85-11-26 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
8:00 P.M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1985
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:qO P.M. - EXECUTIVE SESSION
8:00 P.M.
1. Approve Minutes of November 12, 1985, Regular Meeting
.O~g~2. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills
I~33v~ CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Contel
~f~.~ Consideration of Operations Permit: Gustafson &
Associates, For the Establishment of a Wholesale
?~ Motor Vehicle Dealer Office at 5340 Shoreline Blvd.
CASE #85-4~q: Richard J. & Joan Ahmann, 2017 Arbor
Lane, Lot 3, Skarp & Lindquist,'s
Ravenswood
Request; Variance to Recognize an Existing Noncon-
forming Setback and Request for a 5 Foot
oq~ Front Yard Setback Variance
CASE ~85-450; Mike Netka, 4949 Island View Drive
Lot 3, Block 23, Devon
Request: Recognize Existing Setbacks & Lot Size to
do Structural Repairs & Add a 2nd Story
Request for Final Plat Approval - Port Harrison Town-
homes
Update from Anthony VanDersteeg - Grading & Land
Reclamation Permit
9. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
Councilmember Smith's Request to Reallocate Money in
the Council Budget to the Finance Budget to Keep City
Hall Open on Tuesday Evenings in 1986.
Propose transferring $1,500.00 of the $3,962.00 back
into the Finance Budget
11.
Approval of Public Service Agreements with: A. Suburban Community Services
B. Westonka Community Services Dept. for
Westonka Senior Center
C. Westonka Intervention Project
Pg. 3128-3137
Pg. 3138
Pg. 3139-3143
Pg. 3144-3152
Pg. 3153-3161
Pg. 3162-3170
Pg. 3171
Pg. 3172
Pg. 3173-3180
Page 3126
13.
Ordinance Amendement to Chapter 17-A - Relating to
Cable T.V. Rate Increase (Letter from Cable Attorney
to be handed out)
Pg. 3181-3184
Approval of Request for $25,000 in Additional Maintenance
Funds from M.S.A. (Resolution to be handed out at
Meeting.
14. Reschedule Meetings for December:
Would have been December 10 and December 24;
Change to December 10 and December 17
15. Approval to Join Employee Right to Know Service
1~. Payment of Bills
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Pg. 3185-3187
Pg. 31 88-3193
De
Eo
Fo
Ge
Planning Commission Minutes from November 18, 1985 Pg. 3194-3197
Update on Lost Lake Land Registration Case Pg. 3198-3205
F.L.S.A. Information Pg. 3206-3215
List of Appointments from Hennepin County which
will expire in 1986 Pg. 3216,3217
Notice of Receipt of Draft of "Hennepin County
Solid Waste Master Plan" Pg. 3218-3219
Letter from Arne Carlson, State Auditor on State
Revenue Shortfalls Pg. 3220-32~3
School District Minutes from 10-15-85 and 10-22-85 Pg. 3224-3229
Response to Met Council Task Force on Lake
Minnetonka
Report on Fiscal Disparities from the Met Council
A Presentation from Met Council Chair on Solid
Waste Management
Pg. 3230-3231
Pg. 3232-3233
Pg. 3234-3238
Page 3127
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
November 13, 1985
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ACTING CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
RETIREMENT DINNER FOR BUZZ KRAFT
As I mentioned last night, the retirement dinner for Buzz Kraft
will be Saturday evening, December 7, 1985, at the Mound American
Legion Hall. Social hour 6 P.M. to 7 P.M. Tickets for the turkey
dinner are $6.00 each. Please contact Shirley Hawks, Police
Secretary, at 472-3711 for tickets. They are expecting to sell
all 200 tickets, so please call her soon and make your arrangements.
I have asked her to hold 10 tickets for the City Council, so if you
cannot make the dinner, Please let her know as soon as possible.
Thanks.
fc
An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, ~ts programs and activities.
M I NUTE S
REGULAR COUNC I L MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 1~85
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular
session on November 12, 1985, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at
5341Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Acting City Mayor Russ.Peterson, Councilmembers
Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Steve Smith. Mayor Bob Polston was
absent and excused. Also present were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark,
City Attorney Jim Larson, Acting City Clerk Linda Strong, Building Inspec-
tor Jan Bertrand, City Engineer John Cameronl City Finance Director John
Norman, Harlan Brue, Jan.and Sue Lynott, Valerie Hessburg, Connie Stalbush,
Gordon Swanson and Antonie VanOerSteeg.
The Acting City Mayor, Russ Paterson opened the meeting and welcomed those
present.
MINUTES
The minutes of the October 22, 1985, regular meeting were presented for
approval. Councilmember Smith stated that Resolution #85-139, regarding
the negotiation of the employment contract with Mr. Shukle, Should read,
"Resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor and the Acting City
Manager to. negotiate, subject to. Council approyal, a contract of employ-
ment with Edward Shukle as City Manager for the City of.Mound."
MOTION made by CoUncilmember Smith, and seconded by Councilmember
Jessen to adopt the minutes .for October 22, 1985, as amended.
The vote was unanimously in favor.' Motion· carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF PART OF CHURCH ROAD (formerly known as
SchoOl Street)
The Acting City Manager explained that Church Road was an undeveloped
platted road, presently:under a parking lot... The Council.~h~u!d.
malize this in preparation for Town Square.
The Acting Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone
present who wished to speak:-in favor or against this item. No one
responded. The Acting Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Jessen moved, and CoOncilmember Paulsen seconded the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-141
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A PART OF
CHURCH ROAD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SCHOOL STREET).
The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution passed.
November 12, 1985
PUBLIC HEARING:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PROGRA~ YEAR X - CDBG FUNDS -
REALLOCATING $3962.00 FOR SUBURBAN COMMUNITY SERVICES
AND $1000.00 FOR WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROGRAI~
The Acting City Manager stat~ed that there is $3/4,656.00 left!of these Federal Funds
and if not used by end of 1985; the City loses it.
reallocate these funds as follows: ,
Suburbao Community Servides (Senior Counsellng)
Senior Center Operation (Cathy Bailey's Salary)
Westonka Intervention
Rehabilitatlon of Private Property
It has been proposed to
3,962.00
8,995.00
1,000.00
20,699.00
Valerle Hessberg, acting director, of ~estonka Intervention came
forth and breifly explained the work of this group.
When the police are notified' of a domestic violedce, they notify the
~estonka Intervention. Volunteers., that have been trained to assist the
vlctim, step in. Often times this prevents a repeat of the v'iolence.
Of the nine active months in action, they-have responded to q$ cases.
Councilmember Paulsen moved and Councilmember Smith seconded th~ following
resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-142
RESOLUTION REAL~OCATINGi YEARX HOUND/URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COH/qUNITY DEVELOPEHENT FUNDS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution passed.
DISCUSSION ON VIOLATION OF GRADING AND LAND RECLAHATION PERHIT
ANTHONY VANDERSTEEG~ 1861 Commerce Blvd.
John'Cameron, City Engineer, stated he and Jan Bertrand had recently
inspected the above address. Their major concern was the dumping of'
construction debris that contains materials whlch will support decay
such as plywood, boards, sheetrock,: acoustical tile, cardboard, panellpg
hardboard siding, carpet, foam pads, brush and trees. Other materials
that w111 no~ decompose such as PVC pipe, tires, steel studs, concrete
block.; brick, and fiberglass were also found on the premlsses. .
They stated 'there were conditlo~s put on the original grading and
land reclamation permit that have not been followed. ~hen at the
site, they also found an old condrete control structure on the
back of the property which should be comvered for safety reasons.
The Clty"s Engineer's recommendation was to revoke the permit until
the following four conditions are met:
1. All unacceptable fill material.be removed, "
2. The owner post a bond in the amount of $10,000 to assure
compliance with the permit.
3. The owner obtain the ~atershed Permit as'required In the
original permit.
q. The owner cover the concrete control structure on the property.
November 12, 1985
Anthony. VanOerstee , owner of the property, asked for time to rectify
this situation which occurred while he'was out of the country. He explalned
that he just.wants.the'property to look good and if he had been here the'
Illegal dumping'would.not have occurred, Now he needs time to locate
.the people who'dumped the materials,
Cbuncllmembed;Jessen asked Hr. V6nOersteeg if he was keeping his log as
requlr~? by the original.., permit. Answer,. no. ..
Councllmember:Smith'asked if the soil boring, as required by the perml~had
been done. .AnsWer,'no.
Paulsen.movqd and Peterson..seconded'the following resolution:
RESOLUTI'ON #85-143 RESOLUTION REGARDING.GRADING AND LANO RECLAEATION
· . PEPJ~iT OF ANTHONY VANDERSTEEG~ 1861 COMMERCE BLVD.
The Council.asked that the'following items be'conditions of the'above
1. Hr.. VanDersteeg work with the'Staff on a plan of action ".
and timetable for removing the.Illegal fi11 and report.back
-. to the Council In 2 weeks.
Suspend any further dUmpl.ng until there is a plan Of action
for the next year and.all requirements 6T the original permit
are met.
3. Hr. VanOersteeg to 'find.out who dumped the illegal materials.
4. Cover the concrete structure, on the rear of the property with
exterior plywood.':
5. Have the soll testi~g done.
6. Obtain the necessary permit from the Hinnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
The Council assured Hr. VanDersteeg that they are not t~ing to be:
dtf.flcult, but theseb are things that have to be done t° comply with
the permit. ~:~ '..,
The Building Inspector asked-that the Council declare the concrete
structure a public nuisance and require that It be covered within 10
days. The Council agreed.
The City Engineer stated that Mr. VanDersteeg would have ~o supp]y
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Oistr|ct with the 3 items they requested
before ~hey would consider his permit. This will require Mr. VanDer-
steeg to hire a surveyor. Mr. Cameron stated that Mr. VanDersteeg
could not come before the Watershed District until December now because
their meetings are full.
The vote on Resolution #85-1h3 and the conditions was unanimously in'favor.
Hotion carried.
313o
DISCUSSION ON LETTER FROM!BRIAN M. JOHNSON, qq45 MANCHESTER, REGARDING THE
DELAY OF THE TUXEDO BLVD. SAFETY IMPROVEMENT.
The Acting City Manager stated that the bids on this project ali came In
too high, and the project was delayed until spring of 1986. Mr. Johnson
asked if something temporary could be done.
John Cameron, City Engineer, stated two possibilitles;
1. Install temporary guard posts. This would cost $300'- $400. to dig
as the City has nD.auger. He felt this wo~ld have to be done to
Manchester also.
2. City buy and instail steel posts with reflectors attached. This
would make the hazard visible, but not stop cars.
M~..Camerson recommended the second suggestion. Then, in..the spring do It
a?cordlng tb the plans. That section.of street has been there since 1~66-67.
.NOTION made by CouncllmemberPaulsen and seconded by Councllmember
Jessen to direct City to Install steel posts With'reflectors attached
in the area of the Tuxedo'Blvd. Safety Improvement, until spring of
1986.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. "
PROPOSAL FOR PREPARATION FOR REFERENDUM (PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING)
The Acting City Manager presented a Cost Proposal od the Preparation
of the Public Works Buildfng Referendum. from. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik
and Assoclate~, Inc.
Based on the hourly rates and'the number of hours needed to prepare, the
proposal was $7040.00, not Includlng.the printing of the brochures.' The
~e~-L~efirm will credit the City approximately. $3000.00, when the
referendum passes, and construction documents are started.
MOTION MADE by Counclmember Paulsen'and seconded by Councllmember
,'Pea;l=~ to approve the amount of $7040.O0,:maximum not to.exceed,
expense needed toprepare for a referendum for a new Public Works
facility.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS.FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Acting Mayor mentioned the Sailor article on Mr. Shukle.
Also, he mentioned how pleased he was that Mr. Shukle has declded
to come to Mound.
3 131
November 12, 1~85
DISCUSSION ON UPDATING OF CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT$
There was n? actlon on this'Issue, the City.Planner could not attend the
meeting.' ThBs item will be on a future agenaa. .
DECISION ON PAYING VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT FOR SPECi. AL LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
CITIES/NAHRO TAX INCREMENT FINANCE STUDY AND LOBBYING EFFORT.
The.voluntar~ assessment asked o~;Mound is $205.05, There was some
Council discussion.
MOTION made by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember
Jessen to decllne the voluntary assessment ~or Special League
of-Minnesot~ Cities'. NAHRO Tax increment.Finance Study and lobbylng
effort. - "
The 9ore Was unanimo'uslY in favor. Motion carried.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP
SUGGESTED DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1985
HOTION made by Councilmember JesSen and seconded by'Councilmember
Paulsen to set date for publlc hearing on proposed amendment to
zoning map to be December 10, 1985.
The vote was Unanim°uslY in favor. Motion carried. ,.
SET DATE FOR BIDS TO BE OPENED ~OR.NEW DUMP TRUCK
(FUNDS APPROVED 'IN THE 1986 BUDGET)
The Acting City Manager stated that $30,000. would come from the 1986
Budget and $30,000. would come from revenue sharing. She also mentioned
that it would take six months to recAive the new truck.
MOTION made by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember
Smith to set December.9, 1~85~ as the date to open bids for the
ne~¢ dump truck.
The'vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
FORMAL ADOPTION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH ED'SHUKLE
The Acting City Manager stated ~hat the City Attorney had approved the
amended contract.
Councilmember Paulsen moved and Councllmember Jessen seconded the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-144 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
WITH ED SHUKLE.
By roll call vote, the rseolutlon p~ssed, with three votes in favor an~
Councilmember Smith abstaining and Mayor Polston being absent and
excused.
November 12,
Councilmember Smith asked that. the following be included in the minutes
as his reasons for abstention:
'tCouncilmember Smithis pos.itlon On abstention'.ls that a member of the
City Council should abstain from Voting for one of only two reasons:
1) confllct of ln~erest;.'2) if a councilmember does not have enough
Information to formulate a decision.
Councllmember Smith oppose&: 1) Section q of the written contract In
.that a 90 day qotice to terminate requirement Is an excessive period
of times is too costly; and. ls not a good management practice.
2)'Section 8.should be deleted In I'ts'entlrety.or be redrafted to
define which hours outside ~normal office hours" may allow'reasonable ..
tlme off" for the Clty Manager. 3) Sectlon 21 should be deleted as It
unnecessarily restricts'the Council wlth regard to the budget process.
· ·TherefOre se as not' to suggest, oppo{'ition to the decision to hlre Edward
Shukle, which he supports, Councilmembe~ Smith abstained to reflect his
opposition to those sectibns of the written employment contract until
they are either deleted or redrafted as suggested.~
APPLICATION FOR BINGO. PERHIT - MOUND FIRE DEPT.'AUX. FOR N0V...19, 1985
MOTION made by CouncJlmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember
Paulsen to approve the bingo permit and waive the fee for the Mound
Flre Oepartment Aux. for November 19, !985.'
The vote was unanimously In favor. Motion carried.
LETTER FROH THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY ASKING FOR THE CITY'S HONEY
.SUPPORT-IN THEIR INTERVENTION IN THE NSP RATE CASE ($q6q. O0)
Councilmember Peterson stated that he had been a memb&r of thls comm'Ittee
'and he felt that they had no speci'flc Interest pretalnlng to our City.
Councllmember Paulsen suggested, we remain status quo. No further action
was taken.
:
ADOPTION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION FOR NERI~N 'BuZz~ KRAFT TO BE PUT
ON PLAC~UE AND PRESENTED TO NIH AT HIS RETIREMENT DINNER ON DECEMBER 7~ 1985..
The Acting City Manager stated that the Police have tickets for this dinner.
She read the wording for the placque.
Councilmember Jessen made and Councllmember Smith seconded the
folloWing.resolution:
RESOLUTION #85-1q$ RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION
FOR HERMAN ~BUZZ~ KRAFT.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution passed.
APPOINTMENT ~F JOHN NORHAN AS CITY TREASURER
Councilmember Paul sen moved and Councllmember Paterson seconded the
fol lowing resolution:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION APPOINTING JOHN NORMAN CITY
TREASURER OF CITY OF MOUND.
The vote was unanimously In favor. Resolution passed.
The Acting Mayor officially welcomed John to the staff.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration', councilmember Jessen moved
.and' Councilmember Paulsen seconded the'following.motion:
MOTION TO APPROVE THE PAYMEN~ OF BILLSiAS PRESENTED ON THE
PRE-LIST IN THE AHOUNT OF $158,.988.9q, WHEN THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE.
A'ro11 Call vote was unanimously-in favor. M6tlon carried.--.
LOST LAKE SITE PROGRESS' ..
City Attorney, dim Larson, updated the Council on this issue. .City
Attorney, Curt Pearson~ Church Attorney Julian Hook and himself, had
a hearing before Judge Llndberg~ on. Friday, Niv. 8, 1985. Gordy Swanson
was ther as an.observer, dim felt there was good discussion. The Judge
appeared involved in th~ndiscusslons'. Jim felt the law.was strongly in
the City's favor. Hr~ever; argued there was a ~0 year law, as opposed
to the 30 year law origlnally stated. The Judge gave the City Attorneys
10 days to respond In writing to Mr. Hook's memorandum regarding the
year. law. Jim felt the Judge would decide the matter quickly, after
receiving their memorandum.
CONTEL TELEPHONE
Jim Larson stated that the issue will be back before the Council on November
26th. At that time Mr. Dahlen~s report will be presented. Jimwould'iike
the Council to direct Curt and himself to review the report thus allowing
them to keep items protectable in terms of litigation strategy from being
revea 1 ed.
'MOTION made by -Councllmember. Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember.
Peterson directing the City Attorney's office to contact Mr. Oahlen,
· to ask Mr. Dahlen to direct his report to the City's Attorneys, for
rev iew.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Morion carried.
Mr. Oahlen is a Consultant that was retained by the City to do a preliminary
study to determine the financial feasibility of the City operating the
telephone company .in the City of Hound.
The Acting City Manager mentioned that there is an open house at CR
Manufacturing on Friday, from 1-7 PM. "
November 12, 1985
BUS TRANSIT
The Acting City Hanager had a conversation with 'John Dillery, Transit Planner
from MTC. Mr. Oillery suggested that calls be forwarded to hlm, to help
justify the cost of a possible route change. Also, the bus would need
a drive through turn around spot on highway qq.
'LMCO
Councl Imember Jessen mentlone, d that the LMCD'.h.~.-n0W.appr0ved'~' 0-r~l-|~-~e ..'.~_1
a]]°_~?g~_on..!y. 2. boats, p_er_ PF'/ate' dock: -: ................... I ..........
INFORMATI'ON/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Letter from MTC regarding bus servicd to the County Road !10 and qq
area.
B. Article on FLSA
C. LMCD Ordinance 'that was passed regarding number of watercraft
allowed at any dock.
O. Letter from the State of Minnesota regarding the use of building
permit surcharge rebates
E. 'Hydrologic Oata Report from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Fe
Letter from Met Council on their conducting a comprehensive review
of Lake Minnetonka surface use and management, Including public access
needs.
G. Article on Comparable Worth from the National League of Cities Newspaper
H. Special Report on Hennepin County Solid Waste Disposal $ Recovery
I. Article on Rampaging Insurance Rates
J. Article on Phone Rates from Wall Street dournal
.:
K. Proposed Revised Rules - Minnehaha Creek Watershed
L. Letter from Gen Olson rega'~ding proposed rule changes involvlng fee
increases
M. November Calendar
MOTION HADE BY COUNCILMEMBER JESSEN AND SECONDED BY COUNClLMEMBER
'PAULSEN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM
Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
Linda Strong, Acting City Clerk
BILLS ...... NOVEMBER 12, 1985
Batch 854103 ..... Computer run
Batch 854104 ..... Computer run
Batch 854105 ..... Listed below
dated 11/5/85
dated 11/6/85
Total Bills
Assurance Glass Co.
Jan Bertrand
Gerald Babb
Bryan Rock Prod
Holly Bostrom
Copy Duplicating
Duanes 66
Glenwood Inglewood
GFB Trucking
Stephen Grand
Lowells
Long Lake Ford
Mpls Health Dept
MN UC Funds
MacQueen Equip
Metropol Fire Equip
MSA
Metro Fone
Minnegasco
Modern Roadways
John Norman
No Star Waterworks
No Star ICBO
Joyce Nelson
Neenah Foundry
Precision Busns Syst
Pitney BOwes Credit
Tom Rockvam
Spring Park Car Wash
St Cloud Univ
Mike Savage
Sargent-Sowell
Saliterman LTD
SOS Printing
Stevens Market
Streicher Guns
Tom's Jack Service
Town & Country Foods
Tim & Toms Home Ent.
Tri State Drilling
Thurk Bros Chev
Thrifty Snyder Drug
Unitog Rental
Dale Vaugn
Van Doren Hazard, Stal
Water Products
Westonka Sanitation
Windshield-unit 13
ICBO mtg exp.
Cony reglstr.
Oct rock
Clean City Hall
Copier exp
LP gas
Oct water coolers
Chains/binders
School exp
Oct parts
Auger rental
Lab tests
Unempl Comp
Radiator cap
Hurst tool balance
Spectacle kit
Pager rental
gas
Asphalt Avon Park
MFOA Conf exp
Repair Clamp
Dues
Water School exp
Adjusting rings
Ribbons &'tapes
Checksign kit-Oct
Remove Dock
Oct car washes
Drivers Train Courses
Coveralls
Signs
Nov rent
Forms, appl'ic, envelop
Council supplies
Inking Suppl, brackets
Repair Mall
Fire Dept Supplies
Tapes
Rebuilt shaft
Oct mirrors, Filters
Film
Oct unif rent
Temp Help-Police
Sept Consult.
Curb stops
July-Oct Park Pickup
78. O0
24.46
80. OO
89.04
177.00
15.00
ll .00
91.00
1OO .00
38.14
308.97
25.00
65.OO
1,4OO. 37
20.76
783.00
52.20
35.40
295.03
9OO. O0
67.84
58.16
25.00
16.78
1,064.54
74.99
26.00
154.00
94.25
162.00
51.98
41.94
1,308.54
532.10
164.12
44.00
21.45
41.20
6O.OO
757.84
6O. 6O
51.94
346.67
137.5o
1,326.25
175.92
340.00
100,156.80
38,523.36
20,308.78
158,988.94
Psge l of 2
Bills ...... November 12, 1985 (continued)
Widmer Bros. Inc Highland, GlenEllyn 334.13
Xerox Corp Equip pymts & Maint 378.19
Coast to Coast Oct supplies 446.27
Marina Auto Supply Oct supplies 491.71
Navarre Hardware Oct supplies 105.91
N.S.P. Oct electricity 3,950.13
PDQ Food Stores Oct gasoline 1,288.22
Suburban Ti re Ti res 1,293.74
D.J.'s Sand Black dirt 142.50
Caterpillar Tractor Manuals 18.00
Int Inst Munic Clerk Certification fee 65.00
20,308.78
Total
Bills
158,988.94
page 2 of 2
11 013 1708 71
11 025 1661 22
11 028 1584 02
11 028 1616 01
11 034 1742 21
11 067 1952 71
11 085 4987 51
11 085 5040 92
11 100 2085 41
11 103 5921 12
11 112 5971 71
11 136 2168 21
11 151 6352 72
11 175 5448 31
11 175 5556 32
11 187 5444 71
Delinquenr Utility Bills
Dr Griffith
Richard Tolleson
Tom Carton
Wm. Bull
Clarence DeWanz
James Walton
Thomas Hawley
Jeff'Elliott
Gerald Baker
Rob Bennett
Arnold Meridith
Scott Olson
Mark Stanga
Ron Rheinhart
Don Rogers
S.. Mc Queen
$115.32
181.20
107.75
66.41
122.38
74.77
72.56
191.13
82.31
197. ~
68.25
82.91
173.12
1708 AvocetLn.
1661 Eagle Ln.
1584 Finch Ln.
1616 Finch Ln.
1742 Heron Ln.
1952 Sh0rewood Ln.
4987 Three Pts. Blvd.
5040 Three Pts. Blvd.
Paid
5921 Sunset Rd.
Paid
2168 Birch Ln.
6352 Walnut Road
Paid
5556 Spruce Road
5444 Tonkawood Rd.
$1929.46
11 013 1708 71
11 025 1661 22
11 028 1584 02
11 028 1616 01
11 034 1742 21
11 067 1952 71
11 085 4987 51
11 085 5040 92
11 100 2085 41
11 103 5921 12
11 112 5971 71
11 136 2168 21
11 151 6352 72
11 175 5448 31
11 175 5556 32
11 187 5444 71
Delinquenr Utility Bills
Dr Griffith
Richard Tolleson
Tom Carton
Wm. Bull
Clarence DeWanz
James Walton
Thomas Hawley
Jeff Elliott
Gerald Baker
Rob Bennett
Arnold Meridith
Scott Olson
Mark Stanga
Ron Rheinhart
Don Rogers
$.. Mc Queen
$115.32
181.20
107.75
66.41
122.38
74.77
72.56
191.13
163.41
82.31
197.20
68.25
82.91
66.95
173.12
163.79
11-21-85
1708 Avocet Ln.
1661 Eagle Ln.
1584 Finch Ln.
1616 Finch Ln.
1742 Heron Ln.
1952 Shorewood Ln.
4987 Three Pts. Blvd.
5040 Three Pts. Blvd.
Paid
5921 Sunset Rd.
Paid
2168 Birch Ln.
6352 Walnut Road
Paid
5556 Spruce Road
5444 Tonkawood Rd.
$1929.46
$1501.90
11 013 1708 71
11 025 1661 22
11 028 1584 02
11 028 1616 O1
11 034 1742 21
11 067 1952 71
11 085 4987 51
11 085 5040 92
11 100 2085 41
11 103 5921 12
11 112 5971 71
11 136 2168 21
11 151 6352 72
11 175 5448 31
11 175 5556 32
11 187 5444 71
Delinquent Utility Bills
$115.32
181.20
107.75
66.41
122.38
74.77
72.56
191.13
163.41
82.31
197.20
68.25
82.91
66.95
173.12
163.79
11-21-85
$1929'46
3135
NOV 7 1985
Appl ic~, t ion,~
Fee Pazd
Date File
CITY OF MOUND.
OPERATIONS PERMIT 'APPLICATION
Section I - Applicant Information
1. Street ~n~ress of Property ,.5..~Z~O
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition
Block
PID No.
3. Owner's Name ~&~9 N
Address., .~qO ~'P~ Li.S ~ ~_,u8
Day Phone No.
Applicant (if other .than. owner):
Name ~u~T~F~ .~ ,, ~$S~,nn-~
Address , g~O ~H-oe.~ ~.l'"~
Day Phone No.
Section 2 - Business Information ,
2. Total Floor Area
~anufacturincj Area
Sales Floor Area
Name of Business . ~u$~A¢5o. , ,~ ~ ~'Se, c,~,-'r~ ~C.
Office Area
Warehouse Area
Other (please specify)
Describe Nature of Business
.~n ~ c,
WholeSale , X
Retail , ~., .
4. Location (cite unit number or attach floor plan)
o
Number of Employees: 1st Shift
3rd Shift
j~acent Uses (list businesses)
2nd Shift
3137
Section 3 - Business Operations ,,,, .-, ,
1. Describe Products Produced or Services Offered (attach product brochures
if available)
What types of materials will be shipped into and/or stored within the
Will materials be shipped by: rail
other (specify)
semi truck
Will delivery vehicles be stored on the property? Yes No X
If yes, attach site plan showing parking stalls assigned to deliver~
vehicles.
Does the business plan future expansions at this location? Yes
No ~ . If yes, describe amount of anticipated .expansion and timing.
Will the business require any modifications to the exterior of the
existing building including'but not limited to doors, windows, overhead
doors, cooling towers, HVACunits, etc? Yes No ~ . If
yes, please described and attach a floor Plan and ext~i'br building
elevation drawings.
Will the proposed operation involve: Noise Generation:
No ~< . If yes, describe source and amount
Yes
Odor Generation: Yes
source and amount
If yes, de'~cribe
Toxic and/o~ HazardoUs Waste Generation: Yes
If yes, describe source and amount
3/¥o
Provide a detailed listing of all chemicals which will be discharged into
the sanitary sewer system. A//~
Will the operation include either interior or exterior storage of bulk
chemicals? Yes No X . If yes, attach floor plan and/or
site plan showing location and describe spill/leakage containment
provisions.
e
Other than chemicals, will the operation require outdoor storage of any
materials? Yes No ns~a . I.f y?s, describe materials and
attach site plan Showing lOcatl° nd identifying proposed screening by
type and location.
Section 4 - Certific'ation
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any
required papers and plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I
consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by
any authorized official o~.~e Ci.ty of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or
of posting, maintaining a~e~vlng such notices as may be required by law.
Signature of Applicant~ ~ Date
Section 5 - City. Review anc etlon ,,
Reviewed by: Building Official City
Planner City .Engineer Fire Chief
City Manager Other
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action
Resolution No.
Date
'P~gTq!qoad ~ISs~adxa ~ IIZ4S 'seaXoId~a
Xq pesn SelSTqaa I~UOsa~d ~I~ u~F4 ~agqo 'SalO]qaa ~U~ ~o ~ao'4s ao C)up{a~d
:uoT~.puoo 6uT~OlIO~ o!4q oq ~oe.[qns 'ouI 's~w~.ooss~ ~ uos~'4sn9
XIIn~ uoT~ea~do posodoad oq3. 's~]ma~ osn i~uoT~.puoo ~o ~oumass~ ~q~ ao~
pesn s! ~eq~ ~Ta~.ao ~m~s oq~ s~ s~!ma~d suo!~a~do fiu~u~a5 ao~ ~.~a~.ao
~u ~u~ ~o efeao~s 21o fiuT~{a%~d ~q~4 ~AIoAuI. qou IITa pu~ uosa~d ~uo ~oldmo iiTa
uo]~ea~do ~q~ '~o.~)~o a~imop ~IO.~q~a ao'4o~ ~I~s~ioqa ~ qs~iq~so o~ ~.~ma~d
$uo~ea~do u~ ao~ p~Idd~ $~q 'ouI 's~t. o0ss~ pu~ uos]~sn9 :(IN[IO%ID~ID~
Og6L~:ggF4 L9
Lt~t~gg eloseuultfl 'SllOdeauultfl
~OL elln~
%11~oN eu~'l JoqJ~H 0~0£
RESOLUTION ~.85-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN OPERATIONS PERMIT
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WHOLESALE MOTOR
VEHICLE DEALER OFFICE BY GUSTAFSON &
ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE TONKAWEST BUSINESS
C~R AT 5340 SHORELINE BOULEVARD
~EREAS, the City Council on November 26, 1985, reviewed an application
for an operations permit for a wholesale motor vehicle dealer office in the
Tonkawest Business Center at 5340 Shoreline Blvd.; and
WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned Planned Industrial Area and
offices are allowed in the Planned Industrial subject to operations permit
approval; and
WHEREAS, the motor vehicle dealer office has a parking requirement of 1
space which will be accomodated by the 61 car parking lot on the east end of
the building; and
WHEREAS, the planning staff has reviewed the request and does recommend
approval subject to one condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does approve the operations permit for the establishment of
a wholesale motor vehicle dealer office for Gustafson & Associates, Inc. at
5340 Shoreline Blvd., , subject to the following condition:
Parking or storage of any vehicles, other than the personal vehicles used by
employees, shall be expressly prohibited.
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of November 18, 1985:
Board of Appeals Applicant
Case No. 85-449
Location: 2017 Arbor Lane Richard J. & Joan Ahmann
Legal Desc.: Lot 3, Skarp & Lindquist's 2017 Arbor Lane
Ravenswood Mound, MN. 55364
Request: Variance to recognize an existingPh°ne 472-7859
non-conforming setback and request
a five foot front yard setback
variance
Zoning District: R-2
The applicantwas before the Planning Commission on June 10, 1985 with
a request to do structural alterations to his home as shown on Resolution
85-29 and exhibit A. He is returning to revise his request as the
economics of the sloped roof and the removal of the light and ventilation
from the kitchen was to extensive. He is proceeding with the plans to
add structural members within the home. He has i~now decided that it
would be better to detach the garage, thereby, eliminating the need to
remove windows from the south side of the structure and float a concrete
slab for a detached 22 by 21 foot garage from 15 feet to 19 feet from the
front property line and 4 feet from the side lot line.
The zoning code requires that a detached garage on lakeshore property
be 4 feet to the side property'line and 20 feet to the front property line
when the doors face perpendicular with the street right-of-way under
Section 23.407 (5).
The site has a concrete walk all along the blacktop versus a driveway
approach or curbing. The property irons extend into the walk approximately
three feet. Arbor Lane is a fifteen (15) foot platted street. The neighborhood
has continually had problems with the garage placements.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does recommend approval of the request to afford the
owner reasonable use of his property due to topography at lakeside and the
narrowness of the lot.upon the condition that any structural repairs in the
future require additional'City Council approval, the depth of the garage
be reduced to 20 feet from 21 feet proposed, and a five foot setback from
the principle structure be maintained with the lowest floor elevation added to
%~rvey (basement).
lhe abutting neighbors have been notified.
oo
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
RESOLUTION NO. 85-79
June 25, 1985
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK FOR LOT 3,
SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENS'WOOD -
PID #13-117-2~ ~1 0002 (2017 ARBOR LANE
WHEREAS, Richard J. & Joan Ahmann, the owners of
property described as Lot 3, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood,
PID ~13-117-24 41 0002, have applied for a variance to allow
structural alterations, an attached 23 by 24 foot garage and a
roof line change; and
WHEREAS, bhe City Code requires a 6 foot side yard for
lots of record in the R-2 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure has a setback to the
side yard of 3 feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
request and does recommend the variance to recognize the' existing
nonconforming side yard setback upon the condition that a
registered land survey be submitted prior to the construction of
the garage addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the ~ity Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the variance to
the existing, west side yard to allow structural alterations, a
garage addition of 23 feet by 24 feet with a side yard of 6 feet
to the east and 20 feet to the street front property line, and a
roof line change as 'shown on Exhibit A (attached) upon the.
condition that a registered land survey be submitted prior to the
building permit issuance for the garage addition at 2017 Arbor
Lane.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Smith
The folloWing councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Mayor.Polston was absent and excused.
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor Pro Tern
Planning Commlsslon. HInutes~
November 18, 1985
Case No.'.85-~49 Front yard setback for detached-garage and recognize existing.:
noNconforming'setback at.2OI7. Arbor-La~e - Lot'3, Skarp & Llndqulstts Ravens-
w~od. '-
Rick Ahmann was present. :. .:'
The Bullding Offlclal,.Jan Bertrand, reviewed her report explalnlng'~r. Ahmann
was previously before the'Commission'with.request to do structural alterations
~o his home.. He has since'had'it surveyed. Survey shows bls existing home.Is
2.5 to 2.4 from the southwest lot llne. After consultlng with contractors, he
has decided herd like to revise.his request as economics of the sloped roof
and the removal'of light and ventilation from kitchen.was too'extensive...He~d
.like'a 'detached garage. It would be set 5. feet from-the.house to preserve.
the light and venti-lation. He~d push'the.garage to 'that S'foot'setback; It'
would be-l-5 to 19 feet from 'the front property line and 16 to.20 feet to the
blacktopped street because right-of-way Is at an angle.' Variance would be
foot at .the.greatest point. .'
The Commission discussed space for parking; Ahmann stated ~e could park !
car parallel to street in front of proposed garage and also there was room
for a car':or two on side of the proposed garage.. Garage size ~as also
discussed.
Reese moved and Hichael.seconded a motion to accept the staff's recommenda-
tlon.~o approve construction of a 20.foot deep detached garage with the
added ~condltion.that the lowest floor e~evatlon of the principal str~cture
· be added..to'thesurvey. 'This will amend Resolution 8~-7~; The'vote on
the mot.Ion was a1'1 In favor except K.'Smith abstained. Hotion carries.
This'will be on the CityCounci1'agenda'of November 26, 1985.
~_~ ~ ? / ~ CITY OF MOUND
NOV/ ' :
~0 ~-.- ~.,:'-'"~'; APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMHI$$10N
~ (Please type the following information)
Street Address of Proper 2Ol7/ . o-
Legal Description of Property: Lot ~
Case NO.
Fee Paid.. ~-'¢. Q ¢>.
Date Filed
2. Block
). Owner's Name ~[c~'~ ~ ~&~ ~... ~1~ Day Phone No.
h. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name Day Phone No.
Address
Type of Request:
(~) Variance ( ) Conditional .Use Permit ( .) Amendment
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( ). Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District ~'~
7. Existing Use(s) of Pro~erty ~6;Y~3~/ ~,~ ~-~,/~' ~)t~^¢,
~. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~ If so, list date(s)
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolut'ion No.(s)~~/~
~°pieslo~previousOresoluti°ns shal~ accompany present request· I
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting,.or of posting, maintaining and re~ving such
notices as may be req6ired by ~ ~
Planning Commission Recommendation: Accep~ staff's recommendation to approve construction
of a 20 foot.deep.detached garage with the added condition that the lowest floor
elevation of the principal structure be added to the survey.
Date 11-18-85
1 Action:
Resolutioh No.
Date 11-26-85
Request for Zoning Variance PrOcedure '(2) Case
III
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·
Request for a Zonln9 Variance
A. All information 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 (X)
if "no", specify each n~n-conformlng use:
Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it ls located? Yes (~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use'.
D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject proper~y prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted'in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow () Topography' ( ) Soil ..
(X) Too smalJ . '. '( ) Drainage. ( ') Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
E. Was the h~rdshl~ described above created by the action of anyone havi.ng
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 (X), If yes, explain=
Ar; the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar
oniy to the property describe? in this petition? Yes ( ) No . (~)
If no, how many other pr.opertles are similarly affected?
~/hat is the "minimum" 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 additional
sheets, if necessarY.)
Will granting of the variance be materlally detrlmental to'property in the
same zone, or to the ~nforcement of this ordinance? ..
~D
CASE NO. 85-44~)
Certificate of Survey
for Richard O. Ahmann.
of Lot 3, SKARP AND L!NDQUiST'S RAVENSWOOD
+s Henn.e.~in'"' County, Minnesota .
Co'hc:/' ¢1: ~.
I'hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a
survey of the boundaries of Lot 3, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENS.~OOD, and
the location of all existing buildings, if any, thereon.~It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
Scale: 1 inch : 30 feet
Date · June 19, 1985
o : iron marker
,?r~.~£.~ · Spot elevation
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Mark S. Gronberg Reg. No. 127~5
Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064
Engineers and 'Land Surveyors
Long Lake, Minnesota
Phone.473-4141
SANOY
CASE NO. 85-449
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION.TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK AND TO AMEND
· .RESOLUT'ION N0..85-79 FOR LOT 3, SKARP & LIND-
QUIST'S RAVENSWOOD PID # 13-117-24 41 0002
(2017 ARBOR LANE)
WHEREAS, Richard J. and Joan'R,-. Ahmann, owners of property described
as Lot 3, ~ka~p and.Lindquist's Ravenswood, PID # 13-117-24 41 0002, have
applied 'for a'variance to allow a detached accessory building on their property
with an existing structure having honconforming sldeyards 2.5 to 2.4 fOot to the
southwest, lot line.to'a]low'theconstruction of a detached garage and allow
structural alterations to the'principal bui]dlng; and
WHEREAS, the Ci'ty Code requires 6 foot sideyards fir lots of record
in the R-2 Zoning District and 20 foot setbacks from the front property line
for accessory buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming side yard setback
and allow the construction of a detached accessory building 16 feet'to the front
property line with conforming sideyard and. setback, to the princlpal structure.
NOW, THEREFORE,. BE.IT RESOLYED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL'OF THE CITY OF
MOUND, MINNESOTA, does hereby approve.the variance to the existi.ng southwest
sldeyard to'allow structural alterations to the principal bui.]ding,, a detached
accessory building setback 5 feet from'the, principal structure, 4 feet to the
side lot' line and 16 feet .to 20 f~et' from the front property line as shown on
Exhibit A; upon the.condition that the survey should indicate the lowest floor
elevation of the' pri~clpal structure to be added to the survey. (2017 Arbor
Lane), PID'# 13-117-24 41 0002,
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda November 18, 1985
Board of Appeals
Case No. 85-450
Location: 4949 Island View Drive
Legal Desc.: Lot 3, Block 23, Devon
Request: Recognize existing setbacks
and lot size to do structural
repairs and add a 2nd story
Zoning District: R-2
Applicant
Mike Netka
4949 Island View Drive
Mound, MN. 55364
Phone 472-4719
The applicant is requesting to add a second floor to the existing 34.7 by
22.2 foot structure, 770 sq. ft. The existing structure is on a 4,000 sq.
ft. lot, side yards of 4.8 and 13.2 feet, front yard of 51 to 52 feet±,
and a rear yard of 8 to 12 feet abutting the Devon Commons.
The R-2 zoning district reqUires a 6,000 sq. ft. lot size, 6 foot side yards,
20 foot front yard, and a 15 foot rear yard.
The value of the addition is approximately 25,000 dollars. Tne assessed value
of the present structure is $28,400. The question the Planning Commission
needs to address is is the second floor intensifying the use of an under sized
lot?
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is of the opinion~that the rules of Section 23~404
for non-conforming uses states several issues. First,the structural modifications
does reach approximately 50 percent of the value, doubling the square footage
of the structure does intensify the present non-conforming lot density but
it will bring the structure over the 840 sq. ft. minimum dwelling size. The
side yard setback of 4.8 feet probably will not pose a hazard to neighboring
properties. The Devon Commons does leave open space between the structure
and lakeshore in the ~ang~ o~ 47~ to 55 feet~ If the variance is granted, the
entire structure should be brought up to minimum building code requirements.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
Jan Bertrand
Building'Official
Planning Commission Hinu.tes
November 18, 1985
Case No. 85-450"..Recognlze existing Setbacks and lot size to do structural
repairs and add a 2nd Story'at 4949 Island View Df.lye - Lot 3, Block 23, Devon
H!chael and Debra 'Netka were present.
The' Building Officia'l reviewed' her',report. The request is 'to add a second
floor to the existing.3q.7 by 22.2 foot structure which has 770 squ~re feet
of floor area. The s.tructure is on.a 4,000 square.fOot.lot,.has side yards·
of 4.8 and 13.2 feet,.front yard of 51 to $2.feet and a.rear yard of 8 to 12
feet abutting the Devons Commons. The R-2 zoning district requires 6,000
square feet lot size, 6 foot side,yard and.20 foot front yard wlth. a 15 foot
rear yard.
Comml~s'i. oner Thal questioned how'proposed 2 story'S°use wou'ld fit neighbor-
hood/hOuse'would, look"like a..:hree.story'.from'the street. It was discussed
that there.were 2 story houses in area;.also"dilscussed the construction of
existing house and that house woul. d'have to'be upgraded.and meet the building
code.'.They discussed'that with the commons;.which i's basically part.of their
ltv'lng space, the lot does'come close to minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet~
Thal moved and K. Sml'th'seconded a motion to approve the staff.recommenda-
tion tong.rant varianCe-with the condition'ent.ire structure should be brought
up to minimum building code .requirements. The vote was unanimously In favor.
Hotion carries...
This wlll.'be on the City Council agenda of November 26, 1985.
CITY OF MOUND
1. Street Address of Property
Fee Pa ld ~'D 7~0
Date Filed //-%¢5
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition u
3. Owner's Name //~/~C/~-d~ / ~
Address /'//~/~ ~
Block' 2. ~
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name
Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request:
Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Interpretation & Review
Wetland Per.mit ( ) P.U.D.
*If other, specify-
( ) Amendment
(") Sign Permit
( )*Other
6, Present Zoning District ~f~-.
7. Existing Use(s) of Property p/.,~.E.//;/kJ~).
8. Nas an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~(J~ If so, list 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 statemeQt~.and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.~>~~# //-'
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolutio~ No.
Date
D. Locatlon 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 Zonln9 Variance
A. All information below~ a site plan, as described in Part 11, and general
application must be .provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the propertyconform to~l] use regulations for
the zone district in which it ls located? Yes.
if "no", specify each n~n~Fonforming use:
C. Do the existing structures compIywith all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is.located? Yes { } No ~t) ,~
I f "no", speci fy each non-conforming use: ~-,e~'t.y,a.~.~~"o4. b~ffY~.
D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent it~
reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted'in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow (')m Topography' ( ) Soil -.'
- Too. small.. '( ) Drainage.. '. (.:') Sub-surface ' '~
Too 'shallow ( ) Shape " ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship, described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (/~ if yes, explain:
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No(/~ , If yes, explain:
G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a varlance peculiar
only to the property described In this petition? Yes (
If no, how many ~sther prgperties are similarly affected?
H. What is the "'minimum" ~dificatiov (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will :~ermlt you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify,.using
maps, site plans with dimensions andwrit~en e~planation. Attac~ a'd~itiona)
sheets, if necessarv.)~ .... ,_, . ~ .
/ I. ~ill grant~ng of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the
~same zone, or to the ~nforcement of this ordinance? " ..
N ove~e~ lz~, 1955
/:'bund,
~e ~ De6,'ta Ne~
3157
I
·
i
CASE NO. 85-450
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION TO. APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK AND NONCONFORMING
LOT FOR LOT'3; BLOCK 23, DEVON PID # 25-117-24 ]2 0002
4949 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
WHEREAS, Michael W. and Debra Netka, owners of the property described
as Lot 3, Block 23, Devon,. PI.D # 25~117-24 12 0002, has applied for a variance
to add a ~second floor to the existing 34.7 by 22.2 foot structure with the
building sld~yard~of 4.8 and 13.2 feet, front yard' of 51 to 52 feet and a rear
yard of 8 ~o I2 feet abuttlng the Devon. Commons and a lot area of 4,000 square
feet; and
WHEREAS, the ex'ist|ng structure has nonconforming sideyard of 4.8 feet
to 5 foot:at the..southwest property line, the lot area. of 4,000 square feet and
the struCture'floor area of'770 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires 6 foot sideyard, 6,000 square foot lot
size'and a 15 foot rear. yard, and a minimum building size of 840 square, feet; and
WHEREAS,.the P'lanning'Comm|ssion'has reviewed the request and does re-
commend the variance to add a'second story addition recognizing'the existing non-
conforming'side setback and lot area to afford the owner reasonable use of his
property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OE.
MOUND, MINNESOTA, does hereby approve the requested variance to add a second
floor with the side yard setback maintained at..theexisting 4.8 to 5 foot on
the southwest.property line,'and 8 and. 12 foot to the rear property line upon
the conditiion~.that the enti're structure'shall meet the minimum building code..'--
requirements for 4949 Island View Drive PID # 25-117-24 12 0002.
~ ,,~ ,.jAPPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
??,Z ~ Sec. 22.03-a
1985 ..: '1 VILLAGE OF MOUND
NOV 2 2 FJ85
FEE OWNER / /~0 .e
Lucy E. Hahn
FEE $'
150.00
PLAT PARCEL
Part o~ Lot 27, Lafayette
Park, Mound, MN
Locetionandcompletelegaldescriptionofpropertytobadivided:
per attachment
Port Harrison
Preliminary Plat for Lucy E. Hahn of part of Lot 27,
Lafayette Park as proposed by Coffin and Gronberg,
dated March 11, 1985
ZONING
Tobedividedasfollows:
Lot 1, T~t 2, ~Ot 3, Lot 4, Lot 5 of Block i
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER iN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From
' Square fee.t TO Square feet
Reason:
TEL. NO. . ///.~'-~¥.'"/ //
DATE ~//'/~-/~...
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval of preliminary plat subject to the recom-
mendations of the staff as well as working out Item 7 with staff and abutting prop-
erty owner DATE 4-8-85
COUNCIL ACTION Approve the preliminary plat of Port Harrison DATE
and adding Item ]2 to the conditions
Resolution No. 85-48
4-23-85.
APPROVAL OF THiS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFiCiENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOFTAXESBY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES
I~ULL AND VOID.
A list of residents and owners of property within feet must be attached.
November 21, 1985
C'OM
BS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS [] LAND SURVEYORS [] PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Ms. Jan Bertrand
Planning & Zoning
City of Mound
5341Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT:
Port Harrison Townhomes
Final Plat Approval
File #7305
Dear Jan:
As requested, we have reviewed the above plat which has been submitted to
the City for ftnai approvai and have the foiiowing comments and
recommendations:
Final Plat
The final plat has been reviewed by us and appears to be in conformance
with all the requirements of the preliminary plat approval. The City Attorney
will need to furnish a current title opinion and approve the covenants,
restrictions and association as required by the Townhouse plat provisions.
Grading~ Drainage and Utilities
Final construction plans were previ°usly submitted and approved by our
office and most of this work has been completed. Final acceptance of the
utilities has not been granted as of this date, because one test on the
watermain is yet to be done and the final inspection made. We do not feel this
should hold up the final plat approval, but the Certificate of Occupancy should
not be.issued until the City accepts the utilities.
Miscellaneous
If a final landscape plan has not been approved, the developer will have to
submit same to the City Pianner for his approvai. The escrow fund estabiished
at the time of preiiminary piat approvai is deficient by $563.09. In addition
to this amount being paid, we wouid recommend that $i000.00 be coiiected by the
City. The park dedication fee of $i650.00 aiso needs to be paid. A
requirement of th? p~eliminary plat appro~ai was t~e ~i~ni~p of a s~bd?ision
contract and furnzsnlng a subdividers perTormance oono zn tne amount OT
$30,375.00 tO cover aii improvements except the buiidings. The contract was
signed, but according to ours and the City's fiies, no performance bond was
ever furnished. Since most of the work is compIeted, it is not necessary to
obtain a bond in the originaI amount of $30,375.00, but we feei the deveioper
shouId post a bond to cover the uncompieted site improvments. Our originaI
printed on recycled paper
Ms. 3an Bertrand
November 21, 1985
Page Two
estimate for site improvements was $11,600.00; therefore a bond of $14,500.00
should be required as a condition of final plat approval. If any of these site
improvements are completed by the council meeting on Tuesday November 26, 1985,
the amount of the bond could be reduced at that time.
Recommendations
We recommend that the final plat for Port Harrison Townhomes be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1)
2)
Approval of title, covenants, restrictions and Association by the
City Attorney.
Furnish document or as-built survey certificate signed by a
registered surveyor which indicates the location of buildings on
the proposed platted lots with setback dimensions to plat
boundary.
The escrow fund deficit of $563.09 be paid'and an additional
$1000.00 be deposited.
4) The park dedication fee of $1650.00 be paid.
5)
Post a performance bond in the amount of $14,500.00 to cover
unfinished site improvements.
6)
Certificate of Occupancy should not be issued for any units until
the following are completed:
Certificate of Completion of City utilities by Developer's
Engineer and final acceptance by City Engineer.
be
Suitable driving surface be provided over winter months for
entrance and parking areas until final paving can be
completed the in spring of 1986.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
US.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ooh~nCameron~
OC:tdv
cc: Lucy E. Hahn
Oim Nordby
0
o j
/
'ON 0~'0~
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF
PORT HARRISON SUBDIVISION o~ ~,.,~..,,~.0.j~.
WHEREAS, the final plat of Port Harrison has been submitted in the
manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code,
Section 22.00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings
have been conducted thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City Plan and
the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and Ordi-
nance of the City of Mound, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer suggested that several items be incorporated
into the final approval requirements and under provisions of Resolution 85-48 for
preliminary approval; and
WHEREAS, a public hearlng was held on April 23, 1985 with due and proper
notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE cITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA:
A. Plat.approval requested for Port Harrison is approved upon compliance with the
the following requirements:
l. Approval of title, covenants, restrictions and Association by the City
Attorney.
o
Furnish' document-or as-built survey certificate signed by a registered
surveyor which indicates the location of buildings on the proposed platted
lots with setback dimensions to plat boundary.
3.' The escrow fund deficit of $544.50 be paid and an additional $1000.00 be
deposited.
4. The park dedication fee of $1650.00 be paid.
5. Post a performance' bond in the amount of $14,500.00 to cover unfinished
site improvements.
6. Certificate of Occupancy should not be issued for any units until the
following are completed;
a. Certificate of Completion of City utilities by Developer's Engineer
and final acceptance by City Engineer.
b. Suitable driving surface be provided over winter months for entrance
and parking areas until final paving can be completed in the spring
of 1986.
~ an approved landscape plan from the City Planner.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Bo
That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the above named~owners and subdividers after completion of the
requirements', for their use as required by M.S.A. 462.358.
That the. Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized t° execute the certi-
cate of approval on beha'lf of the City Council upon compliance with the
foregoing provisions.
D. This final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days of the date of
the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager in accordance
with Section 22.00 of the City Code and shall be recorded within 180 days of
the adoption date of this Resolution with one copy being filed with the City
of Mound.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by
the Mayor~and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance
therewith by the subdivider and.City Officials and shall entitle such plat
to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compli-
ance with M.S.A. 462 and the Ordinances of the City.
.April 23, 1985
RESOLUTION NO. 85-48
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
PORT HARRISON AND ADDING ITEM #12 TO THE CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, the plat of Port Harrison has been submitted in
the manner required for platting of land under the City Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 22.00 and under Minnesota Statutes Chapter
461 and all proceedings have been duly held thereunder; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 23, 1985;
and
WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with
the City of Mound plan and the regulations and requirements of
the law of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of
Mound, Section 22.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED by the City Council of
the City.of Mound, Minne~ota: '
Preliminary Plat Approval Request ~85-415,. Port Harrison
Plat is approyed upon compliance with the following
requirements:
Per Plat on file in the City Clerk's Office, dated
Mar6h 11, 1985, and marked as Exhibit "A" and "B".
Furnishing subdividers performance bond in the
amount of $30,375.00 to cover:
A. Installation of sanitary sewe~.
B. Installation of watermain.
C. Installation'of storm sewer.
D. Other site improvements and noting that the
grading bond has already been supplied to the
City which is '125% of the estimated
construction costs of said improvements; all
in conformance with City approved plans and
specifications at the sole expense of the
subdivider in conformance with Chapter 22.00 of
the City Code; or if in lieu of the developer
making said improvements, the City proceeds to
~- install any or all of said .improvements, under
the provisions of Chapter 429 of the Minnesota
Statutes, the above mentioned corporate surety
bond shall guarantee payment in full by the
developer of the costs of said improvements
upon completion and assessment 6f the
improvements. '
69 ;~
10.
12.
April 23, 1985
Establish a Subdivider's Escrow in the amount of
$1,000.00, posted with the City Treasurer to cover
engineering, legal and administrative costs
incurred by the City, and if the account should run
deficient agree to submit an additional amount.
Payment of Park Dedication in the amount of
$1,650.00 required by platting ordinance Section
22.37 (2); the amount is 10% of the $16,500.00
market value as determined by the Hennepin County
Assessor.
Approval of Title and Covenants, Restrictions,
Association under the Townhouse plat provisions by
the City Attorney·
Signing of the Subdivision Contract establishing
performance, and requiring that the date of
completion of utilities and streets be set at a
date Dot later than the first anticipated date of
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy· If
such certificate is anticipated to be~lssued during
the wint*r months, construction must be completed
by November BOth. In no event, shall the term of
contract exceed one y.ear.
A drainage, grading, utility, and landscape .plan(s)
must be approve by.the City Engineer and the City
Planner prior to the start of construction
operations.
Before the Certificates of Occupancy for any homes
built in this subdivision are issued, an as-built
survey certificate signed bY a registered surveyor
must be provided. This certificate will State that
all property irons are at proper grade and that
final lot locations and grades are in conformance
to the drainage development plan approved by the
City Engineer and the Mlnnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
Furnish the C~ty with copies of current approvals
from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Health
Department and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, etc.
That failure on the part of the petitioner to
submit a final plat within one year from the date
of this approval shall deem the preliminary
approval to be null and void.
...
That the developer of Port Harrison be responsible
for bringing the utilities from point A at the edge
pril 23, 1985
of Port Harrison's property line to the property
line of Mr. Nelson who is adjacent.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Coun¢ilmember
Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith.
The following Counctlmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
CITY of MOUND
November 22, 1985
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY COUNCIL
ACTING CITY MANAGER
ANTHONY VANDERSTEEG GRADING PERMIT
Anthony called me today and stated that he has accompl.ished the following:
1. Covering the concrete control structure on the back of the property.
2. He has contacted 2 people who want to harvest the wood from the
area.
3. He has contacted 2 or 3 of the companies that dumped the illegal
material and is working'to get them to remove it.
4. He will remove some of the material himself.
His timetable to get this straightened out is about 6 months.
I reminded him he would have to get the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Permit and have the soil boring done also.
My recommendation would'be to suspend his grading and land reclamation
permit until he complys with the original conditions in the permit and
completes the removal of the illegal material.
fc
t'~J "~J An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities.
i{
9c
Ld
6l
Steve Smith
2710 Clare Lane
Mound, Minnesota 55364
November 18, 1985
Fran Clark
City Clerk
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Fran:
Please add the following as an agendaitem at the next Council
meeting:
At the last Council meeting at item 3 on the agenda the Council
approved reallocating $3,962.00 of CDBG funds for Suburban
Community Services. Rather than adding a corresponding amount
to the reserve level which the Council previously accepted as
adequate; I propose re-instating to 1986 budgeted expenses
'the maintaining of City Hall Open for business during regular
Tuesday evening hours for calendar 1986.
Sincerely, y.ours,
Steve Smith
OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
C-2353 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0533
(612) 348-64'18
November 15; 1985
Ms. Fran Clark
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound; Minnesota
55364
Dear Fran:
Accompanying are the draft public service agreements to be execu{ed
between the City of Mound and:
Suburban Community Services for the Senior Counseling/Case Manage-
ment Program
Westonka Community Services Department for the Westonka Senior
Center
- Westonka Intervention Project for the Crisis Intervention Program.
I will call you early next week to discuss the agreements and work out
what the next steps in the process are.
Sinc~erely~_ ~
Larry/B1 ackstad
Senior P1 anner
ml g
Encl osures
HENNEPIN COUNTY
on cquol opportunity employer
Public Services Agreement/Senior Citizen Counseling/
Case Management Program
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
; hereinafter referred to as the "City" and
~'~-f6~-Commun~~a public service agency; hereinafter
referred to as the "Agency";
WITNESS£TH:
WHEREAS; the City is an authorized cooperating unit in
the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program by
virtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the City and
Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59; and
WHEREAS; the City has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds in program year , project number
, for the purpose of supporting the Sen~or--i~-f--CTtizen Counseling/
lj~-M~agement program administered by the Agency,
NOW THEREFORE~ in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises contained in this Agreement; the parties hereto mutually agree
to the following terms and conditions:
The City agrees to provide up to dollars from Program Year
of the Urban Hennepin County~velopment Block Grant to
~Sh-~-Agency in support of the Senior Citizen Counseling/Case Management
program based upon an hourly rate for service provided at $40.00 per
hour.
II
The Agency agrees to provide the City:
1. A policy/mission statement defining the Agency's client population
and range of services.
2. A financial statement for the past full year.
III
The Agency agrees to provide counseling, case management, and outreach
to adults 55 years and older in the City of Mound.
Publtc Services Agreement/
Senior Citizen Counseling/Case Management Program
Page Two
IV
The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with:
1. Administrative reporting requirements of the County.
2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88-352).
(Nondiscrimination in program or activities receiving
Federal financial assistance.)
3. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 as amended. (Nondiscrimination in any program or activity
subject to provision of the HCDA.)
4. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment O; Section 14; paragraph (h) by
assuring the grantee; federal grantor agency; the Comptroller
General of the United States or any duly authorized
representative access to all records directly pertinent to this
contract for the purpose of making audit examinations;
excerpts; and transcriptions.
5. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment C (2)~ and maintain all required
records for a period of three years after receiving final
payment.
V
This Agreement is effective as of january 1; 1986; and shall continue in
full force and effect until all funds made available under this Agree-
ment have been expended in accordance with paragraphs I-IV; but no later
than December 31, 1986.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
affixed their seals this day of' . 19
Upon proper execution; this Agreement will be legally valid and binding.
SUBURBAN COMMUNITY SERvICE
cITY OF
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By By
Executive Di rec'tor
Mayor
and
C~tyManager
3 / 2,s'-
Public Services Agreement/~estonka Senior Citizen Center
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and
e ommunl y erwce epartment of Westonka School Districtl No. 277, a
public agencyl hereinafter referred to as the "Agency"i
WITNESSETH:
WHEREASi the City is an authorized cooperating unit in
the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program by
virtue of a Joint cooperation agreement executed between the City and
Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.591 and
WHEREASi the City has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds in program year i project number
, for the purpose of supporting the Wes%-6fik-~-~enior Citizen Center
oper-~-~%-~d by the Agencyl
NOW THEREFOREi in consideration of the mutual..covenants and
promises contained in this Agreementl the parties hereto mutually agree
to the following terms and conditions:
.. I
The City agrees to provide up to dollars from Program Year
of the Urban Hennepin County~velopment Block Grant to
~lT~-Agency in support of the Westonka Senior Citizen Center based upon
the operating cost distribution formula developed by the Agency.
The Agency agrees to provide the City:
1. A policy/mission statement defining the Agency's client population
and range of services.
2. A financial statement for the past full year.
III
The Agency agrees to continue and maintain operation of the Westonka
Senior Center as a service to adults 55 years and older in the Westonka
area.
Public Services Agreement/
Westonka Senior Citizen Cente~
Page T~o
IV
The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with:
1. Administrative reporting requirements of the County.
2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88-352).
(Nondiscrimination in program or activities receiving
Federal financial assistance.)
3. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 as amended. (Nondiscrimination in any program or activity
subject to provision of the HCDA..)
4. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment O; Section 14; paragraph (h) by
assuring the grantee; federal grantor agency; the Comptroller
General of the United States or any duly authorized
representative access to all records directly pertinent to this
contract for the purpose of making audit examinations;
excerpts; and transcriptions.
5. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment C (2); and maintain all required
records for a period of three years after receiving final
payment.
V
This Agreement is effective as of January 1; 1986; and shall continue in
full force and effect until all funds made available under this Agree-
ment have been expended in accordance with paragraphs I;IV; but no later
than December 31; 1986.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF; the parties hereto have set their hands and
affixed their seals this day of: , 19 .
Upon proper execution; this Agreement will be legally valid and binding.
COMMUNITY SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF
WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277
CITY OF
STATE OF MINNE~'~TA
community Services Dilrector
Mayor
and
city Manager
Public Services ~re~ment/~estonka Intervention Project
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
~ hereinafter referred to as the "City" and
es on a n erven ton roject~ a public service provider~ hereinafter
referred to as the "Provider"~
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS~ the City is an authorized cooperating unit in
the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program by
virtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the City and
Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59~ and
WHEREAS~ the City has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds in program year , project number
~ for-the purpose of supporting the Wes-tS6-h~-~-Intervention
l~6-6-yE~tF-administered by the Provider.
NOW THEREFORE~ in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises contained in this Agreement~ the parties hereto mutually agree
to the following terms and conditions:
I
The City agrees to provide up to dollars from Program Year
of the Urban Hennepin County-'Commun~t~-D~velopment Block Grant to
,~rovider in support of the Westonka Intervention Project based upon
documented expenses incurred.
- II
The Agency agrees to provide the City:
1. A policy/mission statement defining the Agency's client population
and range of services.
2. A financial statement for the past full year.
III
The Provider is a community based organization of men and women com-
mitted to the abolition of family violence. We believe that violence
against any family member is a violation of their rights as human
beings that believes it is possible to stop much of the family violence
that is happening in our community through intervention.
317g
Public Services Agreement/
~estonka Intervention Project
Page Two
To accomplish this mission; the Provider will:
Work to end violence within families by providing education to our
community about the cycle of violence.
- Intervene in domestic situations, offering options and support to
the victims.
- Work hand in hand with other social agencies to end family
violence.
IV
The Provider assures that it will comply with:
1. Administrative reporting requirements of the County.
2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88-352).
(Nondiscrimination in program or activities receiving
Federal financial assistance.)
3. Section' 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 as amended. (Nondiscrimination in any program or activity
subject to provision of the HCDA.)
4. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment Oj Section 14~ paragraph (h) by
assuring the grantee; federal grantor agency~ the Comptroller
General of the United States or any duly authorized
representative access to all records directly pertinent to this
contract for the purpose of making audit examinationsj
excerpts, and transcriptions.
5. OMB Circular A-102 Attachment C (2)~ and maintain all required
records for a period of three years after receiving final
payment.
V
This.'Agreement is effective as of ; and shall
continue in full force and effect until all funds' made' ~vailable under
this Agreement have been expended in accordance with paragraphs I-IV~
but no later than December 31~ 1986.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF~ the parties hereto have set their hands and
affixed their seals this day of j 19 .
Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding.
Public Services Agreement/
Westonka Intervention Project
Page Three
WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT
CITY OF
'STATE OF MINNESO'TA
By
Executi ve Di rector
By
Mayor
and
City Manager
$/$o
Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc.
2381 Wilshire
Mound, MN 55364
(612) 472-6394
November 15, 1985
Ms. Fran Clark
City Clerk
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Mn. 55364
Dear Ms. Clark:
This letter is to advise you that as authorized by the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984, Dow-Sat is increasing its cable service rates effective
December 1, 1985.
The Basic I Service will be increased by 5% - from $7.00 to $7.35 per month.
The Basic II Service will be increased by $1.50 - from $3.50 to $5.00 per month
making Expanded Basic Service (channels 2-34) $12.35 per month. Basic I is
a regulated rate.
Rates will also be increased on the unregulated ancillary services: Remote
Control Service - from $3.00 to $3.50 and additional outlets - from $3.00
to $3.25 per month.
These unilateral rate increases are authorized by law and are permitted at
this time under our franchise agreement with the City of Mound.
The Premium Channel Service will remain the same price at $9.95 per service
per month.
OTHER CHANGES - In an effort to be resoonsive to subscriber requests, we
either have made or are making changes in programming, volume pricing, and
our billing system.
PROGRAM~ING
1. The' new "Arts and Entertainment Network" was added in response to
requests for programming on the performing arts - channel 31.
2. VH-1, Video Hits One, was added in response to requests for an alterna-
tive music video to MTV - channel 25.
3. Spectrum Sports was added in response to requests for the Twins and
North Stars; however, our supplier, Spectrum, discontinued its operation
October 6, 1985.
4. CINEMAX is our newest Premium Channel Service which was added this
month. It is currently available on channel 42. This new service will
be promoted through a direct mailing to all homes passed by cable.
VOLUME DISCOUNTS
In response to this item we have "packaged" services to offer discounts
with savings ranging from $3.25 to $10.40 per month. These "packages"
will be telemarketed to subscribers in connection with our CINEMAX promotion.
BILLING SYSTEM
The current coupon billing system is being replaced by monthly billing
statements. The transition will take place over the next two months.
Subscribers are being asked to continue use of their coupons until they
receive their first monthly statement.
The rate increase will bring our charge for service more in line with those
of neighboring cable systems as well as help us meet the rising costs imposed
by program and electronic..~suppliers.
I am informing you of this rate change in advance of public notice. A
letter will be mailed out to all of our Mound subscribers within the next
5 days.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours very truly,
Regional Manager
MAS:cJ
INSTALLATION FEES
Basic
*Additional Outlet
Upgrade
Relocation of Outlet
Reconnection
$25.00
$10.00
$10.00
$10.00
$10.00
Rates for Lake Minnetonka
Mound, & Wayzata as of 12-1-85
Limited Basic
Tier I & II
Home Box Office
Cinemax
Showtime
Disney
Additional Outlet
Remote Control
$ 7.35
$12.35
$ 9.95
$ 9.95
$ 9.95
· $ 9.95
$ 3.25
$ 3.50
*Fee is waived if work is completed at time of initial installation.
NOTE: All prices are subject to Minnesota Sales Tax.
NOTE: These package prices are in effect only if party subscribes
to exactly what is listed in each package - no deviation from
services listed.
BONUS: 13th month free if full'year (12 months) if paid in advance.
· Deephaven
· Long Lake
· Minnetrista
· Shorewood
· Victoria
· Mound
· Excelsior
·Medina
· Orono
· Spring Park
· Woodland
ANB
LAKE MINNETONKA SYSTEM · Greenwood
· Minnetonka Beach
· St. Bonifacius
· Tonka Bay ·
· Wayzata
PACKAGE PRICES
COMBO $29.00
FAMILY $38.00
SPlaSH? $48.00
O'CONNOR LAWRENCE: A. G. MOLON[¥
A. WA[.T£R5 DAVIO KANTOR
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3800 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540P-2P54
[61~' ! 341-3800
TELEX :~9-0584
TELECOPIER (61~) 341-3800 lE56}
November 22, 1985
Ms. Fran C. Clark
Acting City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Fran:
You have asked for an opinion with respect to the City
of Mound's regulatory authority over cable television sub-
scriber rates under the City Cable Communications Ordinance.
This question arises in light of Dow-Sat of Minnesota's notice
of increase in cable service rates effective December 1, 1985.
Specifically, Dow-Sat intends to increase the following rates:
1) Basic I - from $7.00 to $7.35 per month.
2) Basic II - from $3.50 to $5.00 per month.
3) Remote Control - from $3.00 to $3.50 per month.
4) Additional outlets - from $3.00 to $3.25 per month.
Based upon a review of applicable local, state, and federal
law, it is my opinion that Dow-Sat is entitled to increase the
aforementioned rates without approval from the City of Mound.
Further, it is my opinion that the qity of Mound should amend
Exhibit A to the cable communications ordinance to provide
that a current list of charqes for cable television service
will be available for public inspection in the Mound City offices.
The cable communications ordinance provides for the regu-
lation of cable service rates by the City of Mound. However,
the city's rate regulatory authority has been severely limited
by the passage of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984
effective December 29, 1984. Congress has established a com-
prehensive statutory scheme for the franchising and regulation
Ms. Fran Clark
11/22/85
Page two
of cable television by local franchising authorities. Section
623 of the act deals specifically with the extent %o which
rates charged to subscribers may be regulated by local franchise
authorities. Franchise provisions relating to rate regulation
which are contrary to the Section 623 are preempted by the
enactment of this federal law.
A. Basic I rates.
Dow-Sat is intending to increase rates for Basic I service
by five percent--from $7.00 to $7.35 per month. Section 623
of the Act authorizes the City to regulate rates for "basic
cable service" until December 29, 1986. "Basic cable service'!
is broadly defined in Section 602(2) as "any service tier which
includes the retransmission of local broadcast signals." Thus,
the key fact in determining whether the City of Mound may regu-
late the rates for a particular cable service under Section 623
depends upon Dow-Sat's tiering arrangement.
A review of Dow-Sat's tiering arrangement shows that the
City may regulate the rates for Basic I. Dow-Sat currently
provides a 21-channel Basic I tier service for $7.00 per month.
Additionally, Dow-Sat provides an 8-channel Tier II Expanded
Satellite service for $3.50 per month. Basic I appears to be
the only service tier which provides the retransmission of
local broadcast signals to come within the definition of "basic
cable service" despite the fact that a subscriber must purchase
Basic I in order to receive the second tier. A review of the
legislative history to the act confirms that the City may not
regulate Dow-Sat's rates for Tier II.
"However, any service tier which is separately offered
and does not include the retransmission of local
broadcast signals is not basic cable service, for
purposes of [the Act]. For instance, a single tier
which includes the retransmission of local broadcast
signals together with other cable services, and which
is offered to subscribers for $7.00 per month, is
basic cable service. By contrast, if a tier includes
only those other cable services for $2.00 per month
[Dow-Sat's Tier II], and the subscriber must purchase
a $5.00 tier in order to receive the retransmitted
local broadcast signals [Dow-Sat's Tier I], then the
$2.00 tier is not basic cable service--even if the
subscriber must 'buy through' the $5.00 tier in order
to be able to purchase the $2.00 tier."
H.R. Rep. No. 934, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. 40 (1984).
Therefore, Dow-Sat's Basic I tier cable service rate may be
regulated by the City.
Ms. Fran C. Clark
11/22/85
Page three
With respect to Dow-Sat's Basic I tier rate, however,
Section 623(e) (1) authorizes cable operators to increase any
rates--even those which are subject to regulation--by five
percent per year without the approval of the franchising
authority, unless the franchise specifies "a fixed rate or
rates for basic cable service for a specified period or periods.
A review of the cable communications ordinance reveals no
specific fixed rate for Basic I. Therefore, the unilateral
five percent increase in the Basic I rate by Dow-Sat is per-
mitted under the Act without City approval.
B. Basic II Rate.
Dow-Sat is intending to increase the rate for Basic II
service by $1.50--from $3.50 to $5.00 per month. Based upon
the above analysis, Basic II is an eight channel satellite
tier which does not include the retransmission of local broad-
cast signals. Consequently, the Act precludes the City from
regulating this rate because it does not constitute "basic
cable service." Dow-Sat's rate increase for this service
appears lawful.
C. Remote Control and Additional Outlet.
Dow-Sat is intending to increase the rate for a remote
control device from $3.00 to $3.50 per month. Additionally,
Dow-Sat intends to increase .the rate for an additional outlet
from $3.00 to $3.25 per month. Section 623(c) of the Act
authorizes the regulation of charges for the initial installa-
tion and the rental of one set of equipment which is necessary
for a subscriber to receive basic cable service to the extent
permitted under the franchise, until December 29, 1986. Under
this provision, the City of Mound would be entitled to regulate
the charges for hooking up a subscriber's television set to the
cable system for initial installation.· Although the Act does
not specifically address the extent to which other charges
which are related to the receipt of cable services (e.g. remote
control and additional outlets) may be regulated, it seems
unlikely that the City has any authority over those services.
Because Section 623(c) expressly provides for the regulation
of only the initial installation charges for one hookup for
basic service and the rental of a single converter, the infer-
ence would likely preclude City regulation of other charges.
Therefore, Dow-Sat's rate increase for remote control and addi-
tional outlets appear lawful.
D. Additional Services.
Dow-Sat is additionally intending to provide the following
premium service and rate packages:
Ms. Fran C. Clark
11/22/85
Page four
1) Cinemax - $9.95 per month.
2) Combo Package ~ Basic, HBO, Cinemax - $29.00 per
month.
3) Family Package - Basic, HBO, Cinemax and choice of
Showtime or. Disney, plus remote control - $38.00
per month.
4) Premium Spotlight Package - Basic, HBO, Cinemax,
Disney, plus remote control and additional outlet -
$48.00 per month.
A review of Section 623 again shows that the City has no
authority to regulate the rates for the premium service or the
packaging of programs. The tenor of Section 623 is one of
deregulation of rates for cable services to allow for the
flexibility on the part of cable operators to market the services.
The federal policy appears to be that the marketplace will
sufficiently control the level of rates which an opeartor may
charge a subscriber. Consequently, these rates appear lawful
and beyond the regulatory control of the City.
Despite the unilateral implementation of the rate increases
by Dow-Sat, the City must amend Exhibit A to the franchise
ordinance. Exhibit A is the schedule of Dow-Sat's rates and
charges. State law requires that the franchise contain a current
list of subscriber charges, even though the City may not control
the level of rates. See, M.S.A. §238.084, subd. l(g) (1).
Alternatively, state law permits the franchise to provide that
the current list of subscriber charges are available for public
inspection in the municipality. Therfore, the Dow-Sat rate
increases will require an amendment to your franchise ordinance
to comply with state law.
I would recommend, however, that to avoid any additional
franchise amendments based upon inevitable rate increases in
the future, the City amend Exhibit A to the cable communications
ordinance to provide that the current rates will be on file
at City Hall. Further rate increases could then be reflected
by simply changing the schedule of rates on file, without
resorting to ordinance amendment procedures. I have enclosed
a sample ordinance amendment for this purpose. You may follow
your standard ordinance amendment procedures to effect this
action. Pelase forward to me a copy of any ordinance amend-
ment the Council may adopt in this regard.
If you have any additional questions, or seek clarification
on this matter, please feel free to contact me.
TDC/skb
aRC.
Thomas D. Cre'ightq~
Mark J, Ayotte
B$-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS I~ LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
November 22, 1985
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Ms. Fran Clark
Acting City Manager
City of Mound
534i Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBOECT:
City of Mound
M.S.A. Streets
Annual Maintenance Allotment
MKA File #7753
Dear Fran:
As we discussed yesterday, it is required by state aid regulations that the
City pass a resolution requesting additional maintenance funds if more than the
minimum is needed. We have prepared a resolution which is enclosed requesting
$25,000.00 for next years maintenance allotment. Because of the reduced
interest payment each year, the request for $25,000 is $9,000 under the 1985
allotment. This extra money is left in the construction fund of which the City
will need every penny for the 1986 projects such as Lynwood Boulevard. I have
also included a copy of the transmittal letter from last year to use as a guide
when submitting the resolution to the State M.S.A. office. The resolution
needs to be in their hands by December 15th.
If you have any questions, or require additional information, please
contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
~mero~
3C:cah
Enclosure
November 22, 1985
RESOLUTION NO. 85-
RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN M.S.A.
MAINTENANCE FUNDS DUE TO INCREASED MAINTENANCE
COSTS ON CITY OF MOUND M.S.A. STREETS
WHEREAS, Municipal State Aid streets are on a rotating basis for seal
coating; and
WHEREAS, some older constructed State Aid streets are increasingly needing
repair; and
WHEREAS, 1986 interest payment on the 1981 State Aid Bonds is $9,650.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, that the City Manager is hereby directed to write the State Aid
Engineer requesting Mound's Maintenance Allotment be $25,000.00 per year
because of the added maintenance cost and debt service cost.
ss/Robert 3. Polston
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17-A OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
OF THE CITY OF MOUND RELATING TO CABLE TELEVISION RATES
AND CHARGES
The City Council of the City of Mound does ordain:
Section I.
That Chapter 17-A of the Municipal Code of the City of
Mound is hereby amended at Exhibit A in its entirety to read
as follows:
Exhibit A - Grantee Schedule of' Rates
The current subscriber charges of Grantee are available for
Public inspection in the Mound City offices during regular
business hours.
Passed and adtoped by the City Council this
, 1985.
day of
ATTEST:
By By
CITY OF MOUND
Mayor
COMBO
-PACKAGE
· BA~C
· HBO
· CINEMAX
Re'~ll Vab~m $ 32.25
{oHth{y ~~ $3.25
$29.00
*Fmo In~te~tlonl
LAKE MINNETONKA SYSTEM
, Deephaven
· Long Lake
· Minnetrista
· Shorewood
· Victoria
r;~-'0~nd
· Excelsior
·Medina
· Orono
· Spring Park
· Woodland
AND
· Greenwood
· Minnetonka Beach
· St. Bonifaclus
· Tonka Bay
- ' Wayzata.~.
FAMILY
PACKAGE
· BASIC
· HBO
· CINEMAX
&
Your choice
SHOWTIME
or
DISNEY
Plus
Remote Control'
Retail Value $45.70
Monthly Savlng~ $ 7.7 o
Special Package Price
$38.00
*Free Installation!
PREi'~qiUiVi
SPOTMGHT
PACKAGE
· HBO
· ClNEE'd~
· SHOWTIME
· DISNEY
Plus
R~-n-ote Control
Plus
Additional
Outlet
Ret~il Value $ 58.90 c"'
MoRthly {~g~,%"{11~ $10.9
S;~:lal ~ Pdce
$48.00
*Free Ir~llationl
league
of 'minnesota oities
November 13, 1985
To..
From:
Re.'
City managers and clerks
LMC Resear'ch staff
MSDS/Employee Right to Know Service
Cities are now eligible to participate in a new service designed
to help them comply with the requirements of the Employee Right
to Know Act. This service is offered by the Poison Control
Center at St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, under a contract with
the State of Minnesota. The Poison Control Center originally
developed this program to help the state comply with the law's
requirements for state employees. The League staff has worked
with the Poison Control Center staff in adapting the program to
serve cities as well.
A subscribing city will prepare a list of hazardous substances
to which its employees are exposed, and send that list to the
Poison Control Center. The Center will in turn provide the city
with the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS's) it needs. Each
subscriber will receive a complete set of MSDS's, in microfiche
form. This basic set will contain most if not all of the MSDS's
which the ciby needs. The city will also receive an index,
showing where in the microfiche set the MSDS's for substances on
that city's list are found.
If the city has a substance on its list.which is not contained
in the' basic set, the Poison Control Center will obtain (or'
write, if necessary) that MSDS and forward it to the city. That
MSDS would then also be added to the basic microfiche set. The
city will receive quarterly MSDS updates, covering new products,
changes in product formulations, etc. The MSDS's will also be
available in hard-copy form, for those cities which don't have
access to a microfiche reader-printer. (Microfiche equipment is
available in many libraries.) There will be a small additional
charge for paper copies.
Subscribing cities will also receive an Employee Right to Know
Manual, containing recommended procedures for administration and
record-keeping under the Act and a large amount of "generic"
safety and training information on common classes of substances.
(OVER)
'~ ~' w~.,versity avenue easE. sC. paul. minnesota 55101
(E~l 2) 227-5600
The subscription also gives the city access to a toll-free
"Hotline", staffed around the clock. This Hotline will provide
two important services. Cities will be able to get help in
interpreting MSDS information, and advice in meeting other
aspects of the Act's requirements, such as labeling, training,
etc. And, second, the Hotline will provide emergency first aid
advice. When an accident occurs, and an employee is exposed to
a hazardous substance, the first call the city makes should be
to the Hotline for instructions on emergency treatment.
The Poison Control Center will also be conducting regular
training sessions at various locations around the state. These
sessions will provide safety training, focused either on
specific classes of substances (such as pesticides and
herbicides, for example), or on substances and hazards commonly
encountered by people working in certain types of jobs (e.g.,
building custodians). There will be an extra charge for the
training sessions.
The subscription cost is based on the average number of
full-time and part-time employees. For cities with 1-15
employees, the cost is $175; for 16-30 employees, the cost is
$11.25/employee; for 31-200 employees, $8.50/employee. Cities
with larger employee groups should call the Poison Control
Center for a quotation; because of the large response already,
the cost for larger employee groups is expected to be even
smaller than the rates quoted in the November issue of the
League magazine.
This program should be a very~cost-effective and relatively
painless way for cities to fulfill their responsibilities under
the Employee Right to Know Act. For further information or to
sign up for the program, call 6~ ~,$~6. (Not This phone
number was given incorrectly in ~he article which appeared in
the November issue of the League magazine.)
A. THoMAs WUI:IST, ~.A.
CuraTes A. F'mARSON, F? A.
JOS£PH F-. HAMILTON,
JAMES D. LAR$ON,
THOMAS ~. UNDERWOOD,
ROG£R J, F£LLOWS
LAW OFFICES
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD
I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
tVIINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
March 8, 1985
TI='I.£ PHON £
CSt~') 33~,-4200
¥~. Jon Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Minnesota Employee Right to Know Act of 1983
Dear Jon:
I recently received a letter from Health EduTech indicat-
ing that the Minnesota Legislature passed a Minnesota'Employee
Right to Know law which requires all employers to train their
people about the dangers of hazardous substances. I am enclos-
ing a copy of that letter dated January 29, 1985.
This concerned me because I did not know of this law and I
contacted the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry and
obtained certain information. You may have this information and
I am not aware of it but I am sending you a copy of the basic
document outlining what the law requires. I am also enclosing a
copy of the regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor
and Industry.
If something is not already being done, I think you will
want to converse with your department heads, particularly the
street department, park department and any other department
that works with chemicals. You have the responsibility to advise
these people about the chemicals they are working with and the
various hazards that apply.
If I can be of further help give me a call.
Very truly yours,
CAP/ej
Enclosures
BILLS ..... NOVEMBER 26, 1985
Batch
Batch
854112 ..... Computer run
854111 ..... Listed below
dated
11/21/85
42,613.40
54,335.41
Total Bills 96,948.81
Griggs, Cooper & Co.
Johnson Bros Whl Liq
Ed Phillips & Sons
Quality Wine
Group Health Plan
Med Center Health
Physicians Health
Mutual Benefit Life
Caterpillar Tractor
IIMC
D J'S Sand & Gravel
MWCC
MN UC Fund
Western Life Ins
GrJggs, Cooper
Johnson Bros Liq
Quality Wine
Ed Phillips
Bill Clark Oil
Physicians Health
Theresa Rothschild
Travelers Ins
Mound Fire Relief
Wurst, Pearson
Joyce Nelson
John Norman
Stephen Grand
GFB Trucking
Gerald Babb
Mound Postmaster :
Xerox Corp
Bill Clark Oil
Liquor & Wine 1,309.71
" " 2,094.43
" " 1,900.87
" " 1,497.61
Nov hosp prem 144.35
" " " 134.30
" " " 5,594.95
Nov LTD 569.60
Fire manuals 18.00
Certification 65.00
black dirt 142.50
Nov sewer charge 25,054.47
UC-Lang, Polley 1,400.37
Nov life ins 22.02
Liquor & Wine 1,553.56
" " 2,136.81
" " 1,395.48
,, ,i 813.76
Oil 2O5.97
Hosp-Werts 75.00
depot deposit refund 100.00
~Nov dental prem 769.36
Nov fire relief 3,327.50
Nov retainer 1,400.00
Wtr school,mtg exp 16.78
Conv exp 67.84
travel exp 38.14
Chains,~binders lO0.O0
Cony registration 80.00
postage for meter cards 122.52
Dry ink 207.90
gasoline 1,976.61
N
I
N
(~,
I
I
I
N
U
I
0
Ut.)U
ZZ~.
UJ UJ t~J
Z
Z
O~
a~
z
::3
Z
C)
O0
00o0000000
I I
0
Z
Z
Z~
0(:3
· r- ::l:
,..~j
hmUj
I.-. ~-
..IJ
..IJ
bJI,U
.J
Z
Z
09
ZZ
I~1 b.I
Z
1:3
I-...
,,-.,
C3
,-
:0 "r
0
0
.(
el'CT
I I
I
~1~
I
t~l
!
I
o
h,J a~l
CTI'~
I I
I I
h,JhJ
qcr
I I
Z
0
Z
0
~r
0
I
G~
X
~.)
I
il.
:lC
(:3
I
0
..J-J
(..) c,)
3.-)..
IJ.J I&J
3:-1-
r),rr
3:3::
O0
h, JnJ
I.,4
r~
Z
r
Z
! !
I I
I I
tM/.,4
0
v
-r
U
0
I
.Ii
Z
I
,it
Z
0
I
,lc
Z
uJ
.,J
ZZZ~ZZZZZZZZZ
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION
OF A ~%TER SKI SCHOOL AT 2627 COMMERCE
BOULEVARD ON LAKE LANGDON.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, December 17, 1985, at 7:30 at
the City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held on
the issuance of a conditional use permit for a water ski school. The proposed
facility will offer water ski, windsurfing and sailing lessons and rentals.
Ail persons appearing at said hearing will be given the opportunity to
be beard.
Fran C~ ~]iark-, City ~lerk- '
.MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETIN6
NOVEMBER 18, 1985
Present were: Chai.r Elizabeth densen; Commissioners William Meyer, Geoff Michaels
Thomas Reese, Kenneth 'Smith ~nd William Thal; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building
Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioners Robert Byrnes
and Frank Weiland-were absent and excused. Also present were: Ray W. Geiger of
Smiley Glotter Associates; Rick Ahmann; and Michael and Debra Netka.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 14, J985 were presented
for consideration. Reese stated that, on page 3, the intent of his motion was to
convert the-.existing nonconforming to conditional use permits (to write it down--
Identify what they are). He asked that motion be corrected to read: " ...... goal
of convertlng~!to conditional use permits and further, th'e intent is not to create
a bunch of new'uses!'. '.Reese moved and.Thai seconded a motion.to accept the minutes
of the October 14, 1985 meeting as corrected. The vote'was.unanimously in favor.
BOARD OF-APPEALS
1, Case No. 85~443 Variance to recognize an existing'nonconforming setbaCk at
1599 Gull ..Lane - Lots.ll & 12, Block I, Woodland Point
Applicant D. M. Frankle was not present.
The Planning Comm'ission moved..on to. the next item and'=at:the..end of the
meeting, as Mr. Frankie sti. ll.was not present, made the following.motion:
Reese moved and Meyer seconded a.motion.to..table the variance request.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
2. ' Case No. 85-448 Public Hearing on.Zoning Map'Amendment from R-3(Two Family)
to B-l(Central,Business.) to incorporate into Town' Square Project.Lots 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5, Block 11, Lakeside Park, A. L. Crocker's 1st Division.
Ray Geiger of Smiley Glotter Associates was present.
The Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The developers of Town Square
have requested a rezoning of lots.adjacent to and behind the'clinic to expand
their parking as shown on the .Site.Plan. Area is presently zoned R-3 and.the
comprehensive plan designates area as residential; The lots comprlse an area
of-approxi.mately 1/2 acre. Expansion.as proposed will..add 29 parking spaces
to the' development itself as well as provide an emergency'access to the rear
of clinic; Purpose of that would be for people to drop off minor medical
kind of things that that c'linic could handle. There are a couple of positive
factors; 1) additional parking spaces and 2) the removal of the 90° curve
that was in back alley space which has been a concern for Fire and Emergency "
services. He stated there are essentially two issues here: rezoning and the
comprehensive plan amendment. This is very similar to what we went through
before to rezone land clinic actually will sit on.. This property is not part
of the tax increment district; however, they are proposing to use it as part
of the development itself. He suggested this case be considered on its own
merits since variances for parking spaces were previously granted; issues to
be decided is whether the additional parking and more direct service access
for the project comes at the expense of any negative impacts to the Surround-
ing neighborhood. He stated that the high density zoning of area (R-4) and
parking for commercial areas are compa£ible uses and a reasonable argument
for the rezoning. If the Planning Commission finds the expansion of the
parking area as proposed is compatible with the adjacent R-4 zoned property,
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1985 - Page 2
staff recommends that the rezonlng and comprehensi've'plan amendment be approvep
subject to the following conditions:
I. .Approval of the rezoning shall be officially granted upon receipt of the
comprehensive plan a~endment'approved by the Metropolitan Council.
2.. Lots'l through 5, Block 11, "Lakeside Park, A. L. Crocker's 1st Division,
Mound, Minnesota'" shall be platted and combined as one tax'parcel con-
sistent with the remainder of the Town Square-property.
3. All parking and access improvements shall be constructed consistent With
the amended site plan "Exhibit DDI"
4. The applicant shall prepare and submit detailed landscaping p.l.ans for the
expansion of the parking.area for review'and'approval by the City Planner.
The Commission had various questions, such as: 1) If tying all the parcels to-
gether would have any effect'on tax increment financing? 'Answer: I.f t. hey.
were tied'together,, taxes that'would be received from parki.ng lot property--
status of:.that would not. be altered in anyway;"'cantt be attached to district
without going through formal public hearing to amend district itself which i's
a lengthy procedure. 2) Lighting plan that wouldn't be objectionable to the
residential.
..
Geiger of Smiley Glotter Associates commented the project is enhanced by
adding this area.
The Chair opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, she closed the
public hearing.
K. smith moved and-Reese seconded a motion to accept the staff's recommenda,'
tion with a change on Item # 2" ....... property subject to staff review of
tax implications of such an action" and addition of Item #'5, "that appli-
cant shall prepare and submit a lighting plan' for review and approval by
the City staff. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carries.
The public'hearing has been set for December 10, 1985.
Case No. 85-449 Front yard setback for detached garage and recognize existing
nonconforming setback at 2017 Arbor Lane - Lot 3, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravens-
wood.
Rick Ahmann was present.
The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed her report explaining Mr. Ahmann
was previously before the Commission with request to do structural alterations
to his home. He has since had it surveyed. Survey shows his existing home.is
2.5 to 2.4 from the southwest lot line. After consulting with contractors, he
has decided he'd like to revise.his request as economics of the sloped roof
and the removal of light and ventilation from kitchen was too extensive. He'd
like a detached garage. It would be set 5 feet from the house to preserve .
the light and ventilation. He'd push the garage to that 5 foot setback; it
would be 1.5 to 19 feet from 'the front property line and 16 to 20 feet to the
blacktop'ped street because right-of-way is at an angle. Variance would be 5
foot at the greatest point.
The Commission discussed space for parking. Ahmann stated he could park 1
car parallel to street in front of proposed garage and also there was room
for a car~or two on side of the proposed garage.. Garage size was also
Planning Commission. Minutes
November 18, 1985 - Page 3
discussed.
Reese moved and Michael' seconded a motion to accept the staff's recommenda-
.tion.to approve construction of a 20 foot deep detached garage with the
added condition .that the lowest floor elevation of the principal structure
be added,.to the survey. This will amend Resolution 8~-79. The vote on
the motion was all in favor except K. Smith abstained. Motion carries.
e
This will be on the City Council'agenda of November 26, 1985.
Case No. 85-450 Recognize existing setbacks and lot size to do structural
repairs and add a 2nd story at 4949 Island View Drive - Lot 3, Block 23, Devon
M!chael and Debra Netka were present.
The Building official reviewed her'-repo'rt. The request is to add a second
floor to the existing 34.7 by 22.2 foot structure which has 770 square feet
of floor area. The structure is on a 4,000 square .fOot..lot, has side yards
of 4.8 and 13.2 feet,.front yard of 5l to 52-feet and a.rear yard of 8 to 12
feet abutting the Devons Commons. The R-2 zoning district requires 6,000
square feet lot size, 6 foot side yard and 20 foot front yard with a 15 foot
rear yard.
Commissioner Thal questioned h°w proposed 2 story house 'would fit neighbor-
hood/housewould look like a three story'.from'the street. It was discussed
that there.were 2 story houses in area; a]so'-diScussed the construction of
existing house and that house would have tolbe upgraded and meet the building
code. .They discussed'that with the commons,.which i's basically part of their
'living space; the lot does come close to minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet.
Thal moved and K. Smith seconded a motion to approve the staff rec°mmenda-
tion togrant variance With. the condition'entire structure should be brought
up to minimum building code requirements. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carries.
This will. be on the City Council agenda of November 26, 1985.
DISCUSSION
l. Memorandum from City'Planner'on Manufactured Housing Regulations
Mark Koegler reviewed his report' It was discussed that height, width, etc.
were the type of controls that could be applied .evenly to all housing.and
that those kinds of amendments would be.reasonable.
.Reese moved that we.cause the staff to draft a modlficat, i.on of Section
23.410 along the lines they proposed and pass it along to the City Council
for immediate action. The motion was'seconded by Thal. The vote was un-
animousl.y in favor, Motion carries.
2. Complaints:
The following complaints were discussed at length:
A. 4977 Brunswick Road - Car repair service on residential.property
accessory building.
in
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, t985 - Page 4
The concensus of the Commission was that they.do not want an ordinance
change to .accommodate the use; they want the existing ordinance enforced.
B. 3179 Devon Lane - Boa't Storage
The Building Official reviewed-various ordinances that pertain to boats,
recreational vehicles, etc.. and pointed out conflicting sections 6f
ordinance. The Commission discussed amending .the ordinance to include
all vehicles, recreational.vehicle~, snowmobiles, boats, trailers, not to
allow .the parking of"themi'~the, required front yard setback; also it
was agreed that boats parked in Mound must be registered to the owner
or occupant of the property.and limited to 30 feet in length.
Commissioner Reese brought up the subject of Metro Council conducting a review
of pub)lc access needs on Lake Minnetonka. His concern is for the effect of
a possible Lost Lake access. He stated that review"was open through November
20th for written input on Lake Minnetonka accesses~ He stated that the City
of Mound should have responded. After much discussion, it was thought', at
this'point., the only course of acti.on would be on an individual basis.
Reese stated that he planned.to call Gen Olson and state'that the Planning
Commission.of."Mound is concerned about this issue.
ADJOURNMENT
K. Smith moved and Michael seconded amotion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40
P.M. All were. in favor, so meeting was adjourned.
Elizabeth Jensen, Chair
Attest
3177
A. T~OMAa. WURST. P.A.
CUN?IS A. P£ARSON, P. A.
..IOteCH ~'". ~A~IL~ON, ~A.
LAW OFFICES
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD
I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
MINNE:APOLIS, MINNESOTA S5402
November 18, 1985
(61Z) 3.%B-4ZO0
Mr. Julian Hook
Attorney at Law
3601 Park Center Blvd. #134
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re:
Case No. 19044
.Application of City of Mound to
Register Certain Land
Dear Julian:
We enclose and herewith serve upon you by mail
Reply Memorandum of City of Mound in Support of Its Motion
for Summary Judgment, which was filed with the ~Court ~oday.
Very truly yours
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorney
City of Mound
CAP:Ih
Enclosure
CC:
Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager
City of Mound
No. 19044
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
DISTRICT COURT
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
In the Matter of the Application of
THE CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota
municipal corporation,
To Register the Title to Certain
Land.
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF CITY
OF MOUND IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SU~.~kA~Y JUDGMENT
The City of Mound (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"),
respectfully submits the following Reply Memorandum of Law in
support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Church of Our Lady of the Lake, Mound, Minnesota, also
known as Our Lady of the Lake Church (hereinafter referred to as
"Defendant"), opens its first argument with the proposition that "On
January 17, i982, Minnesota had two statutes of limitations re-
garding restrictions filed against real property." Defendant
argues that it would not make sense to have two statutes which would
eliminate the s_ar, e type of restriction. Therefore, it concludes that
Minnesota Statutes, SeCtion 500.20, Subd. 2 (the "30 year statute")
was designed to eliminate "nominal limitations and conditions", while
Minnesota Statutes, SectiOn 541.023 (the "40 year statute") was
designed "to eliminate major title objections that were not covered
by the 30 year statute."
The foregoing argument ignores some very basic differences
between the two statutes. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 500, is
devoted solely to estates in
Chapter 541, is devoted to limitations of time for
actions.
Chapter 500.20is entitled "Defeasible Estates."
real property, while Minnesota Statutes,
commencing
Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines defeasible as follows:
"Subject to be defeated, annulled, revoked, or undone
upon the happening of a future event or the performance
of a condition subsequent, or by a conditional limitation.
Usually spoken of estates or interests in land."
Therefore, before reading the text of this Section, we already know
that it deals with estates in land which may be defeated upon the
happening of a future event or violation of a conditional limitation
(exactly the situation presented to the Court in this case).
The purpose of Minnesota Statutes, Section 500.20, is to
limit the duration of covenants, conditions, or restrictions by which
the "title" or "use" of real property is affected.
Subd. 1 states that "When conditions ... are, or shall become,
merely nominal .... they may be wholly disregarded; and a failure to
perform shall in no case operate as a basis of forfeiture of the
lands subject thereto." The word "nominal" is defined in Subd. 1 as
"of no actual and substantial benefit to the party or parties to
whom or in whose favor they are to be performed."
Subd. 1 operates to render the condition annexed to a grant,
devise, or conveyance of land inoperative at the point in time when
it becomes "nominal". It doesn't matter whether the condition
becomes nominal immediately after the conveyance or several years
later. Under Subd. 1, when the condition becomes nominal, it
ceases to be valid, and forfeiture penalties can no longer be
enforced.
Subd. 2, on the other hand, deals with "all covenants, condition£
or restrictions hereafter, created" and provides that they shall "cease
to be valid and operative thirty years after the date of the deed
or other instrument."
Defendant argues that since Section 500.20, Subd. 1, deals with
nominal conditions, Subd. 2 of that Section must also deal with
nominal conditions. This argument is clearly inconsistent with
the language of Subd. 2 and also ignores the legislative purpose
stated in the preamble to the Act which added Subd. 2 (quoted in
Applicant's original Memorandum).
Defendant treats all covenants, conditions, and restrictions
embraced within Section 500.20 as "nominal" from the time they
are created until the time they are eliminated by equating nominal
restrictions with those which are unimportant or minor as opposed
to those which are important or major. Thus, Defendant argues that
the nominal or minor restrictions.are covered by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 500.20, while the important or major restrictions are
covered by Minnesota Statutes 541.023.
A more logical reading of Section 500.20 is that it was designed
to eliminate covenants, conditions, or restrictions affecting title
or use of real estate at the earliest possible date, but in no event
later than 30 years after their creation. Thus, Subd. 1 would operate
to eliminate conditions as soon as they become nominal. If covenants,
conditions, or restrictions did not become nominal sooner, they
would be eliminated anyway at the end of 30 years. Finally, if
a covenant, condition, or restriction was breached, Subd. 3 of
Section 500.20 limited to six years the time within which the
Po/ -3-
forfeiture provision could be asserted.
Defendant argues in its memorandum that:
"Subd. 1 relates to interests that are merely nominal.
Therefore, Subd. 2 relates to restrictions which
are merely nominal."
This does not make sense. Under the statute, as soon as the
conditions become nominal "they may be wholly disregarded," thus there
would be no need for Subd. 2. On the other hand, if the Legislature
wanted to place an absolute time limit on such conditions, even if
they did not become nominal, it would be absolutely essential to
add Subd. 2.
Defendant refers to Section 500.20 as a statute of limitations.
It is such only in the narrowest sense. Only Subd. 3 limits the
time within which an action can be commenced to assert an interest
in land. Subds. 1 and 2 operate to render covenants, conditions,
and restrictions contained in deeds and other instruments void.
Section 541.'023 does not render covenants, conditions, and
restrictions in deeds and other instruments void. It does, however,
limit the time within which an action may be cor~nenced to enforce
every right, claim, interest, and incumbrance or lien founded upon
any instrument, event, or transaction affecting the title or
possession of any real estate. It is, therefore, a statute of
limitations in the broadest sense, since parties claiming some
interest in real estate must comply with its provisions if they
are to preserve such interests.
-4-
Defendant argues that unless its interpretation of Section 500.20
is adopted, both statutes would eliminate the same type of restriction
and that this would result in an absurd and unreasonable inter-
pretation of the two statutes. If Defendant's argument were to be
accepted, then it should also be applied to other statutes which appear
to cover the same subject, such as Section 541.02 which limits the
time 'within which an action may be brought to recover real estate
or Section 541.03 which limits the time within which an action may be
brought to foreclose a real estate mortgage. Applicant submits that
such a result would be absurd. In fact, the issue Defendant raises was
addressed in Wichelman v. Messner, (Minn. 1957) 83 N.W. 2d'800 and was
resolved in Applicant's favor. The Court stated at page 823:
"It has been suggested that Section 500.20(2), the
30-year statute of limitations relating to
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, might
conflict with Section 541.023, the Marketable Title
Act . . Section 500.20(1) merely applies to
conditions that have become nominal, Subd. 2 limits
the duration of conditions, hereafter created, to
30 years. Neither subdivision applies to bar
substantial interests which were created long
before enactment of Section 500.20(1) and which now
fetter the marketability of title. (Emphasis added)
The court held that the two statutes did not conflic~ and correctly
noted that Section 541.023 was retroactive as well as prospective
and therefore affected ancient interests which were created long
before Section 500.20 and therefore were not affected by Section
500.20~ Subd. 1, adopted in the 1920's and Section 500.20~ Subd. 2~
adopted in 1937.
It should be noted that Defendant's memorandum also quotes the
language from Wichelman which is underlined above, bUt Defendant
omits that portion which reads: "... which were created 10ng before
enactment of Section 500.20(1) . . .". This language is critical to
the quote and cannot be omitted without materially altering its meaning.
The case of Braaten v. Jarvi, (Minn. App. 1984) 347 N.W. 2d at
279, cited by Defendant, does nothing to support its argument.
The shopping center lease restrictions and residential, town house,
and planned housing development restrictions referred to in that
case were very substantial interests, not nominal interests, and
their elimination by Section 500.20, Subd. 2, would have had a serious
adverse affect on the property in question.
Defendant's second argument is that Applicant is trying to use
a repealed statute to terminate Defendant's interest. Mr. Hook
acknowledged in his oral argument that this would not be a viable
argument. However, Applicant's position for the record is that the
restriction in question became invalid and inoperative on January 17,
1982. The repeal of Section 500.20, Subd. 2 on August 1, 1982,
could not revive an~interest which had already ceased to exist as a
matter of law. Applicant is not seeking to terminate any interest of
defendant. Rather, applicant is seeking to register its title to the
property, and this includes asking the Court for a determination as to
the status of the restriction contained in Applicant's deed.
Finally, as to Defendant's comment in its memorandum as to the
circumstances surrounding the transfer of the real estate in question
to the Applicant, such comments are not material to the issue before
the Court and need not be addressed in this Memorandum.
-6-
In conclusion, Applicant reaffirms the arguments and conclusions
stated in its original Memorandum and respectfully requests that its
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.
Respectfully submitted
CITY OF MOUND
Cur t~~.~fp e ~~~
Atty. Reg. No. 84700
Thomas F. Underwood
Atty. Reg. No. 111788
Attorneys for City of Mound
1100 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 338-4200
3 o5' -7-
,,we are particularly grateful to Sem.
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Pete Wilson (R-
Calif.), Don Niddes (R-Okla.) and How-.I
ard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), and Reps,
Augustus Hawkins (D-Calif.), Austin
Murphy (D-Pa.), James Jeffords (R-Vt.),'
Steve Bartlett (R-Tex.) and Tom Petri (R-
Wis.) for all 'of their work to ensure
prompt action on this issue of funda-
mental importance to cities.
See p.10, coL1 ~
"The enaCtment of the Garda legisla-'
· tion shows that the legislative process
does work when members of Congress
and the affected parties .wOrk together to
develop a.solution..=
"We look forward to-working with-
Labo.r Secretanj William Brock_ and .the
Department of Labor 'in the next few~
months as the new law is implemented,~', i
Voinovich said." '"
- The compromise legislation eliminates
retroactive liability for overtime corn-.
pensation under the FLSA, and estab-
lishes a prospective effective date of April
15, 1986. for compliance with the over-
time provisions of the FLSA by states and'
The legislatiOn also allows for the pro-
vision of compensatory time off by states
and localities, exempts individuals who
perform services on a volunteer basis for
states and, 10~ilities .and employ.ees of
dt ' a cii ."and'iother State ai dlocal
le~lati;~,e 'b6dies fi:om the FLSA, and
excludes spedal detail .assignments for
police officers and firefighters froTM over-
time hours. .
Effective date '
Section 2(c) of the legislation elimi-'
nates all existing liability under the over-
time provisions of the FLSA and eStab-' ·
'lishes April 15, 1986 as date on which
states and localfties must begin to comply .
with. the. overt~, e- provisions :.of the.
These protections against retroactive,
liability and the prospective.effective
date apply to all employees who were
exempt from the FLSA before the Garda
decision under the Supreme Court's 1976
Nat/ona! League of C/t/es v././send ruling. -
That ruling 'exempted state and' 'local
employees engaged in traditional gov,
emmental functions from the FLSA.
This provision of the legislation super-
sed~s~th.e .D~p.a .rt~nent of Labor's (DOE)
Jun~e !4 d.ed:s.'_ loin .to apply .the FLSA retro-
activel'); i6 iia}eg arid localities as of April
15, 1985, and to begin enforcement ac-
tions against states and localities on Nov.
1, 1985.
Section 2(c) also authorizes states and
localities to defer the actual payment of
overtime compensation until Aug. 1, ;i
1986. .:
Employees engaged in traditionalgov-
emmental functions include those who
have been defined as exempt from the
FLSA in the Usery decision and. regula-
tions issued by DOL to implement thaf--'
rurmg. ': ": -'.: ': . . ........~.:...:. ...~-j
Those traditional' go~emme.n .tal.'fu~c~ f/
tions indude schools and hospitals', ' fireI
prevention, police protection, sanitation,.!
public health, parks and recreation, li-'~
braries and muSeums.-. 'i ;: '.- ' ~'~: ~ . i/
The legislation, however,' is"neutral 3
with respect to whether DOE'S. ruling hi.'
1979, that~I ,.o~a!~' ~.transit.emp. lpyees
and Publi~ power '~b~kers- we~ S~bje~t
to the FLSA under .the' Usery~:.'~mling...as,..
nontraditional emEloyees, was Proper.. )
As a result, employees defuied b~, DOE'S.;
as nontraclitional: emp.!oye~ prior to the..
Garda ruling would remain subject to
FLSA .unless the .co ,ul~s, determine, that
The legislation dods not deialTihe el.
fective date of the minimum wage provi-
sions of the FLSA or eliminate retroactive
liability for the minimUm wage..How~,~
ever, section 4(c) makes dear that any '.
person defined as a Volunteer by a state.
or locality would be considered.. a 'x;°lun. i:
teer for purposes Of the FLSA (and there:.'.
fore not entitled to the minimum wage)'
during the 'period between the Garda
derision and the new law'seffective date.
of April 15, 1986.
No longer applicable are' existing DOL
regulations defining h volunteer'!
firefighter who receives moi-e than $2.50 1
per call, 'unless additional expenses can '1
be shown~as an employee (and therefore ]
covered b'~ the minimum wage and Over, '/
time provisions of the FLSA). Paid volUn-' ~
teer firefighters will be consideri~d Volunr .~
teers for purposes of th.e FLSK. '.'" '
Compensatory tinie ........ :;~' ~' :
Section 2(a) of the legislation :auth°-''!
rites states and localities to use compen-
satory time off in lieu of overtime com-
pensation. However, comp time must be
provided on a time and one-half basis
(i.e., one and one-half hours of comp
time for each hour of overtime) after.
April 14, 1986.
The legislation, however, does not re-
quire that comp time provided between
now and April 15,1986 be on a time and a
half basis unless a higher rate is r6quired
by a collective bargaining agree ment.
As a general rule, comp time practices I
to be applied after April 14, 1986 would
be established either by the employer or'
through the. collective bargaining pro--
With respect to employees hired.befores;
April 15, '1986, a 'state or lo~al'g0v~n3.~ I
ment may provide comp time in ac-C,°,r2 J
dance with whatever "regular practic~ ' it ~
' has established for the provision of Comp I
time by April 15, 1986. ' '
With respect tO employees hired after
April 14, 1986, the employer would 'be
required to reach an "agreement or un-
derstanding" with the employee regard-
ing comp time practices.
An employee engaged in public Safety,
emergency response or seasonal activi-
ties could accumulate no more than 480
hours of unused comp time (the equiva-
lent of 40 working days for employees
with eight-hour work days) in a bank. If
480 hours have been accumulated in the.
bank, the city is required to pay overtime :I
compensation'in cash until the efnployee'
reduces the amount of time in the bank to
less than 480 hours by taking some time
off.
For all other employees, the cap on
"comp time banking is 240 hours (the
equiva, lent of 20 working days for em-
ployees with eight-hour WOrk ddys).
The restrictions on the banking of
comp time do not apply to any comp
time accumulated prior to April 15, 1986.
Additionally, it would not. apply to comp
time granted 'for "'gap time" overtime
hours.
· '.- _.GaE time refers to the overtime hours
~": ~kcirk~d in'e~cess of .~'er~pl0~ee's regu-
:, '. lat work week or work i~eriod, but which
. are less than the-FLSA 'work Week or
· 'work 'Period (i.e.~ 40 hoUrs a week for
employees Who'..ar.e; n'0t' public safety
.. workers, :1-7t. in. ~:2~,day. period for po-
~!: lice office, r~., and 2!2 i,n a 28-day-period
.: .i f0~ hr~fi~,h.te~},-{n 'ca'ses' in ..~;hich 'th'e
:"~egularly scheduled: hours 6f:w~rk are
less than the numbe~: of hours allowed as
nonovertime hours under the FLSA.
For example, if a police officer is regu-
larly scheduled to work 160 hours in a
28-day period, 11 hours of gap time
would be available for overtime work,
because section 7(k) of the FLSA allows
for 171 hours of nonovertime work for a
police officer in a 28-day period. Thus,
the dty could provide the police officer
with comp time for 11 hours of overtime
work withoi~t those hours counting to-
wards the 480-hour limitation or being
s~bject to the one and one-half rate.
The legislation allows an employee to
request the use of accumulated comp i
time at any time. The employer is re- !
quired to honor that request by allowing
the employee to take time off within a
reasonable time of the request unless the i
oPeratiOns 6f the. goVernment, wO_u.,ld' be' ]
undulydiSruPted bY..t.¥ emp!°Y~¢''
sence.
Finally, the new law requires. that' the
. employer cash out the employee's comp
time bank when the employment rela-
tionship is terminated, whether be~aUS~
of resignation, retirement, discharge, or
death. The comp time bank must be
cashed out at the rate of pay the em- ~
ployee is earning on terminatiOn or the i
average rate of pay for the last three years
of employment, whichever is great? :-
Under section 3(a) of-the le ati
police officers, £trefighters, and other'.
public safety employees may accept spez~
rial detail assignments with second em~
ploy~ers ~th,o.,ut the dtv bein~ sttbieCt ~-~
. .~%~ .~ .:,.q~.,,l~,%~:~q i,7~,,,d (n., ~t.~1' .li~i~.~.;~ ,.~.~.:~
overtim~ ~navmt~: .t.or. th. ose' ago4tign, at.:.
hours. ' .~.,~el ~
This protection from overtime.liability~ .:
applies even if the city requires that~the
seCOnd employer hire-a city police offic~i-
for specified work or facilitates~ the em.-
ployment by acting as the financial inter-
mediary.
This provision means that city police'
officers and other public safety employ-'
ees may "moonlight" by working at con-
certs, sports events, parades, and con-
struction sites without the hou/,s being
treated as over~ane work.
It overturns existing DOL regulations
which would have effectively barred spe-
cial detail work by defining the city and
the second employer as jo!nt e~plgye~
for.purposes Of.the FLSA~.)'( ;.~. ;~. ~. ii .~. :. i]
Dual empl6y~ent' '": ~-' ~'~ ...... ' ....
Section 3Coy'Of the- 14giShitioa 'allo~,~"
state and local employees to do addi-:
tional part-time work for the employing
jurisdiction without the hours being
counted as overtime work. The work,
however, must be in a different capacity
· from the employee's regular job and the
part-time work must be on an occasional
or s~oradic basis.
For example, a city police officer could
be hired to sell tickets at a sporting event
sponsored by the city without the addi-
tional hours being added to his or her
regular hours for purposes of determin-
ing overtime liability.
Nation's Cities Weekly November 18, 1985
Shift trading
Section 3(c) of the legislation autho-
rizes shift trading among state and local
employees. Under the legislation, state
and local employees could agree to swap
shifts (subject to the, employer's ap-
proi, al), without the dty being Subject tO
overtime liability or being required to
keep recoi~ds.
The provision overrides existing DOL
regulations which bar shift trading
among public safety employees unless
the dty keeps records and the time is
traded back within a year.
The provision also clarifies that all
types of state and local employees may
trade shifts without causing an overtime
problem for the dty. ·
Volunteers
Section 4(c) of the legislation makes
dear that' any person currently regarded
by a city as a volunteer would retain that
status (and thereby be exempt from the
FLSA), until DOL issues regulations im-
plementing the provisions of the legiSla-
tion which establish a new definition of
exempt volunteers.
The grandfathering of current 'dty
prac~ces..with respect to volunteers
woul..d.c, oyer t,he p..eriod .between the Gar-
dadecision:and. A,.pril 15, 1986.
Section 4(a), which will apply affe~
April 14, 1986, exempts individuals who
do volunteer work for a' dty or a state
frorrl the FLSA in almost all cases.
Fh-st, an individual qualifies as an ex-
empt volunteer even if he or she receives
a nominal, fee, expenses or reasonable
benefits from a state or locality. DOL is
required to issue regulations by March
15, 1986 clarifying the amount of com-
pensation that could be paid to a volun-
teer without jeopardizing the individ-
· . ual's exempt status under this provision:
Second, a person who is employed bY
the city may perform .volunteer services
for the dty as long as tile Setvit'es are not-
the-sam~;ty-p.~'~f ~e~tes~ ag'the ~ers6n
without those hours being treated as
hours of work. A paid fireflghter, how-
ever, could, not serve as a volunteer
fu'efighter for the employing jurisdicti, on
during his or her off duty hours.' '
Third, a state or lo~al employee may
perform services on a volunteer basis of
the same type as those for which he or
she is hired for a nearby jurisdiction,
even if the employing jurisdiction has a
mutual aid agreement with the other lo-
cal government.
T~is change in the law was necessary
to overturn existing DOL regulations i
which preclude firefighters from serving
as.yolu, nteer; .firefighters in nearby j .uris-:
dictions-with .which:-the employing city...!
has'a'fnt~kial'hid il~e'ment. Ir'applies'to '
all types of state and local employees and
mutual aid agreements. .
Section 5 of the legislation-exempts
persons who are employed in the legisla':I
tire branch of states or localities from the.
overtime and minimum wage provisions
of the FLSA unless covered by dvil ser-
vice laws or employed in the legislative'
Discrimination .
Section 8 of the legislation prohibits"
states and localities from discriminating
against employees who have asserted
rights to overtime pay under the FLSA;
This provision'is intended to prevent
states and localities from firing or lower-
ing the wages of employees who sought
overtime pay following the Feb. 19, 1985
Garcia derision by the Supreme Court.
It is similar to a provision of the FLSA
that has always applied to employees
covered by.the FLSA and is intended to
protect employees from retaliation
asserting rights under the FLSA. u1
league of
minnesota oities
November 15, 1985
To:
From:
Re:
City Mayors, Managers and Clerks
Ann Houle, Research Assistant
Update On New Fair Labor Standards Act Law
The bill passed by Congress on the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act
{FLSA) to local and state governments was signed into law by President Reagan on
November 13.
When the legislation to mitigate the impact of the FLSA on local and state
governments was first proposed, prospects for passage were not good, because of
opposition from some members of Congress, particularly in the House. However,
due to the efforts of local governments around the country, state municipal
leagues, the National League of Cities, and other groups, the opposition was
overcome. The League is especially grateful to member cities who responded to
calls for assistance by writing to the Senators and Representatives, passing
resolutions, and participating in the League's survey on the impact of the FLSA
on Minnesota cities.
Following is a summary of the provisions of the new law.
Effective Date
The effective date of the new'law is April 15, .1986. Any overtime hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek (212 hours for firefighters and 171 hours for
police in a 28-day work period, or proportional amounts of time for shorter work
periods between ? days and 28 days) after that date will have to be compensated
at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. The overtime
compensation may be paid, or the city may grant employees compensatory time off.
Deferred Payment
If a city chooses to pay employees for overtime hours worked after April 14,
1986, the pay for the overtime hours worked after April 14, 1986 may be deferred
until August 1, 1986. The intent of this provision is to give employers some
time to make any necessary budget adjustments and to relieve the economic impact
of having to comply with the FLSA's premium rate requirements for overtime. If
any overtime hours worked after August 1, 1986 are to be paid rather than taken
as compensatory time, the payments should be made within a reasonable time after
the overtime is earned.
~ .-~.'2. w~,,vers',C'y ave,~ue ease, sC. paul, minnesota 551 01 (61 2) 227-5600
Liabililty for Overtime Before April 15~ 1986
Cities will not be liable for overtime pay under the federal ~FLSA until April
15w 1986. Any overtime hours worked before that date do not have So be
compensated at a premium rate. Therefore, for any time that an employee'works
more than 40 hours in a workweek, the employee's regular rate may be paid, or
the employee may be given compensatory time off at a rate of one hour for each
overtime hour worked.
Recovery of Previous Overtime Payments
Any employer who paid cash overtime after February 19, 198§ at a time and
one-half rate under the FLSA may not recover those payments by any means.
£mployers may not use the threat of recovery of prior payments to pressure or
otherwise manipulate employees.
Reduction of Regular Rates of Pay
A unilateral reduction of regular pay or fringe benefits that is intended to
nullify the application of overtime compensation is unlawful. Department of
Labor regulations explicitly condemn employer efforts to adjust ar recalculate
regular rates of pay so as to evade the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
Compensatory Time
After April 15, 1986, a city may grant employees compensatory time off in lieu
of paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate
o~ pay for each hour of overtime worked. An employee whose activities include
public safety, emergency response or seasonal work may accumulate up to 480
hours of unused compensatory time in a "bank' before monetary overtime
compensation must be paid. Such employees may "bank" the equivalent of 40
eight-hour days of overtime, which adds up to 480 hours of overtime at the rate
of one and one,half hours for each hour of overtime worked.
Ail other employees are subject to a R40-hour limit on "banking" compensatory
time. These employees may "bank" the equivalent of RO eight-hour days ~ of
overtime, which adds up to 240 hours of overtime at the rate of one and one-half
hours for each hour of overtime worked.
Paid Full-Time Firefi~hters and Police
The law allows an accumulation of up to 480 hours of unused compensatory time by
firefighters and police. However, most cities will still have to pay overtime
for hours over 212 for firefighters and over 171 hours for police in a 28-day
work period, or for any proportionate number of hours worked in a fewer number
of days between'? and 28 days. Unless a city has a slack s~ason or can contract
for temporary help, it will not be able to take advantage of giving compensatory
time off rather than paying for overtime in these cases because if the city
needs to regularly schedule hours beyond the 212 and 171, it has no personnel to
fill in for those taking hours off at the rate of one and one-half for each hour
of overtime.
Volunteers
Any person currently regarded by a city as a volunteer will continue'to be
regarded as a volunteer and not as an employee for FLSA purposes until April 15,
1986. Under the law, a person who per£orms services for a city on a volunteer
basis, such as a volunteer firefighter, will qualify as a volunteer under the
FLSA even if he or she receives a nominal fee, expenses, or reasonable benefits
and if the volunteer services are not the same type of services which the
individual is employed to perform for a city. For example, a city public works
employee can work as a volunteer firefighter without having the firefighting
hours added to his regular hours for the purpose of calculating overtime.
However, a paid city firefighter must have any hours performed as a volunteer
firefighter added to his regular paid hours for the purpose of calculating
overtime.
A city employee may volunteer to perform services for any other state, political
subdivision, or intergovernmental agency, including a state, political
subdivision, or agency which has a mutual aid agreement with the city which
regularly employs the volunteer. The volunteer hours do not have to be added to
the employee's regular hours for the purpose of calculating overtime.
Under the law, the Department of Labor is required to issue regulations by March
15, 1986 further defining volunteers and volunteer service.'
Joint Employment
Police officers, firefighters, and other public safety employees may accept
special detail work with second employers without having the special detail
hours added'to their regular hours for the purpose of calculating overtime under
the following conditions:
- the city requires its fire protection, law enforcement,
or security employees be hired by a separate and independent
employer to perform the special detail;
- the city facilitates the employment of such employees by
a separate and independent employer; or
- the city otherwise affects the condition of employment of
such employees by a separate and independent employer.
Examples of employees who would meet the conditions include those who work at
dances under the state law requiring police officers at dances, and those who
provide crowd control for activities such as parades under a city ordinance
requiring crowd control for those activities.
Part-time Work
A city employee may do additional part-time work ~or the city without the
part-time hours being counted as overtime work. However, the work must be'in a
different capacity from the employee's regular job and the part-time work must
be on an occasional or sporadic basis. For example, a public works employee who
works extra hours every week as ~anitor for the city hall would not qualify
because the part-time work is not occasional. His part-time hours must be added
to his regular hours for the purpose of calculating overtime. However, a city
clerk who sometimes plows snow.for the city on an emergency basis would qualify,
and the snow plowing hours do not have to be added to his regular hours for the
purpose of calculating overtime.
~hift Trading
The law allows city employees who have the same ~ob to substitute for each other
without having the substituted hours calculated as overtime. For example, a
police officer can trade shifts with another police officer'and there will be no
overtime liability if the trade results in one of the police officers working
over 40 hours in the week the shifts were traded.
Exemptions
The law exempts employees of local and state legislative bodies from the
overtime provisions of the FLSA unless they are covered by civil service laws.
The provision is intended to parallel a similar provision of the FLSA that
exempts employees of Congress.
The exemption applies to elected officeholders and members of an officeholder's
personal staff. The exemption applies only in very'large cities, for example, a
personal aide to a mayor appointed directly by the mayor is exempt from the FLSA
under this provision. Almost all city employees are hired by the city council
or a city department head and therefore do not come under this exemption.
Discrimination
The law includes a provision intended to preclude local and state governments
from discriminating against employees in retaliation for the assertion of rights
under the FLSA. .For example, the wages of employees who claim rights under the
FLSA may not be lowered solely because of the claim. However, cities may adjust
rates of pay in response to fiscal concerns not directly related to the impact
of extending FLSA coverage to city employees.
If you have any questions regarding the application of the new law in your city,
please feel free to contact me at the League office.
LOWELL WEICKER` JR.. CONNECTICUT. CHAIRMAN
RUOY BOSCNVdlTZ. MINNESOTA DALE BUMPERS. ARKANSAS
E;.AOE GORTON. WASHINGTON SAM NUNN. GEORGLA
DON HICKLES. OKLAHOMA JAMES R. SASSER. TENNESSEE
WARREN RUDMAN. NEW HAMPSHIRE MAX BAUCU$. MONTANA
ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, KEW YORK CARL LEV1N, MICHIGAN
408 KASTEN. WISCONSIN ALAN J, 01XON, ILLINOIS
LARRY PRESSLER, SOUTH DAKOTA DAVID L SOREN. OKLAHOMA
£'ARRY GOLDWATER, ARIZONA TOM HARKtN. IOWA
S, TRIBLE. JR.. VIRGINIA JOHN F. KERRY. MASSACHUSLrrr$
ROBERT J. OOTCHIN. STAFF DIRECTOR
R. MICHAEL HAYNES. CHIEF COUNSEL
JOHN W. BALL III. MINOISJ'rY CHIEF COUNSEL
nitt l o tutts tnatt
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
November 15, 1985
Dear Friend:
You will be pleased to know tha.t the President just signed
into law legislation that overturns the Supreme Court's Garcia
decision on the Fair Labor Standards Act. State and local
governments now can continue to offer time off instead of
overtime pay.
I received many letters and petitions from Minnesotans about
this issue, and I'm glad we were able to resolve it favorably
here in Congress.
This legislation (also known as the "comp time" bill) which I
cosponsored produces significant savings for state and local
governments by giving their employees the option of selecting
vacation time in place of overtime wages.
Many Minnesota communities use comp time for their police and
fire-fighters, as well as for Other jobs that are crucial to
maintaining public safety. These jobs certainly do not involve
nine-to-five hours -- and they can't. They often require that
employees be on duty at night, on weekends, and on holidays.
With comp time, they can work long shifts for awhile and then
take several days off. This system is cost-effective for
municipalities and allows employees the freedom to schedule more
time with their families, than they might be able to if strict
overtime rules were folIoWed. Also, because the schedule is
arranged among people who know their communities and their jobs,
it guarantees that the community will get the best protection
when it needs it the most.
Employers and employees can now negotiate an agreement about
the time off option. An employee can be granted at least
one-and-one-half hours of time off for each hour of overtime
worked. Safety, emergency, and seasonal employees can accumulate
up to 480 hours of comp time (320 hours of overtime). Employees
engaged in any other work can accumulate up to 240 hours. Upon
leaving a job, a worker who has earned time-off can receive cash
compensation, at the regular rate of overtime pay.
November 15, 1985
Page 2
The new law makes spe'cial provisions for v4
occasional employment, and special detail ass
provides flexibility that benefits everyone
employers, and taxpayers.
untee
nments.
Knowing how important comp time is to
you know about this important new law and
provides.
'ou, I
~he sc
Since ,
work,
It
$,
to let
it
RB:sjl
itz
DATE:
TO:
i HENNEPIN J FROM:
November 1, 1985
All Commissioners
Kay Mitchell, Clerk of the Board
SUBJECT:MEMBER AT LARGE APPOINTMENTS - 1986
As required under Resolution No. 77-2-126 and 77-2-126R
and amended under Resolution 80-6-571, attached is the
annual list of all Member-at-Large appointments that are
due to expire in 1986.
jc
Attach:
CC:
Ted Farrington
Dale Ackmann
Chuck Sprafka
Bob Rohl f
Jim Kemp
Mel Sil~ml, Sec. Water Resources
Fred Richards, Attorney - Watershed Districts
Sue Zuidema
Phil Eckhert
Various Municipalities
Tom Johnson
1986 SCHEDULE FOR COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
MEMBERS AT LARGE
TERM
ENDING
COMMITTEE/BOARD
INCUMBENTS
LENGTH
OF TERM
JANUARY
1/2/86
JANUARY
112186
CORRECTIONS ADVISORY BOARD
PERSONNEL BOARD
Sig Fine
Tom Lavelle
Bruce Sabatke
Mary Jo Reiter
Dan Cain
Gerald Kaplan
Joanna Buzek
Raymond Skinaway
W. William Bednarczyk
Gene Neuman
2 years
4 years
JANUARY
1/31/86
FEBRUARY
2/28/86
MARCH
3/8/86
MARCH
3/22/86
JULY
?/3 /86
AUGUST
8/20/86
SEPTEMBER
9/29/86
DECEMBER
12/31/86
LIBRARY BOARD
MENTAL COMMITMENT ATTORNEY
PANEL ADVISORY BOARD
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED
DISTRICT BOARD
LOWER MN RIVER WATERSHED
DISTRICT BOARD
RILEY PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD
COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN
HENNEPIN BOARD (CASH)
NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED
DISTRICT BOARD
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION C'TEE
Eris Lundin Young
David Scott Benton
Raymond O'Connell
Thonmas Tinkham
Susan Lentz
Wallace Salovich
Sharon Burkhardt
Vacant
Camille Andre
Jim McWethy
Russell Sorenson
Frederick Rahr
Donald Genereau
Gloria Johnson
John Hamilton
Vacant
Mary Leintz
Dan Ryerson
Aileen Kulak
Helen McClelland
Clarissa Walker
J. Albert Oster
3 years
2 yea~.
3 years
3 years
3 years
1 year
3 years
3 yeaI ..
3 17
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
November 20, 1985
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY COUNCIL
ACTING CITY MANAGER
DRAFT OF "HENNEPI~I COUNTY. SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN"
Attached is a notice of a public meeting on December 4, 1985, at 7:00 P.M.
to discuss the above plan.
Because the draft plan is over 100 pages, I have not had copies made.
If you are interested or wish tO go to the meeting and have a copy, please
let me know and I will have some made up.
fc
in the admission or access Io, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activibes.
HENNEPIN
IL
DEPARTMENT-OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
A-'1603 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0~63
6'12-348-6846'
November 15, 1985.
To: All Municipalities in Hennepin County:
Attached is a draft of the "Hennepin County Solid Waste Master Plan" for
your review and comment. This plan will be the County's guide for solid
waste management through the year 2000.
The Plan was~ prepared with the aid of the Hennepin County Solid Waste
Management Advisory Committee which is comprised of city, industry and
citizen representatives.
A public meeting is scheduled for December 4, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting
Roc~ A of the Ridgedale Library to discuss the plan and receive comments.
Written comments addressed to me, at the letterhead address will also be
accepted through December 16, 1985.
After December 16, 1985 the County will review all comments and prepare
summaries of these comments and a County response to each. The ~ster Plan
will be revised as necessary based on the comments, and submitted to the
County Board for consideration along with the comment summary and responses.
A surm~ary of comments and responses will also be sent to all parties who make
comments. Its expected the County Board will consider this plan in January
1986.
Please contact - Dave Winter - 348-4491 - if you have any questions about
this plan.
Sincerely,
Luther D. Nelson, P. E.
Director
Attachment: Draft of "Hennepin County Solid Waste Master Plan"
c.c.: Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee
HENNEPIN COUNTY
on cquol opportunlfy employer
ARNE H. CARLSON
STATE AUDITOR
S;i'ATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR
SUITE 400
';55 PARK STREET
SAINT PAUL 55103
November 15, 1985
TO:
FROM:
City Councils and City Finance Officers
County Boards and County Auditors
Arne Carlson, State Auditor
On October 8, our Office sponsored a forum on Local Government Revenue
Stress to bring together local officials and state officials to discuss the sta-
te's revenue problems and the effect they could have on local governments.
About 170 of you attended. Nellie Johnson, Deputy Commissioner of Finance; Tom
Triplett, Commissioner of Revenue; and Bill $chreiber, Chairman of the House Tax
Committee, were the key presenters on the state side, with Dr. Paul Hasbargen of
the University of Minnesota speaking on the agricultural outlook.
In view of the close financial relationship of local governments and the
state--on the average, the state provides 28 percent of city revenues and 49
percent of county revenues--our objective was to give participants the oppor-
tunity to make their own assessment of the most likely scenario for state reve-
nues and potential cuts in state-to-local funds. It is our concern that the
longer any fiscal bad news is postponed, the more difficult it is for local
governments to react financially. While we recognize local budgets for 1986 are
already set, we also believe that it is better to plan for contingencies at this
time than later, during your fiscal year. For this reason, it seems useful to
share with you some of our principal conclusions from the discussions on
November 8.
:1. As matters now stand, the state is without an official, or "point" revenue
~forecast. In July and again in October, three differing economic scenarios were
released--a high, "control," and iow scenario. The mid-range or control sce-
nario in July projected general fund resources to be $538 million below general
fund spending; the control scenario in October projected general fund resources
to be $736 million below general fund spending. (The forecasts and ranges are
shown below.) Since the forecasts are a range, however, the state's revenue
shortfall is projected to be between a $160 million shortfall and a $915 million
shortfall. As the chart below shows, the "bottom line" for state general fund
resources ranges from a positive $300 million (in the optimistic scenario) to a
negative $400 million (in the pessimistic scenario). The "bottom line" con-
templates use of the state's $450 million budget reserve and the suspension of
income tax indexing, estimated at $77 million in revenue. The state will make
an official or "point" revenue forecast on January 21. Prior to the legislative
session which begins February 6, the administration will release its budget for
the state's 1987 fiscal year, which will include any cuts or tax increases.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,_.~.-'~.0
- 2-
F.Y. 1986-87 General Fund Balance
($ in millions)
High Control Low
July Forecast Range
Budget Reserve
Suspend Indexing
(i34) (538) (811)
450 450 450
0 81 81
Balance 316 (7) (280)
BOTTOM LINE 300 0 (300)
October Forecast Revisions:
Major Revenue Sources 4 (153) (84)
Other Resources (1) (1) (1)
Gain from F.Y. 1985 11 11 11
Expenditure Changes (40) (53) (30)
Total Forecast Revisions (26) (196) (104)
October Forecast Range
Budget Reserve
Suspend Indexing
(160) (736) (915)
450 450 450
0 77 77
Balance 290 (209) (388)
BOTTOM LINE 300 (200) (400)
Source: MN.Dept. of Finance
10/22/S5
2. At the conference, Deputy Commissioner Johnson announced that the state
revenue collections for October were $18 million above the prior control or mid-
range forecast. This is the forecast where the state general fund revenues are
$736 million below spending for the biennium; if the $450 million budget reserve
is used and indexing is suspended, this forecast predicts a negative $200
milliom "bottom line."
3. Also at the conference, Representative Bill Schreiber commented that if the
December revenue reports indicate that the state general fund budget must be
cut, the Governor should call a special session in December to allow local
governments more time to react to any cuts. Only the Governor, however, can
call a special session.
4. If cuts in the state's general fund expenditures are necessary, they will
almost certainly affect local governments. Aid to school districts and post-
secondary education are 24 percent and 18 percent respectively of the state
general fund budget. Major credits and assistance (homestead credit, circuit
breaker and agricultural credits) are 16.1 percent of the general fund budget,
and local government aid is 5.7 percent. By way of comparison, state agencies
comprise 8.5 percent of general fund spending. In the 1981-83 budget crisis,
the majority of both payment shifts and reductions affected local governments.
-3-
5. We strongly recommend that local governments begin contingency planning now
for possible cuts in state-to-local funds. The actual size of reserves needed
will vary depending on the size of the local government and particularly on the
relative importance of non-state revenues in your budget. At a minimum, there
should be sufficient reserves to provide regular cash flow without short-term
tion of general purpgse state aids--those which seem most likely to be reduced
if there are state revenue shortfalls. Finally, reserves should be accumulated
sufficient to accommodate any particular situation unique to your jurisdiction--
an anticipated equipment purchase you intend to make from current revenue, for
e~ample; or anticipated delinquency in property tax revenue.
6. We also recommend developing a plan for the next two years to accumulate
reserves to protect your jurisdiction against state revenue shortfalls, and
making the planning process include the public. Making your constituents and
legislators aware of your fiscal objectives is the best way to prevent the crit-
icism of reserves that sometimes surfaces. Be assured that our office will
continue to support reserves as a prudent financial management strategy for
local governments.
7. For planning purposes, you may wish to note that Dr. Hasbargen projected a
25 percent decline in the estimated market value of agricultural land in 1985
(to be reflected in 1986 assessments).. He was not optimistic on farm incomes,
commenting that the agricultural recession is in the second stage where it is
"hitting Main Street" and that we may be coming to the third stage where it
affects the entire state. ~
Judging from our discussions on local finance, the Office of the State
Auditor can play a useful role in this process. We intend to continue to moni-
tor developments and 'comment on them when necessary. If our office can be of
help in a specific situation, please let me know.
Minneapolis Star and Tribune Sat., Nov. 9, 1985
Auditor
tells local
offici is
savefunds
i~Y Robert W.h'~t~**a.' -.,-'
Staff Writer ' ' - -
· Local elected officials should begin
.setting aside reserve funds for eco-
nomic hard times that appear cer-
tain, Minnesota Auditor Arne Carl-.'
son told local finance officials Frt-~
day...
Carlson said be do~s not believe the
optimistic gloss that Gov. Rudy Per-
plch's administration has applied to
recent economic projections, and he
said that cities and counties will be
hurt if they do not plan for'the worst
possibility. .
'~',I can't think of a single (economic)
indicator now that correlates with
the Department o! Finance (projec-
tions on the economy):.
"I think you have to go back and
figure out your own worst scenario,"
he told the local officials.
He ~ecommended that they start pi-
geon-holing money to cover an!
amount equal to half the aid they get
from the state plus all their cash-
flow needs. Local government aid~
for the current biennium is nearly
9600 million. .
Carlson, an Independent. Republican
0andidate for governor, made' the
remarks at a daylong forum for offi-
cials concerned with local financing,
including county auditors, county
commissioners, fiscal planners and
local elected city officials. The fo-
rum, held in Plymouth, was orga-
nized by CarLson. Two of Perpich's
top lieutenants also participated.
While Carlson was~advising them to
prepare for the worst, state Finance
Commissioner ~ay Kiedrowski re-
leased figures saying state revenue
collections for October were $18 mil-
lion above an earlier, gloomy fore-
cast. That is the third month in the
past four in which actual revenues
exceeded some of the revenue pro-
Jections.
"This su~eSts that ihere is no'major
budget problem at this time," Ele-
drowskl wrote in a memo to Perpich,
his DFL boss.
Carlson repeated yesterday that he
does not believe the optimistic
sessment 'of the Perpich administra-
tion. "I get the sense there is a little
pushing off of the problem until after
the (!986 gubernatorial) election."...
The. Minnesota Taxpayers iAssocta-
tton also was critical of the adminis-
tration's $18 mltilon figure,'/:ailing.it
misleading. ... _,. -...>-:.
"We are more accurately $1$ mlili~n
ahead of an estimated $?36 million
revenue shortfall for .the current
budget period (ending June 30,
1.087)," said Don Patericlq executive
director of the association.,
"The state remains embedded-in a
projected red scenario."
Carlson has recommended that local
government build reserve funds in
the past, but many local officials
have been reluctant for fear the Leg-
islature might consider the reserves
"slush" funds and cut local aids..
State Rep. William $chreiber, IR-
Brooklyn Park, also participated in.
the public finance forum yesterday.
Schretber, chairman of the House
Tax Committee, said that if state
revenues fail to meet projections
Gov. Perl)iCh should call a special
session in December.
He said the Legislature should cut
state appropriations generally across
the board to help offset revenue
shortages.
He also said the misery should be
shared by the public, possibly in the
form of a cut in the homestead cred-
it the state pays on homeowners'
property tax bills.
He said the existing credit in which
the state pays 54 percent of a home-
owner's tax bill, up to a maximum of
$_750, could be reduced to 5:1 percent.
and a maximum of 2680.
<=~
CITY of MOUND
5~41 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(6t2) 472-1155
November 20, 1985
ArnelStefferud
.Metropolitan Counci. l
300 Metro Square Bldg..
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, MN 55101
Subject:
Response to Data Request for Met Council
Task Force on Lake Mi nnetonka
Dear Mr. Stefferud;
The City of Mound submits the following statement with regard to
accesses on Lake Minnetonka.
1. The City of Mound has 400 mUnicipal docks, on commons lakeshore,
which are rented to. residents of Mound. A large number of these
docks are shared by two families, thus allowing even more people
access to the lake. We have a full-tlme dock inspector during
the spring, summer and fail.
The City has the following launching areas:
a. Sunrise Landing - Shot,wood Lane (1700) - No Parking
b.. Sunset Landing - Resthaven Lane (4900) - Parking for approx-
imately 7 cars and trailers.
c. Centerview Beach - North end of Centerview Lane - Parking
for approximately 20 cars and trailers September to June
only.
d. Mound Bay Park - commerce and Bartlett Blvd. - Parking for
approximately 45 cars and trailers.
*The City is currently'looking into obtaining funding to
install a fishing pier at this site.
e. Ridg~Wood Access - Ridgewood (6100) - No Parking - Small
boats only.
f. Wychwood Beach - Brighton and Wilshire - Parking for 8 cars
and trailers, September to June only.
g. Pembrook Beach - Island View (3200) -Parking for 8 cars
and trai.lers, September to June only.
h. Waterbury Road - West End - Parking for 3 cars and trailers.
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, Its programs and activities,
.However, the area of Lost 'Lake recommended by the Lake Minnetonka Task
Force in 1~83, the City of,Mound is opposing for the following reasons:
.1. The site .has only 2.6.acres of usable'ground. The remainder is
wetlands and a.wildlife area. Having even a .small fishing boat
launch site would disturb the enviconment.
2. Parking ~ould be.a major, problem in this area. of downtown
because of the location.~
The channel, is shallow and full of old tree stumps underwater.
This would'be a very costly dredging problem.
There is a.problem with the title on this property which is
in litigation at'this time..
The Mound City Council supports the Task Force's concept of public
accesses on Lake Minnetonka and. b~lieves in s~eing inland..residents
have. use of'the Lake. -As you can'seeMound i~-complying in.every
way pOssible, but We'do oppose the use~f the Lost Lake area as a public
access. -.
If you have further questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
Fran Clark
Acting City Hanager
FC:ls
cc: Plannlng Commission
FISCAL DISPARITIES
Testimony of Metropolitan Council Member Josephine D. Nunn
To the Tax Committee of the Minnesota House of Representatives
October 31, 1985
..... Thank you for inviting us to discuss the fiscal disparities program with you.
- There are two points that we want to cover today: a brief view of fiscal
~ ~Tdisparities from the regiOnal perspective and some changes that we would
recommend.
As you know, the Metropolitan Council has supported the program since its incep-
tion. From our viewpoint the Metropolitan Area is a single economic unit whose
residents live, work and shop in different subareas. The area prospers or
suffers as a unit. The general concept of the fiscal disparities program
program fits in nicely with this view; individual cities share in the overall
growth of the Metropolitan Area.
While the concept generally fits, the program does need to be re-evaluated
periodically. We are pleased to see that your committee is undertaking such an
evaluation. There are definitely aspects of the program that we think should
be changed--if for no other reason than that times have changed. Local fiscal
conditions are significantly different from 1971. It is time to see if the
original need is still there and if the program meets that need.
The program is achieving its primary objective of redistributing tax resources
from communities with a large amount of new commercial-industrial development
to those with a small amount. One effect of the program that may not have been
anticipated is the equalization of mill rates, particularly as it affects
commercial-industrial property.
From a regional perspective most commercial-industrial development depends on a
large portion of the Metropolitan Area, much larger than the city in which it
may be located. Before the fiscal disparities program, the property tax base
from development remained totally in that city. Taxes paid by the development,
however, probably came from the region as a whole, insofar as taxes are passed
on to customers.'
Fiscal disparities provides a way to spread the fiscal benefits of business
development attracted by such regional facilities as airports, freeways and
freeway interchanges, a zoo or a sports stadium. This attractiveness may
result directly from public investments such as highways and sewers. Con-
sequently, the fiscal benefits of business development result, in part, from
regional investments. Other cities that do not have these locational
advantages do not have to try to attract development at any cost. -_~
Although the Council does not gain tax revenue from the fiscal disparities
program, fiscal disparities does support many regional planning objectives.
Older areas in need of redevelopment receive additional resources to finance
redevelopment costs. Regional proposals to use land for parks or to preserve
land for other environmental resources are more palatable to local communities
because they share in development in other parts of the region.
The Council staff has recon~nended three revisions: removing the minimum
distmibution, phasing out the special exemptions, and including the value of
manufactured housing classified as personal property in fiscal capacity
computations. This assumes that the primary objective of the program remains
redistribution of tax base.
First, the program currently guarantees a per capita minimum distribution to
all con~nunities. This benefits any con~nunity with fiscal capacity twice as
high as the metropolitan average. Theseare generally either exclusive
residential suburbs or completely rural townships. For taxes payable in 1984,
seven cities and nine townships received the minimum.
Second, a number of development areas are exempt from the fiscal disparities
program. At the time the exemptions were adopted, it was believed they served
a bona fide public purpose. After 14 years, it may be appropriate to
re-evaluate those conclusions.
ll~e third provision favors some con~nunities through the fiscal capacity factor
of the distribution formula. Since fiscal capacity is the market value of real
property, communities with a significant amount of personal property may appear
"poorer" than they are. For example, people living in manufactured housing are
counted in the population factor for .the distribution, but the value of their
homes is not included in the fiscal capacity factor.
In addition, one area should be further researched. If a community were below
the average fiscal capacity of the Metropolitan Area, it might contribute using
a sliding scale or series of steps up to the 40 percent rate. We have not
tried to determine how difficult this would be administratively or how dr~atic
the resulting changes in tax base might be.
Finally, we would like to emphasize a point raised in House Research's
September working paper on fiscal disparities. It is difficult to assess the
effects of the program, partly from the nature of the program itself and partly
from the various interrelationships in the local fiscal system. For this
reason any major changes deserve careful analysis.
GKOiOD/PROTX3
10.31.85
Presentation to the
Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry Briefing
by Metropolitan Council Chair Sandra S. Gardebring
October 29, 1985
Good morning. One of my priorities as Council chair has been to improve
communications between the Council and its different constituencies, in both
the public and private sector. I see such exchange of views as a basic
ingredient in building regional consensus about how to address the most
difficult issues facing our Metropolitan Area. So I'm glad to have this
opportunity to come together today with various members of the Minnesota
Association of Commerce and Industry to talk about the changes that are
occurring in solid waste management in the seven-county area--and what those
changes will mean for the business community..
I'll be followed on today's program by two speakers, Duane Souter, president of
Action Disposal Systems, Inc., and Robert Bringer, executive director of
environmental engineering and pollution control for the 3M Co. They'll present
different perspectives, Mr. Souter on the questions of how businesses will
be affected and Dr. Bringer on the new opportunties arising out of the changes
ahead. What I want to do is provide you with the Council's perspective on both
those subjects, as well as with some background on the legislation that is the
catalyst for the dramatic changes in the way our region will go about handling
its waste in the future.
I want to begin by placing the changes now underway into context, by discussing
some of the factors that led to the realization that a better system of solid
waste management had to be found. Currently, over 5,400 tons of trash are
generated daily in our region--that's roughly two million tons every year.
Ninety-five percent of that trash is buried. Not burned to make energy, not
recycled to be reused. Buried.
There was a time in this nation and this region when .landfilling seemed like an
acceptable solution, both economically and environmentally. Clearly, those
days--and the false sense of security they engendered--are a thing of the past,
the victim in part of the growing knowledge about the environmental hazards
landfills present. The evidence is mounting that landfilling--a mirror of our
"out of sight, out of mind" consciousness--is the art of writing I.O.U.'s to
the environment. And I.O.U.'s, as everyone in this room is aware, come due for
payment.
In 1982 in the seven-county Metropolitan Area, there were 12 landfills in
operation. Groundwater contamination has been confirmed at 11 of those
sites, eight of which are still operating today. Groundwater, as many of you
know, supplies the drinking water of over 60 percent of our region, as well as
being an essential resource for area industry and commerce.
Clearly, the environmental threats posed by burying raw garbage in even the
latest-state-of-the-art landfills are not acceptable--and this fact was a major
impetus in the growing determination in our region to find a new direction for
our handling of trash. Another important factor has been how diffcult it has
become to site landfills in our region. The Council has special reason to know
Just how agonizing trying to select a new landfill site is, since we were the
agency charged under the 1980 Waste Management Act with selecting potential
landfill sites for each metropolitan county's required inventory. The
difficulty we encountered was exascerbated by the fact that over 50 percent of
the land in our Metropolitan Area is productive agricultural land--the same
land that is often the "best" place for a landfill.
It's difficult to over-estimate the intensity of public opposition to a
landfill in their area, which in itself speaks to the need to lessen our
dependence on landfills. But.there's another fact to consider: if we
continued to put 95 percent of our trash in the ground,' we would have to site
and permit and use new landfills, no matter how much public fury resulted.
There would be no alternative: If you're putting the vast majority of garbage
produced into the ground year after year, new landfills will be the result,
with significantly more new landfill capacity required than if the majority of
waste were being processed first.
Of the region's eight landfills I mentioned a moment ago, two already are very
near capacity; our estimates are that our region's landfill capacity will be
exhausted by 1993 at the current rate of consumption. The factors I've Just
mentioned, then, form the backdrop for the decision to make radical changes in
the way in which solid waste is managed in our region. They came with the
realization that our dependence on a "disposable" society has been too easy--
and too costly in terms of its impact on precious resources we must protect if
we are to ensure a safe environment for future generations. The answer, then,
is to become a "recyclable, renewable, reuseable" society.
That's the ultimate goal of the region's new direction in solid waste
management, and the reason for the countdown we are currently in to 1990, the
year when a prohibition on burying unprocessed solid waste in area landfills
will go into effect. The Metropolitan Council set the deadline as part of A'
new policy plan for managing the region's trash, and the 1985 state legislature
made it a law. The solid waste policy plan for our region emphasizes much
greater reuse of resources and less dependence on landfills that usurp prime
agricultural land and contaminate groundwater.
According to the Council's plan, by 1990 most of the' region's trash will be
reduced'at the source, or recycled, oomposted, made into fuel, or burned.
Only "residuals,"--the byproducts of processing--and materials that cannot be
processed will be buried in area landfills. That means a completely new
component of the systsm--processing waste to minimize environmental risks--must
be put into place in a relatively short time. By..the 1990 target date, waste
reduction efforts are expected to take care of about 4 percent of the area's
waste; source separation, or recycling, about 16 percent; and centralized
processing, including fuel manufacturing and energy generation 80 percent. The
seven metropolitan counties tear,most of the responsibility for developing the
need alternatives to landfills. Hennepin County, for example, has planned a
large central waste to energy facility, to be supplied by four transfer
stations where haulers will drop trash.
Ramsey and Washington Counties have Joined together to build a plant where
trash will be turned into fuel, refused-derived fuel, or RDF, or recycled.
Many cities have started low-tech programs, opening drop-off sites or starting
curbside pickup for recyclables; others have begun compost programs where yard
wastes are turned into soil. Municipalities that fail to meet objectives set
by the counties for the amount to be recycled may be subject to "mandatory
source separation" ordinances, requiring that people in those areas recycle.
I think that background is useful in bringing us to today, to some comments
about how businesses in the region will be affected by the changes ahead. The
"bottom line" I know you're interested is that there will be increases in
the disposal prices businesses pay. The increases will vary by county,
depending on how much a county's new solid waste management methods cost and
how those costs are met. For example, counties may simply charge trash haulers
increased "tipping fees" or they may subsidize processing facilities. On the
whole, businesses, which normally pay for pickup and disposal according to
volume, can expect more substantial cost increase than households in the
region, which usually pay a fixed fee to have comparatively small amounts of
trash removed.
The more solid waste a business needs to dispose of, the greater the price
increase will be. That's because disposal costs are based on two factors:
transportation costs and disposal fees. Disposal costs will rise sharply while
transportation costs will rise at a lower, steady rate. The larger a company's
waste load, the larger the proportion of its entire trash bill will reflect the
higher disposal fees.
To put numbers with the words, our staff is estimating that the total monthly
charge for weekly pickup of trash from a half cubic-yard container, currently
about $35, will go up to $42 to $50 over the next few years. For a three cubic-
yard container, the current $32 to $42°charge may go up to $116 to $189.
For a 40 cubic-yard container, the charge may rise from between $190 and $220
to about $742 for a single pick-up.
The cost of waste disposal, then, will triple for large producers of waste,
those producing more than 10 cubic yards of waste per month. I want to
emphasize, however, that such large generators are only about 5 percent of the
region's commerical establishments. For small generators, by far the majority,
the cost of waste disposal will only increase about $3 to $5 a month.
I want to talk for a moment now about some of the forces contributing to the
price increases I've Just described. The first is that the Minnesota Pollution'
Control Agency is currently devising what are called financial responsibility
requirements; basically, this will mean that funds will be collected by
landfills to provide for future clean-up of environmental damage. Estimates'
are that these rules, currently in the hearing stage, will add between $10-12
per ton to the cost of waste disposal, beginning about August 1986.
The logic behind the new rules is that, for too long, we have been burying
trash and letting the public pay the cost of dealing with the resulting
environmental damage. The financial responsibility requirements will mean that
the waste generators will be paying, up front, part of the costs of clean-ups
that may be necessary in the future.
Another factor contributing to the increased cost of waste disposal is that
businesses who dispose of large volumes of trash now receive large discounts at
landfills. In the future, when trash goes to county facilities, those '
discounts will no longer exist.
The solid waste abatement tax passed by the 1985 legislature will add $2.90 to
the cost of disposing of a ton of waste. About 75 cents of that will go to the
Council, adding up to an estimated $3.5 million over a two-year period. We'll
use that money for the Landfill Abatement Cost Recovery Program, under which .
every city and town in the region is eligible to be reimbursed a maximum of 50
cents per household for landfill abatement and resource recovery expenses. It
will also fund the tonnage payment program, which involves payment of $4 per
ton for every ton of recyclable material collected and recycled from
residential sources within a community.
Another action being considered now by the Pollution Control Agency also would
contribute to increased costs, although it's difficult to estimate by how
much. The PCA is making plans to regulate commercial wastes in the same way in
which industrial wastes now areregulated for the purposes of handling and
disposal purposes. If those plans are carried out, waste material other than
cardboard and paper would have to be tested before disposal to determine its
toxic content.
One final factor we see related to cost increases is something I've already
mentioned: the decreasing availability both of landfill space and operational
landfills. At this point, we're not sure how this shortage will translate
into dollars in the future.
Having said all that, I now want to make it clear that the large increases I
talked about aren't automatic or inevitable: Businesses can move aggressively
to reduce the amount of waste they generate, and thus the amount they have to
pay for disposal costs. 3M Co., for example, has been doing Just that for some
time. I want to Just share a few examples of things we know can be done to
make a difference in the cost of waste disposal, as well as some thoughts about
taking advantage of the new opportunities the changing system will offer.
Businesses can reduce their solid wastes in many ways. For~'those that discard
large quanities of a specific sort of trash--yard waste or corrugated boxes,
for example--it may be practical to dispose of it separately. Leaves and ''
clippings could be dropped at a compost site, or boxes sold to a recycler.
Many businesses of various sizes will be able to cut solid waste disposal costs
by setting up office paper recycling~programs, again like 3M. At its most
basic, such a recycling prog~.am is simply a matter of getting employees to
throw out high-grade office paper in separate containers and arranging for it
to be picked up.
The volume of throwaway office paper used at a business also can be reduced
dramatically, by cutting back on memos written or copies distributed, by
copying longer documents on both sides of paper, by using computer terminals as
message systems. Businesses~also can purchase materials for office use or
production with their eventual disposal in mind, choosing materials that are
recyclable or can be reused many times.
All these efforts not only will save money, but can improve the image of a
business in the community. Finding environmentally safe and useful ways to
deal with solid waste is an effective demonstration of a company's commitment
to the community, in the same way that companies have responded to the need to
deal responsibly with hazardous waste.
Obviously, the changes ahead in the solid waste system are going to put
pressure on businesses in our region to explore new ways to change their
handling of trash that are both efficient and cost-effective. At the same
time, there also are opportunities ahead. There's a need for established
businesses to take on new roles in the waste management system and for new
businesses to be created--to pick up recyclable materials, process trash, find
innovative ways to get value from the varied materials we throw away, and to
market the products derived from them.
Our meeting with you today is an indication of the Council's commitment to
working with the business community as it deals with the changes occuring in
our waste management system. We feel we can reach the most people by working
through the trade associations~ such as those represented here this morning; by
doing that~ we'll also be able to address issuses of specific importance to the
businesses represented. For example~ we could hold a forum with the Building
Owners and Managers Association on the issue of office paper recycling, or
with the Retail Centers Managers Association on the issue of disposal of
cardboard. The Council is also involved in co-sponsoring forums on topics of
interest to a broader audience; for examDle~ a forum Oct. 30 titled~ "Waste
Tires: What's beyond land disposal?"
In setting our priorities in the 1986 work program, we plan to target trade
associations to work with, but we'll also be available to work with other trade
groups that contact us. (The contact person is Jim Uttley, head of the
Council's Solid Waste Abatement Assistance Team.)
Also in 1986, Council members and solid waste staff will be available to talk
to meetings of area Chambers of Commerce and trade associations, through our
new Council Speaker's Bureau.
There also are more general ways business officials can stay tuned to what's
happening in solid waste in the region, such as asking to be added to the
mailing list of the Council's special publication, the Waste ~ine~ and ou~
newspaper, the Metro Monitor. The Council devotes a good deal of time and
energy to encouraging public participationin its decision making process in
general; we'd welcome your interest in our Metropolitan Waste Management ''
Advisory Committee and your comments at public meetings and public hearings
dealing with these issues.
That's a look, then, at some of the changes ahead in our region that will have
an impact on the business community. The system, as it changes, will need your
creativity and commitment to the better way we've found for our region. Thank
you for your attention today--and your involvement in the future.