Crocker's
1st Division
Polston moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-236 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR ~IITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-237 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
A CONDITIONAL USE TO BE HEARD ON JULY 8, 1980 AT
.. 7:30 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
PELICAN POINT
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-238 RESOLUTION EXTENDING.FINAL PLAT APPROVAL 365 DAYS
AS APPROVED IN RESOLUTION 79-251
The vOte was unanimously in favor.
CITIZEN REQUEST - BLOCK PARTY
Polston moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to approve on a trial basis with the
stipulation that warning lights be used, the Police Department, Fire Department
and Public Works Department be notified and music be terminated at ll:O0 p.m.
or upon complaint and all neighbors be notified in writing within the area.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Bill Brix, Bloomington, informed the Council of a citation he received in Spring
Park. The Council directed him to the City of Spring Park.
72 June 17, 1980
LeRoy Fluke, 495b Brunswick, complained of lawn not being restored after street
improvement.
TAX FORFEIT LAND, LOT 5, BLOCK 28, t./YCHWOOD
Lovaasen moved and Wi thhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-239 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE A PRIVATE PURCHASE FOR RESALE TO ADJOINING
PROPERTY OWNER
The vote was unanimously in favor.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ZONING ORDINANCE
Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-240 'RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE HEARD ON JULY 8, 1980 AT
7:30 P.M.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
Withhart moved and Ulrick seconded a motion
RESOLUTION 80-241 RESOLUTION REQUESTING TIME EXTENSION ON EXTENSION ON
SUBMISSION OF THE MOUND COMPREHENSIVE'PLAN FOR METROP-
OLITAN COUNCIL REVIEW
The vote was unanimously in favor
DISEASED TREES
Polston moved and Withhart seconded a motion to authorize payment to residences
that had diseased trees removed.
The vote wa~ unanimously in favor.
ACTING CITY MANAGER
Polston moved and Lovaasen seconded a ~notion
RESOLUTION 80-242 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARY H. MARSKE AS ACTING CITY
MANAGER
The vote was unanimously in favor.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion to approve payment of the bills as
presented on the prelist in the amount of $162,068.54 when funds are available.
Roll call vote was unanimously in favor.
CITY HALL REPAIR
The Council requested the City Manager negotiate with the contractor regarding
repa i r of the City Hal 1 roof.
Councilmember Swenson inquired about the status of completion of sodding on the
street project and Island Park park and the function of the air-raid siren.
June 17, 1980 73
WELL REPAIR
Swenson moved and g~r~ck secon~e~ a motion approvlng low bid on repair of the
'well as recommended by the Public Works Director.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Ulrick moved and Polston seconded a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting
on July 1, 1980 at 7:30 p.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor, so adjourned.
Mary H. Marske £MC, City Clerk/Treasurer
Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager
7-1-80
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 19, 1980
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-223
SUBJECT: A1 & Alma's Dock
A1 & Alma's Dock exists on a special use permit as outlined in Ordinance 294
and Resolution 80-20 (see copies attached).
A few weeks ago, a resident came in and complained that 1) A1 & Alma's was
changing oil from their boat on the swimming beach and 2) A1 & Alma's had a
500 gallon gas tank buried that serviced their boats. 3) In investigating
the above complaints, the Dock Inspector found A1 & Alma's had expanded the
dock beyond that permitted (See copy of Dock Inspector's letter dated June 12,
1980).
In discussing these items with Mr. Nolan, Mr. Nolan said that the boat was
brought on the swimming beach prior to the official opening of the swimming
season to inspect the propeller. He said that the 500 gallon gasoline tank
was buried in the yard when he built the house in 1978 (he did not say
whether or not he had a permit or if this was shown in his building plans).
Ordinance 375 covering flammable liquids in the Fire Prevention Ordinance
was adopted as of April 26, 1978. On May 3, 1979, the Ordinance was amended
to restrict storage of liquified petroleum in all residential districts.
The present dock exceeds in width, the dock approved on Resolution 80-20.
This will come before the Council on July l, 1980. The questions to be
determined are:
Is the underground storage of gasoline permissible in this
residential district?
Does the expansion of the dock conform to:
A. The special use permit for a dock on one lot?
B. To the permit granted in Resolution 80-20?
'--ZL%~o'~rd L. Kopp · ~ /
2O
January 8, 1980
Councilmember Swenson moved the following resolution,
RESOLUTION NO. 80-20
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AL & ALMA'S TO HAVE
A DOCK PERMIT & TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, Mr. Nolan, the owner of A1 and Alma's has appeared before this Council
regarding a dock permit located in a residential neighborhood and ad-
jacent to City Swimming Beach in Island Park, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Park'Advisory
Commission and Mr. Nolan has asked for a variance to the recommendation
to allow his two boats to dock in the restricted area when the swimming
beach is closed and Mr. Nolan has assured this Council that if this creates
any problem with this arrangement the Council can amend the permit to de-
lete approval to dock boats in this area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
A1 and Alma's (Bud Nolan) is authorized to construct a dock on his land
west of the City's swimming beach subject to the following conditions:
A1 and Alma's dock extension shall have a sign on the end of the dock,
the side of the sign seen from the lake shall read, "NO BOAT PARKING"
and have an arrow pointing toward the City beach, the side of the sign
seen from shore shall read" NO SWIMMING FROM DOCK".
Al and Alma's shall construct a line prohibiting access to the east
:frqm his....dock and running to the east to the east line oF' {he'City'
~wimmio~ beach and then southerly to the shoreline.The floatation de-
vice shall be constructed pursuant to the Park A~i'~ory recommendation
as set forth in Council Memo 80-14 dated t-3-80. _Buoy lines and float-
~at[.on devides shall be paid for by A1 and Alma's and constructed under
direction of the City Staff.
The area described in paragraph 2 shall not be used for boat docking
except under the following conditions:
a After the swimming beach is'closed.
b. The floatation device sha]l contain a locking device which can
be opened only by employees of A1 and Alma's and shall be used
only by the two cruise boats owned by A1 and Alma's. No other
boats may be allowed in this restricted area under any conditions
and violation of the provision will result in revocation of the
right to use the restricted area.
c. This permit shall be renewed annually.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council-
member Polston and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor there-
of;.Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson, Withhart and Ulrick, 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 Clerk.
Attes~:~./ 'CMC Ci[y Clerk
_s/Tim I r~V,-~nc;~n
Mayo r
ORDINANCE NO. 294
AN ORDINANCE A/'~ENDING SECTION 23.011 SUBDIVISION (d)
OF THE ZONING CODE BY ADD~IG SUBSECTIONS ll A/~D 12
ALLOWING PRIVATE DOCKS ~{ RESIDF21TIAL NSE DISTRICT
AND PEP~MITTING DOCKS AS A USE BY SPECIAL PEPuMIT IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO SERVE CO~A~CIAL PROPERTY
AND ESTABLISH1/~G STANDARDS
The Village Council of the Village of Mound does ordain:
Section 23.Oll, Subdivision (d) is amended to add subsection ll which
shall read as follows:
11. Docks Private docks constructed in accordance with the
megulations of the Lake ],~nnetonka Conservation District are
permitted to serve one-family private ~{ellings.
Section 23.Oll, Subdivision (d) is amended to add subsection 12 which
shall read as follows:
12. Docks Serving Commercial Prooertz. Docks to serve property
located in Commercial Use District, Commercial Use District A,
B1 and B2 may be permitted upon securing a Special Use Permit
from the council after receipt of the recom~r~endation of the
Planning Commission and a public hearing.' Said public hearing
shall-be preceded by 10 days' written notice mailed to all
property o~ners within 200 feet of any lot line of the resi-
dential property to be used for dockage. The application for
a Special Use Permit shall contain the following information:
A. A list of %he owners of the property in the residential
use district and of the property it is to serve in the
commercial or business district.
/ · B. A scale drawing of the property on which the dock is 'to be
'I' ' located and the proposed location of the dock. Said draw-
ing shall show all public rights of way and any structures
located within or without 50 feet of the boundary line of
the property for which the Special Use Permit is requested.
use~permi~_granted 'by the council shall be con-
Any
special
ditioned as follows:
The residential property on which dockage is to b~located
and the commercial property served shall be in common owner-
ship and shall be located within 30o feet of the property
line of the commercial property.
B. The mooring of boats at such dock shall be limited to a
ximum of four 'hours.
g~s, oil or other orodu~t my be_~so!d from the' dock~
~ no servicing o£' bo~ts ~ill be p~rmitled~ ~ .... ..~
not exceed a total of six (6) square feet in size.
E. Ingress and egress from the residential lot shall be re-
stricted to the property held under co~3~on ownership and
adequate safegmards shall be provided so that persons
docking will not trespass on private property or on a~y
public property except for properly desi~ated streets or
? sidewalks.
F. The council she-ll specify any special conditions that they
Ordinance
Psze 2
may require, such as fencinE, lighting or landscaping~ an~
shall require a site plan showing the location of any suc~
fencing, lighting or landscaping. Any lighting installed '-
along the dock or the pathway from the residentiml to the
commercial property shall be in such a manner as to'have no
direct source of light visible from a public right of way
or adjacent land in %he residential use district. The
Council may require a perfo~nce bond to assure constz~ction
of the site improvements required by the Special Use Permit.
The owner shall be required to ~intain the premises in a
neat and clean ~anner and in accordance with the terms
established by the special use permit.
H. Th~ council shall determine in allowing such a Special Use
Permit that this use will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood.
I. The owner shall be required to meet and comply with all the
standards and requirements of the Lake ~nnetonka Consgrva-
tion District
!
.'
Adopted b~ %he Village Council Febr~rM 29~ 1972__
Publishe~ in official newspape~ I~arch 9, 197~ _
CiTY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUNO, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472~1155
June 12, 1980
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Leonard Kopp
Dock Inspector
A1 & Almas Commercial Dock
Charles Melong, L.M.G.D. dock inspector and I checked out a complaint on
A1 & Almas commercial dock on Wednesday, June 11, 1980.
Mr. Nolan has expanded this dock beyond the permit limit.
Enclosed is his dock plan as approved by L.bI.C.D. and City of Mound. Also
I have drawn a diagram of his dock as he has it now.
I recommend his permit be denied until he corrects this dock to the plan he
has submitted for license.
Res. pect fully,
Don Rother
Dock Inspector
RD/j en
cc: L.M.C.D.
A1 & Almas
NA~4E OF APPLICANT
ADD}W. SS
CITY OF }40UND
NOUND, ?.II~INESOTA
CO~,~,ERCIflL DOCK APPLICATIC~:I
NM~TE OF BUS.~I'ESS
Are you now, or have you been engaged in a similar business?
If so, when
EXACT LCCATION OF BUSINESS
0 '
LE6AL DESCRIPTION - LOT., ,/¢ '~ BLOCK
PLEASE E~CLOSE THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION:
1) A drawing to scale bf the type, size and shape of the dock
proposed~ and the location and type of buoy(s) to be used.
2) A drawin9 to scale of off-street parking provided for each
three rental bo~t stalls~ bouys or sliDs..
3) A statement outlinin§ the m~nner, extent and degree of use < comtemmlated for the dock orooosed.
~) Payment of permit fee must be included with this application.
All applicahions received on or after March 1 shall be subject
to slste fee of $20.00
New applicant fee
4uu. uu
Basic fee renewal $100.00
Number of slips on water/,~ × $2.00
Number of boats s'hored
on land
TOTAl,
x
i 30\°`,
Namz of Firm
S4gnature and Title
SALES AND
HIGHWAY 18 '
'7
I£
7-1-80
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 18, 1980
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-221
SUBJECT: Park Commission Minutes
Attached is a copy of the Park Commission minutes.
required on the following:
Council action is
Eagle Lane - on Harrison's Bay
This area has been blocked off and some residents wanted the
area opened for boat launching.
The Park Commission recommended it be access by foot only -
no boat launching.
Stairways on Commons
The Park Commission recommended Kenneth Brooks, 4601 Island
(View Drive be authorized to build a stairway on Commons. The
motion reads:
"Maintenance Permit be granted for up to five years, renewable
(on # 7 of Flow Chart) for stairway to Devon Commons providing
the structural print submitted meets the specifications for
stairways on commons, after being checked by our Building In-
spector''
[eon~a rd L. Kopp ~'t-~½
MINUTES OF MOUND ADVISORY
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
June 1Z, 1~0
Present: Hal Larson, Cathy Bailey, Pat Shay, Toni Case, Jon Lynott, Douglas Anderson,
Chris Bollis from Staff and Jackie Meyer.
Meeting was called to order by Chmn Larson. Minutes of the meeting of May 8, 1980
were submitted for approval. Motion by Shay seconded by Lynott to approve minutes as
presented. Unanimously approved.
Citizens present from Three Points area concerned with Eagle Lane Access to commons:
* Janice Schrupp
* Gil Schrupp
~ Joseph E. Tidhome
* David Fenner
:~ GeOrge ~lalles
* Denny Jensen
Thomas B. Stephenson
Edna Steffen
James C Sorvick
1661 Gull Lane
1661 Gull Lane
175! Resthaven Lane
1623 Gull Lane
1668 Canary Lane
1673 Canary Lane
1717 Finch Lane
1716 Eagle Lane
1712 Eagle Lane
Pat shay chaired this representation carried over from the Discussion Meeting of 5-22-80.
It was brought out that at the discussion meeting no action could be taken by the com-
mission but it would be carried over and continued at the regularly scheduled meeting
of 6-12-80. The problem revolves around the Eagle Lane access to the commons. Some
of the area residents have been using this as a launching area for.their boats, as well
as others, and posts have been installed in the center of the blacktopped access to
prevent this.
Facts that Shay brought out from the previous meeting were: 1. Access blacktopped to water in 1979
2. West side of street is vacant (no homes built there)
3. Posts have been moved from the side of the access to the center on the
commons parallel to the road.
_4. Citizens (*) are requesting that posts be removed from center of blacktopped
access to allow boat launching. Others opposed to this use want access re-
stricted tQ pedestrian use only.
5. Parking must be regulated.
6. Determine whether or not a public hearing is necessary to change the use
of the access.
7. Population density warrants three launching sites in Three Points area. '
It was brought out that the access is wider than other accesses to commons, this one
is 8 ft wide but was laid down this wide in error, when Thomas & Sons did the.construc-
tion work in the area.
All accesses to commons are to be treated the same, at all road ends, to narrow down
to 20 ft. at the last driveway then 6' to commons. .
Pr° boat launching stated that this had always been used for this purpose, there are
two other launching areas but are too far awy from this one that is so convenient.
Anti boat launching use, state access is narrow and no place for turnaround, have to
back in to waters edge, a public nuisance due to noise generated by late boat removal
by vehicles and people drinking and relieving themselves on private property fronting
the access plus the problem of parking on the street on the curb side. There is no
off street parking for some of the area residents.
Minutes of Mound Advisory Park Commission Meeting 6-12-80
page 2
Larson clarified the status of this access, it is to be treated no differently than
other accesses. There are two boat launching accesses for use on Three Points now
and other areas of Mound do not have convenient launching areas. Was installed
for pedestrian use to accommodate people using the commons by walking to waters
edge and snowmobile access from lake during winter. The posts are to remain as
placed in the center and the access is to be used as intended, not as a launching
area for boats.
MOTION by Lynott seconded by Anderson, "that access not designated as boat launching
area and Park Commission supports Council in that Eagle Lane remain blocked off and
remain as a walkway as designated previously." Unanimously approved. .
Kenneth Brooks of 4601 Island View Drive appeared before the Park Commission request-
ing a Maintenance Permit to build a stairway from his residence to the commons (see
enclosed plan). Previously his retaining wall had been washed away during the year
of our heavy rains and in order to enjoy full use of his property and the abutting
commons, the stairway is necessary for access to beach in front of his home. Previous
request for replacement of retaining wall entailed too much expense with the stipula-
tions connected with it on construction and having an engineer lay out plans for drain-
..age, so this is his alternative.
MOTION by Bailey senconded by Lynott, "Maintenance permit be granted for up to five
,~? years, renewable (on //7 of Flow Chart) for stairway to Devon Commons providing the
structural print submitted meets the specifications for stairways on commons, after
being checked by our Building Inspector." Unanimously approved.
City Manager's Report - none
Council Representative's Report- none
Planning Comm~ission's Report - none
Long Range Planning Report - none
Trails Committee Report - none
Park Director's Report
Bollis elaborated some on the idea'of a Bike Moto Crossing Racing Course, as referred
to in Chief of Police Memo of 6-5-80. Dirt bikes are non-motorized bikes that have
gained in popularity with the younger generation; Many quesions arose with regard to
liability of City if they sponsored or sanctioned such a course, how could motorized
vehicles be restricted or controlled from using course? Small course would utilize
approximately 3/4 of an acre of land and would be about 150 x 150 feet in area.
..' MOTION by Lynott seconded by Bailey, "Park Commission thinking favorably on dirt tract
.. ~ for bikes aleng lines of memo submitted by Chief of Police but wou]d like more inform-
~' ation." Unanimously approved.
Chris stated the site plan for the Tot Lot in Island Park has been identified but no
equipment has been purchased, there are two routes to go, City can purchase equipment
and install it themselves or have the equipment installed .by the contractor.
Swimming docks are installed at Mound Bay Park and Wychwood Beach, they are working
on the other beZaches.
Minutes of Mound Advisory Park Commission Meeting 6-12-80
Recreational Committee - Bailey:
Jackie Meyer, Recreational Director of the Free Summer Program was present to update
Commission on progress of program.
They have had soccer meeting, have 6 coaches plus 3 helpers. Have had good response,
now have 6 teams with 85 youngsters. Two teams from Tyrone, two from Downtown and two
Westonka teams. Ages are from.;5~'~o 8 and 9 to 12 years of age, with 14 youngsters on
each team. Have distributed 8 cones and 2 balls to each team plus folder brochure that
has all pertinent data, permission slips, liability waivers, rules etc. to coaches.
- Tentatively games are set up for Tuesday and Thursdays in the evening with 6 games for
each team and the referres will take turns, so there is no additional help needed and
the parents have cooperated and are car pooling the youngsters to the playing areas.
. '-/.._ The Playground Program has 100 youngsters signed up, 30 at Tyrone,'20-25 at Highlands
and 33 at Brookton, are all set to got but desperately need picnic tables, minimum of
. - 2 at each park.
Have been using private association beach at Brookton Park for the swimming and pre-
~:,~:.vious to this had to clean up the beach, there was dead fish on shore,'broken dock
':' partially sumberged under water etc. They cleaned all this up prior to using, majority
· of youngsters are from homes in that area that has access to beach. ~as suggested by
Park Commission that dackie not use this beach until something had been worked out with
:.i association. .
XMOTION by Larson seconded by Lynott, "Picnic tables be purchased so Recreation Program
[_~?~can function successfully and be enjoyed by the youngsters.,, Unanimously approved.
'-~ Jackie remarked that the beaches looked fine, grass cut and keys worked.
Lake Langdon Report:
Larson informed Committee that area residents were getting up a petition to ban out-
board motors over a certain horsepower. -Park Commission will not respond for any
action unless something definite is presented to them from the area residents.
Environmental Report considered inappropriate to Lake Langdon, possibly be worked out
by City Planner.
MOTION by Larson seconded by Case, "That Environmental Report on Lake Langdon be re--
viewed by City Planner and he also review statement submitted by Rex Alwin." Unanim-
ously approved.
Motion by Case seconded by Lynott to adjourned until next scheduled Discusstion Meet-
ing of 6-26-80. Unanimously approved.
djd
eric: Maintenance Permit & structural plan for stairway
~.LVG
-uo!qonaq. suoo ~z!aoRqne oq panss! q!m~d jo ~doO 't
:~jaqq. qs!I tse/ JI
· mou~-oO ao spue'I o!Iqnduo quama^oad,my, go
i McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSIATES, INC.
OC
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
June 30, 1980
Mr. Leonard Kopp, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Subject:
City of Mound
1980 Street Construction
Dear Mr. Kopp,
There are two changes we recommend.in the 1980 Street
Construction - Section 1 work.
The first is on Dutch Lane between Birch Lane and Linden.
The plans show a 24 foot back to back of curb. This street
was narrowed because of the close proximity of a house and to
save some trees. We recommend that the street be further nar-
rowed to 22 feet back to back of curb. This would save 3 large
Maple Trees and reduce the project costs by approximately $620.
The second change is a 120 foot storm sewer extension on
Maple Road from Rambler Road to the west. The storm sewer ex-
tension is to pick up runoff from a small gully. If this storm
sewer is not built debris from the runoff will be deposited on
the street. The residents in the area say that is what happens
now in a heavy rain. The storm sewer extension will add $2,200
to the project cost.
LS:ch
#5248
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
L~Ple Swanson, P.E.
Minneapolis - Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls
/
4
'{3
i --v O'~Lb. !C,I i
C,
II
I
7-1-80
Hound, Hinnesota
June 24, 1980
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-225
SUBJECT: No Parking on Service Road Request
Sue Hartigan, 4549 Wilshire Boulevard, has requested that the service
road off of Bedford Road (see attached map) be posted for "No Parking"
We are asking the Police Department and Public Works Department for
their recommendations.
This will be listed on the July l, 1980 agenda.
cc: Police Chief
Public Works Director
/.,cz?
', O'ZZ I
0
/
,/
3N¥1
/~/$'
/'~/7
TEROFFICE M E IIIO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:.
Leonard Kopp
Public Works Director
Request for No Parking
DATE
June 26~1980
The Public Works Department has no objection to posting the service
road off of Bedford Road No Parking on both sides.
Robert Shanley ~
Public Works Director
RS/jen
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTEROFFICE
Leonard Kopp - City Manager
?
Charles Johnson - Chief of Police
No Parking on Service Road Request
MEMO
DATE~ .h, ne ?7:
t 9...1to
The police department recommends that the requested no parking area on
Bedford Rd. be granted.
Respectful ly,
Chief of Police
CJ:lao
7-1-8o
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 19, 1980
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-222
SUBJECT: Fishing Contest - August 24th
Sometime ago, the Council authorized a fishing contest out of
Surfside on August 10th by the Lucky 7 Bassmasters.
This group (see letter attached) has requested their date be
changed from August 10th to August 24th.
This will be on the July 1st agenda.
7-1-8o
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 24, 1980
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-224
SUBJECT:
City Hall Roof
The Manager met with Mr. O'Brien and had a short discussion and no decision
was arrived at as to cost because it was felt the Council should have a
first hand report on the type of roof being recommended.
Also at that time, the Council can discuss the payment arrangement. In
our discussions, Mr. O'Brien suggested they pay 1/3 and the City pay 2/31S.
No counter proposal was suggested after we determined Mr. O'Brien should
talk to the Council.
· Kopp ~//
7-1-8O
C!TY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 12, 1980
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 80-55
SUBJECT: Cemetery
Attached is a copy of a letter requesting her lot be repurchased
by the City. The lot was purchased in 1962 for $40.00.
If there is no objection, this wil1 be listed on the bills for
payment. The lot will be bought back for $40.00.
cc; Helen C? Olson
City Clerk-Treasurer
I/.3't'
MAYOR
Jerry Johnson
COUNCIL
Lucille Crow
James Grathwol
J~nice Hornick
Paul Stark
CITY MANAGER
Scott A. Martin
CiTY 0 F EXCEL$ O R
339 THIRD STREET
EXCELSIOR, f~IlNNESOTA 55331
TELE: 612--474-5:233
June 25, 1980
The Honorable Tim Lovaasen
Mayor of Hound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mayor Lovaasen:
The Excelsior City Council has asked that you be informed of their position
concerning the pending abandonment of the Chicago and Northwestern Rail Line
between Hopkins and Norwood. Because this issue is of area-wide concern, we
felt that you should be aware of Excelsior's specific concerns.
On June 16, 1950, the City Council adopted the enclosed resolution identifying
Public Need for the railroad right-of-way. Of primary concern to Excelsior is
the retention of the existing right-of-way for future public use. Local uses
such as a public utility corridor or additional central business district
parking are contemplated, but Regional use for mass transit (LRT) has the
strongest local support.
We have advised the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) of our interest in
retaining this rail line corridor for future public use. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation has also been informed of our position.
We would appreciate your support in a unified effort to save this corridor
for future Public Use. The ICC will be considering the railroad's abandon-
ment petition in the near future. If you agree that public use of this
corridor is in your jurisdiction's best interest, please contact the Inter-
state Commerce Commission at 12th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C.,
20423, before July 5, 1980. Indicate the proceeding Docket Ilo. AB-1 (St~b-Ho. 91F)
when writing the Commission. Your comments should also be forwarded to
Ms. Donnarae McKenzie at the Minnesota Department of Transportation in St. Paul.
If you desire more information concerning the rail line abandonment process,
you should contact Hs. McKenzie at 296-8627.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue.
CC: E. F. Robb, Jr.
Hennepin County Commissioner
Enclosure
RESOLUTIO~ t,]O. 80-28
IDENTIFYING PUBLIC [}EED for CHICAGO and NW RAILROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY ~n the CITY OF EXCELSIOR
WHEREAS, the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company
has notified the City of its intention to file for abandonment of its
Hopkins to Norwood rail line on or about May 31, 1980; and
WHEREAS, said rail line runs through the City of Excelsior
with a right-of-way width varying from 50 feet to 1OO feet; and
WHEREAS, said rail line corridor provides a convenient link
to many metropolitan area locations if utilized for mass transit purposes;
and
WHEREAS, said rail line right-of-way is also ideally suited for a
public utility corridor through the City of Excelsior; and
WHEREAS, portions of said right-of-way are suited to other
public uses such as public parking and local transportation improvements;
NOW THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the
City of Excelsior that there is an overwhelming public need to retain
the abandoned Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Right-of-Way for future
public use such as a mass transit corridor, public utility corridor,
central business district parking or local transportation improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council requests approval
of the Interstate Commerce Commission for a 180 day public use negotiation
period in the event abandonment of said rail line is approved by the ICC.
Counc i 1.
Adopted this 16~h day of June, 1980
by the Excelsior City
Attest:
Scott A llartln, City Manager
CLAYTON L. LEFEVERE
HERBERT P. LEFLER
CURTIS ~. PEAR$O~
J. DENNIS O°BRIEN
JOHN E. DRAWZ
DAVID J. kENNEDY
JOHN B. DEAN
GLENN Eo PURDUE
JAMES D. LARSON
CHARLES L. l~FEVERE
LAW OFFICES
L~-FEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O' BRIEN
IIOO FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (612) 333-0543
June 23, 1980
BROOKLYN CENTER OFFICES
6'0 BROOKDALE TOWE~S
Za'O COUNT~ RO^O '0
BROOKLYN CENTE~INNESOTA 55430'
m,~) 5~0'
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Continental Telephone
Dear Len:
I am enclosing herewith copy of an Order of the Public Service
Commission denying all of the requests of the Company, Public
Service Department's staff, and Office of Consumer Services
requesting a rehearing and reconsideration in the Continental
matter. I had seriously debated working up a motion for
reconsideration but after seeing the volume of paper produced
by the other three parties, all to no avail, I guess I saved
the City a considerable amount of money. This' appears to bring
the matter to an end and the rates established by the Public
Service Commission will be applicable to residents of the City
of Mound.
I have several large boxes of material on the Continental matter.
Do you want this for the City records? I do not have the space
to store all that material for any extended period of time so
would appreciate your.reply.
Very truly yours.
Curtis A. Pearson
CAP: ms
Enclosure
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'
Roger L. Hanson
Leo G. Adams
Katherine E. Sasseville
Juanita R. Satterlee
Lillian Harren-Lazenberry
In the Matter of the Petition of
CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF
MINNESOTA, for Authority to Change its
Schedule of Telephone Rates for Cus-
tomers Within the State of Minnesota.
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Docket P-407/GR-79-500
ORDER DENYING PETITIONS
FOR REHEARING AND
RECONSIDERATION
· On May 9, 1980, the Minnesota Public Service Commission (Commission)
issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in the above-captioned
proceedinq. Petitions for post-hearing relief were received from Continental
Telephone Company of Minnesota (Continental or Company), the Participating
Department Staff of the Department of Public Service (the PDS), and the Office
of Consumer Services of the Department of Commerce (the OCS). Replies to t~ese
petitions were filed by Continental and the OCS.
In addition to the petitions listed above, the Company submitted a
Motion to Strike the OCS petition for Reconsideration and Amendment of Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. The OCS filed a Response to the Motion.
to Strike.
After deliberation the Commission denied the Motion to Strike. Citin~
Commission.rule~ which do not prescribe the time at which service is required
and the occasional filing of documents by other parties after the close of business
hours, the Co~nission deemed it inappropriate to strike the petition of OCS. The
Commission does not encourage filings after the close of business hours and
recommended prompt submission of documents in the future. In addition, the
Commission found t~at the Company was neither prejudiced nor adversely affected
by the filing or late service of OCS. ~
Based on the preceding, the Motion to Strike is denied.
All matters raised in the petitions for reconsideration filed by the
PDS, the OCS and the Company are denied.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. All matters in the petitions for reconsideration of the PDS,
the OCS and the Company are deemed denied.
2. This Order shall be effective immediately.
Mary I. H~y ~
Executive Secretary
SERVICE BATE JUN 2 0 1980
(SEAL)
-2-
Roger L. Hanson
Leo G. Adams
Katherine E. Sasseville
Juanita R. Satterlee
Lillian Warren-Lazenberry
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
In the Matter of the Petition of
Continental Telephone Company of
Hinnesota to change its Schedule
of Rates for its Customers in
Minnesota.
Docket P-407/GR-79-500
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
DIRECTING REFUNDS
On May 9, 1980, the Minnesota Public Service Commission (the Commission)
issued an order which recognized that Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota
{Continental) was entitled to increased gross annual revenues. The increased
revenues which were granted resulted in changes in rates for Continental customers.
The Con~nission concurrently ordered Continental to refrain from placing
into effect the increased rates for the exchanges of Angus, Bear River, Crane Lake,
Greaney, Denham and Isabella until the Customer Trouble Report Index had met the
Commission objective of 6.5 for four consecutive months on amoving averaqe basis.
The Commission concluded during deliberations that the six exchanqes
listed above should receive a refund of all rates collected pursuant to the order
suspending the proposed rates.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The amounts collected by Continental pursuant to the Commission order
of June 28, 1979, suspending the rates shall be refunded to the customers in the
exchanges of Angus, Bear River, Crane Lake, Greaney, Denham and Isabella.
2. This order shall be effective immediately.
SERVICE DATE:
JUN 2 0 1980
(SEAL)
BY__MISSION
Mary L. Harry
Executive Secretary
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
Dear Community Leader:
The Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study is about to begin. The
Project Management Team for the study has developed corridor selection
criteria and recommended study corridors as described in the attached
memorandum to the Transportation Subcommittee.
The Transportation Subcommittee of the Metropolitan Council will
discuss the contents of this memorandum and take action on the re-
commendations it contains at its meeting on Tuesday, July 1, 1980,
at 3:00 p.m. in Room E of the Metropolitan Council Offices.
~I 'encourage you to review and comment on the contents of the attached
memorandum.
Please direct any questions or comments you may have to Gha!eb
Abdul-Rahman (291-6336) of the Council Transportation Staff.
Sincerely,
Dirk DeVries
/ aw
ME T ROP OL ITAN C. OUN C IL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St Paul] Minnesota 55101
MEMORANDUM
June 23, 1980
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
Transportation Subcommittee
LRT Study Project Management Team
Corridor Selection Evaluation Data and Application
PURPOSE OF THE LRT STUDY
The purpose of t~e study as defined by the Minnesota Legislature, is
to "conduct a feasibility study of the use of light rail (transit) in
the Metropolitan Area." A report to the Legislature will be made
during the 1981 Session.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of the study for the Metropolitan Area are:
To develop a policy on conditions under which LRT would be
feasible, and
2. To study repuesentative corridors where LRT might be
feasible by the year 2000.
/
It is imPortant to emphasize that the LRT Study is not intended to
develop a regional light rail transit system for the Metropolitan
Area. The results will indicate which study corridors are the most
likely candidates for further light rail studies~_. -
BASIC CRITERIA OF CORRIDOR SELECTION
The basic criteria for selecting corridors for analysis in the LRT
Study are:
The selected corridors should have high potential for light
rail feasibility. --
The selected corridors, when analyzed, should provide a
maximum of information which can be applied to similar
corridors.
The selected corridors should, when analyzed, illustrate
the viability of light rail under different service
characteristics and travel demand (person and transit
trips).
The selected corridors analysis should establish refined
feasibility criteria which can be used to identify and plan
for specific line proposals in the study and other corridors
in the Metropolitan Area· _~ ............... ~ .............. ~.i ......
BACKGROUND
The Transportation Subcommittee of the Metropolitan Council is
responsible for making the final selection of the study corridors
after soliciting comments from affected or interested parties. The
consultant will be requested to review the selection process and
results.
The Project Management Team (PMT) composed of two Mn/DOT, MTC, and MC
representatives was directed to develop criteria, submit an
evaluation procedure, prepare data, complete an analysis and
recommend corridors for analysis of feasibility by the consultant.
The initial draft of the evaluation criteria and a proposed procedure
was developed jointly by Mn/DOT, MTC, and MC staff. The procedure
was approved by the Project Management Team. Subsequently data
available for evaluation were assembled'and the evaluation rankings
as described herein were derived and submitted for Subcommittee
approval.
EVALUATION PROCEDURE
All the potential travel corridors from each CBD were
considered in the evaluation. Corridors to serve Subregion 4 and 12
were not considered eligible according to the policy plan since they
are not contiguous to either of the Metro Center Subregions. The
corridors are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Corridors of Major Travel Demand
CBD Corridor
Related Identification
Minneapolis East
" " " Southeast
" " " South
" " " Southwest
" " " West
" " " Northwest
" " " North
" " " Northeast
St. Paul West
-" " " North
Descri t~
1-94, Univ Ave CMSTP & P
RR, BN RR
TH55 (Hiawatha) Minnehaha,
CMST. P & BN RR
1-35W,Cedar,MN & S RR
TH7,TH169,/212,CNW RR, BN '
RR
TH12,TH55,CNW RR,BN-RR
1-94,TH52,SooL RR
I-9~,_~TH65,. TH47, BN RR
1-35W,TH65,TH47,BN RR
RR'' .... ~
1-35E,TH10,SooL RR
" " " Northeast
" " ~" East
" " " Southeast
" " " South
" " " Sou thwe s t
TH36,TH61 ,SooL RR
1-94,CNW RR
TH61 , BN RR
TH3,TH55,CRI & PRR
1-35E ,Pleasant,
W.7th,CMST.P & P RR
The evaluation process is~ a three step evaluation procedure. The
advantage of the procedure is that each corridor is given an equal
chance for selection until it becomes aPparent that it does not-have
the most desirable attributes.
The first, second and third cut criteria are applied sequentially.
That is, a 1corridor must meet the criteria in the first cut before it
is analyzed using the second cut and third cut Criteria.
The evaluation ~echnique specifies that if a corridor is determined
to be viable for a subsequent evaluation after it passes a cut,
that it has equal status with all other corridors which pass the
cut. For example if a corridor ranks high enough to be eligible for
the third cut evaluation, its numerical or relative rank in the
second cut evaluation is of no consequence. All corridors being
considered for the third cut evaluation are equally qualified.
The benefit of the proposed evaluation procedure is that the group
making the decision can consider both numerical and subjective
factors. _The data used in the procedure are only indications of how
a given corridor selection would conform to the desired basic
criteria.
FIRST CUT CRITERIA ~
The First Cut Criteria are used to define the corridors in relation
to existing regional transit policies and travel sheds of movement.
The criteria are:
The corridor must serve both of the Metro Centers or one Metro
Center and a Suburban Subregion.
The travel shed of a corridor is the area of trip attraction to a
route using minimum time paths to the CBD. The area is adjusted
to reflect probable transit operations.
C. The travel shed of a corridor may also be defined along a major
travel desire line to the CBD.
The corridor may not extend beyond the MUSA boundary and the line
will terminate at least three ~miles inside the MUSA boundary.
Application of Criterion A above resulted in combining some of the
original corridors to represent the travel connection between a Metro
Center and a Suburban Subregion.
The corridors resulting from the first cut criteria evaluation are
listed in Table 2 and shown on Figure 1.
CBD Related
Table 2. First Cut Transit Corridors
Subregion Served Corridor Identification
A. Mpls. 1 East
B. " " " 11 Southeast
C. " " " 3 South
D. " " " 5 West/Southwest
E. " " " 6 Northwest
F. " " " 8 Northeast
G. " " " 7 North
A. St. Paul 2 West
H. " " " 9 North/Northeast
I. " " " 10 East/Southeast
J. " " " 11 South/Southwest
It is apparent in comparing Table 1 with Table 2 that the Minneapolis
corridor labelled Southwest and the St. Paul corridors labelled
North, Southeast, and Southwest were combined with other corridors
and not deleted from further evaluation. Rather than eliminate
corridors, the evaluation indicated that some of the originally
identified corridors served the same Suburban Subregion and,
therefore, were combined.
FqFzTRO 6ENT~FL
TO c-J~~lON
COR~DOP-.
O~
I ~_J",l-rl F--16ATION
HE11~O
fl'~t
I
HENNEPIN
ANOKA
6
CARVER
i 4
SCOTT
9
10
WASHINGTON
DAKOTA
f
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
Transportation Planning Subregions
~ ~1 ~ H I Urba~ Service Area B<xmdary
_ Subregion Boundary
4 s.~,~ Designation
Metropolitan Centers
County Boundary
19::)0 ~i~ipal ~terials
SECOND CUT CRITERIA -
The corridors to be evaluated using the second cut criteria are shown
on Figure 1. The second cut criteria have some numerical
measures using available data. It should be emphasized, however,
that the evaluation measures are indicators only and are not
purported to be precise forecast volumes. The relative accuracy
is sufficient for ranking the corridors. Only available data
summaries, not new data were used in the evaluation.
The Second Cut Criteria and their measures are:
Market by Travel Shed
A. Forecasted Year 2000 person trip demand through the corridor
of CBD bound travel
Forecasted Year 2000 work trip demand through the corridor
of CBD bound travel
Forecasted Year 2000 work trip transit, usage through the
corridor of CBD bound travel
Present Transit usage through the corridor _~ ~-
~. Market by Subregion A. Forecasted Year 2000 person trip demand-Subregion to CBD
B. Forecasted Year 2000 person tr~ transit demand-Subregio~
............ - ...... C~_~Qrecasted Year 2000 work trip demand-Subregion to CBD
D. Forecasted Year 2000 trip transit demand-Subregion to C~D~
-3. Congestion forecasted in the corridor on the Metro ~i~h~ay-Sys~m
The evaluation rating and the measure for each criterion is
summarized on Table 3.
The High~and Medium ranked corridors from this evaluation were
considered to have met the second set of criteria. The seven highest
ranked corridors selected for the Third Cut Evaluation are:
A. St. Paul West and Minneapolis East which is the same corridor
C. Minneapolis South
D. Minneapolis West/Southwest
E. Minneapolis Northwest
F. Minneapolis Northeast
G. Minneapolis North
H. St. Paul North/Northeast
It is emphasized that when each corridor is qualified for the Third
Cut Evaluation that it has equal status with all of the qualified
corridors irrespective of the Second Cut numerical ranking.
~¥'~7
THIRD CUT CRITERIA
The Third Cut Evaluation Criteria address the following subject
areas:
Available rights-of-way _ _.
Available background studies
Potential for development (or redevelopment)
Representative of different service characteristics --
Representative of different collection and/or distribution
needs _._ - ..............
Unresolved capacity deficiencies in the corridor
The following text indicates how each corridor differs in each of
the criteria categories. Finally, a summary table of the criteria
ranking for each corridor is shown to assist in determining the
corridors to be selected for the study (Table 4),
Available Ri~ -- _
Most of~the-high or medium ranked corridor_[ from the Second Cut
Evaluatl-on contain one or more railroad and/or highway -
rights-of-way. The exception is Minneapoli~s South in--~hi~ch th~
available rail right-of-way is not continuous to th~ CB.D. It ends
near th~ 62nd S-freer Crosstown. There is ~also no 'stre~et--0r
highway~corridor right-of-way readily avaiTable. 7 -'
ConverselE, ithe St. Paul West-Minneapol-is East corrido~and the S-t.
Paul ~o~th/Northeast corridor have seve__ral-rail rightS~--Of,wa~Lwh_~i~h___~__.
might-.be ~feasible for Light Rail Transit. =~There are also parallel
road alignments which might be incorporatec~ in a
right-of-way. ~
Available Background Studies
Different types of background studies have been completed for the
corridors being evaluated-. The Minneapolis South and St. Paul
North/Northeast corridors have had very detailed Subarea Studies
completed which included a component on transit as well as land use
reorganization.
Less detailed studies have been completed on the 1-394
corridor (Minneapolis West/Southwest) and for the St. Paul West-
Minneapolis East corridor~ These studies did not analyze rail
transit potentials specifically, but mode choice, land use,
and redevelopment were studied and can provide considerable data.
The remainder of the corridors also have been analyzed but those
studies are less apPlicable to the LRT Study.
Potential For Development Or Redevelopment
The assignment of rank for this variable is subjective. Present
planning, renewal, and programs provide the greatest
potential in the St. Paul West-Minneapolis East corridor.
More open or redevelopable land is also available in the Minneapolis
West/Southwest, Minneapolis Northeast, and St. Paul North/Northeast
corridors. Therefore, these three corridors should be ranked higher
than the remaining corridors for the development potential criterion.
Representative Of Different Service Characteristics
The Service Characteristics pertain to line-haul and local transit
service requirements based on the type of travel demand in the
corridor. In the LRT Study, the preferred corridors are those which
clearly exemplify different transit system service needs.
The best examples of different service characterisitics, therefore,
the corridors which rank high for this criterion are:
1. C~rridor A. St. Paul West-Minneapolis East. This is the
only corridor having distinct high trip generating multiple
nodes for travel along any selected alignment. The
operation would serve short trips to_th~_~wo_CB~_~b~_r.~ .....
University, the Midway and 280 industrial area.
The corridor has heavy transit usage currently with frequent
stops at the major destination nodes.~
2. Corridor D. Minneapolis West/Southwest. This corridor is
unique in that it best exemplifies longer trip use in which
higher speed operations would be essential to attracting
users.
The spacing of required stops is substantial and the current
transit use in the corridor is limited.
3. Corridor E. Minneapolis Northwest. This corridor best
represents a combination of long and short trips, heavy
transit usage, and operations which must duplicate local as
well as high speed element of service.
~epresentative Of Different Collection-Distribution Needs
As summarized in attached Table 4, this criterion shows a difference
in the CBD distribution system as the major ranking measure.
Assuming at least one alternate with Minneapolis CBD distribution
must be selected, the alternates which require distribution in the
St. Paul or both CBD's should be given more emphasis using this
criterion. Each of the other corridors may have somewhat different
requirements for collection but they are not unique to any one
corridor.
Inadequate Capacity Highway
The 1990 and 2000 motor vehicle travel assignment indicate that
individual high volume roadways are expected to be running at or
above capacity in the future. The Transportation Policy Plan for the
Metropolitan Highway System specifics that a deficency does not
consititue a warrent for adding another major highway route.
It would be a distinct advantage, however, if an LRT line
could relieve travel delays and improve relative transportation
service.
/o
Two corridors rank high using this criterion. They are Minneapolis
West/Southwest and St. Paul North/Northeast. The routes which are
deficient in capacity with the existing number of lanes are
TH 12 (I-394) west of Minneapolis and 1-35E north of downtown St.
Paul.
The other corridors do not have a serious capacity deficiency and can
all be ranked about equal except the Minneapolis Northeast corridor
which analyses show has unused capacity on many of the arterials
north of the Minneapolis CBD. That corridor should be ranked lowest
in the measure for capacity deficiency.
SUMMARY OF THIRD CUT EVALUATION
The corridors which were selected from the Second Cut Evaluation were
evaluated using the Third Cut Criteria as summarized in Table 4. The
corresponding numerical ranking in which each corridor is ranked
high, medium or low for each criteria is shown on Table 5. _
The numerical values were derived by assigning 3 points tTo a h~g~h -'-:~;_-
ranking, 2 to a medium ranking and 1 to a low ranking for_ each of th~
iteria -
or · : .:._~
The numerical ranking and the final high, medium and low_categories
of corridors for analysis, as summarized on Table 5 are:-~ -
High Rank Corridors
A. St. Paul West-Minneapolis East
H. St. Paul North/Northeast
D. Minneapolis West/Southwest
Medium Rank Corridors
Minneapolis Northwest
Minneapolis South
Low Rank Corridors
Minneapolis Northeast
Minneapolis North
Staff availability and target dates for completion limit the number
of alignment options or even the number of corridors for which
reliable user forecasts and detailed information for evaluating
feasibility can be developed. The Project Management Team concluded
that staff and resources are adequate to analyze four LRT corridors
but that the level of detail or the number of options tested may
differt by corridor. It is recommended, therefore, that the
corridors selected be assigned a priority number indicating which
analyses are to be emphasized. A less thorough or detailed analysis
of the lowest priority corridor would be performed as more resources
are required in the higher priority corridors.
//
The forecasts of need and basic input data fo~such a corridor would
be similar to the other corridors. However, the level of detail to
document feasibility in terms of design and costs might be less
precise.
The Minneapolis South corridor has a relatively lower.rating because
of the roadway and rail R/W, limited development or redevelopment
potential and the fact that a higher type transit (preferential bus
treatment) is already operating in the corridor.
The Minneapolis North corridor does not rate as high in the areas of
available background studies, development potential inside the
central city, and the operational similarity of this corridor to the
Northwest and Northeast sectors from the CBD. Since either the
Northwest or Northeast Minneapolis corridors covers much of the area
served by the North corridor, the feasibility of transit to southern
Anoka County will be evaluated even though the North corridor is not
studied as a separate project. ~ ~
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The following corridors are recommended for analysis in the LRT
Study in order of priority and the allocation of available
resources-.
Priority Corridor -.
Rank Identification Description
1
2
4
D. Minneapolis West/Southwest
A. St. Paul West and Mpls. East
H. St. Paul North/Northeast
E. Minneapolis Northwest
TH12 ,TH7 ,C&NW RR
1-94,Univ CM
St.P & P RR
1-35E, T}{ 61, SooL
1-35E,TH61 ,SooL RR
2. The Project Coordinating Group should be comprised of
representatives (not to exceed two) of the following entities:
Transportation Advisory Board
Counties
County of Hennepin
County of Ramsey
Cities
City of Brooklyn Center
City of Crystal
City of Golden Valley
City of Hopkins
City of Maplewood
City of Minneapolis
City of Minnetonka
City of New Hope
City of Robinsdale
City of St. Louis Park
City of St. Paul
Did you know that ......... '
for ~itizen Participatio,n.
THE HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE HOLDING
TO HEAR SUGGESTIONS ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ON:
,Y:O0 to~:oo Pgq
Hennepin Countt/
Go~rnme~n~: ~tar
C0~tSS~?ERS MEET NG ROOM, LEVEL A
300 SO. otb STREET
MINNEAPOLIS
THIS PROCESS WILL BE USED TO REVIEW THE COUNTY'S
SOCIAL SERVICES PLANS.
FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION' .ND ALSO THE Type OF CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION STRUCTURE YOU THINK IS BEST.
To obtain copies of Hennepin County's Proposal for the
Organization of Citizen Participation in Hennepin County
or if you have questions about the meeting, call Dave
Parachini 348-5106.
b MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DIOICT
AGENDA
Regular Meeting, 8 p.m., Wednesday, June 25, 1980
TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL
4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19), Tonka Bay
Call to Order
Roll Call
Minutes: May 28, 1980
Treasurer's Report A. Monthly Financial Report
B. Bills
C. 1981 Budget
Committee Reports
A. Water Structures & Environment Committee
(1) Public Hearing Report: Park Hill Apt.
(2) Future Public Hearing
(3) 1980 Dock License Report
(4) Modified Dock Service Console Amendment
(5) Monahan Amendment
(6) Private Club Reclassification Review
(7) District Mooring Area Review
(8) Environment
(9) Other
Lake Use Committee (1) Sp. Event Permit: UkMYC Race Schedule Change
(2) Code "Channel" Definition
(3) Code Amendment: Food Sales Modification Review
(4) Lost Lake Channel~Maintenance (letter)
(5) Proposed Code Amendment - Ice Chunks
(6) Proposed Code Amendment - Buoy Removal
(7) Model Tree Cutting and Vegetation Ordinance
(8) Water Patrol Report
(9) Other
Code Amendments A. Fuel Dock Service Consoles (3rd reading)
B. Apartment Slip Rental (3rd reading)
C. Food Sales (2nd reading)
D. Race Policy (2nd reading)
E. Monahan Amendment (lst reading)
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
6-20-80
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING
TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL
May 28, 1980
The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was
called to order by Chairman Paurus at 8 p.m. Wednesday, May 28, 1980
at the Tonka Bay Village Hall.
CALL TO
ORDER
Members present: Richard Garwood (Deephaven), Jerry Johnson (Excelsior),
David Nixon(1) (Laketown Township), Robert Pillsbury (Minnetonka), David
Boies (Minnetonka Beach), Norman Paurus (Orono), Robert Naegele(2)(3),
(Shorewood), Frank Hunt (Spring Park), Ed Bauman (Tonka Bay), Richard
Soderberg (Victoria), and Robert Slocum (Woodland). Communities repre-
sented: Eleven (11). (1)(2)Arrived late; (3)left early.
Hunt Moved, Johnson Seconded, that the minutes of the April 23, 1980
meeting be approved. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0).
ATTENDANCE
MINUTES
Bauman Moved, Hunt Seconded, that the Treasurer's report be approved.
Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0).
Hunt Moved, Johnson Seconded, that the bills be paid. Motion, Ayes (9),
Nays (0).
' TREASURER'S
REPORT
State Representative Bob Searles reported on legislative changes affec-
ting the LMCD, specifically the provision allowing the DNR to fund the
LMCD for water patrol services if the county should fail to carry out
its responsibilities.
LEGISLATION
REPORT
WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE: Johnson reported that the com-
mittee reviewed 1980 dock license applications and recommended that the
Mai Tai application be approved without the Tiki dock, and recommended
that the Frank Warner renewal application be held until the stipulations
are satisfied.
1980
DOCK
LICENSES:
Johnson Moved, Bauman Seconded that the 1980 dock license application for
Curly's Minnetonka Marina be approved with variance and the stipulation
that "No Parking" signs be posted on the far easterly dock side. Motion,
Ayes (10), Nays (0).
CURLY'S
Hunt Moved, Bauman Seconded, that the 1980 dock license application for
Lakeview Restaurant be held. Motion, Ayes (10)-, Nays (0).
LAKEVIEW
Bauman Moved, Nixon Seconded, that the 1980 dock license application for
Mai Tai, based on the renewal of the 1979 application without the Tiki
dock, be approved. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
MAI TAI
Hunt Moved, Bauman Seconded, that the 1980 dock license amendment applica- PARK
tion for Park lsland Apartments be approved. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). ISLAND
Hunt Moved, Garwood Seconded that the 1980 new dock license application for PARK
Park Island West Apartments be approved. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). IS. WEST
Nixon Moved, Soderberg Seconded that the dockwidth variance application
for Roger Wikner be approved for this year only, and that the 1980 dock
license applic-ation be approved. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
WIKNER
VARIANCE &
LICENSE
LMCD Board Minutes
May~28, 1980
Page 2
Garwood Moved, Slocum Seconded, that the 1980 dock license renewal applica-
tion for Windward Marine be approved. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
After the public hearings on 5-14-80 the panel recommended that the 1980
dock license amendment application for Park Hill Apartments be referred
to the committee for clarification of frontage requirements and for
further recommendation.
The committee held a preliminary review of the District Mooring Area policy
and determined to continue the matter further to develop the effects which
the Code (and other factors) may have on establishing a District mooring
area policy.
The committee reviewed county maintenance projects for 1980, including the
maintenance riprap and restoration of northeast Seton, west Tanager, and
Libbs Lake channels, and recommended Board approval of these new projects
scheduled for 1980. Bauman expressed that a.possible inequity may exist
inasmuch as Tonka Bay channels were excluded from county maintenance work
but had similar histories.
Hunt Moved, Pillsbury Seconded, that the 1980 county maintenance projects
for riprap and restoration of the northeast Seton, west Tanager, and Libbs
Lake channels be approved. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (1), Bauman voting Nay.
Bauman Moved, Johnson Seconded, that the committee report be accepted.
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
LAKE USE COMMITTEE: Pillsbury reported that the committee reviewed a
special event permit application by the Antique Boat Society for a parade
8-10-80, noting that the parade will originate this year from the T.
Butcherblock-Mai Tai area at noon and will stay in the Lower Lake, re-
lieving the congestion created in earlier years at the Arcola and Coffee
channel areas. The committee recommended approval with stipulations.
Bauman Moved, Johnson Seconded,~ that the special event permit application
for the Antique Boat Parade 8-10-80~be approved with the following~
stipulations:
1. The speed be limited to the LMCD maximum o£ 40 mph.
2. The fly-by in Wayzata Bay be held at least 300' from shore.
3. One marker may be placed at each end of the fly-by, markers are to be
placed and removed the same day.
4. This activity will be coordinated with the Hennepin County Sheriff's
Water Patrol.
5. The boats will be cleared by the Water Patrol as quickly as possible
through any channels involved.
6. The event is to be coordinated with existing boat race schedules.
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
WINDWARD
MARINE
COUNTY
MAINTENANCE
SP. EVENT:
ANTIQUE
BOAT
PARADE
LMCD Board Minutes
May 28, 1980
Page 3
The committee reviewed an application by Tom George to establish a slalom
course along the south shore of Halsteds Bay, noting that the Board has
rejected applications for that area of the Lake because of the threat to
lotus beds and because of the residential character of the area. The com-
mittee recommended approval of a water ski slalom course either off Wawatosa
Island or in West Arm off Advance Machine property, with stipulations.
Pillsbury Moved, Garwood Seconded, that the water ski slalom course ap-
plication by Tom George be approved with the following stipulations:
1. The site location be either off Wawatosa Island or in West Arm off
Advance Machine property.
2. Written permission is to be obtained from any affected property owner,
~and alternate sites considered.
3. Permit is subject to approval of the applicable city.
4. The course may not create a hazard to navigation or interfere with a
recognized fishing area.
SP. EVENT:
GEORGE SKI
SLALOM
Between Memorial Day and Labor Day the course may be used from 7 a.m.
to 12 noon, except on holidays and weekends when the course will not
be used; after Labor Day the hours of operation may be from 7 a.m. to
sunset.
When not in use, the course will either be submerged to a depth that
will not interfere with boating traffic (at least 3.5' to 5'), or be
removed.
Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0), Abstains (1), Hunt Abstaining.
The committee reviewed the special.event permit application for the Minne-
tonka Yacht Club regattas, noting the'letter of withdrawal of speed
exemption request for shuttle boats during regattas, and noting the club"s
expression of cooperation in maintaining.the Quiet Waters area in Carsons
Bay. The committee recommended approval of the M.Y.C.'s remaining
regattas without a shuttle boat speed exemption.
Garwood Moved, Johnson Seconded, that the special event permit for Minne-
tonka Yacht Club's regattas for the balance of the season be approved
without a shuttle boat speed exemption. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
SP. EVENT:
M.Y.C.
The committee reviewed the effectiveness of the placement of Quiet Waters
buoys in the north Seton Channel, and reviewed 'a letter of recommendation
from Seton residents. The committee recommended that a resolution be drafted
for Board consideration establishing Quiet Waters in the area for a year,
incorporating recommendations of the Seton residents and of the Water Patrol.
Hunt Moved, Pillsbury Seconded that the prepared resolution establishing ORDINANCE:
Quiet Waters in north Seton Channel be changed to Ordinance form, and that SETON
the Water Patrol be allowed to move the "near" buoys for most effective Q.W.
arrangement. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0).
LMCD Board Minutes
May 28, 1980
Page 4
The committee accepted the DNR winter seining report.
Johnson Moved, Garwood Seconded, that the DNR winter seining report be
accepted. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0).
The committee accepted the DNR fish stocking history and indicated that a
DNR fish manager could be invited to make a presentation on the background
and sUccess of the fish stocking program.
Johnson Moved, Nixon Seconded, that the DNR fish stocking history be ac-
cepted and a fish manager be invited to make a presentation on the
background and success of the stocking program. Motion, Ayes (11),
Nays (0).
The committee reviewed a proposed Code amendment regarding the sale of food
on the Lake and recommended it to the Board for first reading. The first
reading was given.
Nixon Moved, Bauman Seconded, that the first reading of the proposed Code
amendment dealing with the sale of food on the Lake, as modified, be
accepted. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0).
The committee reviewed a proposed Code amendment regarding the District's
policy on races and recommended it to the Board for first reading. The
first reading was given.
?aurus Moved, Hunt Seconded, that the first reading of the proposed Code
amendment de~ling with the District's race policy be accepted. Motion,
Ayes (11), Nays (0).
The Water Patrol reported to the committee the passage of H.F. 902 re-
garding the control of motorboat noise, and the passage of H.F. 1201
covering additional funding for water patrol services from state boat
license fees; the patrol requested a clearer definition of "channel."
Pillsbury Moved, Bauman Seconded, that the committee define "channel"
for Code purposes. Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0).
It was reported that inasmuch as the Metro Council funded the Park Re-
serve District's study on the Causeway, our contribution is not needed
at this time.
The committee discussed the need for distribution of public information
cards concerning the Quiet Waters area in Excelsior Bay, and recommended
that cards be printed and distributed by marinas, restaurants and others
in the Excelsior Bay area. The attorney recommended that the resolution
regarding Excelsior Bay's Quiet Waters be put into Ordinance form.
Bauman Moved, Nixon Seconded, that Ordinance No. 34 regarding the estab-
lishment of a Quiet Waters area in Excelsior Bay be adopted. Motion,
Ayes (11), Nays (0).
SEINING
FISH
STOCKING
CODE
AMENDMENTS:
FOOD
SALES:
RACES
W.P,
FUNDING
CAUSEWAY
STUDY
CODE
AMENDMENT:
EXCELSIOR
BAY Q.W.
LMCD Board Minutes
May 28, 1980
Page 5
Hunt Moved, Johnson Seconded, that the committee report be accepted.
Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0).
CODE AMENDMENTS: The second reading of the proposed Code amendment
dealing with fuel dock service consoles was given.
Paurus Moved, Pillsbury Seconded that the second reading of the proposed
Code amendment on fuel dock service consoles, as amended, be accepted.
Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0).
Hunt Moved, Bauma~ Seconded, that the proposed Code amendment dealing
with the reclassification of private clubs be referred back to committee.
Motion, Ayes (11), Nays (0).
The second reading of the propoSed Code amendment dealing with apartment
slip rental was given.
N±xon Moved, Pillsbury Seconded, that the second reading of the proposed
Code amendment regarding apartment slip rental be accepted. Motion,
Ayes (11), Nays (0).
Nixon Moved, Hunt Seconded, that.the committee review the present allowance
of four boats per residential lot to see if a minimum-sized lot should
allow fewer boats. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (7), Pillsbury, Nixon, Hunt and
Soderberg voting Aye. Motion failed.
OTHER BUSINESS: Pillsbury Moved, Johnson Seconded, that the annual boat
ride for public officials be scheduled for Saturday, August 2, 1980, at
1:30 p.m. from Excelsior. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Bauman Moved, Johnson Seconded that the annual LMCD inspection tour be
held Wednesday, July 23, 1980 at 5 p.m., in.lieu of the regular meeting.
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
ADJOURNMENT: Nixon Moved, Hunt Seconded, at 10:15 p.m. that the meeting
be adjourned. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
CODE
AMENDMENTS:
FUEL
CONSOLES
PRIVATE
CLUBS
SLIP
RENTAL
4/LOT
PUBLIC
OFFICIALS
BOAT RIDE
INSP.
TOUR
ADJOURNED
Submitted by:
Jerry Johnson, Secretary
Approved by:
Norman W. Paurus, Chairman
P. O. BOX 452
4349 WARREN AVENUE
SPRING PARK, MN 55384
471-9051 · 471-9055
June 20, 1980
Mr. Leonard L, Kopp, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, FAN 55364
Dear Leonard:
Enclosed find a copy of Spring Park Resolution
80-17 approving the intent of the City to
continue police service with Mound for the
coming year and after.
The next step appears to be contract specifics
which we should begin to discuss as soon as
posSible.
Sincerely,
Patricia Osmonson
Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer
PO/db
enc:
CITY OF SPRING PAPd{
SPRI[~G PAl%, MIN['~ESOTA
RESOLUTI0£~ 80-17
APPROVING THE INTENT TO CONTi[~JE POLICE SERVICE WITH
THE CITY OF MOUND
WHEREAS, the Police Committee of Spring Park has met with
the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council to
discuss the feasibility of having a local police department and
determined the costs would be prohibitive, and
WHEREAS, the Committee also met with 0~"ono City Officials
and obtained an estimate for service such as was being given the
City of Long Lake which also was prohibitive in cost, and
~fHEREAS, Spring Park has cont,'acted for Police Service with
the City of Mound since 1969 and that service has been adequate
with the exception of preventative patrol, and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound h:]s submJ_tted three options for
service which appear acceptable ~o all cities involved, and
WHEREAS, Option #5 shall prowide the level of service,
including preventative patrol, as requested by the City of
Spring Park at a workable cost,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE]) BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRING PARK that Spring Park officially intends to
continue the contractual polic'~ service with the City of Mound
under the terms ~£ a new contract for year 1981 and after.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRING PARK THIS
16th DAY OF J~ne 1980
ATTEST:
ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER
APPTVED: .. ~
7-1-80
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 20, 1980
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 80-56
SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Land
As reported to you, the County Board is discussing a new policy
on the sale of tax forfeit land.
Commissioner Robb sent me a copy of the preliminary report which
I have gone over and wrote a reply.
Attached is a copy of the proposed policy and my reply to Mr. Robb.
LeOnard L. Kopp J'
TAX FORFEITED LAND
RECObIMENDED POLICY FOR TRANSFER TO GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISIONS
Prepared by:
DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION
June 12, 1980
I. .Back~_round
Policy For Transfer of Tax Forfeited Land
to Governmental Subdivisions
II.
Private Sale
Before tax forfeited land is sold to the public, governmental subdivisions of the
State and State agencies may acquire by two methods. By the first method, the
County Board may sell at private sale at the appraised value as determined by the
County Assessor. The tax forfeited land may be sold for any public purpose for
which the subdivision is authorized to acquire property. After the initial sale,
the property can be later used for another public purpose or resold without
restriction.
Bo
Cogvgsance without Payment
The second method of acquisition, specified in Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.01,
Subdivision 1, is by conveyance by the Con~issioner of Revenue without payment for
any specified gublic use. Favorable recommendation by the County Board is required
on application to convey.
Governmental subdivisions, except Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, must
obtain approval of the County Board and the Commissioner of Revenue if some other
public use of the land is desired. If the land is not put to the specified use
within five years from conveyance, or if the use is abandoned, the property may
revert to the State. Because of these restrictions and conditions, subdivisions
may opt to purchase at private sale instead.
Munici.pa~_A~?]Zov~l to Sell
Before tax forfeited land can be sold by the County, the municipality in which it
is located must approve the sale; however, some municipalities have habitually
-failed to respond to requestsrfor approval of sale. By recent corrective legis-'
lation such non-response cons[itut~approval after 90 days..However, municipali-
ties still have the right to expressly disapprove the. sale.
Concerns
Ao
L a r_E9 e Inventor_j/_
At this time, there are 944 parcels of tax forfeited land 'which the County cannot
sell because the municipalities have failed to approve the sale or have expressly
disapproved for reasons of zoning considerations, determinations that the land is
unbuildable because of small size, irregular shape, drainage problem, etc.; dis-
approval may also be for possible future acquisition into a park system or for
many other reasons. (Refer to exhibit #1 for a breakdown of ti~e number of tax
forfeited parcels currently withheld from sale in each municipality.) Because
sales of parcels average about 100 each year? this inventory of more than 900
parcels that canno~ be advertised for sale is significant. In addition to the
delay in realizing tax revenue, the County must incur substantial maintenance
costs during the holding period. ~
Loss OF Tax Revenue
Also of concern is the large number of requests to convey tax forfeited land to
governmental subdivisions, either at private sale or without consideration. (See
exhibit #2 for number of requests from each municipality since January l, 1978.)
Free conveyances outnumber private purchases 387 to 70, and the combined total
exceeds sales~to the public for the comparable period. //~/7
PoZicy/l'ax Forfeited Land
'Page 2
After payment of special assesslllel~tq, the proceeds of tax forfeited land sales are
distributed 40% to the County, 20% Io the town or city and 40% to the school districl
To the extent that the land is conveyed free of charge to a governmental subdivision,
tax proceeds are diverted from the others. Since most of the conveyances are to
municipalities or liRA's, the County and school district lose tax revenue,
Co
Resale to Third Parties
There is a growing practice by a few municipalites to acquire tax forfeited land
at private sale to resell to private parties, frequently an adjacent landowner, at
a price negotiated between the city and the buyer. This appears to be in violation
of the spirit of the law providing for sale to the public at the highest bid. Furth(
unless there are extenuating circumstances, the resale practice appears to be for
a private purpose instead of a public purpose permitted by law.
III. Recommended General Polic~
A. Maximize collections of delinquent property tax by selling tax forfeited property
when it is feasible to do so.
B. Maximize future tax collections by transferring tax forfeited land to private
ownership whenever possible, thereby returning property to the.tax rolls.
IV. Specific Recommendations
Discontinue conveyance without monetary consideration, regardless of use, unless
the property has been offered at public sale and remains unsold for three years or
more.
B. Allow private Sales to governmental subdivisions at the current appraised value,
subject to conditions and terms that follow.
£
C. Allow no iprivate s~ale if 'the purpose of acquisition is to resell to a third party
unless the acquiring subdivision can clearly show that resale is for a public
purpose. In general, acquisition-for resale is deemed not to be a public purpose.
D. Allow tlousing and Redevelopment Authorities to acquire by private sale at the
current appraised value, regardless of use. Timely notices of recently forfeited
land available for sale will be sent to each H.R.A. in the County.
Require that applications be submitted for private sales, together with a resolution
of tile governing body, specifying tile intended public use or purpose and the need
for the land. To be considered, applications must be received at least ten days
prior to the first publication of the notice of public sale.
Allow terms, not to exceed three years, if governmental.subdivisions have budget
or levy limitations that prohibit cash purchase. Interest should be paid at eight
percent per annum, the rate in effect after July 1, 1980.
Go
Request municipalities not to withhold approval o'f sale of tax forfeited land
except when they indicate intent to purchase within the period specified in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.01 (one year).'
RESOLUTION NO.
The following resolution was offered by
WHEREAS, numerous requests have been received for private sale or for
conveyance of tax forfeited land without monetary consideration to municipal-
ities and other governmental subdivisions of the State, and
WHEREAS, no established written policy exists on this matter,
BE IT RESOLVED, that it shall be the policy of the Hennepin County
Board of Con~nissioners to maximize collections of delinquent property tax
by selling tax forfeited land. Further, future tax collections should be
maximized by transferring tax forfeited land to private ownership via
public sale whenever possible, thereby returning it to the tax rolls.
BE IT FURTFiER RESOLVED, that tax forfeited land will not be conveyed
to governmental subdivisions unless the current appraised value is paid;
however, application for conveyance without monetary consideration will
be considered by this Board if the land has been offered at public sale
and remains unsold for three years or more.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that tile acquisition of tax forfeited land by
a governmental subdivision for resale, per se, shall be deemed to be not
a public purpose, and private sate will not be authorized unless it can be
clearly shown that resale is for a public purpose. However, Housing and
Redevelopment Authorities and other governmental subdivisions of the state
expressly authorized by law to resell, lease or transfer property are
excluded from this provision.,/
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an application shall be required to
request private sale, and the application shall be accompanied by a reso-
lution of the governing body specifying the public purpose or intended
public use for which the tax forfeited land is being acquired and the need
for tile land. An application will not be considered unless received at
least ten days prior to the first publication of the notice of public sale
of the subject property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the purchase price at private sale may be
paid over a three-year period commencing on date of sale if the governmental
subdivision has budget or levy limitations that do not permit cash purchase.
Interest shall be payable at the rate prescribed by law for sales to the
publ i c.
BE IT FURTIIER RESOLVED, that municipalities are requested not to with-
hold approval oF sale oF tax forfeited land except when they indicate intent
to purchase within the period specified in Minnesota Statutes ,- Section 292.01.
/q77
;ED LAND Wiq ~qlELD FROH PUBL~SALE
Exh i.b it 1
Governmental Subdivision
B loomi ngton
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Champ 1 in.
Corcoran
Crystal
Eden Prairie
Edina
Golden Valley
Greenwood
tlassan Tmmship
llopkins
Independence
Long Lake
Maple Grove.
Maple Plain
Medicine Lake
Me d ina.
Minnea po 1 is
Minneapolis }I.R.A.
Minnetonka
Minnetrista
Mound
New llope
arena
/
Osseo
Plymouth
Richfield
Robbinsdale
St. Anthony
St. Louis Park
Shorewood
Spring Park
Tonka. Bay
Minnesota State llighway Department
TOTAL Parcels Now Withheld From Sale
Number of Parcels
17
7
15
13
1
6
16
26
62
2
3
14
4
1
16
3
1
101
103
8
177
74
130
11
38
4
15
5
" 20
2
21
3
2
19
4
944
* Subdivisions not listed are not presently withholding
land from sale.
Prepared by the Department of Property Taxation
June 8, 1980
t¢7c
RE~
Exhibit 2
',TS FOIl PRIVATI: SALE OR CONVEY~E OF
TAX FORI'EITED LAND (S~"ffce January 1, 1978)
Governmental Subdivision
Conveyances Tote 1
Bloomington
Bloomington II,R.A.
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Champlin
14
9 9
5 5
14
16 16
Crysta 1
Crystal tI.R.A.
Dayton
Deephaven
Eden Prairie
2
1
4
2
14
2
1
4
2
14
Edina
Excelsior
Golden Valley It.R.A.
Greenfield
ttopkins
11
1
37
1
1
11
1
37
1
1
Independence
Mapl. e Grove
Hnple Plain
Med ina
blinnea po 1 i s
19
1
8
3
8
1
19
9
Minneapolis tI.R.A.
Hinnetonka
Mound
Ne(~' llope
Orono
OSSeO
Plymouth
Robbinsda le
St. Bon[ facius
St. Louis Park
19
13
3
14
76
68-
1
18
9
'34
3
19
33
76
81
1
21
9
34
3
3
19
Spring Park
Tonka Bay
Wayzata
Wood land
1
8
3
2
tlennepin County Park Reserve District
llennepin County Public Works
TOTAL Parcels, Since 121.-78
7O
1
1
387
1
1
457
* Subdivisions not listed have not had any requests for private sales
or conveynnces during this period.
Prepared by__the Department of Property Taxation --- June 8, 1980
lq7
(}iiTY of i , OUND
June 20, 1980
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
Mr. E. F. "Bud" Robb, Jr.
Hennepln County Commissioner
A-2400 Government Center
Minneapolis, MN. 55487
Dear Bud:
Thanks much for your letter of June 16 and the proposed policy regarding
tax forfeit land.
The policies, as recommended, try to maximize taxes and income from the
land without looking at the long term effects and possibly the short term
effects. I will try to take the IV Specific Recommendations, one at a
time and show you problems.
4A. Discontinue conveyance without compensation ~ At-pre§ent.eve~y'time a
piece of swamp or wetlands goes tax forfeit, we take it for wetlands
in order not to get all kinds of requests to dredge, build or do
something with ]and that is not and probably will never be buildable.
When someone buys such land and, after the City employees have spent
much time with them, they let parcel go tax forfeit again and then
we start all over with a new buyer. I think there would be few.
cities spending money purchasing swamp, cattails and lots p]atted
unde~4 the level of Lake Minnetonka.
! do think'when a City takes land for a specific purpose maybe the
County could check to see if it is really unusable.
4B; We do purchase land on that basis now when we are going to build on
it.
4C.
Resale to a third party -'Until recently, we always asked that small
unbuildable lots be put to auction when a neighboring owner wanted
the land. Then the speculators came in,'purchased the small lots
and tried to make a killing selling to the neighbors. In one case,
both the County and the City got a law suit because a sliver of land
was sold to a speculator for $50.00.
In a few other cases, the speculator defaulted after one year and
these lots-are now tax forfeit.
4D.
Housing Authorities - Why can't they have these for a public purpose
as long as they don't build on them? Are the governmental bodies so
bent on maximizing income that they must have their 40% or 20% share
they get from the sale? even though another governmental body is in-
volved?
/"/7'/
Letter - Commissioner Robb
June 20, 1980 - Page 2
4E.
Private Sales - There is nothing so bad about what they ask, but it
seems that we who work in government always like to create more "red
tape" Presently we have to submit a resolution stating the purpose,
so the only difference is the lO day limit.
4F. Terms. The terms seem to be easy now and they should be strengthened,
but I am not sure about a 3 year limit.
4G.
Withholding from sale- Presently this is the only way we can keep
undersized lots from sale without taking them for a public purpose.
I explained in Item 4C the liabilities of selling undersized lots.
It should be remembered that places were platted with 40 foot by 80
foot lots and, in the 1980's, 3200 square feet is too small for any
type of home. Since the lots are platted and on record, there may be
some legal question(you might ask your County Attorney about this)
of whether a building permit can be denied.
Bud, this is a long letter, but I think basically we are saying:
1. All lots that are buildable should go to auction except if you
want to put a public building on the lot.
Undersized lots should be held off sale and sold at private sale.
There might be a possibility of having an auction of undersized
and unbuildable lots by themselves and the deed plainly show
that the lot is not buildable.
3. Swamps, wetlands, etc should be kept off the market; maybe the
DNR should do it.
/
4. The 8% interest charged is low in this market, but is better than
the 4%..you were charg}.ng.
Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
~--L'eohard L. Kopp
City Manager
LLK/ms
cc: City Council
7-1-8o
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 20, 1980
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 80-57
SUBJECT: Classification of Public Waters by DNR
Attached is a copy of a report from the Planner relative to the Classifi-
cation of Public Waters.
With his report is a copy of the map showing the water within Mound.
There will be a hearing on September llth (I think), but from the Planner's
report, it appears we do not have to take action.
cc: Planning Commission
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
June
9, 1980
TO:
FROM:
RE:
The City Manager
The City Planner
Report on DNR Public Waters Classification
This memorandum is a follow-up to our meeting today with the DNR people.
DNR is starting a comprehensive classification of all significant lakes
and open wetlands of 2½ acres in size or larger. The attached maps and
letters document the program as applying to Mound.
Lakes/Wetlands Classified in Mound
a. Lake Minnetonka and its bays
b. Langdon Lake
c. Lost Lake
d. Dutch Lake
e. The two wetlands west of Halsted Lane and north of 110 bordering
Minnetrista.
f. Four wetlands in the Island
All of the new 3 lakes and 6 wetlands are now proposed for public water
status. Similar to the DNR wetland permit system regulating development
within the seasonally adjusted highwater table on Lake Minnetonka. These
new public water areas will be under similar regulations and state permit
system.
I have reviewed the six wetlands as identified by the DNR for Mound and
find them to be consistent with the appropriate definitions used. I
trust the literature attached helps explain the program to the City
Council and Planning Commission. I see no technical deficiencies in the
DNR classifications.
Additional information or program explanations are available if needed.
Charles Riesenberg
PHONE:
29_6.~7523
Hennepin County Municipality
Attention: City Council
1200 Warner Road, St. Paul~ 1'~ 55106 '-~
May 16, 1980 . ~/
~is letter is t0 info~ you of the pro~ to classify ~d identify
public waters within Hennepin County. Legislation passed in 1979 set
up .~. inventory prOcedure to identify all of the public waters in the
state. ~e public waters inventory materiaIs %~ere submitted to the
county on ~y 12, 1980 and the county now has 90 days to review these
~terials, conduct at least one public info~ation meeting, and to pre~.
sent their reco~endations to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
~e reco~nendations shall state with particularity the waters involved
~d the reasons for disagreement. ~e reasons for disagreement may in-
clude size.dete~ination, l~ation, or wetland type. Also~ if co~on
or l~al n~es are ~o~ for u~ed public %~;aters, they should be pro-
vided.. ~sically, the '1979 law identifies public waters ~ type 3, 4,
5.wetl~ds larger than 2~ acres in .incorporated areas ~d larger th~.
10 acres in unincorporated areas, and watercourses that have a drainage
area of more ~h~ 2 square miles. ·
Hennepin County is unique because it is v~rtually all incorporatedt and
due to that fact, I feel it is.necessary to directly involve the munici-
p~ities in the review pr~ess. Sandy Fecht of my staff will be available
to meet with.city staff at their convenience to further explain the. inven-
tory process. Please contact Sandy at 296-7523 to set up a meetly. The
map enclosed has the public waters identified by n~nber. At the meeting
we will provide you with a numerical listing of the public waters that
includes the public waters n~e and legal description (section, township,
r~ge). DNR personnel will be meeting %~ith. He~nepin Co~ty in the near
future %o discuss .the fo~t to be follo%~ed. If you have ~y questions,
feel ~ree to contact Sandy or myself.
KL/ch
enclosure
Sincerely,
Regional Hydrologist
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PROCEDURAL FK~bIEWORK FOR CObtPLET!NG THE
INVENTORY OF PUBLIC ¥1ATERS 7~ND i';ETL~3{DS
1) DNR field 'p'e~sonndl ~0nduct a survey of wetland basins on a county .
by county basis. '
2) The commissioner prepares a list and a map` for each county, describing :'
those basins preliminarily determined to be public waters and wetlands, and
sends them to the county boardvfor review and conunent.
3) The c6Unty bo~rd conducts at'least one pdbliC informational 'meeting within
the county regarding the commissioner's prelimihary designation..-....~...~...,.. .
4) After conducting 'the' meetings and within 90 d~ys' after receipt of'~he l'ist
and maps, 'the .coun.ty Board shall present .its r.ecmmendation to the commiss.ioner,
listing any waters.regarding ~hich the board disagrees with the cOn~issioner's
preliminary designation and stating with particularity the waters involved
and the 'reasons for disagreement. -- '- '
-' ...... :' .'- ". ' .-: ,-,-.'2".. :- ~&~'. .
5) Within 30 days afte~:':receiving 'the-~ounty board's reconunendations, the
commissioner shall ~eview the findings and notify the board as to which'
recommendations he accepts and rejects and the reasons for his decision.
If any of-the board's 'recommendations' are accepted, the list and maps shall
be revised to reflect the changes.
6] After the revision of the map and list, if ~ny, or if no response is
received from the co,sty board within the 90 days review period, the 'commissioner
-shall file the revised list and map with the recorder of each county, and
shall cause the. list and map to be published in the official newspaper of
the county.
The published list 'and map shall include notice that any person or any county
may challenge the designation of specific waters as public waters or wetlands
or may request the designation of additional waters as public ~'aters or
wetlands by filing a petition for a hearing with the commisisoner within 90
days following the date of publication.
The petition shall state with particularity the waters for which the
commissioner's designation is disputed and shall set forth the reasons for
disputing the designation.
.i
7) .. If any flasigmati0ns ara disputed by petition, 'the commissioner shall
order a public hearing to be held within the county ~'ithin 60 ~ays follo~ing
the 9B day period, notice of which shall be published in the state register
and the official newspaper .of the county. ~ hearings shall ~e conducted
by a ~earings mit co~osad of one person appointed by the affected county b~ard~
one person appointed b~ the commissioner and one board member of the local
soil and ~ater conservation district ~ithin the county
by the ot~r two mem~rs at least ~O days ~rior to the hearing date.
.... ....~..-...~
8) In the event there is a watershed district whose boundaries ~nclude '
the waters involved, the district may provide the hearings unit' with its
reco~endations. ' .. " -
9) Within 60 days following c0mpletion of the h~aring~ thc hearings unit
sh~ll issue its findings of fact,-conclusions, and an order, which shall
considered the de~ision of an agency in a contested case for pu~oses of
judicial review pursuant to Minn. Statutes s~ction 15.0424 and 1-5.0425. i
10) ~e 'c0~issio~r, the county or any person aggrieved
the hearings ~it may appeal from the hearings unit's order. Upon ~eceipt
of the order the hearings unit and after the appeal
expired, or upon receipt of the final order
appeal, the co~missione~, shall publish a list of thc waters dete~ined to
~e public ~'aters and wetlands. ''
11) ~e co~issioner shall complete the public waters and 'w~tl~nd~ inventor'
by December 31, 1982. -- .
'.
qql
RD,
pt-~LPS
7-1-80
CiTY OF ROUND
Mound, Minnesota
June 20, 1980
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 80-58
SUBJECT: Park Construction Contract
The question was asked, "What the deadline was on the Park Construction
Contract?"
The contract was adopted May 16th and states as follows:
"Contractor shall commence work within 10 days of award of contract
and shall complete all work within 45 calendar days of award of con-
tract. Liquidated damages are to apply after the 45th day in the sum
of $50 per day."
I imagine they get to deduct rain days, but I don't know.
cc: Engineer
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Roger L. Hanson Chairman
Richard J. Parish Com~nissioner
Katherine E. Sasseville Con~nissioner
Juanita R. Satterlee Commissioner
Lillian Warren-Lazenberry Commissioner
In the Matter of the Northern Docket No. E-OO2/GR-80-316
States Power Company, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for Authority to Change
its Schedule of Electric Rates NOTICE AND ORDER FOR HEARING
for Retail Customers within the
State of Minnesota
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a contested hearing in the above-entitled
matter will be held, commencing with a pre-hearing conference at 9:30 a.m.
on June 16, 1980, in the Large Hearing Room, Seventh Floor, American Center
Building, 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 and continuing
on dates to be set by the presiding officer at the pre-hearing conference.
This hearing is being ordered by the Minnesota Public Service
Commission (the Commission) to investigate the necessity for and reasonableness
of certain electric rate increases proposed by Northern States Power Company
(NSP or the Company) in NSP's Notice of Rate Change filed with the Commission
on ~y l, 1980. The Commission is authorized to conduct this hearing by
M.S. S 216B.16. The proposed increase in gross annual revenues will be
$77,530,000, or approximately 12.66%. Although NSP will make an interim
adjustment of 12.66% to all custo~r bills, the Company has proposed rate
design changes that will result, if accepted by the Commission, in larger
increases for residential, municipal, and street lighting classes.
Class
Residential
Commercial and Industrial
Other Sales to Public Authorities
Street and Highway Lighting
Recommended Increase
15.7%
10.4%
24.0%
18.5%
12.56%
In addition, the Company is proposing changes in class rate design
that will mean, if accepted by the Commission, higher percentage increases
for smaller residential users than larger residential users. For example,
a residential customer using 100 kilowatt hours (Kl'IH) of electricity per month
would pay an annual bill, under I(SP's proposed rate desiqn, 102~ hiqher than
at present, while a 300 K!~H per month customer would pay an annual bill 37~
higher, and a 600 KWH per month customer would pay an annual bi)l only 9.8~
higher.
A copy of the Company's requested rates is on file in the offices of
the Department of Public Service, and is open to public inspection during
normal office hours. A copy of the Company's rate filing also is available
for public inspection during normal office hours at the Company's offices in
Minneapolis, St. Paul, Faribault, Red Wing, St. Cloud, Winona, Fargo and Sioux Falls.
The Commission has suspended the Kate schedule filed by the Company
pending the hearing ordered herein. However, the Company has notified the
Con~ntssion that it will exercise its statutory right to place increased rates
into effect on July 30, 1980, subject to refund if the Commission ultimately
orders a lesser increase.
The hearings on the petition will be conducted by a Hearing Examiner
appointed by the Chief Hearing Examiner of the State of Minnesota, and will be
held in compliance with the applicable laws relating to the Public Service
Contnission, the Administrative Procedure Act {M.S. ~ 15.0411 through 15.052)
and the rules of the Office of Hearing Examiners {9 Minnesota Code of
Administrative Rules 2.201-222) and the rules of practice of the Public Service
Commission (4 MCAR 4.500-521) to the extent that they have not been superceded
by the rules of the Office of Hearing Examiners. These rules ~ay be purchased
from the Documents Section of the Department of Administration, ll7 University
Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 {612) 296-2874. These rules provide
generally for the procedural rights of the parties including: rights to
advance notice of witnesses and evidence, right to a pre-hearing co)lference,
rights to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and rights to purchase
a record or transcript. Parties are entitled to issuance of subpoenas to
compel witnesses to attend and produce documents and other evidence.
Any person intending to intervene as a formal party to these hearings
must submit a Petition for Leave to Intervene to the Hearing Examiner and
serve the Petition on all existing parties. The Petition must state how the
Petitioner's legal rights, duties, or privileges may be determined or affected
-2-
by the Commission's decision in the matter and shall set forth the grounds and
purposes for which intervention is sought and shall indicate Petitioner's
statutory right to intervene if one exists. All parties have the right to be
represented by lega) counsel by a person of their choice, or by themselves if
not other~ise prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law.
In addition, any person intending to appear at this hearing should
file with the Hearing Examiner a Notice of Appearance within twenty days of
the date of service of this Order. The Notice of Appearance must advise the
Hearing Examiner of the party's interest to appear and shall indicate the
title of the case, the name of the agency for whom the hearing is being con-
ducted, the party's current address and telephone number, and the name, office
address and telephone number of the party's attorney.
Potential intervenors shall attend the pre-hearing conference
scheduled above with information which will facilitate the scheduling of
hearings permitting all of the parties to present their evtdentiary views in
a manner and within a time frame that would be as fair and expeditious as
possible. ~tters which may be discussed include: the reasonable time period
required to prepare direct testimony for filing on all of the issues including
those discussed below; the time period for preparation of direct testimony
by intervenors; recommended areas for hearings to receive public input re-
garding the petition; time required for parties to prepare for depositions and
Other discovery; and other matters that will facilitate full and fair hearings
on the petition.
If persons have good reason for requesting a delay of any hearing,
the request must bQ made in writing to the Hearing Examiner at least five days
prior to the hearing. A copy of the request must be served on the Commission
and all parties.
Failure to appear at the hearing may result in the allegation of the
Notice and Order for Hearing being taken as true, or the issues set out being
deemed proved. A possible result is that the rates proposed by NSP may be
adopted by the Commission.
Following the contested hearing, the Commission may approve all or
any part of the rate increase proposed by NSP but may not approve an overall
increase greater than that proposed by NSP. However, the Commission may adjust
rates for classes of customers to levels greater than those proposed by NSP
-3-
/qt...)
and make other rate adjustments based upon the testimony of parties other than
NSP. If no person contests the proposed rate increase at this hearino, the
rates may be approved as proposed by )tSP.
Any questions concerning informal disposition of this matter or
discovery of information should be addressed to Rodney A. Wilson, Special
Assistant Attorney General, 720 American Center Building, 150 East Kellogg
Boulevard, St, Paul, Minnesota 55101 {612) 296-6030.
All other questions concerning this hearing should be addressed to
the Hearing Examiner assigned to this hearing:
Richard DeLong
Minnesota State Office of Hearing Examiners 1745 University Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota $5104
(612) 296-8117
The Commission hereby gives notice, in accordance with M.S. § 15.0421,'
subd. 4, that it intends to take administrative notice of published Securities
and Exchange Con~nission factual data, and of the Company's published annual
reports.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NSP shall facilitate in every reasonable
way the investigations of the Department of Public Service and the Office of
Consumer Services which should commence forthwith after the issuance of this
Order. All parties shall furnish adequate responses within l0 days to all
reasonable information requests by other parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company submit, as part of its
~ffirmative presentation in support of its rate request, testimony concerning
~he following issues:
a. A sample of the advertisements for each category included in
con~unications expense.
b. A description of the demand forecasting model used to predict test
year electric sales in this filing.
c. A description of the long range forecasting techniques used to
plan capacity additions and Company estimates of average and peak demands for
the next ten years, with a specific discussion of the effect that conservation
is expected to have on demand.
d. An explanation of the procedure for determining the level of the
seasonal rate differential for those rate schedules which include such a
differential and of the procedure for determining seasonal rating period.
-4-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NSP shall keep records of sales and
billings under present and proposed interim rates such that any potential
refund can be determined by computing what each customer's bill would have
been during the refund period had the finally ordered rates been in effect
and subtracting such amount from the amount actually paid by each customer
during that period.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall be served on NSP, and
that NSP shall mail copies of the same to all counties and municipalities
in its electric service territory, all parties who filed petitions for leave
to intervene (timely or untimely) in its prior electric rate hearings before
the Cormnission (Docket Nos. E-OO2/GR-77-611 and E-OO2/GR-76-934), and to such
further persons as the Department.of Public Service may request. The eviden-
tiary and public hearings shall be held at representative geographic locations
in NSP's Minnesota service territory. In addition to individual notification
of its customers as ordered by the Commission on May 14, 1980, NSP shall also
publish notices of both the pre-hearing conference and the evidentiary and
public hearings in the form of newspaper display ads at least 10 days prior
to the dates of their commencement in a newspaper of general circulation in
each county seat town in the counties in its electric service terrttory~ The
heading on the display ad, RATE INCREASE NOTICE, must be minimum 30 point
bold face type.
This Order shall be effective in~nediately.
B~ON
Mary L. Harty
Executive Secretary
SERVICE DATE: June 127 198g
(SEAL)
-5-
J- DENNIS O'BRIEN
JOHN B, DEAN
GLENN E-PURDUE
JAMES D. LARSON
CHARLES L. LSFE~/ERE
MARY J, BJORKLUND
LAW OFFICES
LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON. O' BRIEN & DRAWZ
IIOO FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
HINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE J612:) 333-0543
June 18, 1980
BROOKLYN CENTER OFFICES
610 BROOKDALE TOWERS
2810 COUNTY ROAD I0
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNE'$OTA 55430
J612) 561-3200
RICHARD J. 5CHIEFFER
Mr. Skip McCombs
McCombs-Knutson Associates
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Re: ThOmas v. City of Mound (1978 Street Program)
Dear Skip:
On June 17 I had a long conversation with Tom Rooney. They are
definitely preparing to go to trial with this arbitration. He
told me that he had spent the last two or three Saturdays in
Mound touring'the project, visiting and interviewing people, and
going over some of the problems. He further indicated to me that
there are a number of items which in their opinion are on the punch
list which are not their fault and he intends to make the 'engineer-
ing work an issue. One of the problems related to a Mr. Burton
and extra work running someWhere between $2 to $4,000. Another
is the sod. on Denbigh Road which he claims is a n~rrow street and
the people pull off and park on the new sod which has caused it
to die and we have insisted on their replacing it. He visited one
home that has a sump pump which discharges water which washes out
the sod and which he claims would be impossible to repair under any
ci rcums tan ces.
He further indicates that as a part of their defense the engineer
and/or the City failed to make provision to maintain the sod after
we kicked Thomas out of town and that as a result a lot of sod
died for lack of maintenance.
It is evident from just touching on some of these subjects that it
is in the best interests of all parties to resolve as many of these
as possible prior to the arbitration and to try to stipulate on
those issues. If we go on a case by case basis through the entire
punch list this arbitration will go on for a month.
LAW OFFICES
LEFEVERE. LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
Mr. Skip McCom/~s
Page 2
June 18, 19 80
In attempting to resolve some of these problems, I have suggested
that Mr. Rooney and Mr. Keefer, who represents Midland Nursery, Inc.
and I meet with you and your staff to resolve as many of those
questions as possible. We tentatively have set up a meeting at
your office at 8:30 A.M. on June 24. There will be a prehearing
conference probably .on July 15, but so far the arbitrators have
not been selected.."
I am enclosing herewith a copy of the second list of arbitrators
and I am sending a copy to Leonard: Please review all the names.'and
exclude yourself since I don't think you are going to qualify in
this case. I only .know one person on the list and that is a Mr.
Rafshol. I would appreciate it if you would go over with Lyle and
others in your office the othe~ persons on the list and advise me
no later than June 23 as to how you rate people on the second list.
This case is going to heat up and will undoubtedly result in
substan,tial Staff time by your employees. Rooney is talking of
taking Fred's deposition which would take additional time. I am
hoping Leonard will review this list immediately and respond with
any suggestions.
Very truly your$~
City Attorney
CAP: ms
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Lyle Swanson
Mr. Leonard Kopp
FINANCE DIVISION
A606 Go¥ rnm nt Cenfer
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
June 19, 1980
The Honorable Tim Lovaasen
Mound City Mayor
5341Maywood Road
Mound, HN. 55364
Dear Hr. Lovaasen:
This is to officially inform you that, effective June 10, 1980, a reorgani-
zation of the Hennepin County Finance and Records Department, formerly under
the direction of Wayne A. Johnson, was approved by the Hennepin County Board
of Commissioners. This reorganization provides three separate entities which
are responsible for those functions formerly discharged by the Finance and
Records Department. They are as follows:
Department of Property Taxation
Records and Service'Centers Department
County Assessor Department
As a part of this reorganization, the Finance Division has become the Depart-
ment of Property Taxation, and the new department, under my direction, will
discharge the duties and functions of the County Auditor and Treasurer. This
responsibility includes not only the collection and distribution of taxes, but
also encompasses-the area of Voter Registration and Elections.
As you know, I was formerly.the Finance Division Manager and have been appointed
as the Director for the Department of Property Taxation. Robert Q. Anderson
and George B. Hickey are deputy directors.
Licensing, which was a section of the Finance Division, is now a division of the
Records and Service Centers Department.
We intend to continue to serve your needs in the same efficient and professional
manner that we trust you have enjoyed in the past.
The telephone numbers, location and mailing address for the Department of Property
Taxation remain the same as those for the former Finance Division. Please feel
free to contact us if you need further information.
Vernon T. Hoppe
Director of Property Taxation
VTH:sls
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
. w(;t hennepln human ,e,vlce, p!QnnJng
,00 .~in~:)n_sjjinu. ,.uth, ,t. I..,, pa,k,
June 10, 1980
Dear Public Official,
As you may have already heard, the State Energy
Assistance Program is now underway and will run through
the end of .June. We are asking your cooperation in help-
ing us to publicize this project to each of your constit-
uencies via any newsletters, public~f~rums, or other means
at your disposal between now and the end of June. Enclosed
you will find a recent news release and flyer.which briefly
describe the program; many people still do not realize that
theM may be eligible for this resource even without overdue
utility bills, or that renters who do not pay their heating
costs directly can also apply.
We would appreciate any help in this regard, as we are
aware that many potentially eligible families are still un-
aware of this aid. If you have any questions, or would like
additional flyers, please feel free tO call me at 929-2474.
Tha'~k you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
B i I 1 Grant
Fuel Assistance Coordinator
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 22, 1980
STATE ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BEGINS
West Hennepin Human Services announces that finan-
cial assistance is now available for low-income households
who have not ~ualified for the Federal Energy Assistance
Program. Recently passed by the 1980 Legislature, the
State Energy Assistance Program (S.E.A.P. ) provides finan-
cial aid to qualifying households with unpaid energy bills,
or supplemental aid (such as food assistance) to renters
and others who do not have overdue utility payments.
Qualifying households must ,have annual incomes below
the foll9wing amounts:
HOUSEHOLD SIZE INCOME*
1 $5,100
2 6,750
3 8,400
4 10,050
each additional person: add 1,650
*Certain expenses are deductible when figuring annual
household income; they include federal and state income
taxes, Social Security taxes, and some medical expenses.
State law gives priority to elderly and handicapped
persons, but anyone who meets the income guidelines is
encouraged to apply. For more information, please call
Bill Grant at 929-2474.
lU inter
Hleighin[t on our
~umrntr
YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET FINANCIAL ANDfOR FOOD ASSISTANCE IF YOU
MEET THE FUEL ASSISTANCE INCOME GUIDELINES.
4
'~ ~ YOU HAY D~DUCT ~D~RAL, STATE,
AS CERTAIN MEDICAL EXPENSES ~EN FIGURING YOUR INCOME.
STATE LAW GIVES PRIORITY TO ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED RESIDENTS,
BUT ANYONE WHO MEETS THE INCOME GUIDELINES IS ENCOURAGED TO APPLY.
for more information, CALL 929-2474
Administered through
West ;'[ennepin Human Services Council
and Office of Economic Opportunity
ATTORN~'Y AT LAW
1503 WASHINGTON AVfNUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 5.5454
612/333-5419
June 13, 1980
MaryMarske
Mound Village Office
5341Maywood Raod
Mound, MN 55364
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMED BY TIMOTHY L. PIEPKORN FOR THE CITY OF
MOUND FOR THE MONTH OF MAY:
2. r, lay 14 -
3. May 16 -
4. May 19 -
5. May 20 -
6. May 23 -
7. May 27 -
8. May 30 -
May 6 - 6 Pre-trial conferences and 2 Court trials
Prepared 2 formal complaints
Review of all files
Prepared 3 formal complaints
4 pre-trial conferences and 2 Court trials
Prepared 6 formal complaints
Bail hearing in I.linneapolis; :~.'
Revocation hearing in Minneapolis
Prepared 3 formal complaints;
TOTAL OWINg':
HOURS
4.50
2.00
2.50
2.00
3.50
3.00
($300 for 15 hours and
$ 30.00 per hour for 8.5 hours)
2.50
3.50
$555.00
a eociation of
metroDolii'an
munici'palitiee
June 16, 1980
Mr. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Dear Len:
This is to acknowledge receipt of Mound's dues to the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities for the fiscal
year 1980-1981.
I want to express our appreciation for your continuing
support of the Association. Please convey our thanks to
Mayor Lovaasen and the members of your city council.
/
Again ~our thanks, and please do not hesitate to contact
us wheneve~ we can be of assistance.
Best regards,
-Vern Peterson
Executive Director
CHANHASSEN
CHASKA
EDEN PRAIRIE
WAFTA
~RN AREA FIRE TRAINING
EXCELSIOR
LONG LAKE
MAPLE PLAIN
MAYER
A~ADEMY
"J VICTORIA
MOUND Ii" WATERTOWN
ST. BONIFACIUS
Tho May 21. 1980, meeting of WAFTA was called to order by chairman Jerry Sohlenk
at 7145 p.m. at the WA~TA site.
Minutes of the April meeting were read and approved as road.
Treasurer's report! checking accom~t $2,252.87
savings account 10,470.19
money market 10,O00.O0
Billss NSP $50.09
Continental Telephone $35.82
John McCoy $10.00
A motion by Eden Prairie and seconded by Mound to pay tho bills.
Motion carried.
Estimates for the now smo~e building were presented. A motion was made by Mound
and seconded by Maple Plain to have Thomas Sendeqky Cons~ruction~uild th~
A motion was made by Maple Plain and seconded by Eden Prairie to have a 7500 g~llon
train car delivered by the Air Force ~eserve, if the delivery and the train car
were both free. Motion carried.
Certain clean up, etc., Jobs need to be complete at the site before the schools.
Job lists wall be sent to each department ir~icating their particular duty.
Jerry Schlenk reported that a few WAFTA representatives had met with the officers
of WAFTA women to discuss meals at the schools and the purchase of supplies
needed for the kitchen.
A motion was made by St. Bonifacius and seconded by Watertown to purchase some
tables from the Eden Prairie school district. Motion carried.
Member cities not represented at this meeting were E~celsior, Long Lake, May~r.
School dates arel July 12 & 13, August 16, September 13 & 14.
Subjects for these schools will be Pesticide, Liquid Petroleum, Petroleum,
Heavy Rescue (includes certification), Breathing Equipment, Pump Operations,
Fire Investigation. Not ali subJemts will be taught at each school.
Next meeting will be at ?~30 p.m. on June 18 at the WAFTA site.
'Respectfully submitted,
John A. F~Coy
Secretary-trea surer
COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINE[RS I~ lAND SURVEYORS I~ SITE PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
June 17, 1980
Mr. Don Rinowski
Hardrives, Inc.
3030 Harbor Lane
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55441
Subject:
City of Mound
1979 Street Improvements
Dear Mr. Rinowski,
On November 19, 1979 Hardrives asked for a time extension
on the subject project to July 1, 1980. The City Council granted
this request.
We are approaching this new completion date and it appears
there is a great deal of work remaining. A list of some of this
work follows.
1. Completion of Retainioq Walls
This is probably the biggest item holding up the project.
The sod contractor cannot complete his work until this
is dohe. We understand that the wall sub contractor has
pulled off the job. As you and I have discussed if he
has a disagreement with us on the quantities on this work
we will send a man along with him and re-measure each
wall. There are~walls on the project which are not
capped or completed which could easily fail during a
heavy rain. The wall on Islandview should be completed
at once. I recommend that you take a look at that one.
2. Streets not Completed
Inverness Lane
Cumberland Road
Driftwood Lane
Commerce Boulevard Parking
Minneapolis o Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls
1¥,57
Mr. Don Rinowski
Page Two
June 17, 1980
3. Sod Work
There is a lot of sod work left on the project. Jordon
seems to be making good progress on this work, but is
hindered by uncompleted walls.
4. Final Wear Course on some Streets
We realize you are waiting for the sod work to be done
before you do this, however there are streets that can
now be paved.
5. Change Order No. 4
This is the completion and cleanup of the 1978 work.
This has really been dragging. What we need here is a
good sod and seeding crew to get out there for a week
and finish the work. We are receiving more complaints
on this than any other portion of the work.
To summarize it seems to us that this spring Hardrives has
not prosecuted the work with the same vigor as last year. We
would like to see you get some more machinery and manpower out and
get the work done.
If you think it would be useful I would be pleased to spend
a couple of hours on the project to go over what is left and help
work out a schedule to finish it.
The project has generally gone very well to date and we would
like to see it ~completed and finalized in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
LS:
· ~cc: Leonard Kopp
Lyle Swanson, P.E.