83-02-22CITY OF MOUND
AGENDA
Mound, Minnesota
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 22, 1983
7:30 P.M. - City Hall
I. Pledge of Allegiance - Mayor Polston
~. Minutes of February 15, 1983, Special Meeting
~ PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Regarding the Proposed Use of 1983-84 HUD Community
Development Block Grant Funds
Funds Available - $92,822
B. Delinquent Water & Sewer Accounts for February
~. PLANNING COMMISSION 'ITEM
Case 83-105 -Jon Scherven - 2271 Commerce Blvd.
Part of Lot 52, Lynwold Park
Lot Size Variance-
,~ Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
Approval of Bid to Paint Fire Station (To be paid for from
Fire Dept. Capital Outlay Fund)
Plumbing Fee Schedule & Request to Raise Fees
Accept Low Quotation for Play Equipment - In Budget for
Highland Park
~ Approval to solicit Roof Repair Quotations and Approve Plans
and Specifications (Funds included in the 1982-83 Revenue
Sharing Budget)
.1983 Mill Rate Report - Verbal - City Manager
Submission of a Technical Assistance Grant Proposal to the
Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning and Development
12. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Memo to City Council from City Attorney
B. Copy of LMCD Board for 1983
C. LMCD Financial Statement for 1982
D. Budget Report for Water Patrol
E. Legion Post 398 Gambling Report
F. Westonka Chamber Waves - February, 1983
G. Letter from ~lestonka Schools - RE: Tonka Buildings
Pg. 325-332
/
Pg. 333-342
Pg. 343
Pg. 344-349
Pg. 350-357
Pg. 358-360
Pg. 361-364
Pg. 365-373
Pg. 374-375
Pg. 376-383
Pg. 384-386
Pg. 387-388
-Pg. 389-391
Pg. 392
Pg. 393
Pg. 394-395
Pg. 396
Page 323
H. Letter from Hennep~n County - RE: Appointment to Health
§erv~ces Advisory Committee
I. Letter from U.S. Dept. of Commerce - RE: Tonka Buildings
J. Agenda - Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District
Minutes - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
K. Metropolitan Counc|] "Review"
L. Letter from DNR - RE: Gray's B;y Dam
M. The Springsted Incorporated'Financial Letter
Pg. 397
Pg.
Pg. 399-~00
Pg. 401-406
Pg. 407-408
Pg. 409-412
Pg. 413-414
Page 324
24
February 15, 1983
SPECIAL-MEETING
OF THE '
CITY COUNCIL
Pursuant to due .call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council
of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road
in said City on February 15, 1983, at 7:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary
Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Gordon Swenson. Also present were: City Manager
Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building
Inspector.Jan Bertrand, Police Chief Bruce Wold, City Clerk Fran Clark,
Planning Commission Members Frank Weiland, Robert'Byrnes, Tom Reese, Goeff Michael,
Mike Vargo, Stan Mierzejewski. Following interested citizens were present:
Dave Moore, Rick Illies, Mr. & Mrs.. Patrick Sheehan, H. Cole, Gladys Watson,
Steve Lewin, Lynda Stahlke, Sharon Thiesfeld, Stephen Kepke, Marie George,
Joan Helland, Wa lter'Helland, Mr. & Mrs. Bill Netka, Pat Lund, Kelly' Just,
Mary Engrav, Randall Blohm, Tom Watson, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Wredberg, Teri Porter,
Mrs. Mike Porter, Rhonda Datson, Vogue Homes, Tom Goulette, Shirley Andersen,
Paul Pond and Jerry Longpre.
The Mayor opened the meeting,.welcomed the people in attendance and lead the
Pledge of Allegiance.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the January 25, 1983, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the
January 25, 1983, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
The Minutes of the February 1, 1983, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration.
Peterson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the
February 1, 1983, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
CASE #83-100 - BRUCE W. LARSON - 1972 SHOREWOOD LANE - LOT 19, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT - ACCESSORY BUILDING VARIANCE & APPEAL
The City Manager explained that last year the Larsons complained about"[he
condition of the structure. The Bu~.lding Inspector wrote a letter to the
owner at that time, Jenry Stefan, and asked him to remove the structure
because of its poor condition. The property was then sold to the adjacent
neighbor, Bruce Larson. Mr. Larson has now requested a variance for this
structure to be considered an accessory building. The Code states"...
structure subordinate to and serving the principal use structure on the same
lot and customarily incid&ntal thereto." To be an accessory to his present
home, the lots wou)d have to be combined. Mr. Larson does. not wish to
combine the lots. The variance would be setbacks, lot size and structure
size. The structure is only 460 square feet. The Planning Commission
has recommended that the City Council deny the variance and the administrative
appeal.
3?5'
25
February 15, 1983
Paulsen moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-21
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL - LOT 19, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT -
PID #18-117-23 23 0018
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.~
The Building Inspector will continue to work toward getting the structure
removed from the property.
CASE #83-101 - DAVE MOORE & RICK ILLIES - 2340 FERNSIDE LANE - LOTS 16 & 17,
BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - PlO #13-117-24 44 0037
The City Manager explained tha. t this is on the Agenda for the City Council to
either set a date for a public hearing'or deny the request. The Planning
Commission has recommended denial of the request for rezoning.
The City Attorney explained that 2 things would have to-be present to. warrant
rezoning:
1. a change in conditions (in the neighborhood) or
2. a mistake in the original zoning
He then stated that this request is probably based on economics for the owners.
The property would be of more value if it were zoned R-3.
Paulsen moved and Peterson.seconded a motion to set the date for a public
hearing on the rezoning of Lots 16.'& 17~ Block 3, Shirley-Hills Unit A
for March 15,.1983, at 7:30 P.M. The'vote wa§ unanimously, in favor. Motion
carried.
CASE #83-102 - ROBERT J. VEILLEUX - 5042 TUXEDO BLVD. - LOTS 5 & 6, WHIPPLE
SHORES - VARIANCE IN LOT WIDTH - PID #24-117-24 43 0054
The City Manager explained that the appl.icant is requesting to split this
parcel of land thereby creating another building site on Lot 6. His
existing house and garage are on Lot 5 and there is an encroachment of a
sidewalk (on Lot 6) which Mr. Veil]eux plans.to remove. The variance
requested is in lot width because of 'original platting being excessive
lot depth and lot narrowness. The required lot width is 60 feet and the
lots are 51.85' and 53.0'. The Planning Commission recommended approval
of the variance and subdivision.
Councilmember Paulsen asked Mr. Veilleux if the new house he is planning to
build on Lot 6 would be conforming to our ordinances. Mr. Veilleux answered
yes.but he has not yet decided on a plan for the new home.
Mrs. Marie George was present objecting to the variance being granted because
it would probably be detrimental to her property. Her primary concern was
that Mr. Veilleux would build a home that will block her view of the lake.
She explained that her home is very close to Tuxedo and if Mr. Veilleux were
allowed to have a building site on Lot 6, that he would build closer to the
lake than her home and thus would block her view.
26
February 15, 1983
The City Attorney advised that Mr.'Veilleux's property presently confOrms
tO the ordinance but a subdivision of the property would create two nonconforming
lots because they'would not meet the 60' width requirement.
Councilmember Paulsen moved the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-22
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE LOT WIDTH VARIANCE
AND DIVISION AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 6, WHIPPLE SHORES
(5048 TUXEDO BLVD.)
The'motion died for lack of a second.
The Council discussed Mrs. George's Objections.
Peterson.moved and Swenson seconded a motion to.table action on this item
until a plan for the .new home could be reviewed with Mrs. George. Item
to be br'ought back to the Council in one month. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Swenson asked Mr.. Veilleux if he would be Willing to meet
with Mrs. George'and .review his plan for.the home and try to come to.some
agreement. Mr. Vei. lleux answered yes.
CASE #83-103 - CITY O'F MOUND ' LOT 59, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 168 -
SUBD IV ISION/LOT SPLIT
The City Manager explained that this was part of the settlement with
Priscilla Anderson. The request is to divide off.the South 210 feet of
the East 210 feet of.the.West 460 feet of Lot 59,'Auditor's Subdivision
#168. This 'parcel has Mrs. Anderson's home on it.
Paulsen'moved and Peterson seconded the foil.owing resoluti®·
RESOLUTION #83-22 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITR THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION FOR
:LOT 59, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION #168, PID #23-117-24
42 0008 AND PART OF PID #23-117-24 42 0007)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE #83-104 - WALTER F. & JOAN E.' HELLAND - 1701 BAYWOOD LANE - SETBACK
VARIANCE - LOT ~', BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES - PID #13-117-24 21 0049
The City Manager explained that this variance is being requested .due to
.the unusual shape of the original platted lot in order to provide maximum
utilization ~f lakeshore land to the property owners.
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded'the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-23
RESOLUTION TO.CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A 10 FOOT STREET SETBACK
VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF
HARRISON SHORES (PID #13-117-24 21 0049)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
327
27
February 15, 1983
JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Mayor and the Council welcomed the Planning Commission to the Council
Meeting. The .Planning Commission introduced themselves to the City Council.
The reason for this meeting was that there are 4 new members on the P.C.
The Mayor then turned the meeting over to the City Attorney.
The City Attorney read Chapter 462.351, MuniciPal Planning and Development;
Statement of Policy. He then explained that the City of Mound has done~
several things, to guide i'n future developme~nt.
1. The City has put together a Comprehej~ive Plan which outlines the
goals of the City.
2. The City has established a new Zoning Ordinance and its regulations
are applicable to every property in the City. With this new
ordinance everyone should be treated the same.
3. The City. has subdivision regulations which are en important tool in
implementing'the zoning ordinance. The policy of'the City Of Mound
has been to combine'properties to.bring them into conformance with
the Zoning Ordinance. He went on'to explain that 90~ of the planning
problems in Mound are 'due to the fact that a major por.tion of the
platting was done in the l~f~0~iand that platting was most.ly 40' x
80' lots.
The Planning Commission is.only an advisory board. The. City Council takes
the Planning Commission's recommendations into consideration before taking
final action on any item.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that the Planning Commission is not just a
variance board, it is a planning board and should establish certain
scenarios for'the future of Mound. The Planning Commission should look to
the Staff the League and the Metro Council for help.
The Council thanked the Planning Commission for all the time and effort they
spend on the items that come before them.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens
present. Mrs. Marie George thanked the Council for allowing her ~ time
on the Agenda.
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TOM WATSON
The City Attorney explained that at the last meeting he was instructed to
prepare a resolution of denial for this amendment to Mr. Watson's conditional
· use permit. He has now done that and the whereas' are the findings of fact,
the now therefore, be it resolved is the conclusion.
Councilmember Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-24
RESOLUTION DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITTED GRANTED BY RESOLUTION 82-85 AND
AMENDED BY RESOLUTION 82-277, AND DENYING AN
EXPANSION OF THE FACILITY AND FURTHER DENYING
EXPANDING THE ACTIVITIES AND USES AUTHORIZED OF
THE PREMISES
28
February 15, .1983
The City Attorney then read the complete'resolution to the Council and
the audience.
Randy Blohm, attorney representing Tom Watson, then"Presented the Council
with.the following: 1. 49 names~on a petition for the Arcade.
2. A petition.with 21 signatures (15 of which, are merchants in Mound).
3. A letter from'Cindy Buckmann of Rainbow Arts & Crafts endorsing
the Arcade expansion and a letter from Mr. & Mrs. R. Wredberg.for the Arcade.
4. A petitiOn entltled "Student-Petition for Nightclub'~ s.lgned by 162
students. .,
5.An Affidavit of Howard H. Thompson,. Jr. stating that Mr. Thompson
is not a part of Mr. Watson's business.
He stated that Mr. Watson would like to'negotiatea satisfacto[y accomodatlon
for both ,the City and himself.-. He stated that the Mr. Thompson's AffivadiYt
details for the Councii what.his relati.onship has been and will be with
Mr. Watson. He also stated that Mr. Watson would get a new. vendor i.f the
Councll desires.
The Council asked about number 5 in Mr. Thompson"slAffidavit.where it states,
"That he advanced sums of money totaling some $41,000.00 to permit these
renovations and improvement to proceed."
Mr. Blohm then submitted an Agreement between Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watson
outlining the details of the loan. fro~ Mr. Thompson to Mr. Watson.
The Council then recounted that Mr. Watson'stated at previous meetings that
he had paid for all the improvements from money in his'savings account.
Mr. Blohm then again stated that he is here to try and negotiate an
accomondatlon of'Mr.' Watson's business wit.h~.the' Cit~. Mr~ Watson.has
assured him that he would promote this'ifacility-for, the teens of the
community only and would not try to'draw teens fKom other areas.
He suggested that if.the City is concerned about Mr. Watson's sincerity,
Mr. Watson would be willing to'sign an Agreement with the City including
any conditions or restrictions the Council might went to. include.
Councilmember Charon Stated even getting, rid'of Mr. Thompson would not
change her mind about denying this. amendment because Mr. Watson has
proved that he Cannot be trusted. When asked'a.question the Council gets
5 different answers from Mr. Watson.
Charon mo~ed and Paulsen seconded a motion to accept the documentS'that
were submitted by'Mr. Blohm. The vote was unanimouslY in favor.' Motion
carried.
The vote on Resolution #83-24 was unanimously'in'favor'.
PAYMENT REQUEST - PEABODY ROAD STORM SEWER - $10,971.55
Motion carried.
Swenson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the payment request
of Widmer Bros. for the Peabody Road Storm Sewer in the amount of $10,971.55.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
29
February 15, 1983
PAYMENT REQUEST - MOUND BAY PARK PROJECT - $1,721.40
Swenson moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the payment request
from Perkins Landscape for work completed on the. Mound Bay Park Project
in the amount of $1,721.40. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
EXTENSION.OF OPTION FOR'STREETCAR BOAT SHOPPING CENTER - LOST LAKE SITE
The City Manager explained that a letter has been received by the City
from Buzz Sycks requesting a 60 day extension on the option to purchase
the Lost Lake site from .the City.
Swenson moved and Peterson.seconded.a motion to grant a 60 day extension
on the option to purchase the Lost Lake site by the Streetcar Boat
Shopping Center.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that he has reservations about granting a
60 day extension without some compensation.from the Streetcar Boat
Shopping Center.
Councilmember Swenson stated.he saw no reason not to grant the extension
as requested.
Councilmember Paulsen moved to amend the original motion to grant the
extension .if the Streetcar Boat Shopping Center put $500.00 down.
The amendment died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Charon suggested that the Council approve a 30 day extension.
There was little support for this.
The vote on the original motion was 3 in favor with Charon and Paulsen
voting nay. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Swenson moved and Peterson seconded.a motion to approve the payment of bills
as p'resented on.the pre-list, in the amount of $66,562.90, when funds
are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC ACCESS ON LAKE MINNETONKA
Paul Pond, member on the Minnetonka Task Force, was present and explained
that they are looking for some direction from the City Council on the .three
sites in Mound that are being looked at as possible public accesses. He
needs the direction because Thursday the Minnetonka Task Force will decide
on 1 or 2 public access sites on Lake Minnetonka. He informed the Council
that the Hennepin County Park Reserve has $1,000,000 set aside to develop
a public access on Lake Minnetonka. They would like to have 80 parking
spaces and be centrally located. The 3 sites in Mound are Lost Lake,
the Surfside property or a site .in Lafayette Park near Three Points Blvd.
The Council felt that a site by Lost Lake would be the best of the 3 as long
as the access was compatible environmentally with the surrounding area. The
Council felt the 2 other sites should not be considered by the Task Force.
33d
30
February 15, 198])
Charon moved.and Swenson seconded a mot. ion directing the City Manager to
write a letter to the Lake Minnetonka Task Force indicating that the City
would llke the Task Force, the DNR and HennepSn County to look at Lost Lake
as a possibili-t¥ for a'public access si.te, taking into consideration that
the access must be compatible environmentally wlth the surrounding area.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Memo from the City Planner - Suggested planning activities.for discussion
on the deVelopment of a planning work program.
B. Letter regarding the closing of Metro DNR Headquarters.-
Paulsen moved.and Peterson.seconded the followi'ng resolution.
RESOLUTION.#83-25 RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE CLOSING OF THE METRO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REGION OFFICE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carriedI.
C. -.February. Schedule fo-~ 'the HumPhrey Institute
D. Press Release - Dave.D.urenberge.r - regarding the new.Revenue Sharing
Plan.
Councilmember Swenson stated that on January ll, 1983, when he was on
vacation, the City COuncil passed a 'resolution to submit a proposal to
EDA. on a feasibility study on Tonka's Building. He would like to go
on record as opposing this action because 'he feels it is wasting taxpayers
money on.a private corporation that then can turn around and do whatever
they want with the building.
The City Manager reported that since that resolution was passed, he has
learned that EDA does not have any money to put toward that program,'but
that the State may have $20,000 to put toward this.
CHANGE MEETI'NG DAYS
Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to change the daYs·.for'the .
Council Meetings to the 1st and 3rd Tuesday evenings of each month at
7:30 P.M..The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Peterson moved and PaUlsen seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:20 P.M.
The vote'was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Fran Clark, City Clerk
Jon Elam, City Manager
$31
BILLS .... FEBRUARY 15, 1983
Ben Franklin
Brown Photo
Henn Co. Treasurer
Popham Haik Schnobrick
Reo Raj Kennels
Bradley Exterminating
Henn Co. Sheriffs Dept
Badger Meter
Blackowiak & Son
Holly Bostrom
Bryan Rock Prod.
Berry Auto
Bowman Barnes
Janet Bertrand
Commissioner of Revenue
Continental Tele
Cargill Salt
Coast to Coast
Fran Clark
Robert Cheney
Counterfitting Plus
Capitol Rubber Stamp
Dependable Services
Jori Elam
Empire Crown Auto
Greyhound Travel
Govt Training Serv
Glenwood Inglewood
Gerry's Plumbing
The Hozza Assoc
Internatl Conf Bldg Offic
Illles & Sons
Herman Kraft
Lowell's
The Laker
Long Lake Ford Tractor
Sharon Legg
Lindstroms
Mound Postmaster
MacQueen Equip
Marina Auto Supply
Miller Davis
Minnegasco
Mound Fire Dept
Mound Super Valu
Wm Mueller
Metro Fore Communications
MN UC Fund
Medical Oxygen & Equip
Martins Navarre 66
Navarre Hdwe
N.S.P.
42.39
69.75
817.50
1,689.94
302.50
19.OO
95.00
298.37
98.42
106.30
91.97
42.60
3,906.00
1,117.70
1,081.74
267.09
12.43
334.00
126.60
11.50
33.00
26.18
3.28
396.00
35.00
62.45
125.85
75.00
37.00
3,386.75
3.68
53.95
116.87
29.50
18.87
509.50
300.90
221 .OO
504.03
18.50
3,023.29
3,242.80
51.31
1,325.64
11.80
631.53
4.oo
10.OO
130.79
5,991.49
No Henn Cummunity College 18.25
Daniel Nelson 580.31
Natl League of Cities . 380.00
" " " 380.00
Pitney Bowes 158.OO
Perkins Landscape 1,721.~0
Rustique Decorating 38.79
Nels Schernau 30,00
Shepherds Rental Rug 66.25
Spring Park Car Wash 75.40
Suburban Tire 457.36
Greg Skinner 10.00
Ted Stallman 12,72
Duane Smith 50,00
John Scherven 750,00
T & T Maintenance 25,75
Thrifty Snyder Drug il.2.7
Thurk Bros. Chev 31.52
Title Ins. 46.00
Univ of MN 60.00
Unitog Rental 317.16.
Village Chev 14.64
Widmer Bros 2,148.75
Bruce Wold 6.00
Westonka Firestone 46.71
Ziegler, Inc. 28.53
Total Bills 38,543.28
LIQUOR 'BILLS
Butch's Bar Supply 242.95
Coca Cola Bottling 156.80
Day Distributing 2,117.04
East. S~de Beverage 2,429.21
Gold Medal Beverage .91.35
Twin City Home Juice 28.80
City Club Distrib 2,269.00
Midwest Wine 645.15
A.J. Ogle 1,480.20
Pepsi Cola 191.25
Regal Window Clean 10.75
Thorpe Distrib 3,291.65
Pogreba Distrib 2,586.75
Knights of Columbus 5.00
Real One Acquisition 731.85
Griggs, COoper 2,631.47
Johnson. Bros, Liq 5,239.55
Old Peoria 1,133.24
Ed Phillips & Sons 2,737.61
Total Liquor Bills '28,019.62
GRAND TOTAL--ALL BILLS
66,562.90
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MOUND
Notice is hereby given that Hennepin County and the City of Mound, pursuant
to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended,
are sponsoring a public hearing on February 22, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in
the City Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN. to obtain the
views of citizens on local and Urban County housing and community development
needs and to provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban
Hennepin County State of Objectives/1982 and the City of Mound's proposed
use of its Year IX Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
planning allocation of approximately $92,822.
The City of Mound is proposing to fund the following activities with
Year IX Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting July 1, 1983.
ACTIVITY
Downtown Improvements Implementation
(including Tax Increment Financing Study)
Housing Rehabilitation Grants
Tonka Plant Re-Use Feasibility Study
Street & Storm Sewer Improvements
Park Improvements
Administration
BUDGET
$ 25,0O0
20,000
25,000
10,822
7,ooo
5,ooo
TOTAL $ 92,822
For adiitional information on proposed activites, level of funding and
program objectives contact the City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound.
MN. 55364, phone 472-1155.
The public hearing is being held in accord with the Urban Hennepin County
Joint Cooperation Agreement pursuant to M.S. 471.59.
Frar~cene C. Clark, City Clerk
Published The Laker - February 1, 1983.
URBAN ~EI~IN COUNTY CDBG ENTIll~
YEAR IX - PLYING ALLOCATIOq
% of' 1970
% of 1980 % of 1980 % of 1900 Urban County % of Year IX
Urban Co~aty Urban County Urban Co~mty Over Crowded Planning
Population Poverty Povertb. Housing A11 ocation
Chanhassen 01.32 01.23 01.23 01.19 1.24
Dayiam 00.84 01.01 01.01 01~08 0.99
Hanover 00.13 00~33 00.33 00.12 0.23
Rockford 00.50 00.75 00.75 00.28 0.57
St. Anthony 01.6~ 01.11 01~11 01.64 1.38
Brooklyn Center 06.47 09.49 09.49 13.95 9.85
Brooklyn Park 08.90 14.57 14.57 08.73 11.71
Chanplin 01.87 01.09 01,09 01.61 1.42
Corcoran 03.88 01.48 01.48 03.78 1.16
Crystal 05.29 04.23 04.23 10.29 6~01
Deephaven 03J7 03.80 03.80 03.58 0.74
Eden Prairie 03.37 02.45 02.45 01.80 2.52
£dina 08.55 06.~4 05.54 02.72 6.34
Excel sior 03.52 03.67 03.67 03~57 0.61
Golden Valley 04.72 02.76 02.76 03.38 3.41
Greenfield 03.29 00.37 00.37 00.42 0.36
Gree~ 03.14 00.10 03.10 03.07 0.10
Hassan 03.37 03.52 03.52 03.51 0.48
Independence 03.55 00.41 03.41 00.55 0~48
Loretto 03.06 03.11 03.11 03.17 0.11
Maple Grove 04.26 03.09 03.09 02.19 3.16
Maple Plain 00.29 03.37 00.37 03.35 0.35
Medicine Lake 03.09 00.07 00.07 03.18 0.10
Medina 03.54 03.49 03.49 03.96 0.62
Minnetonka 08.02 04.64 04.64 05.99 5.82
Minnetonka Beach 03.12 03.02 03.02 03.04 0.05
Minnetrista 03.67 01,06 01.06 03.87 0.92
M~und .Ol.~q2 03.42 03,42 02J22 2.75
New Hope ~)4~7~ ' 05.30 05.30 06.41 5.45
Orono 01.42 00.97 03.97 01.07 1.11
Richfield 0L84 07.96 07.95 10.36 8.53
Robbinsdale 02.99 03.02 03.02 03.41 3.11
St. Boni faciu$ 03.18 03.25 03.25 03.25 0.23
St. Louis Park 08.90 10.56 10.56 08.39 9.60
Shorewood 03.96 03.78 03.78 03.98 0.88
Spring Park 03.30 03.59 00.59 03.15 0.41
Tonka BAY 03.28 03.25 03.25 03.21 0.25
Wayzata 03.75 03.96 03J95 00.34 0.75
Woodland 00.11 03.23 03.23 03.04 0.15
Hennepin County
Year IX
Planning
Allocation
7~727
19,208
8~;575
47:911
39;131
24,948
214,049
115;109
12,116
3;337
16,169
16;169
3;674
1].;779
3;337
195;490
1;648
37;442
28;325
170,825
288,031
104,978
6;714
7;727
324;133
29;676
13,805
8,4(12
25~286
5,025
$ 3,376,830
375,200
$ 3;752;000
CITY of MOUND
February 18, 1983
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
CDBG PUBLIC HEARING
'Since we put the announcement in The Laker, I've been able to check with
Hennepin County regarding my original list of proposed uses of HUD Block
Grant Funds for 1983-84. Two items on that list probably would not be
approved because they don't relate directly to either economic development
or directly benefit low or moderate income people.
BecaUse of that, I've revised my list and I feel that it reflects what we
may face in 1983-84. It is as follows:
Downtown Improvement Financing
(including Tax Increment Study Costs)
Housing Rehabilitation Grants
Tonka Plant Re-Use Feasiblity Study (Phase II)
Westonka Senior Citizens Housing Program
Special Assessments
Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Design Grants
Administration
$ 25,O00
20,000
25,OO0
5,000
5,822
7,OOO
5,OOO
TOTAL
92,822
JE:fc
February 18, 1983
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
PROJECTED'1982'83
USE OF CDBG FUNDS
PROJECT #
022
252
572
712
752
8O3
925
Westonka Senior Citizen Housing
Street Imp./Special Assessment Grant
Rehabilitation - Private Property
Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Design
Low Interest Commercial Loans
Administration
Senior Citizen Housing Study
1 - 925 is closed out and balance transferred to 022.
ORIGINAL
BUDGET
10,000
10,000
40,114
5,000
40,000
4,000
1,283
110,397
2 - 252 is reduced by $7,000 which is transferred to 022.
3 - 752 is reduced by $10,000 which is transferred to 022.
REV I SED
28,283
3,000
40,114
5,000
30,000
4,000
110,397
NOTES
The City of Mound's committment to the Senior Citizens Project is $30,000.
We have pooled together $28,283, leaving us $1,717 short. That will come
from an unexpended balances in the above projects effective 7-1-83.
There is a project #709 whihc has a balance of $1,207 which we are using to
cover the City Planner's cos~ in the Tax Increment Study Program, rather
that using City General Funds.
JE:fc
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM/1982
Introduction
The 1981 amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
made significant changes to the CDBG program. The amended Act elimina-
ted the requirement for a formal application and considerably eased
HUD's responsibilities for review and approval of the application re-
placement - - - a statement of local objectives, a projected use of
funds, and certification assuring proper administration and implementa-
tion. This Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives nas been de-
veloped in order to provide the guidance necessary for planning and im-
plementing the Year VIII Urban Hennepin County CDBG program in a manner
which meets National objectives,
These changes place almost the entire responsibility on the Urban County
for ensuring that each activity to be carried out with CDBG funds is
clearly eligible and meets the National objectives of the Housing and
Community Development Act, as amended. The National objectives remain
essentially unchanged, i.e., developing viable urban communities by pro-
viding decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded econo-
mic opportunities principally for low and moderate income persons;
aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or meeting
other community development needs having a particular urgency.
The Communisy Development Block Grant program may provide funds to
address a wide range of housing and community development needs. In
Urban Hennepin County a major need is for decent housing affordable to
low and moderate income persons. Consistent with this Urban County need
and National objectives, activities which serve to expand affordable
housing opportunities and maintain the existing housing stock for low
and moderate income persons will continue to be a program priority.
This priority is detailed under Housing Objectives. A parallel priority
is assigned other CDBG activities which directly benefit low and moder-
ate income persons, i.e., special assessment grants, weatherization
grants, and housing rehabilitation grants and/or loans.
The considerable degree to which the needs of low and moderate income
persons nas been addressed in the preceding seven program years nas
succeeded in moderating the demands for activities expressly designed
for this segment of the Urban County. It is therefore appropriate to
expect a somewhat increased programming of activities in the area of
elimination and prevention of slums and blight and economic development.
The Statement of Objectives has been divided into CDBG program sub-
headings. Under each sub-heading are specific objectives and procedural
statements supporting now the objectives can be achieved.
Pro~ram Administration
Objective:
Obj ecti ve:
Objective:
Obj ecti ve:
Objective:
Obj ecti ve:
Develop and implement a Mousing and Community Development
program which addresses Urban County community Oevelopmenu
objectives and meets local needs and priorities in a timely
and efficient manner.
Provide each participating community flexibility in the
development of local programs to address Urban County and
local needs,
Emphasize activities w~icn provide for a balanced program of
community improvements benefitting low and moderate income
persons and eliminating slums and blight.
Use Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds in such a manner as to
generate program income whenever possible.
Provide opportunities for citizen involvement in the formu-
lation, implementation and evaluation of t~e Urban Hennepin
County CDBG Program.
Support activities which serve to improve local housing and
Community Development planning and management capacities,
Procedural Statements:
· Programmed activities must be implemented within two years from
the start of the program year in which they were funded.
Maintain thorough and detailed files on the process of program de-
velopment and activity implementation to meet program requirements
and prepare for quarterly monitoring visits.
Inform citizens of funding levels, program objectives and eligible
activities.
Plan to implement activities which can return funds to the program
through maximizing the use of loans and repayment agreements.
Neighborhood Revitalization
Objective:
Maintain and preserve viable neignbornoods and neignbornood
service centers through a program of concentrated community
development activities.
Procedural Statements:
Target CDBG funds for use in conjunction with other available
Federal, State and Local resources for a combination of housing
and community development activities in identified neighborhoods.
$3?
· Identify neighborhoods geographically and/or statistically con-
sistent with local plans.
$ Upgrade identified neighborhood consistent with locally adopted
plans.
Neighborhoods identified for revitalization using CDBG funds
should be primarily residential including, if appropriate, neign-
bornood commercial facilities.
Demonstrate that component activities are supportive of improve-
ments to tn· neighborhood housing stock and/or commercial service
facilities.
Housing
Objective:
Direct housing resources to those sectors of the housing
market that provide tn· greatest benefit to lower income
persons.
Objective:
Encourage the provision of rental assistance to newly con-
structed and existing rental units, housing rehabilitation
assistance and expansion of homeownership opportunities in
the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP).
New Construction
Obj ecti ve:
Facilitate the development of new housing, including, but
not limited to, site acquisition, public improvements,
assistance with front-end costs and multi-community pro-
jects.
Procedural Statements:
· Acquire sites prior to development consistent with priorities
'established in the HAP.
Establish multi-communit~ housing development projects when
possible.
· Utilize all available approaches to financing housing develop-
ment.
Exi sting Rental
Objective: Continue maximum utilization of the Section 8 existing
program as a supplementary resource.
Procedural Statement:
· Participate in the existing rental assistance program.
· Explore utilization of the Section 8 Moderate Renab Program.
Housing Rehabilitation
Objective: Provide housing rehabilitation assistance to income
eligible ~ousenolds in all sub-grantee communities.
Procedural Statements:
Offer a variety of housing rehabilitation assistance for
possible implementation in CD program Year VIII.
Follow uniform Urban County Procedural Guidelines including
applicant income and asset eligibility requirements and client
assistance levels.
· Utilize the MHFA housing rehabilitation program as a supplemen-
tary resource.
Public Facilities and Improvements
Objective:
Maintain existing public improvements and facilities and
assist the development of new facilities and improve-
ments.
Objective: Place emphasis on direct benefit activities for low and
moderate income persons.
Objective: Coordinate the development of senior centers in locations
suitable for the provision of other elderly services.
Procedural Statement:
· Target the provision of public improvements to areas desig-
nated for revitalization and new development.
Handicapped Improvements
Objective: H~lp assure that program, facilities and housing are
accessible to handicapped persons.
Objecti vet
Assure that eac~ accessibility improvement meets a parti-
cular need, removes a specific barrier and represents a
defined priority in the community.
Procedural Statement:
Develop a handicapped accessibility plan for such improvements
which identifies the barrier(s) to be removed, establishes the
needs and priorities, explains now mobility and accessibility
will be improved and lists the facilities and programs to
benefit from SUCh action. Plan should identify non-construc-
tion options for removing barriers.
Economic Development
Objective: UndertaKe activities appropriate to improving economic
conditions in deteriorated and deteriorating areas.
Objective: Provide additional permanent~ private sector jobs avail-
able to low and moderate income persons.
Procedural Statements:
· Provide assistance to private-for-profit developments in Such
a manner as to generate program income whenever possible.
Economic development activities, must have evidence of commit-
ments or interest by developers and provide for new or ex-
panded employment opportunities and/or the elimination of
existing blighting influences in tn· community.
Economic development activities Should be identified in a plan
adopted by a local governing body, including but not limited
to, comprehensive plan, redevelopment plan or economic
development plan.
Energy
Object i ve:
The administration of the UHC CDBG program should be sensi-
tive whenever possible'to energy conservation issues through
the development of energy use strategies.
Objective: Assign as a priority assistance to low and moderate income
homeowners for weatnerization improvements.
Procedural Statement:
When energy use strategies are prepared they should emphasize
local needs and include items such as those listed under eligible
activities in Section 105(a)(16) of the Housing and Community
Development Act as amended in 1981.
Public Services
Objective:
Support the funding of public services to the extent they
are consistent with CDBG regulations and the program needs
of participating communities.
Objective: CDBG funding for public services Should directly benefit low
and moderate income persons.
Procedural Statements:
Limit tn· expenditure of CDBG funds for public services to .no more
than ten percent (10%) of the planning allocation of the UHC sub-
grantee choosing to fund public services.
· CDBG funding of public services must be for new or increased
levels of service.
11 016 1656 11
11 016 1721 31
11 016 1749 41
11 022 1562 91
11 022 1610 61
11 022 1721 11
11 028 1601 21
11 028 1610 31
11 028 1656 61
11 028 1688 91
11 031 1583 61
11 046 1746 71
11 049 5031 41
11 052 5001 11
11 070 4625 O1
11 073 4716 11
11 085 4960 91
11 088 2147 91
11 100 2085 41
11 103 5764 51
11 112 5912 11
11 169 5540 O1
11 169 5818 O1
11 175 5444 21
11 187 5444 71
11 193 2146 91
11 211 2142 81
11 220 2180 91
John Lovseth
Sandee Banks
John Hirt
Wm Howell
Mike Condon
L. Thrift
Orva Byers
Ronald Nelson
Richard Juhl
Larry Bader
Thomas Roberts
Ernest Howard
Jerry Pehrson
Pamela Monahan
Norman Hemerick
Tom Harty
David Heinsch
Gerald Baker
Kenneth Hediger
John Simar
Beckman & Hibbard
Jay Miller
Steven Pahl
Susan Palesotti
Bertrand Bjornstad
John Moyer
Gerald Garvais
Delinquent water and sewer
[~ade arrangements
$318.13
85.02
76.48
80.72
94.32
83.85
83.28
77.44
147.2'1
55.20
64.20
103,64
134.53
257.30
104.66
155.87
60.27
148~50
56.10
129.91
106.58
54.30
134.84
158.70
158.64
55.02
86.70
$3071.41
2-16-83
1656 B1 uebi rd
1721 Bluebird Ln
1749 Bluebird Ln.
1562 Dove Ln.
94.32
1721 Dove Ln.
1601 Finch Ln.
P~d
1656 Finch Ln.
1688 Finch Ln.
1583 Gull Ln.
Made arrangement,did not keep
5031Jennings Rd.
5001Crestview Ln.
4625 Lakeside Ln.
4716 Beachside Rd.
4960 Three Pts Blvd.
214B Grandview Blvd~
2085~Ironwood Rd,
5764 Sunset Rd.
5712 Gumwood Rd.
5540 Lynwood Blvd.
5818 Lynwood Blvd.
5444 Spruce Rd
5444 Tonkawood Rd.
2146 Cedar Ln.
2146 Overland Rd.
2180 Cardinal Rd.
11 016 1656 11
11 016 1721 31
11.016 1749 41
11 022 1562 91
11 022 1610 61
11 022 1721 11
11 028 1601 21
11 028 1610 31
11 028 1656 61
11 028 1688 91
-11 031 1583 61
11 046 1746 71
11 049 5031 41
11 052 5001 11
11 070 4625 01
11 073 4716 11
11 085 4960 91
11 088 2147 91
11 100 2085 41
11 103 5764 51
11 112 5912 11
11 169 5540 01
11 169 5818 01
11 175 5444 21
11 187 5444 71
11 193 2146 91
11 211 2142 81
11 220 2180 91
Delinquent water and sewer
$318.13
85.02
76.48
80.72
94.32
83.85
83.28
77.44
147.21
55.20
64.20
103.64
134.53
257.30
104.66
155.87
60.27
148~50.
56.10
129.91
106.58
54.30
134.84
158.70
158.64
55.02
86.70
2-16-83
Case No. 83-105
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of February 15, 1983.
Board of Appeals
Case No. 83-105
Location: 2271 Commerce Boulevard
Legal Desc.: Part of Lot 52, Lynwold Park
Request: Variance and Concept Plan Approval
Zoning District: B-1
Applicant:
Jon Scherven
5421 Church Road
Phone 472-2523
The applicant is requesting to address the Planning Commission and present a
concept plan to improve and remodel an existing commercial building in the Central
Business District. He is intending to pha~his improvements as he acquires tenants
for the financing of his project. He is requesting that the first phase allow him
to do structural alteration to the existing structure so he may relocate his Wes-
tonka Sports Center retail operation to this building.
Pursuant to Section 23.625.5, the minimum lot size sho~are fee~.
The.._~oximate lot size is 4,960 squa_re f~eet~..Code ~ection 23.404(7~ s~t~s,
"Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a
lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs
and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non-conforming use."
Mr. Scherven plans to include structural repairs as part of his remodeling.
Recommend:
I would recommend granting his variance to do structural repairs to
the building retail front 900 to 1,OO0 square feet of floor area. (Phase
I) It would not intensify a non-conforming parcel of land. The use of
the property is consistent with the Plan and the present zoning district.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
I.
CITY OF BOUND
Fee Paid
Date Filed
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
(Please type the following information)
Street Add-~e's S -~-~'- P rope r ty
Legal Description of .Property: Lot ~'~- (~:7/:~/~7~ ~:>~- ) . Block ' ..
Owner's Name
..Day Phone No. Y-//~--~--~.~_~
Address
Applicant '(if other than owner):
Name Day .Phone No.
-Address
7.
8.
Type. of Request:
( .~)~-Vari'ance ( ) Conditibnal Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ~ Sign Permit
( )*Other
*if other, specify:-
)resent'Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property .,A~ ,,'~-.~
Has an apPIicatlon ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? If so, .llst date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contai, ned in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ! consent to the e~try in
or upon the premises described in .this appllca~ion by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required b~ law. .
Planning Commission Recommendation.
Date
Codncil Action:
Re§olution No.
Reques't for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2)
Case #
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff'
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All.i~formatlon below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform'to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply with ali area helgh~ and bulk.regulatlons
for the zone district in-which it is located? Yes(~) No ' ( ) .~ .
If ~tno~, specify each non-conforming use: '
D.. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil
(~/~) Too small ( )' Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) ShaPe. ( ) Other: Specify:
E. Wu~he hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ()(~) If yes, explain:
G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No (/~)
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? y~]~'/oc~ ._~£~OJ.~/
H..What is the "minimum't modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additlonal
sheets, if necessary.)
I. Will granting of the variance be mater|ally detrimental toproperty in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
C)N CA t'
3?7
M~NUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 15, 1983
Present were: Chairman Frank Weiland; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, Geoff Michael~,
Stan Mierzejewski, Thomas Reese and Michael Vargo; City Manager Jon Elam arrived
after the Council meeting; Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie
Stutsman. Commissioners Liz Jensen and Joanne Fillbrandt were absent and excused.
Also present were Jon Scherven, Gary Thomton, Richard Groh, Vern O. Groves, Ray
Sheeran and Ron Gehring.
The Chairman opened the meeting. He requested that thank you letters be drafted
for the former Planning Commission members eligible for them.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 31, 1983 were presented
for consideration. Byrnes moved and Mierzejewski seconded a motion to approve the
minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Case No. 83-105 Variance Approval and Concept Plan - Property at 2271 Commerce
Boulevard - Part of Lot 52, Lynwold Park - PID 14-117-24 44 0039
Owner Jon Scherven and Plan Designer Gary Thomton were present.
Jon Scherven explained that the building involved was the former Mound Hard-
ware Store and that basically he was seeking a favorable variance because in
the B-1 District under the present Zoning Ordinance, improvements cannot be
made on lots of less than 7500 square feet. Gary Thomton presented drawings
of the concept for renovating the building which is to be done in three phases.
Phase 1 will be to renovate the front (east side), which includes raising the
floor so the basement level will have a 9 foot ceiling, and everything inside
to the little mall. Phase 2 will be the rest of building and Phase 3 will be
the parking and possibly an addition. They are negotiating for a 52 foot
wide strip of land from Lynwood Boulevard to the Burlington Northern right-of-
way (located to the west of building) for space for parking of 26 cars.
Mierzejewski moved a motion to approve a variance to do Phase I plan based
on the fact that the Planning Commission had discussed square footage require-
ment before and their concensus is that basically all of the downtown area is
nonconforming under the present Zoning Ordinance. Mierzejewski amended motion
to include "concept plan remodeling of lower and upper levels, but to come
back to the Planning Commission for "A" and "B" of plan." (A and B of plan
is the west side of upper level of the building.) The motion was seconded
by Reese.
Discussion followed; Reese stated he had no problem with Phase l, but felt there
were lots of problems out back, i.e. no delivery area, enormous grade change,
etc. Mr. Thomton stated they realized they have no topo; plans just show
some parking is available, if not for 26 cars, maybe only parking for 18 with
a loading zone. Weiland stated that he felt this fit into the Downtown re-
vitalization plan and this would be an incentive for other people to follow
and do the same type of renovation.
The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
Proposed Resolution Case #83-105
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE
AS REQUESTED FOR PT. OF LOT 52, LYNWOLD PARK ADDITION
(2271 Commerce Boulevard)
WHEREAS, the owner of the property described as Lot 52 commencing at a pt.
in the east line of Lot 52 a distance of 79 ft. south from N.E.
corner thereof thence west at right angles 125 ft. thence south at
right angles 40 ft. thence east at right angles 125 ft. thence N.
40 ft. to beginning of existing alley (PID #14-117-24-0044-0039)
has applied for an approximately 3,000 sq. ft. lot size variance
to allow structural alterations to the existing structure, and
WHEREAS, the City Zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft.
in the B-1 Central Business District, and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission recommended approval of this variance as the
structural alterations to an existing building is consistant with the
Downtown Revitalization Plan and that a denial of the variance would
allow the landowner reasonable use of his land.
)lOt' '
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA;
That the City Council does concur with the Planning Commission
recommendation to approve the approximately 3,000 sq. ft. lot size
variance to allow Phase I structural repairs to an existing building
with the exception of the portion designated as "A" and "B" of the
design drawings to be part of Phase II.
Note: A and B of the design drawings is the west side of the upper
level of the building.
CITY of MOUND
February 18, 1983
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
Enclosed are the 3 quotations solicited to paint the inside and outside
of the Fire Station. The quotes are as follows:
1. Mike~
2. Helge A. Norgard
3. Minnetonka Painting & Decorating Co.
$7,472.00
$7,755.00
$9,981.O0
The amount approved in the budget for the work was $7,000 to be paid from
the Joint Five City Fire Capital Outlay Fund. These funds were paid into
the fund in 1982 for this work.
JE:fc
WAYZATA~ M I N N £~ ~TA
~~/
Minnetonka Painting & Decorating
5016 Woodrldge Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Phone: 472-2092
Co.
Proposal No. 180
Page No. 1
Date 2/5/83
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
Name City of Mound
Street 5341 Maywood Road
City Mound State MN
Telephone 472-1155
WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT
Street Mound Fire Department Bldg.
CitY Wilshire Boulevard, State MN
Mound
Date of Plans
Architect
We hereby propose to furnish all the materials and perform all the labor necessary for the completion of
I~terior - Cleaning as per specifications.
Preparation for painting (see specifications). Surfaces
all ceiling on~ main floor garage: walls: offices: walls
painted; new wall painted?
Exterior painting - comple~ building and ~_r~m.
to be painted -
clean~ ceiling
Exterior and interior to receive one coat of finish pain~.
Work is guaranteed for one year from completion date.
material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be be performed in accordance with the drawings and
9cifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of
Dollars ($ )' I with payments to be made as follows:
I
Refer to page 5 of specifications.
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will
become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our
control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessa.ry insurance upo.n above work. Workmen's Compensation and Public
Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by/~'/--~/,'~ ,Df~/NJ~/~_..~ ~; J~=~o~,,?~/~ ~0
Res pect fully su bmitted...~~'~ ~..//~ ~
Per
NOTE - This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within days
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work
as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date
)ted
Signature
Signature
~ Form # 23-181 3S%~
MTKA PAINTING 8: DECORATING CO.
SPECIALIZING IN FANCY WALLCOVERING
5016 Woodridge Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 612/472-2092
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PAINTING
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT
These specifications will be part of the contract known as
Proposal No. 180.
Interior
Cleaning
Preparing the surface to paint is a very important part of the
job. The surface to be painted must be free of any dirt, soot,
grease or any other matter that will cause the paint not to
adhere 100%.
To eliminate this problem so a guarantee can be given, a profes-
sional cleaning company will power wash the ceiling, walls, pipes,
and bar joists with the proper chemical cleaner and then rinse
complete area. Care will be taken to cover electric power or
anything that may be damaged due to the cleaning.
Preparation
Ail loose paint will be scraped and sanded on duck work, walls
and any painted areas. Galvanized metal and unpainted pipes
will be washed with mineral spirts before applying prime coat
Moore's IronClad Galvanized metal primer. Loose paint on wood
or metal door will be scraped, sanded and spot primed before
finish coat is applied. Floor will be covered for protection.
Any area or equipment not to be painted will be covered or
removed. Fire trucks will be moved outside during painting
operation. At the end of the day, area will be cleaned and
the trucks returned inside of the building. New unpainted bleck
wall receive one coat of Moorcraft Bleck Filler as a primer
coat.
Application of Finish Coat
OSHA approved high gloss industrial enamel is recommended because
of its many advantages, and the OSHA law passed on April 28, 1971.
Ail surfaces to be painted - refer to contract Proposal No. 180.
All pipes will be painted same color as surrounding area. Any
color coating of pipes will be a extra cost.
-2-
MTKA PAINTING & DECORATING CO.
SPECIALIZING IN FANCY WALLCOVERING
5016 Woodridge Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 6121472-2092
Offices to be cleaned and painted - refer to contract Proposal
No. 180. Walls in offices will be cleaned with t~%p.,
ceiling to be painted with Diamond Vogle off white. New
wall in main level to have two coats of paint at City's choice of
color.
Recommended Colors and Paints
Ail interior paints will be oil-base enamel.
Safety Red 071-21
Safety White 071-08 - tinted to off white
Dimond Vogle off white ceiling paint latex.
bIoore's Ironclad Galvanized Metal Primer
Moorcraft Black Filler
-3-
MTKA PAINTING & DECORATING CO.
SPECIALIZING IN FANCY WALLCOVERIN(~
5016 Woodridge Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 612/472-2092
Ex te ri or
Preparation
Building will be power washed to remove all loose paint, dirt,
etc. Galvanized flashing will be primed. Surface will have one
coat of Moorecraft Masonry Latex. Windows and doors will be painted
same color in a satin oil-base enamel. Letters over doors to be
repainted. Changes in color to be agreed upon between contractor
and City.
-4-
MTKA PAINTING & DECORATING CO.
SPECIALIZING IN FANCY WALLCOVERING
,6016 Woodridoe Road Mound, Minnesota ~;~384 81:~147~-20§:~
Cost and Payment
Painting in accordance to sPecifications with contractor
supplying all material ................ $ 9,981.00
Painting with City supplying paint .......... $ 7,682.00
Payment
$2,500.00 payment with 50% on completion of inside work.
$3,500.00 payment upon completion of inside work.
Balance when exterior work is completed.
-5-
PLUMBING FEE SCHEDULE REPORT
There has been little reason for raising the plumbing
permit fee for the last four and one half years. The reason for
this, is our inspector was salaried and the permit revenue was
not necessarily proportional to his salary.
A plumbing inspection consists of no less than two visits
of approximately one hour each. Plumbers scale through Apil 30,
1983 is $20.02 per hour plus 40¢ per mile. This means the aver-
age permit should be $51.00 which would give the inspector $43.35
or $21.68 ~er visit for two visits or $14.45 per visit for three
visits. The average permit is now only $27.00. Additional in-
pections should reflect the size of the job such as 50% of origi-
nal permit.
The fee basis plumbing inspector is paid at a rate of 85%
of the fees collected.
PROPOSAL
Ao
Define permit fee schedule
1. Permit fee shall be $15 plus $5 per fixture, and $3 per
rough-in only, setting fixture only, and fixture with
out waste connection (sill cock).
2. $5 per IOO feet of pipe ~r fraction thereof.
3. $3 per $1OO of repair or fraction thereof.
B.. Define plumbing fixture
Definition for purpose of plumbing permit.
A plumbing fixture shall be taken to mean and include any
sink, laundry tub, bathtub, wash .basin, drinking fountain,
water closet, floor drain or any other plumbing device
arranged to be connected with the sewer or potable water
system, either directly or indirectly.
C. Gas Piping
For any permit for installing gas piping, not exceeding
three openings, the fee shall be $5 and, for the piping
for each additional opening, $1 shall be added.
MINIMUM HOUSE - 7 Fixtures + 4 Rough-ins
Mound Hopkins Shakopee Proposed
$37 $47 $62 $62
Mound
$27
$11.48
AVERAGE PERMIT (Based on 50 permits on file)
Proposed
Hopkins Shakopee
$28 $35 $43
85% paid to inspector (2 visits minimum) $18.27
12 Unit Apartment (80 fixtures)
Mound Hopkins Shakopee Proposed
$175 $400 $480 $415
'$49.58 .......... 85% paid to inspector (3 visits minimum)-$117.58
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Park Director
February 14, 1983
Highland Park Tot Lot Equipment
Attached are three quotes from playground suppliers on the
Park Commission approved plans for the tot lot in Highland
Park. This purchase was budgeted in the 1983 Park Capital
Outlay fund. The low bidder is Hamele Recreation Company,
Incorporated. They are the same supplier that won the bid
for equipment at Mound Bay Park.
Would you have the Council consider this purchase?
Chris Bollis
Park Director
CB/ms
QUOTATION
-lamele Recreation
MINN Wats (800) 362-3508
Company Incorporated wats (800)
328-3557
Suppliers o~ Park & Recreation Equipment
P.O. Box 256
Hamel, Minnesota 55340
(612) 478-9400
1
Mr. Chris Bollis
Director, Parks & Recreation
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, Mn. 55364
Incompliance with yourreq~stof Nov. 26~ 1982
, supplied by
DATE: December 7, 1982
CONTACT PERSON: Chris Bollis
PROJECT: Park
TELEPHONE: 472-1155
for a price quotation on Playground Equipment
Quality Industries , we wish to submit the following:
Catalog
Quantity Number
1 15386
Description
· Quality Designer System consisting of:
1 - 7304-D Split Platform, 1 - 7300-D
Platform, 1 - 7320-D Horizontal Ladder
1 - 7344-D Entrance, 1 - 7310 Tot Slid
2 - 7318 Sliding P01e, 1 - 7360-D
Reduction Kit, 1 - 7393 Chain Net, 1 -
7425 Zoom Slide, 1 - 7313 5' Enclosure
1 - 7338 Arch Climber
Quotation in effect ,until: December 31, 1982
We quote you as above F.O.B. Mound, Mn.
30-45 Days ARO
Shipment can be made in:
Net 30 Days
Terms:
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ORDERING:
LESS DISCOUNT
1. The purchase order, should be made out to Quality Industries
Unit Price
Exter~ion
4,950.00
---742.50
Sub-Total 4,207.50
They will invoice you upon shipment.
2. Send the order to HAMELE RECREATION CO., INC. as shown above, thereby authorization can be completed before the order is
processed.
3. TO EXPEDITE SHIPMENT, three items should show on your' purchase request: tax exemption number (if exempt),
ADDRESS FOR BILLING, and ADDRESS FOR DELIVERY.
.AMa ,, ,EC,EAn0, co., ,/
0J
u.~'
a.~ Z
~ Z
o 0
0
>.
QUOTATION
Minnesota Playground, Inc.
P.O. Box 27328 * Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 · (612)546-7787
Mr. Chris Bollis
City of Mound
5341Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
~ 12-7-82
DATE:
CONTACT PERSON:
PROJECT: Playground Equipment
TELEFNONE: 472-1155
Catalog
Quantity Number Description
I GameTime custom design Timb-R-Mod play-
structure with 3 platforms, horizontal
ladder, sliding pole, log roll, tot slide,
wide steps, tire cZimber, arch climber,
stainless steel spiral slide
Jan. 15, 1983
Quotation in effect unti~:
We quote you as above F.O.B. Mound t MN
Shipment can be made in: ~O-]J,-~ d~_~ a~o
To,ms: Net 30 days
Unit Price Extension
$5,146.zl
$5,146.21
Sub-Total
Sales Tax
Freight -
TOTAL $5,146.21
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ORDERING:
1. 'rhe purchase order should be made out to GameTime They will invoice you upon si ont.
2. Send the order to MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND, INC. es shown above, thereby authorization can be completed before ~he order is
processed.
3. TO EXPEDITE SHIPMENT, three items should show on your purchese request: tax exemption number (if exempt),
ADDRESS FOR BILLING. and ADDRESS FOR DELIVERY.
Exc u~s~vYRepresentative M, N~A~ G" 0~ ~/,~/~C._
~ILLIAMS/O'BRIEN ASSOCIATES, INC. 45 S. 9th ST. MINNEAPOLIS, MN. 55402 338-8981 ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
4 October 1982
Jan Bertrand
Mound Building Inspector
Mound City Hall
Mound, Minnesota
Dear Jan
Enclosed, please find originals for bidding for the Skylight work.
Please review the documents and let me know if there are any changes
you would like to make. I have indicated on the drawings that roof
covering is by others, so you will want to contact Sanders as soon
as the ~ontract is let and alert them so they are ready as soon as
the new roof is on.
I did not indicate a bid date on the documents.
be on some kind of advertisement.
I assume that will
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely, /'
Bruce Hassig ~
Enc.
LORENZO D. WILLIAMS, FAIA JAMES W. O'BRIEN, AIA STEPHEN M. DECOSTER, AIA PAUL B. STROTHER, AIA
,/
_ _
SPECIFICATIONS FOR
SKYLIGHT RENOVATION
Mound City Hall
Mound, Minnesota
1. DESCRIPTION OF' THE WORK
Generally, the .work consists of removi.ng the existing continuous sky-
light, filling in the spacewith a sloping wood frame roof, and~
addi.ng ten (10) factory-built skylights. Alsoincluded in the work
is removal of 'all gypsum board on vertical surfaces as shown on the
drawings and removal of gypsum board 2'-0" back on ceiling and re-
covering and patching.
PERMITS AND CODES
'All permits and licenses necessary for the completion of the work
shall be secured and paid for by the Contractor. All work shall be
done in strict accordance with all applicable state and local codes.
INSURANCE ·
The Contractor shall pay for and carry, and SUb'it to. the oJner for
approval, the following types of insurance:
A. Liability
B. Workman's Compensation'
C~ Builder.is Risk
The Owner shall Carry propertyinSUr~nc~.
me
cLEAN-uP
The Conl~ractor sh'al1, at-the .~ompl.e't_iO~..of the Work, remove alll
waste materials and rUbbish.and clean..all areas affected'by the work.
During.construction, .a. ll .waSte materials shall be removed from the
interior of the building immediately.
START OF'CONSTRUCTION
The Contractor shall start Construction immediately upon. signi~ng a
contra ct wi th the Owner.
e
OWNER SUPPLIED MATERIALS
The Owner shall provide the ten (lO) skylights to the job site.
Contractor shall hoist skylights up on roof and install.
The
DEMOLITION
The Contractor shall do all removals ind~ca%ed, including the existing
skylight, minor supports, old gypsum board and trim, etc. The plastic
glazing and aluminum angles and flats shall be turned over to the
Owner. All other materials shall be disposed of by the Contractor.
SKYLIGHT RENOVATION
Mound City Hal 1
Page Two
CARPENTRY
A. Dimension lumber shall be ~2 Douglas Fir or Hemlock
B. Plywood sheathing shall be 1/2" CDX and grade stamped
C. Treated wood shall be "Wolmanized" by Koppers or equal
D. Redwood shall be clear grade
E. Vapor barrier shall be a 6 mil polyethylene sheet
IO.+-:~i~FINiSHES
A: Gypsum board shall be the type and thickness indicated on the
Drawings. All joints and nails shall be taped and sanded and
ready to receive paint. Casing beads shall be a mud-in type
only, similar to U.' S. Gypsum 200 series.
B. Redwood shall be painted with a prime coat of Moore's Exterior
Primer and two (2) coats of Benjamin Moore Regal Aquavelvet or
equal.
C. Gypsum board and other Surfaces shall be painted with a prime
d~at of Benjamin MoOre Latex Quick Dry Prime' Seal and two (2)
coats of Benjamin Moore Regal ~quavelvet.
ll. ROOFING
The Owner will let a separate contract for aPplication of the roofing
and [~g~d roof ~nsulat~on.
12. TEMPORARY PROTECTION
The ,Contractor shall build temporary enclosures as necessary to
protect the building'from the elements.
BID FORM
Date
SKYLIGHT RENOVATION
Mound City Hall
Mound', Minnesota
Gentlemen:
The under~.~gned, having carefully examined the biddi.ng documents
prepared by Williams/O'Brien Associates, Inc., Architects for
the Renovation of'~the Skylight at Mound CitylBall, and having
examined the slate, hereby proposes to furnishall labor, material,
equipment, tools, transporation and services necessary to
complete the work for the following sum:
BASE BID for the total work of the prOject.for the sum of;
dol 1 ars ( $. m )
The undersigned, if. awarded thecont~act, .agrees to substan-
t'ially complete.~the contract within " .... calendar
days from thedate of signi~ng of the contract'with the Owner.
The undersigned .agrees that this bid may not be withdrawn for a
period of 30 calendar days immediately fOllow.i.ng the date of
receipt of bids.
In submitting this bid, i't is understood'th'at the Owner reserves
the right to reject any or allI bids, to waive any informality
or irregularity in any bid received and to accept any alternate
in any order.
Be
Addenda numbers have been received and incorporated
into this bid.
The undersigned operates as:
Sole Owner
Partnership
Corporation, incorporated in the
State of ......
Other, (specify)
70
BID FORM
LEGAL NAME OF PERSON, FIRM OR ORGANIZATION
Name
Address
By
By
By
· (Seal, if .bid is. bY'a corporation)
~itl e
Ti tl
Ti tl e
WASCO PROI]UC[S,
INDUSTRY LEADERS IN SKYLIGHTING,
SMOKE AND HEAT VENTING
tP.O. BOX 35i / SANFORD, MAINE 04073 / TEL: 207-324-8060
SPECIFICATIONS:
Skylights shall be thermallzed Wasco Solar 'Energy Sky-
domes® Model CA as manufactured by Wasco Products,
Inc., Sanford, Maine. They shall consist of 9' high curbs with
incombustible and corrosion-resistant aluminum inner and
outer skins. These skins shall be separated at the base by a
thermal barrier to eliminate "through" conductivity of heat.
The skins will be joined at the top by an extrusion of incom-
bustible and corrosion-resistant aluminum containing a ther-
mal break, condensation gutter and high performance elas-
tomeric gasket and butyl seals. The curbs shall be Insulated
with a 1' thick unfaced fiberglass. The glazing shall have
an exterior load carrying element which .is made from cast
_ acrylic sheet of a minimum thickness, all as specified in
AAMA Std. 1601.1-1976, "Voluntary Thickness Specifications
for Acrylic Plastic Domes." The edges of the glazing shall
be encased and bupported with non-combustible aluminum
retainers.
The skylights must meet minimum overall thermal perfor-
mance test criteria including an applied heat loss due to air
Infiltration or exfiltration which does not exceed 0.05 BTU/
Hr./Ft. of periphery in an annual average 71/2 mph wind and a
heat loss which is less than 6 BTU'slHr. I°F (for standard
301/4x301/4 test unit).
Tests-must be conducted Ina commercial laboratory
certified by the Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers
kssociation.. ~,'
STANDARD SIZES
AAMA
MO'DEL NO. BXB THICKNESS
CA-2828 221/4 x221/4 .125
CA-2852 221/4x461A .150
CA-3638 301/4 x301/4 .125
CA-3652 50tAx461A .150
,,~, CA-3676 · 301/4 x69Vz .250
CA-4242 37X37 .125
'~, CA-4280 ,...3Zx~ .. ,. .250
i/' CA-5252 ~ 461A x4..6~..~7
,_~0 CA-5276 461~x691/~ .250
CA-5296 461/4 x891/z .250
CA-6060 55x55 .187
CA-6496 571/z x89Vz .250
CA-8080 75x75 .250
· For double dome add prefix DD to model numbers. Example:
CA-(single dome), DDCA-(double dome).
CLEAR COLORLESS
WHITE TRANSLUCENT
TRANSPARENT SOLAR BRONZE
STANDARD ACRYLIC DOME COLORS
DESIGNATION COLOR
· CL
2447
2412
100~ CAST ACRYLIC
DOUBLE DOME
BUTYL SEAL --------~
S.S. SCREWS
THERMAL BREAK
~H~IG~RFORMANCE
INNER SKIN
Bxe
WASCO DOMES MEET AAMA THICKNESS SPECIFICATIONS
In order to assist the architect, contractor and owner to specify and
obtain acrylic plastic skylights having adequate design load charac-
teristics, the Skylight and Space Enclosure Division of the Architec-
tural Aluminum Manufacturers Association has adopted minimum
thickness standards--AAMA Publication No. 1601.1-1976, "Volun-
tary Thickness Specifications for Acrylic Plastic Skylight Domes".
Wesco Skydomes® are fabricated to this specification for a design
load of 40 pst. Always specify that plastic skylight domes be manu-
factured In accordance with this standard.
FILL IN
OUTER 'INNER
MODEL NO. QUANT. DOME DOME
SAFE77 CONSIDERATIONS: While Wesco Skydomea® and Skylights ere designed to sup-
port the weight of enow, ica, and the force OI normal winds, they ere not designed to with-
stand the weight of people. If human safety becomes a consideration, akylighta Ihoul(I I~
protected by railings, grids ot screens.
PROJECT.
CONTRACTOR,
ARCHITECT
REPRESENTATIVE.
DATE S#
· ' 'INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
Aa soon aa units have been received et Jobslte, open cartons or crates and Inspect to Insure that the units were not damaged during shipping..
GUIDELINES
NAILERS \ /
ROOFING X \ I/
1. Check well opening and nailer construction for
correct dimensions and squareness. Opening should
have wood nailer (min. 2'x6') all around aecured
to structure.
2. For square and Ior rectangular units, extend guidelines
8" from each corner.
3. Two Inches from edge of opening, trowel on mastic
to 5' wide all around.
'CAUTION
::~i}'.-~:::~?'.....~ ........ ......
i~:iiii~i~i~iii!-~ ....... '"'::'~-:~!~:i~ .....
.':'::~:~.':: .;. ' :-:.:'i~i i:~:::::.., i" :'.
'~:i:.:i!'?:~:i::!
""~;:.::;:. i :'":i'~:~:;:::.. ' ".!;~::::
' '3'tO,'
'GUIDELINES NAILS
'Caution--Do not allOw roofing materials to come In
contact with dome.
4. Center square and Ior rectangular units over opening
by lining up corners of unit with guidelines. Press
firmly Into mastic.
5. Secure unit with -1~'0 large head, annular ring
aluminum roofing nails or equivalent, placed 3'--4" on
center ~ ' In from outer edge.
UNIT
(~)MASTIC
(~) GRAVEL.
OFELT STRIPS
6. Prime the top of the aluminum roof flange. Trowel '
mastic over nailing flange and extend 4' to 5' wide
onto roof all around.
7. Strip In with felt paper approximately 7' wide.
8. Mop hot pitch and gravel.
g. Clean roofing materials from unit.
February 18, 1983
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
This week the County finished up the work required to set the 1983 Mill Rates
for Mound.
They breakdown as follows:
MILLS PERCENTAGE 1982
City of Mound 15.501 15.19% 18.730
School District #277 51.751 50.720% 47.381
Vocational School 1.119 1.090% 1.469
Miscellaneous Levies 5.106 5.000% 4.384
Watershed District .086 .O84~ .068
Hennepin County 28.451 27.880% 29.183
TOTAL 102.014 100 % 101.215
Assessed Value
Personal Property $ 927,682
Real Estate 59,520,827
Contribution to Fiscal Disparities
Received from Fiscal Disparities
TOTAL
60,448,509
(1,076,123)
4,155,258
63,527,644
This is about $200,000 more than we had estimated, reducing our mill rate
slightly more than I had estimated.
One mill equals a total of one tenth of one percent of the total assessed
value or a total of $63,527.64~
To figure out the total property taxes due in 1983, you multiply $63,527.64
by our mill rate of 102.014 which equals $6,480,708.66.
CHANGE
-3.229
+4.370
- .350
+ .722
+ .180
- .732
+ .961
Page 2
February 18, 1983
The dollar breakdown is:
City of Mound
School District #277
Vocational School
Miscellaneous Levies
Watershed District
Hennepin County
Total per capita costs for 1983 are $687.97.
The dollar increase is up $918,453 or 16½%.
$ 984,419
3,287,015
70,639
324,035
5,443
1,806,821
$ 6,480,709 (does.not a~dup because of
rounding off~
This is up from $599,38 in 1982.
These costs are for the total levy.
AREA CITY TAX RATES & PER CAPITA COSTS (CITY LEVY ONLY)
CITY POPULATION MILL RATE LE~.Y PER CAPITA
Orono 6,820 10.598 955,225.71 $ 140.06
Spring Park 1,465 20.570 277,981,12 $ 189.75
Minnetrista 3,236 14.253 472,267.59 $ 145,94
Mound 9,420 15.501 984,741.94 $ 104.53
ASSESSED VALUES
Orono 90,]32,637
Spring Park 13,513,908
Minnetrista 33,134,610
Mound 63,527,644
February 18, 1983
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
SUBMISSION OF A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROPOSAL TO THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Things are starting to fall into place a little quicker than I had expected
with regard to the receipt of a $20,000 grant from the State.
It looks like, at this point, all we need to do is submit the attached
proposal to the State and they will process it as quickly as they can.
We will need to pass the attached resolution to support authorizing the
Mayor and Manager to sign the grant agreement and approve the expenditure
of $5,000 of City CDBG Funds for our portion of the match. Tonka has
committed a like amount.
The Grant will formally come to the City of Mound not to Tonka. Thus our
interest will be of the highest priority.
JE: fc
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN THE GRANT AGREEMENT AND APPROVE
THE EXPENDITURE OF $5,000 IN CDBG FUNDS
WHEREAS, Tonka Corporation in October, 1982.announced they would be closing
their Mound toy production facility, and
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
this will result in t.he elimination of 500 jobs and will have a
serious impact on City services and utility revenues, 'and'
it is. crucial that the City develop a comprehensive plan to
minimize these impacts.and begin the task of creating new uses
for the facility; ~"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE.CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND; MINNESOTA:
'To formally approve the submission of a Technical Assistance.
Grant Proposal to the Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning
and Development in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)
and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to sign a
Grant Agreement with the State if the Grant is approved.
RETURN APPLICATION .TO:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES DIVISION
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF. ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
480 CEDAR STREET
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 ·
612/296-3'976
APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
APPLICANT (COMPANY bR COMMUNITY)
ADDRESS ~ 5341 MAYW00D ROAD
CITY OF MOUND
.CITY MOUND, MN. 55364
COUNTY : ......
HENNEPIN
CONTACT PERSON(S) J0N ELAM, CITY MANAGER
~USINESS PHONE 612/472-1155
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (IF INVOLVED)-
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ADDRESS
NONE
4/2~/82-11k
TYPE OF PROJECT:
*Attach repayment schedule
Management AsSistance
Feasibility
Mark~ting Assistance
[~¢ilitv Development!
aevelopmen~
Product Research and
Developmemt
O~her* (Describe full
in program narrative)
Principal prod. ucts or services: Market[.ng 'and econom['c development planning study,
COST OF PROJECT: $30,000.00
Please attach a complete budget
ED F INAN C-I-NG ·
.N. ame, and Address ~o~{ Amount
a. State MN. Dept·'of Energy-, Plann.ilng & Development
b. Federal Agency
$ 2Q.,OQQ.QQ .
e. Banks/Savings and Loans
d. Other.private (Insurance
. Company, etc.)
e. Local Development
Organization (LpC)
f. Applicant Contribution
Tonka Corporation
4144 Shoreline Blvd, Spring Park MN, 3348~
Clty of Mound
5~000.00
5,000.00
g. ~OTAL F~NANCING (Should agree with total on Item 2)
100% $ 30,000.00
'NOTE: Items c, d, e and f must total at least 15%. Of the requested money, State share
is 20% and Federal share is 80%.
~LOYMENT AND OTHER ECONOMIC EFFECTS
NOTE:
It is the intent of the Area Redevelopment Act to assist communities by the
development and expansion of new and existing facilities to generate new employment.
A realistic projection is necessary.
$?7
Current and projected employment: N/A.
Directly related emplo~ent anticipated to be generated by this project:
Will this project ultimately result in a reduction of employment in other
facilities or industries. (If yes, give details)
d. Other major impact areas:'
Give detailed profile of business involved:
A written resolution from the most loCai unit of government endorsing the project
required prior to approval of technical assistance..
BY BY
Bob Polston Jon Elam
TITLE Mayor TITLE Ci't¥ Manager''
DATE DATE
Applicant's Comments:
TA Director's Comments: (Not to be used by applicant.)
I hereby cer'tify that I have no past, present, no' contemplated future financial interest in
this technical assistance. I further certify that I have reviewed the m~terial.
Technical Assistance Director's Signature
Date
BACKGROUND
In October, 1982, Tonka Corporation, a nationally recognized name ~n the toy
industry, announced that they were going to relocate their toy manufacturing
facility, now located in Mound, Minnesota, to i1 Paso, Texas,
The reasons for this relocation were many, but the biggest were that Tonka
felt it needed to be closer to its markets' i.e. cutting transportation costs
and reducing production costs, i.e. reducing the costs of labor.. While these
factors are important to 'Tonka Corporation, it will cause some major problems
for'the City of Mound, including a loss of 500 jobs; a significant reduction
in the'support of City utilities and serviceS;-and perhaps worst of all, the
creation o~ a vacant building equal in size'to more than ten acres (550,000
square (eet) right in the'middle of the economic core of the City.
PURPOSE
The twofold'purpose of this'technical assistance project'is to undertake the
development of a program that will analyze the Tonka .facilities and then, 1)
jointly develop a plan that the City and the Company, working together, can
undertake to market the empty buildings; and 2) to assist in the development
and implementation of a specific recruitment plan for'new businesses, to the
City, that will use the facilities.
WORK PLAN
The consultant(s) will be expected to perform the follow.lng:
I. Financial Analysis
To study the economic cost of:
a. Reusing the existing facility
b. Redeveloping the existing facility by either subdividing or
demolishing sections of the facility
c. Demolition and development of new facilities on the site.
II. Identlf~ apprp, priate uses and users:
By name and type:
- industrial
' commercial
- institutional
- recreational
III. Evaluate and rank the identified users:
In conjunction with the City and the Company:
- Suitability of the users to the:
- site
- building
- a rea
- Suitability of present conditions as it relates to the need for:
- public subsidies (i.e. tax increment financing or industrial
revenue bonds)
- adequacy of use of rail and road services
- utilization of present Tonka labor force
IV'. Develop a specific work plan that can be used by the Cit~ and the
Company in Phase II to implement the specific ideas and recommendations
that develop from'Phase I Study.
- Included in this should be:
- an analysis of the. area labor force
- ways to develop Preliminary local redevelopment plans
- analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the local community
for business development
'- an analysis of local infrastructure that can be used to support
local business development efforts
- typi.cal costs for business operations
TIME SCHEDULE
The proposed starting date is within 45 days o~ submission Of the Proposal
or April 15, 1983.
COST
$30,000.00
BILLS ...... FEBKUAK¥ 22, 1983
Air Comm
Abdo, Abdo & Eick
Holly Bostrom
Burlington Northern
Jan Bertrand
Conway Fire & Safety
Bill Clark Standard
Davies Water Equip
Jon Elam
Eden Prairie Colorcraft
First Bank Mpls
Greyhound Travel Club
Genuine Parts
Holiday Inn
Herbs Typewriter Serv
Eugene Hickok & Assoc
Henn Co. Fire Chiefs Assn
Henn Co. Sheriff Dept
Island Park Skelly
Internatl Falls Fire Dept
ISFSl
Mike Kaatz
LOGIS
McCombs Knutson
Minn Comm
Metro Waste Control Comm
Mpls Oxygen
MacQueen Equip
Minnegasco
Medical Oxygen
META Resources, P.A.
Mn Alcohol Traffic Safety
MN Park Superv. Assn
MN Div of Emerg Serv
Natl League of Cities
No Central Sect. AWWA
NW Bell Tele
N.S.P.
Pitney Bowes
Water Products
Widmer Bros.
Xerox
Ziegler Tire Serv
R.L. Youngdahl & Assoc
Griggs, Cooper
Johnson Bros. Liquor
MN Distillers
Old Peoria
Ed Phillips & Sons
96.00
420.00
174.00
533.33
16.11
367.61
5,814.21
413.18
31.21
26.70
16.00
594.00
I2'.98
98.oo
lO.00
121.00
10.00
215.76
105.46
525.oo
120.o0
29.66
3,788.16
2,285.00
28.75
26,'126.47
21.00
112.12
5.86
2o.8o
698.75
67.5o
15.00
15.00
190.00
45.oo
72.8o
4,271.52
55.5o
692.00
1,764.05
273.72
972.18
2o,532.23
1,128.48
3,122.37
1,151.10
1,041.75
1,504.7l
TOTAL BI LLS ,79,752.03
CITY OF ~OUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ZERO LOT LINE TWINHOMES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, March 15, 1983,
at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound,
Minnesota, a hearing will be held on the application for
Conditional Use Permit for Zero Lot Line Twinhomes on Lots
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14 and 15, Block 9, Avalon, in the City of
Mound (Part of PID 19-117-23 31 0022). Addresses would be
2863-2869 Tuxedo Boulevard and 2851-2857 Tuxedo Boulevard.
All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an
opportunity to be heard.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Publish in the Laker March 1, 1983
CITY of MOUND
February 22, 1983
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
Enclosed is a brochure from Ditch-Witch which shows a flatbed trailer.
The unit Geno has been looking at is a used 1980 model that will carry
our new paving unit perfectly, i.e. weight, size, etc.
My recommendation is that we authorize the purchase for not more than
$2,000.00. These funds will come out of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds.
JE:fc
enc.
'" ::: ;:'?"D itch .WjiCh"t'r~iii'~-s are
by theProfessionalSwh o:name
ground con str'uction"e~: is'
..... '"' tilt-bed load dish
., tion; 'excellent. towing s" and
'""' onstruction that meets Or'ex6e~ds,Federai,Tran,~
'tment codes.', One man cmt
'a'nd ~'unioad'- a. D'itchll witch.-trailer simply'*by'~
owering the' ramps and driving th~ equipment o~ or,-~;i ..
'off. Loaded equipment ~alway's ShoUld be secUred
t,helstandard, heavy-dUty tie-down rings using' ap-~
tie-down chains and binders On the
. .~ : DitCh Witch trailers have 'stability and towing: re--;~(;:~:'.~it easy to change from one towgehicle to
': .'Y:.: Sponsiveness at legal highWaY SpeedSl Designed'!? while.keeping the trailer bed level. Ditch Witch
..... ': '. specifically for Ditch Witch equipment, bur trailers (':;;i!, trailers are distributed by a nationwide organization
..... "will accommodate a wide r~nge of other eqUipment ~?of Ditch Witch dealers. Contact the deale[, in your,',
' within dimensional and weight specifications listed. :"~ ~ area for trailers and.pads and se~ice that has
~ Aconvenient three-position adjustable hitch makes ;,~:;.: Dtch Witch the leaoer. . ::.:: 'L" ~ ::.:t.: .
The only trailer built for Ditch Witch
equipment.., cuts haulin§ chores down to size
and helps protect your treacher investment.
There's no ~uesswork when you choose a Ditch
Witch trailer. It's built for one job.., to transport Ditch
Witch equipment. And to handle the job easily, with
maximum reliability.
Each trailer incorporates all the work-saving features
that have been proven best through years of field
use by thousands of Ditch Witch owners. Because-'
we ye got a nationwide reputation to protect, we rate
each trailer conservatively, by actual load-carrying
capacity, not by gross axle weight capacity.
Ditch Witch builds the only trailers properly de-
signed and balanced for Ditch Witch machines...
the only trailer line backed by the nationwide Ditch
Witch organization. ~
Compare these special Ditch Witch trailer
· Three-Position Adjustable to speed the job of securing ·
Coupler. Hitch heights of 18°'. the load. and provide maxi- ·
20" and 22" permit use of mum stability.
· many different tow vehicles·
You don't have to weld on a · Full Protective Fenders,
new hitch when you change Heavy-duty steel fenders pro-
trucks or cars. T8 trailers fea- tect machine from rock and
ture option of 22". 24" and mud damage while in transit.
26" hitch heights.
· Built-in Loading Ramps. Just
· Tie-Down Rings and Stops. release and lower to load
Built-in. heavy-duty oversize equipment. No extra ramps
tie-down rings and stops required.
features
Lighting. Each trailer is com-
plete with turn. running and
clearance lights. The heavy-
duty wiring harness is a stock
item with your Ditch Witch
dealer and easily replaceable.
Multiple Leaf Springs. T trail-
ers have sturdy multiple leaf
springs for a soft. staple ride.
· Waterproof Storage Capsule.
A metal cylinder with screw
with anything on the road.
cap provides handy, weather-
protected storage for valuable .
papers such as trailer title and
safety inspection certificate.
· , Swivel Stowing Jack.
Fast action, tongue-mounted
jack pivots to lift positior~ f~'
easy hitch-up. 5.000 lb. capac-
ity.
· Safety Chains. High test ~
diameter.
Three-Position Adjustable Coupler
Built-In Loading Ramp '
Tie-Down Rings and Stops
Lighting
Full Protective Fenders'
Multiple Leaf Springs
Waterproof Storage Capsule Swivel Stowing Capsule Safety Chains
Authorized Dealer:
DitCh Witch and are reg~stere~ t~a0emarks Of the (~harle$ Machorse Works
THE CHARLES MACHINE WORKS, INC., P.O. BOX 66, PERRY, OKLAHOMA 73077
CONSULTANT SELECTION ~
The key to the success of this project wl)l be in the selection oF a
consultant that possesses the technical skills and knowledge requiFed to
complete our proposed work program. A proven abillty will be very
important.
A. THOMAS WURST. m. A.
'CURTIS A. PEARSON, F~, A.
JOSEPH ir. HAMILTON, R A.
THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, I:::). A.
JAMES D, LARSON. P. AD
JOHN J* BOWOEN
LAW OFFICES
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD
IlOO FIRST BANK PLACE: WE:ST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
February 11, 1983
T£LIrPHON£
(61:~) 338-4.200
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Motions, Resolutions and Ordinances
Dear Jon:
At a recent meeting I was explaining to the council the
difference between motions, resolutions and ordinances.
Mayor Polston asked that that information be provided to the
council. I am enclosing herewith copies of pages 110 and
111 from the League Handbook. I believe that this. accurately
reflects the differences and that each councilmember would
be well advised to know this information.
Very~rulY yours,
C ea
CAP:ms
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Bill Fahey
3. From the basic facts, findings or conclu-
sions often in the language of the statute or ordi-
nance are to be inferred, or not, as the case may
be.129
4. From this finding, the decision will follo~v
by the application of the statutory criterion.'
Findings of fact serve two major purposes. The
first relates to improving the decision-making
process and the second concerns judicial review.
Considering that only an occasional decision will
be submitted to court review, perhaps the most
important purpose that findings of fact serve is to
help improve decision-making. When a council
prepares precise findings of relevant facts, a well
reasoned and more rigorous decision-making
process is more likely to ensue. It is easy to
express an ultimate conclusion that the public
interest requires a denial. But when one is forced
to demonstrate that those conclusions are consis-
tent with all of the facts disclosed by the record,
careful and painstaking analysis is required.
The second major purpose for findings is that
they are an indispensable prerequisite for effective
judicial review.
In conclusion, it should be reemphasized that
any required record should demonstrate compli-
ance with all constitutional requirements (due
process deficiencies such as lack of notice often
provide grounds for appeal), as well as all statutory
and ordinance procedural requirements.
f'- F. MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS
AND ORDINANCES
The Legislative Process
otherwise, recommend: (1) passage of the ordi-
nance or resolution in its original form; (2) passage
in an amended form, or (3) rejection of the ordi-
nance or resolution. Debate may take place when
the matter is introduced, while it is being con-
sidered in committee, and after the committee has
reported its findings and recommendations. After
all consideration and discussion of the matter
is completed, the presiding officer should read the
ordinance or resolution and call for a vote.
Resolutions and other procedural motions .of the
council, unless otherwise provided in Chart VI, are
adopted if they receive a majority of the votes cast.
To illustrate, if two members of the council
vote in favor of a resolution, one votes against it,
and two abstain from voting, the resolution is
considered passed. Ordinances, on the other hand,
must receive at least three favorable votes.
The legality of the action taken depends upon
three essential steps: (1) a proper motion, (2) a
vote actually taken, and (3) a record of the number
voting for or against the proposal. Many clerks
report the names of the members who take action
at each of these various steps. (For a fuller discus-
sion of the requirements for recording council
actions, see the material dealing with council
minutes in this chapter.) Except for the third step,
however, this is not required.
Differences Between Ordinances,
Resolutions and Motions
A motion is merely a matter of parliamentary
procedure. It is a proposal that the council act in
one of the two ways it has of acting, by resolution
or by ordinance. Motions may be used to intro-
duce ordinances and resolutions, to amend them,
and to take any other actions concerning them.
Passing Ordinances and Resolutions
Council policies are reflected in two forms:
ordinances and resolutions. Either of these may be
introduced by any member of the council includ-
ing the mayor and, in standard plan cities, the
clerk. Once introduced, the council may, depend-
ing upon its own rules of procedure, act upon
them at once, refer them to a committee for study
and recommendation, postpone consideration to
some future time, or take any of the other actions
described in Chart VI under subsidiary and privi-
leged motions. If the council decides to refer
the matter to a committee, the committee may
conduct its investigations and, unless instructed
Any council enactment which regulates or
governs people or property and provides a penalty
for its violation is necessarily an ordinance. As a
result, all police regulations for public health,
morals, economic well-being, welfare and safety
must be passed in ordinance form.TM Any
regulations should be of general application within
the city and of a permanent and continuing nature.
Ordinances may also be used to provide per-
manent rules for the organization and operation of
the council. For instance, the bylaws governing
council procedure may be passed in ordinance
form. Any action required by statute to be in
ordinance form cannot validly be done by resolu-
tion. Actions such as selecting the alternate
-110-
November date for the city election, and combin-
ing the office of clerk and treasurer must be taken
by ordinance.
A resolution, on the other hand, should be used
for any action of a temporary, routine, or admini-
strative nature. Where there is any question about
the classification of a piece of legislative business,
the city attorney should be consulted. Deciding in
a specific instance is frequently difficult and in all
cases of doubt it is well to proceed with the
business as if it required an ordinance.
Proceedings sim_ply in the form of a motion d .uly.
carne'~fl-~-d entered on record are frequen, tly held.
to be equivalent to a resolution...and probably this
i~s~u~f~ient for most simple administrative
aCts.,-~ - .',, - ._ -- -.~---, .~
The power to enact ordinances is vested only in
the city council. (See League publication "Model
Ordinance Code"; the League also has sample
copies of various ordinances available; see also
League memo "Procedural Requirements for
Adoption of Statutory City Ordinances and
Resolutions Notes and Forms.") With a few
exceptions, most ordinances need not and may not
be submitted to the voters for approval. Unless a
charter provides otherwise, there is no general
statutory authorization which permits a council to
seek voter consent to a proposed ordinance or even
to asl~3~or an advisory opinion on its desira-
bility.'
There are two general limitations upon the
power of the council to enact ordinances. First,
councils are limited in subject matter to the fields
in which the legislature has authorized them to
act. Without such authorization, the power to
regulate in any given field is reserved to the state.
It should be noted, however, that statutory cities
are empowered to enact ordinances on some
subjects which are already regulated by state law.
In these fields, a city may make any provision in its
ordinance which is not inconsistent with the state
law.
Second, councils are limited by the following
general requirements? 34
1. Ordinances must be reasonably certain in
their terms.
They must be consistent with the State
Constitution and statutes.
They must not limit or deny any common
law or constitutional rights.
e
Their provisions must not constitute an
unreasonable restraint of trade.
5. Their terms must be reasonable.
When adopting an ordinance, cities should be
aware that the city can be held liable for not
en:[~?ng a "police power" measure contained in
it. (See Chapter 10 on Liability and Insur-
ance.)
Form, Contents and Adoption of
Ordinances
Since ordinances are, in effect, local statutes
which have the force and effect of law, the form
and manner in which they are written is of the
utmost importance. While the law does not
require that they be drafted by a qualified at-
torney, their preparation does involve a sound
understanding of the law and, consequently,
ordinances not so drawn are frequently subject to a
variety of legal objections. It is recommended,
therefore, that some competent attorney be
consulted in the preparation of ordinances for
council consideration.
The following paragraphs provide a brief descrip-
tion of the requirements which must be met, and
of the forms which are~u,~ually used, in the pre-
paration of ordinances.I J° Charter cities should
also look to their own charter provisions for
ordinance enactment.
The title. Every ordinance should bear a title
which describes its contents briefly, but ade-
quately. The phrases: "repealing ordinances
inconsistent herewith" and "providing penalties for
the violation thereof" are totally unnecessary and
may be omitted from the title.
The number. Each ordinance should bear an
identifying number as a part of its title.
The enacting clause. All ordinances, after a
suitable title, should begin substantially in this
form: "The City Council of ordains:"
The body of the ordinance. The text of the
-111 -
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
EDWARD G. BA~
90 Tonka Bay Road
Tonka Bay, MN 55331
DONALD E. BOYNTON
2452 Lafayette Road
WAyzata, MN 55391
ROBERT TIPTON BROWN
21860 Byron Circle
Greenwood, M~ 55331
JONATHAN R. ELAM
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
ALAN FASCHING
6750 Halsted Avenue
Mound, MN 55364
RICHARD J. GARWOOD
19860 Lakeview Avenue
Deephaven, MN 55331
JO ELLEN HURR
930 Partenwood Road
Long Lake, MN 55356
ROBERT S. MacNAMARA
181 East Ridgeview Drive
Wayzata, MN 55391
ROBERT K. PILLSBURY
16560 Grays Bay Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
ROBERT P. RASCOP
4560 Enchanted Point
Mound, MN 55364
ROBERT E. SLOCUM
2530 Spirit Knob Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
RICHARD J. SODERBERG
6628 Aster Trail
Excelsior, MN 55331
ROBERT E. WAGNER
4400 West Arm Road, #229
Spring Park, MN 55384
CARL H. WEISSER
248 Lake Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
2-2-83
DIRECTORS 1983
Home: 474-6380
Bus.: 933-9118
Home: 471-7849
Bus.: 332-6381
Home: 474-6907
Bus.: 853-2287
Bus.: 472-1155
Home: 472-2744
Home: 474-4642
Home: 471-9801
Bus.: 473-4643
Home: 474-2944
Bus.: 473-8843
Home: 473-6642
Bus.: 340-4543
Home: 474-1517
Bus.: 377-1413
Home: 473-4347
Bus.: 340-3509
Home: 474-4288
Home: 471-7697
Home: 474-5021
Bus.: 298-2646
TONKA BAY
(Treasurer)
MINNETONKA BEACH
GREENWOOD
(Chairman)
MOUND
MINNETRISTA
DEEPHAVEN
ORONO
(Secretary)
WAYZATA
MINNETONKA
(Past Chairman)
SHOREWOOD
(Vice President)
WOODLAND
VICTORIA
SPRING PARK
EXCELSIOR
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1983 COMMITTEES
(4:30 p.m.
LAKE USE COMMITTEE (3d Monday
(LMCD Office
Robert Pillsbury, Chairman
Ed Bauman, Vice Chairman
Donald Boynton
Alan Fasching
Richard Garwood
Jo Ellen Hurt
Robert MacNamara
Robert Rascop
Richard Soderberg
Robert Wagner
~arl Weisser
Water Patrol
WATER STRUCTURES &' (7:30 a.m.
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (2d Satruday
Robert Rascop, Chairman
Jo Ellen Hurr, Vice Chairman
Donald Boynton
Richard Garwood
Robert Pillsbury
Robert Slocum
Richard Soderberg
Robert Wagner
Carl Weisser
EX-OFFICIOMEMBERS~ ALL COMMITTEES
LMCD Chairman Brown and Executive
Director-Frank Mixa
(7:30 a.m., Saturday
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (prior to Board meeting
Current officers plus past Board chairmen.
LMCD ATTORNEY
Charles L. LeFevere
2000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 333-0543
· M.C.W.D.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
P. O. Box 387
Wayzata, M~ 55391
Phone: 473-4224
WATER PATROL
· Hennepin County Sheriff's water Patrol'i
P. O. Box 187
Spring Park, MN 55384
Phone: 471-8528
Regular meeting: 4th Wednesday of the Month~ 8 p.m.
Tonka Bay Village Hall
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
402 East Lake Street
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Phone: 473-7033
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
'FINANCIAL STATEMENT·
1982
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
1982 -.-
Fund
General
Petty Cash
Save the Lake
OF CASH RECEIPTS, DISBURSEMENTS~ BALANCES
Balance Disburse-
1-1-82 Receipts ments
$44,069.06 $ 88,980,78 $84,859.11
50.00 150.00 --
19,299.51 20,658.59 10,441.81
$63,418.57 $109,789.37 $95,300.92
Total
STATEMENT
Advance payment of dues
Total
Balance
12-31-82
$48,190.73
200.00
29,516.29
$77,907.02
1,235.00
$79.,142.02
Investments
General Fund
Save the Lake Fund
Balance Balance
1-1-82 Purchased Redeemed 12-31-82
$ -0- $96,046.67 $47,376.58 $48,670.09
-0- 50,054.86 22,000.00 28,054..86
Edward G. Bauman, Treasurer
Donations
Other Income
Total Save
the Lake Fund
LMCD Communities (dues)
Other Income
Total
Petty Cash Increase
Total General Fund
TOTAL RECEIPTS -
CLASSIFICATION OF RECEIPTS - 1982
Save
the Lake Fund
$19,087.62
1,570.97
General Fund
$64,992.00
23,988.78
$ 88,980.78
150.00
1982
CLASSIFICATION OF DISBURSEMENTS - 1982
Projects
· Total Save the Lake Fund
Save the Lake Fund
$10,441.81
$20,658.59
89,130.78
$10,441.81
$109,789.37
(Balance forwarded)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LMCD 1982 Financial Statement
Page 2
CLASSIFICATION OF DISBURSEM]~NTS - 1982 (Continued)
Brought forward: Save the Lake Fund
$10,441.81
General Fund
Administration
Personal Services
Salaries
Auditing Services
Total Personal Services
Contractual Services
Telephone
Postage
Printing, Publication & Adv.
Utilities
Maintenance: Office Equipment
Janitorial Services
Other Contractual Services
Total Contractual Services
Commodities & Supplies
Office Supplies
Books & Periodicals
General Supplies
Total Commodities & Supplies
Other Charges
Office Rent
Insurance & Bonds
Memberships
Employer Contributions
Mileage & Expenses
Total Other Charges
Capital Outlay
Office Furniture, Fixtures &
Equipment
Total Capital Outlay
$44,161.65
490.00
$ 614.73
1,183.59
819.33
288.88
991.75
595.00
3~045.59
$ 1,498.31
90.00
318.14
$ 1,980.00
755.90
175.00
7,390.34
1~210.20
$44,651.65
7,538.87
1,906.45
11,511.44
Legal
Legal Services
Total Legal
$17~539.37
17,539.37
Committees & Contingency
Water Structures & Environment
Lake Use
Executive Committee
Public Information & Program
Total Committees & Contingency
$ 53.99
1,507.34
1,561.33
Petty Cash Fund Increase
150.00
Total General Fund
$84,859.11
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS
$95,300.92
WATER PATROL BUDGET HISTORY
1975 - 1983
Budget County State Total *C.P.I. Total Expense
Year Amount Expense Expense Expense ~- /u {1982 dollars)
1983 222,658 N/A N/A N/A N/A (N/A)
1982 212,041 -**77,453 109,410 *'186,863 306.2 **(186,863)
1981 227,668 41,092 124,660 165,752 278.4 (182,311)
1980 185,900 145,031 32,645 177,676 247.9 (219,465)
1979 172,837 135,311 32,645 167,956 222.6 (231,040)
1978 147,708 113,842 32,645 146,487 199.7 (224,594)
1977 85,000 43,456 32,645 76,101 183.0 (127,332)
1976 98,131 .66,060 32,645 98,705 170.9 (176,850)
1975 175,293 145,050 32,645 177,695 160.9 (338,154)
*Consumer Price Index /all urban for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. This figure furnishe~
by the State Department of Finance.
**Projection based on information from Sheriff's Accounting Division 2-14-83.
Note: Figures enclosed in parentheses, (), were adjusted utilizing the C.P.I. for
Minneapolis/St. Paul to reflect constant 1982 dollars and provide a basis for a yearly
comparison of actual purchasing power.
22
American Legion Post 398
DATE JANUARY 31, 1983
GAMBLING REPORT
CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE
GROSS:
~2675.00
~25,aa5.oo
EXPE~ES:
sALES TAX ~151.~l
SUPPLIES 298.92
PERMIT 75.00
PAYOUT AS PRIZES:
PROFIT:
~15oo.oo
~!6~9.67
~3~'97.52
~1~, 65o.oo
3o8.18
DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS:
HILLTOP ~th GRADERS ~150.00
A.F.S. 8O.00
BOYS S~ATE lOO.O0
ALANO 25. O0
CHECKING ACCOUNT
_~'355.oo
~2a02.39
~782,7.99
MOUND · SPRING PARK'
MINNETRISTA · NAVARRE
.-..... ~.~ ~-:.? ¥'?'.-?:'i :'? '_' .'_
FEBRUARY. 1983
westonka area chamber o$ commerce
CHAMBER WAVES .~ .-~ : -: .'~ ....... - -
Circle Feb. t6~ "'-::' '~"'
on your~calendar for a Noon GENERAL I~ETING'( 11:30,
Social) at the'Mist,.A recap of last year and this year's proposed
calendar and goals will be,presented. Gert Cleon-will. be our guest...-..
speaker so you may want to 'hbv~.som~ questions ready for her! Reservations
are a help, but not a ne¢essi~. ~ - ....... -.-.-.,. ' '
PRESIDENT'S-LETTER: .. '' ...-,..._
The 1983 calendar of services and'events is falling into-place tha~{s
last year's carefully laid foundation and this year's willing and able
Board of Directors, Officers, and Members.. The four major committees
will be co-chaired by these .Directors: Comm~muityEvents and Awareness-
Audrey Schultz, Steve Wood; Governmental Affairs- Steve Abrams, Dave
~nderson; Business Developement- Ron Carlson,"Jerry Longpre; Member-
ship- John Burger, Ted Koenecke. Howard Sundby will be our Program
Chairperson. Please contact him om Chic with anything that you would
like to have included in our General Meetings. I look fo~ard to seein~
many current and new members at the upcomtn~ meetings.
Paul Pond, President
THE FIRST AN.N-GAL MID-~INTER BALL %~AS A h~GE SUCCESS!
T PL~NK_ :_Y 01~3 ..
DIANE THEIS .. EVENT CHAIRPERSON .
CONNIE ~ORSTREM - TICKETS '
ANTHONY'S FLORAL - CENTERPIECES
WAYNE SMITH, KATHY OBERHAUSER - PRIZES
i FLO%~RS BY HELEN - NAME TAGS
SPECIAL NOTE: :
All area business owners and managers ar .cordially invited to a Special
evening of appreciation for them sponsored by the staff of the Westonka
School District from 7:00 to 9:00 P.M. on ~b. 17 at Grandview Middle
School. Music and refreshments will be on ~e agenda for the evening.
Its so nice of these people to acknowledge the support of their bus~ness
community this way - lets make a point of beihg there! · .
,.W~MORY JOGGER FOR i~MBERSHIP CAPTAINS ~D LIEUTENANTS:
Our W. A. C. C. Membership Campaignplan calls for Captains to have
completed their calls on Lieutenants by Jan. 31-- now past, as you read
,~ POSTOFFICEBOX426 · MOUNDoMINNESOTA55364
this reminder. Lieutenants have until February lO to complete their
calls and interviews. All completed interviews and membership dues are
slow comin~ in-- which means we must really push now to get the Job done
on time. Please make plans and take immediate action to complete your
alls and interview sheets and report back to Chic ASAP. Th~nks~
John BUrger'
Ted Koenecke
Membership Committee ~
Exec. V. P. REPORT: : -'.
There are undoubtably some businesses and organizations in the area that
we will miss during our membership and information gathering drive. Please
contact us if that happens. This Chamber is rapidly becoming.~a'focal-
point ; a voice for the business community. Its continuing gro',~h depends
upon an ever'growing committment from area busine~ses and individuals to
to support the establishment of a strong, organized Chamber for the whole
Westo~a area.' The community as a whole has definitely begun to ~ercieve
· -the Chamber~office as the-place to.con~act-~ith, questions regard~ng.busi-
nesses in particular and the area in ggne~a~l. So, if by chance We miss
.you du~tnE our membership and information drive, please contact me at the~'
Chamber office- ~72-6780. Even if you are not interested in Supporting
the Chamber at this time it is important that we have an informational
sheet on your organization so that we can better handle ~eques~ f~om
the public. ~ See you on the 16th!
Chic Remien
' -'--
WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277
5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
PHONE: 472-1600
DR. ER WIN F. STEVENSON DONALD BRANDENBURG
ACTING SUPERINTENDENT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
February 8, 1983
Dr. Ronald Carter, Superintendent
Hennepin Technical Centers, Dist. 287
1820 North Xenium Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Dear Dr. Carter:
It has come to my attention that 550,000 square feet of space is available for
possible expansion of District 287 vocational and special education programs
in the Tonka Corps. building in Mound.
A western expansion of secondary and post-secondary vocational offerings has
been contemplated for nearly eleven (11) years. It is possible that this
space might be suitable to utilize.in order to serve our area, and at a cost
that~makes it desirable to acquire. For years, our area residents have been
restricted from access to vocational programs due to the distance of approxi-
mately 35 miles to either the north or south campus. Acquisition of this
facility might well be a solution to the unmet needs of the cooperating districts
of the 287 project on the western fringe of the service area. We would
appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and discuss this usage and,
additionally, to urge you to present it to your board for consideration.
We thank you for your time and await your response to this matter.
Acting Superintendent
Copies: 'Tonka Corporation
K. Willcox
M. LeBus
~J~on Elam, City of Mound
Gary Mayer, Chairman of School Board
School District No. 277
Judson Anderson, Community Services
Advisory Council
KAY MITCHELL PHONE
CLERK TO THE BOARD 348-5433
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
February 10, 1983
Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Elam,
I am pleased to inform you that on Tuesday, February 8, 19S3,
you were appointed to the Community Health Services Advisory
Committee for a term of two years.
The Board has asked me to express its appreciation for your
interest in our community and your willingness to participate
in this public service.
Yours truly,
Kay~tChel 1
Clerk to the Board
bm
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Washington. D.C. 20230
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Elam:
Thank you for your proposal submitted in response to the
November 23 Federal Register announcement of the availability
of funds for the Economic Development Administration's
Technical Assistance Program.
Decisions on the allocation of these funds are underway. As
no additional funds are presently available, we are unable
to consider your proposal. ShoUld funds become available,
we will then advise you of the disposition of your proposal.
Sincerely,
~e~. Do~gla/~s,~cting Director
~0ffice of Planning, Technical
Assistance, Research and Evaluation
AGENDA
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
February 17, 1983
Wayzata City Hall
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order; present, absent, staff.
Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting of
January 20, 1983.
3. Approval or amendment of February 17, 1983, agenda.
4. Hearing of permit applications.
77-106 David O. Hansen - extension of permit 77-106,
lake setback variance of 50 feet, Tonka Bay.
Be
81-29 Hennepin County Dept. of Environment and Energy -
200 lineal feet of shoreline rip-rap protection to
alleviate shoreline erosion in Coffee Channel west of
Shadywood Road, Orono/Spring Park.
81-30 Hennepin County Dept. of Environment and Energy -
200 lineal feet of shoreline rip-rap protection, St. Albans
Bay Channel between St. Albans Bay and Excelsior Bay,
Greenwood/Excelsior.
Do
81-118 Darrel Farr Development Co. - grading and
drainage for "Sunset Ridge," commercial site, and fill and
excavation in an adjacent Type III wetland, St. Louis Park.
82-17 Hennepin County DOT - upgrading of CSAH 3 between
Meadowbrook Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, Hopkins/St. Louis
Park.
83-01 Minnegasco, Inc. - after-the-fact installation of
an 8" natural gas line along T.H.7 from T.H.41 to Second
Street, Shorewood/Excelsior.
Ge
83-02 Robert Naegele Jr. - 200 lineal feet of rip-rap
shoreline erosion protection, Upper Lake, Lake Minnetonka,
Shorewood.
83-03 Hennepin Co. Dept. of Environment and Energy -
rip-rap shoreline erosion protectin, Emerald Lake, C~oks
Bay Channel, Mound.
83-04 Minnesota Dept. of Transportation - bridge
replacement over Grays Bay Channel, causeway widening and
boat launch reconstruction, Grays Bay, Wayzata.
83-05 Walter F. Helland - lake setback variance of 48
feet to a man-made lagoon adjacent to Harrison Bay,
Harrison Bay,. Mound.
83-06 Eugene A. Hickok - grading and drainage plan for
a two-story building addition, Walker Avenue at Indian
Mound, Wayzata.
5. Correspondence.
Hearing of requests for petitions by public for action by the
Watershed District.
7. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney.
A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Carroll
(1) Administrative Fund Report
(2)
Membership/Minnesota Association of
Watershed Districts
B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer
C. Attorney's Report - Ms. Peterson
(1) Annual Report
(2) Draft Fee Schedule
(3) Gray's Bay Dam
8. Unfinished Business.
B.
C.
D.
Rule and Regulation Revision/Chapter 509
District Initiated Maintenance Projects
Bridge Obstruction
Draft Permit Application Guidelines
9. New Business.
10. Adjournment.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
January 20, 1983
The regular meeting of January 20, 1983, of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at
7:30 p.m. at the Wayzata City Hall.
Managers Present:
Cochran, Carroll, Gudmundson
and Thomas
Manager Absent:
Lehman
Also present were board advisors Panzer, Reep and Macomber.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 16, 1982,
were reviewed. Manager Cochran advised that Manager Lehman
requested that Page 5 under the heading "Insurance Coverages" be
modified by adding after the words "Manager Lehman" the following:
"stated that the survey of insurance coverages for the Metro Area
Watershed Districts performed by Valley Branch Watershed District
showed coverages that the Minnehaha Board of Managers does not have
and." It was moved by Gudmundson, seconded by Cochran, that the
minutes be amended to include the foregoing modification and
approved as amended. Upon vote the motion carried.
Approval of Permit Applications
The managers reviewed a memorandum from the engineer dated
January 12, 1983, indicating that the following applications comply
with all applicable standards of the district and recommending
approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in his written
memorandum:
Richard F. Zejdlik - lake setback variance of 40 feet,
4349, 4355 Shoreline Drive, north shore of Black Lake,
Spring Park. 80-103
City of Mound - maintenance dredging to remove material
deposited by storm drain, Emerald Lake, Lake Minnetonka,
Mound. 82-111
It was moved by Gudmundson, seconded by Thomas, that the
foregoing applications be approved subject to all terms and
conditions recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion
carried.
January 20, 1983
Page 2
Tabling of Permit Application
The engineer recommended tabling the following application
until all required exhibits have been received:
Minnegasco, Inc. - installation of an 8" natural gas
line along T.H.7 from T.H. 41 to Second Street,
Shorewood/Exce!sior. 83-01
It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Gudmundson, that the
foregoing application be tabled until all required exhibits have
been received.
William Niccum - channel dredging and rip-rap, Harrison Bay, Lake
Minnetonka~ Mound. 82-68
The engineer reviewed the application for channel dredging
and rip-rap placement. The engineer advised the managers that the
application had been tabled in August of 1982 to explore
alternatives to minimize dredging. The engineer reviewed the
project for the managers and evaluated available alternatives to
provide navigational access, including lakeward docking from the
property. The engineer advised the managers that the channel has
been open to navigation in the past and that the work contemplated
constitutes maintenance of an existing channel. The engineer also
advised the mangers that all exhibits requested in his written
memorandum had been received, that the DNR had approved the work and
that the LMCD had given favorable comments regarding the project.
Following discussion, it was moved by Carroll, seconded by
Gudmundson, that the application be approved to allow dredging of
the approach channel and the lagoon area as recommended by the
engineer subject to the condition that the applicant construct and
maintain an erosion control barrier. Upon vote the motion carried.
Woody Ginkel - grading and drainage for "Creek Point," a 99 unit
residential development, Hiawatha Avenue at Minnehaha Creek,
Hopkins. 82-118
The engineer reviewed the application for grading and
drainage plan approval and advised the managers that compensatory
storage equal to that being filled was proposed in the grading and
drainage plan. The engineer recommended approval of the plan as
modified by the applicant and requested authority to issue the.
permit upon receipt and approval by the engineer of a revised
grading and drainage plan, subject also to conditions numbered 1 and
2 in his written memorandum. Following discussion, it was moved by
Thomas, seconded by Gudmundson, that the application be approved
subject to the foregoing recommendations. Upon vote the motion
carried.
January 20, 1983
Page 3
Permit Fee/Schedule Consideration
The engineer reviewed his memorandum to the board dated
January 11, 1983, which memorandum set forth recommended general
concepts for consideration by the managers and which also identified
specific recommended procedures for proceeding to review and
consider implementation of a fee schedule. The engineer stated that
the recommended concept would provide that a $10.00 application fee
would be charged to all applicants, exclusive of governmental
agencies, and that a permit review fee would be charged to
applicants dependent upon costs incurred by the district staff to
accomplish technical review of the permit application. The engineer
explained that the cost of technical review would be related to the
project itself, including the review of the necessary exhibits and
calculations and would not involve a charge for the engineer's time
in responding to public citizen inquiries or comments with respect
to the project. The engineer explained that the rationale of the
proposal was that the applicant would bear only those costs caused
by his application and not those costs attributable to public
interest in the project.
The engineer also recommended that a threshold for charging
a review fee be established so that most permits where the exhibits
are in order can be processed without a review fee. The engineer
advised the managers that he recommended setting a threshold of
three hours of technical review which would not be charged to the
applicant and that fees incurred over the three hour total would be
charged to the applicant.
Mr. James yon Lorenz was present and inquired of the Board
of Managers why the board would not set a maximum fee of 1% of the
gross value of the project.
The board then discussed the staff memorandum and discussed
the various policy issues raised by a permit fee schedule.
Discussion centered on the question of post-issuance inspection and
whether that item should be separated from the permit review fee
issues. Discussion also centered on the need to set a maximum
liability which an applicant wou}d incur under the proposed
schedule. Following extensive discussion, the board directed the
staff to prepare a preliminary draft of a rule for the board's
consideration at its next regular meeting.
Summary of 1982 Permits
The engineer distributed a log of permits issued by the
district in 1982, indexing and identifying permits by municipality,
by permit type and by geographic area.
January 20, 1983
Page 4
Lake Level Monitoring
The engineer reported that the Hennepin County Park Reserve
D~strict has entered into an agreement with the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District to monitor lake levels on the seven lakes in
Carver and Baker Park Reserves.
Water Maintenance and Repair Fund
The managers reviewed a memorandum from the engineer dated
January 10, 1983, providing a status report and making
recommendations on previously authorized Water Maintenance and
Repair Fund allocations for the years 1980 through 1982. ·
1980 Projects and Encumbrances
The engineer advised the managers that the following
projects authorized from the 1980 Water Maintenance and Repair
Fund have not been constructed:
Allocation
Recipient
Project Desc.
Date
Approved
Amount of
Allocation
Project Status
City of
Spring Park
Lafayette Lane
Storm Sewer
6/19/80
3/18/82
$5000-Max.
Not construct
City of St.
Louis Park
Minnehaha Creek
sed. basins
(10 locations)
6/19/80
3/lS/82
$2467-Max.
9 locations
not constructed
(1 constructed
and previously
paid)
Creek channel 6/19/80
repair at 3/18/82 $1500-Max. Not constructed
Meadowbrook Rd.
The engineer recommended that the foregoing projects be
canceled and the 1980 encumbrances against ~he Water Maintenance and
Repair Fund be rescinded since no work has been undertaken or is
planned with respect to the above projects.
1982 Projects and Encumbrances
The engineer advised the managers that the following
projects authorized from the 1982 Water Maintenance and Repair
Fund have not been constructed and are not planned:
Allocation
Recipient
Project Desc.
Date
Approved
Amount of
Allocation
Project Statu
City of Abandon and cap
Edina cascade well 3/18/82
$ 800-Max.
Not constructed
City of Boat launch
Greenwood repair 3/18/82
$2065-Max.
Not constructed
January 20, 1983
Page 5
The engineer further advised the managers that the
following project authorized from the 1982 Water Maintenance and
Repair Fund has been constructe~ at a cost of approximately
$l,503.47 and the engineer recommended increasing the maximum
allocation to the city to one-half of the actual construction costs
but not to exceed $1250:
Allocation Date
Recipieq~ Pro~ect Desc. Approved
Amount of
Allocation Pro~ect Status
City of Lake Louise
Deephaven outlet repair '5/20/82
$600-Max.
Constructed
Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by
Carroll, that (1) the encumbrances against the Water Maintenance and
Repair Fund for 1980 for projects in the cities of Spring Park and
St. Louis Park identified above be and hereby are rescinded as of
December 31, 1982; (2) that the encumbrances against the Water
Maintenance and Repair Fund for 1982 for projects in the cities of
Edina and Greenwood identified above be and hereby are rescinded as
of December 31, 1982; and (3) that the authorization to the City of
Deephaven from the 1982 Water Maintenance and Repair Fund be
increased to one-half of actual project costs but not to exceed
$1250 as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried.
West 44th Street Improvement Pro~eq~
The engineer advised the managers that work would be
commencing shortly on the West 44th Steer dredging project.
Lake Minnetqnka Water Quality Sampling/MPCA
The engineer distributed a memorandum to the Board of
Managers dated January 17, 1983, regarding Lake Minnetonka water
quality sampling of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The
engineer reviewed the report and the board discussed the conclusions
contained in the MPCA report as related to the Painter Creek
Subwatershed study presently underway. The engineer recommended
authorization to contact the MPCA regarding the feasibility of a
study as suggested in the MPCA's report. Manager Carroll indicated
that he would not favor an additional study at this time given other
priorities of the district, but that the engineer should meet with
the MPCA staff to determine what scope of work the MPCA staff
proposes.
Minnehaha Creek Dred9ing/Meadowbrook Golf Course
Manager Carroll requested that the staff inform the staff
of the Minneapolis Park Board that the board would be willing to
increase the proposed contribution for maintenance work in the creek
south of the bridge at Excelsior Boulevard from 50% to 80% of actual
project costs.
January 20, 1983
Page 6
Trinity Pond
The.board reviewed a memorandum from the engineer dated
January 12, 1983, summarizing the present status of the
investigation of a complaint with respect to water levels in the
Trinity Associates development. The managers directed the engineer
to assure that the City of Plymouth is satisfied regarding the
investigative actions undertaken by the district in response to the
complaint.
Water Maintenance and Repair Fund/Board-Initiated Projects
Manager Carroll reminded the board that the managers have
agreed to prepare lists of proposed board-initiated projects for
review at the March meeting.
Creek Clean-Up
Manager Cochran suggested that the winter months were the
appropriate time to remove fallen branches from the creek and
requested the engineer to contact the creekside municipalities to
determine if this work could be accomplished during the winter
season. Manager Carroll expressed his desire to make fallen tree
removal a board-initiated project from the Water Maintenance and
Repair Fund.
Treasurer's Report
The treasurer distributed his monthly Administrative Fund
Report dated January 20, 1983. Following discussion and review of
the report, it was moved by Gudmundson, seconded by Cochran, that
the treasurer's report dated January 20, 1983, be approved and
placed on file and that the bills be paid as set forth in that
report. Upon vote the motion carried.
Engineer's Report
The engineer distributed a revised fee schedule for
engineering services. Manager Gudmundson stated that she felt the
fee adjustment was inappropriate because the managers had previously
established the budget for engineering services for 1983. The
engineer advised the board that an increase in hourly rates was
effective January 1, 1983, and that the rates quoted for the work
performed for the district were below standard hourly rates for
nongovernment clients.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the regular
meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the regular meeting adjourned at
11:00 p.m.
Barbara R. Gudmundson, Secretary
300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101
General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359
A Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Com:
For more information on items in this pu
February 4, 1983
RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS {Jan. 24-Fab. 4}
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Parks--The Metropolitan Council amended an acquisition
grant contract with Ramsay County by providing $106,000
to purchase 12 parcels of land in the Lilydale segment of the
Lilydale-Harriet Island Regional Park. The new contract totals
$3.7 million. "
The Council also amended an acquisition grant contract
with Hennepin County Park Reserve District for Lake Rebecca
Park Reserve. The Council provided $90,000 to purchase
about nine wooded acres for a new total of $252~500.
Comprehensive Plans--The Council said the Medicine Lake
comprehensive plan conforms with plans for regional growth
and development.
COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL
The Human Resources Committee approved a certificate-of-
request from Catholic Services for the Elderly, Inc.,
St. Paul, to build a 135-bed nursing home near the intersection
of Thompson, Carmel and Bellows Avs., West St. Paul. The
recommendation overturned a recent Metropolitan Health
Planning Board vote to deny approval of the proiect, estimated
to cost $7.1 million.
The committee also approved a certificate~f-need request
by North Memorial Medical Center, 3220 Lowry Av. N.,
Robbinsdale, to remodel its perinatal services at an estimated
cost of $2.5 million.
The Physical Development Committee recommended
approving the proposed scope of an environmental impact
statement on candidate sites for disposal of sewage sludge and
sludge ash. The committee also recommended the Council
eliminate Site 4 in Forest Lake from further consideration and
direct staff to locate additional landfill sites to fill the Council's
required complement of six candidate sites.
The committee recommended holding a public meeting to
help define the scope of an environmental impact statement
on the proposed expansion of the Flying Cloud solid waste
landfill in Eden Prairie. The meeting would be held from 7 to
10 p.m., March 9, at the Hennepin County Technical Center,
Eden Prairie.
The committee recommended that the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency review existing areawvide designations of
"nonattainment" for carbon monoxide and "unclassified" for
ozone and change them to "attainment" status if warranted.
The committee also recommended that the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation study carbon monoxide concentrations
in and near the intersection of Shelling and University Avs.,
Paul, during the remainder of 1983.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Metropolitan Health Planning Board-Feb. 23, Council
Chambers.
~:~ .- HR'. JON ELAM
~;m, ~'/ MANAG>ER
Le_a.c~, ~'' C~'TT~OF MOUND ~
~ 5 Health Care Center, 20~ Upper
Grove Heights; ce~ifi~ta~f-need reque~ to
nursing home beds to i~ 110-bed faciliw, at an
timated co~ of $2.9 million, excluding financing.
6 p.m.-Inver Grove Care Center, 4700 S. Robe~ Trail,
Inver Grove Height; ~ifi~te~f-need request to add 70
numing home beds to its 76-b~ facility, at an e~imat~ m~
of $1.3 million, excluding financing.
Me~opoli~n Council and Me~opoli~n Heal~ Planning
Board-March 2, Council offi~s, Room E.
7 p.m.-Joint hearing to consider the 1983 plan for imple-
menting regional health ~re, and the 1983-1984 grant appli~-
tion to renew the Council's and ~ard's designation as the
regional health sy~ems agency. For a free ~py of the dra~
plan (pub. no. 18~3~05) and grant appli~tion, ~11 291-~.
NEW APPOINTMENTS
The Metropolitan Council has appointed a new 16-member
Water Quality Management Advisory Committee chaired by
Alison Fuhr of Edina.
The committee, named in December, will continue helping
the Council implement its 1982 Surface Water Management
Plan. The plan presents a region-wide approach to managing
snowmelt and storm water runoff that cause flooding, erosion
and 15oor water quality in the Region's lakes and streams.
The members are Virginia Harris and David Cochran, both
from Excelsior; Jon Christensen, Coon Rapids; Allen Moe,
Hastings, Roger Petarson, Cottage Grove; John Wells and Dale
Trippler, St. Paul; James Weninger, Prior Lake; Mervyn
Mindess, Golden Valley; Patricia Schwartz. Belle Plaine; Terry
Korupp, Edina; Steve Casey, Eagan; William Downing, Falcon
Heights; Phyllis Letendre, Woodbury; and Dudley Russell and
Christine Olsenius, Wayzata.
The Council also made the following appointments.
Advisory Committee on Aging: Amelia Flocken, Minne-
apolis; Etta Furlow, St. Paul; and it reappointed Wil!.iam
Meyer, Inver Grove Heights;
Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory
Committee: James Elling, Andover.
STATE TO REPLACE FEDERAL 'A-95'
GRANT REVIEW PROCESS
The State Department of Energy, Planning and Develop-
ment's Office of Local Government is drafting "the skeleton
of a review process" to replace the current federal A-95 review
procedure for proposed federal grants, which expires April 30,
according to Tom Herren0 A-95 coordinator.
The state draft will be sent to local government and county
associations, regional development commissions and Metro-
politan Council "so they can put the meat on it," Harren said.
President Reagan's executive order abolishing A-95 reviews,
issued last summer, allows each state to establish its own
review process.
In addition, the Council is preparing comments on proposed
federal rules, published recently in the Federal Register, for
establishing a state review process. Deadline for comments to
the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is March 10.
"The Council welcomes comments or suggestions on the
proposed process," said John Rutford, Council referrals man-
ager. Rutford said local governments may wish to check the
following documents published in the Federal Regls~er:
-- Executive Order No. 12372, July 16, 1982.
-- OMB Policy Issues and Decisions on Executive Order No.
12372, Dec. 23, 1982.
- Federal Agency Proposed Rules to Implement Executive
Order No. 12372, Jan. 24, 1983.
-- OMB Letter to Governors on Implementation of Executive
Order No. 12372, Jan. 27, 1983.
'REVIEW' IS MAILED THIRD CLASS
To cut mailing costs in half, the Review is being mailed
third class instead of first class beginning.this issue. This means
it will arrive as late as one week after publication days-still the
first and third Fridays of the month. Because of this change,
the Review no longer contains a list of meetings for the
coming week. Instead, it publishes a list of meetings (without
agendas) for the following two weeks. Be sure to call and
verify any meeting information.
WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANT SUBJECT
OF FEB. 10 PUBLIC MEETING
The Metropolitan Council will hold a public meeting
Feb. 10 on a proposed waste-to-energy resource recovery
project for Ramsay and Washington Counties. The meeting
will be from 7 to 10 p.m. at Tartan High School, 828 Green-
way Av. N.o Oakdale.
The project, an estimated $55 million mass-burn incinerator,
would be built in Lake Elmo, Washington County. It would
burn about 600 tons of municipal waste dally and produce
steam for sale to 3M Co. in Maplewood-and other nearby
customers if the facility is expanded.
The meeting is to discuss an environmental assessment
worksheet (EAW) about the project and the scope of an
environmental impact statement that will be prepared by
summer. Minnesota EnvirOnmental Quality Board rules
require the Council to conduct an ElS on incinerators that
will process 500 tons or more of waste daily.
To speak at the hearing or submit written testimony, call
the Council at 291-6421. Copies of the EAW, pub. no. 09~3-
008, may be obtained free by calling 291~o464.
COUNCIL CHANGES SCHEDULE ON AMENDMENTS
TO WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
The Metropolitan Council has made schedule changes in its
review of proposed amendments to its policy plan on regional
water resources management. The new dates are:
- March 3: The Physical Development Committee reviews
the public hearing report and adopts final amendments at
3 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
- March 10: The Metropolitan Council adopts final amend-
ments at 4 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
If you have questions about the schedule or plan, call
John Harrington, the Council's water pollution program
manager, at 291-6324.
COUNCIL OFFERS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING EDUCATION PROGRAM
Where will our children live? This is the theme of an afford-
able housing education program offered upon request by the
Metr ~=olitan Council to local Twin Cities Area civic groups.
The program is about today's housing market and the need to
provide more affordable housing.
The program consists of e 45-minute presentation including
a slide show and discussion of such topic~ as: trends that affect
housing, current housing costs, how regulations affect housi~-
costs, housing in the 1980s, and common concerns and mis-
information often associated with more dense housing. Where
possible, current housing issues in a community will be high-
lighted. The program provides an information kit, booklets
and' staff available to work with local civic leaders.
For more information, call Council housing planners Guy
Paterson or Aha Stern at 291-6472.
NEW PUBLICATIONS
Hearing Report on Proposed Amendments tO Aviation
Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Jan. 1983.
No. 26-834)30; 12 pp.; no charge.
1982 Metropolitan Health Planning 8oard Annual Report.
Jan. 1983. No. 19~2-106; 28 pp.; no charge.
1982 Manufactured Housing Law: Local Control of the
Location of Manufactured Housing. Jan. 1983. No. 07~3-024;
8 pp.; no charge.
Schools and School Districts, 1982, Twin Cities Metropoli-
tan Area. Dec. 1982. 17 x 22 in. map. No. 08~2-114; 50 cents.
Community Reference File: Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevel-
opment Project, Richfield, Minn. Jan. 1983. Case study on
innovative solutions to local community problems. No. 07~2-
074; 9 pp.; no charge.
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Political 8oundaries, 1983.
Jan. 1983. 8% x 12 in. map. No charge.
COMING MEETINGS (Feb. 14-25)
(Information below is tentative. To verify, call 291-6464.)
Human Resources Committee--Monday, Feb. 14,
3:30 p.m., Council Chambers.
Executive Committae-Tuesday, Feb. 15, 5 p.m., Con-
ference Room A.
Arts Advisory Committee--Tuesday, Feb. 15, 5:15 p.m.,
Council Chambers.
Transportation Advisory Board-Wednesday, Feb. 16,
2 p.m., Council Chambers.
Landfill Abatement Subcommittee of the Metropolitan
Waste Management Advisory Committee-Wednesday,
Feb. 16, 3 p.m., Conference Room A.
Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee--
Wednesday, Feb. 16, 7 p.m., Council Chambers.
Physical Development Committee--Thursday, Feb. 17,
3 p.m., Council Chambers.
Compensation and Mitigation Subcommittee of the
Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee-
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 9 a.m., Conference Room E.
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space. Commission--Tuesday,
Feb. 22, 3 p.m., Council Chambers.
Transportation Subcommittee-Tuesday, Feb. 22, 3 p.m.,
Conference Room E.
Executive Committee--Tuesday, Feb. 22, 5 p.m., Confer-
ence Room A.
Metropolitan Health Planning Board-Wednesday, Feb. 23,
4 p.m., Council Chambers.
Metropolitan Ridesharing Board-Thursday, Feb. 24,
9:30 a.m., Council Chambers.
Physical Development Committee-Thursday, Feb. 24,
2:30 p.m., Council Chambers.
Metropolitan Council-Thursday, Feb. 24, 4 p.m.,
Council Chambers.
Advisory Committee on Aging- Friday, Feb. 25, 9 a.m.,
Council Chambers.
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
444 Lafayette Road~ Space Center Bldg.~ St. Paul~ MN 55101
PHONE NO. 296-4800
NO.
February 11, 1983
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
P.O. Box 387
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Board Members:
RE: GRAY'S BAY DAM OPERATIONAL PLAN, PERMIT 76-6240
The Department has reviewed the Management Policy and Operating Procedures
submitted on September 28, 1982. This submittal was developed following
DNR's August 6, 1981 approval of the fall drawdown and a requirement that
additional notification be provided to all communities of all proposed
modifications. The Watershed District has carried out this directive and
they have received substantial input on the current proposal through both
written correspondence and oral comments at their meetings. Under the pro-
vision of Minnesota Statutes 105.44, the Department hereby waives a public
hearing and approves the proposal subject to the following amendments:
A)
Special Provision IX shall be amended to read:
"IX. The stop logs in the twin box culverts
under Hazlewood Outer Drive shall remain in
place up to elevation 925.7 and the District
shall be responsible for repair as directed
by the Regional Hydrologist."
B)
Special Provision X shall be amended to read:
"X. The dam shall be operated in accordance
with the Headwater's Control Structure--
Management Policy and Operating Procedures,
as hereafter amended by the Department."
The District shall incorporate the follow-
ing changes into the document and submit it
to the Department. This will provide for one
comprehensive document to cover the management
policy and operating procedures for the dam.
a)
Page 1, paragraph 2. Correct the
typographical error contained in
the elevation.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
February 11, 1983
Page Two
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Page 4, Zone 2, paragraph 1. Second
sentence shall be changed to read:
"When the lake level is below 929.1,
the maximum discharge shall be no
higher than 30 cfs (cubic feet per
second)." This change clarifies the
District's proposal and is required
for the protection of the early
spring fish spawning.
Page 4, Zone 2, paragraph 2. Third
sentence shall be changed to read:
"Maximum allowable discharge rates
other than those specified herein
may'occur only after the Minnesota
DNR has authorized such action."
Page 5, Zone 4, paragraphs 1, 2 and
3 change the number 12 cfs to 20 cfs
and delete paragraph 4. In paragraph
3 change the first sentence to read:
"From July 15 through November 30c.."
This change is required to allow the
proposed operating procedures to more
closely correspond with the stage-
discharge curve developed for the old
Gray's Bay dam.
Page 6-7, B. Data Collection. As part
of the data collection stage-discharge
curves shall be developed for at least
three (3) locations on the creek (one
of which shall be the Browndale Dam).
These curves will give observers a quick
check on discharge at those specific
points and will provide valuable data
for evaluating the effectiveness of the
operating procedures.
Page 8, Items B.3-B.7 should be re-
evaluated and rewritten by the District
to reflect actual operating experience.
The discharge adjustments shall be
governed by changes in lake level, not
by the day of the week. The rewritten
Items B.3-Bo7 shall be approved by the
Regional Hydrologist prior to inclusion
in the final document.
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
February 11, 1983
Page Three
g)
h)
i)
Page 8, Item B.8. The title shall be
changed to "Operational Responsibility".
Another sentence shall be added that
reads: "The control structure shall
be operated by the District in accord-
ance with the limitations set forth in
this document and the permit."
Page 9. Add the Department of Natural
Resources to the distribution list.
The Department now gets copies of all
material, but we should also be listed
in this section.
A Section IV shall be added as follows:
IV--TERMS OF AND AMENDMENTS TO THE
MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATING PROCEDURES.
TERM--This document shall govern the
operation of the Headwater's Control
Structure (Gray's Bay Dam) for the
period March 1, 1983 through March 1,
1986.
2) AMENDMENT OF 5~NAGEMENT POLICY AND
OPERATING PROCEDURE
On or before January 1st of the last
year of the term of this document,
the District shall submit to the
Department any amendments to the
existing Management Policy and Operat-
ing Procedures deemed necessary for
the following three (3) year period.
Within sixty (60) days, the Department
shall advise the District in writing
of the acceptance, rejection, modifica-
tion, or additions to the proposal.
Any aggrieved party as described in
Minnesota Statutes 105.44, may demand
a public hearing. If a hearing is
demanded, the existing operating pro-
cedures shall remain in full force
and effect until a final administrative
decision is reached° Following the
final administrative hearing decision
or if no hearing is demanded, the re-
visions, if any, shall be incorporated
till
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
February 11, 1983
Page Four
into the Management Policy and
Operating Procedures for the follow-
ing three (3) year term and be dis-
~tributed to affected municipalities
and agencies.
This amendment procedure shall be
repeated every three (3) years.
j) Page 10. Operating Procedures Exhibit shall
be amended as follows:
Zone 4--Change 12 cfs to read
"20 CFS MIN."
Zone 5--Change BASE FLOW 12 cfs avgo
to read "BASE FLOW APPROXo
12 CFSo" The word approxi-
mately more accurately reflects
the'intent of the District as
described in the Management
Policy and Operation Procedures.
The District shall incorporate the above changes into a document titled
"Headwater's Control Structure--Management Policy and Operating Procedures
March 1, 1983 - March 1, 1986" and distribute the document to the affected
municipalities and agencies. If you have any specific questions, feel free
to contact Regional Hydrologist Kent Lokkesmoe (296-7523). The document as
amended provides for operating the dam in the best interests of the public
and the District is to be commended for their.efforts. Minnesota Statutes
105.44 provide that a hearing may be demanded by either the applicant, the
watershed district, the soil and water conservation board, or the munici-
palities within thirty .(30) days. The party demanding the hearing is also
liable for certain costs incurred by holding the hearing.
Sincerely,
~a. r ~y~ Se~mo~ ------
Dir~c~r~--'
cc:
Affected Municipalities
Hennepin County SWCD
LMCD
Minneapolis Park Board
Regional Administrator Karen Loechler
Regional Hydrologist Kent Lokkesmoe
THES-! LETTER
MN Municipality
Volume is Issue Z
February, 1983
Bond Registration
Due to the efforts of a number of people, including many of you, the lame duck 1982
Congress did pass legislation delaying the effective date of mandatory registration until
July I, 1983. President Reagan signed the bill including the registration delay on January
12th.
While nothing is certain when trying to predict future action by the Feds, it does seem
unlikely that additional delays in registration will be considered. As a result it can only
be hoped the industry will gear up to permit an efficient movement to registered bonds.
For those of you who must issue bonds sometime Jn 1983 and wish to avoid registration
you should remember that it is the settlement of an issue which must occur before July I,
not the sale date, if the bonds are to be exempt from registration. Since a safe margin
between sale and settlement is 30 days, a sale must be held before June Ist to reasonably
assure settlement before July Ist.
Market Conditions
The original January I, 1983 threat of registration did accomplish one thing, it cleared a
crowded market, since record numbers of issuers took advantage of lower rates and
brought a record volume of bonds to market in November and December~ many to avoid
registration. The result is a relatively slow calendar of traditional definitive tax-exempts
in February. The short-term volume is high however with a number of the State's larger
school districts issuing 12 or 13 month tax anticipation certificates. A total volume in
excess of $170 million of these certificates is tentatively scheduled for sale by mid-
February. Rates for these obligations are ranging from just under 5.00% to 6.50%.
Short-term rates generally are down as most of you have experienced with your own
reinvestment programs. The bond equivalent yield on 91-<lay Treasury bills during the
week of January 2hth was 8.20% compared with 8.50% two months ago and 12.90% one
year ago. Long-term rates are up slightly over the past several months. The Bond Buyer's
Index on January 28th was 9.~;~;% compared with 9.5~;% one month ago. It was just one
year ago that the BBI hit its all-time record high of
The combination of lower rates and a light calendar of pending sales makes this a good
time to consider placement of any required mid to long-term financing. We would be
pleased to discuss in more detail with you any questions about a specific program.
Advance Refunding
A number of you who issued bonds during the very high interest rate market of 1981-1982
have ~alled about the feasibility of refunding those bonds with new bonds at today's lower
rates. Normally under Minnesota law an issue cannot be refunded more than six months
before maturity of the issue, or before the first call date, unless the new (refunding) issue
meets one of two major requirements. First, the average life of the maturities of the
refunding issue must be extended at least five years, or the.dollar amount of the interest,
including costs of issuance of the refunding bonds, must be at least 5% less than the
remaining dollar interest cost of the refunded issue.
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS
800 Osborn Building · Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 · (612) 222-4241
At the present time most potential refunding issues could pass these two tests. Ho.wever~
federal arbitrage regulations may pose a more formidable obstacle to large scale interest
savings, due to yield restrictions on those investments made in the escrow account from
proceeds of the refunding bonds. In general~ those arbitrage regulations restrict the
reinvestment yield to the true interest cost on the refunding bonds~ thus making it
difficult to save large interest amounts which might be assumed available when you
refund 11.00% bonds with 9.00% new bonds. Howevers' there are some techniques which
can be used to increase investment yieids~ particularly if the issuer can finance some of
the front end costs. Those costs will vary~ and are recoverable~ over time.
If you would 'like to discuss the refunding potential of some of Your 1981-1982 issues~ S-I
can perform a preliminary analysis of the refunding feasibility. There may be some other
justification for refunding in addition to interest savings, in some cases cities may want
to extend maturities on issues which were arbitrarily shortened because of market
conditions during the post 24 months. In other cases, a refunding might eliminate onerous
covenants.
Tax Anticipation Certificates ..
As indicated a number of the State's 'larger school districts are finding it necessary to
issue these certificates. Cities also have this authority~ although charter'cities may have
different authority, than statutory cities~ and in some cases may have no such authority.
Statutory cities have the authority granted by MSA 6,12.261~ which permits their sale at
any time after the first day of the year~ in an amount not to exceed the total of all
uncollected taxes at the time of issuance. The certificates must be due and payable not
later than April ! of the yedr following issuance.
Federal arbitrage regulations will further limit the total value of permitted certificates
to the largest combination of a single month's projected deficiency plus the next month's
projected expenditures. Since these certificates can currently be sold from 5.0% to ~.5%~
there can be a reinvestment gain. As a result there may be merit in their issuance even
though your projected monthly cash deficits can be managed by temporary transfer from
surplus funds. Should you wish to discuss the issuance of certificates in more detail we
have developed some computer models which aid in making the arbitrage calculations and
determining gain or loss 'from the sale~ based' on input from you on your cash flow
requirements.
Year in .Retrospect
We think you will agree that 1982 was.a year of uncertainty~ and the precursor of great
change in government finance. It was a year of extraordinary volatility in credit markets~
and one in which a number of new debt financing techniques appeared or reappeared.
These new techniques included zero coupon and deep discount bonds~ and while those
programming concepts have lost, at least temporarily~ much of their initial attractive-
ness~ it is clear that co. ntinuing variations of older~ well established marketing concepts
will .continue to be presented to issuers.
It is also clear that resources for the payment of both operating and capital costs will be'
at a premium and difficult decisions will need to be made as to community priorities. It
will be a time of frustration~ which will make it even more difficult to attract and retain
the highly qualified administration, and policy making individuals we have tended to take
for granted in Minnesota.
The relationship between units of government will also change. We anticipate municipal
units will see a return to greater local control of finance and service levels~ at the price
of great accountability. We think this change will be welcomed by most~ though it may
require some traumatic adjustments. Based on our knowledge of Minnesota municipal
government we are confident you will make those adjustments. We pledge that during this
period of change we will do our utmost to continue to attract and retain the quality of
staff necessary to assist in making your job easier when called upon.