The URL can be used to link to this page

80-10-14 CITY OF FOUND Mound, Mi nnesota AGENDA 80-356 80-346 80-347 ~ 80-351 80-355 80-354 80-350 80-348 80-352 BO-353 ~0-349 Mound City Council October 14, 1980 City Hall 7:30 P.M. Minutes Pg. 2377-81 ~$0 ~i~$~O Water and Sewer Rates ~g. 2376 Planning Commission Minutes Pg. 2338- 2375 Citizen's Request Relative to Fire Station Expansion Parking Lease Pg. 2332-2333 Street Construction Pg. 2330-2331 ~/A. Avocet Lane =~B. Highland Boulevard ~C. Waterbury Road VD. Other Comments and Suggestions from Citizens Present (2 Minute Limit) Assessments on State Owned Land Pg. 2327-2329 Election Judges Appointment Pg. 2325-2326 Citizen Advisory Committee Membership Pg. 2323-2324 Equipment Specifications Pg. 2314-2322 Equipment Operators & Maintenance Men Union Contract Maxi Energy Audits Pg. 2296-2297 Payment of Bills Information Memorandums/Misc. Pg. 2273-2295 Committee Reports 12. 13. I4. 15. 16 Pg. 2334-233? Pg. 2298-2313 Page 2382 October 10,1980 Dear Mary MarsEe, I am writing this letter to inform you that I just found out that my outside water meter does not work and and has not worked since August of 1979. Consequently, my water bills have been estimated at the minimum rate of 30,000 gallons. Last year~s bill for 6/79 shows 15,00D gallons used and the 9/79 shows 14,00D gallons used. These are well below the minimum usage rate. I~m sure that our usage has not changed that much. Our indoor meter has not worked either so at the present time no valid record is available. I propose that the meter readers use books to record readings for each address so they can immediately tell that the meter has not moved and to leave some form of notice on the door informing the owner that the meter is inoperable and needs immediate attention and the steps to take care of this problem. If it proves that our water usage has not increased significantly I do expect an adjustment. Sincerely and Thank You, Our meter is scheduled to be repaired 10/17/80 at 1:30. 10-14-80 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota October 14, 1980 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 80-84 SUBJECT: Refund of Variance Fee Carl Engelke, 2441 Chateau Lane, has withdrawn his request for a variance to add onto his accessory building. He is requesting a refund of his fee. A refund for 1/2 of the fee ($12.50) will be listed on the bills. Ma ry.J~. Marske Actih'g City Manager ms REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL October 7, 1980 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 5341Maywood Road ]n said City on October 7, 1980 at 8:30 p.m. Those present were: Mayor Tim Lovaasen, Councilmembers Gordon Swenson and Donald Ulrick. Councilmember Polston was absent. Also present were Acting City Manager Mary H. Marske, Attorney Curtis A. Pearson, City Engineer k'Jm. McCombs and City Clerk Mary H. Marske. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of September 23, 1980 were presented for consideration. Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 23, 1980 with a correction on the roll call vote on Abated Taxes-Levy page 117, to read three in favor with Swenson and Ulrick voting nay. The vote was unanimously in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS C.B.D. Parking Maintenance Assessment The Mayor then re-opened the public hearing for input on said C.B.D. Parking Main- tenance Assessment and persons present to do so were afforded an opportunity to express their views thereon. The following persons offered comments or questions: Jerry Longpre. The Mayor then closed the public hearing. Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion to reduce the assessment roll by $3,295.00. Roll call vote was two in favor with Lovaasen voting nay. Councilmember Withhart arrived at 8:40 p.m. Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion to continue the schedule of sweeping the downtown business district and parking lots during pre-business hours and the city street sweeping will be paid by the city. The vote was three in favor with Lovaasen voting nay. Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-372 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL AT $10,134.65 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY FOR SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% The vote was three in favor with Lovaasen voting nay. 1979 Street Improvement Assessment The Mayor then re-opended the public hearing for input on said 1979 Street Improve- ment Assessment and persons present to do so were afforded an opportunity to express their views thereon. The following persons offered comments or questions: Jim Bedell, 2625 Wilshire Blvd. The Mayor then closed the public hearing. Lovaasen moved and Withhart seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-373 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1979 STREET IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT ROLL AS AMENDED $2,746,619.03 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY FOR SPREAD OVER 15 YEARS AT 8% ?/ The Vote was unani in favor. STREET CONSTRUCTION - PARKING ON ROSEDALE Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to reduce the parking spaces at Edgewater Park from six to four spaces and request a report from the engineer and city staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Vacation of a Portion of Cumberland The City Clerk presented an affidavit of publication in the official newspaper of the notice of public hearing on said Vacation of a Portion of Cumberland. 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 Vacation of a Portion of Cumberland 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. Withhart moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-374 RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF CUMBERLAND ROAD The vote was unanimously in favor. Weed Cutting & Tree Cutting Charges Assesment The City Clerk presented an affidavit of publication in the official newspaper of the notice of public hearing on said Weed Cutting & Tree Cutting Charges Assessment. 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 Weed Cutting & Tree Cutting Charges Assessment and persons present to do so were afforded an opportunity to express their views thereon. The following persons offered comments or questions: Norman Rice, 4974 Brunswick. The Mayor then closed the public hearing. Ulrick moved and Withhart seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-375 RESOLUTION ADOPTING WEED CUTTING AND TREE CUTTING ASSESSMENT ROLL OMITTING 24-117-24 41 0146 FOR $535.50 DUE TO HUMAN ERROR AND BREAKDOWN OF COMMU- NICATIONS TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY The vote was unanimously in favor. Unpaid Water & Sewer Charge Assessment The City Clerk presented an affidavit of publication in the official newspaper of the notice of public hearing on said Unpaid Water & Sewer Charge Assessment. 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 Water & Sewer Charge Assessment 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. Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-376 RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT UTILITY ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,499.11 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% The vote was unanimously in favor. STREET CONSTRUCTION Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion to construct Drummond east of Tuxedo at 22 feet. The vote was unanimously in favor. PARKING ON DRURY LANE No action was taken on this item. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT No comments or suggestions were presented at this time. LEVYING SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER Withhart moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-377 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY 7934 - $3,867.O8 The vote was unanimously in favor. Withhart moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-378 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARTION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY 7935 - $1,226.40 The vote was unanimously in favor. Withhart moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-379 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY 7936 - $1,293.47 The vote was unanimously in favor. Withhart moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-380 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACTS; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY 7937 - $441.03 The vote was unanimously in favor. CANCELLATION - WATER REVENUE LEVY Lovaasen moved and Withhart seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-381 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR NOT TO LEVY $20,446.13 FOR 1976 WATER REVENUE BONDS The vote was unanimously in favor. LOT 37,_AUDITOR'S SUBDI ON 167 Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-382 RESOLUTION AUI~O~Z NE I~E ~A¥O~ ~NB ~C[~ l0 EXECUTE AND SIGN A QUIT CLAIH DEED TO LOT 37, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 167 FOR THE AHOUNT OF SI,000.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. PUBLIC AUCTION Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-383 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC AUCTION OF CERTAIN UNCLAIHED PROPERTY AND THAT CERTAIN ITEMS BE WITHHELD FROM THE AUCTION FOR CITY USE. The vote was unanimously in favor. DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS Swenson moved and Withhart seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-384 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO BE HEARD ON OCTOBER 21, 1980 AT 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. RATES - WATER AND SEWER Withhart moved and Swenson seconded a motion to table this item and request that George Boyer of Hickok and Associates attend the meeting of October 14, 1980. The vote was unanimously in favor. 1980 AUDIT Lovaasen moved and Withhart seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-385 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEHENT WITH GEORGE M. HANSEN CO. FOR THE 1980 AUDIT The vote was unanimously in favor. TRANSFER OF FUNDS Swenson moved and Lovaasen seconded a motion RESOLUTION 80-386 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CITY FUNDS 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 $39,827.31 when funds are available. Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. 7o ADJOURNHENT Uirick moved and ~4ithhart seconded a motion to adjourn to the next regular meetin9 on October ]4, l~80 at 7:30 p,m. The vote was unanimously in favor, so adjourned. Mary H. Marske CMC, City Clerk/Treasurer Mary H. Marske, Acting City Manager * 477 CITY OF Mound, Minnesota October lO, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-356 SUBJECT: Water and Sewer Rates The discussion of water and sewer rates was tabled at the meeting of October 7, 1980 and the Council requested that George Boyer of Hickok & Associates attend the meeting of October 14, 1980. Mr. Boyer has agreed to be present. Perhaps it should be noted that the computer will presently bill sewage on the basis of (1)~ current water consumption, (2) previous designated quarter consumption, or (3) the lesser of current or previous consumption. The cycles and their billing quarters are as follows: Cycle 1 Three Points 1)Winter Quarter 2)Spring Quarter 3)Summer Quarter 4)Fall Quarter Dec. 15 - Mar. 15 - June 15 ~' Sept. 15 - Mar. 14 June 14 Sept. 14 Dec. 14 Cycle 2 Mound P~oper Cycle 3 Island Park Jan. 15 - Apr. 15 -- July' 15 -. Oct. 15 - Apr. 14 July 14 Oct~ 14 Jan. 14 Nov. 15 - Feb. 15 - J~15 ~ Aug, 15 ~. Feb. 14 May 14 (JAug, 14 Nov, 14 Mary.i~. Marske Acting City Manager lO, ??,v ., 13,OZC ... 15,Cgt ... 8.CZ ~?,023 ... ~.~C ~9,0~ · .. 20,000 ... iO.OC 22,000 23,000 ... ll.2C 2~,000 ... 11.60 2?,000 ... 12.8C 28,~0 ... 13.20 29,000 ... ~3.60 ~o.~o .. 3~,0~ .. ~5.70 3LO00 .. 3h,o~ .. ~5.ho 36,~0 .. ~6.10 3R,~ ... 17.15~ 40,~ ... 17.50' 42,~ ... 18.20 ~,0~ ... 18.90 4%o~ ... ~9.~5 46,~ ... 19.6o 47,~o ... 19.95 48,~ ... 20.30 ~%ooo ... ~o.6~ :tire I~, 1976 53,C33 ... 21.51 c ~ 22.2Z 55,033 ... 22.5Z 57,o~ ... 55,000 ... 59,000 ... 23.70 60,000 .. 24.00 61,000 .. 24.30 62,000 .. 24.60 63,000 .. 24.90 64,000 .. 25.20 65,o0o .. 25.5o 966,000 ... ~5.~o 67,000 ... 26.10 68,000 .., 26.40 69,000 ... 26.70 70,000 ... 27.00 71,000 ... 27.30 72,000 ... 27.60 73,000 ... 27.90 74,000 ... 28.20 75,000 ... 28.50 76,000 ... 28.80 77,000 ... 29.10 78,000 ... 29.40 79,000 ... 29.70 80,000 .. 30.00 81,000 .. 30.30 82,000., 30.60 83,000 .. 30.90 84,000 .. 31.20 85,ooo .. 31.5o 86,000 .,, 31.80 87,000 ... 32,10 88,000 ... 32.40 89,000 ... 32.70 WATEF 6.0~0 . . . ~.OS~ . . . 9,~OL... 10.000 ll.OOC 12,0ZL 13,000 14.000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,0oo 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23.000 24,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,0o0 29,000 30,000 31,o00 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,ooo 36,000 37,000 38,0o0 39,000 40,000 41,ooo 42,000 43,000 44,000 45,000 ES - Effective 6.00 7.20 8.40 9.0O 9.6o 10.20 10.80 11.40 12.00 12.60 13.20 13.8o 14.40 15.oo 15.6o 16.2o 16.80 17.40 18.00 18.60 19.2o 19.80 20.40 20.95 21.50 22.05 22.60 23.15 23.70 24.25 24.80 25.35 25.90 26.45 27.00 27.55 28.10 28.65 Ist, 46,~35 . 48,000. 50,0o0. 51,000 . 52,00~ · 53,000 · 54.000 · 55,000 . 56,000 . 57,000 . 58,000. 59,000. 60,000 61,000 62,000 63,000 64,000 65,000 66,000 67,000 68,000 69,000 70,000 71,ooo 72,000 73,oo0 74,000 75,000 76,000 77,000 78,000 79,000 80,000 81,000 82,000 83,000 84,0o0 85,000 1980 29.2o 30.30 ~0.~5 31.40 3~.85 32.3~ 32.75 33.20 33.65 34.10 34.55 35.0O 35.45 35.90 36.35 36.80 37.25 37.7O 38.15 38.60 39.05 39.50 39.95 40.40 40.85 41.30 41.75 42.20 42.65 43.10 43.55 44.OO 44.45 44.90 45.35 45.80 46.25 46.70 47.15 Sewea: Eztea']~ffectivm 1/1/74 10,000 ....... 10.00 LI, 000 ....... 10.70 12, o0o ....... 13. oo0 ....... 12.1o 14,000 ....... 12.80 15,000 ....... 13.50 16~000 ....... 14.2Q 17, ooo ....... 1~90 1P_,~ ooo ....... 15.6o 19, ooo ....... 16.3Q 20,000 ....... 17.00 zl, ooo ...... 22,000 ....... 18.40 23,000 ....... 19.10 2~.000 ....... 19.80 25~000 ....... 20.50 26,000 ...... 21.20 27.000 ...... zl.9o 28,000 ....... 22.60 2~.000 ....... 23.30 30.000 ....... 24. CK1 31,000 ....... 24,70 32..000 ....... 25.443 33.000 ....... 26.10 34.000 ....... 26.80 35,000 ....... 27.50 36,000 ....... 28.20 37,000 ...... 28.90 38,0oo ...... 2~.60 39,000 ....... 30.30 !~0,ooo ....... 31.00 41.0o0 ....... 3L70 :2.000 ....... 32.40 ~3,o00 ....... 33.10 :~.000 ....... 33.80 ~:5,000 ....... 3~.50 ~4,ooo ....... 35.20 ~7, ooo ....... 35.90 aS, ooo ....... 36.60 ~9, ooo ....... 37.30 50,000 ....... 39.00 51,000 ..... 38.70 52,000 ..... 39.4O 53,000 ..... 40.10 54,000 ..... 40.80 55,000 ..... ~1.50 56,00~ ..... 42.20 57~000 ..... 42.9{1 %8,000 ..... 43.60 59,000 ..... 44.30 60,000 ..... 45.00 61,000 ..... 45,70 62,000 ..... 46,40 63,000 ..... 47.10 64,000 ..... 47.80 65,000 ..... ~8.5Q ~6,oo0 ..... 49.20 67,000 .... 49.90 68,o00 ..... 50.60 69,000 ..... 51.3o 70,000 ..... 52.00 71,000 ..... 52.70 72,000 ..... 53.4o 73,000 ..... 54.1o 74,ooo. .... 54.80 75,000 ..... 55.50 76,000 ..... 56.20 77,000 ..... 56.90 78, ooo ..... 57.60 7%000 ..... 58.30 80~00o ..... 59.o0 81,000 ..... 59.70 82,000 ..... 60.~0 53,000 ..... 61.1o 84,000 ..... 61.80 85,000 ..... 62.50 86,000 ..... 63.20 87,000 ..... 63.90 88,000 ..... 6~.60 dg,ooo .... -65.3o ~o, ooo ..... 91,000 ..... 66.70' 92.000 ..... 67.40 93,000 ..... 68.10 94,000 ..... 68.80 95,ooo ..... 69.50 96,000 ..... 70.20 97, o00 ..... 70.90 98, ooo ..... 71.6o 99,ooo. .... 72.30 lOO. ooe ..... 73.00 RATE effective 1/1/80 IO,OOC ...... 15.00 ll,OOS ...... 15.90 12,000 ...... 1~.80 ~3,ooo ...... 15.7o 14,0o0 ...... 16.60 15,ooo ...... 17.50 16,000 ...... 18.40 17,000 ...... 19.30 18,000 ...... 20.20 19,000 ...... 21.10 20,000 ...... 22.00 21,000 ...... 22.90 22,0(~D ...... 25.80 23,oo0 ...... 24.70 24,o00 ...... 25.60 25,000 ...... 26.50 26,000 ...... 27.40 27,000 ...... 28.~0 28,000 ...... 29.20 29,000 ...... 30.10 30,000 ...... 31%00 31,000 ...... 51.90 - 52,000 ...... 32.80 53,0o0 ...... 33.70 34,oo0 ...... 34.6o 35,ooo ...... 35.5o 36,oo0 ...... 36.40 37,ooo ...... 37.~O 38,000 ...... 38.20 3%ooo ...... 39.1o ....40,000 ...... 40.00 41,000 ...... 40.90 42,000 ...... 41.80 4~, 000 ...... 42.70 44,OO0 ...... 43.60 45,000 ...... 44.50 ~6,000 ...... 45.40 47,000 ...... 46.30 48,000 ...... 47.20 49,0oo ...... 48.10 5o,oo0 ...... 49.00 71,000 ...... 67.90 72,000 ...... 68.80 73,oo0 ...... 69.70 74,0o0 ...... 70.60 75,ooo ...... 72.50 76,OOO ...... 72.40 77,0oo ...... 73.30 78,000 ...... 74.20 79,ooo ...... 75.~0 80,000 ...... 76.00 51,ooo ...... 49.90 52,000 ...... 50.80 53,000 ...... 51.70 54,000 ...... 52.60 55,ooo ...... 53.50 56,o00 ...... 54.40 57,ooo ...... 55.30 58,OOO ...... 56.20 59,ooo ...... 57.1o 61,000 ...... 58.90 62,000 ...... 59.80 63,000 ...... 60.70 64,000 ...... 61.60 65,000 ...... 62.50 66,000 ...... 63.40 67,oo0 ...... 64.30 68,000 ...... 65.20 69,000 ...... 66.10 70,000 ...... 67.00 81,000 ...... 76.90 82,000 ...... 77.80 83,000 ...... 78.70 84,o00 ...... 79.60 85,000 ...... 80.50 86,000 ...... 81.40 87,000 ...... 82.30 88,000 ...... 85.20 89,000 ...... 84.10 90,000 ...... 85.00 91 ooo ...... 85.90 92 000 ...... 86.80 93 o00 ...... 87.70 94 000 ...... 88.60 95 ooo ...... 89.50 96. ooo ...... 90.40 97 ooo ...... 91.30 98 000 ...... 92.20 99 0o0 ...... 93.10 100 ooo ...... 94.00 10-1~-$0 CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnesota October 9, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-346 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Minutes Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission minutes of the Septem- ber 29th meeting. I am not familiar enough with the zoning ordinances to make a recom- mendation on the various items. Item 1 has been withdrawn. No action is required on Items 3, 6, 7 or 14 at this time. These items will all be acted on again by the Planning Commission before coming to the Council. The applicant on Item 7 wishes to make a rezoning application rather than applying for the special use permit. If the Council wishes to set a date to hear the street vacation request (Item I0), a date of November~is suggested. Mary Marske Acting City Hanager HOUN MINUTES OF THE ISOEY PLANNING EOHHISSION September 29, 15~0 Present were: Chairr-~an Russell Peterson; Commissioners Margaret Hanson, George Stannard, Steve Dornsbach and Gary Paulsen: City Inspector Henry Truelsen and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. MINUTES The minutes of the September 8, 1980 Planning Commission meeting were presented for consideration. Hanson moved and Dornsbach seconded a motion to accept the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Variances to construct accessory building/Non-conforming Use North 75 feet of Lot ll, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit D Carl Engelke and Herb Arndt were present. Stannard moved and Hanson seconded a motion to deny garage extension as the permit is proposed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Stannard moved and Hanson seconded a motion to allow one of the following: A. Move garage to 6 feet parallel to south property line and then be allowed to extend addition 22 feet to west, or B. Leave garage as is and allow a 14 foot by 22 foot addition to north of present garage. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Side Yard Variance/Non-conforming Use Lot 7, Block 2, Mound Terrace Ron Eikanas was present. Stannard moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to deny the variance required for the proposed addition. The vote was unanimously in favor. Stannard moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recommend approving an addition that would not exceed the diagonal setback line of the two adja- cent structures which would allow approximately a 22 foot addition toward lakeside, but the addition not to encroach on the 6 foot setback on either side. The vote was unanimously in favor. 3. Possible Rezoning of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision 168 Bill Barber was present. Discussed. Planning Commission not in favor of spot zoning; only option might be to make application for the rezoning if all property owners to north were agreeable to having their properties rezoned also. 4. Subdivision of Land Lots 14, 15 and 16, Auditor's Subdivision 168 Hanson moved and Dornsbach seconded a motion to approve the subdivision as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. PLANNING COMMISSION MIN S MEETING-OF September 2 t80 - Page 2 BOARD OF APPEALS (Continued} 5. Subdivision of Land Lots 31,32,53 and 54, Subd. of Lots ] & 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood Richard Maloney was Present. Discussed. Owner would like to possibly make 4 parcels out of this one. Stannard moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend approval of subdivision so that Lots 53 and 32 are together providing porch is re- moved from existing house to a point where it meets setbacks and then Lot 31 and 54 would each be separate parcels providing existing garage is removed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Stannard moved and Hanson seconded another motion to recommend approval of dividing Lot 53 from Lot 32 providing house is moved within the set- backs of either of the lots. The vote was unanimously in favor. Subdivision of Land M & B Description - Section 19-117-23 (PID 19-117-23 34 OOO1) James Brown and John Arnott were present. Discussed. City Inspector advised that parcels A & B as proposed alright; however, Parcel C buildable area is minimal and Parcel D has no water, sewer or street accessibility. Parcel C would have to front on Ayr. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recommend giving preliminary approval to the plan subject to the Engineer's recommendation and deter- mination of availability of services, etc. The vote was unanimously in favor. o Special Use Permit for Parking Lots 14 & 15, Block 2, Dreamwood Roger Rager was present. Discussed. City Inspector suggested that since this is abutting a residen- tial use district, the following stipulations should be included if the Planning Commission recommends approval: I. Shielded light so as to not be injurious to abutting property owners 2. Privacy fence - 42 inches high from the NW property line for 20 feet and from there 6 feet high around parking lot. 3. Lot to be graded under superviis'ionof City Engineer so drainage is not detrimental to abutting properties, blacktopped and striped. 4. Have a 24 foot cut approach (driveway) 5. Provide handicap parking 6. No R.V. or trailer parking or overnight parking Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit for parking based on the City Inspector's stipulations and also recommends allowing swimming pool as shown on the plat plan pro- viding it complies with the swimming pool ordinance. Discussed. Special use permit does not intend to facilitate any expansion; if restaurant expanded to grocery area, applicant to come back and make pro- vision for additional parking. Also discussed that upstairs not be rented as apartment(s).- The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. PLANNING COMMISSION I~IJTES September 29, 19BO -' Page B BOARD OF APPEALS (£ontinued} 8. ~Ionconforming Use - Variance to add 2nd star Stuart and Judy Vandenberg were present. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recommend approval of the expansion of second story as proposed recognizing the existin9 non- conformancy,. The vote was unanimously in favor. Rear Yard Variance Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 27, Wychwood Dwight Cravens was present. Discussed - platting off of Plymouth. Stannard moved and Dornsbach seconded a motion to recommend approval of the application for a 5.3' rear yard variance as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. 10. Street Vacation of Cavan Road between Clare Lane and Tyrone Lane Larry Heitz of 2739 Clare Lane was present. Dornsbach moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend approval of street vacation as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Nonconforming Use - Variance for new garage Lots 5 & 6, Block 14, Devon Vince Forsman was present. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recognize the existing nonconformancy of the house, but deny the 2 foot side yard variance if there is sufficient distance between the house and garage (This is assuming there will be 10½ feet between house and garage). The vote was unanimously in favor. Note: Applicant furnished revised survey. House was misplaced on first survey submitted with application. 12. Street Front Variance Lots 10, E. ½ of 11 & N. 43 Ft. of 24, Block 26, Wychwood C. J. Endresen and Arnold Endresen were present. Dornsbach moved and Stannard seconded a motion to recommend granting variance as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. 13. Nonconforming Use - Variances to expand dwelling Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 4, Shadywood Point Jacques Gibbs and Paul Christensen were present. Note: Property address should be 4901 Three Points Boulevard. Also a permit should be gotten from the Watershed District, Peterson moved and Stannard seconded a motion to recommend allowing expansion of house north 10 feet in line with existing wall--making an 11 foot street front variance and 29 foot lake front variance and also recognizing nonconformancy of garage. The vote was unanimously in favor, g~7~ PLANNING COMMISSION September 25, I~P~0 - Paqe 4 BOARD OF APPEALS (Continued) 14. Variance of 25 feet for smoke stacks. Lots 5 & 6, Sylvan Heights Addition to Mound John PFofaizer of Tonka Toys was present. PID 13-117-24 34 0066 Discussed. Minnesota Pollution Control has received complaints of heat fumes. Tonka Toys has until February 1, 1981 to find a solution. Stannard moved and Paulsen seconded a motion t'o table this item. The reason: In order to look into some alternates to extending the smoke stacks; see what options are and their costs be studied prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Other Items Discussed P~anning Commission requested Staff try to get agenda for Board of Appeals to them sooner. Planning Commission suggested that they would like to have a Council Representa- tive present at the meetings as they feel a need for feed back to and from the Council. Peterson moved and Stannard seconded a motion to request City Council to appoint another member to Planning Commission to fill out the roster. The vote was unanimously in favor. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set Thursday, October 16 as the date for the next Planning Commission discussion meeting inasmuch as October 13th is a holiday. The vote was unanimously in favor. Discussed request of citizens for more than 1 Board of Appeals meeting per month; Planning Commission decided to stay with one Board of Appeals meeting rather than change to twice a month. Stannard moved and Dornsbach seconded a motion to adjourn. All in favor, so adjourned. Attest: AGENDA OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~eptember 29, 1980 7:30 P.M. City Hall Minutes of the September 8, 1980 meeting. BOARD OF APPEALS * 1. Carl Engelke, 2441 Chateau Lane (Application withdrawn 10-9-80) North 75 feet of Lot 11, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit D - Map 8 Variances to construct accessory building - Nonconforming Use Ron J. Eikanas, 6338 Rambler Lane Lot 7, Block 2, Mound Terrace - Map 4 Side Yard Variance/Non-conforming Use Bill Barber, 5776 Bartlett Boulevard Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision 168 - Possible rezoning Map 9 Phoebe Peterson Lots 14, 15 & 16 Auditor's Subdivision 168 Subdivision of Land - Map 9 Richard & Diane Maloney Lots 31, 32, 53 & 54, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquists Ravenswood - Map 5 Subdivision of Land James Brown/John K. Arnott M & B Description, Section 19-117-23 (PID # 19-117-23 34 O001) Subdivision of Land - Map 13 Dolores Ponder/Roger Rager, 5098 Three Points Boulevard Lots 14 & 15, Block 2, Dreamwood - Map 2 Special Use Permit for Parking Stuart & Judy VAndenberg, 5041 Avon Drive Lot ll, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit B - Map 8 Nonconforming Use - Variance to add 2nd story (Applicant changing request to rezoning of land) Dwight Cravens of Lake West Construction, Inc. Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 27, Wychwood - Map 12 Rear Yard Variance IO Lawrence & Tjody Heitz, 2739 Clare Lane Street Vacation of Cavan Road from Clare Lane to Tyrone Lane - Map 7 11. Western Construction Co. - Property at 4857 Island View Drive Lots 5 & 6, Block 14, Devon - Map 15 Nonconforming Use - Variance for new garage 12. C. J. Endresen, 4957 Wilshire Boulevard Lots 10, E ½ of 11 & N 43' of 24, Block 26, Wychwood - Map 12 Street Front Variance 13. Jacques W. Gibbs/Christensen Const. - Property _~0_~ Three Points Boulevard Lots I, 2 & 3, Block 4, Shadywood Point - Map 2 Nonconforming Use - Variance to expand dwelling * & ** Will not need to be considered at Council Meeting. ~ PLAN~ING CO~MISSION September 29, 1950 lNG AGENBA Page 2 BOARD OF APPEALS (Continued) 14. Tonka Toys, 5300 Shoreline Blvd. Plat 62170, Parcel 9070, Sylvan Heights Addn to Mound Pig #13-117-24 34 0066 Variance of 25 feet for smoke stacks CITY OF MOUND Date: From: To: September 25, 1980 Bldg. Inspector Planning Commission Subject: Board of Appeals - g-29-80 Carl Engelke Variance to construct accessory building - Nonconforming Use Undersized Lot - zoned A-1. Proposed addition to accessory structure is within the general building line and by ordinance requires the same setback as accessory structure of which is 10 ft. The end of the proposed addition will be in the proximity of 6 inches from property line. These nonconforming uses should not be allowed to expand without a compliance to the City's zoning. If the addi- tion is to be allowed, the structure in its entirety should be required to be in compliance to the side yard setback. Ron J. Eikanas Nonconforming Use - Side Yard Variance Side yard of principle structure would not allow this to continue to ex- pand without the requirement of a 6 ft. side yard. Proposed addition, if allowed as proposed, will only be 2 ft. from side yard. The expansion of nonconforming uses should not be allowed to continue as nonconforming use; additions, alterations, and modifications, regardless of the cost factor involved, of which is an aesthetic to municipal zoning, should not be taken into consideration when approving or deny- ing request for variance to existing nonconforming uses. Proposed additions to nonconforming uses should be required to be within all setbacks to municipal zoning. 3. Bill Barber Possible Rezoning No, no, a thousand times no! Spot zoning. Phoebe Peterson Subdivision of Land In exchange for easements granted to the City, in the improvement of Beach- wood Road, I agreed to bring forth this subdivision.~ The proposal is'to split three platted lots of record into two building sites. I respectfully wish to include re- quest to waive variance fee for subdivision for accommodation of previous easements. The proposed sites are in excess of 13,OOOand 14,000 sq. ft. which is in excess of A-1 zoning for the area. Richard & Diane Maloney Subdivision of Land I do not believe that the proposed subdivision as proposed is in the best interest of municipal zoning and should be denied. The house should be required to be moved either to site of combining Lots 53 & 54 or moved to compliance on Lots 31 & 32. Therefore, the following sites of Lots 31 & 32 would have approximately 12,700 sq. ft. and Lots 53 & 54 respectfully would have approximately 13,800 sq. ft. There would be adequate yards, green area, street front setbacks and adequate area to add or build an adequate size garage for single family home. I definitely would not allow this subdivision to take place as proposed, We are developing two noncon- Board of Appeals - -~0 page 2 forming properties, if this is to be allowed. I would definitely not allow the subdivision to take place or be granted unless the principle structure is moved to a more desirable site as aforestated and that existing nonconforming garage either be moved to comply with zoning setbacks or be removed from the premises. James Brown Subdivision of Land Would approve this subdivision in concept only. This should be run through as either a Registered Land Survey or a new plat. I would only give applicant an inclination approval of concept but not to act on this untilwhi,dh time the City en- gineer has had the opportunity to review this proposed subdivision and make a report in detail. We have frontage on one particular building site on an unopened street, Ayr Lane. We do not have an existing sewer main in the unopened right-of-way. We also have water part way in the unopened right-of-way, neither of which, at this time, properly serve the proposed site in the Northwest corner of the plat. I would like to request that the applicant be given thoughts of either approval or denial and that he be required to meet with the City engineer regarding the right-of-way exten- sion and service availability extensions and be required to come back to the Plan- ning Commission with a preliminary plat in order, as required by Ordinance, Chapter 22.00. Dolores Ponder/Roger Rager Special Use Permit for Parking I would stipulate restrictions for the use of this property as proposed and intended. The applicant should be required to erect privacy fencing, shielded light- ing, bl~acktopped surface with french drains and a drainage plan of the parking lot to be approved by the City engineer, so as not to endanger abutting residential use property. Request that a survey of the property be supplied the City engineer show- ing location of all structures on the property and/or premises and take into consider- ation that no overnight parking of recreational vehicles be allowed and/or trailer parking of any sort. o Stuart & Judy Vandenberg Nonconforming Use - Variance to add 2nd story At this time we do not have sufficient documentation,or survey to afford you information as to the nonconformancy of the premises. Dwight Cravens-Lake West Construction, Inc. Rear Yard Variance I really feel that it is impossible to get the minimal size house on this property without a variance. In the past three years I have worked with three dif- ferent contractors and found it next to impossible to do. The existing proposed plan appears adequate for the size and shape of the existing property. I would consider this proposal a good proposal and due to the platting a definite hardship for struc- tural location. 10. Lawrence & Tjody Heitz Street Vacation of Cavan Road from Clare Lane to l[yrone Lane There is a good probability now that the improved right-of-way are in for this to be possibly vacated. It is apparent we will not have any land locked pro- perties involved depending upon the response from the City engineer and Public Works Board of Appeals - 9-29-80 page 3 Director. I feel we could vacate this portion of the right-of-way and not jeopard- ize the wants and needs of the City for either drainage or service availability. 11. Western Construction Co. for 4857 Island View Drive Nonconforming Use - Variance for new garage Existing nonconformance single family home. The intent is to remove the existing nonconforming garage and erect a double garage in its place (detached). We are requesting a 2 foot side yard variance on the new proposed garage and I can see no problem in allowing this. 12. C.J. Endresen Street Front Variance Nonconforming use, undersized lot, a nonconforming utility shed and an existing garage. Proposal to remove existing garage from property and erect a double attached garage to existing single family home, of which is in compliance with City zoning. I believe this to be a good proposal as it will be less of an incumber- ance and probable injurious hazard than existing garage as shown on survey. 13. Jarques W. Gibbs Nonconforming Use - Variance to expand dwelling Would not really like to allow these additions as proposed, in particular the addition on the northerly end of the building. Once again, we have nonconform- ing permises of which I feel we should restrict the expansion thereof. The City also retains an unopened right-of-way, of which I feel we should not in any case vacate any of this unopened right-of-way, all or any part of it. I could readily approve of an addition to the southerly end of the structure and possibly hope for some compliance on an existing nonconforming garage, of which is practically on the City right-of-way. 14. Tonka Toys - 5300 Shoreline Blvd. Variance of 1':5 feet for smoke stacks I feel that this is not an adequate step to control dissipation of proposed fumes that the P.C.A. is concerned with. Also, I do not feet although industry should be allowed to expand the existing ordinance, I feel that this type of industry should find other ways to control their problems other that defacing the esthetic value of the City. HT/dd Henry Truelsen Ling: 7:30 City Hall _ FO ~VARIANC~. APPLICATION ~N CITY OF M D FEE $ ZONING A-2 NAME OF APPLICANT Ron Eikanas Address Mound, MN Rambler Lane PROPERTY g33~ R~rnbler lane ADDRESS PLAT 61890 PARCEL 1900 14-]17-24 32 0017 LOT 7 BLOCK 2 Te le phone Number__ -k~ ADDITION Mound Terrace 5q364 INTEREST IN PROPERTY ~ -~-~ ~z FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Te le pho ne Numb e r VARIANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: FRONT I ACCESSORY ] YARD FT. BUILDING FT. SIDE YARD ~ FT'I LOT SIZE I FT.'I YARD~] N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application LOT SQ./0, .7, .t ,,.-'25~,~.~, _--.,~by extending survey or drawing. FOOTAGE -- - ~ t~3. Attach letters from adjoining affec~d property owners showing attitude toward request. / REASON FOR REQUEST: council r,~solution or variance granted ~ecomes null and void. ........... ~ppLICANT /~.~--Y~ //' {/"; Z'~./,4.L-~.~_ DATE Signature buildini:permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO DATE *non- conforming use CITY OF MOUND Hound, Minnesota September 10, 1980 TO: F ROM: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission The City Manager Possible Rezoning Bill Barber of 5776 Bartlett Boulevard (Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168 - PID 23-117-24 14 001~ will be at the September 29th meeting to discuss the possibility of rezoning his land from Residential A-1 to Commercial. Mr. Barber has been trying to sell his house and has been unable to do so. Realtors have suggested land might be more saleable if rezoned. No formal application has been made; Mr. Barber wishes to get imput from the Planning Commission on whether or not such a rezoning would be possible. ~)~ ~-~ APPL ATION FOR SUBDIVISION Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND OF LAND FEE $ fee waived FEE OWNER PLAT Phoebe Peterson 61270 PARCEL 1560 23-117-24 13 0002 Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: Lots 14-15--16 Auditor's Subdivision No. 168 ZONING ~--/'-- /~)! g20~, To be divided as follows: see attached (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. From Reason: /7~__ Square feet "~ ~/~ Square feet Applicant's interest in the property: TEL. NO. ~77-~.-.~'3° / ~ DATE 9-9-80 This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE To 14horn I t Hay Concern: I, Phoebe Peterson, owner of property described as: Lots 14-15-16, Auditor's Subd. #168, PID 23-117-24 13 0002 Plat 61270, Parcel 1560 do hereby request that on the requested subdivision of property that any and all assessments now on the property be evenly divided between the two parcels, if they are granted,subdivision. PPL'f~ATION FOR SUBDIVISION Oi Sec. 22.03-a ¥1UL--AGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER ,:,i,~':- J ' ,' i:~" · o.- ' "; Lh ' -:- ('~ ,:-; AND FEE $ ,-,-~./ Location and complete legal de.scription of property to be divided: ~L~.~T ~SEP CITY O · ,- - /~ ) ZONING /4~~ Tr /,~j,:4:,.~ ~.~' ~ I ¢¢~Lx ~Y x~ ~ .~~. /~ ~a[~acn .... survey or sca~e orawing snowing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sales, square foot area of each new parc, I designated by nu er) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. From Square feet TO Square feet Reason: , ~ ~ ::.. P~ CANT ,F'dZ4~'>k'/11//. i/'//I::Z'd*~--C"TEL ~.~Z~ ~ (s,gnat~re) , /, ~ Applicant% interest in the pr~rlT: /-~ ~- C)~o ~ ~ Y . This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION Resolution No. DATE DATE APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NtJ. L ~D VOID. A list of residents and owners of property within feet must be attached. 5.4 3/ ;-7 /fOO ~00 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND / O, 0 C, PARCEL Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: Ib~ ooo To be divided as follows: (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. From Reason: Square feet TO {signature) ADDRESS Applicant's interest in the prop. erty: This application must be sig~ed by all [he OWNERS of the proper[y, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. DATE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE · 4> / / / / ; ¸of APPLICATION FO] 'AllIANCE CITY OF MOUND NAME OF APPLICANT ZONING PROPERTY ADDRESS PLAT PARCEL Address BLOCK LOT Telephone Number ", :' "ADDITION INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Numb e r VARIANCE REQUESTED: NO TE: FRONT [ [ ACCESSORY[ YARD FT. BUILDING FT. YARD [. ~ FT LOT SIZE FT REAR I [ LOTSQ. YARD FT' FOOTAGE 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request. N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) t._' C REASON FOR REQUEST: [( ~ ~ ~-~o-mlding permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the _: :., - o ~.~cil resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. ,~,..[-'~ , u Vi~iances are not transferable. - 77 A/ZrPLICANT :" ,-t (: ,-,~-k :.,,t., ,:-~. Signature DATE PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION COUNCIL AC TION: DATE RESOLUTION NO DATE *non-conforming use AVO .. % ~£ oo ~ SET-OPI L o Denotes Iron ~onumen~ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of o survey of the boundaries of: Lot 11, Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, Hennepin County, Minn. And of the location of oil buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on sold lond. As surveyed by me this 24th day of' September, 1980.- k~oOn~a~uSr ;e~;; ~gq~ No 7725 ·. S A T H Iq E - B E R G O U I S T. I rq, i C. Prepared for: STUART VANDENBERG _ J NAME OF APPLICANT INTEREST IN PROPERTY ZONING ADDRESS PLAT% ?0/0 PARCEL LOT 4 -- ~; B LOCK Telephone ~'-~"~ rj\ Number ~/7g-2~2~[' ADDITION ,~.~ OO FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Numb e r VARL~NCE REQUESTED: FRONTI j ACCESSORY YARD FT BUILDING NOTE: FT.] SIDE FT.I YARD I FTJ LOT SIZE REAR YARD F FOOTAGE~__--~~ N. C. U.* or 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show apDroximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3--. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request. OTHER (describe) : ~ [~ ~ [ REASON FOR REQUEST' AC..'~qJ¥~.. ~D~rot~4~-~-~ ~_~'~ .LOw council resolution or/v~arian~e gr~n~ becomes null and voi~[ ~d ~ Variances are not tla:¢sfer~le/~.//. I~l~r~,,~r~,,'. ,,. ., , ~, .~,: /~ Sign~=~ ' / / ~nANmNO CO~SS~ON ~mco~z~xr~O~ DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. DATE *non-conforming use .r~ uo~tI : o O~-Z-6 : ~ ~Og = ,~I :oI~.oC ~ . ~ -~ . / - _ ~es~en~s an~ ownezs oS p~o~,e~y ~ut~ng Lhe s~eek ~o be vaca~e~: ~c~h~ UtilYties: NSP ; Minnegasco ~; Continental Tel. Reco~mnended by City: Public Works ......... ~; Fire Chief__~ ; Engineer ~_ Po~c~ Ch~ 2739 Ciar Lane Dear I am in f~!t af_reement v,ith you and the othe~r propert ovmers that ~van Road bez:,~een Clare Lane and Tyrone be vacated. Please proceed ~th stems necessary zo accomplish vl~is. Sincerely yours, ~Lu ge,.~e L~_ns e ~-, En¢l: Check ROAD · APPLICATION FO[ rARIANCE FEE $ 2~'O (-~ CITY OF MC ND ZONING /~ - 2 - PROPERTY q ~.~ ? t ~ ADDRESS -- NAME OF , .. ' , - ;- //- C ~ APPLICANT ', .... :,' -,! ,',".~- ' - PLAT' 7' "','-'" PARCEL Address '! (' ~ / U" LOT b L ..... . BLOCK Tele phonq , -~ ~-~ b~ADDITION [-~ ~ ~' o, ,~ Numbe r, ~ '//-' ' - ~ INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address J'/'~"" "" Te le phone Numb e r ~~p E/~, y S T E D' YARD ~ B~LDING SI ~ ~~ LOT SIZE REAR [ YARD FT'[I LOT SQ. ,~p,_~,, FOO TAGEt~r-~-/~ N. C. U. * or OTHER (describe) tX REASON FOR REQUEST: T(1 ~ C) td 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent-to_fl~_ap~tion by extending surve~[~_~ ra~..~. 3. Attach letters 5roperty owners sh~' ~g request : · A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. Variances are not~t~:)ansferableJ./f..~ /f{~ ..f /~' - ~ ~ - Signature fl' PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.. DATE *non-conforming use FOR' 'x o ID x ooo.o ( ooo.o ) Denotes iron monument Denotes offset stake Denotes existing elev. Denotes Proposed elev. Denotes surface drainage Proposed garage floor elev.= ' DEMARS GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC~ 3030 Harbor Lane No. Plymouth MN 55441 Phone: .(612) 559-0908 Proposed lowest floor elev. = Proposed top of foundation elev. = BENCH MARK: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of File No. the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any. from or on said land. 2~/.._j~ r~ ~ Book - Pa~ As -- - Scale APPLICATION FO] ARIANCE CITY OF MOUND NAME OF APPLICANT ,- · _ · " PROPERTTf ADDRESS 4957 Wllshlre Blvd. 38O1O PLAT PARCEL 5195 26 f,~l.'bd LOT. 10 ~ E½ of 11_.OCK N.mber_flY~ /-~'7, ADDITION- Wychwoo~ INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Addre s s Te le phone Numb e r [E P~EQUESTED: ~j~_/ti4 ,/ i ACCESS~)RY YARD ! {'~ F.T.[ BUILDING 13? NOTE: F T.] YARD FT: LOT SIZE FT,. REAR ] YARD F T. 1, Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. 2. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application LOT SQ. by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward .,. request. N. C. U.-,-or .v ' ' OTHER ( de s c r ibe )/X, ~5-¢ ~-~:'~ REASON FOR REQUEST: ~_~a~-~ i '~'"guilding permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. Variances are not transferable. ,c -- ,. · :, //. PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO DATE *non-conforming use true and correct i~c lO, tz:e ~:st h~zf of Lot 2~., all ~.n :.i~o~ 2o, buiidin~'~' %kcroo:. I% ace5 purport Lo snow other im~ove- ments or encrcack:enls. :or ~- [~ses cf this s~,rvey the exist!ns line of iron rnr~:ers has been -" assumed to mnrk the ~or%herly line of saic ~ot 2~; furtne~ dc not certify. Also the South- erly ri:ht-of-~'ay lihe of Co,my Fmad ~o. 125 as staked by ~ is preli=~nary, amd subjpet to furiker res~:~rch on the Hermep~n Sur~'eycr's ~lat cf sa~5 ~rdon R. Coffin Land SurveTor and Planner .... _ :<i nne s,~, ta Scale: kate : o : iron marker APPLICATION FOIARIANCE FEE CITY OF MOUND ZONING PROPERTY ~ , INTEREST IN PROPERTY ~z~X4 ~'/ FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Te le phone Addre s s Numbe VARIANCE ~EOUESTED-_ / / FRONT I ] AdCESSORY ~~/~ /f FT.I BUILDING YARD NO TE: LOT SQ. 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution ?r~riance granted becomes null and void, Variances are no~tr-m~s~e~e.// -~----- , APPLICANT ~//~/ ~ ~/_~.~~ DATE ,. ~--~ ~ ~0 PLANING COM~SSION RECOMMENDATION DATE ,"] COUNCIL AC TION: RESOLUTION NO DATE ;::non- conforming us e Certificate of Survey for George Er~ekson, ~.. of Lots 1, 2, and 3, ~lock 4, ShadFn~ood Point Hennepin County, Fiinnesota ..J: / . ,,, '? I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of -n s'mrvey of the boundaries of Lots [, fi, ':~r.d ~ Elock &, Shady'~ood Point, and the locati~.n of all e/.istin6 bui'~.:inKs thereon. It does not pt:mort to ~ho~; other improve~:ents o~encroachments. APPLICATION FO] rARIANCE CITY OF MO NAME OF APPLICANT Tonka Toys same Address Te le phone Number472-8364 25.00 FEE $ ZONING Industrial PROPERTY ADDRESS 5300 Shoreline Blvd. PiLDA~ 62170 _0P06A6RCEL 9070 P 3-117-24 3q .LOT BLOCKs % 5 6 ADDITION Sylvan Heights Addn to Mound INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Te le phone Numb e r VA PJ_ANCE REQUESTED: YARD FT. ACCESSORY B UI LDING SIDE YARD FTJ LOT SIZE YARD LOT SQ. FOOTAGE NOTE: FT.i N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: 1, Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z, Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings; driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request. 50 foot stacks. Extend 24 sta£kq frnm present 2~ fnnt elevation to 50 foot elevation as follows: 7 - 24 inch diameter 8 - 34 inch diameter 9 - 10 x 8 inch square. This is necessary to comply with Minnesota Pollution Control requlation APC-9. _ A building permit must be~d for within one year from the date of the council resolutiom or variance gr&ntfid becomes null and void. Variances are n~t/~,ra/nsf~/rabl~.~ //1 PLANING COM~SSIO~ COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL AC TION: RESOLUTION NO._ DATE *non- conforming use I0-14-80 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota October 9, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-347 SUBJECT: Citizen's Request Relative to Fire Station Expansion Attached is a copy of a letter from James and Sally Lassek. Mr. Lassek has made a request to address the Council relative to this letter which is dated July 24th. Also attached is a copy of a letter from the Engineer relative to this property. Mary . Marske Actin~g City Manager July 24, 1980 Mound City Council c/o Mound City Offices 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Council Members: This letter is to inform you, the present governing body of the City of Mound, that James F. and Sally M. Lassek, as joint owners of the property listed as 2431 Wilshire Blvd., go on record as objecting to the expansion of the Fire Station located at 2415 Wilshire Blvd., as presently planned. Our concerns are numerous! Since we purchased our home in 1974, our privacy has slowly but surely deteriorated. First came the new well, not only are there numerous trucks and workers mulling around in back, but the constant high p~ched whine from the pumps is something we hear 24 hours a day. Since the community needed the well, we are willing to accept that. Now comes the addition planned for the new hook and ladder truck. The new addition as planned is exactly 10 ft. from the lot line, with asphalt driveway comming to the lot line itself. Is this necessary for the new truck, or is it necessary so numbers of the fire department can gain access to the back of the fire station to wash their cars, trucks, 4x4's and also use the back hill as a dumping station for their campers. Presently the side of the fire station is used by many to practice their tennis strokes, with the addition of the new bay and additional asphalt running right to the lot line, I can not see how our privacy will not further be encroached upon. In the past, the area between the lot line and present asphalt has been used for snow removal. Does this mean that our yard will now be used to pile snow on in the winter? Since our lot is lower than the fire station we are concerned about the runoff from the additional building and parking area affecting our property. The lay of the property is such that at the rear our property is higher, and at the front and side, lower than the fire station. Since the parking lot or asphal~ will not follow th~ £0~t0~, ut ~rc c0~c~rned as to how this will be landscaped. It is our understanding that the hill in the back will have to be cut into to allow for the new access to the back of the station. It is also our understanding that the hill will be regraded. We firmly object to any change in our property. After looking around the city, I cannot find any other home that is ten foot from a two story cement block building, with a driveway right to the property line. When we purchased the property, we were willing to accept the activity around the fire station. Since moving in, we have learned to accept the whine of the well pumps and the activity necessary to maintain the new well, however, we are not willing to accept what we feel is de- valuation of our property and home because of a glaring white two story cement block building! If the plans are firm and there is no possibility of the bay being built on the other side of the fire station, we request assurance that we will not be affected by any runoff. That the building be architectually attractive, and that the lot line be professionally landscaped, using ties for the wall and some type of visual break. As taxpayers and citizens of Mound, we object to the present plans. James and Sally Lassek 2431 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. October 9, 1980 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Ms. Mary Marske Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound Fire Station Construction Jim Lassek Property Job 95624 Dear Ms. Marske: I have looked at the drainage pattern on the south side of the new fire station addition with Hank Truelson. We recommend construction of a bituminous curb on the south edge of the drive. This will keep the drainage from the fire station off Mr. Lassek's property. This can be constructed at a cost of approximately $150. Mr. Lassek has again requested that the City con- struct a screening fence on the south property line adjacent to his property. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Lyle Swanson, P.E. LS :sj Minneapolis - Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls 10-14-80 CITY OF ~OUND Mound, Minnesota October 9, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-351 SUBJECT: Parking Lease The residents at 5027 Edgewater are requesting the Council consider a lease agreement for parking on a dead end street. A copy of the letter has been sent to the Chief of Police and Public Works Director with a request for recommendation or denial. Their responses will be at the Council meeting on Tuesday, October 14th. Acting City Manager MHM/ms October 10, 1980 City Council Mound, Minn. Dear Sirs: After a discussion with Mayor Tim Lovaasen on the problems of parking at my residence in Mound; I would like to propose to the Mound City Council that they grant me a 99 year or long term lease for the section of Pecan Street which is south of the intersection of Pecan and Hickory. This section of road is a dead end street and is adjacent to my residence at 5027 Edgewater drive. I am available to discuss this situation with you at your earliest convenience so please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Fred Waldoch 472-3047 October 14, 1980 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mary Marske - Acting City Manager Charles Johnson - Chief of Police Parking Lease Mr. Fred Waldock's request poses no safety problems in the opinion of the police department. The department has no recommendation pro or con on the lease agreement. Respectfully, Mound Police Department CJ/sh I ,TEROFFICE ME O TO: Actim_~ City iiana',%er DATE October 14 FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: Parkin~ Lease The Public Works Department has no objection to a lease such as this. The only question I have is can we lease a piece of public roadway? Also how many more of these will be asked for in the future? We may be starting something that could get out of hand in the future. Respectfully, Robert Shanley Public ;-forks Director RS/j cn 10-14-80 CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnesota October 10, 1980 COUNC!.L MEMORANDUM NO. 80-355 SUBJECT: Street Construction Attached is a letter from the Engineer regarding a request from a property owner on Avocet Lane. The Engineer w, lll also have several other items at Tuesday's meeting. Two of them are: Highland Boulevard and Waterbury Road. Mary H, Marske Acting City Manager ms $31 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 October 9, 1980 Ms. Mary Marske Acting City Clerk City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota Subject: City of Mound 1980 Street Improvements - Section 1 3ob #5248 Dear Ms. Marske: During construction on Highland Boulevard the Contractor encountered a room under the street. The enclosed sketch shows the location of this underground room which is an extension of a garage basement on the property at 3026 Highland Boulevard. The room extends approximately 12 feet into City right-of-way and the outside wall falls in the curb line of the street. I've talked with the Owner of the property and he is aware that this structure is on City right-of-way. He says that as far as he's concerned the City has his permission to do anything they want to correct this situation but he would rather not participate in this work. There are two alternatives which would allow construction of the street. The first is to build a concrete block wall bulkhead in the basement at the right-of-way line and remove and fill the structure with compacted sand. The second alternative is to shift the street in the right-of-way. This is difficult at this point because the construction is too far along. A hydrant which has been moved would have to be moved again. The property across the street is high and the proposed retaining walls there would have to be higher and some additional trees and shrubs would have to be removed. We estimate the cost of the first alternative (remove structure) at $2500 to $3000. The second alternative (revising street alignment) is estimated at $4000. Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls printed on recycled paper City of Mound October 9, 1980 Page Two We recommend that the first alternative be adopted. However, we recommend that the property owner be required to construct the bulkhead. We do not feel that this is a City responsibility. This would leave the street centered in right-of-way and would remove a non-complying structure from the street right-of-way. It might also prevent future street problems in the event structure would collapse sometime in the future. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Lyle Swanson, R.E. LS:31 Enclosure EXt~T. EX _ ........................... !L:!!i! ffUcCOU ~S'~"U~SO" ^SSOCJ,~X~;,'"C' ~?~?:~: ~ MINNEAPOLIS and HUTCHINSON.MINNESOTA McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS B LAND SURVEYORS · SITE PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-:3700 October 14, 1980 Ms. Mary Marske Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: City of Mound 1980 Street Improvements Section 1 Waterbury Road Job #5248 Dear MS. Marske: The property owner on the south side of the street at the east end of Waterbury Road east of Tuxedo Boulevard has requested that the street be narrowed in front of his property. The reasons for the request are: 1. A 20 inch Maple and several smaller trees would be saved. The property owner has established two off street parking areas by constructing a retaining wall and building up an area adjacent to the street. If a 28 foot wide street is constructed, he will lose these spaces. He has no other off street parking. The property owner on the end of the street on the north side has talked to our people and indicated that he definately wants a 28 foot street. Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls printed on recycled paper Ms. Mary Marske October 14, 1980 Page Two Ail of the property owners on the street except the last one on the south side have given us the necessary easements for construction of the 28 foot wide street. He has indicated he would not grant the easement unless the street were narrowed, we cannot construct a 28 foot street here without an easement. There are two alternative courses of action the City may take at this point. LS:sj Enclosure Narrow the street as shown on the attached drawing. Construct a 28 foot wide street to the west edge of Lot 7, Block 20 and negotiate for or condemn an easement over the winter. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Lyle Swanson, P.E. printed on recycled paper _ 0 -~. ROXBUR¥ Cl%y of 2ound Administrative Office 53~ 1 ;~ay~¥ood Road i~our, d, !~inr. 55364 Gent iemen: Vie present this ROAD PETITION. %;'e the followin~z petitioners wish to communicate our ideas reEarding the curve on Edgffewater Drive at Lots No. at the junctions of Ed~ewater Drive and Northern L~ne. We the undersigned respectfully and emphmtically feel the road as now being constructed is not a oractical or realistic layout. First, the curve of the road is too sharp and too narrow at the curve. Se, v:ho drive this road every day reallze this sharp curve is very dangerous even at low speed, especially in winter. The grade uphill toward County $15 as now l~id out, will be impossible to negotiate on snow or ice. Also oncoming oars will find control arotmd this sharp curve difficult under these conditions. In other v. ords, it looks like a good fender bender situation. The strange angle on Edwater Drive going south leading into the curve should be eliminated for better appearance a~d easier driving. ¥~e definitely believe'the curve should be modified with a longer radius so a better driving ~oad be accomplished. This is the time, before it is too late, to correc~ a diffioul$ and d~ngerous layout into a good functional and serviceable road · ~.~ ............................... ___ IMIMMcCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 October 9, 1980 Ms. Mary Marske Acting City Clerk City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota Subject; City of Mound 1980 Street Improvements Job #5248 Dear Ms. Marske: Mr. Jim Roberge, 1738 Avocet Lane has requested a retaining wall adjacent to the street. This property is on the the 1978 (Thomas) Project. The street construction in Three Points was done in the Spring and Summer of 1979. Mr. Roberg constructed his house in September of 1979. The policy on wall construction is that only very rarely are walls built on vacant lots, because of the possibility they would have to be removed when something is built on the property. We also ask that any property owner requesting a wall not shown on the plans submit a written request for the wall before we bring it to the Councils attention. I have talked to Mr. Roberge on a number of occasions and he has now submitted a written request for the wall. There is no question that the property needs a wall. The approximate cost of which would be $900. Does the Council wish to approve this wall? Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Lyle Swanson, P.E. LS:31 Minneapolis - Hutchinson - Alexandria - Granite Falls printed on recycled paper 10-14-80 Mound, Minnesota October IO, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-354 SUBJECT: Assessments on State Owned Land Attached is a copy of a proposed resolution placing assessments for the 1979 Street Improvements on State Owned Land. This separate resolution assessing the State Owned Land is recommended. Mary M. Marske Acting City Manager ms October 14, 1980 Councilmember moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DETERMINING TOTAL AMOUNTS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST CERTAIN PARCELS OF TAX FORFEITED LANDS IF SUCH PROPERTIES WERE SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF DETERMINATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE AMOUNTS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPROVEMENTS NAMED IN THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE: AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PREPARE AN ABSTRACT SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF EACH PARCEL OF LAND FORFEITED TO THE STATE FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PARCEL IF IT WERE SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT, AND DIRECTING SAID CITY CLERK TO CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES 282.O1, SUBD. 4 WHEREAS, at the time of the determination of the City Council of the City of Mound of the total amounts of money to be assessed in the pro- ceedings of the improvements listed below, certain parcels of land had been forfeited to the State and were therefore not sub- jected to assessment: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNE- SOTA: That pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282.O1, Subd. 4, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described would have been assessed the amounts set opposite each such described parcel, if such parcel had not been tax-forfeited land therefore not subject to assessment, and the City Council does hereby determine that each of said parcels have been benefited in the amount equal to the amount set opposite each of said parcels: PID # 23-1 23-1 23-1 13-1 19-1 19-1 19-1 19-1 19-1 19-1 7-24 31 0027 7-24 31 0044 7-24 34 OO60 7-24 11 0058 7-23 31 0110 7-23 32 0068 7-23 32 O190 7-23 32 O189 7-23 32 0097 7-23 32 0096 Amount Item Levy # $1,278.54 1979 St. Improve. 7928 1,278.54 " 7928 820.95 " 7928 3,619.01 " 7928 757.00 " 7928 828.80 " 7928 3,246.05 " 7928 3,322.45 " 7928 3,426.05 " 7928 1,243.20 " 7928 o~o $0 " ~. 7928 ..... " 7928 1,009.29 " 7928 1,096.48 " 7928 3,856.25 " 7928 3,856.25 " 7928 4,076.25 " 7928 453.10 " 7928 2,739.81 " 7928 mi, .00 I! 1,~ 7928 ~4.2~58 " 7928 '~..~3 Il7~ ......~. ~,16 '~ t~ 117 ......." 19-117-23 33 0040 19-I17-23 33 0072 19-117-23 33 O191 19-117-23 33 O192 19-117-23 33 0193 19-117-23 33 0137 19-117-23 33 O139 * 1'~-117 23,~ O'l'r,~. ober 14, 1980 PID 19-117-23 33 0170 24-117-24 41 0013 24-117-24 41 0038 24-117-24 41 0059 24-117-24 41 0072 24-117-24 41 0085 24 11~ ~" /-,, 41v,15 24 117 ~' 41 /-~ 24-117-24 42 0006 2~-I17~'~'I 0+34 24-117-24 44 0074 24-117-24 44 0076 24-117-24 44 0080 24-117-24 44 0089 24-117-24 44 0148 24-117-24 44 0152 AMOUNT S 2-8--Z~.8o 3,327.40 828.8O 1,801.62 1,290.41 796.34 ~1, ~£ 1,67-4.-82 1,275.20 791 ~ 1,456.18 2,359.20 1,652.95 1,137.71 597.50 2,584.61 24-1 24-1 24-1 24-1 24-1 24-1 7-24 44 0155 7-24 44 0156 7-24 44 0157 7-24 44 0158 7-24 44 0159 7-24 44 0160 1,584.27 1,512.57 1,440.87 1,370.28 1,298.58 1,224.57 * City Owned Land iTEM 1979 St. Improve. II II II 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 7928 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Clerk is hereby directed to make an abstract showing the description of each parcel of land forfeited to the State for non-payment of taxes at the time of the determina- tion of the City Council of the amounts to be assessed in these proceedings, and showing, in accordance with this resolution, such parcel of land if it has been subject to assessment. The said City Clerk shall certify such abstract to the County Audi- tor of Hennepin County for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County. 14-80 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota October 9, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-350 SUBJECT: Election Judges Appointment The attached list contains the names of the persons qualified and willing to serve as election judges at the General Election on November 4, 1980. It is recommended the Council approve their appointment. Mary H. Marske Acting City Manager Phyllis Jessen Esther Barnes Emma Brandenburg Janet Gierman Shirley Romness Florence Sather Ann Schwingler Ada Shepherd Marion Toberman Carol Doyle Adeline Brandenburg Isabel Bryce Alice Kramer Cora LaMere Sahron Meier Barbara Sidders Lemuel Sprow Pat Wallin Donna Lugauer Eve Bedell Vera Bee Vickie Childs Ina Coleman Donna Easthouse Marian Gilbertson Gayle Grady Priscilla Kutzner Lollie Mader Charlene Miller Richard Sutton, II Holly Bostrom Gerry Chase Rita T. Coleman Leatrice Cooper Dorothy Donahoo Gail DuPuis Betty Jane Gove Daisy Johnson Harriet Shepherd Joan Shields Don Chemberlin Winnie Dalton Faith Greenslit Cynthia Lilligren Marjorie Hoag Marcia Hyytinen Gladys Jackson Jeanette Johnson Lee Mondloh Sandra Wilsey Kent Borg Janet Brown Jeanie G. Carlson Mary Ann Dehner Betty Falness Eugene Hodge Sharry Johnson Peggy Krause Irma Psyck Ed Richter Sharon Tauber Penny Hayes Judy Hudson 10-14-80 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota October 9, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-348 SUBJECT: Citizen Advisory Committee Membership Attached is a copy of a letter from Hennepin County Office of Planning & Development relative to Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan establishing a Citizen Advisory Committee. On January 9, 1979 (Resolution 79-36), the Council appointed Alan P. 01son as Mound's representative on this committee. The term of service for all current members expired as of October 1, 1980. Does the Council wish to take action at this meeting? Mary ~. Marske Acting City Manager OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT C-2353 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ~ (612) 348-6418 October 6, 1980 Mr. Leonard Kopp City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Urban Hennepin County Community Development Program Citizen Advisory Committee Membership Dear Mr. Kopp: The Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan provides for the establishment of Citizen Advisory Committees to par- ticipate in the development and review of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Application. The terms of service for all current Citizen Advisory Committee members expired as of October 1, 1980. The County is re- questing that each community, as part of its responsibilities as an Urban County participant either reappoint the current member or select a new resident to serve on the Committee. The adopted Citizen Participation Plan requests that the ap- pointed member not be an elected official, appointed official or employee of the appointing community. Each community is requested to appoint a member and transmit the name to me as soon as possible. Sinc~erely~?~ ~arry B1 ackstad' Senior Planner st HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal oppod~Jnlty employer lO-7-8o Mound, Minnesota October 9, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-352 SUBJECT: Equipment Attached is a memorandum from the Public Works Director requesting the Council review the specifications for a dump body, snow plow, wing and under tail gate sander. I think there may be a mis-spelling of the first word on the last line of the third page. Everything else seems in order. Ma rs ke Acting City Manager MHM/ms Ii~TEROFFICE M E li~O TO: FROM: Acting City b[ana~er Public Works Director DATE ,"~ obe 9, __ SUBJECT: Equipment goecification P, eview It is requested that the City Council review the attached specifications for publication. The specifications are for a dump body, snow plow, wing and under tail gate sander for the new cab ordered in August of 1980. This is a budgeted item. Respectfully, Robert Shanley Public Works Director RS/jcn ~3AI CITY OF MOUND, 1.11IiI,'ESOTA SPECIFICATIONS FOR DUMP BODY, PLO~, WING, AND UNDER TAIL GATE SANDER GENERAL: It is the intent of these specifications to describe equip- ment that will standardize the City of Mound's snow plowing fleet and is best suited to our needs. DUMP BODY: 8' x 7', 4-5 Cubic yard capacity. 10 Gauge sides and ends. 8 Gauge floor. 3" - 6" Radius in floor sides and front. Double acting reinforced tail-gate with spreader chains. Lever in center of tail-gate for quick release of upper pins. Interlaced under-structure with lowest possible mounting and clearance to be provided behind cab for mounting of wing post. 1/2 Cab shield constructed to clear wing frame. Necessary lights and reflectors. Body support jack to OSHA specifications. Mud fl aps. Rear tow hooks HOIST: To be single cylinder, double arm type (Class 40). Tele- scopic not acceptable. Hoist to be power-up, power-down. Removeabl e roof bar wi th &-w~ re plug and ~ocket wi ~h the followinc: Double faced turn 1 i gh~s. Sealed beam headlights and dimmer switch. 7" stop light. 1 - Amber and 1 - White snowplow light. Above lights to be wired into truck lighting system. #17 Blue Beacon Ray Rotating Light mounted on counter- balanced bracket on cab shield with switch in cab. ONE-WAY SAFETY TRIP SNOW PLOW Shall be Frink 625K plow with hinged type deflector with Tor- Lok MOLDBOARD: The t~p edge of the moldboard shall have full length hinged deflector, not less than 12" high at the discharge end. Moldboard shall be 12' 1''J long overall and not less than 10' 3" long at the cutting edge, including nose shoe. The height at the intake (left hand) end shall be 18", and 56" at the discharge (right hand) end. It shall be not less than 8 USS gauge steel. Shall be paneled for additional rigidity and shall have a reinforced box brake of the same material at the top edge to provide suitable rigidity. The moldboard shall have necessary reinforcing ribs, double at the drive points to form a rigid structure. CUTIlNG EDGE: 1/2" thick by 8" wide - C1090 AASHO punchez. A replaceable steel nose shoe, or runner, shall be provided at the left hand of the cutting edge for guiding the plow over obstructions. SHOES: Shall be 3 in number. Each plow frame shoe shall have not less than 58 square inches of bearing surface. The moldboard shoe shall have not less than 45 square inches of bearing surface. PLOW DRIVE FRAME: The main drive frame angle shall be not less than 6" X 6" X 1/2", structural angle, reinforced the full length, with 1/4" steel plate. Welde~ to the main drive angle shall be two heavy slotted members, to which the moldboard shall be attached by 1-1/4" diameter, hardened steel pins. The plow to trip by two 5-1/4" X 14" long springs of 5/8" diameter wi re. The springs shall have a minimum of eleven coils. The steel roller shall be installed on the moldboard, which will contact the main drive angle at midpoint between the two attaching points .for additional support. SIDE TYPE LEVELING WING WING: Shall not be less than 10' long overall - 29" high at the front, 37" high at the rear, and shall have 1/2" X 6" AASHO punched cutting edge. There sh be 6 vertical ri bs and 2 ful I 1 ength horizontal ribs. T~e top edge of the moldboard shall be completely boxed for greater strength. The wing to be installed on the right hand side of the truck. The wing shall be capable of tripping over an obsta- cle, and trip of the wing shall be able to be locked out. REAR OF THE WING: The rear of the leveling wing shall be supported by extra-heavy telescoping braces, which are attached to the double acting wing brace, mounted intricately to the rear support beam. The rear support beam shall be 3/8" formed channel, 12" wide. The oi°l reservoir shall be not less than 30 gallon capacity, oil finished, scale free, and equipped with a filling strainer, baffle plate, sediment trap, breather vent, spin-on type filter with not less than 25 micron rating, and a shut-off valve at the filter. All plow and wing rams, and control valves shall be mounted within the enclosed cabinet, with the control cables mounted conveniently in the cab. All high pressure lines shall be of oil resistant, flexible single wire braid high pressure hose, equipped with renewable and reusable type hose fittings, with a minimum burst pressure of 6000 PSI. High pressure line from the pump 'to valve sha e a minimum of 3/4" Su ion line of l-l/4" mi ni mUF,.. Clearance required from back of the cab to front of the dump box is lC" HYDRAULIC PUMP: The front engine power take off shall be driven direct, and in line with the front crankshaft pulley through a doulbe universal joint drive line. The front engine power take off shall be a multiple disc, wet clutch pack, running in auto- matic transmission fluid. The clutch pressure plate shall be a spring loaded in a stationary position. The gears shall be a constant mesh capable of being engaged at 750 engine rpm and dis-engaged at any engine rpm. The gear ratio shall be 75% of engine speed. The front engine power take off shall 'be rated at '340 foot pounds torque and be capable of receiv- ing a Commercial Sheering hydraulic pump direct. Driveline for front mounted power take off to accept 1310 flange yoke on crankshaft of engine. Driveshaft to be a DL121375 or an approved equal. There shall be a steel guard installed over driveshaft and to be easily removed for servicing driveline. Hydraulic pump shall be a gear type with three piece laminated construction. Shall be a ball or roller bearing (no bronze bushing) type pump. Capable of being rebuilt and to have no less than a 2500 PSI rating. Shall be a P50A342BEYL20-25 Commercial shearing of Approved Equal. H~CH' Shall be Frink custom tyDe. The sideplates shall be 3/~" thick, and extend as far back as practical from the front end of the truck, so as to reinforce the truck frame. Shall be of Tor-Lok pin hinged adapter rather than solid mount. Lifting device shall be 4" X 10" hard chrome plated piston. The vertical risers shall be no less than 4 X 3 X 3/8" angle. The bottom ram support shall be 5 X 3-1/2 X 5/8" angle, and the top cross angle shall be 4 X 4 X 1/2". UNDER TAIL GATE SANDER: Shall be Swenson Model UR310 roll type with: HydraUlic motor, pressure compensated flow control valve, return line filter, hoses and fittings, and quick couplings. CONTROLS: Shall be mounted for one man operation and as per the following diagram. MOUNTING: All equipment shall be mounted by one vendor for better serviceability. BID PROPOS~ PLOW, WING, DUlip BODY AND SANDER Ail bidders must submit bids on this form to furnish equipment as specified. All prices are to include mounting and F.O.B. Mound, Mn. Dump Body Make Price Model Snow Plow Make Price Model Wing Make Price Model Under Tail Gate Make Price Sander Model Total price of Dump Body, Snow Plow, Wing and Sander $ Signature of Bidder ~itle Firm Date 10-14-80 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota October 9, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-353 SUBJECT: Equipment Operators & Maintenance Men Union Contract Attached is a copy of the Union Contract as negotiated by the Public Works Department and the City Manager. It has been reviewed by the City Attorney's firm and it is recommended the Mayor and Acting City Manager be authorized to enter into the agreement. sker ActiY~g City Manager MHM/ms AGREEMEI~? BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 320 Equipment OperatoPs and Maintenance Men Effective January l, 1981 through December 31, 1983 ARTICLE ~ ARTICLE II ARTICLE III ARTICLE IV ARTICLE V ARTICLE VI ARTICLE VII ARTICLE VIII ARTICLE IX ARTICLE × ARTICLE ×I ARTICLE ×II ARTICLE ×III ARTICLE ×I¥ ARTICLE ×V ARTICLE ×VI ARTICLE ×¥I! ARTICLE ×VIII ARTICLE ×IX ARTICLE ×× ARTICLE ××I ARTICLE X×II ARTICLE X×III ARTICLE X×IV ARTICLE XXV ARTICLE ××VI ARTICLE X×VII ARTICLE ××VIII ARTICLE ××IX ARTICLE XX× ARTICLE ×××I I ~DE Z Purpose of Agreement Recognition Union Security Employer Security Employer Authority Employee Rights - Grievance Procedure Definitions Savin9s Clause Work Schedules Overtime Pay Call Back Legal Defense Discipline Seniority Probationary Periods Safety Job Postings Insurance Holidays Vacation Schedule Sick Leave Severance Pay Funeral Leave Uniforms Eye Examination Safety Glasses Working Out Of Classification Standby Pay Wages Waiver Duration 2 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 l0 lO ll 11 ll 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 g.f II BETWEEr'; THE CITY OF MOUND AND MINHESOTA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 320 ARTICLE I. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between the City of Mound, hereinafter called the Employer, and Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320, hereinafter called the UNION. The intent of this Agreement is to: 1.1 Establish certain hours, wages and other conditions of employment; 1.2 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes, concerning this Agreement's interpretation and/or application; 1.3 Specify the full and complete understanding of the parties; and 1.4 Place in written form, the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment, for the duration of this Agreement. The Employer and the Union, through this Agreement, continue their dedication to the highest quality of public service. Both parties recognize this Agree- ment'as a pledge of this dedication. ARTICLE II. RECOGNITION The Employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 179.71, Subdivision 3, in an appropriate bargaining unit, consisting of the following job classification: Equipment Operators and Maintenance Men ARTICLE III. UNION SECURITY In recognition of the Union as the exclusive representative, the Employer shall: 3.1 Deduct each payroll period, an amount sufficient to provide the:~payment of dues established by the Union, from the wages of all employees author- izing in writing such deduction, or a "fair share" deduction, as provided in Minnesota State Statute 179.65, Subdivision 2, if the employee elects not to become a member of the Union; ~/ ~ 3.2 Remit such aeduct~on to the appropriate Designated Officer of the Union. 3.3 The Union may designate certain employees from the bargaining unit to act as stewards and shall inform the Employer, in writing, of such choice. 3.4 The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders or judgements brought or issued against the Employer as a result of any action taken or not taken by the Employer, under the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE IV. EMPLOYER SECURITY q.1 The Union agrees that during the life of this Agreement it will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow-down or other inter- ruption of or interference with, the normal functions of the Employer. 4.2 Any employee who engages in a strike may have his/her appointment termin- ated by the Employer, effective the date the violation first occurs. Such termination shall be effective upon written notice served upon the employee. 4.3 An employee who is absent from any portion of his/her work assignment, without permission, or who abstains wholly or in part, from the full per- formance of his/her duties, without permission from his/her Employer, on the date or dates when a strike occurs, is prima facie presumed to have engaged in a strike on such date or dates. 4.4 An employee who knowlingly strikes and whose employment has been terminated for such action, may subsequent to such violation, be appointed or re- 'appointed or employed or re-employed, but the employee shall be on probation for two (2) years with respect to such civil service status, tenure of employment, or contract of employment, as he/she may have heretofore been enti tl ed. 4.5 No employee shall be entitled to any daily pay, wages or per diem for the days on which he/she engaged in a strike. ARTICLE V. EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 5.1 The Employer retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all manpower, facilities and equipment; to establish funcations and pro- grams,; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this Agreement. o? 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this Agreement shall remain solely within the discretion of the Employer, to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE VI. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVAHCE PROCEDURE 6.1 Definition of a Grievance. A grievance is defined as a dispute or dis- agreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this Agreement. 6.2 Union Representatives. The Employer will recognize reDresentatives desig- nated by the Union, as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit, having the duties and responsibilities established by this Article. The Union shall notify the Employer, in writing, of the names of such Union representatives and of their successors, when so designated. 6.3 Processing of a Grievance. It is recognized and accepted by the Union and the Employer that the processing of grievances, as hereinafter provided, is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the employees and, therefore, shall be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved employee and the Union representative shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the Employer during normal working hours provided the employee and the Union representative have notified and received the approval of the desig- nated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the Employer. 6.4 Procedure. Grievances, as defined by Section 6.1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure. Step 1. An Employee, claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement, shall, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the employee's supervisor, as designated by the Employer. The Employer- designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing, setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the Agreement alledgedly violated and the remedy requested and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar 6.5 days after the Employer-designated representative's final answer ill Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the Union, within ten (10) calendar days, shall be considered waived. Step 2. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the Union and discussed ~vith the Employer-designated Step 2 representative. The Employer-designated representative shall give the Union the Employer's Step 2 answer, in writing, within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the Employer-designated representative's final answer in Step 2. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the Union, within ten (10) calendar days, shall be considered waived. ~ 3. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the Union and discussed with the Employer-designated Step 3 representative. The Employer-deisgnated representative shall give the Union the Employer's answer, in writing, within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be appealed to Step q within ten (10) calendar days following the Employer-designated representative's final answer in Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to Step 4 shall be .submitted to arbitration, subject to the provisions of the Public Employ- ment Relations Act of 1971, as amended. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the 'Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances', as established by the Public Employment Relations Board. Arbitrator'a Authority. A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to or subtract from, the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall consider and decide on the specific issue(s) sub- mitted in writing by the Employer and the Union aHd shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue, not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to made decision contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way, the appli- cation of laws, rules or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days, following close of the hearing or the submission of 6.6 6.7 br~~T~ b$' the Da~-ties,. wilichcveF be ~teT, U~e%% t~ par~es amree_ · ' ~o an e>:tension. The decision shall be binding on both the Employer anG the Union and shall be based so~ely on ti~e arbitrator's interpre- tation or application of the express terms of this Agreement and to the facts of the grievance presented. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and the proceedings shall be borne equally by the Employer and the Union, provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings, the cost shall be shared equally. Waiver. If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered waived. If a grievance is not appealed to the next Step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the Employer's last answer. If the Employer does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof, within the specified time limit, the Union may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that Step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next Step. The time limit in each Step may be extended by mutual agreement of the Employer and the Union. Choice of Remedy. If, as a result of the written Employer response in Step -3, the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance involves the sus- pension, demotion or discharge of an employee who has completed the required probationary period, the grievance may be appealed either to Step ~ of Article Vt or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veteran's Preference or Fair Employment. If appealed to any procedure other than Step 4 of Article VI, the grieyance is not subject to the arbitration procedure, as provided i.n Step ~ of Article VI. The aggrieved employee shall indicate, in writing, which procedure is to be utilized, Step 4 of Article VI or another appeal procedure and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice of any other hearing precludes the aggrieved employee from making a subsequent appeal through Step ~ of Article VI. Co AP, T~CL£ VI2. }EFI~I!TIOl;>~ 7,1 UIllO~t: The Iqinnesota Teamsters Pub]lc and Law Enforcement Emp]oyees Union,~Local Ilo. 32C. 7.2 EF;PLOYER: Tile City of I%und, lfiinnesota. 7.3 UNIOI'I MEI,iBER: A member of Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement EMPLOYEES U~IION, Local No. 320. 7.4 EMPLOYEE' A member of the exclusiveiy recognized bargaining unit. 7.5 BASE PAY RATE: The employee's hourly pay rate, exclusive of longevity or any other special allo~vances. 7.6 SENIORITY: Length of continuous service with the Employer. 7.7 COMPENSATORY TIME: Time off the employee's regularly scheduled work schedule, equal in time to overtime worked. 7.8 SEVERANCE PAY: Payment made to an employee upon honorable termination of employment. 7.9 OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the Employer, in excess of either eight (8) hours within a twenty-four (24) hour period (except for shift changes) or more than forty (40) hours within a seven (.7) day period. 7.10 CALL BACK: Return of an employee to a specified work site to perform assigned duties at the express authorization of the Employer at a time other than an assigned shift. An extension of or an early report to an assigned shift, is not a. call back. 7.11 STRIKE: Concerted action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work, slow-down or abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment' for the purpose of inducing, influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation or the rights, privileges or obligations of employment. ARTICLE VIII. SAVINGS CLAUSE This A§reement is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the City of Mound. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgement or decree no appeal has been taken within the time limits provided, such provision shall be voided. All other provisions of this Agree- ment shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be re- negotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE IX. WORK SCHEDULES 9.1 The sole authority in work schedules is the Employer. The normal work day for an employee shall be eight (8) hours. The normal work week shall be forty (40) hours, Monday through Friday. ]2.2 Any employee who is char~£d ',','~th ~ %l'affiC ViOlatiOn, ordin nc violation or criminal offense, arisin9 from acts performed within the scope of h~i/her employment, when such act is performed in good faith and under direct order of his/her supervisor, shall be re- imbursed for reasonable attorney's fees and court costs ~ctually ~ncurred by such employee, in defending ~a~nst such charge. ARTICLE ×III. 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.5 13.6 13.7 DISCIPLINE The Employer will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in the form of: a. Oral reprimand; b. Written reprimand; c. Suspension; d. Demotion; or e. Discharge. Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form. Written reprimands, to become part of an employee's personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the employee. Employees and the Union will receive a copy of such reprimands and notices of suspension and discharge. Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times 6nder the direct supervision of the Employer. Discharges will be preceded by a five (5) day suspension with pay. Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of discip- linary action unless the employee has been given an opportunity to have a Union representative present at such questioning. Grievances relating to this Article shall be initiated by the Union in Step 3 at the grievance procedure under Article VI. ARTICLE.XIV. SENIORITY Seniority will be the determining criterion for transfers, promotions and lawoffs, only when all other other qualifications factors are equal. ARTICLE XV. PROBATIONARY PERIODS 15.1 All newly hired or re-hired employees will serve a six (6) months' probationary period. 15.2 15,3 15.4 All employees will SerVe a Si>((6) months' probationary period ~n any job classification in which the employee has not served a probationary period. At any time during the probationary period, a newly hired or re-hired- or re-assigned employee may be terminated at the sole discretion of the Employer. At any time during the probationary period, a promoted or reassigned employee may be demoted or reassigned to the employee's previous position at the sole discretion of the Employer. ARTICLE XVI. SAFETY The Employer and the Union agree to jointly promote safe and healthful working conditions, to cooperate in safety matters and to encourage employees to work in a safe manner. ARTICLE XVII. 17.1 JOB POSTING The Employer and the Union agree that permanent job vacancies within the designated bargaining unit, shall be filled based on the concept of pro- motion from within, provided that applicants: a. Have the necessary qualifications to meet the standards of the job vacancy, or; b. Have the ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job vacancy. 1~.2' Employees filling a higher job class, based on the provisions of this Article shall be subject to the conditions of Article XV. Probationary Periods. 17.3 The Employer has the right of final decision in the selection of employees to fill posted jobs, based on qualifications, abilities and experience. 17.4 Job vacancies, within the designated bargaining unit, will be posted for five (5) working days so that members of the bargaining unit can be con- sidered for such vacancies. ARTt£LE ×VIII. 15.t 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 The Employer agrees to provide each employee, artier thirty (30) days of continuous employment, with hospitalization/major medical insurance, including dependent coverage, a five thousand dollar ($5,000) life insurance policy and lon9 term disability insurance and pay 77-1/2% of the premiums due. Effective 1/1/82, the Employer agrees to pay 80% of the premiums due on the insurance coverages provided under Section 18.1 above. Effective 1/1/83, the Employer agrees to pay 85% of the premiums due on the insurance coverages provided under Section 18.1 above. Effective 1/1/Sl, the Employer agrees to provide a Dental Insurance policy for each employee and dependents and pay up to a maximum of seventeen dollars and fifty cents ($17.50) per month of the premiums due. Effective 1/1/82, the Employer agrees to pay nineteen dollars ($19.00) on the dental insurance coverage provided in Section 18.4 above. Effective 1/1/83, the Employer agrees to pay twenty two dollars ($22.00) on the dental insurance coverage provided in Section 18.4 above. Upon retirement, after 2.0 years of service or age 62 and l0 years of service, the Employer will pay full premium for hospitalization, major medical and dental insurance for retiree and spouse. ARTICLE XIX. HOLIDAYS 19.1 'The Employer agrees to provide the following paid holidays' 19.2 19.3 New Years Day Presidents Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veterans Day Thanksgiving Day 1/2 day Christmas Eve Day Christmas Day 1/2 day New Years Eve Day One (1) floating holiday If any of the above Holidays falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be the Holiday. If any of the above Holidays falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be the Holiday. If New Years Day or Christmas Day falls on a Sunday or Monday, the 1/2 day Holiday allowed for New Years Eve or Christmas Eve shall be the preceding Friday. Any employee required to work on a Holiday shall receive time and one- half his/her hourly rate for all hours worked in addition to the regular Holiday pay. ARTICLE XX. 20.1 20.2 20.3 VACATIO~'~ SCHEDULE Employees shall receive paid vacations based on the followin§ schedule: 1 - 5 years of service l0 days per year 6 - 15 years of service 15 days per year 16 - 20 years of service 20 days per year 21 years and over 25 days per year On an employee's twenty-fifth (25th) anniversary of service, s/he shall .-be granted five (5) additional working days of vacation with pay for that year. This vacation leave must be taken off during that year and cannot be waived to receive extra salary. Paid vacations shall be earned during the first year of employment, but cannot be taken without the approval of the Employer. ARTICLE XXI. SICK LEAVE Sick leave shall be accumulated at the rate of one (1) day per month. ARTICLE XXii. 22.1 22.2 22.3 SEVEI~NCE PAY Employees were employed prior to January 1, 1981 shall upon h3norable separation from the Employer's service, shall receive severance pay in amount equal to 33-1/3%'of the first ninety (90) days of unused sick leave. In no event shall the amount exceed thirty (30) days pay under this Section. No payment shall be made unless the employee has completed thirty-six (36) months of service. The following is the severance pay schedule to be used for employees hired after January 1, 1981: After 5 years service After 10 years service After 15 years service After 20 years service After 25 years service 30% to a maximum of 18 days 35% to a maximum of 40 days 40% to a maximum of 72 days 45% to a maximum of 108 days 50% to a maximum of 160 days The Employe shall pay employee full amount of severance pay at time of termination, if requested. Employee may elect to receive equal amounts over a period of five (5) years. ARTICLE XXlII FUNERAL LEAVE Funeral leave not to exceed three (3) days will be allowed by the City Manager, If more than three (3) days are required, the employee may choose to deduct the extra days over three (3) from either vacation leave or accumulated sick leave. 24.] Tile lmployer shrill furnish durin7 the 1981 contract year and there- after, Ii, roe (3) sets of shirts and ~oants and ,m January 1, 19g2, the Empiover shall furnisI~ two (25 hackers- one (1) summer and one (1) winter. 2~.2 The Employer shall pa>' for the maintanence of such uniforms. ARTICLE XXV. EYE EXAMINATION The Employer a~rees to pay in each twenty-four (24) month period of employ- merit, up to thirty dollars ($30.00) toward an eye examination for each employee. ARTICLE ×XVI. SAFETY GLASSES The Employer agrees to pay the additional cost for an employee to has his/her eye glasses converted to safety glasses. ARTICLE XXVII. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION Any employee assigned by the Employer to work at a higher job classification shall be paid at the higher rate of pay for the duration of the assignment. Upon completion of the assignment, the employee shall revert to his/her original or assigned pay rate. ARTICLE XXVlII. STANDBY PAY Any employee placed on standby duty by the Employer shall receive one-half (1/2) hour's pay for each one (1) hour required to standby for duty. ARTICLE WAGES The salary schedule shall be as follows: 1981 1982 1983 Equipment Operators $9.59 $10.21 $10.97 per hour Maintenance Men 9.05 9.67 10.43 after 18 months 8.74 9.36 10.12 after 12 months 8.44 8.56 9.32 after 6 months 7.62 7.74 8.50 to start ARTICLE XXI. W/tIVKI, SO.1 Any a:~d ali prior agrecmc~tts, resolution.~, practices, t~olicics, rules and reticulation-<,, regardin[~t tcrnu~ and conditions of empioymen~, to ~c extent inconsistent with tim provisions of this Asrecment, are hereby superceded. 50.2 The parties mutually acknowledge ~hat during the negotiaYions which resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited righ~ and opportunity to ~n~ke demands and proposals, with respect to any term or condi~io~ of employment not removed by law from b~rgainin~. Ail Agreements and understandings arrived a~ by the par~ies are set forth in writing in this Agreement for the stipulnted duration of this A~reemcnt. The Employer and the Union, each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate, regarding any an8 all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covercd in this Agreement or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this Agreement, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both the parties at the time this AGreement was nego.tiated or executed. ARTICLE XXXI. DURATION This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 198'1 and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 1983. IN WITHNESS WlIEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this day of , 1980. FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, blINNESOTA blayor FOR TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 320 Bu~xness Agent City Manager Steward 10-1~-80 Mound, Minneso[a October 9, 1980 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 80-349 SUBJECT: Maxi Energy Audits The firm of Rieke Carroll Muller Associates has submitted a proposal to conduct a Maxi Energy Audit of the City buildings. According to Mr. Kaeding, this will be funded by the State and Federal Government. Due to the persistent rumors regarding fund cuts, it is recommended the Maxi Audit be authorized with the stipulation that it be done only if funding is guaranteed. Mary [/. Marske Acting City Manager October 8, 1980 rieke carroll muller associates Jnc ~rchitects ~ngineers .and surveyors 31anners Mr. Leonard L. Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE': MAXI ENERGY AUDITS CITY OF MOUND Dear Mr. Kopp' Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. is pleased to present this proposal for engineering services to perform the energy studies for buildings owned by the City of Mound. RCM will perform the Step 3, Maxi-Audit for the City of Mound for the buildings listed below as detailed by the requirements as set forth by the State Energy Agency. The Maxi-Audit will involve a trip to inspect the buildings. Upon completion of this phase, we will generate a report detailing our findings. Copies of this report will be sent to the City for forwarding to the State Energy Agency with extra copies for your use. The Federal and State Governments have approved your grant applications for the buildings listed below for the amounts shown and RCM will perform the Maxi-Audits for those amounts: City Offices Fire Station Public Works Garage Island Park Hall Old Depot Comm. Center $360.00 646.00 484.00 414.00 180.00 Please cross out any buildings you do not wish to have done. If this proposal is agreeable, please sign both copies, retain one for your files, and return the other to us. We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. ~-~i ncere~l~, I/ ACCEPTED: Pau~l F. Kaeding, P.E. / MAXI-AUDITS Manager, Mechanical-Electrical Engineering RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATES, INC. By PFK/cms Title Date post office box 130 1011 first street south :~opkins, minnesota 55343 .512 935-6901 N'AN CY OLKON /'~ "~](~'~..~ PHONE CHAIR ~ 346-30~0 BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER ~X/~INNEA?OLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 Dear Mayor Lovaasen: October 8, 1980 In compliance with the Waste Management Act of 1980, Hennepin County is required to identify four candidate sites for solid waste disposal and one for demolition within the County by June 1, 1981. We believe transfer station and resource recovery sites should be addressed at the same time. From past experience here and across the country, we know that it is virtually im- possible to find sites that are acceptable to everyone. There is no such thing as a good landfill site. There are only sites that are better than others and we need to identify those in an effort to meet the County's known disposal needs. Because of siting difficulties, the County Board has decided to employ a totally dif- ferent approach to site selection. We are not going to select the sites and ask the public to react to them as before. We are, instead, going to conduct a public in- volvement process that provides for the maximum of public participation and input before any siting decisions are made. We have hired Brauer & Associates of Eden Prairie to organize and carry out such a process. The purpose of this letter, then, is to ask for representation from your city. We would ask that you please appoint one candidate and one alternate. We would prefer that neither be elected or appointed city officials. We will need their names and addresses by Wednesday, October 22, 1980. Participants will be asked to attend just one informational session on November 5, 6, or 11 and two seminars to be conducted on November 12, 1980 and February 26, 1981. Each will be personally notified of the time, place and purpose of each session. If you wish, you may call your selections into the Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy. Just call Peggy Rasmussen at 935-3381 (Ext. #230). If you have questions about the program in general, contact Fred Hoisington at Brauer & Associates Ltd., Inc. at 941-1660. Thank you!. Board of County Commissioners NO:FH/mvr a AGEN DA Minn ha Creek Watershed Distr October 16, 1980 Wayzata City Hall 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order; present, absent, staff. Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting, September 18, 1980. 3. Approval or amendment of October 16, 1980, agenda. 4. Hearing of permit applications. ne 77-57. McNulty Construction Co. - extension of a grading/drainage permit for "Amesbury," Deephaven. 79-138. Towns Edge Properties - grading/drainage review of a 1.7 acre commercial development located south of Highway 12, west of Essex Road, Minnetonka. Ce 80-54. Minnesota Department of Transportation - bridge replacement, T.H. 7 over Minnehaha Creek, Hopkins and St. Louis Park. 80-80. W. Smith- rip-rap, 5053 Wren Road, Harri- son Bay-Lake Minnetonka, Mound. 80-81. E. Partyka - setback variance, 5445 Cedar Point Road, Upper Lake Minnetonka, Minnetrista. F. 80-82. City of Spring Park - groundwater appro- priation, City Well No. 3, Spring Park. 80-83. C. Weibel - rip-rap, 5047 Wren Road, Harri- ~ ~~,_~_~son Bay-Lake Minnetonka, Mound. Mw 80-85. Ministers Life Development Corporation - grading/drainage review of a 13.3 acre residential development, County Road 15 immediately south of Tanager Lake, Orono. I. 80-86. E. Wells - rip-rap, 5440 Ridgewood Cove, Jennings Bay-Lake Minnetonka, Minnetrista. 80-87. W. Johnson- setback variance, Lot 4, B~ck ~ 2 "Highland Shores," Priest Bay-Lake Minnetonka, Mound. Ke 80-88. City of Minnetonka - installation of a watermain to connect "Pump House No. 10" with city a city well, Minnetonka. 80-89. Stobbe Development, Inc. - grading/drainage review of an 8.2 acre residential development, Adeline Lane - west of Crosby Road and north of the Burlington Northern Railway, Minnetonka. So '7. M. 80-90. J. Stone - rip-rap, 1535 .hns Point Road, Crystal f-Lake Minnetonka, Orono. N.-~ 80-91. J. Gibbs - setback variance, 4901 Three Point~ B0ulQvard, ~% krm-Lake M~nne%onka, Mound. O. 80-92. K. Romness - grading/drainage review of'a 0.72 acre residential development, south of Church Road between Fern Lane and Belmont Lane, Mound..~ 80-93. D. Dunlap - rip-rap, 1595 Bohns Point Road, Crystal Bay-Lake Minnetonka, Orono. 80-94. D. Maiser - grading/drainage review of a parking lot, 15119 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka. 80-96. Seton Village Townhouses - rip-rap, 4760 West Arm Road, West Arm-Lake Minnetonka, Spring Park. Correspondence. Hearing of requests for petitions by public for action by the Watershed District. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Russell (1) Administrative Fund Report (2) Minnehaha Creek Improvement Project Fund Report Be Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer (1) Midwest Aqua Care, Inc. - Proposal Weed Harvesting in Gray's Bay (2) Minnehaha Creek Improvement Project Partial Pay- ment No. 8 - Action Construction Company (3) Water Maintenance and Repair Fund Allocation - City of Minnetonka Beach (4) Lake Minnetonka/Minnehaha Creek Monthly Summary of Data (5) Drainage Diversion, Zumbra Lane, Victoria, Minnesota (6) Minnehaha Creek Improvement Project - Dredging at W. 44th Street, Edina (7) Upper Watershed Improvement Project - Painter Creek Subwatershed Proposal C. Attorney's Report - Mr. Macomber Unfinished Business. ne B. C. D. E. Bridge Obstruction at 11907 Cedar Lake Road District Regulation Revision Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project Minnehaha Creek Improvement Project Galpin Lake Storm Drainage Improvement Project New Business. Adjournment. October 8, 1980 TO' FROM: DELEGATES AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS DICK ASLESON, AMM PRESIDENT AM~ ~.~EMBERSHIP MEETING Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1950 Time: 7:30 PM Place: St. Louis Park Recreation Cent~. Community Room B 5005 W. 36th St. St. Louis Park (see ~ap on Back) AGENDA The major purpose of this meeting is to consider the proposed A~M 1981-82 Legislative program as recomn~ended by the standing Legislative Policy Committee.and the Board of Directors. (Copies of the proposed legislative program were mailed in a previous mailing - one new policy enclosed with this mailing) PLEASE NOTE We request that the Administrative Official receiving this notice notify the appropriate city officials of this meet- ing and distribute the enclosed policy. Each city will have one vote plus one additional vote for each 50,000 population or major fraction thereof of the city above the initial 50,000 population. (By Laws Article XI, Section 2) O,L .J S~HvvgIoI{ October 8, 1980 TO: SUBJECT: AMM Mw.~mERS PROPOSED DRAFT POLICY - MTC FUNDING V-G MTC FUAU)ING MTC operating funds are mostly derived from three basic sources; Federal and State direct subsidies, the property tax, and the fare box. Currently a zone structure exists whereby the fare increases as the ride lengthens and crosses a line circling outward from the core cities. The property tax, which, is used as a major transit subsidy,.is spread evenly on the entire transit taxing district in all zones. The property tax sub- sidy provided from outlying communities in many cases provides more funds than are returned in subsidy to support transit to these areas. Because of the unique taxing system in the metro area and the fact that additional subsidy funds from state and federal source also could be rationalized as proportional or evcnly spread to all areas, the current rate system could be challenged as unfair° Therefore, THE A/%5I REQUESTS THE LEGISLATURE TO COMMISSION A STUDY OF THE MTC RATE STRUCTURE CONSIDERING ZONE FARE AND PROPERTY TAX AS THEY RELATE TO SERVICE. o STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Larry D. Elm and Virginia C. Elm, Plaintiffs, vs. B.H. Fitzgerald, Ruth T. Fitzgerald, Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis, City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc. and Mike Wolf, Defendants. SUMZ4.0NS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-N~4ED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon plaintiffs' attorney an Answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20) days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the date of such service. If you fail to do so, Judgment by Default will be taken against you for the relief prayed for in the Complaint. ~_~e T. Anderson,(Jr./ /" A~-~orney for Plaintiff~ / 2040 Dain Tower ~ -- Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612)339-9701 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT POU~Ttl JUDICIAL DIgTRICT Larry D. Elm and Virginia C. Elm, Plaintiffs, vs. B.H. Fitzgerald, Ruth T. Fitzgerald, Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis, City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc. and Mike Wolf, COMPLAINT Defendants. Plaintiffs for their cause of action against defendants state and allege as follows: COUNT ONE Plaintiffs are the joint owners of certain property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka" and that part of the land designa%ed on the plat of "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakesid~ Park, Mound, Minnetonka" aS Water Bank Common lying between the Northeasterly line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 5 of said addition and the shore of Lake Minnetonka and between extensions of the North- westerly line of said Lot 1 and the Southeasterly line of said Lot 2. II. Said property was purchased on July 6, 1978, from defendant B.H. Fitzgerald and Ruth T. Fitzgerald pursuant to an agreement dated April 8, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. III. Plaintiffs became joint owners of said property pursuant to a Warranty Deed, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. IV. By reason of mutual mistake on the part of ~taintiffs and defendants Fitzgerald, the language in paragraph 3 of the addendum to Exhibit A did not appear on Exhibit B. V. That at all times from and after the addition of paragraph 3 of said addendum to Exhibit A through delivery of the deed at the time of purchase, plaintiffs and defendants Fitzgerald believed and intended that sums from the sale proceeds would be placed in escrow to assure payment of the assessment for the improvements referred to in said addendum, and further believed and intended that the terms of said paragraph 3 would survive their purchase agreement as a part of the deed plaintiffs received from said defendants. VI. That defendants Fitzgerald placed no sums in escrow at closing to pay for the improvements stated in said paragraph 3 of Exhibit A. VII. On September 18, 1979, defendant City of Mound established the assessment against the above-described property for the work referred to in paragraph 3 of the attached addendum to purchase agreement, which assessment was in the amount of $2,853.60. VIII. Plaintiffs have demanded payment of one-half (1/2) of the assess- ment amount, that being $1,426.80 from defendants Fitzgerald, who have refused to pay the same to plaintiffs. As a result of said re- fusal, plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $1,426.80 plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from and after September 18, 1979. COUNT TWO I. For their cause of action against defendant City of Mound, plain- tiffs reallege and reaffirm the allegations set forth in Count One of this Complaint. -2- II. In connection with the transaction referred to in Count One, defendant City of Mound, at the request of defendant Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis conducted a special assessment search on May 9, 1978, concerning the above- described property and discovered a pending assessment as set forth in Exhibit C. III. On June 21, 1978, at the request of defendant Wolf, the agent of defendant Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc., defendant City of Mound negligently and incorrectly conducted a special assessment search regarding the same property and found no pending assessments as indicated on Exhibit D. IV. That said assessment search of June 21, 1978, was relied upon by defendants Fitzgerald, Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis, Mike Wolf and Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc. at the closing of plaintiffs' transaction with defendants Fitzgerald. V. As a result of said reliance, defendants T~in City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis, Fitzgerald, Mike Wolf, Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc. failed to set aside any funds for the payment of the pending special assessments referred to in Count One and in paragraph II of this Count Two. VI. That as a result of the negligence of the City of Mound in pre- paring its special assessment report of June 21, 1978, plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $1,426.80 plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum from and after September 18, 1979, which damages were incurred by plaintiffs having to pay said amount after the refusal of defendants Fitzgerald to do so. COUNT THREE I. For their cause of action against defendant Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis, plaintiffs reallege and reaffirm the allegations set forth in Counts One and Two of this Complaint. II. In connection with the transaction referred to in Count One, Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis re- quested defendant City of Mound to conduct a special assessment search which search was conducted on May 9, 1978, and revealed a pending assessment as set forth in Exhibit C. III. Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis knew or should have known of said pending assessment but nggligently failed to set aside any funds for the payment of said special assess- ment at the closing of plaintiffs' transaction with defendants Fitzgerald. IV. As a ~esult of the negligence of defendant Twin CitY Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis, plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $1,426.80 plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum from and after September 18, 1979, which damages were incurred by plain- tiffs having to pay said amount after the refusal of defendants Fitzgerald to do so. COUNT FOUR I. For their cause of action against defendant Mike Wol~and Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc., plaintiffs reallege and reaffirm the allegations set forth in Counts One, Two and Three of this Complaint. -4- II. In connection with th~ tra~aeti0n r~rr~d to in Count defendant Wolf, the agent of defendant Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc., requested of the City of Mound that a special assessment search be conducted concerning the above-described property, which special assessment search was conducted on June 21, 1978, and re- vealed no pending special assessments as indicated on Exhibit D. III. Defendants Wolf and Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc. knew or should have known that said special assessment report was negligently and incorrectly prepared and negligently relied on said report at time of closing. IV. As a result of said negligence, defendants Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association of Minneapolis, Fitzgerald, Mike Wolf and Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc. failed to set aside any funds for the payment of the special assessments referred to in Count One and paragraph II of Count Two.. V. That as a result of the negligence of Mike Wolf and Century 21 Christy Realty, Inc., the plaintiffs were damaged in the amount of $1,426.80 plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum from and after September 18, 1979, which damages were incurred by plaintiffs having to pay said amount after the refusal of defendants Fitzgerald to do so. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for the judgment of the Court: 1. Against defendants in the amount of $1,426.80 plus interest at the rate of 8% per annum from and after September 18, 1979. 2. Against defendants in the amount of $10,000.00 as punitive damages. -5- 3. Ordering defendants to pay the fees, costs and disburse- ments of plaintiffs' attorneys. 4. Ordering such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and equitable. E~e~T. Anderson, ~r/ A~orney for Plaintif[s 2940 Dain Tower ~ Mi~nneapolis, MN 55402 339-9701 leagwe of minnesota cities October 6, 1980 TO: Mayors, Manage~.~s\and $1~er~ l/).~~ FROM: Doral d A. S1 a t e~r~?~x~c~ i C(~~~ RE: Status of Revenue Sharing Both the Senate and the House have now recessed without taking final action on the revenue sharing reenactment bill. While the bill has been reported out of con, nit- tee in each house, any final action will now be delayed until Congress returns from its recess after the November election. Unfortunately, this means that passage of the bill will depend on a "lame duck" Congress, which makes the prospects of reenactment uncertain at best. It appears that there is sufficient support in the Senate to pass the bill in that house. Prospects are much more uncertain in the House of Representatives, however. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT CITY OFFICIALS CONTACT THEIR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS NOW, BEFORE THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, TO URGE SUPPORT FOR GENERAL REVENUE SHARING. Specifically, each Senator and Representative should be asked to: 1) Insist that the Senate and House leadership schedule action on the general revenue sharing bills (S. 2574 and H.R. 7112) as soon as possible when Congress reconvenes. 2) Support reenactment of general revenue sharing. 3) Oppose any amendment to eliminate entitlement funding for general revenue sharing. Addresses and phone numbers for Minnesota's Congressional delegation are printed on the reverse side of this memo. Also enclosed with this memo are copies of comments by Minnesota's Senators and Representatives. These comments were originally printed in the January, 1980 issue of Minnesota Cities. Please contact Peter Tritz on the League staff if you have any questions. Also, please let the League staff know of any feedback you receive from any of the Senators or Representatives. (OVER) PT:DAS:rmm 300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 [612) 222-2861 Senator Dave Dureoberger Minnesota address: Butler Square Bldg. Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 725-6111 Capitol address: 353 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3244 Senator .Rudy Boschwitz Minnesota address: 419 No Robert St. St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 221-0904 Capitol address: 2107 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-5641 Rep~ Arlen Erdahl, District I Minnesota address: 33 Wentworth Ave. West St. Paul, MN (612) 725-7716 55118 Capitol address: 1017 Longworth House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2271 Rep~ Thomas M. Hagedorn, District 2 Minnesota addresses: 202 Post Office Bldg. P oO. Box 3148 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 387-8226 211 So Newton PoOo Box 850 Albert Lea, MN (202) 225-2472 56007 .Rgpo Bill Frenzel, District 3 Minnesota Addresses: 110 South 4th St. Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 725-2173 3601 Park Center Bldg. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (612) 925-4540 Capitol Address: 1026 Longworth Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2871 Rep. Bruce F. Vento, District 4 Minnesota address: 544 Federal Courts Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 725-7869 Capitol address: 230 Cannon Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-6631 Rep. Martin Olay Sabo, District 5 Minnesota address: 166 Federal Courts Bldg. Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 725-2081 Capitol address: 426 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-4755 Rep. Richard Nolan, District 6 Minnesota addresses: 720 St. Germain St. Cloud, MN 56301 (612) 252-7580 Federal Office Bldg. Redwood Falls, MN 56283 (507) 637-3565 Rt. 1, Box 88 Maple Plain, MN (612) 479-2331 55359 921 - 4th Ave. Worthington, MN (507) 376-4118 56187 Capitol address: · 214 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2331 Rep. Arian Stangeland, District 7 Minnesota address: 403 Center Ave. Moorhead, MN 56560 (218) 233-8631 Rep~ Anlan Stan~eland, District 7 Capitol address: 1518 Longworth House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2165 Rep. James L. Oberstar, District 8 Minnesota address: 231 Federal Bldg. Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 727-7474 Capitol address: 323 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-6211 IV]inneso a Congression delegation supports revenu9 Excerpts of letters to the League from members of Congress SENATOR BOSCHWlTZ As you may know, I have supported full funding for General Revenue Sharing both in the Senate Budget Committee and on the Senate floor. In fact, I would / ~ ,, hke;to see more programs reheve states of the costs of complying w~th ! / ) government regulations and then allow states the flexibility to respond to the / ? ~ ~uniq~, needs of their own areas. J /~,, ~l~..~,even,ue sharing Is one of the mos~ efhc~ent programs of government. It costs !.,,1~r~J~?~:.:.'11/1~)~) of 1 percent to administer and if that's not a record, I don't know ~ what is. ~, Anyone who thinks that Washington administers the programs more efficiently and spends the money more wisely should spend some time in Washington. SENATOR DURENBERGER Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak out on a program that is very dear to my heart, the General Revenue Sharing Program. I was in on its birth and have every intention of keeping it from a premature death at the hands of ~ po!iticians who can't come up with better ways to balance the federal budget. 1 ~ J ~1 ~ ,fir.,r0,1~/~,s.ul~Qort the revenue sharing concept because it returns to the people of ! ~ t'~/l~innesot~o~"e--of the tax monies collected under a highly inflationary federal income t~x~ system. This tax system drains from every community the financial resources needed to support local government through other, more painful taxes. ERDAHL~FIRST DISTRICT I would like to emphasize that general revenue sharing for local units of government was never seriously in jeopardy. During consideration of the first __ concurrent budget resolution last spring, there was an uns'U'c~-essful attempt to ~-'-~ // eliminate revenue sharing for state governments. I opposed that attempt. ,/'-, ///,! have also co-sponsored legislation that would insure the continuation of general ~~~/~r~'~enue sharing funds. - Within the Committee structure of the House, I do not serve on the Committees which have the responsibility to address this matter. I do, however, intend to support revenue sharing for both state and local governments when this issue is considered by the full House of Representatives. HAGEDORN~SECOND DISTRICT I realize that the General Revenue Sharing Program has been an important tool in stabilizing state and local budgets and have commended the local officials / for their management of these funds. I will be glad to do what I can to see ~ / .,,.~,r.-::that the program is continued because our local communities have benefited --~'- ~'"-'/,~¢'~';'-~,~'~ from revenue sharing. As a former member of the Minnesota State Legislature, I realize how important this federal program is to our smaller communities. Your work in insuring appropriate communications with the Minnesota Congressional delegation is to be commended as this type of operation certainly helps your elected officials remain aware of the immediate concerns of our city government. FRENZEL--THIRD DISTRICT '~-.. ,,----,, I have supported revenue sharing in the past, and supported the continuation of ~ funding this year for revenue sharing at both the state and local levels. In light ~'""-'"~-',"~,v., .~of the federal deficit, however, and the need for budgetary restraint, I am uncerta'in about revenue sharing in the future. While the concept still appeals to me, especially for local governments, it will become increasingly difficult to continue at a time when reduction of the federal deficit is essential. January 1980 11 · ... 2..27 Minnesot supports elegation Excerpts of letters to the League from members of Congress VENTO--FOURTH DISTRICT .~ ~ I strongly support continued revenue sharing for our states, cities and towns, and " .'t -- have supported measures before Congress this year which will make that "~ "~ ),,~ continued funding a reality. Obviously, when there is growing impetus to limit "~"""~"'~'~ ~" ,~',..~"~..~f~deral spending revenue sharing programs, especially to states, must be looked ';"*~'"~'~t clo~"~. In general, I believe revenue sharing to be a sound concept which deserves support. SABO--FIFTH DISTRICT As a member of the Appropriations Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, I have fully and enthusiastically supported the re-enactment of general revenue sharing. /~~ ~ (4~hav~ also participated in circulating letters to my colleagues in the House of general revenue sharing and urging es stressing the importance of' You can be certain that I will continue to advocate such legislation and appreciate any suggestions and assistance you may have to offer. NOLAN--SIXTH DISTRICT I have been a strong supporter of the GRS program since first elected to Congress and was instrumental in insuring that the smallest cities and other small units of government received their fair share of each entitlement allocation. /¢1 intend 'to support the reauthorization of the GRS Program for local governments. ~ /?' !/~1o, however, oppose GRS funds for states /,,"') / ~// j))f_an.y, cstates show treasurY surpluses each fiscal year. Minnesota, for example, / / / //~ /~~stimates a $92.8 million surplus for this fiscal year. Local governments, / /~ I //]~/ "Cn the other hand, are often hard pressed to provide even basic city services / /~'//// Z,, ~/' ~J because of severe budget constraints. For this reason, Congress must ~../ ././,~,,r~ re-examine the allocation formula to insure that GRS monies flow to those ~/~/¢' which need it the most- local governments. '":~ STANGELAI~iD ~SEVEI~ITH DISTRICT Recently, I co-sponsored H.R. 2291, legislation to extend through Fiscal Year 1984 the entitlement period for authorization of appropriations for the General Revenue Sharing program. This measure has been referred to the House /.-~. Government Operations Committee, of which I am a member. Please be assured ] /~ of my continued efforts toward early and favorable consideration of this measure. .-'; /¢ /~z~--~<~--Earlier th s sass on I voted in favor of an amendment des gned to increase ",~4'~~/'~~.~~~~.ar~1980 budget authority for the General Revenue Sharing " ~ ~'~'"~-~~~~.3 billion. This subsequently was approved by the House of ¢'~ R¢presentatives. ..__..~ ur the opinion that local governmental officials can best decide how federal dollars are to be spent in their community. They have the personal understanding of the community which allows them to better fulfill the needs and desires of the people. OBERSTAR--EIGHTH DISTRICT ,,tin '''-~'Tt~E-~/federal revenue sharing is essential to the cities of Minnesota. Since program caption in 1973, revenue sharing entitlements have allowed communities to "-~,,Z.,/~.. provide a wide variety of facilities and services for their citizens. The concept of .,", returning federal funds to cities with few strings attached is a success. I will ,,, fight for the continuation of this effective federal program in the U.S. House. 12 MINNESOTA CITIES CITY OF EOUND ~lound, Minnesota Month of.. September 1980 Monthly Activity Report of Street Deoartment & Shod This Last This Year To Date .. Work Units }'?onth . Month ,. to Date Last Year. ., CITY OF Mound, l'linn~soka Month o£ l.;onthly Activity Report Sewer Dep~rtmcnk This Last This Year Work Uni,}s Month Month to Date . ! to' D.~ Admi ni stxr~tion .., fi600 St,tion }!ainh. A Inst. [602 - Schools CINflON dO .AJXD Americsn Legion Post 398 DATE Septt 30, 1980 Gambling report CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE SROSS: ~ e_-i 10. O0 .~ ]~8: -~20. O0 EXPENSES: Sales Tax .~88 .SA PAYOUT AS PRIZES: PROFIT: ~11.85 ~2396~A5- 1250.00 10,300.00 ~6A~.~5 $~623.29 DISTRIBUTION OFPROF|TS: A~a~o , Leg. Bowl. Team Pol1~e ReRerve ~5-O0 17Q.60 ~o-00 ~554.60 ,checking acct. ~&337 ..80 2171,28 .2.7. 7J