The URL can be used to link to this page

1984-07-24 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Approve Minutes of July 10, 1984, Regular Meeting Approve Minutes of July 12, 1984, Special Meeting Pg. 1974-1984 Pg. 1985 PUBLIC HEARING: "On the Approval of the Town Square Project, the Proposed Develp~eot P_r~_g_r_a~, and the Tax Increment ~ i ,~_a_n_c~__P_P i_a~." Presentations: Saul Smiley - Architect Mark Koegler - Planner Ernie Clark - Miller/Schroeder Pg. 1986-2017 PUBLIC HEARING: On Proposed Amendment to the Mound City Code, changing the Fence Ordinance and incorpor- ating it in Section 23 of the Zoning Code. Pg. 2018-2025A Ordinance Amendment of Section 32.04 of the City Code Relating to License Fees. (The proposed change is to move the expiration date from April 30 to June 30 to coincide with other Liquor License dates.) PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider Reallocating $3,000 of Year IX and $3,656 of Year X Community Development Block Grant Funds to allow for Repairs and Instal- lation of Water and Sewer. Pg. 2026-2027 7. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present. CASE #84-327: Westonka Auto Body (Brad Peterson), 4839 Shoreline Blvd., Lots 15, 16 & 17, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit "A" Request: Sign Permit over 9 square feet in area Pg. 2028-2029 CASE #84-341: Dennis Heckes, 3225 Tuxedo Blvd. Lots 1 & 2, N. 2 ft of Lot 17, Block 13, Whipple Request: 22 Foot Front Yard Variance 10. CASE #84~34_2~ David J. Babler, 4844 Bartlett Blvd., Lots 12, 13, Part of Lots 14 & 15, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit "A" Request: Sign Variance Permit Pg. 2030-2038 Pg. 2039-2051 Pg. 2052-2060 Page 1971 20. 21. 22. 23. A. B. C. 11. CASE #84r34~: Randy Schufman (Contel of Minnesota), 2462-2468 Commerce Blvd., Lots 20, 21 & 22, Auditor's Subd. #167 Request: Fence Height & Type Variance 12. CASE #84-345: Steven Shannon, 5162 Emerald Drive, Lot 5, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit "C" Request: Recognize Existing Nonconforming Garage; 22.4 Foot Variance 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills - July 14. Review and Approval of Realignment of Lynwood Blvd. ~ight,ofrWa¥ Map to be submitted to MN. DOT for Review and Approval 15. Request for Extension on Final Plat of Langdon's Landing and Amend Resolution #83-44 16. Payment Request: A & K Construction for $4,600.00 for Work Performed on City Booster Pump Station 17. Public Dance Permit - Our Lady of the Lake - August 4, 1984. 18. Approval and Authorize Mayor and City Manager to Sign Short-Term Contract for Services with John Taffe for Work in the Park Department 19. Appointment of a City Representative to Hennepin County Waste Disposal Advisory Committee Request for Short-Term Set-Up License and 3.2 Beer Licence for Mound Police Reserves - Sept. 21 and 22, 1984 Article on Sidewalk Repairs - Discussion Item Payment of Bills INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS .Update Material on City Recylcing Task Force Letter of Thanks from Gaylen Thostenson Proposed Ordinance on Land Reclamation & Earth Materials D. Desyl Peterson's Resignation Letter E. Commercial Dock Inspection Report F. Springsted, Inc. Newsletter Pg. 2061-2067 Pg. 2068-2074 Pg. 2075-2076 Pg. 2077-2084 Pg. 2085-2100 Pg. 2101-2106 Pg. 2107 Pg. 2108-2109 Pg. 2110-2111 Pg. 2112-2113 Pg. 2114 Pg. 2115 Pg. 2115A-2127 Pg. 2128 Pg. 2129-2132 Pg. 2133 Pg. 2134 Pg. 2135-2136 Page 1972 H. I. J. K. M. N. O. R. S. T. U. AA. BB. CC. Public Financial Systems Newsletter Letter of Thanks - Mayor of Golden Valley American Legion Post #398 Gambling Report Changes in Gambling Laws Passed in 1984 Legislature LMCD Financial Report thru June 30th and Invitation for Public Tour August 4, 1984, 11:30 A.M. - "Our Lady of the Lake" boat. AMM Letter of Thanks Elected Officials Salary Survey - 1984 Note from Contel on New Access Charges Material from Hennepin County Relating to the Creation of a New Community A~o,n. Age~cj. 1984 Tax Reform Act - Provisions of Interest to Cities Comparable Worth Status Report - LMC Met Council Review - June 29th LMC Region Meeting Schedule LMCD Regulation of Ultra-Light Aircraft Announcement of Meetings with Metropolitan Parks & Open Space Commission - RE: Region Park Planning & Development "Express Notes" - West Metro Coordinated Transpor- tation Letters from Mr. & Mrs. Vernon Paine MTC Annual Report for 1983 Letter RE: Hazardous Site from Congressman Sikorski Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Letter from Minnetrista - RE: Population Projection for Hennepin County. Report on Hennepin County Solid Waste Disposal Report on Regional Transit Board Transition Task Force. Conditioinal Use Permit Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. 2137-2144 2145 2146 2147 2148-2151 2152 2153-2159 2160 2161-2170 2171-2176 2177-2178 2179-21 80 2181 2182 2183-2187 2188-2189 2190-2199 2200-2216 2217 2218 2219 2220-2221 2222-2251 Page 1973 137 July 10, 1984 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on July 10, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Mayor Bob Polston arrived at 7:35 P.M. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, City Engineer John Cameron, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Marjorie St. John, Donna Rosengren, Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Harrell, Jay Peterson, James Rasicot, Greg Gustafson, Steve Amick, John Ogren, Betsy June Fitz, Kim Zitzloff, Dudley Fitz, Russ Witham, Terry Andrews, Richard Sykes, Rodger Bergquist, Barbara Bergquist, Tom Schammel, Bonnie Schammel, Rebecca Berry, Kendall Berry, Nick Cotton, Penny Robbins, Sandy Inman, June Keneally, Jim Keneally, Clarence Lehman, Audrey Lehman, Larry Connolly. Acting Mayor Charon opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the June 18, 1984, Reconvened Board of Review were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the June 18, 1984, Reconvened Board of Review, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Minutes of the June 26, 1984, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. Peterson moved and Pauisen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the June 26, 1984, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carrried. CASE #84-344: DONNA ROSENGREN {REPRESENTING MARJORIE ST. JOHN, 1728 FINCH LANE, LOT 12 BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, 14 FOOT REAR YARD & ~2.7 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval of these variances with the condition that there be no further addition to this structure. They also wanted the Council to take note that they approved this because the property abutts Commons and does not appear as small as it is, not to set a precedence. /??2' 138 July 10, 1984 Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-100 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FOR LOT 12, BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 13 0018 The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston being absent and excused. Motion carried. CASE ~84-~30: KOENIG-SCHWERT PARTNERSHIP, 2345-2349 COMMERCE BLVD., PID ~14-117-24 44 0004, SIGN VARIANCE PERMIT The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this Sign Variance Permit as requested. ?eterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #84-101 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCE PERMIT FOR KOENIG-SCHWERT PARTNERSHIP, PID ~14-117-24 44 0004 The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston being absent ~'and excused. Motion carried. LICENSE APPROVAL TOM THUMB SUPERETTE, 2222 COMMERCE BLVD. The City Manager explained that the Council can approve the Cigarette License for Tom Thumb but will have to set a date for a public hearing on the issuance of an "Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License". Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of a Cigarette License to the Tom Thumb Superette at 2222 Commerce Blvd. The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston being absent. The vote was unanimously in favor, Motion carried. Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion to set August 14, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. as the date for a public hearing on the issuance of an "Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License" for Betty J. Mueller dba Tom Thumb Superette. The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston absent and excused. Motion carried. MAYOR POLSTON ARRIVED. The Council decided to skip the next item on the Agenda and come back to it later in the meeting. 139 JULY 10, 1984 DESIGNATE POLLING PLACE FOR PRECINCT #1 The City Clerk reported that the Council needs to designate Shirley Hills Elementary School (Little Theatre) as the new polling place for Precinct #1. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-102 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (LITTLE THEATRE) AS THE NEW POLLING PLACE FOR PRECINCT #1 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHANGING THE FENCE PROVISIONS Charon moved and Jessen seconded a motion to set July 24, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing on an amendment to the City Code changing the fence pro¥isions. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE SALE OF $150,000 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS The City Manager explained that is bond sale is to sell permanent bonds to replace the $180,000 in G.O. Temporary Bonds of 1981 which were sold to finance the 1981 Street Light Improvement and which mature on September 1, 1984. Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-103 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $150,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1984 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE SALE OF $100,000 FIRE EOUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS The City Manager explained that this needs to be done so that when the new fire pumper arrives, which should be sometime soon, we can pay for it. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded by the following resolution: RESOLUTION #84-104 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF$100,OOOFIREEQUIPMENT CERTIFI- CATES OF IDEBTEDNESS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 140 July 10, 1984 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if any of the citizens present would like to address the Council. No one responded. COMMONS MAINTENANCE PERMIT APPLICATION - SUSAN MANCHESTER, 487~ ISLAND VIEW DRIVE The City Manager e.xplained that the Park Commission has recommended approval of this Commons Maintenance Permit. Ms. Manchester wants permission to plant trees, shrubs and ground cover on Devon Commons abutting her property. Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of a Commons Maintenance Permit to Ms. Susan Manchester, 4873 Island View Drive, on Devon Commons abutting her property on Lot 9. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DEPOT RENOVATION BIDS The City Manager explained that the City has received 2 bids for the beginning of renovation of The Depot in Mound Bay Park. The renovation will consist of 6 items as follows: Furnish and install bracing for lower level concrete block wall. Furnish and install new concrete wash adjacent to present sidewalk. Furnish and install ten (10) combination (storm and screen) windows, plus one (1) main combination door, plus a pair of combination doors at the north end of the building. Furnish and install a pair of fir or hemlock wood panel or flush doors including new wood frame at north end of building. Add additional colums and structual supports to north end portico roof, plue patch deck, wood trim, plus repair insulation and siding at south end, plus repair railings. The bids received were as follows: 1. David Willette $10,800.00 2. Developers Construction, Inc. $11,500.00 This was budgeted in Revenue Sharing. Willette's bid of $10,800.00 The Staff recommends David Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the bid of David Willette in the amount of $10,800.00 for the renovation of The Depot. The vote was unanimously in favor. lal Juiy 10, 1984 Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE The City Manager explained that the City Attorney has now gone over the Administrative Code and the Staff deleted all items that he had questions about. Section 27 was deleted today because it is covered in the Minnesota Statutes. The Manager stated that this code is an updated version of the one that was passed in 1978 and covers all non-union employees. The Staff and employees all had input into this item. Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-105 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CITY OF MOUND ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, DATED JUNE, 1984 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MILL POND SUBDIVISION DRAINAGE PROBLEM The City Manager explained that we have now received an executed copy of the Purchase Agreement we had proposed to Vernon A. Anderson. This property will be used as a holding basin for the drainage from Mill Pond and should help to cure the problem the surrounding neighbors are having with the runoff from Mill Pond. The City has offered the owner $850.00 for the site'described as follows: "West 100 feet of the North 100 feet of that Part of Lot 1 Mound Terrace lying South of the North 4 Acres thereof". Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion authorizing the Mayor and the City Manager to sign the a Furchase Agreement for property described as "West 100 feet of the North 100 feet of that Part of Lot I Mound Terrace lying South of the North 4 Acres thereof",for $850.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT REQUESTS The City Manager stated that there are two payment requests from Webco Tank pertaining to the Island Park Water Improvement. The Staff is recommending approval. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to authorize the payment of the following to Webco Tank: 1. $9,438.75 2. $10,722.80 for work performed on the Island Park Water Improvement Project, when funds are available. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried 142 July 10, 1 984 PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the payment of bills as presented this evening in the amount of $158,951.45, when funds are available. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion'carried VERBAL REPORT ON MEETING WITH MWCC RE: LINES MONITORING THE SEWER The City Manager explained that Hickok & Associates, the City of Mound and the Metro Waste Control Commission have now met concerning Mound monitoring the sewer meters. MWCC felt the City should not have to monitor their monitors and will work with the City to be sure we are being charged fairly. MWCC will train all of our people on calibrating the meters and Hickok & Assoc. with help with the evaluation of the figures. We will not need to continue with the report idea if MWCC does what they are going to do. No action taken. The City Manager will report back as things progress. SUPER AMERICA REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The City Manager explained the Mr. Ogren~ owner of the Metro 500 site; Mr. Amick, Engineer for Super America; and Mr. Gustafson, Attorney for Super America are present this evening. Super America went to the Planning Commission previously to request that they be allowed to use the Metro 500 site to build a new Super America station. The Planning Commission recommended denial because it is not a conforming site (because of a lack of square footage), and the reports are not in yet from the PCA on whether there is hazardous waste under the site. Since Super America is the present lessee of the Metro site and they have applied for a conditional use permit and variances for the property and it appears that final action on those applications will not take place before July 31, 1984, Mr. Orgen would like an extension of his grandfather status until January 30, 1985, so that.he does not have to reopen this substandard, nonconforming station to keep the grandfather status. The City Attorney stated that there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance to cover an extension, but if the Council decides it wants to extend this, then he would like to prepare a resolution with conditions. Mayor Polston expressed concern about setting a precedence for future requests. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to provide a 6 month 143 July 10, 1984 extension for the Metro 500 site. The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Polston voting no. Motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DISCUSSION Councilmember Paulsen stated that he and Councilmember Peterson attended a meeting last week of the neighbors near the 3 acre site on Westedge Bird.that has been proposed as a site for a new Public Works facility. At that meeting Mr. Tim Kenealy was chosen to be spokeman to present the neighborhood ideas and thoughts on the site. Tim Kenealy, 2670 Halstead Lane, stated that the people who got together last week have reviewed the engineering report and the citizens report on the proposed Public Works facility and then have some questions that they would like answered and some ideas to give. He stated they did not expect answers tonight. 1. What are the plans for paying for this facility? 2. Will the Tonka site be explored for temporary lease or purchase. 3. What would be done to the Westedge Blvd. if the 3 acre site were chosen? The engineering report did not deal with the road issue. 4. If there is some money available for this project, maybe it would be a good idea to invest it and wait to build. Mayor Polston-stated that he feels it is good to review projects as they move along. He then gave the background of this project and explained the process that would followed. The Council discussed having some informal meetings with the citizens, Public Works personnel, Council and City Staff. Councilmember Paulsen suggested another alternate site to be looked at would be the property behind Anthony's Floral. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was at the neighborhood meeting and he felt one major concern the people had was how many trips per day the trucks make and which way would they go, north or south on Westedge. He also felt there was concern about the noise impact this facility would have on the neighborhood. Jim Rasicot, 6705 Woodedge Road (Minnetrista), asked if the Council intended on doing this project within the next few months and asked what the scheduling is on this project. The Council responded that no specific date or timeframe has been set. They have not moved to order plans and specifications or set a specific site yet. 144 July 10, 1984 The following citizens spoke against using the 3 acre site for a. new Public Works facility: Russ Witham, Sandi Inman, Sharen Rosengren, Clarence Lehman (Minnetrista resident), Penny Robbins,and Betsey Fitz. Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to call a Special Meeting of the City Council, Public Works employees, City Staff and interested citizens to discuss the Public Works Building issue. To be held Monday, July 30, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 5341Maywood Road. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SUPER AMERICA REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The City Attorney read the proposed resolution that he has prepared with regard to extending the grandfather clause for the Metro 500 site. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-106 RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23.404, SUBDIVISION 5, FROM JULY 31, 1984, TO JANUARY 31 , 1985, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5377 SHORELINE BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ae Materials from Hennepin County Park Reserve District Boat Tour. B. Metro Council Review - June 15, 1984. C. Senior Citizens Newsletter - July 1984. League of Cities Committees RE: possible people to serve. School Dist. #277 Minutes - July 9, 1984. Letter from MTC re: future expansion of Western suburb serv±ee. Letter from Hennepin County Assessor notifying us that Milt Hilk has been appointed to the position of Appraisal Supervisor. H. ~Letter from U.S. Bench Corporation re: bus benches. I. Incredible Festival Notice. J. Thank you note from Nels Schernau. 145 July 10, 1984 K. Thank you note from Blue Water Daze Festival. L. Letter Announcing Budget Hearings from MWCC. M. Letter expressing dissatisfaction regarding service at Meyer's Mound KO Service Station. N. Chamber of Commerce Newsletter. O. Industrial Revenue Bonds Analysis. P. Newsletter from Hennepin County Community Health Department. July calendar. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Attest: City Clerk BILL5 ......... JULY I0, Allstar Electric A-1Minnetonka Rental Abdo, Abdo & Eich Acro-MN Arrow Tank Holly Bostrom Donald Bryce Bryan Rock Products Butch's Bar Supply Bradley Exterminating Bowman Distribution Braun Environmental Lab Jan Bertrand Coast to Coast Coca Cola City Club Distrib City Wide Services Chemlawn Copy Duplicating Robert Cheney Dependable Services Duane's 66 Service Day Distrib Driver & Vehicle Serv Don's Sod Serv East Side Beverage E1 Marketing Jon Elam Farmers Steel Co. Griggs Beer G1enwood Inglewood Henn Co. Treas Henn Co. Sheriff Dept Human Resource Consult Horan Associates I tasca Equip Co. Kromer Co. Kool Kube Ice Lowells The Laker MacQueen Equip Marina Auto Supply McCombs Knutson Minnegasco Mack Truck, Inc. Metro Fone Communications Navarre Ha rdwa re- N.S.P. A.J. Ogle Co. Oswald Fire Hose Pepsi Cola Pogreba Distrib 279.48 25.OO 775.00 210.33 1,015.00 266.00 1OO.OO 103.65 355.75 19.00 266.43 2,698.75 23.44 107.76 259.05 4,638.24 10.75 1,851.OO 15.OO 367.0O 33 .OO 3O. OO 4,143.18 24.75 237.60 4,232.75 119.00 9.97 60.91 1,74O. lO 41.90 1,274.5o 459.Ol 1,o5o.o0 1,188.00 90.89 60.80 254.8O 83.19 4.O5 91.87 536.45 3,362.OO 65.96 1,567.64 23.60 551.O2 4,557.71 101.30 107.88 543.OO 5,571.70 Bob Ryan Ford Royal Crown Beverage Reo Raj Kennels Roto Rooter Road Machinery Real One Acquisition Satellite Industries Spring Park Car Wash S.O.S. Printing Serv-A-Dock State Bank of Mound St. Boni Farm Store Richard Schnabel St Paul Book & Stationery Twin City Home Juice Thrifty Snyder Drug Thurk Bros Chev Thorpe Distrib Uni tog VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings UARCO Waconia Ridgeview Hosp Western Tree Service Water Products Co. Widmer Bros. Westonka Sanitation Westonka Community Services Xerox Corp. R.L. Youngdahl Holly Bostrom Brookdale Ford William Burton Mark Carvatt Bill Clark 0il Oept Property Tax Fidelity Bank Griggs, Cooper Ron Gehring Jerry Henke Leon Hanson Johnson Bros. Liq Intl Assn Fire Chiefs Robt E. Johnson Joel Krumm Kathy Kluth Dr Robt Lauer MN Dept Public Safety-Liq Carey Manson Metro Waste Control MN CLE Mound Fire Dept Minnegasco 11.O5 25.75 165.00 76.5O 32.20 7O8.O5 585.43 86.OO 109.00 65.OO 11.60 4.75 12.76 18.80 159.88 36.98 12.62 4,776.20 216.40 2,928.00 282.96 65.25 983.00 363.42 899.50 37O.OO 3,453.10 82.72 3,511.00 144.00 80.5O 58.50 44.47 1,691.47 7.73 985.OO 3,214.34 435.00 12.00 230.00 3,842.97 90.OO 658.12 14.44 55.OO 11,543.20 5.OO 50.00 29,986.80 125.OO 4,204.40 112.07 (cont) BILLS ..... JULY 10, 1984 (Cont) Metro Waste Control Commission 841.50 Ed Phillips & Sons 3,633.84 Quality Wine 1,561.82 Lee Patz 4.54 P.D.Q. 1,369.70 Dell Rudolph 442.50 Dell Rudolph 27.94 State Board of Electricity 100.OO Nels Schernau 92.87 Serv-A-Dock 7,178.55 Sterling Electric 138.55 David Thompson 150.OO Webco Tank 20,161.55 TOTAL BILLS 158,951.45 146 July 12, 1984 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on July 12, 1984, at 7:15 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also present was City Manager Jon Elam. The City Manager explained that the reason for this meeting was to set a public hearing date for the purpose of reallocating $6,656 of Mound/Urban Hennepin County Community Development Funds. Peterson moved and Charon seconded a motion to set July 24, 1984, at 9:00 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the reallocation of $6,656 of Mound/Urban Hennepin County Community Development Funds. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to adjourn at 7:25 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.. Jon Elam, City Manager Attest: City Clerk CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNE?3DTA NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE APPROVAL OF THE TOWN SOUARE PROJECT, YHE PRO_~OSED DEVELOP~N~f PROGRAM AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAk~. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, July 24, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the Mound City Council will hold a hearing on the approval of the Town Square redevelopment project, the Proposed Development Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plan. The Town Square project is generally bounded by Lynwood Boulevard to the south, Commerce Boulevard to the west, Church Road to the north and with an eastern boundary beginning at a point along the southern right-of-way of Church Road approximately 100 feet west of the western side of the right-of-way of Fern Road and extending southerly 190 feet, thereby, extending approximately 60 feet east and then extending southerly approximately 160 feet to a point of intersection with the northern right-of-way of Lynwood Boulevard. The site's boundaries enccmpass an area of approximately 3.2 acres. The City Council will specifically consider the following: That land in the project area would not be made available for redevelopment without financial aid being sought. That the redevelopment plan for the redevelopment area in the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of such areas by private e nte rpr. i se. That the 'redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality. That the proposed tax increment financing district is a redevelopment district. me That the proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the municipality, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of the tax increment financing is deemed necessary. That the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. That the Tax Increment Financing Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the develoDment or redevelopment of the project by private enterprise. That the municipality elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, St~bdivision 3, Clause (b), if applicable. Ali persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be b e a rd. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in The Laker July 9, 198q 5161 TAXES; LISTING, ASSESSMENT 273.74 with the authority. The authority shall present to the members of the csunty boards of commissioners and the school boards its estimate of the fiscal and economic implications of the proposed tax increment financing district. The members of the county boards of commissioners and the school'boards may present their comments at the public hearing on the tax increment financing plan required by subdivision 3. The county auditor shall not certify the original assessed value of a district pursuant to section 273.'/6, subdivision 1, until the county board of commissioners has presented its written comment on the proposal to the authority, or 30 days has passed from the date of the transmittal by the authority to the board of the information regarding the fiscal and economic implications, whichever occurs first. Upon adoption of the tax increment financ- ing plan, the authority shall file the same with the commissioner of energy, planning and development. _Sub_cl._ ~. Mu9icil)alit~ a~nrgval. No county auditor shall certify the original assess-ed-v~lu~ 6[ k tax inc-rern~nt Jfinancing district until the tax increment financing plan proposed for that district has been approved by the municipality in which the district is located. If an authority which proposes to establish a tax increment financing district and the municipality are not the same, the authority shall apply to the municipality in which the district is proposed to be located and shall obtain the approval of its tax increment financing plan by the municipality before the authority may use tax increment financing. The municipality shall approve the tax increment financing plan only after a public hearing thereon after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. This hearing may be held before or after the approval or creation of the project or it may be held in conjunction with a hearing to approve the project. Before or at the time of approval of the tax increment financing plan, the municipality shall make the following findings, and shall set forth in Writing the reasons, and supporting facts for each determination: (a) That the proposed tax increment financing district is a redevelopment district, a housing district or an economic development district. Co) That the proposed development or redevelopment, in the opinion of the .municipality, would not reasonably be expected to occur s. olely through private ~nvestment within the reasonably foreseeable future and therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. (c) That the tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. (d) That the tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the develop- ment or redevelopment of the project by private enteri,,,dse. (e) That the municipality elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in section 273.'76, subdivision 3; clause (b), if applicable. When the municipality and the authority are not the same, the municipality shall approve .or disapprove the tax increment financing plan within 60 days of submission by the authority, or the plan shall be deemed approved. When the municipality and the authority are not the same, the municipality may not amend or modify a tax increment financing plan except as proposed by the authority pursuant to subdivision 4. Once approved, the determination of the authority to undertake the project through the use of tax increment financing and the resolu- tion of the governing body shall be conclusive of the findings therein and of the public need for such financing. Subd. 4. Modification of plan. A tax increment financing plan may be modified by an authority, provided that any reduction or enlargement of geo- graphic area of the project or t_ax in~crement financing district, increase in amount 462.$21 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMEN~F, PLANNING. ZONING ?806 462.521 ~IUNICIPAL GOVERNING BODY. Subdivision 1. Findings, notice, determination. W'henever an authority de- termines that a redevelopment project should be undertaken, it shall ap?ly to the governing body of the municipality in which the project is located for a?proval thereof. The application shall be accompanied _by_ a redevelopment plan, a statement of the method proposed for financing the project, and the written opinion of the planning agency, if there is one. Before approving any redevelop- ment plan, the governing body shall hold a public hearing thereon after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of hearing. Subd. 2. Findings, notice, determination; governing body. The authority shall not proceed with the project unless the governing body f'inds by resolution that (1) the land in the project area would not be made available for redevelop- ment without the financial aid to be sought; (2) the redevelopment plans for the redevelopment areas in the locality will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole, for the redevelopment of such areas by private enterprise; and (3) the redevelopment plan conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality as a whole. The governing body shall within 30 days after submission of the application, or resubmission as hereinafter provided, give written notice to the authority of its decision with respect to the project. When an authority has determined the location of a proposed redevelop_ merit project, it may, without awaiting the approval of the governing body, proceed, by option or othepa, ise, to obtain control of the real property within tl~e area, but it shall not, without the prior approval by the governing body of the redevelopment plan, unconditionally obligate itself Ir{ purchase any such property. A plan which has not been approved by the governing body when submitted to it may be again submitted to it with such modifications as are necessary to meet its objections. Once approved, the determination of the authority to undertake such project and the resolution of the governing body shill be conclusive in any condemnation proceeding, of the public need for such project. Subd. 3. Early acquisition. When an authority has determined the location of a"pr°lSo~ed-fed~'elrpment p~oject, but prior to the approval of the redevelop- ment plan and project as provided in subdivision 2. the authority may acquire individual tracts of real property with the approval of the governing body as to each separate tract. Before approving such early acquisition, the governing body shall hold a public hearing on the proposed acquisition activities after published notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least once not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of hearing. The authority shall not proceed with such acquisition unless the governing body finds by resolution that (1) the proposed acquisition is necessary to carry out public improvements in the area, or that such acquisition will contribute to the elimination of blight or deterioration within the area or that such acquisition is necessary to relieve hardship; and that (2) there is a feasible method for the relocation of families and individuals to be displaced by the proposed acquisition. The governing body may, in approving such earl)' acquisition, agree to assume the responsibility for an)' loss that ma)' arise as a result of such acquisition of land and related activities, including any costs of demolition, removal and relocation, in the event that the property so acquired is not used for urban renewal purposes because the urban renewal plan is not approved, or is amended to omit the acquired property or is abandoned for an)' reason. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to waive the requirement for public hearing upon the redevelop- ment plan for such redevelopment project. History: 1947c487s23; 195I c568s 8: 1959c 545s 6: 1969c 676s I0 ~0 .-?:-' ...~.~::C.~'u.:-:~...:~:~.~. _ .7 '~.: ~ -~ ~' ~"-7' ' --'~ -~- ~'~ · ~q~?. ~',' -' ~.,-? . '. ~ :?:~:~.~'T;-~."t.:: ~.'j-'~:::.~ ' ~'~: ...... ~'~'~7 ~ ~.- ' ~-..-,-~-~?,-.j..- .... . ' '-; · .~., " " ,: , . . .. _:.,'~: :-: ~ ~=~ ~ ,~,-,... ::.r-:: . ~., . ... .' .. .: -.."..'', Pi~y charon' " Ga~' paUl~m":" - ....... '" · .... RUSS Pete~on - Phyllis Jes~n .... :"- . ' "%" CITf ST~k' City Manager ..... Jori Ei~, Mark Ko.leu, Curt Pearson, City Attorney Town Square .- Mound, MN J L A K E M N N E )T \ Site Location ,fj~g,u r e I Development Program May 21, 1984 SECTION 1 - DISTRICT OVERVIEW INTRODOC~ION Mound's commercial sector is an important element in the structure of the co~nunity. The downtown c~nmercial area is a major contributor to the City's tax base, it provides ~nployment opportunities and it provides essential goods to conmunity residents. The purpose of this development program is to focus on the downtown area and to review the Town Square redevelopment proposal submitted by a consortium of local businesses. This review will focus on existing conditions, outline the City's objectives, analyze the proposed development plan and investigate tax increment financing as an implementation method. DISTRI C~f DESCRIPTION Town Square is located in the east central portion of the downtown area. The district is bounded by Cc~nmerce Boulevard to the west, Churdh Road to the North and Lynwood Boulevard to the south. Along the east side, the district abuts Lots 2 through 5 of Lakeside Park, A.L. Crockers' first division, Mound, MTKA and Lot 6 of Koehler's addition to Mound. The boundaries encompass a total area of approximately 2.4 acres (see Figure 2). PLANNING O0~T~T Mound's commercial area has been addressed in a number of recent municipal plans. The City's Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 1981 concluded that "If future revitalization of Mound's downtown takes place, redevelopment techniques must be applied." In 1982, the City prepared a design guide for downtown Mound which established guidelines for the development and redevelopment of the commercial area. The purpose of the guide was to "develop an aesthetic philosophy that would help curb economic and physical deterioration and to present the ccn~nunity with exciting, attainable goals and guidelines to start a revitalization program." Redevelopment of the proposed Town Square District is consistent with the recommendations found in both planning documents. EXISTING LAND USE AND LAND USE CONTROLS The Town Square District is composed of 11 separate parcels (Figure 3) containing a mixture of commercial useS, vacant buildings and residential structures. Primary ccnm~rcial uses include the Mound Clinic, a pharmacy, a dry cleaners and a Tom Thumb convenience store. Two occupied residential structures are locate~ on the east side of the site (Figure 4). Town Square .-Mound, MN 'BALSAM ,:.-.'. RI:) PARK OF' LOT ~2 (:;HURCH RO --4, IZ ' LYNWOOO --. T ,~: - District figure 2 Boundaries e_L.V.O.~_ '.i 2 Town Square-. Mound, MN Church Road 2 3 Lynwood Blvd L N II I Parcels 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. figure 3 /??~' Ir ~ I City of Mound Medical Properties, Inc. Thomas L. Giesen/Paul E. Busche Eugene Bickman Medical Properties, Inc. M. E. Mueller Medical Properties, Inc. 8. M. E. Mueller 9. George Shepherd/John R. Morris6n 10. M. E. Mueller 11. George Shepherd 3 Town Square.. Mound, 0 50 '10O 200 Lynwood Blvd L N Buildings figure 4 ae B. C. D. E. F. G. House Mound Clinic Mueller Pharmacy Laundromat Tom Thumb Garage House 4 Land uses within the area are subject to the requirements of the Mound zoning and subdivision ordinances and the regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Additionally, transportation related items such as curb cuts on Ccnvrerce Boulevard (County Road 110) will require review and a permit from Hennepin County. As shown on Figure 5, all of the Town Square property is presently zoned Central Business (B-l) except the northeast corner which is zoned two-family residential (R-3). Implementation of the Town Square proposal will require the rezoning of the R-3 parcel to B-1. Development of a c~ercial center is generally consistent with the B-1 provisions of the Mound zoning ordinance. TRANSPORTATION The existing transportation system in the Town Square area contains problems internally with access for delivery vehicles and potential vehicles/pedestrian conflicts and externally with site distance and intersection alignment problems at the intersection of Lyn~ood Boulevard and Ccrnn~rce Boulevard. The site is bounded on three sides by roads. Co,,,~rce Boulevard to the west which is designated as a minor arterial is a county road, Lynwood Boulevard to the south is a local MSAS street and Church Road on the north is a local street. This road system provides both visibility and accessibility to the property and will serve as a suitable basis for future development. UTILITIES The district is completely served by water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities (Figure 6). All of these systems have adequate capacity to handle redevelopment in the area. Depending on the final site planning configuration ar~ road alignments, it is likely that portions of the existing utility system will require relocation. SECTION 2 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN DISTRICT OBJE~IVES The Town Square District is a major component of Mound's downtown area. In recent months, the City has seen the closing of its largest industry, the Tonka Corporation, and the loss of several businesses. These occurrences have highlighted the need for revitalization of the ccrnn~rcial area and have led to the establishment of the goal of strengthening the existing business base, redevelopment of substandard or inefficient areas and attracting new businesses to the community. In support of the redevelopment aspects of this goal, the following objectives have been developed: Promote land use and development that is consistent with the adopted Comprehe ns i ve Pla n. 5 5 Encourage new ccmmercial development to strengthen the tax base, provide additional employment opportunities and expand the services available to Mound residents. e Promote development which will help reverse declining valuation trends of ccmmerci al property. Acquire and remove buildings that are obsolete, inefficient or under utilized. Provide appropriate quantities of land in suitable locations for the expansion of existin~ businesses. Provide adequate infrastructure to serve both new and existing development. Provide the necessary framework for the expansion of redevelopment efforts by private enterprise. Remove existing deficiencies in the pedestrian and vehicular elements of the transportation system. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM In late 1983, the Mound City council established a redevelopment project area as shown on Figure 7. Town Square represents the first redevelopment district proposal within this project area. Existing development in the Town Square area (Figure 8) consists of the Mound Medical Clinic, and optometrist's' office, Mueller Pharmacy, Shepherd's Laundry, Tom Thumb convenience store, a vacant truck maintenance facility formerly used by Tonka Corporation and two occupied residential structures. Structural deficiencies and land use problems were documented in the Town Square Qualification Report as amended, April, 1984. The redevelopment proposal for Town Square was instigated by a local group. At the present time, the State Bank of Mound and the Mound Clinic are the primary owners of the project. Upon ccmpletion of the project, it is anticipated that additional owners will be involved. The Town Square preliminary site plan involves the clearance of existing buildir~s within the project area and the construction of a retail center and free-standing bank facility (Figure 9). The project has been designed to provide needed expansion space for the bank, clinic and a local drugstore and leaseable space for new business opportunities. The northwest portion of this site contains most of the parkir~ area which will be available in off-peak times for use by the church to the north and the Pond Sports Center on the west' side of Ccmm~rce Boulevard. 6 Town Square .. Mound, MN I I I I III LAKE Zoning Map figure 5 I ~?q 7 Town Square.. Mound, MN 0 50 100 200 © Lynwood Blvd Church R oa d 1 lull mmmlmmm I I I i I I I I mmm I mmm I mmm I smm I I !mm N Utilities figure 6 Sani.tary Sewer ***** Water Storm Sewer 0 Manhole or Catch Basin 8 ~ooo i N N i Redevelopment V I figure 7 Town Square .. Mound, MN .ARENA CHURCH ....il =. ..m~ ~ I r. ~::~:~?[ ': CLINIC [.... // ~' TOWN ~. :~ ~~,, : E ~.;, ~ ~,.~ .............................. ~ LY~W ~ ................................................. . ~~ ~i ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ............... BE~IN .I ..... ~ .... ~ ' ~ ' ~---.:- . .:~:w.:--'~:~ -. ~. "~E BLVD ~A'8 ~iL 4' '- ./. '...;. ' '~' .:' '"?.~ .~..~': ~~' t' ~' -. ,:" / .... "' ..... ~ * ' 8NYDER '~ i '" _ ~:~ mLLAGE ~ ~ ~ OFFICE STATE ~ : ~ SQUIRE CONT~ENTAL r. TELEPHONE Existing figure 8 Development 10 Town Square .. Mound, MN CHURCH " TOWN SQUARE ~ SITE PER VALU COAST TO COAST ~.~_~ ~ ...................... '- ......... -,-~ ~ ~ ~~~E BLVD 8NYDER ~ A _~ VILLAGE STATE ~ SQUIRE GONTINENTAL TELEPHONE Preliminary Site Plan figure 9a 11 q6 a]n§!J Uela a:t!S ,~JeU!LU!ia]d NV,/ 'puno~ · . a]enbS u~oj_ Along the southern end of the site, the City of Mound is contemplating simultaneous state-aid improvelrents to Lynwood Boulevard. Plans call for the relocation of the existing road to align the segment of Lynwood Boulevard east of Cc~u,erce Boulevard with the segment to the west of Canm~rce Boulevard at a common intersection point. Such a realignment would require removal of the Anderson Building and the bakery located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Lynwood Boulevard and Ccmmerce Boulevard. The Town Square proposal calls for the acquisition of Parcels 1 through 11, as shown in Figure 3, during late 1984. Construction of all proposed ccm~nercial facilities is anticipated to occur during 1985. Projected development quantities and costs are shown on Figure 10. The projected Town Square development involves both expansion space for existing businesses and space for new businesses. The project represents a more efficient utilization of the existing land area and an increase in the amount of floor area of co~Nnercial uses. Both of these results are consistent with the City's goal of revitalizin~ the existirrj business segment and the provision of new business oppor tun i ties. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Implementation of the Town Square development program is dependent upon joint action ar~ investment by both the City of Mound and the private sector. In order for the project to be financially feasible, the City will assist in property acquisitions, relocation and administrative and legal expenses. At the present time, there are no contracts in effect between the City and the developer. The implementation of the development program will be subject to all zoning and environmental controls by the City of Mound, the Watershed District and all applicable state agencies. The developer would be required to receive all municipal zonin~ and buildin~ permit approvals fr~n the City and adhere to specified standards and requirements during construction. The City's participation will be limited to site acquisitions, relocation and administration. All construction and operation of new facilities will be the responsibility of the developer and/or property owner. A~ninistration of the development program will be carried out by the City Manager, City Planner and City Attorney or by individuals assigned by the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority. FISCAL TABULATIONS A tabulation of taxes payable, market values, assessed values and appraised values appear in Figure 11. 13 figure 10 TOWN SOUARE DEVELOPMENT New Construction Floor Area Unit Cost1 Year Square Ft. Per Sq. Ft. Total Cost2 Retail 1985 20,000 $ 45 $ 900,000 Office 1985 5,000 45 225,000 Bank 1985 21,000 45 945,000 Clinic 1985 16,000 45 720,000 Restaurant 1985 3,000 45 135,000 TOTAL 65,000 $2,925,000 1 Source: Hennepin County Assessor - Marshall Valuation Service Cost Service Manual. All construction projected as good to very good. 2 Ail costs expressed in 1984 dollars. 14 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O CD CD i..n CD CD c~ CD c~ t.n ~ t'-xl t.n Ln ~ Ln ',.ID ~ Ln CO O~ CO O CD O CD I'~ O'~ II II + + CD CD O CD t'~ CD ~ CD O ~ C~ O O · ~ ~ LiD LiD CD O O CD O O CD O O t.~ ~'~ "~ II II II II II II + + + + + -t- O O O O O CZ) ! CD CD CD CD 0 o o c> o o 0 o o CD CD 0 CD CD CD C) 0 CD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CD O r~ 15 u~ia i~u~>ueu!-I luamaJ::)ui Xu_L" TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN CONTENTS Objectives, Assumptions and Conclusions ............... 1 Cost of Development ................................... 1 Bonded Indebtedness to be Incurred .................... 1 Tax Increment Financing Analysis ...................... 2 Source of Revenue - Tax Increments .................... 3 Reccmmended Duration of Tax Increment Financing Plan.. 3 Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .................. 3 Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .................. 4 OBJECFIVES, ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The Town Square Redevelopment District as defined in the Proposed Development Program dated May 21, 1984, is intended to improve commercial properties within the overall redevelopment project area as designated by the Mound City Council. The objective of the City is to strengthen the existing business base through the redevelopment of substandard areas and the attraction of new bus i nesses. The Town Square Tax Increment Financing Plan will provide the necessary funds for land acquisition, relocation and administrative expenses. Cost projections were prepared by Smiley/Glotter Associates, Von Klug and Associates, Inc., and City staff. Debt service projections, based on current bond market conditions, were provided by Miller and Schroeder Municipals, Inc. Based upon assembled data and specified financi~3 assumptions, tax increment financing as outlined in the Town Square Tax Increment Financing Plan is a feasible method for funding the redevelopment of the Town Square area of downtown Mound. COST OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The cost of the Town Square Development Program is based on the preliminary development plans which were reviewed informally by the Mound City Council and City staff for consistency with identified municipal plans and ordinances. City participation in the Town Square project will include costs for acquisition, relocation and administration. These costs are estimated as follows: Land Purchase Relocat ion Expenses Administration and Legal Expenses $ 873,900 160,000 87,000 Total Cost of Project $1,120,900 BOND[D INDE6TEDNESS TO BE INCURRED The sale of tax increment bonds will provide the funds necessary to implement the Town Square project. The proposed bond issue will occur during the third or fourth quarter of 1984 and have annual principal and interest due on January 1, 1985, through 2004. The cash flow required to pay the debt service is Shown in the second column (Estimated P & I) on Figure 12. Capitalized interest is included in the total project cost. 2 SOURCE OF REVENUE - TAX INCREMEN~£S Tax increments will provide all revenues required to pay the principal and interest on bonds. In accordance with this tax increment financing plan, all captured assessed value will be necessary to finance the development prograun and, therefore, the City of Mound will retain the full captured assessment va lue. Figure 12 portrays the debt service requirements, estimated tax increments available, capitalized interest and the projected net accumulation or deficiency of tax increment revenues. In order to assure feasibility of the project, the developer will provide annual land payments as shown on the chart. REOOMMENDED DURATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN In order to minimize financi~j costs, 100 percent of the captured assessed valuation will be used to produce the tax increment for debt service. The duration of the proposed Town Square Tax Increlrent financing and bond issue is 20 years. However, project revenues from tax increments indicate that sufficient ironies may be available prior to 2004 to pay off all remaining bonds. The bonds will be sold with a 15-year call provision so that such a prepal~nent can be acccmplished. Therefore, the actual duration of the plan will be the time required to collect sufficient tax increment revenues to pay all debt service. The duration of the plan will not exceed 20 years. IMPACT ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS The projected impact of the Tax Increment Financing Plan on the taxing jurisdictions in which the district is located is shown on Figure 13. The impact is less than .04 percent of the total valuation for all jurisdictions except School District No. 277 which is 1.7 percent and the City which is 1.7 percent. This project falls within the 5 percent cap adopted as a policy by the Mound City Council. Under Minnesota Statute 273.76, Subdivision 3, the City has two options for the calculation an~ application of fiscal disparities. The City has elected to use Option A which retains all tax increment for the retirement of debt. Because of this, the fiscal disparities contribution will be spread over the other commercial and industrial properties in the ccranunity. This action, however, is expected to have negligible impact. Tax impact should also consider the "no-build" option. If the Town Square redevelof~nent does not occur, the assessed valuation of the district will rise from $205,268 in 1984 to $449,767 in 2004, assuming an annual inflation rate of 4 percent. Completion of the Town Square project will result in a projected assessed valuation of $2,306,117 by 2004 when the district expires. Upon expiration, the district will have increased the assessed value of all applicable jurisdictions by $1,856,350. 3 ~o u~ o\O ~ i..~ I.-r 0 ~ 0 ~ <~ o~ CD o\o C~ MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 25, 1984 Present were: Chairman Frank Weiland;.Commissioners Liz Jansen, George Kinser,, Wi'lliam Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese and Michael Vargo; Council Representative Pinky Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark'Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioner Byrnes was absent and excused. Also prese'nt were: Dr. C. V. Carlson, Dr. K. B. Romness, Saul Smiley of Glotter Associates and Eldo Sch~idt. MINUTES The minutes of the Plan~ing Commission meeting'of June 11, 1984 were presented for consideration. The minutes are to be corrected to'show that C'ommissioner Reese was also excused. Reese moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the minutes as correct'ed. The vote was unanimously in favor. TOWN SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW Saul Smiley explained that essentially the site plan was much the same as developed in earlier submittals to the Planning Commission'and the HRA. It has come up that there was a possibility of realigning Lynwood Boulevard and in checking further, it seems to be the opinion that the. realignment will be a matter of reality and if that is the case, they studied.the site to incorporate that' reali.gnment. Formerly Lyn- wood was more or less a straight shot perpendicular to' C'ommerce Boulevard;.it now will take the curve and Lynwood meets to the west on Commerce Boulevard. It also allows more.property in Town:Square. As a result, we were able to gain use of added property and added parking. They have incorporated the realignment; the center is more or less the same - still have the shops along the Easterly sector, Bank will be along the westerly sector.with a total-a[ea of apprOximately 55,000 square footage includin_g roughly 5,OO0 square feet of office. Reason for that'probable area is that amount of office .space has not been determined at this'time. (Smiley showed the leasing 'plan superimposed over the site' plan.) They.are looking at an equivalent of potentially 8 shops'that run in size from 18OO square feet to 2500 square feet. The drug store is in.proximity of 10,OO0 square feet (8500 on ground and 1500 below grade). The Mound Clinic is in area of 8000 square feet on ground and 8000 square feet on second level. The Bank is approximately 6000 square feet at grade and the same below grade. So we're looking at about the 55,OOO square feet. Coming back to site plan itself, they've planned it such that 2' major arteries will be maintained and the major area of egress is either from Church Road or from Lynwood and will be well back from Commerce Boulevard so that this traffic doesn't interfere with any of the traffic from Commerce Boulevard. This i.through street will run across the westerly face of the shops and the service to t'he facility will be handled on the easterly side of the shoPs. The service road will be 2 lanes of traffic going all the way again from Church to Lynwood. Plan shows a separate loading area for. .... Thrifty Drug that receives a semi delivery once a week. The other shops.will re-. k~' ceive .service from the usual small trucks, UPS Van or that equivalent sized vehicle. Smiley stated they are seeking a variance in the rear yard area of 30 feet rather t~an the 50 feet the Ordinance requires. A retaining wall is necessitated because or the elevations of grade pretty much extending all the way from Lynwood across to Church on the east/rear yard. Smiley pointed out they are planning a greater amount of green area and landscaped area than is normal to most centers as we know them. They are proposing two landscaped relief areas with trees, some yard furniture/benche~-7' waste containers that are concealed by hedges, etc. Also parking buffers will be green strips and those will afford them opportunity to plant 2 or 3 trees of whatever Planning Commission Minutes .June 25, 1984 - Page 2 along the way. Rest of parking is essentially blacktop; they will buffer entire center with green all along Lynwood, Commerce and Church. (The green will be hedging, grass, or landscaped sector). The realignment of Lynwood has allowed an additional sector outside of the bank which will be landscaped and developed. On the east (alley side), they are thinking of timbers and that sort of thing. They plan to terrace all the way up and not just have a sheer wall. They may use rip- rapping along there; depends on the elevations as they go along. Besides the 30 foot rear yard variance they need, there was a mention of the dis- tance of the Bank drive-in from the Church, but because of the realignment of Lynwood, it has permitted them to shift the Bank drive-in further south. Smiley noted the bank will not be constructed until the.new clinic has been completed and the new facility occupied because they will be overlapping that building. The Bank will have ingress.from Commerce Boulevard with a holding area'for 20 cars. They will egress out.onto Commerce also, either dispersing to North or South (This will be for the drive-in only.) The Northwest sector of site is'available for parking to senior citizens, community, center, ice arena or the Church. Parking count for center is 208 cars right now. There is the possibility of doing some trading with the Church for exchange of parking; i.e. employee parking during the week for S~nday Church parking, etc. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal, at length. Reese was concerned of the service road with the two right angle curves--stated road looked narrow for two way traffic and for unloading.dock. Trash containers placement for the center, the nearest residence, signs for identifying the center, whether-or not adequate space allowed for the drive-in banking, architecture of covered way, point where project cost would be too high to be feasible, projected construction costs per ~square foot, demolition costs, that there would be legal binding contracts.were points that were discussed. The City Manager explained the Tax I'ncrement Finan- cing Analysis and how the Financing Plan works. The Planner stated that the law requires the Planning Commission to review this plan and it specifically states that the comments should be in written form back to the HRA and it imposes'a 30 day time limit for that to occur. He then reviewed the major topics of the Staff.report. One of the big items will be the aspect of zoning. A portion of the site is R-3 and would require rezoning to B-1. That would require a public hearing. Also the Bank is a permitted use under B-1 but the drive-in facility comes under the Conditional Use portion of B-1 code, so have to obtain a Conditional Use permit as well. The Planner defined the area proposed to be rezoned providing a buffer zone to Fern Lane. Reese moved and Jensen seconded a motion that Planning Commission express agree-~ ment with the proposed rezoning of land as defined. The vote was unanimously in favor. Vargo moved and Kinzer seconded a motion findi'ng that the Town. Square project was consistent with the City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan. The vote was un- animously in favor. Setbacks - When Smiley went through his presentation, he talked about the setbacks being roughly 30 feet from the R-3; the ordinance requires 50 feet, so there would be a variance involved with that. Also screening would be required along there. The Planner explained ordinance requires fence, trees, shrubs and/or berms not less than 5 feet high be placed along areas to be screened. In this case, a fence would be required because of the retaining wall. Chairman asked if there were any possi- biliLy of contacting owner of house and grading back so the wall would not be as Plant, lng Commi'ssion Minutes June 25, 1984 - Page 3 mhigh. Smiley stated that is one approach; another would be that the center could ove westerly. Retaining as many parking stalls as possible is the only thing.we are looking at. Would lose maybe 7 parking stalls. Commission atSo discussed making service road more operational. Reese moved and Jensen seconded a motion that it be the position of the Planning Commission that the 50 foot setback is not magic, but we would like to see the service road be more operational and give innovative ways to handle. The vote was unanimob~ly in favor. Vargo thought refuse container sheuld not be put next to residential property; Smiley stated they plan to enclose it with block or brick so it is clean looking. Drive-in Bank - The Planner stated that Smiley indicated in his presentation that the location had shifted somewhat so dimensions in Staff report no longer valid. The ordinance requires certain setbacks from churches, schools and residences for any drive-in business particularly toward any business that would use some kind of loud speaker (not a high decibel item). This will have to be addressed'~nd a~so yo? will want to consider location of the Bank and traffic circulation between center and bank and the drive-in facility being located on Commerce. Discussed alternative locations, that there be a right and left exit onto Commerce and per- haps having an exit into parking lot so people can shop or exit onto Lynwood. It was brought out that the Church was favorable toward this plan. Reese moved and Michael seconded a motion that the Planning Commission would have no objection to the Bank's drive-in proximity to the Church. The vote was unanimously .in favor. Parking The Planner explained the plan before the Commission shows 208 spaces vs. the required spaces of 262. He stated that a League of Cities report that has come out indicates suburban cities require too much parking. He's going to try to get copy of report. Mound Ordinance requires spaces to be 10 feet by 20 feet which is pretty much outdated; many cities'allow percentage' of spaces be for compact cars. There are some ways there can be additional parking; employee parking can be arranged in a more remote area by shari.ng and leave bulk of parking for the customers. The 262 that Mound Ordinance requires is.not excessive compared to other communities. The Planning Commission questioned how parking agreements handled - reasonable option if good for both parties. Jensen.moved end Kinser seconded a motion that the Planning Commission encourage the people to pursue a parking agreement with the Church. The vote was unanimously in favor. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation - The Planner explained that Commission has touched on vehicular circulation aspects - the drive-in connection to the retail center. He doesn't know where driveway lines up with the driveway of the Super Valu. Basically a lot of these things are going to be final plan considerations, sidewalk systems and how people are going to get from Super Valu over here, etc. Discussed briefly - no motion for either #5or for Architectural Style #6. Screening #7 covered in Setbacks. Landscaping #8 somewhat the same; look at in de- tail at a later date. The Planner suggested that some of the large parking areas may be wanted to be broken up. In landscaping, the Planner stated the Downtown Committee had put a guide together that laid out some standards and we would look for those to be met and we're going'to look to this For a precedent setting case. Plann~ing Commission Minutes June 25, 1984 - Page 4 The City Council will be holding a public hearing on July 24, 1984 on this blue document that you received and again, this is required by law. Hearing will not pertain to any of the variances. City Manager stated that Glotter Associates can not do a lot of work until they get the go ahead. Dr. Romness wants to move things along and speed up the process. Persons present commented on the project. Dr. Carls6n stated he appreciated.that all comments have been to make it better and the comments were not negative. Fence Ordinance The City Planner explained that one'.of the Building Official's. work.program priorities has been to revise the fence, ordinance..and we have begun that process now by putting together a new'draft. Essent-iall9 takes the.old ordinance.and adds material to it. Planner stated it was proposed to make it. part of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commiss-ion reviewed the draft and questioned the following items: Item 7 ' The Pl.anner explained that under present ordinance, you need a permit for any fence; proposed draft would.not require fence for "Fido" if not over 6 feet.'in height - just for boundary fencing. Item 3 - Maintenance provision questioned and whether permits should be required. The Building Official stated that if you.donit require permits or if you do, she still gets the complaints and has to~'go out and check on the fence. Really a dilemna. Item 4(d) -The Planner stated the concern here was for the down side property owner that may be looking at a 6-foot high+ wall plus .the fence on top - easiest thing to administer is to set a maximum height. Solar access was questioned. 'The'Planner stated one of the requirements for the preparation of .a Comprehensive Plan under the Land'Planning Act was a solar access element and he-didn't believe.Mound had one. Many cities list policies and guide- lines. He stated ideally we should reference this. to some type of good solar access that would deal with plant material that would deal with structures, re- taining walls, everything that would 'be workable. Mound doesn't have that right now. Kinser stated solar access is going to be a big thing and fencing could be big barrier. Reese moved and Michael seconded a motion that the Planning Commission accept the proposed fence ordinance draft as presented by the Staff. The vote was Kinser'against; all others in favor, Motion carried. The Chairman asked the Building Official to look at solar information relative . to access. Adjournment Jensen moved and Vargo seconded.a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. were in favor, so meeting was adjourned. All Frank Weiland, Chairman Attest: CITY OF MOU[~D Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE MOUND CITY CODE CHANGING FENCE ORDINANCE AND MAKING IT PART OF SECTION 23, ZONING CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, July 24, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hold a hearing on the proposal to amend the City Code of Ordinances, changing the Fence Ordinance and adding Ordinance to Section 23 of the Zoning Code. Copies on file at the City Office. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612J553.1950 Planning Ccmmission and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner Fence Ordinance June 20, 1984 Enclosed are copies of the existing fence ordinance and a new proposed ordinance draft. The draft has been prepared to address problems and 'inadequacies which have been identified by staff in administering the old ordinance. The new ordinance, as proposed, will be integrated into the General Provisions section of the Mound Zoning Code which contains an acceptable fence' definition. At Monday's meeting, staff will review the significant differences between the two ordinances ar~ address any c~nments or questions offered by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 1984 - Page 4 The City Council will be holding a public hearing on July 24, 1984 on this blue document that you received and again, this is required by'law. Hearing will not pertain to any of the variances. City Manager stated that Glotter Associates can not do a lot of work until they get the go ahead. Dr. Romness wants to move things along and speed up the process. Persons present commented on the project. Dr. Carlsbn stated he appreciated.that all comments have been to make it better and the comments were not negative. Fence Ordinance The City Planner explained that one of the Building Official's work program priorities has been to revise the fence ordinance.and we have begun that process now by putting together a new draft. Essentially takes the old ordinance.and adds material to it. Planner stated it was proposed to make it. part of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission reviewed the draft and questioned the following items: Item 7 - The Pl.anner explained that under present ordinance, you need a permit for any fence; proposed draft would not require fence for "Fido" if not over 6 feet.'in height - just for boundary fencing. Item 3 - Maintenance provision questioned and whether permits should be required. The Building Official stated that if you don't require permits or if you do, she still gets the complaints and has to 'go out and check on the fence. Really a dilemna. Item 4(d) - The Planner stated the concern here was for the down side property owner that may be looking at a 6 foot high+ wall plus the fence on top - easiest thing to administer is to set a maximum height. Solar access was questioned. 'The'Planner stated one of the requirements for the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan under the Land Planning Act was a solar access element and he didn't believe Mound had one. Many cities list policies and guide- lines. He stated ideally we shoul.d reference this. to some type of good solar access that would deal with plant material that would deal with structures, re- taining walls, everything that would be workable. Mound doesn't have that right now. Kinser stated solar access is going to be a big thing and fencing could be big barrier. Reese moved and Michael seconded a motion that the Planning Commissioa accept the proposed fence ordinance draft as presented by the Staff. The vote was Kinser against; all others in favor. Motion carried. The Chairman asked the Building Official to look at solar information relative to access. ' Adjournment Jensen moved and Vargo seconded.a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. were in favor, so meeting was adjourned. All Attest: Frank Weiland, Chairman ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDIIWANCE AMEND]2qG SECTION 55. 17oF THE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOIl FENCES LOCATEI~ IN THE CITY OF MOUND AND REQ'U~G ALL SW~M~G POOLS TO BE ENCLOSED BY A FENCE 7ne City'.Council of the City of ]x4ound does ordain: " Section 55. 17 is hereby amended to read as follows: S=ction 55. 17. RESTRICTIONS - TYPE - .HEIGHT OF FEIqGES: or place any (a) No person, firm, or corporation sh~l_ 'ere ct, construct, g'feet inhe~ght, but then only ~ ~e industrial usc districts. (b) No per son, firm, or corporation shall erect, construct, or piece any ." fence within t_he City exceeding 4Z inch~s in height except %l~mt it must conform with Section 55.33 .hera=of or aS allov~ed in Sections (c), (d) and [e) of this ordin- (c) In ResidJntimI or Multiple- Use Districts, wood or ch'mln link fences are permitted subject to the follo~ving height and setback'restrictions: .. .. Front y~.rd fences may be solidor open and not over 4Z inches in height; ' Z. Re,ir yard fences located behind the front yard setback .. area may be solid or open.and not over ?Z inches in height. -3. Front yard shall be defined according to Section 23.31 of -. the zoning code and 'shall also .include both frontages on double frontage lots. Fence heights shall be measure~ from the adjoining natural ground. YVhere any fence connects to a building used as ~ dwelling, a 2 foot 6 inch minimum width gate shall be required to allow continuous access around the building. 6. No fence shall be permitted on the public right of ~va¥. 7. ~'ence heights and unusual lots shall be governed by stand- ~-~ ~-,,'~-{?~_~ from 'Cue City of Los .Angeles and on fil~ in : Ordinance t;o. 345 adopted by Council 2-3-76) 8. If the material use8 in fence construction is not 'finished on both sides~ the £iuished side o£ the ~a'teri~l shall be on 'the outside £~cinE th~ aLtar- ting or adjoining properties. (Ord..365 All swS~'~ming pools ~thiu the City' shall be enclosed' by a solid wall or fence or chain link fence not less than five (5) feet nor :ore thzu six (6) feet in hei§ht so as to prevent uninvited access. Any deviation .from'the foregoing standards or ~ppea! from t~e interpretation of-the, ordinance by the City 1.~anager'.or Buil'ding Inspector shall be to the. City Council. The Council. m.~y: upon a .findiqg of unusual hardship'or unusual circu3ustances ~:aive or modi~-'th'e terms of this ordinance it if ~itl not versely af£ec~ the health~ safety or 'general welfare of the neifnborhood. The Council shall specify such conditions in any .variance %:hich ~..~ll protect the enjoyment o£ the .property rights of adjoining properties. (Ord. 2~3 - ~/1~/68) Befdre i's~nE a per,it, the Building Inspector shall dete~-~.~ine that the t37e of. fence to be constz-ucted and the method of construction ~.~ll not obstruct, change or interfere w~th the natural drainage 'in the area and that any drain- age changes %~1~ not have au adverse affect on the health~ safety, and general vel_fare of residents of the are~. (Ord 3b - 2/3/76) !8 Barriers and Guards It shall be the duty of every person %-ho shall ~harge of any construction of ~ny excavation or obstruction adj.acent to or under any 'side~,alk or street: dur. ing. the pros~ress qf such work, to cause such .excavation to be securely guarded by a fence %<th at' least two 's{riugs.of good s~_~.-inch boards nail&d not less than eighteen ioches 'apart t~ post securely · fixed in ~lace. -- Such posts shall be ~not more .thah s5_~. feet apart from ~he top of ~he highes, t pos. t, sh.a.1..]:~be not ~ess than four feat. and. a half' f~om the'~.urface, o~ t~e sidewalk or street, and from-one-half hour-after'sunset to one-.half hour before sunrise, such excavation or obstruction shall be il]uminated with red or yellow tights,. or flare-pots, sufficieht in number and so placed'as, to .show the full extend thereof, ~nv~ p. erson'violati.ng any of the provisl, ons of th~s.Sul~di'vision shall b~: 9uilty of a mi sdemeanor. :' " ... TYP INSIDE LO~A. [sIMIL1AR FOR KEY LOT~E) ' ". I:¥PICAL. i CORNER, ' LOT-- B '.":.;', : '.' '. - . ~ . · ! ' . .. ' : o _~ " --..: - · dry. . , · · ~- . .' . ! . ' · · . ' · - ' ' . ' · TYPICA.1ZI REVERSE ~ORNER L.cr'F-C . . · DE?ARTMEN. T OF. TS OF, BUILDING /z, l'q D IN' RES! DENTIAL ZO!', ":FYPICAL CITY BLOCK. -. DETERMINE TYPE OFL?T AHO SEE REVERSE S10E FOR FOR FENCE HEIGHTS RERMITT FRONT 'YmRD R.E~CES ~AY BE'SOLID OR O.PEll ~NO NOT OVER q~'~l~H. 'RE,CE HEIOHTS ARE'.~E~SUREO FROM THE AOflOlNINQ M~TUR~L ' <YIIE~E F~HCES COH~E~T'TO RESIOENTI~L BUILOINGS A Z~G'I&INIMU~ ~'IOTW 0mTE C~VTIOHI DO HOT ASSUME= INSIDE EDGE. O~ TH~ SIDEW~LK ~S THE PROPERTY LIHE. ' FOR 'PREV~ILINO SETBACKS-SEE THE COMPRERENSIVE ZO~IHG~ECTIOH OF THE L~ AHOELES_ CITY 'BUILDIt~0 CODE. ..~ ..METHOD OF RMININB IV, AXIk~UM FENCE HEIGHT 61t ~LOPING ~ROUI~D ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 32.04 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO LICENSE FEES THE CITY OF MOUND DOES ORDAIN: Section 32.04 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: SECTION 32.04. License Fees. All applications for licenses shall be accompanied by a receipt from the City Treasurer required annual fee for the respective license. All such fees shall be paid into the General Fund of the City. Upon rejection of any application for a license the treasurer shall refund the amount paid. The annual fee for an "on-sale" license shall be $200.00 The annual fee for an "off-sale" license shall be $25.00 All licenses shall expire on the 30th day of June in each year: provided that if eight months of any licensing year have elapsed when the application is made the fee shall be reduced to one-half of the regular amount thereof. Mayor Attest: City Clerk To: Jon Elam From: Gayle Burns Date: July 13, 1984 Re: License Expiration Date on 3.2 Beer The Beer On & Off Sale License expiring April 30 presents a problem with insurance when they also have a Wine License (which has an expiration date of June 30). Two separte liquor liability insurance policies would be required. A1 & Alma's insur- ance company said no to two separte liquor liability policies as the one would cover if the license period were the same. The state was surprized our beer had a separte expiring date. So changing the 3.2 beer expiring date to coincide with the other liquor expiring dates would alleviate the problem. The coinciding date should be June 30. Liquor, Beer and Wine Licenses require proof of insurance and that the insurance be filed with the Commissioner of Public Safety (Liquor Control Division). The only insurance policy I've mailed to them is Super Valu's. A summary of the current license holders is as follows: On-Sale Beer Off-Sale Beer A1 & Almas House of Moy Surfside Mound Lanes Also has Wine License Also has Wine License 6-29-84 Joel said he'd call insurance co and get back to me real quick I haven't heard yet Shut down for the summer PDQ Grimm's Store A1 & Almas Super Valu Tom Thumb 6-29-84 I left message re: Ins. expiring 8-1-84 Said she'd get letter saying sales under 10,000 & would discontinue sales if sales over. Also have Wine License Turned insurance in to the state New Owners and Public Hearing required L£GAL CITY Of HOUND HOUND, HINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Mound City Council hereby sets Tuesday, July 24, 1984, at 9:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City, for a public hearing to consider Reallocating Year IX and Year X Mound/Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.471. Fr~e-ne C.- ~l~rk~-'Cit~-C-lerk Publish in The Laker July 16, 1984 July 24, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION REALLOCATING YEAR IX AND X MOUND/URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS · WHEREAS, pursuant to notice being given, a public hea~ing was held in accord with Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, on July 24, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in the Mound City Council Chambers; and WHEREAS, this public hearing was held to obtain views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing, community and economic development and to provide the citizens with the opportunity to comment on the City of Mound's proposed reallocation of its Year Ix and X Hennepin County Block Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the reallocation of the City of Mound's Year IX and X Community Development Block Grant Funds as follows: YEAR IX BUDGET 6-30-84 TO BE PROJECT BUDGETED EXPENDED REALLOCATED BALANCE 808 Administration $5,000 -0- $3,000 $2,000 YEAR X BUDGET 252 Sp. Assess. Grants $3,656 -0- $3,656 -0- REALLOCATED Water & Sewer, Repairs & Instal- lation $6,656 -0- -0- $6,656 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: City Clerk Mayor CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 84-327 Planning Commission Agenda of May 14, 1984: Board of Appeals Case No. 84-327 Location: 4839 Shoreline Boulevard Legal Desc.: Lots 5, 18, 19 and part of Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1 Shirley Hills Unit A Request: Sign Permit over 9 square feet in area Zoning Dist.: B-2 AppliCant Westonka Auto Body Brad Patterson 4839 Shoreline Boulevard Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 472-3436 The applicant's existing signage is (1) 4 X 8 foot wall mounted sign, (1) 3 X 9 foot wall mounted sign and a 3.5 foot by 3 foot wall mounted sign equalling 69.5 square feet. He is requesting to replace the existing 3.5 by 3 foot sign with a 4 X 8 foot wall mounted sign. (No description was given for the new sign) The total signage equalling 91,~ square feet. He is also requesting a temporary 4 by 8 foot sign to be placed off of Bartlett Boulevard on Lot 5 during the detour of County Road 125 ti1 September 1, 1984. The sign code draft, Section 6.06, allows signage only on street frontage. Therefore, the sign now on the east side of the building is non-conforming (4 X 8') and will not be considered at this time. If the sign is to be rebuilt, altered, or relocated, it would have to comply with the new sign ordinance provisions. The building has a wall area of 405 square feet; at 15%, this equals an allowable area of 60.+ square feet of signage for the street front- age to Shoreline. The requested n'ew signage is 5~.O square feet. The portable sign being requested is to allow advertising of a year around business service during the detour on Bartlett Boulevard. The sign code draft, Section 5.09, does not allow temporary signs of this nature except under the provisions of Section 5.10 (quasi-public functions). Recommend: Staff recommends approval of the requested wall mounted sign upon the condition that when the present wall mounted (East side) 4 X 8 foot sign is to have lettering altered, the sign relocated or rebuilt, it must comply with the new sign ordinance provisions. Staff recommends deni-al of the temporary portable 4 by 8 foot sign as it will not be advertising a seasonal service nor provide a quasi-public function advertising. The abutting property owners have been notified. Council Agenda. May 22, 1984. This will be on the City Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1984 CASE NO. 84~327 Case No. 84-327 Sign Permit over 9 square feet in area - 4839 Shoreline Blvd. Lots 5, 18, 19 and part of Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A Brad Patterson, owner of Westonka Auto Body, was present. The Building Official explained that she used the new sign draft for her recom- mendation. Applicant has a nonconforming sign on the east wall and the total signage is presently 60 square feet on the Shoreline frontage. Under the new draft, the allowable is 15 percent of wall area or' about 60 square feet. This includes total building wall area. Applicant is requesting to replace a 3.5 foot by 3 foot wall mounted sign with a 4 by 8 foot illuminated sign. Not considering the nonconforming sign on east side of the building, total new signage would be 59.0 square feet. Applicant is also requesting a portable 4 X 8 foot sign to allow advertising of his business during the detour on Bartl'ett Bouievard. Michael moved and Jensen seconded a motion for approval of the ~all mounted' sign requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Discussed the portable sign and the definition for seasonal sign. Dave Klein questioned not allowing portable signs in the City. Thinks portable signs most effective means of advertising. Vargo moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the portable sign as requested for a 60 day period of time. The vote was Weiland, Meyer and Byrnes against. Vargo, Michael and Jensen in favor of allowing. Tied vote. Meyer would rather see a legal sign on the back of business facing Bartlett; Weiland rather see a permanent sign. Byrnes voted nay for the same reasons. CASE ~84-327, Westonka Auto Body (Brad Patterson), 4839- Shoreline Blvd., Lots 5, 18, 19 and part of Lots 15, 16 & 17, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit "A", Sign Permit Over 9 Square Feet in Area. The Building Official explained that the applicant has modified his original request for a temporary sign and is now asking for a permanent free standing 4 foot by 8 foot sign on an 8 foot pole to be positioned on his property so that it is not more that 18 inches over the right-of-way. Charon moved and Reese seconded a motion to approve the free standing 4 foot by 8 foot sign on an 8 foot pole for Westonka Auto Body, if it is placed on his own property and not more than 18 inches over the right-of-way. The vote was unanimously in favor. I~otion carried. Case: No. CITY OF MOUND Fee Paid Date Fi led APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property 9~79 Legal Description of Property: Addition ~~ ~~ ~" PID No., Applicant (if other ~han owner): Name 5.' Type of Request: Day Phone No. t'/7,2-~,.,?'~ ( ) Variance ( ) ConditiOnal Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ~)~ Sign Permits ( )*Other *If other, specify: resent Zoning District Existing Use(s)of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or · other zoning procedure for this property? '~ if sb, list date(s) of llst date(s) of. application, action taken~nd provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. 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 in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of ins?p~cting~or/e~os~ing, maintaining and removing such notices as may be require,~~w. //-~/'~C / /~~//, Planning Commission Recommendation: ~ ~ ~ Date cil Action: Resolution No. Date APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT CITY OF MOUND Street' Number City Zip PLAT PARCEL PI D ZONING PLEASE DESCRIBE REQUEST ~ . , ' -- AND REASON 'OR REQUEST · ' il '/ / S~gN SIZEg ' TYPE OF SIGN: BEING REQUESTED ~ /~ LENGTH OF TIME SIGN TO BE ERECTED: PERMANENT TEMPORARY (Temporary sign not to be for period in excess of two months) PYLON FREE STANDING PORTABLE OTHER Does it conform to al~ setback and other requirements relating to the Zoning Ordinance? Is sign for a community organization and does it meet all the standards(Ord. 440)? If additional information is attached, please 'submit 8½" X ll" maximum sized drawings.. Recommendation: Approved: City Manager RESOLUTION #84-110 (EXHIBIT May 22, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-81 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR BRAD PATTERSON, WESTONKA AUTO BODY PID ~13-117-24 44 0015 WHEREAS, Westonka Auto Body (Brad Patterson), 4839 Shoreline BLvd., has requested a sign variance to allow a 4 by'8 foot wall mounted sign to replace an existing 3.5 x 3 foot sign and to place a portable sign behind the property off of Bartlett Blvd. during the construction of the Black Lake Bridge; and WHEREAS, the wall mounted sign will be mounted on the Shoreline Blvd. frontage and will be 4 x 8 feet as shown on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, said sign would identify the location of Westonka Auto Body, at 4839 Shoreline Blvd. described as Lots 5, 18, 19 and part of Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit "A", PID ~;13-117-24 44 0015; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewd the request and does recommend the 4 by 8 foot wall mounted sign but has no recommendation to the City Council oh the portable sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the wall mounted 4 by 8 foot sign to replace the existing 3.5 by 3 foot sign as per Exhibit "A", for property described as Lots 5, 18, 19 and part of Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit "A". The Council does nO~ approve the 4 by 8 foot portable sign which was requested to be placed on Lot 5 facing Bartlett Blvd. during the detour of traffic for the construction of the Black Lake Bridge. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Oessen and seconded by Councilmember Charon. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest; City Clerk ~_~__ ?~/ exhibit NORTHERN l ,/ 4 / )re line accord, lo .,"record pla1. { ~Port oi LottI,Btk.~., Re-orrang. o! Blks. , let 2, Shirley Hills Unit B. . SpoilBonk occordh~g to R.L.S. No.g, I~ 6 '"'.'COI~'NTY;SURVEYOR :": " HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINN. CASE #84-327 RESOLUTION NO 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING CO>~ISSION RECOM>~NDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR WESTONKA AUTO BODY - BRAD PATTERSON - PID #13-117-24-44-0015 ls~EREAS, Westonka Auto Body has requested a sign variance; and K~EREAS, said sign would be erected as a free standing 4 by 8 foot projecting a maximum of 18 inches into the public right-of-way on a pylon as shown on Exhibit A; and ~EREAS, said sign would identify the location of Westonka Auto Body at 4839 Shoreline Boulevard described as Lots 5, 18, 19, and part of Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A which will be placed on the Bartlett Blvd. frontage of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the sign variance as requested for 4839Shoreline Boulevard and described on Exhibit A to allow advertising on the Bartlett Blvd. frontage of the property with the free standing sign projecting a maximum of 18 inches into the public right-of-way.and placed to the west side of the driveway entrance to the property. CASE NO, 84-341 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of July 9, 1984: Board of Appeals Case No. 84-341 Location: 3225 Tuxedo Boulevard Legal Desc.: Lots 1 & 2, N. 2 Ft. of Lot 17, Block 13, Whipple Request: 22 Foot Front Yard Variance Zoning Dist.: R-3 Applicant: Dennis Heckes 3225 Tuxedo Boulevard Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 544-4401 The applicant is requesting to construct a 2 story, tuckunder garage with a room above, 19 by 24 feet addition to the north of his existing home within 8 feet of the Drummond Road property line. The Zoning Ordinance for the R-3 Zoning District requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Section 23.408(5) states, "Lots which abut more than one street shall provide the required front yards along every street, except for lots of record based on lot width (40-50 feet = l0 feet, 51-80 feet = 20 feet, 81 feet or more = 30 feet). The lot width of this site averages 73 feet. Lot Line Front is defined as "That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street, and in the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front line shall be designed by the owner and filed with the City Council." Comments: The applicant's proposed addition would project toward Drummond approxi- mately the full 19 feet in front of the neighboring duplex on Drummond. Due to the existing setbacks of the structure, it will be difficult to place a garage on the site. The west setback is 20 feet with the allow- able being l0 feet required in the R-3 district. Recommend: As stated on Page 5, the duplex has no windows facing east. Staff feels it may be an excessive projection to the north. The minimum setback should be 10 feet to the property line for a corner lot. "Lot Line Front'l side which would be east (Tuxedo Boulevard) would be the l0 foot setback, but the addition would than project in front of 3233 Tuxedo Boulevard further due to the right-of-way curve. Also, the design of the present structure has the "front" on Tuxedo with a 960 square foot floor area on a 6,022 square foot + parcel. The present building covers 16 percent of the lot. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council July 24, 1984. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms Plan~ing Commission Minutes July 9, 1984 - Page 2 CASE #84-341, Dennis Heckes, 3225 Tuxedo Blvd., Lots 1 & 2 & N. 2 Ft. of Lot 17, BLock 13, Whipple, 22 Foot Front Yard Variance. The Building Official explained that the applicant is asking to be allowed to construct a 2 story, tuckunder garage with a room above, 19 by 24 feet, to the north of his existing home and within 8 feet of the Drummond Road property line. The Zoning Ordinace for the R-3 Zoning District requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Section 23.408(5) states, "Lots which abut more than one street shall provide the required front yards along~every street, except for lots of record based on lot width (40-50 feet = 10 feet, 51-80 feet = 20 feet, 81 feet or more = 30 feet). The lot width of this site average 73 feet. The applicant's proposed addition would project toward Drummond approximately the full 19 feet in front of the neighboring duplex on Drummond. The Commission asked if a notice of this variance was sent to the owner of the duple×. The Building Official answered, yes, but she has not been contacted by the owner. Commissioner Reese expressed concern about the property where the duplex is located because the new addition would jut out and could cause problems for the owner of the duplex. Commissioner Jensen asked the Building Official why she continues to recommend a minimum setback of 10 feet to the property line for a corner lot. Jan explained it was because most of the corner lots in Mound are coming in for a variance because they are small lots, platted long ago. She suggested that a change in the Zoning Ordinance may be needed to eliminate all these types of variances. Reese moved and Kinser seconded a motion of denial. Councilmember Jensen asked if the setback would be different if the proposed garage were detached. The Building Official answered, no. Councilmember Reese stated that he felt it is too much structure on too small a lot. The applicant asked if the Planning Commission would approve a single car garage. The Commission discussed the width it could be. Kinser withdrew his second and Reese withdrew his motion. Reese moved and Kinser seconded a motion to approve a variance that would allow the applicant to construct a single car garage with an outside measurement of no more that 14 feet if he gets a letter of approval from the abutting neighbor who owns the duplex at 5317 Drummond. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. type tl,e following information) /~--~-~ CITY OF MOUND Fee Pa i d $50. O0 Date Fi led 6-22-84 Street Address of Property 3225 TU:O3DO BL'CD. MOLTED ~ 55364 LOTS 1 & 2 and NORTH 2FT OF LOT 17 Legal Description of Property: Lot Block 13 Add I t I on ~HIPPLE Ow,mr' s t'~allle DENNIS E. tIECKES .o. Y .a/ Day Phone No.544-4401 o Address 3225 TUXEDO BLVD. MOLrND MN 55364 Applicant (If other than owner): Name SAM]3 Address Day Phone 1to. Type of Request: ( *If other, specify: (X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation &'Review ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendn,ent ( ) Sign Per,,,i( ( ' )*Other Prese,~t Zonlng District RES.!DETIAL ~ :3 Existing Use(s) of Property. HOME SITE Has an application ever been made fo,' zoning, variance, or conditional use' permit or other zoning procedure for this property? NO If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of applicatlon, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. certify that all of the above state,,,e~ts and the statel,e~,ts, contained in any required ~pers or plans to be submitted~rewlth are true and accurate. I consent to the entry upon the premises described ~n/this app]icatlon by any outl,orized e'fficlal of the C'ity Mound for the purpose of infp¢[ing, or of posti~ig, ,,,a~,tailJlng and ,'~,,,ovin9 such )tices as may be required by ~. , / / 9nature of A pp,icant ~~ ~~~~ bate6-22-84 arming Commission Recommendation: Date 7-9-84 ~uucil Action: P. esolut ion Ho. Request for Zoni. ng Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. ~equest for a Zoning Variance A. All Information below, a site plan, as described In Part Il, 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 (~1/) rio ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use:. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which It is located? Yes (~ No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physlcal characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil (~) Too sma)l ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape () Other: Specify: The lot is too small/narrow to allow me to build an attached (OV___ER) 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 (X~') If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~)j() if yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar onl'y to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No (X) if no, how many other properties are similarly affected? Mound lots are typically small o~ten times not allowing housin What Is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulation~ that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans wlth dimensions and written explanation. Attach addltlonal sheets, If necessary.) City regulations state that lots 8Oft and under require a 20'(OVE~____ Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? No D. Garage~three season porch without variance to the zoning regulations pertaining to setback. G. To be built without some variances-being made-to zoning regular is. The regulations pertaining to my. lot impose the unique hardship ~f not permiting garage/off street parking which is required during the winter months. This addition would also enhance the property appearence, allow for inside storeage of tools stc.,get cars out of sight and help to reduce possible nieghborhood car 'theft/drainage. The city zoning ordinances are good but a variance should be granted here to proviSe me relie£ in this situation which was not intended or forseen when the zoning ordinance was adopted. H. setback. My lot is 82.72' wide. Ther is 27ft of property extending from the northern most end 6f the house to the property line. I mm requisting to extend my house 18ft to the north in order to build a 2 car garage. This puts my home 9ft from the property line,~but there is an additional 4ft o~ land ~rom my property line to the. street concrete curb which would leave 13ft total for appearance between the house and the curb. I state herein that I have no objections regarding the proposed actions presented by Dennis E. Heckes in his request for a zoning variance (dated 6-22-84) in order to build onto his house located at 3225 Tuxedo Blvd. Mound ~. I own the abutting property located at' I state herein that I have no objections regarding the proposed actions presented by Dennis E. Heckes in his request for a zoning variance (dated 6-22-84) in order to build onto his house located at 3225 Tuxedo Blvd. Mound ~. I own the abutting property located at: ,,F~,~,~-~ n/ . _ DATE SIGNED Ir~oN' , HR~' k/o ~,u~z~o~Z E4XTT. 1'7~ '13Ld, x:.k F~,~ I,oPIIPPL.-Co tl t> r~ F~ s s $ ' ¢¢25 'F U ~. E'P o LBLVI::). I '" '- '3o'~ C PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-341 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 7 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR LOTS 1 and 2 AND THE NORTH 2 FEET OF LOT 17, BLOCK 13, WHIPPLE PID #25-117-24 21 0140 WHEREAS, Dennis Heckes, owner of property described as Lots 1 and 2, North 2 feet of Lot 17,Block 13, ~hipple, PID #24-117-24 21 0140, 3225 Tuxedo Boulevard has applied for a 22 foot variance to construct a two (2) story 19 by 24 foot attached tuckunder garage with a room above within 8 feet of the North property line, and I~MEREAS, the City Code requires a 30 foot front yard setback in the R-3 zoning district and Section 23.408(5) states that lots which abut more than one street shall provide the required front yards along every street depending on lot width for lots of record (51-80 feet = 20 feet), and kMEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request amd does recommend approval of 7 foot variance upon the condition that the west duplex owner of 5217-13 Drummond Road sign approval for a 14 foot by 24 foot two story addition to 3225 Tuxedo Boulevard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve a seven (7) foot front yard variance for a lot of record upon the condition that the owner of 5213-17 Drummond Road sign for approval of the requested 14 foot by 24 foot two (2) story revised request for the property described as Lots 1.and 2, North 2 feet of Lot 17, Block 13, Whipple, PID #24-117-24 21 0140, 3225 Tuxedo Boulevard. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 84-342 Planning Commission Agenda of July 9, 1984: Board of Appeals Case No. 84-342 Location 4844 Bartlett Boulevard Legal Desc.: Lots 12, 13, Part of Lots 14 & 15, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A Request: Sign Variance Permit Zoning District: B-2 Applicant: David J. Babler 1785 Wildhurst Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 472-4379/472-2708 The applicant has recently painted onto the walls of his block building several signs as described on his application. He stated he was unaware of City approval of signage over 9 square feet in size. He operates Babler Auto Body Shop. The applicant has existing signage of 15.34 square feet. The site fronts on Mont- 'clair Lane and Bartlett Boulevard. New signage proposed is 74 square feet plus small signs painted on of 3 square feet and 5.4 square feet. The sign code draft, Section 5.06, states that signs shall not be painted on walls of buildings. The allowable signage for wall signs is 15% of"the wall area fronting on each street under Section 6.05(1). The allowable signage for the site is 15 percent of 1540 square feet equals 231 square feet (560 square feet on Bartlett and 980 square feet~on Montclair). Recommend: Staff recommends painting over the signage to match the tan of the building. Paint signage requested on a mounting board. The signage to be an attachment to the Conditional Use Permit for the property. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This item will be referred to the City Council on July 24, 1984. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms CASE #84-~42, David Babler, 4844 Bartlett Blvd., Lots !2 & 13, Part of Lots 14 & 15, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit "A", Sign Variance Permit. The Building Official explained that Mr. Babler stated he did not know he needed a permit and has already had his sign painted on the building. He has existing signage of 15.34 square feet. The site fronts on Montclair Lane and Bartlett Blvd. The proposed new signs are 74 square feet, plus small signs painted on 3 square feet and 5.4 square feet. The new sign code draft states that signs shall not be painted on walls of buildings. The allowable signage for wall signs is 15% of the wall area fronting on each street. The allowable signage for this site is 15% of 1540 square feet (560 square feet on Bartlett and 980 square feet on Montclair) which equals 231 square feet. The Commission discussed the fact that ~Mr. Babler already has the sign painted directly on the building and if~ they should allow it to remain until it needs repainting, at which time Mr. Babler would be required to have it mounted on a board and bolted to the building. They also asked Mr. Babler if he would remove the existing metal sign which is in disrepair. Mr. Babler stated he would remove the metal sign. Jensen moved and Charon seconded a motion to allow Mr. Babler to leave the sign that is painted directly on the building for a period of 5 years or until it needs repainting, whichever comes sooner. Also that Mr. Babler remove the existing metal sign on the building. This sign permit is not transferable if the building is sold or the use is changed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Street Legal Address of Property ?~_:~//.~ Description of Property:- -ot,~ 'Block Addition Owner's Name Address /~? Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address Type of Request: ( ) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & ~eview ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. \ ( ) Amendment (~0 Sign Permit ( )*Other 0 If other, specify: resent Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or .other zoning proceduqe for this property? ~(~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s)'of application, action taken and ~rovide Resolution No.(s). Cop~ies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. 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 in or upon the premises described in thi~ application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspgctlng, or of posting, maintaining and r~moving such notices as may be required byz~,~l/~. Signature of Applicant ~~/~2_ . ~/~'~%ate !-~- YY Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. NAME OF 'APPLICAIIT bAO:J reet Number APPLICATION FOR SIGN CITY OF MOUND SIGN LOCATION ~e-;,7~ /'~?~ ,]4 0---~',,_i ~ LOT .//~ ,,~-~ BLOCK / PLAT i ~ / F ~ ~ PARCEL /.~'..~ ~'" PID # PLEASE DESCRIBE REQUEST AND REASON FOR REQUEST '~ Z~/~ ~r PERMIT - ? ? City Zip ADDITION Shirley Hills Unit "A' 13-117-24 44 OO17 ZONING SIGN SIZE , TYPE OF SIGN: · - Z' PYLON LENGTH OF TIME SIGN TO BE ERECTED: · , .]~z/~-..',... , ~ ...,' r" ,, / FREE STANDING 'I~L/ · ?" /~'--,- " -~=:'-~' - ' PERMANENT ~,..~..~_ , ~..__~ ,_...~_ / ~ ~ ,..~/.....-, , ~ ._~. -._. .... ~ .....PORTABLE (Temporary-sign not to be for period in excess of two months) Does it conform to all' setback and other requirements relating to the Zoning Is sign for a community organization If additiOnal information is attached .Recommendation: Approved: Ordinance? awings.. (,'~¥,~ 1113 IHX3 Z~ l-t'/8# NOIIFI']OS3~I RESOLUTION #84-112 (EXHIBIT I'A") t RESOLUTION NO. 72,-~0~.,,: ._ 1,~.f ... :.,. ~. ;-,..., ~. .~ . ,,.. ~'-RESOLUTION SETTING'.Mw~PJ_NG DATE FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT ~X,,..~;' (Auto Body Repair Shop) T~i~,.~,: (Plat ~1690' Parcel 1225) "' 177o ' 12 of said Block 1 and there ending and all of Lot~ 12 and Block l, Shirley Hills Unit A, has made application for a Special. Use Permit for an auto body repair shop, and 'W~KEREAS the Planning Commiesion ha~' recomme.nded, that a Special Use Permit be granted with the following stipulations: 1. That all materials, care and equipment be' ecreened with a. solid 6' fence. 2. There shall be no signs on the fence~ 3, The fence shall ~ot obstruct or have an adverse effect on · traffic or traffic safety. .4. Rest room facilities ~hall be installed. 5. Mo parking of vehicles to be worked on etored outeide the £ence, 6. The building shall be kept in'a net and painted condition. ?.. The building to be brought up to code. 8. No retail eale of .gasoline or oil permitted. ?~0~, T?~.W~FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOU~D, MOUND~. MINNESOTA: That a hearing be held on ~pril 25, 19~2 at 8:00 'P.M. at the Shirley Hills School Little Theater for a Special Uee Permit for an auto body repair shop on the above described property. Adopted by the Council thi~ llth day of April, 1972. V"i ~0 V"I I'1~ Z PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-342 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR DAVID J. BABLER-BABLER & SONS AUTO BODY PID#13-117-24 44 0017 WHEREAS, Babler & Sons Auto Body has requested a sign variance; and K~EREAS, said sign is a painted on wall sign of the building at 4844 Bartlett Boulevard of 74 sq. ft. in size in two (2) locations on the bui{~ing as shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, said signs would identify the location of Babler and Sons Auto Body at 4844 Bartlett Blvd. described as Part of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A, PID#13-117-24 44 0017; and K~EREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval upon the condition that the sign be removed if it becomes in a state of disrepair or within five years, whichever comes first, and be replacedwith a wall mounted and that the existing metal 2 ft. by 7 ft. 8 in. sign be removed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the sign variance as shown on Exhibit A upon the conditions that the sign be removed if it becomes in a stat~ of disrepair or witin five years, whichever comes' first, and that it be replaced with a wall mounted signage and that the existing metal 2 ft. by 7 ft. 8 in. sign be removed; the variance is to be non-transferable to any other building owner or operator at 4844 Bartlett Blvd., Part of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A. ogo CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 84-343 Planning Commission Agenda of July 9, 1984: Board of Appeals Case No. 84-343' Location: 2462-2468 Commerce Boulevard Legal Desc.: Part of Lot 33, Lots 20, 21 & 22, Auditor's Subd. 167 Request: Fence Height & Type Variance Zoning District: B-I' Applicant: Randy Schufman Contel of Minnesota 3500 West 80th St., Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN. Phone: 835-7715 The applicant is requesting a 7 foot high chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire at the top to protect the phone company's air conditioning compressors and equipment between their two buildings on Commerce Boulevard. The fence ordinance only allows barbed wire on fencing in the Industrial District with a permitted 72 inch height maximum in all districts. Variance approval is required for the fencing being requested for height and the barbed wire. Comments: At present, the Company has an existing 7 foot high redwood fence that will be relocated. It will be placed in front of the Chain link fence to screen it from Commerce Boulevard. Recommend: Staff recommends approval of the requested fence as the appearance of the fence will not be detrimental to .the'area. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on duly 24, 1984. Minutes of the July 9, 1984 Planning Meeting: 3. CASE #84_=343, Randy Sc'hufman (representing Contel of Minnesota), 2462-2468 Commerce Blvd., Part of Lot 33, Lots 20, 21 & 22, Auditor's Subd. #167, Fence Height & Type Variance. The Building Official explained that the applicant is asking to be allowed to construct a 7 foot high chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire at the top to protect their air conditioning ~compressors and equipment between their two buildings on Commerce Blvd. They would then relocate the 7 foot high redwood fence they presently have to the outside of the new fence to screen it from Commerce Blvd. The Commission asked Mr. Schufman why they need two fences. He replied that they are currently installing a digital system for this installation and the air conditioning is critical to its performance. They want to make sure the equipment within the fence is not tampered with. Charon moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the fence height and type variance. The vote was unanimously ~ ..... ~n ~rr~ed. Street Address of Property I ON TO ,.~e type CITY OF HOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION the following information) Case ~ No. Fee Paid ~. ~ o Date Filed 2462 - 2468 COMMERCE BOULEVARD Legal Description of Property: Lot 20, 21, 22 & PART OF 33 Block Addi.tion AUDITORS SUBD. 167 PID No. 23-117-24 110004 Owner's Name CONTEL OF MINNESOTA Day Phone No. 835-7715 Address 3500 WEST 80th STREET, SUITE 500, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55431 Applicant (if other {ban owner): Name Address Day Phone No. Type of Request: (X) Variance ( ) ConditiOnal Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other ent Zoning District B-1 Existing Use(s) of Property CONFORMS TO EXISTING ZONING Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? NO If sb, 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 statements 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 requ Signature of Applicant ~;IZ,~ ~l~J~ Date Planning Commission Recommendati Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date~ Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # ~/-3~ 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. Ill. Request for a Zoning 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 (X) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use:. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (X) No ( ) If "no", specify each non~conforming use: Which unique physical characteqistics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoni~ng district? ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: SEE LINE "H" BELOW 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 (X) 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: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? Ho What 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.) ~ * SEE ATTACHED SHEET Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? NO ~ - (EXHIBIT "A") THE PROPOSED 84 INCH FABRIC FENCE TO BE USED TO ENCLOSE AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT, FOR SECURITY AND PERSONAL SAFETY EXCEEDS THE 72" HEIGHT LIMIT BEHIND THE FRONTYARD SET BACK (ORD. 243, SECTION 55.17(C)2). THE PROPOSED FENCE TOP GUARD OF 3 STRAND OF BARBED WIRE NEEDS APPROVAL FOR A NON-INDUSTRIAL USE. (ORD. 243, SECTION 55.17 (A)). · ' · i ~ 'QT, 'i. ! RESOLUT ION //84- 113 (EXHIBIT "A") I ?/' i .so~5- K-coO b~ .... /Z3 Z 05 [cs ~?o).. / C S A M. NO. IlO, PLAT 47 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-343 RESOLUTION N0.,84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOmmENDATION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT AND TYPE VARIANCE FOR CONTEL ~OF MINNESOTA, 2462-2468 COMMERCE BLVD., PID #23-1%7-24-11 0004 WHEREAS, the applicant, Contel of Minnesota has applied for a variance to the fencing requirements to construct a (7) seven foot high chain link fence with (3) three strands of barbed!wire at the top; _~CWHEREAS, the City Code requires a maximum height of 6 feet with barbed~only allowed in the Industrial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the variance with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the fence variance as 'requested for a seven foot high chain link with 3 strands of barbed wire at the top upon the condition that the existing 7 foot high wooden fence be relocated between Commerce Blvd. and the chain link to screen it from public view as shown on Exhibit A for 2462-2468 Commerce Blvd. Part of Lot 33, Lots 20, 21, and 22 Auditor's Subd. 167, PID# 23-117- 24-11 0004. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO, 84-345 Planning Commission Agenda of July 9, 1984: Board of Review ApPliCant: Case No. 84-345 Steven Shannon Location: 5162 Emerald Drive 5162 Emerald Drive Legal Desc.: Lot 5, Block 3, Shirley Mound, MN. 55364 Hills Unit C Phone: 472-6954 Request: Recognize Existing Non-Conforming Garage; 22.4 Foot Variance Zoning District: R-1 The applicant is requesting to construct a detached 20 by 28 foot garage on his property. He has an existing garage which is encroaching into the Wil- shire Boulevard/County Road 125 by 2.4 feet. The Zoning Code for the R-1 District requires lO,O00 square feet lot area and a 60 foot lot width. This Lot 5 has.6,887 square feet+ with a lot width of 50 feet. The Zoning Code Section 23.407 states that lakeshore and through lots may have accessory structures located within 4 feet of the side lot line and 20 feet of the front lot line (street side). The existing garage has 1.3 foot side yard and projects into the right-of-way 2.4 feet. An accessory structure is allowed to.be 1.0% of the lot.area which is 687 square feet. With both of the garages on the site, 20 X 28 and 12 X 21.5, the accessory buildings' area would be 818 square feet or ~2 percent of the lot area. Recommend: Staff recommends removal of the encroachment of the existing storage building and the use of the two story building be restricted to Per- sonal belongings storage, not passenger vehicle storage. Allow the new garage to be constructed with conforming setbacks and recognize the existing non-conforming lot. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This item will be on the City Council Agenda on July 24, 1984. Jan Bertrand - Building Official JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes July 9, 1984 - Page 5 CASE ~84-~4), Steven Shannon, 5162 Emerald Drive, Lot 5, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit "C", Recognize Existing Non- Conforming Garage and a 22.4 Foot Variance. The Building Official explained that the applicant is asking to be allowed to construct a detached 20 x 28 foot garage. He has an existing garage/storage shed which is encroaching in the Wilshire Blvd. right-of-way by 2.4 feet. The Zoning Code for the R-1 District requires 10,000 square feet lot area and a 60 feet lot width. Lot 5 has 6,887 square feet (plus or minus) with a lot width of 50 feet. .The Zoning Code, Section 23.407 states that lakeshore and through lots may have accessory structures located within 4 feet of the side lot line and 20 feet of the front lot line (street side). The existing garage/storage shed has a 1.3 foot side yard and also projects into the right-of-way 2.4 feet. The accessory structure is allowed to be 10% of the lot area which is 687 square feet. Both these accessory structures come to 818 square feet of 12% of the lot area. The Commission asked Mr. Shannon if he would be willing to remove the part of the present accessory building from the right-of-way. He stated yes. He further stated that he only uses the existing structure for personal belongings storage as it is too small for a vehicle. Jensen moved and Charon seconded a motion to allow the new garage to be constructed with conforming setbacks, recognizing the existing non-conforming lot, if the applicant agrees to remove the encroachment of the existing garage and he restricts the use of the two story existing garage to personal belongings storage and not for passenger vehicle storage. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CITY OF MOUND Fee Paid APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of'Property ,.1'/~. ~A-~¢~/Z /~r 2. Legal Description of ProPerty: Lot ~ Addi.tion ~~.~ ~-~t ~ ~ 3. Owner's Name ~cPe4 ~ACm m~ ~ Address ~/~ ~¢~ ~ ~r : Date Filed ~-gg-~ Block gay Phone No. ¢2,,~- 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: J Variance ( ) Condition'al Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: t Zoning District ~ / Existing Use(s)of.Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or .other zoning procedure for this property? AJ¢ 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 statements 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 of may be required~_ law. ~//,~,~ 4/~~ Signature Applicant. ,~¢,~,~L Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Allow new garage construction with conditions. Date 7-9-84 Council Action: Resolution No. Date ~cqO~st f, or Zon'ing Variance Procedure (2) Case 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. Ill. Request for a Zoning 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 ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~)~ No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ) Topography ( ) Soil Too narrow ( Too smal 1 ( Too shal-low ( ) Drainage ( ) ) Shape . (~) ( ) ( ) ( ) Sub-surface Other: Specify: E.~ 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: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~'"~f If yes, explain; Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~ No ( ) If no, how many other propeFti'es are similarly affected? H. What 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 ~dditional sheets, if necessary.) 1. Will granting of the variance be materially detri~ent~l to Dro~er:v in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? G CASE NO. 84-345 // :~'"',o, CZ') A ' CASE N,O. 84- 31~ T.. © CASE NO. 84-345 RESOLUTION 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COmmISSiON RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING AND LOT FOR LOT 5, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C (PID# 24-117-24 13 0023) WHEREAS, Steven Shannon, the owner of the property described as Lot 5, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit C (PID #24-117-24 13 0023), 5162 Emerald Drive, has applied for a side yard setback of 2,7 and 22.4 front yard to allow an existing accessory building to remain on a non-conforming lot and to construct a new 20 by 28 foot garage with conforming setbacks for through lots; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a lot width of 60 feet and a lot area of 10,000 sq. ft. in the R-1 Zoning District with accessory buildings to be setback 4 ft. to the side lot line and 20 feet to the front lot line for through lots; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval with conditions to afford the owner reasonable use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the request to construct a new detached 20 by 28 foot garage with conforming setbacks, recognizing the existing non-conforming lot, if the applicant agrees to remove the 2.4 ft. encroachment of t~e existing accessory building and he restricts the use of the two story structure to personal belongings storage and not for passenger vehicle storage for 5162 Emerald Drive, Lot 5, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit C. Delinquent water and sewer 7-19-84 33 463 4626 91 33 463 4~24 82 33 463 4955 21 33 466 4937 31 33 472 4414 11 33 472 4560 11 33 475 4657 82 33 484 3134 11 33 484 3213 31 33 484 47o8 11 33 487 4764 71 33 487 4873 61 33 515 3o21 11 33 533 4753 11 33 545 4855 81 33 551 3133 91 33 563 3021 tl 33 572 4864 41 33 575 49O0 91 33 578 2871 81 33 588 3o46 51 33 59o 5111 11 33 596 4618 31 33 596 5138 11 33 599 4535 31 33 599 4580 92 33 602 3207 21 33 620 4704 91 33 620 4738 71 33 62o 4758 51 33 620 48Ol 31 33 620 4828 61 $ 70.86 58.oo 76.36 116.18 184.o3 421.62 lO6.95 111.o4 549.53 167.67 79.26 82.84 48.oo 90.31 12o. o9 75.78 53.7o 83.33 ' 59.46 79.9O 109.46 69.84 87.35 85.51 51.28 121.16 100.22 58.56 135.o3 68.02 202.24 311.38 33 620 4S25 O] 33 620 4928 41 33 623.5313 22 33 623 5317 32 33 635 5123 91 33 635 5229 41 33647 5217 41 33 650 4774 91 42 3432650 41 42 259 4801 91 60.96 64.50 69.02 111.96 98.36 63.26 189.40 81.66 1036.84 665.08 $6476.00 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ LAND SURVEYORS L; PLANNERS July 19, 1984 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Lynwood Boulevard Street Improvement S,A,P. 145-101-03 #7193 Dear Mayor & Council Members: As requested we are submitting for your approval a right-of-way plan for Lynwood Boulevard from Commerce Boulevard to Belmont Lane, The proposed right-of-way (R.O.W,) width shown on the plan is 60 feet which is the minimum allowed by state aid standards. The 'street section included in the plans is the same as was used in the last construction of Tuxedo Boulevard, which is a 32' wide, 9-ton street with concrete curb and gutter and a 5 foot sldewalk along the south side, According to latest regulations adopted March 26, 1984 by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a 32' wide street would allow parking on one side. This is a change from their previous regulations which did not allow any parking on a 32' wide street. The enclosed plan show the additional R.O.W which will be required to meet the minimum width of 60' for a State Aid Street. This will include the south 10 feet of Lots 6 through 11, a portion of the Super Valu parking lot and the acqusition of the Bakery property. Enclosed is a copy of the guidelines for R.O,N, acquisitions which were made State Law in 1973. It should be noted that this procedure for acquiring R,O,W. is time consuming and will affect the pro- posed construction schedule for this project. The City will have to address the question of whether any portion of this project will be assessed or if the entire cost is to be paid from the State Aid Construction fund. Should the City wish to assess some of the cost, an assess- ment policy will need to be incorporated and a public hearing will be required as per Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. City of Mound July 19, 1984 Page Two Attached is a copy of our letter dated May 22, 1984 which included a pre- limlnary cost estimate of $213,000.00 for this project. As of Suly 2, 1984 the City has $176,123.49 in their construction fund. The allotment expected for 1985 would probably be about the same as was received this year which was $115,661.00. From this amount a bond principal payment of $40,000.00 will be deducted, leaving approximately $75,000.00 to be added to the current construc- tion fund balance. This would give the City approximately $251,000.00 to use for financing the project. It is the opinion of the Engineer, that the proposed project is feasible and can best be constructed as described herein. William' H.' McCombs ,' Cameron - I - GUIDELINES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION ASS I'~YANCE UNDER THE UN I FC)Pd~I ACT OF 1970 The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 - P.L. 91-646 applies to the Acquisition and Relocation on any project where there ls to be Federal pa~icipation in any phase of the project (i.e. where there Is Federal participation In construction, but not in rlght-of-way). Also~ Chapter 604 of Laws of Minnesota, 1973 provides that all acquiring agencies shall comply with all of the provisions of P.L. 91-646 regardless of whether or not there Is any Federal financial participation in any phase of the project. If there is to be Federal particlpatlon In right-of-way, Volume 7 of the Federal Aid Highway Program Manual (80 Series of FHWA PPM's) must be met. These require~nts apply to long-term easements as well as to fee acquisitions; however, they do not apply to acquisitions of temporary easements. TITLE II -- UNIFO~'4 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE If there is no relocation of people or moving of personal property, Title II does not apply. If there is relocation or moving of personal property~ It must be done in accordance with Volume ?, Chapter 5 of the Federal Aid Highway Program i4anual (PP~{~s 81-1 to 1.4). Counties and cities should seek assistance from the State District R/W Engineer if they have relocation or moving of personal property on a project. TITLE III -- UNIFO~4 REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICY A~praisal ~. Properties must be appralsed prlor to the start of negotlations. The appraisal or valuation can be made by fee appraisers, or other qualified individuals or offlcla{s. The appraisal format is up to the County (City), however, the valuation assigned must represent fair market value. Current sales are usually the best means of establishing this value. Form MHD 30777(7-73) is recommended for usage. 2. Appraisers must offer the property owner the opportunity to accompany them during their inspection of the property, if the owners are nonresidents, a letter advising them of plans to inspect the property should be sent in adequate time so the owners can be present at the appraisers' viewing. 3. Appraisals must disregard any increases or decreases in the before value of the property caused by the proposed highway improvement. 4. It is necessary that all properties be appraised and the owner offered the appraised amount. However, if the owner so chooses, he can donate the land for rlght-of-way and in thls case an appraisal is not required. Yet, the requisite of informing the owner as to his right to receive just compensation for the acquisitlon still exists. If the land is donated, the file must be documented to show the above was accoff~olished. In cases where a property owner goes to a City or County and in order to get a zoning change, building permit, plat approval, etc., is required to dedicate land for future street/highway purposes, and the dedication is consistant with a comprehensive zoning or land use plan~ then the appraisal and offer are not required, in cases where the City or County, however, takes the initiative and goes to the property owner in order to obtain R/W for a specific highway project, then the appraisal and offer must be made. 9-a -2- Be .Ne~ot i at ions I. Offers must be made promptly. The law requires the owner opportunity, (Property owner has the o~portunity to accompany appraiser) the appraisal, and the offer, and In that order. In order to meet the Intent of the law, the following procedure could be utilized on simple wldenlng jobs; however, it Is not recommended where more ¢omtSI. rcated ~ppraisals are required. a) The appraiser (quallfled individual or official) first contacts the owner and asks him If he would like to view the taking. b) After viewing the taking with the owner and Ilstenlng to any comments he may have concerning the taking or damages to the remainder, or after he Indicates he is not Interested in viewing the taking, the appraiser should formally complete the appraisal by doing any necessary calculations, dating it and signing It (t4~D 30777). It is acceptable to fill In acreages, proposed values per acre, amounts allowed for trees, fence, etc. on the appraisal form prior to contacting the owner. The appralser, however, must give consideration to any comments the owner makes and must not formally complete the appraisal until after the '~owner opportunity.~ c) Make the officlal offer. The full appraised amount must be offered the owner. Owners must be given a written statement of and a summary of the basis for the amount offered. The offer letter provided by the State contains the required information. The acquiring authority must offer to acquire'uneconomic remnants. If there are buildings, structures, or other Improvements normally considered real estate, which are owned by tenants, they must be valued and acquired. Cx~ndemnation I. Condemnation must not be advanced or delayed in order to coerce the owner into agreeing to the price offered. 2. Owners must not be forced to institute legal proceedings. 3. Owners litigation expenses must be reimbursed if a) it was ruled the County (City) can't acquire,' b) the case was dismissed, or c) owner brought successful mandamus action. Possesslon I.. In order to Issue a R/W Certificate No. I, all property must be acquired and all owners paid. To be "acquired", all easements and/or deeds must be accepted or executed by the County (City) as well as by the property owner. 2. "M.S. 117.042 ENINENT DO~AIN: POSSESSION. When ever the petitioner shall require title and posses~lon of all or part of the owner's property prior to the filing of an award by the court appointed commissioners, the petltioner shall, at least 90 days prior to the date on which possession is to be taken, notify the owner of the Intent to possess by notice served by registered mail and before taking title and possession shall pay to the owner or deposit with the court an amount equal to petitioner's approved appraisal of value. If it is deemed necessary to deposit the above amount with the court the petitioner may apply to the court for an order transferring title and possession of the property or properties involved from the owner to the petitioner. In all other cases, 9-b -3- petitioner has the right to the title and possession after the filing of the award by the court appointed commissioners as follows: (a) If appeal Is waved by the parties, upon payment of the award; (b) if appeal Is not waved by the parities, upon payment or deposit of three-fourths of the award. Nothing In this section shall limit rights granted In section 117.155. Occupants of improved residential, business and farm properties must be given a 90 day notice prior to requiring them to vacate. If the proper-fy ts rented by the County (City) to the owner or a tenant, the rent must not exceed comparable rents In the area. Owners must be reimbursed expenses incidental to selling their property to the County (City). Examples are as follows: a) Fee for obtalnlng a mortgage release. b) Penalty for prepaying a mortgage. c) Prepaid taxes. A recent Attorney ~neral's opinlon states that taxes payable in a given year are associated with the previous year. Therefore~ taxes payable in a given year (1974 taxes payable in 1975), which an owner must pay off in transferring title to the County (City), need not be reimbursed. If vesting of title or possession, whichever is earlier, however, occurs between October 16 - December 31 of a given year (~1975), and if the seller is required to pay all taxes payable in the following year, (1975 taxes payable in 1976), the County (City) should reimburse taxes appllcable to the period from title vesting or possession to the end of the year. This would provide up to 2 I/2 months (maximum) reimbursement of taxes. 9-C CONSULTING ENGINEERS I~ LAND SURVEYORS I~ PLANNERS Hay 22, 1984 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Hr. ion Elam City Hanager City of Hound 5341 Haywood Road Hound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: Lynwood Boulevard Proposed Street Improvements Hound, Minnesota #7193 Dear Jon: As requested we have investigated the possibilities of improving Lynwood Boulevard from Commerce Boulevard to Belmont Lane. Lynwood Boulevard is currently on the Hunicipal State Aid system; therefore, any improvements undertaken could be paid for by State funds. EnclOsed is a preliminary sketch showing a suggested new alignment for Lynwood. This proposed alignment would make it necessary for the City to acquire the bakery adjacent to the City owned Anderson building, a small portion of Super Vaiu's parking lot and also a 10 foot strip along Lots 6 through ll. After discussions with Hn/DOT District Engineer, we think the City would have a very good chance of purchasing these properties with HSA funds. Since the State's policy is to look at each situation and determine if the right-of-way acquisition is necessary, the only way to get an answer is to submit a council approved right-of-way plan. MSA funds would pay for only the purchase price, the City must stand all other expenses such as appraisal fees, attorney fees, closing costs, etc. We Would recommend the proposed alignment for the following reasons, even through the total project cost will be high due to the additional right-of-way required. From a design and safety standpoint the westerly end should line up with section of County Road 15 which goes west. This also holds true with the east end at the intersection with Belmont Lane. In 1980 Lynwood was improved to 32 feet wide from Belmont Lane to the east. We feel any new construction of Lynwood to the west should line up with the existing street, therefore, the State.will probably require the additional 10 feet of right-of-way along lots 6 thru 11. If this new alignment is ultimately approved, the City would end up with extra property which they would not need for these improvements. This would include an area adjacent to the Town Square site. Son Elam May 22, 1984 Page Two We have prepared a very preliminary cost estimate for the proposed construction of Lynwood Boulevard, a copy of which is enclosed. As you will note from this estimate we have not included any cost for the right-of-way acquistion. We have also included a cost estimate for upgrading Belmont Lane to MSA standards from Lynwood Boulevard south to County Road 15. This estimate includes only additional signage for the Railroad crossing, not any mechanical devices. If the City wishes to proceed with this project, the first step would be to prepare a right-of-way plan for approval by the City Council and then submit it to the State. They would then determine if the properties to be acquired for right-of-way are eligible for payment from MSA funds. The next step would be preparation of the construction plans. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Sincerely, McCO~4BS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. William H. McCombs, P.E. OC/WHM:j Enclosures prin'~ed on recycled pape~ Cost Estimate Street Improvement Lynwood Boulevard Item Quantity Unit Price Total Mobilization Common Excavation Granular Fill Class 4 Gravel Base Class 5 Gravel Base Prime Coat Bituminous Base 2331 Tack Coat Bituminous Wear 2341 6" Concrete Driveway Apron 4" Concrete Sidewalk B6-18 Concrete Curb & Gutter Adjust Manholes Adjust Gate Valves Adjust Curb Stops 4" Black Dirt & Sod Landscape (trees) Lump Sum $ 40,000 6500 C.Y. $ ~.O0/CY 19,500 500 C.Y. 4.00/CY 2,000 910 TON 6.00/TN 5,460 870 TON 7.00/TN 6,090 800 GAL 1.50/GA 1,200 530 TON 25.00/TN i3,250 1~0 GAL 2.00/GA 260 510 TON 27.00/TN 13,770 1000 S.F. 4.00/SF 4,000 4320 S.F. 2.00/SF 8,640 1500 L.F. 5.50/LF 8,250 4 EACH 250.O0/EA 1,000 3 EACH 200.O0/EA 600 6 EACH 150.O0/EA 900 2600 S.Y. 2.00/SY 5,200 Lump Sum 5~000 Sub-Total ....................................................... $135,120 Storm Sewer 12" RCP 120 L.F. 15.00/LF 1,800 15" RCP 440 L.F. 20.O0/LF 8,800 18" RCP 270 L.F. 25.00/LF 6,750 21" RCP 140 L.F. 27.00/LF 3,780 21" Concrete Apron i EACH 450.O0/EA 450 Catch Basins 2 EACH 700.O0/EA 1,400 Catchbasin Manhole 2 EACH 800. O0/EA 1,600 Storm Sewer Manhole 2 EACH 900.O0/EA 1,800 Contingencies (10%) 16~500 Total Estimated Construction Cost ............................... $178,000 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost (20%) ,,35~000 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ........................................ $213,000 ~EDEN LAND SALES, INC. -7-7-66-M-itcJ~l-I~,d . Eden Prairie, Minn. 45548 · Tel. 612/94t---5-300 14500 Valley View Road 55344 937-8300 June 12, 1984 Mr. Jonathan Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: Resolution No. 83-44 Dear Jonathan: Based upon a discussion with Jan Bertrand, I discovered that your approval of the final plat of Langdon's Landing expired in March, 1984. We have experienced difficulties obtaining a proper easement from an adjoining property owner to effect a direct connection to the City of Mound's sewer service. This problem has been cured, and we would, therefore, request a one year extension of Resolution 83-44 so as to enable us to commence development this summer. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, JKL/po EDEN LAND SALES, INC. Enclosure: Copy of Resolution No. 83-44 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: DATE:' SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Jan Bertrand, Building Official June 14, 1984 Extension of Final Plat Approval for Langdon's Landing Resolution 83-44 I would recommend that an. extension be granted to Mr. John Lassen, but there are some changes that would be required to Resolution 83-44 as follows: 1. I am not sure whether or not, by expiration, a new public hearing should be held. I feel we should advertise and noti- fy by public hearing process a new hearing. 2. The City has already incurred .expenses in the amount of $558.00 for engineering, legal, administrative fees. I would recommend a $1,000 be held in escrow at this time before the City approves an extension. 3. Item 2 needs to state, the Resolution # 81-196, #81-216 and #83-44, and the new. resolution number approving the prelimi- nary and final plat of the property. 4. Items 3; 4 and 5 - the park dedication fee, escrow fund and performance bond amounts should be re-evaluated to deter- mine cost changes. 5. Item 8, a new development contract should be drafted to depict the new construction deadlines. A statement should be added "Before the final plat is signed by the City, the City Engineer should approve the construction plans and specifi- cations'' 6. The remainder of the conditions may remain intact. an Bertrand JB/ms RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LANGDON'S LANDING SUBDIVISION WITH ADDITIONS A. IO AND A.11 AND TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION #83-44 DATED MARCH 15, 1983. WHEREAS, the final plat of Langdon's Landing 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 Ordinance of the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer.suggested that two Items be Incorporated Into the ~p~roval requlrements~ both relating to easements and found under A.10 and A,11, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 7, 1981 with due and proper notice with an extension to file said plat was granted on July 10, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: A. Plat approval requested for Langdon's Landing Is approved upon' compliance with the following requirements: 1. As per final plat "Exhibit A". Per requirements set out In Resolution #81-216, or as subsequently amended by motion, approving the preliminary plat of Langdon's Landing Subdivision. Escrow fund to.be~.established in the amount of $4,400.00 with a deposit of $1,000;OO paid on June 19, 1984 to be applied toward the total amount. Park dedication fees of $565 per lot to be spread over the lots and paid with the building permits. Furnish the City with a performance bond in the amount of $51,0OO.00 to cover 125% of the estimated cost for: a) Grading, b) Watermain,c) Streets d) Sanitary Sewer, e) storm sewer; all tn' conformance with City plans and specification before the final plat is signed by the City'at the sole expence of the subdivider and in conformance with Chapter 22 of the City Code; or if, in lieu of the developer making said improvements, the City proceeds to install any and all of'said improvements, under the provision of Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State 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 of the improvements. 6. Driveway access to Lots 1-9 will be provided from the newly platted Grove Lane. 7. Current va]idation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit approval. ~i., ...... kL.~, ,~, //83-44 PROPOSED DRAFT Signing of the Development Contract (Exhibit "B") establishing performance and requiring that the date of completion of utilities and. streets be set as a date not later than the first anticipated date of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. If such cerficiate is anticipated to issued during the winter months, construction must be completed by November 30th. The extension of the final approval will amend Exhibit "B" of the Development Contract to March 15, 1984. · 9. City Attorney's title opinion approval. 10. That the developers change the easement between Lots 5 and 6 to accomodate the storm sewer or move the storm sewer to conform with the easement they have proposed. 11. That the developers prove there is an easement from the sanitary sawer on the east and north llne of the plat (between Lots 3 and 4) on ;h~ ~J~lnln~ Pr~pm'r;y (PID# ~3'117-~4 13 0024) to wlth ~he axis:lng manhole on the adJolnlng proper;y, B, That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution ~o the above named owners sad subdlvlder~ after complstl~n of the requirements, for their use as required by M,$,A, 462,358, C. That the Mayo~ and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon comp]lance with the foregoing provisions, D. This final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days or'the date of the signing of the~hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager in accordance wlth Section 22.00 of the City Code and shall be recorded wlthln 180 days of the adoption date of thls Resolution with one copy being flled 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 compliance with M,S.A. 462 and the Ordinances of the City. LAKE LANGDON RESOLUT I ON //84- 117 (EXHIBIT "A") $0 2'-, rE_ -J fr". h-~L.~L.J. ~)k)L2. IXlk2. EXHIBIT "B" - Resolution 84-117 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AGREEMENT dated April 26 , 19 83 between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("the City"), and Eden Land Sales, Inc. ("the Developer"). WHEREAS, the Developer has'asked the City to approve a plat of land owned by it to be known as "Langdon's Landing" (also referred to in this Agreement as the "Plat").. The land is legally described as follows: Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision Number 168, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the'plat on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County (See attached Exhibit "A" the "Plat"). AND WHEREAS, the City has approved the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Development Contract ~nd comply with its terms. Representation by Developer. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed plat complies with all'City, County, Metropolitan~ State and.Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: Sub- division Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances and Environmental Regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may,. at its option, ~efuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until there is compliance. The Developer further represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that and environmental assessment worksheet, environmental impact statement or the like is not required. If the City or another governmental entity or agency determines, ~owever, that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it and reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney's fees, that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. Phased Development. The plat shall be develgped in (1) one phase(s) in accordance with the attached Exhibit. Phases not being final platted at this time shall be designated as outlots on the final (1) plat for Phase I. The City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases until development of all prior phases has been satisfactorily completed. .Completion of Work. The Developer shall complete the work required by Paragraph 4 of this Agreement in accordance with City specifications within 12 months from the date of this Agreement. All work shall be subject to approval of the Ci.ty Engineer and, when and if necessary, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and any other governmental agency having jurisdiction. Public Improvements. The required improvements and estimated costs are set out in Resolution #83-44 dated March 15, 1983, attached hereto. Within'ninety (90) days after completion of the improvements, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans. The Developer shall retain a competent professional engineer to prepare the appropriate plans, specifications and other instructions to accomplish these activities. The Developer shal! specifically instruct his engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality'control to the extent that the DevelOper's engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre- construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time and place with all parties concerned including the City Staff to review the program for the construction work. Bond Requirements. The Developer shall deposit with the City a performance, materials and labor bond satisfactory to the City to guarantee completion of the work required by the developer pursuant to Paragraph four (4) of this Agreement and also guaranteeing the payment for all materials and labor costs incurred in conjunction with the work. The amount of the bond shall be for 125% of the estimated cost of the work as set forth in Resolution ,83-44. 6. Other Costs and Contributions. Before the City signs the final plat (2) the Developer shall pay or' make arrangements satisfactory to the City for the payment of the costs and contributions as set forth in Resolution #83-44. Ownership'of Improvements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, the improvements lying within public easements shall become city property without further notice or action. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by i.t against poor material and faulty wOrkmanship for a period !of one (1) year, after its completion and acceptance by the City. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other security acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. Erosion Control. The Developer sha.ll comply with any erosion control method requested by the City for the prevention of damage to adjacent property and the control of surface water runoff. As the development progresses, the City may impose additional erosion control requirements if in the opinion of the City Engineer they would be useful. The Developer shall comply, with the erosion control plans and with any such additional' instructions it receives from the City. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Seed shall be rye grass or other fast growing seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. 10. Easement. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and.contractors an easement and license to enter the plat to perform all work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the development of the plat. Clean-Up. The Developer shall promptly clear any soil, earth or debris from streets in the plat resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. (3) 12. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat. The City shall have no obligation to pay such costs whether or not the City has approved the work. The Developer shall hold the City harmless from claims by third parties, including but not limited to other property owners, contractors, subcontractors and materialmen, for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur ~n consequence of such claims'by third parties. De The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this contract, including' engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all bills' submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days. If the bills are not paid on time the Ci'ty may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. The Developer agrees that the City;'at its option only, can install and construct any work on improvements required herein to be made by the Developer.' If the City makes any such improvements under its power to make local improvements, or if the City makes improve- ments due to the Developer's default as outlined in Section 13 the City may in addition to its other remedies assess its cost in whole or in part. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the Developer shall pay the entire assessment 'i~ ~si~gle'i'nst~llment in'theiyear after adoption of the assessment. The Developer hereby waives any and all substantive and procedural objections to the City doing the work and assessing the cost. (4) 13. Developer's Default. If the Developer does not satisfactorily complete the work this Development Contract requires of it, the City may at its option perform the work and the Developer or the bonding company shall reimburse the City for all expenses incurred by the City. The City shall give the Developer and the bonding company at l'east 48 hours notice of the City's intention to perform any such work. However, in the event of an emergency as determined by the City, 48 hours notice is not required and the Developer of the bonding company shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in the same manner as if notice had been given. 14. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, as the case may be. BreaCh of any term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Development Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement except that the City may elect to rescind its approval of the plat. No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until: (1) sanitary sewer and water lines have been installed, hooked up, tested and approved by the City, and (2) the streets neede~ for.access to the residence have been paved with bitumious surface and concrete curb and gutter have been installed. The Action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provision of this Development Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be. in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. (5) The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this development contract shall not be a waiver or release. The security in the form of a performance bond or an approved letter of credit shall not expire or be released until all work and improvements have been satisfactorily completed and approved by the City. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the property on the plat. 15. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mall at the following address: Eden Land Sales, Inc. 14500 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager or mailed to the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City o£ Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364. Attention: City Manager. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SI'ATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) we have hereunto set our hands and seal: -- ~ '(Mayor) '- By:~ ~ ~ --~ / (City Manager) On this ~ day of ~~ , 19_~, I~efore me a notary public within and for said County, persc~a~lly appeared Robert D. Polston and Jon Elam to me personally know, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the mayor and the manager of the City of Mound, the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behal of said corporation by authority of its City Council and said mayor and manager acknowledged said instrumen~t to be the free act and deed of said corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Notary Public ~' ~.~,~,~ NOTARY PUBLIC; MINNESOTA ~ ~.~,--~k~ HENNEPIN COUNTY On this ~ZJ~k. day of ~~_~ , 19~'~', before me a notary public within and for said County, appear,ed to me personal~y know, who being each bt~me duly sworn, each did say to me that~are respectively the ~_/, and' ~~.~~' of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its B~rd of Directgrs, and said ~ ,~- ~~~ and ~~~t ~~.. trument to be the freest and deed of said corporation. ~~~.~TA ~ / Notary ~blic . " (7) L:~ July 7, 1981 Councilmember Polston moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 81-216 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 168 WITH THE PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE OF $5,050 AND INCORPORATING THE ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEREAS, by Resolution 81-196 adopted June 9, 1981, the Council provided for a p~blic hearing to be held on July 7, 1981 regarding the subdivision of land on Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision 168. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the subdivision be approved for Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivi- sion with the following stipulations: 1. That a 15 foot easement should be provided for the storm sewer. The existing storm sewer is only 5 feet from the property line. It should be changed to 10 feet to avoid damage to neighboring property. 2. An erosion control plan should be submitted to the City. 3. The sewer services to Lots 2 and 8 should be to the sewer main, not the manhole. 4. The street section should be the standard Mound street, 28 feet back to back of curb, S-5-12 curb and gutter with con- crete driveway aprons, 3½ inch bituminous base and 1½ inch bituminous surfacing. 5. A park dedication fee of $5,050 be given. 6. A title opinion be furnished by the City Attorney. 7. An escrow fund be established to cover engineering, legal and administrative expenses. 8. A preliminary plan be placed with this resolution showing the above. 9. Street lighting to be provided as per NSP Advisory Standards. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon; the following'voted in favor thereof; Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Attest: ~f City Clerk CMC Councilmember.Polston moved' the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 81-196 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 50, AUD. SUB. 168 TO BE HEARD ON JULY 7, 1981 AT 7:30 P.M. AND THE PLANNER AND ENGINEER CALCULATE THE CASH CONTRIBUTION FOR PARK DEDICATION WHEREAS, Universal Land Corporation has applied for a subdivision of pro- perty described as Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision 168, and WHEREAS, a public hearing is necessary before said property can be sub- divided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council does hereby provide for a public hearing regarding the subdivision of land on Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision 168. Said hearing to be held on Jbly 7, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. with publication of same in the official Laker newspaper as required by law. The Planner and Engineer shall calculate the cash con- tribution for Park dedication. A motion for the a~option of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof; Charon, Polston, Swenson and Lindlan, the following voted against the same; none, With Ulrick being absent, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Attest: ~CI~¥ Clerk CMC s/Leiqhton Lindlan Mayor March 15, 19~3 Councilmember Paulsen moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 83-44 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LANGDON'S LANDING SUBDIVISION WITH ADDITIONS A. IO AND A.11 WHER'EAS, the final plat of Langdon's Landing 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 duly 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 Ordinance of the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer suggested that two items be incorporated into the approval requirements, both relating to easements and found under A.]O and A.11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: A. Plat approval requested for Langdonls Landing is approved upon compliance with the following requirements: 1. Per final plat "Exhibit A". ', Per requirements set out in Resolution #81-216, or as subsequently amended by motion, approving the preliminary plat of Langdon's Landing Subdivision. Escrow fund to be established in the amount of $4,400.00 Park dedication fees of $565 per l~t to be spread over the lots and paid with the building permits. Furnish the City with a performance bond in the amount of $51,OOO.OO to cover: a) Grading, b) Watermain, c) Sanitary Sewer, d) Storm Sewer; all in conformance with City ap'proved plans and specifications at the sole expence of the sub- divider and in conformance with Chapter 22 of the City Code; or if, in lieu of the developer making said improvements, the City proceeds~to install any and all of said improvements, under the provisions of Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State 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 of the improvements. 6. Driveway access to Lots 1-9 will be provided from the newly platted Grove Lane. 7. Current validation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit approval. March 15, 1983 Signing of the Development Contract (Exhibit "B") establishing performance and requiring that the date of completion of utiliti.es.and streets be set as a date not later than the first anticipated date of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. If Such certificate is anticipated to be issued durin9. the winter months, construction must be completed by November 30th,., In no event shall the Development Contract exceed one year. 9. City Attorney's title opinion approval. 10. That the developers change the easement between Lots 5 and 6 to acc.omodate the storm sewer or move the storm sewer to conform with the easement they have proposed. ll. That the developers prove there is an easement from the sanitaEy sewer on the east and north line of the plat (between Lots 3 and 4) on the adjoining property (PID #23-117- 24 13 0024) to run inline with the existing manhole on the adjoining property. 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. Ce That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon conpliance with the foregoing provisions. 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 o.n record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the Ordinances of the City. A'motion for the adoption of the foreging resolution was .duly seconded by Councilmember Peterson and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Paulsen, Peterson, Swenson and Polston; the followinq voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Mayor Attest: City Cler. k 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473-4224 July 9, 1984 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Booster Pump Station - 1983 Water System Improvements Dear Jon: We are in receipt of Pay Estimate No. 5 as submitted by A & K COnstruction, Inc., for work performed on the above referenced project. This estimate has been checked and will be fully appr'oved pending replacement of the sod around the booster pump station building. A & K indicated that the sod will be replaced the week of July 9, 1984. In view of the unfinished work, we are recommending that a $500 retainer be applied to this Pay Estimate. Therefore, the total amount due is $4,600. If you have any questions and/or comments, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Vice President bt cc: John Aderman, A & K Construction TO A & K CONSTRUCTION INC. General & Mechanical Contractors 9038 ! lOth St. N. STILLWATER, MN 55082 (612) 426-1613 E. A. Hlckok & Assoclates~ Inc. 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 June 14, 1984I 83-6-90 ATTENTIO~ M~. George ~o~e~, ~.~. ~o~ t~e O~t~ o~ Mo~ Ml~ot~ WE ARE SENDING YOU 3Lq Attached [] Under separate cover via the following items: [] Shop drawings [] Prints E] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] CO.,ES O^TE .0. OESC.,PT,O. 1 Full & Final Pay Estimate No. Five (5). THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ~] For approval [] For your use [] As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections 19 [] Resubmit [] Submit.__ [] Return__ copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO. SIGNED: 3. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1.4. 15. 16, 20. ESTIMATE FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT NUMBER Fi%re (5) Full ~ ~Lnal Request 19o3 ;,;ater System Improvements-Mound,~,llnnesota FOR THE PERIOD January 1, 1984 TO June 14, 19~4 [) F:T A I L E~'I [rSTI M ATE Bond Class 5 Driveway Landscaping ·, Bidg. Excavation & Concrete & M~sonry Precas% ~{oof Deck Carpentry Roofing & Sheet Metal Doors & Hardware Caulking Pa ln~ lng Air Conditioner Pipe, Fittings & Val Insulation Special Val~es 8" ·Flow Meter Booster Pumps (2) Plbg., Floor Drains, Miscellaneous Spuc.ia] Electricul TOTAL Ai<.OUNT 0F ORi~Jl ,c~fill es Access Les Z:iAL CO;.i orLe:: Total Amount of Oritinal Oonlra Change Order No. I,~Complete) Change Order No~ II,$ Completg. Change Order No III!, CompleSe. Change Order No. IV,I Complet~t. Total Amount Earned ]~o Date, 67 5. O0 677. oo 2,000.00 670. O0 5, bO0. OO , INCL. 3,005.00 565.00 2, ~ 50. O0 2,4o0. O0 250.00 2,900.. CO 9O0.00 1 3,632.00 225.00 oo.oo 1 , 540. O0 4,3OO. O0 1 ,001 .CO I , 200. CO 33,500. O0 ct EarDed includln~ .i W(')RK PERFORMED TO 675.00 6'7'/. oo 2,000.00 670.00 5,bO0 O0 e 3,005.00 565.0o 2,950.00 2,400. O0 250.00 2,900.00 900.00 13,632.O0 225.00 6,200.OO 1 , 540. CO 4,300. O0 1 ,601 .CO 1 , dOC. CO 3b, bOO ..O0 $~9,990.00 1 , 4i O. CO 2~0.00 °b 4. co % COM I~, loo~ lOO lOO oo% 1 00~ lOO% 1 1 1OO$ ~uO~ lOO~ 1.oo:~ 1 ooj 1 oo> 1 00~ 100~ 100; 1 gO, 1 100, 100 Change Orders $95,002.59 100 'US OF CONTRACT Original Contract Amount $89;990.00 Extras ~pprovcd to date .... Credits approved to &tlc . ....... Net alllOtHIt of (.,~ ntract this date Cerlitlcate of the Gomractor or his dul~, Au~o.t~.d..Repre~entative . To 'the best of my knowledge and ~lief, I certify that ri item~, units, qu~fifies ~d prices of work ~d m~ - on the face of Sheets No._ 1 and 2 . of ~is Petq~i~l Estimate am co~ct; that ~1 work h~'~- '" ~rfomed and' materials supplied in full accordance ~th the te~ and conditlom of the co~nding trot d~ument~ between ¢[gy of i'4o~d, ~[nnesot~.. , (~) ~d A & K Oonstruc~lon, Incorporated da~~, 19~, ' . . ~3.,":. ch~ the~to: ~at the following h a'~e ~nd co~t ~t~tment of ~ contract accent up to, ~d d.~ of the ~fi~ covered by thi, e,~.te, ~d ~at no part of the "to~~t due" h~ ~n r~)v~ ' Authorized Rep gntatlv* o,t, J~e 14. 1984 (c) rd) (e) . 8-' Total amm,nt earned .......... .............................. Rr,,,i,,,.a ~'u!~.. &. ~'!..n.a..1. Pa, ym.e..n~.. Reci.u.e.s..~ ....... $ ...... -o- Total earued h'ss.retalned percentage ............ · ......................... $_ c) 5; ~ 2. BQ .. ~' Total pre~'iottsl)' approved .............................................. $ 90 ~ ~. 5~ ~ _ S~,oo ~ 4~. oo Appoved as to q.uantirle~ ar, d estimate due: Superintendent of Construction Architect Supervising Engineer General & Mechanical Contractors 9038, 110th St. N. STILLWATER, MAI 55052 (612) 426-1613 TO E,~, Hickok & Associates, Inc, 545 Indian Mound 1~ayzata, Minnesota 55391 DATE t./ ~"t ~ ' $,~ JOB NO. '~'~ 83-6-g0 June 11, 1984 _ ATTENTION Mr. George Boyer, P.E. "~1~983 Water System Improvements for the City of Mound, Minnesota WE ARE SENDING YOU ){~Attached [] Under separate cover via .the following items: [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 IC-13~ Compliance Statement from the State of Minnesota THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval EX] For your use [] As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections 19 [] Resubmit__ [] Submit [] Return ,copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints __ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO (Rev. Minnesota Department of Revenue Centennial Office Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55145 Affidavit For Obtaining Final Settlement Of Contract With The State Of Minnesota And Any Of Its Political Or. Governmental Subdivisions Read the instructions on the other side before completing the form. Name of Contractor or Subcontractor A & K Construction, Incorporated Busln~s Address 9038 ll0th Street North 1Minn~ota Identification Number! 6522612 City, Town or Post Office Stillwater, Minnesota-Washington County IState Minnesota IZip Code 55O82 Project Location Mound~ Minnesota Name of State Department of Governmental Subdivision for Which Work Was Perform~ Mound, Minnesota Address of Department or Subdivision I City, Town or Post Office 5341Maywood Road~ Mound IMound, Minn· lZip Code 55364 Project or Contract Number Total Amount of Contract 89,990. O0 Amount Still Due 5,100.00 Statement On Withholding Of Income Taxes On Wages Paid (A) Contractor or Subcontractor - If you pay or supervise the payment of persons employed on this contract or project, you are a contractor or subcontractor and should complete this section. under ., declare (Your name) (Title) the penalties of perjury and criminal liability, that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I pay or supervise the payment of the persons employed by ; that the wages of all employees (Contractor or subcontractor) employed by the above contractor or subcontractor were subjected to withholding as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that all money withheld and all returns required by this section, to date, have been properly deposited or pa'id and all returns properly filed with the Commissioner of Revenue, (Your signature) (Date) (B) Prime Contractor - If any portion of the above project has been subcontracted, certify below that you have received a certificate of compliance (Form IC-134) from each' of the subcontractors involved. I, John H. Aderm~n. ~resi~e~t , PrP. R~ 8P-~t/0W~P.r, ,declare (Your na~e) ' (Title)- - under the penalties of perjury and criminal liability, that as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.97, I have obtained certificates of compliance~from all of my subcontractors, on this project or contract, stating that all of their employees were subjected to w~~ as provided in Minnesota Statute 290.92 and that as required by this section, all money was properly deposited or ~id ~d~ll reruns were filed with the Commissioner~~ of Revenue as of the date of this certification. ['~- ~, v -(?0u~s~gnature) (Date) Certificate Of Compliance With Minnesota Statut~ 290,92 and 290.97 Based on the facts stated in the above affidavit and the facts in the files and records of the Department of Revenue, I find that the above contractor (subcontractor) has, to date, properly complied with all of the provisions of Minnesota Statute 290.92 relating to the withholding of income tax on wages paid to employees and Minnesota Statute 290.97 relating t° contract services with the State or any of i_tts governmental or political subidivisions. . · .... t ' ~l~epart rnent driP--hue) (Date) CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION Name of Owner of Business (/~First ¢ 4 ~ /gVdd St feet C i Ey Stale Does anyone other-than above have financial interest in the business? Last Zip (5) Dates o'f Single Dances (6) If Annual Dance Permi t, from when to when: (7) Fee: Single Daoce - $25.00 per day Annual Dance - $200.00 (Ord' 397) . ~ .. 1~ ,~dY__,.~,~'~p''can~ ~ ~ ~-~~ /7~ '~ .... (-x ~ -- *If the answer to Item 3 is "Yes"~ please list others having a financ al interes~ in the business below, giving name, address and telephone number. CONIRACT FOR SERVICES This contract is entered into this day of , 1984, between the CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and John Taffe, an independent contractor. WHEREAS, the City of Mound desires to enter into a part- time Contract for Services with Mr. Taffe to perform on a contractual basis as Park Maintenance Man for the City's Park Department; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to enter into a six (6) month contract (May 1 to October 31), which can be cancelled by either party upon 30 days' written notice; and WHEREAS, John Taffe will be paid $5.00 per hour worked; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED By and' between the City of Mound, Minnesota, and John Taffe that Mr. Taffe will provide pa'rt-time services as a Park Maintenance Man. He shall be directed by the City Manager and the Park Director on what is to be done but not on how he shall do the work. The $5.00 per hour shall be paid to Mr. Taffe without any deductions,. The independent contractor shall pay all of his own taxes, auto insurance and other expenses, but he may claim mileage from the City at the rate of twenty-two (22) cents per mile for each mile driven in carrying out the services ordered by the City Manager or Park Director. It is" the intent of both parties to structure this Contract in such a form that Mr. Taffe shall be an independent contractor' and also serve as an agent of the City of l~Iound. This Contract shall commence on May 1, 1984, and shall terminate on October 31, 1985. CITY OF MOUND BY Its Mayor ItsCity Manager DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY 320 Washington Ay. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-3381 TTY-935-6433 March 19, 1984 ~ne Honorable Mayor of Dear Mayor In 1979 the County Board requested each municipality in the county to appoint a person to serve on a waste disposal advisory committee. The committee's purpose was to advise the county on waste management plans, including waste-to-energy facilities and recycling. The committee's work ended in July 1982. The County Board directed that this committee be reestablished. Tne committee originally met over a 14-month period in 1980 and 1981. They recon, nended that the county establish a 2000-ton-per-day solid waste energy recovery plant. The county is now soliciting statements of qualifications from companies to construct and operate this plant, as recommended by the committee. With the energy recovery plant under way, the County Board also believes that burning all the county's waste is not the total answer. Much of the residential and commercial waste is recyclable through methods such as recycling drop-off centers, redemption centers and separate household collection of recyclables. These methods have worked well in several cities in the county area; public participation has been high, and costs have been reasonable. The County Board has directed a comprehensive study of recycling alternatives with the goal of having maximum recycling in the county. The recycling consultant will be evaluating many items which may have a direct impact on cities, such as voluntary and mandatory recycling activities, separate grass and leaf collection, and a variety of recycling financing mechanisms and incentives. Local input in this recycling study will help insure that the findings and recommendations are consistent with city concerns and interests. The 1979 waste disposal advisory committee is being reestablished to help guide the county's recycling study, and we ask that you designate a representative from your city. Please phone or send your representative's name and address to Dave Winter at the above letterhead phone number or address. The co~ittee will have a total of three or four one-to-two-hour meetings, during the remainder of 1984. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal oppoflunify employer ,,t/lO After you give us the name of your representative we will contact him or her to make further arrangements. It's noted that when the advisory committee last met in July of 1982, was your city's representative. You may want to consider reappointing that person because of the background knowledge he or she gained from being on the previous con,~ittee. Please call this office if you have any questions; otherwise, may we have your appointee by April 19, 1984. Sincerely, Luther D. Nelson By Dave Winter Senior Planner c.c. A.J. Lee FRO~: SUBJECT: · INTER OEF, IC/ EM 0 Jon Elam, City Manager \/~ ~ · DATE V\ \\V I William Hudson, Acting Chief~ Request for Set-up License and ~h4-5Intoxicating Liquor License July 9 The lbund Police Reserve Unit willbe holding a fund raiser September 21, 1984 at the Pond Arena. This fund raiser Will be a dance where the }fnite Side Walls will be performing. This will be the largest fund raiser the Reserves have put together. The proceeds from this fund raiser will go to the purchasing of needed equipment and training. The Reserves are requesting a temporary license to sell 3.2 beer and set-ups. It would be my recommendation that their request be approved. Attached is a letter outlining their request. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 July ~, 1984 Acting Chief Hudson Mound Police Department 5341Maywood Road Mound, NN 55364 Dear Chief Hudson; I am writting this letter as a formal request for a set-up license and non- intoxicating liquor (3.2 Beer). The Benefit will be held September 21, 1984 at 8PM to 1AM. No juveniles will be allowed on the premises. We have gotten a clearance for the use of the Pond Arena at no cost to the Reserves. Per our conversation I understand that you will check on where we can get the non- intoxicating liquor and also will supply a f~ull time Officer to work in addition to myself and the Reserves. The Mound Mire Department will be supplying six (9) BartenderS to work the Benefit in pay back for us working their fish fry, at no cost to the Unit. I appreciate your personnal concern and an enthusiasm that you have always given the Reserves and I know that we will have another successful year with our Benefit because of your consistent concern and help. Sincerer/, ~ Reserve Coordinator Mound Police Department JNE/jh BILLS ..... JULY 24, 1984 Anthony's Floral 84.24 A & K Construction 4,600.00 Acro-MN 148.64 Earl F Andersen 183.45 Blackowiak & Son 56.00 Borchert-lngersoll 16.15 Holly Bostrom 144.00 Victor Carlson & Sons 9,465.00 Cromer Management 490.00 contel 1,397.94 Don's Sod 29.70 Davies Water Equip 120.49 Jon Elam 44.46 Fresh Water Restoration 770.00 John Henry Foster 203.40 Hennepin County 1,118.25 Hennepin County 8.41 Eugene Hickok & Assoc 1,815.41 Human Resource Consult. 80.00 Hoffman Shoe Repair 6.00 Hecksel Machine Shop 75.19 Heiman Fire Equip 282.25 Thomas Jacobs 81.25 Kromer Co. 56.25 Kool Kube Ice 289.20 Lyman Lumber 25.00 Long Lake Tire Barn 66.25 Long Lake Ford 105.89 LOGIS 2,225.10 MN Dept Public Safety 40.00 McCombs Knutson 1,381.OO MN Muni¢ Liq Stores Assn 125.O0 Mpls Oxygen Co. 36.27 MN Fire Inc 58.09 Minnegasco 6.00 Mound Super Valu 133.98 Mound Medical Clinic 230.00 Northern States Power 4,955.02 NW Bell 270.05 Popham, Haik 2,095.49 Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00 Roto-Rooter 38.25 Stevens Well Drilling 107.42 State of MN 856.66 Waconia Emergency Physicians 24.25 Westonka Sports 55.00 Westonka Community Serv 600.00 Widmer Bros. 2,O41.O4 R.L. Youngdahl Xerox Corporation Jon Elam Griggs, Cooper Leon Hanson Johnson Bros.Whl Liq Johnson Paper Robert E Johnson IL Small Business Kathy Kluth City of Mound Mound Postmaster Ed Phillips & Sons Quality Wine Mary Perbix Dell Rudolph State Treas TOTAL Bi LLS 75.23 1,O21.70 180.40 729.61 148.00 1,545.42 219.54 665.26 75.OO 11.00 44.52 6OO.OO 1,O37.O7 682.10 150. O0 337.50 472.82 45,062.61 OFFERING BTATEI~ENT $250,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CONSISTING OF $150,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION I~IPBOVEHENT BONDS OF 1984 $100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION FIRE CEI~IFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1984 CITY OF I~OUND, MINNESOTA TUESDRT, JULY 24, 1984 7:30 O ~ CLOCK ALL PROPOSALS DELIVERED TO: CURTIS A. PgARSON 1100 FIRST B3UgK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, NINNESOTA 55402 BY 4:00 P.M. JULY 24, 1984 NILL BE DELIVERED TO SALE SU~l~ OF BO~D ISSUES GENERAL OBLIGATION I~PROVEME~ BONDS OF 1984 GENERAL OBLIGATION FIRE CERTIFI~TES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1984 AMOUNT $250,000 General Obligation Bonds consisting of two issues: $150,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, and $100,000 General Obligation Fire Certificates of Indebtedness. ISSUER CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA SALE DATE July 24, 1984, 7:30 P.M. TYPE OF ISSUES Improvement Bonds, general obligation backed, payable from special assessments and ad valorem taxes and being used to retire $180,000 temporary improvement bonds issued in 1981. Authority M.S.A. Chapters 429 and 475. Fire Certificates of Indebtedness, general obligation backed, payable from ad valorem taxes, with monies being used to purchase and equip a new fire truck. Ad valorem taxes will be spread over the cities served by the Mound volunteer fire department, which include Mound, Spring Park, and Minnetonka Beach, and portions of Orono, Shorewood, and Minnetrista. Authority Minnesota Statutes 412 (412.301) and 475. DATE OF ISSUES August 1, 1984 INTEREST PAYABLE DATES February 1 and August 1 in each year commencing August 1, 1985 DENOHIHATION $5,000 or integral multiples thereof (both issues registered) MATURITIES Fire Improvement Year Certificates Bonds Total 1985 $20,000 $15,000 $35,000 1986 20,000 15,000 35,000 1987 20,000 15,000 35,000 1988 20,000 15,000 35,000 1989 20,000 15,000 35,000 1990 15,000 15,000 1991 15,000 15,000 1992 15,000 15,000 1993 15,000 15,000 1994 15,000 15,000 None - all issued without option of prior payment. I~I~BOD OF Sealed proposals only, at a price of no less than $246,000 plus accrued interest. A good faith check in the amount of $5,000 shall be provided by the successful bidder within 24 hours. The issues are being combined for sale. BOND REGISTRAR, Purchaser may request agent of their choice. City TRANSFER AGENT, will designate and contract with a suitable bank to act PAYING AGENT as Registrar, Transfer Agent, and Paying Agent. TAX STATUS In the opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is exempt from Federal income tax under present Federal income tax laws. LEGAL OPINION Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton, Larson and Underwood, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. RATING No rating for this offering will be applied for. For additional information contact: Curtis Pearson Jon Elam City Attorney City Manager Phone (612) 338-4200 Phone (612) 472-1155 July 17, 1984 ,612! 472-1i55 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is the report written by the coordinator of the Recycling Task Force. It was helpful to me as we learn how other cities have organized their efforts. Ail in all, this "low profile" effort seems to be putting a .good effort together. JE:fc enc. / , To the !-~embers of the Recycling TAsk Force These are notes on the various centers that I have visited in the past few weeks. Hope that they will give us a point ~ start from in learning %:hat we need to know about other projects. Kathy Kluth ?~ECYCLI?]G P ROG RYC'4S EDINA Ceil Smith, Drop-off location is 5121 Brookside, !4onday-Friday 2-5p. m., Saturday 10a.m.-3p.m.--Materials: Aluminmr~, Steel, Glass, Oil, 2L. pop bottles, newspapers and items for Goodwill. 7h[5 program was started by a group of volunteers in 1972. ~ accepted a ±lmited assortment of recyclables and operated independent ~ of the city. In the late 1970's the city of Edina stepped into an established program and offered to take it over, moving it onto city property and using city equipment. The volunteers became the Recycling CoMmission. The staff of the program was the Recycling Commission, high school youth hired by the city and Ceil Smith. In 1980''the organization was changed to eliminate the high ~cho61 y0ut~ and instead to hire one adult individual who is employeed 20 hours a week for the recycling program and 20 hours a week for maintance work ii1 the city grapes. In 1984 a second 20 hour person was hired to work on the recycling program. The city of Edina uses its trucks and equipment ~ohaul the recyclables to market, except for the paper and Goodwill items. ~4arkets: Midland Glass:-Edina breaks the glass, but not to fine, because of the potential weight. Ck~mpion Paper- Champion spots them a drop box (trailer) Reynolds Aluminm~ is the market for the aL and b~verage cans The budget for the recycling program is under 'City Administration" as follows: Payroll-12,500 Rubbish removal- 250. General supplies-350. Printing-50. Safety Equipment-100. Total 13,250. yearly Promotion-information is relayed through the city newsletter and enclosures in the utility bill. Brochures are sent out with the Welcome Wagon information and passed out in liquor stores and grocery stores. There is or has been some League of Women Voters .involvement in promoting this ~rogram. Note: a meml3er of the ~ecycling Commission has accumulated an extensive recylcing library of newspaper articles. The information is not catalogued. i~EW SCanDIA ~D ~,~RIi~E Ol'] ST. CROIX RECYCLING Bill Plov~an-President Edna Siniff-Treasurer home phone-433-2166 Eruce Swenson-Hauler and volunteer lion-profit, Scandia Recycling Organization, operates weekly on Saturdays from 9-12 in Scandia and 1-~p.m. in :~arine. The primary goal is tile co:?~unication-~..'ith the corem, unity regarding a recycling program. This organization is a relatively new one and is in its fourth month of operation. They are ,yet~ing about a 75% -'zrtici:::~tio:~ rate from tl~e t'.,.~o co::~u:~ities. Edna Siniff said that preliminary investigation lasted about six weeks and involved visting other cinters, contacting markets, haulers and the township c. Scandia and the Village of Marine on the St. Croix. The organization was funded initafly by the two co~unites with a start-up fund of $1,000. The trailer used by the organization is o%~ed and driven by Bruce Swenson, a local farmer. The organization pays $50 a month rent for the use of the trailer-truck-see budget, below. Materials collected: aluminum, paper-newsprint and corregated cardboard,steel, 2 L plastic pop bottles and tires. This organization has a market for ~ ~stic bleach bottles, also. The recyclables are hauled to market once a week ~and.it is a continuous., process to ~etermine the best market to sell to. ~- - This program is currently being operated by the core group of officers and Bruce Swenson (three people) on the weekly basis. It was explained to me that the goal was to organize the program so that there are 150 people on a roster who will be able to work a 3-4 hr. shift once a year and that there be a 12 member group who would manage the truck and service the contributors --again an arrangement to share the work on a monthly basis. Promotion: Three flyers have been circulated by means of the local "ad" service and a flyer will be distributed in the July 4th parade in the community. There was extensive press coverage at the Grand Opening of the program and at least one article has been run in the local paper. A weekly ad is run in the local shopper. The wording of the ad is similiar to that of the old Burma-Shave advertisements: "C~S IN OUR H~4DS WILL'SAVE OUR L~DS. SCANDIA RECYCLING" Insurance: This group is covered Under the Town~hips insurance and by the policy carried by the owner of the truck. Budget: C'osts-125. per Saturday for the rent of the truck and driver ( I was uncertian if the 50.00 mentioned above is included 'in'this amount or not) The driver-hauler charges ~he program 1.10 per mile. and says that a trip to the Midway area (where the markets are located-except for the glass in Shakopee. No mention of equipment and advertising costs at the time of the interview, tho there obviously is cost involved in both of these areas. Income: $1,000.-funding (This was copied from the incomplete ledger 69.-Midland glass in Shakopee on7-3-84) 197.-Champion Paper 80.-Steel and Aluminum (Reynolds?) Note: The first month of operation the program csst $S43.00 for hauling, the second month the costs were the same. The third month (June), the costs were $583.00. This is just $10 below the break even point in the program. In April the program shipped 11,840 tons of newsprint and 1,SS0 tons of corregated and 720 ~ of bond paper. In ~4ay 600 tons of newsprint were shipped and 1,120 tons of corregated. Bookkeeping system being set up by Edna Siniff: payment and ~mount of services donated, eg printing, etc. Edna Siniff 16022 Oak Hill Road ~.~arine on the St. Croix 55047 Three columss- invoice, :.~Ii~ETON~A LUTHER}~N CHURCH 16023 Minnetonka Blvd.- This is a Drop-off spot for the drive The recycling drive is held every fourth Saturday of the month. 9am-2pm ~he materials collected are aluminium cans, tin, glass, newspaper Staff coordinator-Sue Holt 935-6236 Hauler-Earl Frank Co-worker in this drive are the local Boy Scouts who handle and take the proceeds from the newspapers. Volunteers for thi~_drive are asked to donate 2% hours of their time and 4 volunteers are needed per shift. A greater volume of recyclables come in during and immediately after the holidays year round. _Sue states that they hope to work with the Citizens League and in t~e future have some groups be responsible for specific months or every other month. The group handling the drive would take the proceeds from that monthvexclusive of the newspapers, of course. Promotion: This is a drive as opposed to a center for recycling. ?his was pointed out to me by the coordinator. Following two months of research and two months of promot~ion by means of flyers in the local stores and some use of the radio, the recycling drive was begun. The flyer that was used told when the drive would be, what to bring, where to bring it and when, as well as who was collecting the recyclables and how to prepare the items for recycling. ~o months ahead of the beginning of the drive (first one) this was put b~fore the public -via the newspaper- "Start saving now for the recycling drive to be held .............. " Ground Rules for working in the center: It is stressed by Holt the importance of thanking the contributors for bringing the recyclables. The volunteers must work in a buddy system. ~he ~rive had an accident happen when a volunteer was working alone and was not properly dressed for what he was doing (breaking glass). Hauler/~arket: This drive uses Earl Frank..see Golden Valley, too.. 'He'i~ an independent hauler who is supposed to ~e quite satisfactory tho limited in the dapacity and number of customers he can handle with his current staff. This drive had employeed Emmel Schlotkke and found him to be unsatisfactory..again, see Golden Valley. Notes: Permission to use the land they are currently on was a difficulty for this group. They have had difficulty in dealing with the city. ?he group has asked for police patrols and some signs that say "No Dumping" The land that they are using is owned by the city, as I understood. The glass that is accepted in this drive is seperated by ~ color and is preferred unbroken. The glass is lifted onto the truck and broken by a volunteer (Earl Frank the day that I was at the drive). The glass breaker must be wearing goggles, long sleeves and gloves. I tried breaking ~he glass and it is a job requiring much arm movement. It is suggested by Sue Holt that volunteers not be asked to do the job for the entire shift that they are donating--to hard. This drive averages an income of 20-30.00 a month from the aluminum and tin. The amount of paper that comes in is uniform, tho Holt did not have figures on the amounts handled or the revenues from it. The drive collects 1½-2 tons of glass in the 5 hour peroid. Income for the Ha~ 26, 19S~ Drive: ~0~ alumin~ cans at 9¢~= 7.20 3S00~ glass at %¢~= 19.00 ~©i~ steel cans -pop, bi metal at 2¢~ 1.60 1=:: Aiuninum foil at i0¢# 1.50 Out-go since the drives have begun has been for safety equipment--goggles, gloves no ficures avialable at the time 6f interview. RICHFIELD Paula Prok 869-7521 This program was not in operation at the time that I spoke with Paula (6-19-84). The plan is that they are going to start with newspaper collection and use trailers being pulled behind volunteers autos, using a semi-trailer drop-off site. The county may help the city purchase the ten trailers to be used. It is possible that a civic organization will be responsible for each month and receive a pay back for their efforts. Chanpion and Pioneer Paper firms have been contacted and an attempt is being made to negotiate a one year contract with one of the firms. No survey of the community had been taken. Paula did tell ne of a survey avialable from the Metro Council called"~ecyc~ing. Attitude Survey". This was requested on June 20, 1984. The prime efforts of the operation ar the present time are of a promotional nature: brochures, signs in stores and use o of media (Public service time , also). ST. LOUIS PARK Carmen Kaplan 920-3000 Liason City of St. Louis Park Offices see information eaclosed in origional packet Promotion: Redundancy--papers, pamphlets, city news letters Billboard--Naegle has a public service account. Should M¢,und check into this???? Check into the same for radio and television. Neighborhood meetings held at the city hall and s~hools were poorly attended. A logo was developed and printed on t-shirts for the staff. A contest was involved in this venture. A considerable loss resulted from this. Test neiglnborhood and control neig~hborhoods were used. The neighborhoods were single to four-plex, with no businesses or 'apartments being used in the pilot program. This was a broad range of income levels. Six recycling firms ~re asked for bids. A charge of $5.00 for 1984 sewer, water and garbage was alloted to the Recycling Fund. Consultant prepared and implemented a survey--October 1982. No copy was avialable at the time of this interview..~4~y 22, ~984. Volume of material recycled/amount of solid waste generated by city- Pilot Program: 1 yr. ~u~involved: 834,480~ material total of this 5~2,~0 was newsprint 186,~ was glass 92,3~g'was metal cans 12,975 was aluminum cans LORETTO St. Peter and Pauls Church 150 Railway St. Behind the Kloers Oil Co. bldg. Gregg Hegi 479-1725 was my contact, he is not the coordinator of the project. Materials: newspapers, al~in~, steel, glass This is an unattended drop-off. On my visit to the site I first notice~ that the site and the surrounding area of the.building was very clean and free of broken glass and debris. The drop-off is not well marked from the principal street. The facility is located behind the feed store and is relatively secluded unless one knows -whe~..to look. The barrels are on apllets and the ceiling and walls are insulated with materials for use in the winter. At the time that I am writing this I have not yet gathered information about this drop-off, except for my trip to see it. GOLDEN VALLEY WOMEN'S CLUB RECYCLING CE'NTER 7800 Golden Valley Road Marie Temple-545-0391 Drop-off accessible during the day and an attendent is there for t¥;o hours each ~-~aterials: paper, g±ass, aluminum,steel and tin cans Site visit on 6-20-84. The d~pp-off is located in a double garage on the back lot of the city offices, fire station and utility garages of the city of Golden Valley. Temple says that this site has proven unsatisfactory because of its accessibility for youngesters who come to mess it up. The area is not fenced and is with-in a block 'of shopping centers and fast food restaurant. The posted hours are from 8-5 daily; and attendant is there two hours daily and receives a wage of 3.3~ and hour. The attendant is Temple's son. Promotion of the center was done through the Golden Valley Sun newspaper, city newsletter and and flyer was circulated. (I talked with a citizen in the parking lot of the Golden Valley sh~pping center one block from the center, and she was under the impression that the recycling center had c~sed to exist. Why?...I was asking this individual for directions and I had driven past the center without realizing %~hat I was seeing--no signs for someone like me! There were no signs directing to get to the fadility and the signs in the building %;ere in such poor repair that they were con fusing. In this center, I felt that the directions that I was receiving as a potential recyc!er %~ere,at best , confusing. This program has been established for 13 years. The source of the workers is a problem and Temple told me that she and her son are the only ones that are doing the project at this time. Insurance: The center has a persona3 injury policy that is carried for the paid employee Insurance of the city of Golden Valley also covers persons on the site. The cost of the policy on the ~;orker is 800.00 a year. ~iauler: They currently use Earl Frank and have found his ~rvices to be satisfactory. E~el Schlokke ~as used previous to Frank and his servides were dropped because i]e ~as not reliable for .... s center Frank takes the class, aluminum and ~' ' Cham~3ion Pa~er · ~ ~1~. . the. ~arket for the oaDer generated from this center. Champion Has~spot~ed them with a trailer. Newspaper is the highest volume item that comes into this center. Costs involved in this center: 800.00 year for insurance ?????for safety equipment--goggles, gloves, etc. Income: ~ 800.00 from the glass and aluminum 240.00 per trailer cf newspaper. Temple said that the paper was spotted bimonthly. At 24.00 a ton this figure -' -:" would be over 5,000.00 per year. This needs to b~ checked in~o~ Temple said that no study was undertake before starting the center. She stresses that dedication to the center is needed and daily super- vision of the facility is necessaru. When I visited the site there was broken glass stre~.~ over the floor of the facility and the apron of the garage. Temple also stated that proper sorting of the materials to be recycled is of upmost importance and that the contributors are rarely consistent in doing the processes--especially if the facility is unnattend~d. !ly overall impression of this facility was one of disorder and in talking wiht TEmple I learned that the participation of others was needed in the running of the center. More input is needed-new hands and energy to share the tasks. FOP~ST LAi<J2 Curt Sparks 296-7221 work, 433-2583 home Jack Garnett Non profit organization Located at the jundtion of highways 61 and 97, north of the Town Hall Drop-off Saturdays 9-12 ~m 464-434~-city office Materials: beverage cans, scrap ~lmminum. tin, glass and newspaper Tl~e site is in the parking lot of the town hall and is away from major traffic flows and other businesses. A large sign on the highway directs traffic to the recfuling process. The glass was in 55 cal!on barrels in an unbroken state. The drums were sitting on pallets and have sheets of py!wood over the tops of the barrels to keep water out. The directional signs were made of wood and were clear and easy to follow. These were some of the best signs that I have seen to date. They would be functional and durable at ~/~ the same time. =.]_ Boy Scouts handle the newsprint an~ the aluminum/ steel ~ ~v~ce_ ___. cans and take the revenues for the same. The recyc!in~ ~ ~'~ crouo ]~andles the glass and sells it 'o White Dear %acycling. Contact 2:ary A'~d 42 The.~romotion of this dro,~-0~, center nas ~._-.n: =-~ by uslnu' , ~. ;1~ 7~no~nce:len~ 3~}o~s o;1 tl~e ,radio, u.u-'chase:l acs in ...... ~ .... }e. and usin~ as much pr,2ss convert%& asni,essible to l~otes: ~..:ashington County provided the barrels and has been helpful in setting up this center. Films used to inform citizens about recycling are avialable through the Pollution Control Agency. I have requested a catalog of what is avialable through the PCA. Curt Sparks said that Forrest Lake is a co,.~munity of about 3,000 households and that they also draw from an area of an additional 3,000 households outside of Forrest Lake proper. The paper truck is turned over every two weeks The spotter of the paper is Bill Pd~odes, Wyoming, Minnesota. He takes 50% of the revenues of the paper. A core group of four individuals handle this recycling program(the glass). With each one taking one gaturday per month. Sin~" tile beginning of the program, it ]las made approximately' $5'00 year on the glass. 1,000 tons have been recycled since the beginning. They pick up liquor bottles at one liquor store in the area. Curt Sparks states that they feel they are getting about 10% participation from the cov,~munity and that more publicity is nmeded. This program may eventually cosine with the Scandia and Marine on the St. Croix programs . 2123 HOPKINS Bill Craig 935-8474 This is a program which will start as a pilot progrLm on Aug. 1, 1984 and be organized in a fashion similiar to that of St. Louis Parks. There has been no study but instead has held talks with various neighborhood associations, feeling that more involvement would result from this. This program will be a vendor level of service. ~WAYZATA BOY ~qD GIRL SCOUTS-Drop-off End.of Lake Street 545-3335 ~ast.Saturday of the month 9-2:30 >~ate~ials: newspaper, glass, tin and.aluminum EXCELSIOR LEAGUE OF "? ' ' ,,O;~N VOTERS Shorewood Shopping Center (41 and7) 2nd Saturda'; of the month }~aterials: Papar, glass, almmin'~m, all other met~fs, plastics corregated cardboard, magazines, books, batteries, oil. No tires DEL~O (Crow River 1.7omens Club) 479-1535 Mary Robinson home 972-2328 work ~79-3101 Delano Disposal Plant Co, Rd. 2~;orth of Dealano Materials: paper, glass, tin, aluminum, steel cans. I~o study or survey taken. Paper is sold to Diversified Insulation glass, tin cans, etc. are hauled by a hauler and the profits are divided by the groups particiDDting. The process takes place on city land and tile recycling is done in an enclosed and restricted area with signs, which should discourage dumping. ' 'It is estimated that 20% of the community papticipates in this program. This program was established by: having a town meeting, education thru the schools, the establishment of an unmanned drop-off and three years ago curbside pick-up was begun with a drop-off open at the s~.e time. A. board coordinates this program. Promotion is done by uiing the local paper. Paper is sold to Diversified Insulation on highway 55 Glass is sold to Hidland glass Scrap iron is sold to a firm in N.E. Mpls. Hinnesota Soft Drink Association Recyclers off of 190 takes ti%e rest. Last year this progr~m too]: in~2,500 with expenses of approximately 209.00 (Cost to rent trailer to haul glass is:'10.00 per month, ' one month they paid a hauler $50 and the rcst is for postage for the board communications, etc. i{ar':' sacc:ests ti:at an effective ',,'ay to handle a recycli:tg :~ro,lrar. is b-/ coopcra~ive marketing-either axon~ co;~munities or on a county '.;ide basis, it would be locica!, accerdinl for ~he local garbage haulers ~o look u[,on recl'c!i.t6 ~s a :.;eans of e}:pandinu their businesses- especiallf in vie': .:f ~l~c fac~ that in 3anuar/ of !235 ~ile state Lecis!alure h~ ~:~ i:-.cr.~r~! i., ~i:..i... .qI]C]EA_OOLIS P£CYCLING CENTER- :.like Trudan 3.o-3236 !@ per month, ~,~aterials: newsprint, glass, cans Contractor problems 6-20-84 Origionally took lowest bid of 5 contractors Areas of importance: 1. promotion 2. Haul~r/ recycler 3. citizen Started in 1982. There was a 16 month preliminary program of curbside pick-up. Requested preliminary study 6-20-$4 ~&~~-~ Call for secondary one in the future.[~-- ' - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. / CRITERIA FOR VISITING A RECYCLING PROGP. A~ l'fno is the hauler? How often does he come? condition of the materials to be recycled--glass crushed or whole, etc. %'.?nat materials are collected? ~,~o ~mans the site: paid or volunteer, youth and/or adult, co~munity_ group, other? Costs of the site--private or city owned? ~.rno is the coordinator? What is the relationship between the workers and the coordinator? Promotion--intially and concurrently % of participation by the co..~munity and how this figure is calculated. How long has this program been in existence? How long did it take to get the program going? ~nat were-the steps in developing the program? ;.~rnat are the hours, days, etc. of the program? Insurance---:.~ho has it, how much? ~'~at is the bookeeping system, ask to see it. I',,'.,~o handles the money? Who handles the funding? Is the program operating at a gain or a loss. ;.;ho is taking any loss or profit? Problems!: !!!!! The attitude of the program, the co~r~unity, etc. Other co~.~-~.unity organizations that are involved and how? ;'~nat does the program use to measure its success? Your general impression of the program. The Task Force on Recycling met on Thursday July 12, 1984, at 6:30pm. Attending the meeting were Karen Richman, Claude Clements, Jackie Meyer, Margaret Erickson, Marsha Jerdee and Kathy Kluth. Information that ~.~rsha Jerdee had received from haulers and local garbage firms was discussed. She interviewed both Blackowiak and %~est~nka and felt that both were tenative about being interested in participating in a recycling program in Mound. Other haulers contacted, E. Schlokke of Recyco, Inc. and Bernie Beerman of Beerman Services are interested in presenting..information about thier services to us. I am in the process of scheduling three or more haulers to meet with the task force as soon as possible. The group developed a list of informatin needed from the haulers at the time of such presentations. Next the task force discussed publicity for the recycling program and the survey that is currently taking place via the Laker newspaper. !.~argaret Erickson was interviewed by Judy Soukamp for the 7-17-84 Laker. The article will tell about the processes that Margaret uses to recycle items in their family home. For the 7-24-84 paper Claude Clements and Karen Ric~L~an are working with Judy Soukamp on an article about p~)tential recovery rates and actual recovery rates of recyclable wastes generated in >~innesota and ending with a 'recycling hint". I told the task force about my conversation with Dave Winter of Hennipen County, Department of Environment and Energy. He will be a source of information for the task force relating to p~tential funding for our program, figures about the amount of waste that our community generates and a source of other outside help in setting up our program. Through Hennipen County we have access to a few hours of ~time with a consultant on solid waste disposal. At the time that this individual meets with the task force we shall have an open meeting including the city manager, other city officials, members of the city council and interested general public. This meeting will have 2-3 weeks advance notice for maximum co~unity participation. Fi nall~ the task force developed a list of criteria to use in visiting and viewing a recycling site. Various members of the group are intending to visit sites in the area this coming week. Next meeting will include presentations from haulers, Kathy Kluth July 16, 1984 July 17, 1984 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a copy of an Ordinance that is used in Brooklyn Park covering "Land Reclamation and Earth Materials, etc.". The potential need for such an Ordinance comes about because the area behind Anthony's Floral has been repeatedly filled in over the last few years without a plan, etc. I don't know if we want to get into this area or not. It may be the kind of Ordinance that you would want to have on the books in case some serious filling took place, otherwise you might not need it 99% of the time. Please read it over and give me your thoughts. JE: fc enc. . Sec't3.on ~ ~00 _Section ~0 - Land Reclamation and Earth Nate~als, Removal, Stora~.e amd Excavation Section 340s00. ~Permit Require.d. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to remove, store or excavate rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clay or other like mate_~lal in the amount of more than two hundred (200) cubic yards and less than one thousand (1000) cubic yards without obtaining an earth moving permit from the City Engineer, nor more than 1000 cubic yards without first having obtained an earth moving permit therefor from the Council. Section 340s05. Exceptions. Subd. 1. Basement~. No permit shall be required for the excavation, removal or storage of rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clay or other like material for the purpose of the foundation, cellar or basement of some immediately pending superstructure to be erected, built, or placed thereon contemporaneously with,.or immediately following such exca- vation, removal or storage, providing a building permit has been issued. Subd. 2. Road Construction, No permit shallbe required for such excavations, removal or storage of rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clay or other like material as may be required by the State, County or City authorities in connection with the constr~ction or maintenance of roads and highways. Section 3~0110. Appli. cation. The application shall be made in writing on such form as the City may from time to time designate, and shall include such information as may be required by the Engineer or Council and shall contain, among other thingsl Subd. 1. The correct legal description of the premises where the excavation, removal or storage of rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clay or other like material shall or does occur. Subd. 2. The name and address of the applicant and owner of the land. Subd. 3. The purpose of the removal, storage or excavation. Subd. 4. The estimated time required to complete the removal, storage or excavation. Subd. 5.J The highways, streets or other public ways within the City upon and ~long which the material excavated or removed shall be transported. Subd. 6. A map or plat of the proposed pit or excavation to be made showing the confines or limits thereof together with the proposed finished elevations based on sea level readings. Section 3~0 Section 340~15. Fili. n~ and Fee. Each application shall be filed with the Clerk for pr~sentation to the Engineer or Council. A permit fee in an amount set by the Council from time to time shall accompany each application. Section 340 ~20. ..Requir~ment, s. Subd. 1. As a pre-requisite to the granting of a permit, or after a permit has been granted, the applicant or the owner of the premises shall comply with the requirements of the subdivisions which follow. Subd. 2. 'Properly fence any pit or excavation to protect the safety of the p~blic. Subd, 3, Slope the banks, and otherwise guard and keep any pit or excavation in such condition as not to be dangerous because of sliding or caving banks. Subd, 4. Properly drain, fill or level off any pit or excavation so as to make the same safe and healthful. Subd. 5. Reimburse the City for the cost of periodic inspections by the City Engineer, or other City employee, for the p~rpose of seeing that the terms under which the permit has been issued ar~ being complied with. Subd. 6. The permit shall include as a condition thereof a~_p_~n for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land or the development of the site on which the excavating is being conducted, and the permitted route of trucks moving to and from the site o Subd. 7. Post a surety bond, in such form and sum as the City may require, runr~ing to the City, c~nditioned to pay~he Citythe cost and ~p~'n~e' of repairing any highways, streets, or other p~blic ways within the City made necessary by the special b~rden resulting from hauling and transporting thereon bythe applicant in the removal of rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clay or other like materi~l, the amount of such cost to be determined by the Engineer or Councils and conditioned further to comply with all the requirements of this ordinance and the particular permit, and to save the City free and harmless from any and all suits or claims for damages resulting from the negligent excavation, removal or storage of rock, sand, dirt, gravel, clay or other like material within the City. Subd. 8. · And such other requirements as the Engineer or Council shall from time to time deem proper and necessary for the protection of the citizens and the general welfare. Subd. 9. Such permit shall not be granted for a period of longer than 12 months, but may be renewed by the Council or Engineer. Section 3~0:25. Violations and Nuisance. Any person, firm or corp6~ion that shall refuse, neglect or fail to comply with any requirement made of him or it under the provisions of Section 3~0:20 as promptly as same can be Section 3~0,30 reasonably done, shall be guilty of a penal offense and the Council may revoke the permit issued, and in addition to other penalties prescribed herein, the failure to comply with such requirement, after notice, and the continuing excavation, removal or storage of rock, sand, gravel, dirt, clay, or other like material on the premises shall be prima facie evidence of a public nuisance and may be abated by court action. Section 340:30. Land Reclamation Permit. Land reclamation under this ordinance is the reclaiming of land by depositing of material so as to elevate the grade. Land reclamation shall be permitted only after issuance of a special permit in all districts on any lot or parcel upon which two hundred (200) cubic yards or more of fill is to be deposited for land reclamation. Fill materials shall be approved by the City Engineer as suitable to the final use of the property. Fill materials shall confcrm to the following minimum requirements. The material shall not include garbage or toxic materials and shall be stable, non-combustible and not support decay. Section 340:35. Conditions of Permit. The permit shall include as a condition thereof a finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land, and as a condition thereof shall regulate the type of fill permitted, plans for rodent control, fire control and general maintenance of the site and adjacent area and make provision for control of material dispersed from wind or hauling material to or from the site. Section 340:40. Prohibited Materials. The dumping of materials for the purposes of land reclamation shall not be a violation of any other ordinance or code provisions of the City, including but not limited to dumping and sanitary landfill, provided that the person engaged in such land reclamation shall have first secured a special permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 340:30. Any area of the City which has been licenses as a public dump by the City shall not be subject to this Section or Section 340:30. Section 3~0s~5. Penalty. Any person, firm, or corpoz~ation that shall violate any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a penal offense. Each day that the violation shall continue shall constitute a separate offense. Section 340:40 amended by Ordinance #1981-355(A) Sections 340:30 and 340:40 amended by Ordinance #1981-372(A) POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. 4344 lBS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS~ MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER (~12 -333 -4~00 WAYNE G. PORHAM ROGER W. SCHNOBRICH DENVER KAUFMAN DAVID S. DOTY ROBERT A. MINISH ROLFE A. WOI~DEN G. MARC WHITEHEAD BRUCE D. WILLIS FREDERICK S. RICHARDS G. ROBERT JOHNSON GARY R. MACOMBER ROBERT S. BUR:~ HUGH V. PLUNKETT, ~ FREDERICK C. BROWN THOMAS K. BERG BRUCE D. MALKERSON JAMES R. STEiLEN JAMES B. LOCKHaRT ALLEN W. HINDERAI~ER CLIFFORD M. GREENE D, WILLIAM I~AUFMAN DESY1 L. PETERSON MICHAEL O. FREEMAN tHOMAS C. D~AOUILA LARRY D. ESI~EI JAN}E S. MAYERON DAVID A. JONES LEE E. SHEEHY lESLIE GILLETTE MICHAEL T. NILAN ROBERT C. MOILANEN STEVEN G- HEIKENS THOMAS F, NELSON THOMAS J. RADIO DAVID I. HAShMALL KATHLEEN M. MARTIN JOHN C. CHILDS DOUGLAS P. SEATON BRUCE B. M¢:PHEEtERS GARY D. BLACKFORD SCOTT e. RICHTER GREGORY L. WILMES ELIZABETH A. THOMPSON OF COUNSEL FRED I. MOF:~RISON 2060 PETRO - LEWIS TOWER 717 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER 303 - 292 -2660 SUITE B02-2OOO L STREET, N. W. WASHiNGtON, D. C. 20036 TELEI~HONE AND TELECOPIER 202 - E~87-5154 July 6, 1984 Mayor Bob Polston and City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mayor Polston and Councilmembers: As you have probably been told by your staff, I am resigning from the Popham, Haik law firm to become the full-time city attorney on the staff at the City of Minnetonka. This is a wonderful opportunity for me and I am really looking forward to it. It means, however, that I can no longer continue to be your prosecuting attorney. I am sincerely saddened by that prospect because I have thoroughly enjoyed working with your City staff and police department for these past few years. You have a fine staff and have every reason to be proud of them. It is precisely because I have enjoyed working with you and with them so much that I have chosen to become a full-time city attorney rather than doing it part-time as a part of my private practice. I want to thank you for the opportunity to work for you and the confidence and trust you have placed in me during these last years. It has been an honor to work with you. My best wishes to all of you in the future. DLP/jmp 1098w Sincerely, Desyl[,~. Peterson 534~,'A"r'',' ~'_ '-.. n'C,/'~ D NQUN[}. i',l ,~, NN::~STA 55264 (6'~ 2) 472-'i155 TO: FROH: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Chris Bollis, Park Director July 16, 1984 Commercial Dock Inspection During the week of July 9, 1984, Dell and I inspected the commercial docks and submit the following report. 1. Martin and Son - They installed a new dock this season. The condition is excellent. Approved. 2. Baypoint Associates - Same dock and layout as last year. Approved. 3. A1 & Alma's - Most of the dock and layout is the same as last year. New section same type of construction as old dock. Approved. 4. Surfside, Inc. - Same dock and layout as last year. We could not recommend approval until the following items are corrected: A. No smoking signs installed at gas pumps. None there at present time. Bo A 10 pound A.B.C. fire extinguisher be installed at the gas pump so it is visible and accessible. A 2 pound is available now, but it is in a cabinet and not charged. C. Gas supply line must be attached to dock with chain or cable. Several spots are attached with rope at present time. D. Broken electrical conduit must be repaired and all uncovered boxes must be covered with waterproof covers. E. All missing boards and holes in the dock walkway must be re- paired. Chris Bollis CB/ms MN Municipal ity Volume I, Issue 4 THE: LE TTE:F summer1984 Interest Rates Taxable and tax-exempt interest rates have increased dramatically over the past several months. The :20-year Bond Buyer's Index was at 10.76 on June ;28, compared with a 1984 Iow of 9.51 on February :2. Shorter term tax-exempt rates also are up sharply. "A" rated general obligation bonds maturing in 1989 were yielding 8.6% this week compared to 7.45% in February. Many interest rate forecasts are for higher rates for the balance of this year, with the potential for staying higher throughout 1985. Forecasters cite several reasons for their pessimism including continued heavy deficit borrowing by the Federal government, continuing heavy private credit requirements, higher than desired money supply growth through economic recovery, and anticipated higher inflation. Higher interest rates will impact local governments further than just reducing the affordabillty level of municipal borrowing. It will impact housing starts and commercial- industrial development and any other related private development. The potential impact on development should raise some warning signals for public - private ventures. Those communities asked to issue improvement bonds for new housing projects may want to consider scaling down expansion plans, or requiring increased security from developers to guard against assessment delinquencies or development agreement default. Communities considering tax increment projects may want to reexamine the impact of higher private interest rates on construction schedules, and the impact on debt service revenues if development or redevelopment is delayed or reduced in scope. Housing bond issuers should examine closely the market demand for reduced rate mortgages at the higher levels. We hope you will feel free to call us with questions on development security, market timing, or other matters of concern to you. Municipal Investments Most of you have heard the horror stories recently about the loss of value of municipal investment portfolios through imprudent investment practices and/or bankruptcy proceedings. This space does not permit a summary of what your investment policies should be. However, we have been impressed with the quality of a fairly new publication devoted to investment strategy and wish to bring it to your attention. It is PUBLIC INVESTOR, a monthly subscription newsletter of the Government Finance Officers Association (formerly MFOA). Annual subscription cost is $50 for active GFOA members. We assume those of you currently not receiving the newsletter could request a past copy for review by contacting GFOA, 180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60601 ,or calling (312) 977-9700. New Federal Tax Bill The new tax bill, if enacted into law, will have some positive and negative impact on nearly everyone. In the municipal bond area the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds for multi-family rental projects was retained. Similar bonds for single-family owner occupied mortgages were reauthorized for a four-year period, subject to current restrictions, but outside the $1 50 per capita limit. Most private purpose industrial development bonds will be subject to the $150 per capita limit, but issues which have received preliminary approval may be exempt from the per capita limit if issued during 1984. The conferees agreed to prohibit any single user of IDB's to $40 million of bonds outstanding at any one time, but permitted an extended use of small issue IDB's through 1988, if the bond proceeds finance manufacturing fac il it les. SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS 800 Osborn Buildin9 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241 The final bill has been approved by both houses of Congress and may be signed by the President by the time you receive this letter. We suggest you review the bill's provisions closely with o Bond Attorney with whom you hove worked if you hove questions about your community's requirements. The authorization to issue during ICj84 any industrial development bonds which have received preliminary approval will have at least a short-term adverse market impact on oil long-term financing. No one has a number for that potential volume but it will be in the billions of dollars. It will exacerbate on already volatile market. Tax Increment Financing The limit on IDB's will make private development financing more expensive, and will create some priority allocation requirements for city councils. It also is likely to accelerate the requests for tax increment assistance since it may be the only game in town. That will create another set of priority concerns, as well as impose additional -burdens on city staff. We believe cities will want to begin a more critical review of whether incremental subsidy is needed to make a development possible. That will require o detailed analysis of required rates of return on investments, market income levels for the project and the private financing impact without tax increment. We believe the use by cities of equity participation agreements with developers receiving tax increment assistance will also accelerate. These agreements, if properly drafted with meaningful requirements, con return to a city some or all of its net contribution to a project should it be sold and/or become profitable sooner than anticipated. Springsted Incorporated has developed some significant experience with both reviewing the need for tax increment assistance and the use of equity participation agreements. If you have any questions about either process we hope you will contact us. Minnesoto State-Aid Rood Bonds The Minnesota Department of Transportation is making good use of its new increased revenue base, resulting in contract awards for many long deferred construction projects. That's good news for drivers and highway construction firms. It may be bad news for city engineers if the abundance of available work robes construction costs of local State-aid projects. Many cities do not know they can issue general obligation bonds for municipal State-aid street improvements. You in essence borrow against future annual construction ollot-- ments. There is a practical limit on how much you con borrow, since the average annual debt service on all bonds cannot exceed 50% of your last annual construction allotment. Interest on any bonds must be paid from the maintenance account, and there is a provision in the law permitting a city to increase the maintenance allotment to 25% of the total allotment. Bonding may make sense if you hove one or several projects which cannot be done with current available funds, or if you feel the cost of deferring some needed proiects may be more expensive than the interest cost of borrowing money. Springsted Incorporated maintains records on all municipal aid allocations and if you call we are able to compute your current debt capacity. That information might be helpful in your planning process. D PUBLIC , FINANCIAL SYSTEMS The UN-Offioial St:a~ement: Volume 1, Number 3 DEVELOPMENT AT WHAT COST? Many communities are starting to take a harder look at the costs associated with new development. What additional public service costs are created by new development? Will additional revenues generated be sufficient to cover these costs? What type of growth pattern best fits the City's fiscal capabilities? Public Financial Systems is actively in- volved in helping cities answer these questions. Public Financial Systems is working with the City of St. Cloud, MN. on a major growth study. Like many communities, St. Cloud must rely on annexation for future growth. Public Financial Systems is helping the City to assess d~velop- ment potential and the related costs. Public Financial Systems' role in the project is to analyze the fiscal impacts of the proposed development plan. Many of these same questions are being asked in LaCrosse, WI. In addition to serving as the City's financial ad- visor, PFS has been retained to analyze the costs of annexing and providing services to a 445 acre annexation area. Our study will focus on the long-term financing tools available to the City for municipal improvements, including projected special assessment impacts and assessment cash flow to support project debt. The study will be used by the City to analyze the feasibility of special assessment financing and to identify other growth issues for further study. June 1984 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING Public Financial Systems offers a variety of services that make capital improvements planning much easier. We recognize that each organization's needs and capabilities are different. Our capital improvements planning services allow you to design a plan that fits your specific needs, from a complete assistance program to specialized technical assistance. The actual scope of work is designed to meet the in- dividual needs of each client. Some of the services available include: Training sessions and educational workshops. Development o~ project worksheets. · Development of capital improvements data base. · Fiscal impact analysis of capital improvements plan. · Development and/or review of improvements plan. · Development and implementation of computerized capital improvements planning process. (See "CAPITAL" Page 4) O'NEILL JOINS MINNESOTA PROJECT BOARD Dan O'Neill, President of PFS, was re- cently appointed to the Board of Direct- ors of the Minnesota Project. The Minnesota Project is a non-profit ~or- potation providing economic development related technical assistance to smaller communities in out-state Minnesota. The l.linnesota Project is currently work' in the areas of water resources, sol,a waste, alcohol conversion, and energy conservation. BOND VOLUME DECLINES IN 1984 After a record setting year in 1983, the pace in the bond market has slowed dramatically during the first four months of 1984. According to The Bond Buyer, a total of $19.5 billion in long-term financing was undertaken by state and local government in the first four months of this year. This represents a 28.3% decrease in bond volume from 1983 for the same period even though the year started on a strong note. The volume in January 1984 was higher than the first month in any of the three previous years. However, since January, the monthly volume of new bond issues has remained relatively constant. The $5 billion total in April long-term financing is 49.1% lower than in April 1983. The total number of state and local government issues sold during the month was one-half that of the previous year. Type of Issue 1984 Volume Change (Billion $) From 1983 Revenue Bonds 11.575 State/Municipal Housing 1.737 Pollution Control 1.039 Industrial (Non-Pollution) 0.136 Refunding 3.121 - 71.3% - 58.?% - 23.4% - 81.6% - 22.4% SOURCE: The Bond Buyer. O0 z~ o=3 10 COMPARISON OF BOND VOLUMES January - April 9 8 7 6 5 3, 2 1 0 iii J,~NN UAI:~ FEBRUAI:~ MARCH APRIL [771 1984 198,3 1982. 1981 C -2- DATE 5124 5/23 5/22 5/21 5/17 5/16 ~5/~5 5/14 5/10 5/9 5/8 5/7 ISSUER Savage (MN) Mt. Hareb (WI) Granite Falls (MN) Granite Falls (MN) Cold Spring (MN) Oskaloosa CSD (IA) Virginia (MN) Virginia (MN) Virginia (MN) Otter Tail Co. (MN) McLeod County (MN) Cannon Falls (MN) Spring Green (WI) Des Moines (IA) Belle Fourche (SD) Wanamingo (IA) Tipton (IA) Tipton (IA) Farmington (MN) Wells (MN) Wells (MN) Appleton (WI) Alexandria Lake Area San. Dist. (MN) Algona (IA) Winnebago Co. (WI) Bettendorf (IA) Milwaukee (WI) Newton (IA) Kanawha Com. SD (IA) Buffalo (MN) Glendale (WI) Lisbon (IA) Durand (WI) Rusk County (WI) Kandiyohi Co. (MN) Kandiyoki Co. (MN) Mahtomedi (MN) Thompson PSD #61 (ND)= Kiel (WI) Sullivan (WI) Minneapolis (MN) Minnetonka (MN) Rib Mt. Metro Sewer District (WI) Goodview (MN) Goodview (MN) NorthfJeld (MN) North~ield (I.IN) Green Bay (WI) Madison (WI) SUMMARY OF RECENT BOND ISSUES TYPE OF ISSUE AMOUNT(S) RATING GO Tax Increment 3,750,000 Baal GO Improvement GO Hospital & Nursing Ref. GO Hospital & Nursing Rev. 1,210,000 550,000 600,000 GO Improvement 300,000 GO School 2,950,000 GO Improvement 310,000 GO Rec. Building 245,000 GO Tax Increment 875,000 GO Grant Anticipation Bds. 2,670,000 GO Refunding Series 1984 370,000 GO Hospital Facility Rev. 1,000,000 GO Improvement Refunding 505,000 GO Improvement GO Water Refunding Grant Anticipation Cert. Electric Rev. Pledge Orders Gas Revenue Pledge Orders GO Tax Increment GO Tax Increment GO 9,100,000 595,000 795,000 805,000 305,000 125,000 55,000 320,000 GO Corporate Purpose 12,750,000 Baal Baal Baal Baal A A NR Aaa Baa NR NR NR GO Improvement GO Improvement Promissory Notes GO Improvement GO Corp. Purp. Pub. Imp. GO Bd. & Grt. Ant. Notes GO School GO Tax Increment Promissory Notes GO Improvement Ret. Prom. Tax Notes Law Enforcement Center Sewer Revenue Grant Anticipation GO Improvement GO School Building Sewer Sys. Mort. Revenue GO Refunding GO. GO Improvement GO Series 1984B GO Improvement GO Refunding Improvement GO Library Series 1984B GO Improve. Series 2984A Corporate Purpose GO Promissory Notes 225,000 470,000 4,650,000 4,000,000 31,075,000 6,000,000 4000,000 1,075,000 1,500,000 205,000 830,000 1,650,000 440,000 2,340,000 910,000 320,000 2,725,000 450,000 16,615,000 11,000,000 6,000,000 750,000 780,000 1,300,000 1,125,000 6,860,000 6,500,000 A Aa MIG1 A Aa NR A1 A1 Baal NET BOND BUYERS INTEREST RATE INDEX MATURITY 10.266 10.83 1988-02 9.962 10.83 1988-99 8.547 10.83 1985-93 9.795 10.83 1987-01 9.295 10.83 1987-95 9.787 10.83 1985-99 9.674 10.83 1987-96 9.339 10.83 1986-95 10.292 10.83 1987-01 7.798 10.83 12-1-86 9.210 10.83 1986-98 9.555 10.83 1985-99 9.975 10.83 1985-98 9.806 10.83 1989-03 9.124 10.83 1986-94 7.614 10.83 12-1-86 8.000 10.83 5-30-85 8.000 10.83 5-30-85 8.000 10.83 1987-98 9.597 10.83 1987-97 7.614 10,83 1985-98 9.209 9.928 9.887 8.349 9.386 9.501 7.882 10.36 1986-03 10.36 1986-05 10.36 1986-99 10.36 1985-91 10.36 1986-95 10.36 1985-99 10.36 6-01-87 10.157 10.36 1986-00 9.726 10.36 1987-00 8.689 10.36 1986-93 9.575 10.36 1985-94 9.640 10.36 1985-94 9.819 10.19 1985-94 9.564 10.19 1987-01 7.397 10.19 5-01-86 8.085 10.19 1985-91 NR 9.370 10.19 1986-99 AAA 9.921 10.19 1985-'04 NR 10.498 10.19 1985-00 Aaa/AAA 8.470 10.19 1985-01 9.310 10.19 1985-99 9,459 10.19 1989-5-15 8.881 10.19 1986-96 8,972 10.19 1985-96 9,745 10.19 1985-04 8.454 10.19 1985-94 9.180 7.93O A1 NR A A A A 9.99 1986-99 9.99 1985-94 -3- ~PITAL (from Page 1) The heart of these services is a unique computer model developed by Public Financial Systems. CAP*PLAN automatic- ally spreads the costs of proposed improvements over a five-year planning period. The impacts of a change in any variable, such as project cost or timing can recalculated in seconds rather than hours. The capabilities of CAP*PLAN extend well beyond the distribution of project costs. CAP*PLAN helps you to analyze the debt financing and overall fiscal impacts of the proposed capital improvements. CAP*PLAN is the newest product of the Public Financial Systems software development program. The model is currently being pilot tested by the Dakota County Planning Department and will be avai'lable for purchase this summer. This flexible service package adjusts o fit your needs rather than your needs aving to be adjusted to fit the services. Our goal is to provide you with a realistic, cost-effective capital improvements plan and strategy. Please contact us for additional information on capital improvements planning assistance and CAP*PLAN. STAFF ADDITION Public Fi.nancial Systems is pleased to announce the addition of Ms. Katherine Downs to our staff. Ms. Downs joined PFS in December, 1983 with a degree in Business Administration from the University of Minnesota. With over five years experience in local government financial consulting, she has quickly become .an important member of our technical services department. Her many talents include computer programming, JCata analysis, tax increment financing and official statement preparation. Ms. Downs is a very welcome addition to Public Financial Systems. -4- AHO ADDRESSES ALHFA CONFERENCE Public Financial Systems' Executive Vice President, Kathleen A. Aho, recently presented "A Primer on Housing Finance" to the first annual meeting of the Association of Local Housing Financing Agencies (ALHFA) in Pittsburgh. Ms. Aho's remarks focused on the role of the financial advisor in housing finance. As the complexities of housing finance have grown in recent years, so has the variety of services that can be provided by a qualified financial advisor. Ac- cording to Ms. Aho, "The role of the financial advisor has evolved from com- menting on interest rates and management fees...into a much more integral service." Among the potential advisory services noted in the presentation were: · Representing the client in nego- tiations with underwriters and other professional service providers. · ® Evaluating underwriting proposals. · Assisting the client in transform- lng financing ideas into a market- able form. · Providing on-going advice and as- sistance, such as planning for future projects and evaluating past projects. · Developing specialized computer software for internalized manage- ment needs. 63 SOUTH 9TH STREET, SUITE 402 MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE: (612) 333-9~77 CAP*PLAN Tt~ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANNING MODEL Preparing a capital improvements program can be a very frustrating experience. Gathering the basic project data and making the initial forecast of capital expenditures is a time consuming process. A capital improvements plan is rarely completed within a single fore- casting session. The frustrating part of capital improvements planning comes from the "ripple effect" of changing basic project data: What happens if project X is moved from 1985 to 19877 How much money will be spent on equipment'?. What are the debt implications of the proposed projects? The answer to each question requires a new set of calculations, Answering these questions is the key to the development, of a prac- tical plan, but making the calculations with a pencil and a calcu- lator can take too much time. CAP'PLAN, Public Financial Systems' capital improvements planning model, simplifies this process. With CAP'PLAN, you can see the results of changes in your capital improvements plan in seconds instead of minutes. Some of the important features of CAPCPLAN include: EASE OF USE: Public Financial Systems has built many user-friendly features into CAP'PLAN. The model auto- matically helps you to load data, calculate debt pro- jections, analyze fiscal impacts, and print reports. DEBT PROJECTIONS: CAP'PLAN allows you to estimate the debt financing costs for your projects. For those projects where a bond issue is planned, CAPCPLAN calculates the amount of borrowing required and the average annual (PUBLIC ~ FINANCIAL II ~m- SYSTEMS ~J 63 SOUTH 9TH STREET, SUITE 402 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE: f612) 333-9177 debt set'vice payment. To make these estimates r-ealistic, the model lets you vary the interest rate, the term of the debt, the issuing costs, the amount of capitalized interest, the discount factor, the amount of other costs, and the amount of r'evenue available from other sources. CAPrPLAN also places the annual debt service cost in the proper planning years. WHAT IF: The CAPrPLAN "Search" function makes it easy to explore the fiscal impacts of fha capital improvements plan. The Search function summarizes project data according to cr'iteria you specify: year, type, revenue source, department, cost .or any combination of these factors. Using Search enables you to perform in-depth analyses of the fiscal impacts of any proposed capital investment in a short period of ~ime. OTHER FUNCTIONS: Load, Compare, Print, and Expand are some of the other functions that make CAP'~PLAN a powerful, yet easy to use tool 'for' capital improvements planning. COST The basic cost of CAPrPLAN with documentation is $250.00. Public Financial Systems will make customized revisions to the basic model for an additional charge. The cost of the revisions depends on the nature and extent of the changes. With the purchase of CAP'PLAN you are entitled to future enhancements of the model at a reduced cost. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS CAP~'PLAN requires Lotus 1-2-3 (Version lA)''~ and a minimum memory capacity of 256K, A wide carriage printer is helpful, but not essential, '¢Lotus and 1-2-3 are trademarks of the Lotus Development Corporation FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS Public Financial Systems constantly searches for ways of improving its software. In the near future, a data base capability will be added to CAP'~PLAN. The data base will be used to accumulate detailed information on each project. This will provide a more complete picture of each project. Key project information from the data base can then be transferred to CAPm'PLAN for analysis, resultin9 in a fully automated capital improvements plannin9 process. OTHER SERVICES Public Financial Systems is an independent financial advisory firm serving local 9overnment. Our software development program has grown out of the increasin9 demand for financial planning and management tools for local government. The foundation for Public Financial Systems software is analytical tools that we have developed and used in our advisory services. The experience of th.e Public Financial Systems staff in public finance, local 9overnment and data processin9 insures that these tools produce the results you need. Other software currently or soon to be available from Public Financial Systems: M.A.R.T. (Municipal Advance Refunding Template) Tax Increment Financing Feasibility Special Assessments Calculation and Cash Flow Credit/Fiscal Impact Analysis Wage/Benefit Profile FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Fifield Public Financial Systems, Inc. 63 South 9th Street, Suite 402 Nlinneapol is, Minnesota 55402 (612) 333-9177 (C) Copyright - 1984 Public Financial Systems, Inc. oo~oooooo~oo~o~o o City of Golden Valley July 5, 1984 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Mayowood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jon: Thank you for your support for my election as President of the League of Minnesota Cities. It is encouraging to me to have you express your confidence in my ability and also to have you indicate a willingness to help during the coming year. We are fortunate to have Bob Anderson, immediate past President, remain on the Board. His experience will be invaluable. I am looking forward to working with Sue Edel, our Vice President. She has a history of dedicated service to the League of Minnesota Cities as well as some new ideas for making the League more effective. The Board and I will need your help and cooperation to deal with issues and improve our services.' I encourage you to participate in the policy committees and the regional meetings. If there are special tasks to be done, we will not hesitate to call on you. Be sure to let us know if and when you have concerns or knowledge of issues the League should be aware of. We can be more effective, responsive and improve our services to member communities if we have good open communication between the members, the Board and the staff. Many thanks for your support. Si ~C~el y, Mary E. ~nderson Mayor MEA: pb ~ / ~/J CMc Center, 7800 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley Minnesota, 55427, (612) 54 5- 3781 Arnericsn Legion Post 398 OA;E June 30. !9%A G"-~-~I RE~ORT CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE GROSS: f~:065.00 f20960.00 EXPENSES: Sales tax ~: ,-,:.0. O0 PAYOUT AS PRIZES: ~00.00 !i?'00 O0 PROFIT: ~IST~IBUTI~.~I OF PROFITS: Com.:unzky ~ma:Ss Leg. ~aseba!l Equip. Leg. Softb~ll fees I,:ound Police 391.68 168.00 ~0.00 "'15o.oo g= oo ~1203,65 "' 0 , 35~ . GA~LING The 1984 Legislature was very active in the area of gambling. It did not pass a proposal to place a constitutional amendment authorizing lotteries on this fall's election ballots, but did enact laws affecting horse racing, bingo, other gambling activities, and video games of chance, generally as part of larger bills. In this year's Omnibus Tax Bill (Chapter 502), Article 12 contains extensive and significant changes dealing with charitable gambling including creation of a state-wide charitable gambling control board to regulate bingo, paddlewheels, tipboards, raffles, and pull-tabs. In short, the board will regulate all legalized forms of gambling. Cities end'counties have authority to adopt more stringent regulations of any form of lawful gambling within its jurisdiction, including the prohibition of any form of lawful gambling. They may require a permit to conduct gambling which is otherwise exempt from state licensing requirements. However, if the organization has a state license, it need not comply with local license or permit requirements. Cities may disapprove the granting of state licenses by passing a resolution and giving notice to the state board. County attorneys are primarily responsible for enforcement. The stated intent of the law is to regulate legal forms of gambling to prevent their commercialization, to insure integrity of operations, and to provide for the use of net profits only for lawful purposes. The only exemptions from state licensing requirements are for bingo occasions at a county fair, the state fair, or a civic celebration if not for more than 12 consecutive days in a calendar year; or by an organization which~conducts four or fewer bingo occasions in a calendar year; or raffles if the value of all raffle prizes the organization awards in a calendar year does not exceed $750; or raffles an organization conducts which, directly or under contract to the state or political subdivision, delivers health or social services and is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization (IRS Code) but only if the prizes are not real or personal property an individual, firm, or other organization donated. Ail other gambling activity must have a state license. Thus, cities can only issue licenses or permits for the limited list of state-exempted gambling activities. As a practical matter, for most cities it won't be worth the bother to license these exempt activities. The state board will consist of 13 members. The governor will select 11 (four must reside outside the metropolitan area). The other two members are the commissioner of public safety and the attorney general or their designees. The governor will choose the chairperson from his appointees. The board has full licensing and regulatory authority with the attorney general serving as the attorney for the board. The act contains many regulatory provisions concerning eligibility for licensing, operation of gambling activities, prize limits, and reporting of profits; and imposes a 10 percent tax on gross receipts minus prizes. The board will begin licensing March 1, 1985. Ail local licenses expire Feb. 28, 1985. Cities should continue normal licensing until that time. Video gambling devices were also the subject of legislative attention this past session. The Supplemental Appropriations Bill (Chapter 654), in Article 3, Sections 89-99 establishes state regulations for video games or devices that simulate games such as poker, blackjack, craps, hi-lo roulette, or other common gambling forms, though not offering any type of pecuniary award or gain to players. Also covered are video games having one or more of the following characteristics: it is primarily a game of chance and has no substantial elements of skill involved; or it awards game credits or replays and contains a device that permits cancellation. No person can distribute or operate video games of chance at any place of business without first receiving a license from the state department of public ~safety to engage in that business at that location (the liquor control · ~division will be the enforcement/licensing authority). Distributor may not be wholesale distributors of liquor or alcoholic beverages. Each machine must have a license as well, set by law at $120.00 per year. All state revenues will go to a video gaming license account. Using an internal certification process, the state will then pay $30 from the video gaming account to each city and county for each video game of chance located in the city or in the county outside city limits. The remainder will go into the state general fund. Cities and counties may not impose a fee or tax of any kind on video games of chance. No location can have more than two video games of chance, and licensed on-sale intoxicating establishments and private clubs are the only authorized locations for operation of video games of chance. Violation of the law constitutes a misdemeanor and other state gambling laws apply as well. This law became effective May 3, 1984, but the Liquor Control Division is gearing up for July 1, 1984 licensing. BUDGET REPORT June 30, 1984 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District BUDGET REPORT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - GENERAL FUND June 30, 1984 DISBURSEMENTS General Fund - Administration 2nd 1984 Year 1983 Year Quarter to Date to Date Personal Services Salaries $13,243 Auditing Services -- Total Personal Services 13,243 Contractual Services Telephone 138 Postage 195 Printing, Pub. & Adv. 209 Utilities 55 Maintenance - Off. Equip. 362 Janitorial Services 165 Other Contractual Services 1,539 Total Contractual Services 2,663 Commodities & Supplies Office Supplies 537 Books & Periodicals 75 General Supplies 43 Total Commod. & Supplies 655 Other Charges Office Rent 900 Insurance & Bonds -- Memberships 105 Employer Contributions 2,279 Mileage & Expenses 324 Total Other Charges Capital Outlay Off.Furn.,Fixtures & Equip. Total Capital Outlay TOTAL GENERAL FUND - ADMINISTRATION General Fund - Legal Legal Services TOTAL GENERAL FUND - LEGAL 3,608 20,169 2,836 2,836 General Fund - Committees & Contingency Committees -- TOTAL GENERAL FUND - COMMITTEES & CONTINGENCY -- 1984 Budget $25,174 $24,319 $49,300 .... 500 25,174 24,319 49,800 325 333 640 574 797 1,200 529 128 1,100 86 110 360 592 520 1,000 330 330 660 2,858 355 4,700 5,294 2,573 9,660 570 1,018 1,500 75 84 105 147 86 220 792 1,188 1,825 1,800 1,800 4,005 .... 900 215 215 175 4,551 4,118 8,400 562 525 1,200 % of Budget 51.1% 50.5% 50.8% 47.8 48 1 23 9 59 2 5O 0 60 8 54 8% 38.0% 71.4 66.8 43.4% 44.9% 122.8 54.2 46.8 7,128 6,658 14,680 48.5% 651 87 950 68.5% 651 87 950 68.5% 39,039 34,825 76,915 50.7% 5,778 4,104 15,000 38.5% 5,778 4,104 15,000 38.5% 260 601 2,000 13.0% 260 601 2,000 13.0% $45,077 $39,530 $93,915 48.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND - DISBURSEMENTS $23,005 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District BUDGET REPORT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - GENERAL FUN~ June 30, 1984 REVER~E LMCD Communities Other Income TOTAL GENERAL FUND - REVENUE 2nd 1984 Year 1983 Year Quarter to Date to Date 1984 Budget % of Budget $ 7,123 $55,214 $54,528 $68,825 80.2% 3~498. 8,509 13,305 25,105 33.9 $10,621 $63~723 $67,833 $93,930 67.8% 2/50 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District BUDGET REPORT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - SAVE THE LAKE FUND June 30, 1984 Balance December 31, 1983 REVENUE Save the Lake Fund Donations Other Income TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE FUND - REVENUE 2nd Year Quarter to Date $13,827.00 $15,188.50 1,799.18 2,361.05 $15,626.18 $17,549.55 $46,842.58 DISBURSEMENTS Save the Lake Fund Project Expense: Awards Lake Use Study Pamphlets Signs TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE FUND - DISBURSEMENTS $ 55.00 $ 309.80 2,200.00 2,200.00 7,142.10 7,418.21 93.10 93.10 $ 9,490.20 $10,021.11 Balance June 30, 1984 $54,371.02 7-10-84 Board of Du'ectors President Ronald J. Backes St. Louis Park '/ice P[esident J ames Scheibel St. Paul aeeociat[on of metr. opol!tgn mun c poi he Past President John T. irving Cry~tal Directors \\'~l:~am Barnhart :',I, n neapol ~s July 3, 1984 Ga:,~ Bastian Map[ewood Sharon Sables gelton M~nneapol,s Robert J. Benke New Brighton Blomquist :an Walter Fehst Robbmsdale Laura Fraser Lake Elmo James Miller Minnetonka Patric~a Hoyt Neils Plymouth !da,'~ ,v Pete, son Stii~;vate~ Ned\V Peterson B:oomington Eldon Rcinke Shakopee James Spo~c gurns~ die Mr. Jon Elam City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Jon: This is to acknowledge receipt of the dues from Mound to the Association of ~tropolitan Municipalities for the membership year 1984-85. I want to thank you for your continuing support of the Association. Please convey our thanks to Mayor Polston and the members of your city council. Again, our thanks, and please contact the Association Office when we can be of assistance. Best Regards, Executive Director VP/cw Robe:t Sundhmd S t. ,-\ n th or,': 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD © 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 C) 0 CD 0 C) 0 O c) O (D G'~ Cn (D O O O O CD CZ) CD O 0 0 0 (D 0 (D 0 0 C) o 0 0 0 -S~ ~'~ O CD O O O C) O O ~ C) O O CD O O (D g~ O C) O C) O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O CD O O O O O CZ) O O O (S~ ~. O0 O'l (D '43 O'~ CO O O CD O t'O t'O O O'~ O O O C) CD ~ O O tO -Ye * OO O O (D C) 0 0 O O -Go C~ G~ ~ 0o t'O ~ kO L"O 03 D '",1 tO ~ GO ~ O'~ tO ~ ~ GO O'~ CO k..a C) O (D Gq L'O I:O ~ ~ ~ bO O * O0 O CD (D ~ ~-~ (3O (D O * CD (3O 0'3 4x (,0 L'O --3 e,.O t'O CO NS O O 00 CD O O ~ C) CD O C) C) O (D CD G'~ O O 00 O (30 0 o 0 o 0 0 C) 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 00 CD o o o 0 0 0 0 CD C) C) CD 0 ¢:,, C:) ~ 0 oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 00 O'~ ~ 0 cO 0 O'~ CD 0 0 0 ~ Co CD 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:) 0 0 0 -Ge. 0 C) CD CD 0 0 0 t~ 0 CD C) 0 0 (D 0 ~ 0 0 C;) ,~ 0 CD 0 CD .,,.q ~ OO .-x- 0 CD Cn 0 0 0 -~ cD 0 O'} ..x- O'~ 0 .~- ..yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 cD ~ ..x- O0 0 cD o 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 -.q 0 ['~ ¢:~ ~ 0 0 (.n C} 0 0 0 * ~ 0 ¢:, 0 -~- I~ ¢:, 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 (D C) (D 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 r,.,n 0 0 CD 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 CD CD CD b.: -.x- L'O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ a 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 C) 0 0 C) CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 CE) 0 0 C) 0 0 0 CE) 0 C) CE) 0 o o oooooooo o o oo ooo 0o CD O CD CD CD O CD © CD CD O O CD CD O CD C) CD O O CD CD CD CD CD ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O'b 0 0 0 Oa 0 CO C) 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'~ 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 ~l~ 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 C) 0 0 G'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 O0 0 0 ~ 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~x~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © ~0 tO I-~ Oo ~0 I-4 O0 I-~ O0 ~ ~0 Oa (;0 ~ '~..~q ~0 (~ 0 0 0 0 0 L~O 0 O'~ 0 0 0 ~0 0 ['0' 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 O, 0 0 0 0 O'~ ~,D I-~ O0 ~ ~ Oo Oo Co ~ "~ ~ O0 t-~ ['0 ~0 O'~ Oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 ~:D ~ C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-~. 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 G'~ 0 CD O0 0 0 (D 0 CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 CD (D 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 CD O0 O0 CD C) 0 0 CD (D 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 t-~ 0 "~ 1-4' O'~ ~. O~ ~0 0 ,4~ ~0 (.~ c.O C) O'~ (D L'O 0 0 ~ CD (D 0 ~ 0 CD 0 (:0 0 0 0 0 0 ~. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D CS; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'1 Oa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O LO O O O O O O O O O O O O (DO O O O O OO O O O O CD u~ O O O O O O O O ~ O O .O (DO O LO O O OO u~ O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O0 (D O O O O O O CD O O O 0 o 0 co 0 0 0 0 CD O CD O O O O O O O O aO O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O O O O CD O O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O0 CD O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O u~ O 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 oooo ooooo o C) 0 cD 0 o 0 o'~ 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O > O O ~ ~ ~ IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL BUSINESSES WITH MULTI-LINE TELEPHONE SERVICE Beginning with your next bill, a new charge will be added to your monthly telephone statement. This new "access charge" of $6.00 per month per individual business telephone line has been ordered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Starting May 25, the FCC requires all telephone companies to charge multi- line businesses (including PBX, key system and certain Centrex customers) and WATS customers for access to the interstate long distance network. Since the effective date for implementing this access charge is not the same as your monthly telephone billing date, your next bill will include the $6.00 per line monthly charge plus a partial month's access charge for the period of May 25, 1984 to your billing date. For example, if your te}ephone statement is dated the 22nd of the month and you have a two-line system, you will be billed $12 ($6 x 2) for the two lines plus an additional $11.20. This additional charge covers the period from May 25 to your billing date of June 22, and is based on 20 cents per day ($6/month + 30 days) for access charges, multiplied by the number of telephone lines (two). In the past, access charges were built into the rates you paid for long distance service. A portion of this artificially-high interstate long distance revenue was used to offset the costs of providing local service and hold down local telephone rates. The FCC ordered implementation of access charges to reduce this local rate support in order to promOte fair coml~:~titi'on among long distance carriers. Effective May 25, AT&T reduced its interstate long distance charges by 6.1 percent as ordered by the FCC. If you have any questions concerning access charges and your telephone bill, please contact your local business office. /:'~ C,> '~::.-/" .',~ Oontel ~ice ~rporalion .~ HENNEPIN IL OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR A-2300 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 July 2, 1984 Mr. Jon Elam Mound City Manager 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: This is to officially notify you that the Hennepin County Board of Commis- sioners, at their June 5 meeting, passed a resolution (enclosed) indicating their intent to designate a Community Action Agency in suburban and rural Hennepin County, and that they are proposing that the agency be a private, nonprofit agency. As a part of the process of designating an agency, two hearings will be held to gather information from the public. Six thousand of the enclosed flyers were distributed with surplus commodities in the Hennepin County suburbs during the week of June 16-22, and another 6,000 will be mailed to persons on the fuel assistance lists prior to the hearings. In addition, announcements will be published in suburban Hennepin County newspapers, and the Human Services Councils will be notifying individuals and organizations they feel will be interested in programs for low-income persons. As I am sure you are aware, there has been a lot of discussion about the establishment of a Community Action Agency in suburban Hennepin County for several years. The Board's resolution to designate an agency is a culmina- tion of that discussion and planning. A planning group, convened by the County's Office of Planning and Development, and including the directors of the suburban Human Services Councils, is drafting a plan for the initial structure and composition of the agency. A copy of this proposed plan will be made available at the hearings. We are especially interested in the ideas of municipal officials and staff and encourage you to participate in the hearing process. Dulcie Hagedorn, Senior Planner, is coordinating the planning activity for the County and can be reached at 348-4474. HENNEPIN COUNTY an ~quol oppodunity employer Mr. E1 am July 2, 1984 Page 2 I want to thank you for your participation in the process of determining how to best serve the low-income residents of suburban and rural Hennepin County. With your support, I am sure that the planning for and implementation of a Community Action Agency will be a success. S~.~cerel y, Dale A. Ackmann County Administrator tf Enclosures 006~9 RESOLUTION NO. ~4~-404 Con~ntssioner John E. Derus offered the following resolution, seconded by Commissioner Andrew: WHEREAS, the designation of a Community Action Agency would benefit the County's lower-income citizens and would provide the vehicle for the acquisition of additional out-of-county resources for the aide of low income persons in Henneptn County; and, ' ~ WHEREAS, the designation and structure of a Community Action Agency has been the subject of significant discussion and study by the Hennepin County Board, suburban municipalities, and the suburban Human Services Councils; and, WHEREAS, the Henneptn County Board of Commissioners has encouraged citizen participation in services and programs to meet the.needs of Hennepin County residents: BE IT 'THEREFORE RESOLVED by the Henneptn County Board of Commissioners that it hereby designate a'Con~unityAction Agency in suburban and rural Hennepin County; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such anagency be private, non-profit and serve -residents of suburbanand rural Hennepin County and be structured as propos.ed to the County Board by the three suburban Human Services Councils; and, ' BE IT'FURTHER RESOLVED that the implementation process begin imTediately and the responsibility for that implementation process be assigned to the suburban Human Services Councils; and, BE IT FURTHER RESO'LVED that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security be immediately informed of this designation and be requested for the upcoming fiscal year's M.E.O.G. and C.S.B.G. allocation for suburban and rural Hennepin County. Commissioner Andrew offered the following amendments: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an ann~al audit shall 'be made of all Community'. Action Agency programs and that the reports of these audits shall be made to the Hennepin County Board; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that at the end of one year, the Hennepin County Board shall review the CAA structure to insure that it continues to be the most efficient and effective structure to provide CAA services to suburban Hennepin County. CommisSioner Derus accepted as a friendly amendment and no objections were voiced. Commissioner Andrew offered a further amendment to strike the second and third resolving clauses and insert the following: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that such agency be a private, non-profit agency that serves the residents of suburban and rural Hennepin County, and that the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development and other appropriate County staff review the recommendations with the human service councils and other community organizations and that OPD develop a model for such an agency to be presented to the Board for action on July 2, 1984. Commissioner Derus accepted as a friendly amendment and no objections were voiced. JUN 0 5 1984 Resolution No. 84-6-404 Continued Page 2 00(; 0 Commissioner Johnson requested the resolution be divided into two parts; Commissioner Andrew's amendment regarding the type of structure to be voted on as one resolution and the remainder designating the agency to be one resolution. Chairman Derus ruled that if there were no objections the resolution would be separated, and no objections were voiced. The first part of the resolution becoming Resolution No. 84-6-404A was before the Board as follows: WHEREAS, the designation of a Community Action Agency would benefit the County's lower income citizens and would provide the' vehicle for the acquisition of additional out-of-county resources for the aide of low income persons in Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the designation and structure of a Community Action Agency has been the subject of significant'discussion and study by the Hennepin County Board, suburban municipalities, and the suburban Human Services Councils; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has.. encouraged citizen participation in services and programs to meet the needs of Hennepin County residents. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners that it hereby designate a Community Action.Agency in suburban and rural Hennepin County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Department of Economic Security be immediately informed of this designation and be requested for~ the upcoming fiscal year's M.E.O.G. and C.S.B.G. allocation'for suburban and rural Hennepin County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an annual audit shall be made of all Community Action Agency programs and that the reports of these audits shall be made to the Hennepin County Board; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that at the end of one year, the Hennepin County Board shall review the CAA structure to insure that it continues to be the most efficient and effective-structure-to provide. CAA-services-to suburban Hennepin County. Chairman Derus called the question on Resolution 84-6-404A and the resolution was unlanimously adopted. The second part of the resolution becoming Resolution No. 84-6-404B was before the Board as follows: BE IT RESOLVED, that such agency be a private, non-profit agency that serves the residents of suburban and rural Hennepin County, and that the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development and other appropriate County staff review the recommendations-with-the human service councils and other community organizations and that OPD develop a model for such an agency to be presented to the Board for action on July 3, 1984. JUN 0 5 1984 LI OOG~l Resolution 84-6-404 Continued Page 3 Chairman I)erus called the question on Resolution 84-6-404B and the vote was as follows: YEAS: Spartz, Kremer, Robb, Sivanich, Andrew, Derus; NAYS: Johnson. Resolution adopted. ATTEST JUN 0 5 lg84 NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARINGS The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is holding two public hearings regarding the establishment of a Community Action Agency in suburban and rural Hennepin County, which will provide programs for low-income persons. All interested persons, especially residents of suburban and rural Hennepin County are encouraged to attend and are invited to submit oral or written testimony on the subject. The Commissioners are particularly interested in hearing from low-income persons, or persons who provide services to low-income persons. The Hennepin County Board has proposed that a private, nonprofit corporation be established as the Community Action Agency. The initial structure and composition of this organization must be approved by the County Board. A proposed structure and composi- tion document on which persons may comment will be available at the hearings. The Commissioners are also interested in hearing about the problems and needs that low-income persons have which could be addressed by a Community Action Agency. July 17, 1984 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall 4141 Douglas Drive N. Crystal, Minnesota July 18, 1984 7:00 p.m. I-topkins City Hall 1010 1st Strcct South Hopkins, Minnesota For further information, call Dulcie Hagedorn, HenDepin County Office of Planning and Development, at 348-4474. //~~' west htnncpin human struices planning board ~we~st I I 14100vern°nauenues°uth' st'l°uis park' minncs°ta 55416 I ~--cnntpln I_ human ~ ~ 920-5533 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: West Hennepin Human Services Member Municipalities Marcy Shapiro, Executive Director June 11, 1984 Community Action Agency for Rural and Suburban Hennepin County Recently you received a notice from Hennepin County about public hearings regarding the establishment of a Community Action Agency for Suburban and Rural Hennepin County. West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board has .supported the need for establishing a private, non-profit Community Action AgencY in suburban and rural Hennepin County. We are pleased that Hennepin County has passed a resolution that they' intend to designate a private, non-profit Community Action Agency. The two public hear- ings are a culmination of six months of efforts by the Suburban Human Services Planning Boards. The public hearings will address the structure of the C.A.A. as well as what types of services and programs it should provide. We support the structure to be presented at the hearings as it was a joint effort of Hennepin County and the Suburban Human Services Planning Boards. I am enclosing some information on the C.A.A. as well as the position of West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. Please call me if you have questions or need further information. w st hennepin human seruices planning board 4100 uernon auenue south, st. louis pork, minnesota 55416 920-- 5535 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY FOR SUBURBAN AND RURAL HENNEPIN COUNTY WHAT IS A COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY? A Community Action Agency (C.A.A.) is an organization which - Has been designated as such by its local government (such as the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners). - Has been recognized and funded as a Community Action Agency by the federal and state governments. - Has a local Board of Directors. · The purpose of a Community Action Agency is t~ focus all available resources to help the poor become self-sufficient. Its programs do not duplicate those that already exist in our communities, but build on existing services currently being provided. A major activity is Community outreach ad organization, that is, knowing who the poor are and how to reach them. According to the 1980 census, there are 20,544 residents of rural and suburban Hennepin County who are below the poverty level. The experience of three suburban human services councils has shown that the needs of the poor in our area are different. For example, geographic isolation and lack of reliable transportation may keep a poor elderly woman from picking up food commodities, from applying for fuel assistance, and from socializing with her friends over a nutritious hot meal. Poor residents in less sparsely-populated areas may be more reluctant.to come forward for assistance. Community Action Agency programs are determined by local needs and local people. HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE? There would be approximately $275,000 of federal and state dollars available annually to support the activities of a suburban C.A.A. if one were to be established (this amount is determined by a per capita allocation based on the number of poor people living in the area according to the 1980 census data). Without a C.A.A., dollars are not available to us and are consequently utilized by other areas in the State. Currently, 84% counties in the State -2- counties in the State are served by C.A.A.'s and receive these dollars. There are 4% counties not served by C.A.A.'s -- suburban Hennepin is the ½ county not served since the City of Minneapolis does have a C.A.A. These resources will be available to help build on current services (such as the Emergency Services Program) and/or start new pro- grams (examples are outreach, community gardens, health clinics and senior citizen programs). These resources have great flexibility both in terms of local determination of the problems to be addressed and in terms of the manner in whiCh they~'are'3to~be~.~ddress~d. ~Th~y~s~metimes'are the only resources which can address the whole spectrum of problems raised by poverty in a community. In addition, periodically there are special funds available only to Community Action Agencies. For example, in 1983 there would have been an additional $300,000 available from special fund transfers. WHAT IS THE POSITION OF WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD? We support the establishment of a private, non-profit Community Action Agency to serve suburban and rural Hennep~n County. We support the private, non-profit Community Action Agency model because it: 1) provides the greatest participation of low income citizens, local officials and community-based organizations; 2) has been shown to be the most effective method of provid- ing services and programs. (According to Steven Watson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Community Action Pro- grams Directors Associations, studies have shown that pri- vate, non-profit Community Action Agencies tend to have fewer problems and greater success in the provision of services to low income citizens); 3) would, through its strong element of community participa- tion, be able to effectively build on services and agencies already available in the community and' prevent duplication and fragmentation of services; and 4) would be less likely to have conflict in the decision- making process begause of its less complicated structure. TIMETABLE FOR DESIGNATION OF THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY July 17 & July 18 County Board holds public hearings at Crystal City Hall and Hopkins City Hall regarding the designation and structure of the C.A.A. Information will be pre- sented abouthow the C.A.A. will be organized and what program'capabilities it will have. On July 17, the County Board will review the model to be presented at the public hearings at the County Board Meeting. August 14 The County Board officially designates the Community Action Agency and forward their resolution of designa- tion to the Governor. This is the first County Board meeting 30 days after the notice of the public hearings was sent. This 30 day wait is, required by state regu- lation. Before Official recognition given by the Governor October 14 Once there is official recognition by the Governor, the following criteria must be met before the funds may be awarded to the C.A.A.: - an interim Governing Board must be in place - Articles of Incorporation and bylaws must be developed - a preliminary work plan must be drawn up PI?I MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1984 OF INTEREST TO CITIES June 26, 1984 by Frank Shafroth The Congress has completed action on an omnibus revenue measure which is part of a larger federal deficit reduction package. The bill, H.R. 4170, is long and complicated. It is projected to raise close to $50 billion in new revenues over the next three years. Although there are nu- merous provisions which could affect cit- ies, the major provisions relate to munici- pal leasing and service contracts, industrial development bonds, and mort- gage revenue bonds. Following is an analysis of these provisions. MUNICIPAL LEASING AND SER- VICE CONTRACTS In general, the new provisions reduce tax benefits on property leased to or used by cities and other tax-exempt entities. They apply not just to sale-leaseback financing transactions, but also to space leasing, equipment leasing, and service contracts. Because of the higher tax costs imposed by the proposal upon the own- ers of the space, the property, or the equipment by the proposal, higher costs will be passed on to cities in the form of higher rents or costs. In most cases, cities will be forced to pay higher rental or contract costs than the private sector for the same space, structure, equipment, or service. Personal Property (Equipment) The bill denies accelerated cost recov- ery treatment to equipment or personal property leased to any city or other tax- exempt entity. Instead, the owner is re- quired to use the straightline method of depreciation over an extended period of the greater of the mid-point life under the ADR system (useful economic life) or 125 percent of the lease term. The bill exempts short-lived equip- ment (where the city equipment is leased for less than one year or the mid-term life of the 'property), computers and peripherals, high technology telephone station equipment, and high technology medical equipment if the lease term is five years or less. On the average, the bill makes equip- ment leased by cities cost about 14 per-. cent more than the same equipment leased to anyone in the private sector. Real Property The bill denies accelerated deprecia- tion (making the recovery period the greater of 40 years or 125 percent of the lease term) and rehabilitation and invest- ment tax credits for any real property (such as leased space for a state munici- pal league, or a sale-leaseback rehabilita- tion of a municipal building) where more than 35 percent of the property is used by tax exempt entities (such as City A, the American Red Cross, and the U.S. Trea- sury Department) if the lease term ex- ceeds three years and at least one of the following circumstances exist: 1. all or a part of the property is tax exempt financed by a related party; 2. the use involves a lease with a fixed price option; 3. the use occurs after a sale, ]ease or other transfer of the property by the city or tax-exempt entity, except for property leased within three months after being placed in service by the tax-exempt en- tity; or 4. the use is pursuant to a lease term exceeding 20 years. The bill distinguishes between treat- ment of capital investment for new con- struction and rehabilitation: if a dty dis- poses of its ownership interest in real property (for example, a parking garage) before the facility or project is put in service, and then leases the fadlity back upon its completion, the project would not be treated as a restricted sale leaseback. This permits, as NLC sought, a means for leveraging investment in new construction. For rehabilitation im- provements, the bill denies accelerated depreciation on real property or portions thereof meeting the above test. It also denies the rehabilitation tax credit. Service Contracts The bill denies accelerated deprecia- tion and investment tax credits to owners of real property or equipment used under service contracts with cities. This provi- sion would create much higher costs for "privatization,' contracting out, or ser- vice contracts for a city compared to the private sector. The cost increases to cities, because of the combined loss of deprecia- tion and investment tax credits, will be substantially higher for services than on equipment or real property lease financ- ing. -2- The bill directs the Intemal Revenue Sen4ce to consider the following factors to determine whether a dty's services contract w4_ll be affected: 1. the city is in physical possession of the property; 2. the city controls the property or equipment; 3. the city has a significant possess&y or economic interest in the property; . 4. the service provider bears a sub- stantial risk in the event of non-perfor- mance; 5. the service provider uses the same property, at the same time, to provide similar services to other non-related enti- ties; and 6. the total contract price substantially exceeds the rental value of the property involved over the contract period. The bill excepts from these service con- tract provisions qualified solid waste dis- posal facilities, clean water facilities, cogeneration or alternative energy facili- ties, and low income housing. Effective Date and Transition Rules The bill is generally retroactive to May 23, 1983, applying to property placed in sex~'ice after Ma)' 23, 1983, (unless the property was subject to a lease or binding contract entered into by May 23, 1983.) In general, the new restrictions do not apply with respect to property leased to a tax- exempt entity if: a) on or before Nov. 1, 1983 there was significant official governmental action with respect to the project or its design, and b) the lease to the tax-exempt entity is pursuant to a written binding contract entered into before Jan. 1, 1985, which requires the tax-exempt entity to be the lessee of the property. (The definition of "significant official governmental action" does not include granting of permits, zoning changes, environmental impact statements, or similar governmental ac- tions.) INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS The bill contains provisions that will significantly affect the authority of dties to issue industrial development bonds. Volume Caps - General The bill imposes a $150 per capita or $200 million per state volume cap (whichever is greater) on the issuance of IDBs. The cap applies state-by-state* and includes student loan bonds, private health care facility bonds, pollution con- trol bonds, agricultural bonds, and small issue IDBs, as well as some bonds for municipally owned sewage or solid waste disposal facilities, energy facilities, water supply and distribution facilities, parking facilities, and sports stadiums, even where bonds for such municipally owned facilities are backed by a dty's full faith and credit. The volume cap exempts tax exempt municipal bonds which are not IDBs; i.e., most GO and revenue bonds. It does not apply to tax-exempt bonds issued by cit- ies or non-profit organizations for pubhc or non-profit health and edukation facili- ties, or to IDBs used to finance conven- tion or trade show facilities, airports, docks, wharves, or mass transit facilities where such facilities are owmed by a state or local government for federal tax pur- poses. IDBs used to finance publicly owned mass transit vehicles are exempt. Parking lots assodated with the above facilities are exempted, but only if th.ey are functionally related. For instance, an airport parking garage would not be un- der the cap; a downtown parking facility would be, since it would not be function- ally related. The state caps would be set at $150 per capita based upon the most recent census estimates and retroactive to Jan. 1, 1984. States which exceeded the cap in 1983 must phase-in to compliance by 1985. Beginning in 1987, the bill reduces the volume cap to $100 per capita to reflect the scheduled sunset (termination) of small issue IDBs. The alternative mini- mum of $200 million per state will not change. -3- State Alaska Wyoming (Wallop-R+) Vermont Delaware (Roth-R') District of Columbia N. Dakota S. Dakota Montana (Baucus-D') Nevada N. Hampshire Rhode Island (Chafee-R+) Idaho (Symms-R+) Hawaii (Matsunaga-D') Maine State IDB Exceptions Per Capita Amounts Under $200 Million Population Rule 438,000 $585 502,000 $398 1983 Total IDB Volume Per Capita $447 $424 516,000 $388 $172 602,000 $332 $159 631,000 $317 $ 0 670,000 $298 $112 691,000 $290 $315 801,000 $250 $245 888,000 $227 $236 951,000 $210 $189 958,000 $209 $ 70 965,000 $207 $ 43 994,000 $201 $ 56 1,133,000 $177 $ 36 Denotes Senate tax conference + Denotes Finance Committee Member Allocation The state ceiling is allocated among the various governmental units within a state which have authority to issue IDBs or student loan bonds pursuant to a three- step rule. Under the first step, the state ceiling is allocated equally between the state (and its agencies) and localities until (or un- less) either the governor or the legislature makes (or has made) a different alloca- hon. One-half of the state ceiling is allo- cated to the state and its agencies that have authority to issue IDBs or student loan bonds. The other half of the state ceiling is allocated to localities that have authority to issue IDBs or student loan bonds on a per capita basis. Where there are two overlapping local governmental units, a portion of the ceiling is allocated to the governmental unit with jurisdic- tion over the smallest geographical area. Where two governmental units have authority to issue IDBs or student loan bonds and both have jurisdiction over the identical geographical area, the por- tion of the state ceiling allocable to that area is allocated to the governmental unit having the broader sovereign powers. For example, where a city and an IDB authority for the city have authority to issue IDBs, that part of the one-half of the state ceiling allocable to the city based upon the population of that city is allo- cated to the city, since the city has broader sovereign powers than the IDB authority. Under the second step, the governor of the state is authorized to allocate the state ceiling among all of the governmental units (both state and local) having au- thority to issue IDBs or student loan bonds. This power of the governor to allocate the state ceiling terminates after the first day of the first calendar year beginning after the legislature of the state has met in regular session for more than 60 days after the date of enactment of this bill, or the effective date of any state legislation with respect to the allocation of the state ceiling. If the legislature of any state has met and adjourned sine die within 60 days after enactment of the bill, however, the power of the governor ter- minates after the first day of the first calendar year beginning after the year in which the legislature next meets. -4- Some governors have already made allocations under the cap. Under the third step, the state legisla- ture may enact a law providing for'a different allocation than that provided in step one. Under this authority, the state legislature may allocate all or any portion of the state ceiling to any governmental unit in the state that has authority to issue IDBs or student loan bonds. A state may carry over for up to three ),ears any um~sed state ceiling for specific projects; for air or water pollution control projects the cato'over ma)' be for up to six ),ears. A number of state legislatures have already made allocations under the cap. Corporate Preferences The bill raises an estimated $800 mil- lion in new revenues over the next three years by increasing the interest disallow- ~nce for financial institutions from 15 to 20 percent. This provision will adversely affect all municipalalities by creating a greater disincentive for banks and insur- ance companies, in particular, to pur- chase bonds. By reducing the prospective municipal mar~cet, cities will be forced to offer higher interest rates to sell their bonds. Restrictions on Depreciation for UDAG and Municipal Sewage and Solid Waste Facilities The bill requires that costs on IDB financed UDAG assisted projects, munic- ipal sewage and solid waste disposal fa- cilifies, and certain pollution control facil- ities be recovered on a straight line basis, instead of the accelerated depreciation basis permitted under current law. Repeal of Advance Funding for Con- vention and Transportation Facilities The bill repeals the provision of cur- rent law permitting advance refundings of IDBs used to finance convention and trade show facilities, airports, docks, wharves, mass commuting facilities, and parking facilities. Federally Guaranteed Bonds The bill denies the federal tax exemp- tion for IDBs if they are federally guaran- teed, including bonds issued in connec- tion with federa] deposit insurance. The bill exempts from this provision guaran- tees for various housing-related agencies, student loan bonds, SBA insured pollu- tion consol bonds, and BPA guaranteed facil!:ies (as of the date of enactment). Small Issue IDB's Tax-exempt small issue IDBs may not be issued if the total amount of all IDBs outstanding after the issue for the benefi- ciary exceeds $40 million, except for manufacturing facilities. In determining whether the $40 rrdllion limit has been reached, all types of IDBs would be counted, except bonds to be redeemed with the proceeds of small issue IDBs. The bill defers the current law sunset on small issue IDBs from 1986 to 1988 for manufacturing facilities only. The bill prevents avoidance of limita- tions on small issue IDBs through divi- sion of the ownership of a project. Wh~re two or more IDB issues are used to fi- nance a single building, an enclosed shopping mall, or a strip of offices, stores, warehouses or residential property which use substantial common facilities, the multiple issue IDB is treated as a single issue for purposes of determining qualification under the small issue excep- tion and all principal users of the facilities financed with the issues are treated as principal users of a single facility. Thus, where owner, ship of a project is divided into several different unrelated users, qualification under the small issue excep- tion is determined by measuring the capi- tal expenditures and outstanding obliga- tions of all the principal users of that project. The bill prohibits the use of small issue IDBs for airplanes, skyboxes, gambling facilities, health clubs, and liquor stores Land or Existing Facilities The bill restricts the use of IDBs for the purchase of land or existing facilities. No more than 25 percent of the proceeds of an IDB may be used for the acquisition of land, except that 50 percent may be used for industrial parks; airport land is ex- empted where land is acquired under noise abatement requirements; and dock land is exempted where purchased to meet environmental requirements. Cities ma)' only use IDBs for the pur- chase of existing facilities where expendi- tures of at least 15 percent of the lesser of the purchase price of such facilities or the amount of IDBs issued to finance the facility are made for rehabilitation. The rehabilitation need r, ot be financed out of the IDB proceeds. Arbitrage Modified arbitrage rules, similar to ex- isting rules for mortgage subsidy bonds, are applicable to tax-exempt bonds (other than student loan bonds and housing bonds) issued after Dec. 31, 1984. The rules require arbitrage profits on invest- ments unrelated to an exempt purpose (acquired nonpurpose obligations) to be paid to the United States. In addition, the amount of bond proceeds that may be invested at a yield above the bond yield in acquired nonpurpose obligations in any bond year is limited to 150 percent of the debt service on the issue for the bond year (except for permissible temporary period investments). Nonpurpose invest- ments must be reduced as the prindpal of acquired purpose obligations is repaid. Airport Approval Requirement The bill provides that public approval is considered to be satisfied in the case of IDBs issued to finance a public airport where the city which is the owner or operator of the airport and is the issuer of the bonds approves the issue, even though all or a portion of the airport is located in the jurisdiction of another local government. Effective Dates The industrial development bonds provisions are generally effective for bonds issued after Dec. 31, 1983. IDB's are exempt if an inducement resolution was granted prior to June 19, 1984 and the IDBs were issued prior to Jan. 1, 1985. There are, however, a number of excep- tions and spedal rules which would af- fect dries. In the case of federally guaranteed bonds, the denial of tax exemption ap- plies to any such IDBs issued after April 14, 1983. In the case of the cost recovery or depreciation provisions, the Dec. 31, 1983 deadline applies to property placed in service after that date. However, there is an exception for fadlities where either: 1) the construction commenced prior to Oct. 17, 1983, or 2) a binding contract existed before October 19, 1983, commit- ring the purchaser to costs equal to the lesser of $15 million or 20 percent of the estimated cost of the project. Cities should note that the bill treats all prop- erty described in an inducement resolu- tion adopted before Oct. 19, 1983, as -5- under construction by Oct. 19, 1983, where any part of those fadlities are actually under construction. Finally, the bill provides a spedal rule requiring that adty give priority over other projects under the cap to projects for which an inducement resolution was granted prior to Oct. 19, 1983 and for which either 1) the construction had commenced by that date, or 2) a binding contract committing the purchaser to sig- nificant expenditures existed. These projects are exempt from the 1984 cap. Sponsors of such projects may receive priority under the 1985 cap. SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING BONDS Mortgage Revenue Bonds The bill extends the authority of dries to issue single family mortgage revenue bonds for four years until Dec. 31, 1987. No changes in eligibility requirements are made. City offidals are required to make annual statements, after public no- rice and hearings, of the public polities to be pursued by means of the MRB's. Mortgage Credit Certificates The bill permits dries, in any year, to exchange mortgage bond authority for authority to issue mortgage credit certifi- cates (MCC's). MCC's entitle home pur- chasers to tax credits not exceeding 50 percent of their mortgage interest. The bill generally restricts credits to families eligible for mortgage revenue bonds, i.e. first time home buyers. The purchase price generally may not exceed 110 percent of the average area purchase price. The home must be used as the prindpal residence. The bill limits the maximum amount of credit which a tax- payer may receive in any year to the greater of 20 percent of the qualifying interest or $2,000. There would be ad- justments based upon family size and for adjustable rate mortgages. The bill retains the same eligibility re- quirements as for mortgage revenue bonds, although dries may not pro~Sde MCCs which would entitle a home pur- chaser to take tax credits exceeding 50 percent of mortgage interest. A city may use MCC's up to 20 percent of the amount of exchanged mortgage bond authority. The MCC's are subject to targeted area rules and requirements, (i.e., 20 percent of proceeds in targeted areas and 120 percent of average area purchase price). 'The bill require_, a phase out of the MCCs as the homebuver's income increases relative to the area me- dian income. Real Estate The bill stretches out real estate depre- dation from 15 to 18 years, except for low income housing. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AF- FECTING CITIES Reporting of State and Local Income Tax Refunds The bill modifies the prov/sion in the 1982 TEFRA tax act reqniring cities to file an information return ever5, Januar5, with the IRS and taxpayers on any income tax refund, credit, or offset of $10 or more. Instead, it requires filing of an informa- tion return (1099) with the IRS for all taxpayers receiving local income tax re- funds, but only to taxpayers who itemize on their federal tax returns. FICA Treatment of Employer Pickup of Employee Contributions Under Lo- cal Retirement Plans The Social Security Amendments of 1983 inadvertently made all municipal employer payments to retirement plans subject to FICA and FUTA. The bill amends that law so that employer "pick- ups" (certain employer payments of em-. ployee contributions) would be taxable for FICA and FUTA purposes only if the pickup were pursuant to a salary' reduc- tion a~eement, not including, however, agreements mandated by state statutes. 'except for home rule cities in Illinois, ~'hich are allocated the full $150 per capita amount, and not subject to any state allocation authority. -6- league of minnesota cities July 5, 1984 TO: FROM: RE: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks Donald A. Slater, Executive Director Comparable Worth Status Report The League of Minnesota Cities staff has been working on the new State of Minnesota Comparable Worth law in order to be sure that all cities receive equitable treatment and as much information as is possible to meet the requirements imposed by the Legislature. This memorandum summarizes several of the developments in this field. The Department of Employee Relations which administers the Comparable Worth l~gislation has established a city advisory committee, 'composed of elected and appointed city officials from throughout Minnesota. This committee will meet on July 12 in order to review materials which Commissioner Rothschild of the Department of Employee Relations is assembling for utilization by city employers. LMC will report the product of this meeting to all cities. The Metropolitan Area Management Association is working on a program which will, ultimately, produce proto-type job descriptions with point values for approximately 15 benchmark city employment positions. The process is as follows: MAMA has retained Labor Relations Associates to develop a request for proposal to be distributed to potential consultants who would execute the study. When the study is complete, this information would be distributed to cities participating in funding the study so that they could evaluate jobs within their own municipalities using the job descriptions and point systems provided by the study. This would serve as a major tool in complying with the requirements of the Comparable Worth law. A number of metropolitan cities have joined in the financing of the work with Labor Relations Associates. The Coalition of Outstate Cities has also joined these efforts and other non-metropolitan communities may be interested in participating. Current expectations are that the RFP phase of this work will be relatively inexpensive but that when a consultant's proposal is reviewed and accepted, costs could be considerably more. Ail cities participating in the first phase of the study would retain the option to go their own way and not contract for the consultant study which would eventually be developed. Any city interested in joining this effort and need more information about it, should contact the League office and speak with Joel Jamnik or me on this subject. Mayors, Managers & Clerks Page 2 July 5, 1984 League staff is working on a guide for complying with the Comparable Worth legislation for cities under 5000 population, and we will distribute this information directly to tho~e cities. The Department of Employee Relations has agreed to participate in the LMC Regional Meeting program this year in each afternoon session, as well as in the evening sessions, will have representatives of that agency discussing the Comparable Worth legislation and its requirements. We will also have as much information as the Department can provide available for distribution at the Regional Meetings. DAS: lw · t .'~.; - ~ -- ,,,... 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101.":' ~.' ~. '~.'.-:'.. General Office Telephone (612~ 291 ~359 , 53~l MAYWOOD BLVO A Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Community Leaders For more/n£orrnat/on on/ferns/n th/$ pub//cat/on, ccff/ the C June 29, 1984 RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (June 18-29) Solid Waste-The Council decided to delay a decision on the suitability of four proposed solid waste sites in Hennepin County until August. The sites-one in Minnetrista, one in Corcoran and two in Independence-are located in agricultural preserves. The Council said it wanted the extra time to work out a fair and consistent way of accommodating the conflict- ing needs of protecting agricultural land and siting landfills in the rural area. In addition, the Council intends to develop plans to foster resource recovery programs to reduce the need for I~ndfills. The Council also eliminated the potential landfill site in Woodbury, finding that Washington County does not contain any additional satisfactory sites for solid waste disposal, The Council reduced the county's required complement of sites from three to one, Transportation-The Metropolitan Council approved a 2~00-space expansion of parking facilities at the Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport as part of the 1984-1985 capital improvements program of the Metropolitan Airports Commis- sion. The Council authorized a total of $110 million for projects at the airport, including $20 million for improved parking facilities, The gold concourse will be extended at a costof $20 million, including a proposal by Northwest Airlines to install "moving sidewalks" within the terminal. The budget includes $14 million for secondary airports, including those in downtown St. Paul, Crystal and Lake EImo. The Council adopted a process that will lead to improve- ments in Interstate Hwy. 35W between Burnsville and down- town Minneapolis. The Council will join with the State Department of Transportation as an equal partner in planning to improve the safety and relieve the congestion of the frequently crowded freeway. One possible change will be the addition of a traffic lane in each direction between S. 46th St. and Burnsville. The Council turned over the task of evaluating 11 private sector proposals to build a high-speed transit line between the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns to its Transportation Advisory Board. The board will.look at the fast-link transit connections and financial packages envisioned by each of the American and foreign companies to see how well they meet the Council's guidelines. The guidelines call for a 15-minute l~'ip between downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul skyways, with stops at the University of Minnesota and the state capitol area. Sewage Disposal-The Council approved, in part, the 1984-1988 development program of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The program, involving 22 new projects throughout the region, is projected to cost S117 million. Funds will come from cash on hand, investment income and new borrowing. Older People-The Council awarded $1.2 million in federal funds to 25 social service projects for older people in the region, denying funds to six projects. Recommended was S~°84,071 for in-home services, day care, nursing home ELAM MOUND MOUND MN 5536q NEW APPOINTMENTS The Council assigned new member Donald E. Stein, C.oon Rapids, to its Management Committee and Metropolitan Systems Committee. GARDEBRING CONTINUES BREAKFAST MEETINGS WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS Metropolitan Council chair Sandra Gardebring is continuing a series of regional meetings with local officials in each of the seven counties plus Minneapolis and St. Paul. The meetings are an opportunity to discuss problems of mutual concern and future directions for the Council. Remaining "Dutch treat" Health.--The Metropolitan Health Planning Board will hold a public hearing Monday, July 18, at 4 p.m. in the Metropoli-. tan Council Chambers, on changes to its statewide advanced life support license proposed by Bio-Medical Research. Associates, 336 Chester St., St, Paul. For more information, call the board at 291-6352. PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS ombudsman and transportation projects; $147,000 for le~l services; and $112 J316 for senior center projects. Regional Transit Board--The Council submitted the follow- ing nominees for chair of the new Regional Transit Board to the governor: John Boland, North St. Paul; Billie Franey, White Bear Lake; Walter Hanson, St. Paul; Bruce Nawrocki, Columbia Heights, Elliott Perovich, Anoka; and Alice Rainville, Minneapolis. Parks-The Council approved amendments to the Como Regional Park master plan requested by the St. Paul City Council that include making Gateway and W. Como Lake Drives south of the lake two-way instead of one-way roads. The Council also approved a $500,000 amendment for im- provements in roads, parking facilities and paths at the park. The Council amended a development grant contract with the Hennepin County Park Reserve District for North Hennepin Regional Trail. The action provides $395,000 to build a bridge carrying the North Hennepin Regional Trail over new Hwy. 169, the Osseo Bypass. .. Ambulance Service-The Counci~ ~;etur~ed 'to the Metro- politan Health Planning Board for further study an application by Lakeview Emergency Medical Service to offer basic life support Service to Stillwater and surrounding communities, Lakeview, a division of Lakeview Memorial Hospital, Stillwater, seeks to replace service currently provided by Stillwater EMS, a for-profit organization, The Council approved an application by the Burnsville Fire Department to provide advanced life support services in Burnsville. Services are currently provided by Divine Redeemer Hospital, South St. Paul, which also serves Apple Valley, 'Lakeville and Farmington. Severance Pay-Metropolitan Council chairs will no longer receive severance pay, the Council decided. It voted to retain the policy of awarding severance pay to unclassified staff, breakfast meetings, 7:30 to 10 a.m., will be as follows: July 11; Carver County; Jay's Family Restaurant, 222 Chestnut St., ChasAa. July 13; Scott County; Laker's Restaurant, Hwy. 13, Prior Lake. July 18; Ramsay County; Holiday Inn, 1780 E. County Rd. D., Maplewood. July 20; St. Paul; Landmark Center, 75 W. 5th St., Room 430. July 25; Minneapolis; Lutheran Brotherhood, 625 4th Av. S. July 27; Hennepin County; Copper Ke'ctle Restaurant, 225 Central Ay., Osseo. If you plan to attend, please notify the Council at 291-6461. RENT ASSISTANCE APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED BY METRO HRA The Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority (Metro H RA) will accept applications for the Section 8 rent assistance program from families eligible for two-bedroom units. Applications will be accepted on July 12, Aug. 9, Sept. 13, Oct. 11, Nov. 8 and Dec. 13. Applications will be accepted from families with no more than two children. Children of the opposite sex must be age six or younger. Families whose incomes do not exceed the following may be eligible: two-person families, S21,000; three-person, S23,600; and four-person, $26,250. The Metro HRA program operates in 74 communities in these counties: Anoka, Carver, Hennepin (excluding Minneapolis), Ramsay {excluding St. Paul) and Washington. Applicants must appear in person between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. at the Metro H RA office, Lower Level 25 in the Metro Square 81dg.,Tth and Robert Sts., St. Paul, or at selected suburban offices. Call 291-6300 for the nearest location. ERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO AFFECT EGION'S PARK SYSTEM You have an opportunity this summer to tell what is good and not so good about the policies guiding acquisition and development of the Twin Cities Region's pares. The Metro- politan ParEs and Open Space Commission, working with the regional park implementing agencies, have scheduled a series of 12 public meetings on the pares and park reserves. The meetings are the first step in revising the Council's Develop- ment Gu/de/Policy P/an for Recreation Open Space. The meetings will be held at 7:30 p.m., as follows: - July 17, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Northeast Park, 16th and NE. Pierce Sts., Minneapolis. -- July 19, Washington County Board of Commissioners, Washington County Government Center, Board Room. Stillwater. - July 24, Anoka County Board of Commissioners, Anoka County Courthouse, Board Room, Anoka. -- July 26, Dakota and Scott County Boards of Commissioners, and Hennep~n County Park Reserve District, Burnsville Government Center, CityCouncil Chambers, Burnsville. -- July 31, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Sumner Olson Council, 900 8th Ay. N., Minneapolis. -- Aug. 2. Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, Maplewood Government Center, Council Chambers, Mapiewood. .-- Aug. 8, Bloomington City Council and Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Bloomington City Hall. Council Chambers, Bloomington. -- Aug. 9, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Hosmer Library, 347 E. 36th St., Minneapolis. -- Aug. 14, St. Paul City Council, St. Paul Seminary, 2260 Summit Ay., Brady Center, Rm. 203, St. Paul. - Aug. 20, St. Paul City Council, St. Paul Technical Vocational Institute, Auditorium, St. Paul. - Aug. 22, Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, Golden Valley. Aug. 23, Carver County Board of Commissioners and Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Chanhassen City Hall, Council Chambers, Chanhassen. A public hearing on the revised plan is scheduled for November. For a paper suggesting issues surrounding the s,/$tem's purposes, goals, funding and future development, call the Council at 291-6401. APPLICATIONS OPEN FOR APPOINTMENT TO METRO HRA ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Metropolitan Council is accepting appllcatlons from Twin Cities Area residents interested in membership on the nine-member Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority Advisory Committee. Four vacancies are open for residents of suburban Ramsey, eastern Anoka, all of Washing- ton and most of Dakota Counties, plus north Minneapolis, and suburbs immediately north and west of Minneapolis. The committee helps the Council by recommending pro- grams to meet housing needs, especially those of people with Iow incomes. For more information or an application form, call the Council at 291-6390. The application period will close July 20. COMING MEETINGS (July 9.20) (Meetings are tentative. Call 291-6464 to verify.) Metropolitan Council Appointments Committee for the Regional Transit Board, Monday, July 9, noon, Conference Room E. Metropolitan ParEs and Open Space Commission, Monday, July 9, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Air Quality Committee, Tuesday, July 10, 10 a.m., Conference Room B. Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Commit-tee, Tuesday, July 10, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Systems Committee, Tuesday, July 10, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Environmental Resources Committee, Wednesday, July 11, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolit. en Health Planning Board, Wednesday, July 11, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Minnesota Association of Regional Commissions 1984 annual meeting, Wednesday-Friday, July 11-13. Sheraton Park Place Hotel. Chair Gardebring to speak July 11, at noon. Metropolitan Ridesharing Board (Executive Committee), Thursday, July 12, 10 a.m., Conference Room E. Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Environmental Protection, Thursday, July 12, 1:30 p.m., Room 112, State Capitol. Chair Gardebring will report on combined sewer overflow. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, Thursday, July 12, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council, Thursday, July 12, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday, July 16, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Arts Advisory Committee, Tuesday, July 17, 5:15 p.m., Conference Room A. University Av./Southwest Corridor Study Steering Com- mittee, Tuesday, July 17, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Transportation Advisory Board, Wednesday, July 18, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Environmental Resources Committee, Wednesday, July 18, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Long-Term Care Task Force, Thursday, July 19, 8 a.n~., Council Chambers. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, Thursday, July 19, 1 p.m., Council Chambers. Management Committee, Thursday, July 19, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan River Corridors Study Committee, Thursday, July 19, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Aviation Policy Plan Task Force, Friday, July 20, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. league of minnesota oities July 6, 1984 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LMC Metro Area Cities Donald A. Slater, LMC Executive Director Organization of 1984 Regional Meetings Attached please find a schedule of LMC Regional Meetings for the coming fall. Host cities are now in the process of sending out invitations to area cities to attend meetings throughout the state beginning August 28 and continuing throughout the month of September. With regard to the organization of a metropolitan twin cities area meeting for cities this. year, discussions between LMC and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities have determined that we will not schedule an exclusive metropolitan regional meeting for this year. Rather we encourage metropolitan area cities to attend either the regional meeting in Elk River, scheduled for September 13, or the meeting in Lonsdale scheduled for Wednesday, September 26. Below are listed the names of the contact persons in each of those cities, with whom your city may be in contact if you are interested in attending one or the other of those meetings. Phyllis Boedigheimer, Clerk Treasurer Elk River (612) 441-2052 (Metro Area Phone Number) Fritz Duban, Clerk-Administrator Lonsdale (507) 744-2327 (0) or (507) 744-2818 (H) In order to plan future regional meetings for the metropolitan area, we are most interested in determining the degree to which metropolitan area city officials desire to have a specific metropolitan city meeting located in one part of the metropolitan area or another. Below please fill in and return a brief questionnaire soliciting your opinion on the matter. I 83 university avenue easl;, sC. paul, minnes°ta 55 $ O 1 (61 2) 227-5600 LAKE BOARD MEMBERS Robert Tipton Brown. Chairman Greenwood Robert R Rascop, Vice Chairman Shorewood JoEIlen Hurr, Secret3ry Orono Edward G. Bauman, Treasurer Tonka Bay Donald E. 13oynton M[nnetonka Beach Jonathan R. Elam Mound Alan Faschi~g Minnetrista Richard J. Oarwood Oeephaven Audrey Gisvold Wayzata Ron Kraemer SprinG Park Robert K Pillsbury Minnetonka Robed E $1ocum \¥oodland Richard J Sodorborg Victoria Car! H Wc,~sser Excels!or MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612i473-7033 FRANK MIXA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR July 9, 1984 Andrew Detroi Manager, General Aviation District Office 6201 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, M~ 55450 Dear Mr. Detroi: Subj: Ultra-Lights Regulation The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors, as a result of its regular meeting May 23, 1984, requests that ultra-lights be brought under F~_& rules on Lake Min- netonka. This recommendation is made to help i~sure safe operation of these aircraft. It is also recommended that the FAA Conduct public hearings on the matter in this area, and that the LMCD be notified of such hearings. Thank you for your cooperation in helping to promote public safety on Lake Minnetonka. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ~~Fran~k M~a~~''- Executive Director jm c: Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Lake Minnetonka municipalities/ Richard B. Keinz Neil Hyink Robert Tipton Brown Robert K. Pillsbury Paul K. Bohr, Director, Des Plaines, Illinois Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission 300 Metr° Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/291-6401 July 1984 TO: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Government Officials The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Com~,,ission, working with the regional implementing agencies, has scheduled a series of 12 joint meetings to hear from the public about the recreation open space system in the seven-county Metro- politan Area. The meetings are a first step in considering revisions needed for the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide/Policy Plan for Recreation Open Space. A meeting schedule is attached. The commission has invited implementing agency board members to sit with them to hear from the public about what is good and not so good in the policies guiding acquisition and development of regional parks. At the meetings, any comment will be welcome, whether verbal or written, on any topic concerning regional parks. Time has been reserved at the end of each meeting for dis- cussion by the policy board members present. During the time period for meetings, July 17 through Aug. 23, the commission will also accept written comments, sent to 300 Metro Square, 7th and Robert Sts., St. Paul, 55101. The commission has developed a paper suggesting several issues surrounding pur- poses and goals of the system, how it should be funded and by what priorities, and about its future development. If you would like a copy, please call the Council at 291-6401. Following these meetings, the comMssion will begin to discuss and resolve th~ issues and to prepare a revised Development Guide/Policy Plan for submission to the Council for public hearing. After the hearing, currently scheduled for November, the commission plans to recommend, and the Council plans to adopt, a revised recreation open space plan. Your participation will be important and very welcome. You can also help by publicizing the meetings. Enclosed is a news release, which you may find useful. Sincerely, JM:vld Established by the Minnesota Legislature as an a~encv of the Metropolitan Council ~4.etropolitan Parks and Open Space Coninission Joint Public Meetings Schedule SUBJECT: Issues for Revision of the Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan For information, contact Jack Mauritz, 291-6602 Date: With: Place: Tuesday, July 17, 7:30 p.m. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Northeast Park 16th and Pierce Street, N.E., Minneapolis Date: Wi th: Place: Thursday, July 19, 7:30 p.m. Washington County Board of Commissioners Washington County Government Center, Board Room Stillwater Date: Wi th: Place: Tuesday, July 24, 7:30 p.m. Anoka County Board of Commissioners Anoka County Courthouse, Commissioners Board Room Anoka Date: With: Place: Thursday, July 26, 7:30 p.m. Dakota County Board of Commissioners Scott County Board of Commissioners (and Hennepin County Park Reserve District) Burns¥ille Government Center, City Council Chambers Burnsville Date: Wi th: P1 ace: Tuesday, July 31, 7:30 p.m. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Sumner Olson Council 900 - 8th Ave., N. (8th & Bryant), Minneapolis Date: With: Place: Thursday, August 2, 7:30 p.m. Ramsey County Board of Con~nissioners Maplewood Government Center, Council Chambers Maplewood Date: With: Place: Wednesday, August 8, 7:30 p.m. Bloomington City Council and Hennepin County Park Reserve District Bloomington City Hall, Council Chambers Bloomington Date: With: Place: Thursday, August 9, 7:30 p.m. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Hosmer Library 347 E. 36th St., Minneapolis MPOSC Joint Public Meetings Schedule Page 2 Date: Wi th: Place: Date: With: Place: Date: With: Place: Date: With: Place: Tuesday, August 14, 7:30 p.m. St. Paul City Council St. Paul Seminary Brady Center, Room 203 2260 Summit Ave., St. Paul Monday, August 20, 7:30 p.m. St. Paul City Council St. Paul Technical Vocational Institute, Auditorium, St. Paul Wednesday, August 22, 7:30 p.m. Hennepin County Park Reserve District Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers Golden Valley Thursday, August 23, 7:30 p.m. Carver County Board of Commissioners {and Hennepin County Park Reserve District) Chanhassen City Hall, Council Chambers Chanhassen For Immediate Release: For more information contact the Public Information Office 612/291-6464 Ken Reddick 29t-6422 Public Meetings to be Held On Region's Park System Friday, June 29, 1984 Area residents will have an opportunity this summer to help shape parks policy for the Twin Cities Area. The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, ~rking with regional implementing agencies, has scheduled a series of 12 joint public meetings on the parks and park reserves. The meetings are the first step in revising the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide/Policy PTan for Recreation Open Space. "The meetings will give the public a chance to speak for or against any topic they consider important to the regional park system," said John Mauritz, Council park planner. Some topics that may prompt discussion, he said, include land acquisition, maintenance of regional parks and the fairness of park user fees. The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission will co-sponsor each meeting with the implementing agency listed below. E~]n meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. The schedule is: --July 17, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Northeast Park, 1615 N.E. Pierce St., Minneapolis. uJuly 19, Washington County Board of Commissioners, Washington County Courthouse board room, 14900 61st St. N., Stillwater. --July 24, Anoka County Board of Commissioners, Anoka County Courthouse board room, 325 E. Main St., Anoka. mo re NJuly 26, Dakota and Scott County Boards of Commissioners, and Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Burnsville City Hall council chambers, 1313 E. Hwy. 13, Burnsville. --July 31, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Sumner Olson Council, 900 8th Av. N., Minneapolis. --Aug. 2, Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, Maple~od City Hall council chambers, 1380 Frost Av., Maplewood. --Aug. 8, Bloomington City Council and Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Bloomington City Hall council chambers, 2215 W. Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington. --Aug. 9, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Hosmer Library, 347 E. 36th St., Minneapolis. --AUg. 14, St. Paul City Council, St. Paul Seminary, Room 203, Brady Center, 2260 Summit Ay., St. Paul. ~ --AUg. 20. St. Paul City Council, St. Paul Technical Vocational Institute auditorium, 235 Marshall Av., St. Paul. --AUg. 22, Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Golden Valley City Hall council chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley. --Aug. 23, Carver County Board of Commissioners and Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Cha~hassen City Hall council chambers, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen. Following the meetings in July and August, the commission will develop policy plan revisions. A public hearing on the revised plan is scheduled for November. · Fora paper discussing issues surrounding the system's purposes, goals, funding and future development, call the Council at 291-6401. -30- NOTES 1984 ., WEST METRO O,O DtNATED TRANSPORTATION 3614 Bryant Ay. S. Minneapolis, MN 55409 827-1721 Please note the above new loqo with our new name--West Metro Coordinated Transportation! A statement of explanation will also appear on program letterhead--"Working to coordinate, develop and support transortation resources for the elderly" (see below). To ensure that the transition from old name to new will be a smooth one, we would appreciate your help in telling others of the name change. West Metro Coordinated Transportation will continue to coor- dinate transportation resources within Henr~pJ~County. Also, a special thanks to Sandy Rummel for her "redesign" of the West Metro Coordinated Transportation logo. Under the provisions of Section 16(b) (2) of the Urban Mass Transporta- tion Act (UMTA), capital assistance grant funds are available for the purchase of equipment for use in transporting handicapped and elderly persons. Only private, non-profit corporations and associations are eligible to apply. It has been Minnesota Department of Transportation sM. nDOT) policy to use 16(b) (2) funds solely for the purchase of lift- uipped vehicles. Grants are made for replacement of vehicles, expan- ion of current services, or initiation of new services. The application deadline for 16(b) (2) Capital Grant Program funds is July 27, 1984. This earlier deadline (formerly mid-October) should greatly speed up the availability of grant funds. If you wish to apply or obtain more information, contact Dennis McMann, Section 16(b) (2) Program Coordinator, MnDOT, 297-2067. If you do apply, please also send a copy of your application to the West Metro Coordinated Transportation office. West Metro Coordinated Transportation staff have been asked to comment on 16(b) (2) applications in the past, and must review all proposals in order to make any recom- mendations. In addition, West Metro Coordinated Transportation will not support an organization's application without first reviewing materials. Last month the number of one-way trips given by special transportation providers in 1983 was presented. A final figure has now been calculated. Please note that these figures represent one-way trips provided only to persons 60 and over in Hennepin County. TOTAL: 294,289 (37 organizations) 32,448 (using volunteer drivers) 109,532 (using paid drivers, not including Metro Mobility) 152,309 (Metro Mobility: Project Mobility, taxi cabs, and Suburban Paratransit, Inc.) (OVER) In 1982, 263,579 one-way trips were given by the 36 organizations sur- veyed, or 30,710 fewer rides than provided in 1983. The organizations providing the above ride information each play a sig- nificant role in meeting the varied transportation needs of Hennepin County senior citizens, in addition to contributing toward the coordii nation of transportation resources. TRANSPORTATION SPOTLIGHT - Westonka Christian Services Westonka Christian Services is a church-sponsored, all-volunteer organi- zation which provides transportation for residents of Mound, Spring Park, Maple Plain, St. Bonefacious, and parts of Minnitrista, Orono, and Minne- tonka Beach. Volunteers driving their own cars transport residents from their homes to anywhere within the boundaries of Maple Plain on the north, Edina on the south, Waconia on the west~ and St. Louis Park on the east. Rides · '~a-- ' ' are also provzded to the n's Hospital in Minneapolis. Transporta- tion to downtown Minneapolis.~,ill~ be provided only if a willing driver can be found. Medical-related trips are first priority, with rides for physical therapy appointments limited to within the Westonka area. Trips for non-medical purposes are very limited--never to exceed one trip per week per indivi- dual. Rides will not be provided for social or recreational purposes. Westonka Christian Services encourages residents to first seek rides from their family and friends, or to use the Westonka Community Services van (a neighbor transportation service) if they are able to use it. There is no cost for the Westonka Christian Services transportation ser- vice, however donations are accepted. Transportation is available from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday - Friday. Weekend trips are very limited. To arrange a ride, call 472-4617, two days in advance, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Attempts will be made to accomodate requests on short notice, but only if a ride is needed for an emergency (non-routine) medi- cal appointment. Westonka Christian Services is supported in part through West Metro Coordinated Transportation. These funds have enabled Westonka Christian Services to expand transportation services for area senior citizens. However, transportation is available to residents of all ages. For more'information on Westonka Christian Services, contact Marian Alexander, Transportation Coordinator, 472-4617. West Metro Coordinated Transportation is made possible in part under the FEDERAL OLDER AMERICANS ACT through a grant from the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL under an area plan approved by the MINNESOTA BOARD ON AGING. West Metro Coordinated Transportation Senior Citizen Centers of Greater Minneapolis 3614 Bryant Avenue South Minneapolis, YiN 55409 gon Elam City .w~nager City of ~nd 5341N~..ood Road ~nd, ~ 55364 NON PROF'I':I' ORG. u. s. PAID" Permit No. 299 June 27, 1984 City Council Mound, MN 55364 Dear Council Members: On behalf of our son, Paul Emmanuel Paine, we are writing to register a complaint against Sgt. Bill Hudson regarding his actions toward Paul on March 2, 1984. We felt his actions on the day in question constitute harassment. Therefore, we would like to give you a short summary of the events of that day. Paul bought a 1965 white Chevrolet a few days before March 2. The car had not been driven for approximately 10 months and had belonged to a teenaged neighbor of Sgt. Hudson. On March 2, Paul was driving his car in the City of Mound. Near the Shirley Hills School 4-way stop (Bartlett and Wilshire), Paul noticed a brown Ford with two large men in it following him. Several times this car was tailgating Paul and he became frightened. Paul accelerated slightly to put some distance between them. (We have told Paul never to stop for any strange vehicle.) Since Paul was on his way to a friend's house, he continued driving, knowing that someone would be at the house. The Ford continued to follow him to that house. When he arrived at his friend's home, he got out of the car and so did the driver of the Ford. Immediately Paul realized it was Sgt. Bill Hudson, out of uniform. (The passenger in the car was Sgt. Hudson's son, Mike, and they were in Hudson's personal car -- it was not marked as a police car in any way.) Paul asked Sgt. Hudson why he was following him and harassing him. Hudson did not answer Paul. Sgt. Hudson then called or radioed someone from his car. Soon thereafter Officer £wald arrived in a squad car. Sgt. Hudson told Ewald to give Paul two tickets and to check whether he had insurance on the car. Paul told Sgt. Hudson the reason for accelerating was he did not recognize who was tail- gating him. We feel this should be brought to your attention, as it certainly is a poor example for anyone representing the Mound Police Department to set. Certainly no individual should ever have to stop at the behest of an unmarked and unidentifiable vehicle with the driver out of uniform. There are too many "crazies" out today~ Sincerely, ~ :.~ &.~.. C" "'-~ ' L-' ' - ~- /-'"-~'-~" ~"'~' . . '..' , ', , / , ,' ,,i. .. ; ~. : Beverly and Verlon Paine Mound, June 27, 1984 Chief of Police Mound Police Department Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sir: This letter is sent regarding the Complaint filed against our son, Paul Emmanuel Paine, concerning offenses on April 29, 1984. We were visiting at Nancy Heinsch's home when Officer Ewald arrived early in the evening and notified her that her 1969 Chevrolet had been found rolled over on Halstead Drive. We had no idea who had driven it or how it had gotten there. Officer Ewald told us that if the boys were involved and if they would come in and talk to him about the matter, he would not file charges. We contacted Paul at a friend's home and told him the situation. He volunteered and was willing to go in and talk to Officer Ewald. I (Bev) went to pick Paul up and in the meantime Officer Ewald called Verlon at approximately 10:30 p.m. and said if Paul did not come in before he went off duty at 11:00 p.m., he would have to file charges. When we arrived at the police station at approximately 10:30 p.m., we identified ourselves and Paul was taken into a room by Officer Ewald and another policeman. Several minutes went by and I (Bev) asked one of the officers what was happening and why I could not go ~ in with Paul. I told the officer that Officer Ewald had said he just wanted to talk to Paul and if he was truthful no charges would be filed. So the 'officer went in the room, came back out and said I could go in if Paul did not object. When I entered the room I assumed they were just discussing the situation. At this time, Officer Moss was doing the questioning. Shortly thereafter Verlon Paine came in the room also. During Officer Moss' questioning of Paul, several times he asked Paul how fast he was going over the bridge. Each zime Paul answered he didn't know. Then Officer Moss asked, "Would you say approximately 50?". Paul said, "No, approximately 40." Then Officer Moss said, "Well, we could say approximately 50." That is what he eventually put in the report rather than the 40 that Paul had stated. Officer Moss continually pushed for 50, indicating that "it didn't matter since it was just an approximation." At the end of the questioning by Officer Moss, he wanted Paul to read the statement and sign it. He said we could read it also. After reading it, I (Bev) pointed out three discrepancies: 1. The 50 mph as mentioned above. 2. Description of why Paul had the helmet on. The fact that he was not out there on Easter because we were not home, nor was he there "thereabouts", as the car did not run for several weeks during that Easter period. Officer Moss indirectly led me to believe that details were not important; "this was just a statement." Moss told me he would add on the information I had requested with regard to the helmet. At this point Paul signed the statement. However, Officer Moss never did make the correction. At this point we were told charges would be brought. Needless to say, we were shocked because Officer Ewald had said he would not bring any charges. Then we were told that this was a Minnetrista police officer and that Minnetrista was filing the charges. We feel this was deceitful, as we did not know the accident took place in Minnetrista. Had we known that charges were being brought, we would have contacted our attorney prior to anyone talking to Paul. At this point we were told Paul had been read his Miranda rights, but Paul said he did not understand them. Paul had just turned 18 and I was very concerned about this since he is a young 18. I emphasized that Paul did not understand. I questione--~the way they had handled the matter, particularly why Officer Ewald said there would be no charges filed, as we would certainly not have let Paul talk to anyone without our attorney being present. Officer Ewald then became angry, told me (Bev) to be quiet or I would be "put out of the room." The officers in turn emphasized that Paul was an adult, and I said yes, he was, but just barely and a young one at that. I felt very intimidated; as though I should not say anything else because of Officer E~vald's attitude. However, I did not want Paul alone in the room with the officers. Then Officer Ewald said he would again read Paul his. Miranda rights "before he questioned him," since Paul hadn't understood them. He told Paul~there would be no charges filed by Mound and then proceeded to question him. In good faith we brought Paul in and told him to tell the truth because we were promised no charges would be filed. Then Minnetrista filed charges. We feel this was not handled in an honest way and was misrepresented to us. Honesty and truthfulness go both ways[ Sincerely, Beverly and Verlon Paine ~.~ound, MN INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City. Hanage~ ~' William Hudso~,~A~~'lef of Police Citations ~ v ~ k~ k~ DATE July 6 19. Attached to this memo is a xerox copy of: 1) The officers report of a juvenile traffic violation, 2) Formal complaint in reference to the same traffic violation issued by the City attorney. This information is confidential by statute due to the fact that the offender was a[juvenile at the time the traffic citations were issued. I have gone thru the report and have deleted the juvenile's identification. In ~@. & ~s. Paine's letter dated June 27, 1984, it alleges that I was harassing their son. ~?ter witnessing the violations, I felt they were serious enough that the vehicle should be stopped and citations issued. I did follow the automobile until I could get a marked squad to make the stop for me but the juvenile pulled over and stopped before that was done. I did not tailgate the car but merely followed it to its destin- ation. I 8id have another person in ~e car with me, which was my son, Larry. In the past when I have witnessed gross violations which were committed in my presence such as what is described in the reports, I have done the same as I did in this instance wi~ no problems. I feel that it is proper procedure when violations such as this are committed in an officer's presence, that something is done about it at ~e time and not dropped due to the fact that an officer is in an unmarked car. In the letter it also alleges that the juvenile asked me why I was following him and harassing him and that I did not answer his questions. I did inform the juvenile exactly why he was being stopped andwhy I was doing what I was doing and his attitude at that time was beligerent and conversation was kept to a minimum. I cannot recall having contact with the juvenile prior to this incident, but the police department has had several contacts with him since then involving other serious traffic violations. The citations were issued in ~rch, 1984, and up until June 27, 1984, I have not had any contact or communication with ~. & ~s. Paine in reference to my actions. HC 3236 J OFFICER'S REPORT OF JUVENILE TRAFFIC VIOLATION be forwarded to: HENNEPIN COUNTY JUVENILE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT Room 330, Court House Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 348-3640 -- 348-4231 Name '-~ -- Birthdate 03=-08=66- Telephone No. 472-1328 Address 2257 Cottonwood Lane: Mound Zip Code g5%64 County of Residence Parents' Name Verlon and Beverly Paine School Attending Mound Westonlca Date of Offense 03-02-84 Time 1725 Place Cry. Rd. ]]0 ]gartlett/l,nngford ¢ Offense Charged Speed/Unnecessary acceleration *' Information under "Details" should include such facts as may assist the Judge or Referee in disposing of the case -- kind of car, owner, number in the car, attitude of driver, evidence of drinking, presence of liquor, etc. Details: On the above date and time, Sgt Hudson while in his un-marked squad car was leaving his ~sidence and saw a white chev (driver later ': ..,.r.. ,~ z~en~z~e.., as . go by him at the ~l~ntersection of Pine and Westedge southbound at a very high rate of speed which Sgt Hudson would estiminate at 50 mph in a 30 zone. Sgt Hudson then pulled up behind at the intersection of Westedge and Bartlett where he stopped which is about 1 blocN from Pine and Westedge. As Sgt Hudson was starting to get out of his vehicle to talk to about the speeding, pulled out onto Bartlett east bound. When he pulled out onto Bartlett, did so in a manner making his tires spin and car swerve slightly and pulled out infront of another oncomming vehicle. Sgt Hudson was unable to pull out behind due to the closeness of the oncomming vehicle. Sgt Hudson then called for a marked squad (Officer Ewald) to intersecpt to make a traffic stop for Sg,t Hudson. Sgt Hudson followed with one car between him and to Wilshire Blvd where he turned south. Sgt Hudson then was able to get behind still waiting for the unmarked squad. Sgt Hudson followed to Tyrone and was traveling at speeds upto 45 mph in a posted 30 zone. then turned north on Tyrone and again was exceeding the 30 mph speed limit to 40 mph. then came to a dead end where he stopped and Sgt Hudson immediatley got out of the his squad and identified himself and said he knew who Hudson was. Sgt Hudson asked why he was speeding and he said that he saw two b'ig guys behind him and that I was harassing him. Sgt Hudson asked him how fast he was going on Westedge and he said he didn't know beacuse his speedometer doesn't work until he hits 55 mph. Sgt Hudson then informed that he was giving him two tickets for spe8ding and exibition driving, said that I couldn't do that beacuse Hudson was off duty and he would get it thro~m out of court. At that time Officer Ewal'd arrived on the scene and issued the t~¢o tickets. T. ag given by Police Department Hudson/Ewald Title Patrolmen Moua~d Date Referred 03-02-84 174 ~,$1HJ,. FIJ. IM 03g~'~'H~) ':J~'1:/ NOA jSlHI FIJ. IM C]30~'N:) 3~1~/ NOA ,~ ' MEMORA/qDUM TO: F ROM: DATE: RE: Sgt. William Hudson Mound Police Department Desyl L. Peterson Prosecuting Attorney April 16, 1984 State of Minnesota vs. Attached is a copy of a complaint I have prepared for your signature. Please sign at the Hennepin County Municipal Court, Division 3 - Ridgedale, 12601Ridgedale Drive, Court Office Room 201, Minnetonka, Minnesota, by 9:00 a.m.-on April 19, 1984. DLP/jmp Attachment HC 4382 ~8/83) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN MUNICIPAL COURT. 3rd DIVISION HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA VS Defendant Name Plaintiff, first, middle, last COMPLAINT 03-08-66 Date of Birth X SUMMONS,. WARRANT CALENDAR DATE 2257 Cottonwood Lane, Mound, MN 55364 Defendant Addre~ D/L ~ P-500-676-229-177 COMPLAINT Zip Code 04-19-84 Calendar Date Sgt. William Hudson .; Complainant, being duly sworn, makes complaint to the above-named Court and states that there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant committed the following offense(s). The complainant states that the following facts establish PROBABLE CAUSE: Your complainant is the Investigator for the Mound Police Department. Acting in that capacity on March 2, 1984, at approximately 5:25 p.m., I was in my unmarked squad car in the City of Mound when I observed a white Chevrolet go by me at the intersection of Pine and Westedge southbound at a very high rate of speed which I estimated to be approximately 50 mph in a 30 mph zone. I pulled up behind the vehicle at the intersection of Westedge and Bartlett and started to get out of my car to talk to the driver. At that time the car pulled out onto Bartlett and did so in a manner that made his tires spin and car swerve slightly. The car pulled out in front of another oncoming, vehicle. I was unable to pull out behind the Chevrolet due to the closeness of the oncoming vehicle. I followed the vehicle along several streets and observed that it was traveling at speeds up to 45 mph in a posted 30 mph zone. The vehicle finally came to a dead end where it stopped. I got out of my car and identified myself. The driver of the Chevrolet, who was identified as the defendant, stated that he knew who I was. I asked the defendant why he was speeding, and he said that he saw two big guys behind him and that I was harrassing him. I asked him how fast he was going on Westedge, and he said he didn't know because his speedometer does not work until it gets to 55 mph. WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that said offender may be arrested and dealt with according to law. Pr'osecq,f,.bPs -Name & Signature DesyI L. Peterson, I.D. #85777 Sworn to and subscribed and complained of before me this 169.14; 46.13 Section Speed; Unnecessary Acceleration Charge Complainant's Name & Signature day of 19 :Judge of Hennepin County Municipal Court Recommended Bail COMPLAINT ~age 2 of 2 OFFENSES Count I: Based upon the foregoing, your complainant states that on or about March 2, 1984, at approximately 5:25 p.m., within the corporate limits of the City of Mound, your defendant, . , then and there did willfully, wrongfully and unlawfully violate Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.14, by driving in excess of the posted speed limit. Count II: Based upon the foregoing, your complainant states that on or about March 2, 1984, at approximately 5:25 p.m., within the corporate limits of the City of Mound, your defendant, then and there did willfully, wrongfully and unlawfully violate Mound Ordinance 46.13, by driving with unnecessary acceleration. TO: FROM: DATE: HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT PROSECUTION SUMMARY CITY OF MOUND i~ty Manager Chief of Police Desyl L. Peterson Prosecuting Attorney July 17, 1984 DEFENDANT: Paul E. Paine OFFENSE(S): Unnecessary Acceleration; Speeding DATE OF OFFENSE: March 2, 1984 ARRESTING OFFICER: John Ewald; Sgt. Hudson CONTROL NO: SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS: This matter was tried before Judge Gomez-Edwards on July 10, 1984 with Sgt. Hudson testifying. DISPOSITION: Judge Gomez-Edwards found the defendant guilty on both charges and imposed a 530.00 fine on each of the charges. She suspended the ~30.00 on the unreasonable acceleration charge. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION 1983 ANNUAL REPORT "Nothing will improve produc. tivity likc a new u,orkplace," says Ch ief A drain istrator Louis Olsen of the Fred T. Heywood Operating and Office Facility u,hich opens in Minneapolis in mid-July 1984. He adds, "Finally, the MTC will have a home on the site of an operating garage. Not only will this offer a bottom.line savings, but it will build an esprit de co~ps in our employees." OPERATING TRENDS Ridership Peak buses Miles 'of service Passengers per mile Base fare All You Can Ride Cards sold Workforce Project Mobility ridership Carpoolers assisted Vanpools in operation Match lists processed FINANCIAL TRENDS Operating revenues Operating expenses Operating loss before depreciation Percent operating revenues to operating expenses Net income (loss) Cash and short term investments Working capital Current ratio Property, plant and equipment - net Total assets Long term debt Total equity Retained earnings available for working capital 1983 75,535,728 800 27,387,000 2.75 75¢ peak/ 60¢ off-peak 349,610 2,220 164,723 4,752 204 13,200 1982 81,608,321 817 28,827,000 2.82 75¢ peak/ 60¢ off-peak 391,498 2,293 161,222 6,852 190 15,935 1983 $ 38,624,9O0 92,978,200 (54,353,300) 1982 $ 39,659,300. 92,204,400 (52,545,100) 41.5% 43.0% $ ( 43,400) $ (6,956,100) 19,885,200 14,960,800 16,974,400 15,751,900 1.8 1.9 $ $1,215,600 133.537,900 16,410,000 96,750,900 22,047.700 $ 67,018,900 116,772,500 18,110,000 81,096,300 19,479.500 "I~'c arc an innovative agenO' approach, "says MTC Chair- ma n Pc;rr Stu ma~ "The 2ri' mary objcctive et'the MTC t~ 7 ~eople out of the auto. obilc and on to buses. "Mind- ful that MTC stockholders are the public and thus MTC cus. tomers, Chairman Stumpf says it ~ important that the quality of MTC employees be "a cut above the r~t." The MTC emphasized cost effi- ciency and quality of service during 1983~The agency was particularly successful in developing a fleet and facilities strategic plan, integrating Special Services actMties with regu- lar route service, improving internal controls in workers' compensation, tightening farebox security, improv- ing miles per road call performance, keeping facilities construction plans on schedule, expanding human resources development programs and documenting agency policies and procedures. Average miles per.maintenance failure exceeded 4,175 miles through the first seven months of 1983. This was a level above the goal estab- lished by management and was the highest for any system in the U.S comparable to the MTC in size. The MTC is reaching the conclu- sion of a multi-year, multi-facility replacement and construction pro- gram. So far, one new garage has been built, two garages have been renovated, one major overhaul base has been constructed and a new garage and office facility is under construction. The Human Resources Division placed a major focus on incentives and recognition' programs in 1983. The Driver Recognition Program and Perfect Attendance Program have been in effect for a full year an~ mechanics and clerks' recogni- tion programs are under development. Six new commissioners came on board in 1983. They are: Peter Stum:;f. Chairperson: Ed Bayuk: Ed Kranz: Al/son Fuhr: Ron Maddox: .,;~., arsa, cr Sr, csrud. They re:~l;;~:,..d C}~airpcrson John Yn.~','e, R-.::k Fr;::'.k',in. Gavle Kincann~:)n, I)X".< .~cb.:'a:!!c. ar:fi Parker Trostcl. gained a change in the property tax law. The MTC had been restricted to levying 2 mills in property taxes from communities served by the agency. This was seen as inflexible since there are some communities that are not as well served as others. The Legislature approved a change that allows the MTC to levy up to 2 mills in property taxes. As a result, the Commission reduced property taxes in some suburban communi- ties as a way to encourage support for MTC service in those areas. The MTC took advantage of the safe harbor leasing provision that is part of the Economic Recovery Tax Act in 1983 when it purchased 76 new buses. Having bought the buses, the MTC, in turn, sold the value of the vehicles' depreciation to a private company to be used for tax purposes. During the 1983 legislative ses- sion, amendments were made to the workers' compensation act. Some of the MTC's concerns about the State's workers' compensation laws were addressed in the amendments. Fundamental changes in the per- manent partial disability system were effected, as well as changes in the laws dealing with subrogation. A Legislative Commission on Met- ropolitan Transit was formed in late 1983 to study the future of transit in the Twin Cities and suggest ways of improving mass transit in the met- ropolitan area. Following the recommendations made in the study, the Legislature passed a bill that will essentially reorganize the MTC into two separate units. The new 15- member Regional Transit Board will handle all policy and planning func- tions, including approval of annual budgets and property taxes. The day-to-day management of the 1,100- bus fleet will remain under the con- trol of the .MTC, though the numMr of commissioners will be reduced MIEES PER ACCIDENT (TOTAL) .lIi~,~capoh) residc, t quc~t 3ITC uscr. Thomas Altctz. says the! bus drivers "arc.fric~dl)' and stt'ck lo their sct',6duI(s. "Hc uses the bus oftc~t, cspcclally during thc u'in- ter. .4tlc~ said he h'kes the fact that service is &pendable. He also has an to~ustta[ way for occupyi~g his time u,hile gettin£ around. Said Allen, "I've sewn on a lot of buttons while I'm r[di~Jg the bus." QUALITY OF SERVICE Nineteen-hundred-and-eighty- three was the year when employees throughout the MTC worked together with one single goal in mind - striving for quality. The MTC service area covers over 2,000 square miles and includes seven counties and one major met- ropolitan area. It's one of the largest all-bus systems in the nation, with over 120 routes carrying 85 million passengers annually. The MTC's total budget for 1983 was $141,515,000. The revised oper- ating budget was $99,590,000 and the capital budget was $41,925.000. The state government contributed $12,158,000 for assistance for regu- lar transit, social fare reimburse- ment and Metro Mobility. This was a 3.9 percent decrease from 1982. The federal government continued its operating assistance at a level equal to 80 percent of the funds available in 1981. The MTC began to see a stabiliza- two years of decline. Three major events occurred in 1982 that con- t~:ibuted to the decline. These were: 1) the imposition of a 15 cent sur- charge during rush hour, 2) a rapid increase in unemployment in the metropolitan area, and 3) a decrease in the pump price of gasoline. A healthier economy, consistent prices at the gas pump and the fact that there were no fare increases in 1983 all contributed to the stabilization in ridership decline. The MTC's property tax levy remained at 2.0 mills. The property tax levy generated 26.1 percent more revenue than in 1982. However, due to legislation established in 1981, some municipalities are allowed.to use 90 percent of the property taxes paid to the MTC to subsidize their own transit plan. One community, Plymouth, did so in 1983. Also. the Commission voted to reduce 1984 property taxes in some communities. Passenger revenues for 1983 totaled $33,419,000, a 2.0 percent decrease from 1982. The MTC lost the contract to provide intercampus scrx'icc, when thc~ ['nix'crsity c~f .Min- transit company. The MTC con- tinued to provide a vital service to the University on several regular and special commuter express routes. For the first time in several years, major service level improvements and the implementation of new routes were undertaken. Though the budget for the improvements was small, additional dollars were freed up by shifting resources from low productivity routes to market areas where the return-on-investment would be much higher. Included in the new routes were: the 4U service to St. Paul's Energy Park and the University of Minne- sota's St. Paul campus; expanded Route 94B express service between downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul during rush hour, weekday middays, evenings and Sunday; and Route 23, the 38th Street-Crosstown Route, was expanded to include the grow- ing Hennepin/Lake commercial district. Service improvements continued to be made throughout the year. Routes were expanded while others were modified. A total of 39 sche- dules were overhauled to better match scheduled arrival and depar- ture times with actual traffic condi- tions. Thus, the on-time perfor- mance of about 20 percent of the MTC's routes, which carry one-third of the agency's patrons, was improved. The "All You Can Ride" cards remained popular. JET (Job Employment Transit) passes were described as 'the best idea for human service in 1983' by the Min- nesota Social Services Association. The pass is a discount card which allows unemployed persons to board a Twin Cities bus for 25 cents to !ook for jobs during non-rush hour periods. The Commission discussed reduc- ing fares and also simplifying the fare structure. Both issues remained on hold at the end of the year. For the first time in five years, there were no fare increases during 1983. When a survey of bus riders was conducted, one of their main com- plaints was the state of bus inte- riors. Riders said they thought the buses should be cleaner inside and out. As a result, additional bus cleaners were hired and the interiors and exteriors are now cleaned daily. Transit Information Center (TIC) representatives were given addi- tional training during the year. The TIC, the main information source for the general public, receives over 1 million calls during the year. The 33 TIC representatives each handle an average of 200 calls dur- ing each eight-hour shift and often have to handle irate callers. Through a series of seminars, repre- sentatives learned how to cope with on-the-iob stress and provide a more courteous service to the public. Project Mobility, a service oper- ated by the MTC to provide trans- portation for handicapped individu- als, had one of its best years. Project Mobility staff assisted over 166,000 individuals and traveled a total of 1,009,814 miles during the year. Minnesota Rideshare, a program provided by the MTC's Special Ser- vices Division to promote carpooling, vanpooling and bus riding, assisted over 13,000 individuals last year. Using a computerized matchlist, staff helped carpoolers, and those interested in carpooling, from as far north as Onamia and as far south as Albert Lea. Over 200 vanpoots looked to Ride- share staff to help them maintain their ridership levels. Rideshare staff worked to promote private vanpooling as a transportation alternative. One way to make the conccp~ mu)'e attractive is to n,,akc worked with four Twin Cities banks to offer special financing to those individuals interested in purchasing a van. "Getting It Together: A guide to owning and operating a vanpool" was another method to help novice van- poolers. The 34-page booklet, com- piled by Rideshare staff, offers indi- viduals tips on starting and operating a vanpool. Minnesota, like much of the U.S., suffered through one of the toughest cold spells on record during the days just before Christmas. MTC mechanics, in particular, worked long hours to keep buses in service. Many worked 24 hour shifts, spend- ing nights at the garages, and some missed the holidays in order to keep the buses in service. As a result of their dedication, bus service was only slightly interrupted due to the severe weather. QUALITY OF PERSONNEL The MTC employs over 2,300 individuals. Everyone from mechan- ics and schedulemakers to computer analysts and accountants is needed to keep the MTC on the move. Obviously, the largest segment of MTC employees is made up of driv- ers. Of all employees, they have one of the most difficult jobs. Most of them work split shifts and many work weekends. They drive through Minnesota's rough winters and serve as the MTC's best public rela- tions tool since they are in constant contact with the public. Providing incentives and giving drivers a pat on the back for a job well-done had long been a concern of the MTC's management. As a result employees from garages and the Human Resources Division was formed to establish the best way of showing drivers that the MTC cared. The task force, after several meetings, created the Distinguished Driver Program. The ambitious year-long program offered drivers incentives for improving passenger relations, driv- ing skills and absenteeism. A set of criteria was made for judging out- standing performance by drivers. Two categories, distinguished driver and meritorious driver, were created. Awards included eight hours of paid time off (the most valued commodity according to the XlTC's research), a S50 gift certifi- cate and the placement of the distin- guished driver's name on an honor rc~ll. MTC research suggested that 10 "lt'c take thc bus almost cz'cry da)', usualh' scrcn days a week, "said Harold Dahlquist. Dahlquist a~d his w(t'c. Lillian, lire in St. Paul and commute all over the Twin Cities ria the .UTC. They don't ou'n a car so the Dahlquists are dependo~t on taki~g the bus. Both agreed they like the service and find it a convenient way of getting around. Dahlquist enjoys visit. lng with other passengers and said that taking the MTC is 'just very relaxing." distinguished driver status. How- ever, when the results were tallied, 26 percent of the drivers had reached distinguished driver status, 16 percent more than expected. Another nine percent fit into the category of meritorious driver. The program cost the MTC S73,056 but saved the agency over S400,000 since drivers' sick occur- rences and total lost days due to sickness dropped. Also, late pull-outs decreased as did accidents. The program was hailed across the U.S. by other transit companies as a milestone for providing the kind of incentives needed to build quality personnel. The MTC's Human Resources Division created a quality circles program in 1982 and had six quality circles operating by the end of last year. The quality circles brought many employees together who never had the opportunity to interact. Bet- ter lines of communication were established among workers and between workers and supervisors. Additionally, the quality circles pro- vided employees and supervisors the opportunity to research problems at specific workplaces and implement procedures needed for alleviating problems. The MTC held the Ninth Annual Bus Roadeo and Second Annual Mechanics Competition in the fall. Both events provide drivers and mechanics the opportunity to dis- pl~,y their skills by competing for cash awards and trophies. Driver training through a refresher course was given special emphasis in 1983. Four-hundred- and-fifty-six experienced MTC driv- ers participated in the Jefferson- MTC Pr(,fcss~,t~a] l)riving Program. 'l'h~, ;:,r,~gr::m cnr:blcs MTC drivers t,, ma~:-,ta;n thz quality t)f safe driv- :rig p:-;=ctict,~ :',.'(iuir~'d by the agency. specialist was hired. A wide range of courses will be developed for MTC mechanics including a three-part course on bus inspections. Mechan- ics continued to receive training in electrical wiring, welding, brake repair and engine and transmission rebuilds. Three courses in data processing were presented to a group of MTC managers and professional staff to increase their understanding of automated systems and computer usage. Also, a business writing course was offered to employees seeking to expand their ability to write technical communications. A managers' training course was completed at the MTC. The course assisted managers in developing the skills needed to translate complex policies and procedures into practice through better employee manage- ment. Outgrowths of the training included: the formation of an MTC executive committee to oversee the development of employee involve- ment at the agency, a commitment by senior management to form employee task forces to work on agency issues, and a stronger awareness of employee participation on the part of MTC managers was created. MTC employees pulled together through training programs, work- shops, seminars, quality circles and recognition programs - all with the goal of providing better .service to the public. MILES PER ROAD FAILURE DRIVER ABSENTEEISM ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE AS 'rt, OF TOTAL EXPENSE [ r"~-r-,v:~:'~ :~--7~ ~ '~.~ ~ :J, :: : : QUALITY OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES Facility construction and equip- ment improvement were two major concerns at the MTC in 1983. MTC buses received a much needed facelift when a ne~v color scheme was ushered in last summer. The MTC's red buses had created problems since the color had a ten- dency to fade. A contemporary upbeat look was designed. Buses will be painted white with black around the windows and a red and )range stripe will run horizontally md the sides with the MTC's )go, the large letter "T," near the front of the bus. A white teflon undercoating will be on the new buses. The teflon undercoating makes the buses van- dalproof and they won't damage as quickly - both were major considera- tions when the new color scheme was designed. Keeping in mind the need to max- imize limited dollars, the MTC embarked on a major bus restoration program. Buses will be dismantled down to the chassis, inspected, repaired and then reconstructed. The price tag for restoring buses is about $60,000 per vehicle as opposed to paying $130,000 to $135,000 for a new bus. One way of providing a sense of pride and esprit de corps in employees is to provide them with a pleasant work environment. The MTC has grown steadily over the last 13 years and has had to locate various divisions and programs in several facilities around the Twin Cities. However, many of the agen- cy's divisions will come together under one roof when the Fred T. Heywood Operating and Office Facil- ity opens in summer 1984. The MTC's executive offices, Metro Mobility, and Transit Information Center will move to the new facility. Also the following divisions will move: planning, development and communications; transportation; finance; human resources; informa- tion services; and risk management. The 5-story office complex and garage came about through the assistance of an $18 million federal grant from the Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration. Construc- tion of a new facility for MTC offi- ces means that the agency will no longer have to lease space. This will produce a substantial operating cost savings and will also provide the cohesiveness that comes about when employees are working in more effi- cient and better equipped facilities. The opening of the new garage means the MTC will close the doors to one of its oldest facilities - the Northside Garage, located at 2418 North Washington Avenue. Built in 1914, it served as a streetcar barn for many years before being reno- vated for use as a bus facility in the 1950s. The Northside operations will be transferred to the new Heywood Garage. A chassis dynano'meter will be installed at the facility. This is the first time the MTC will have equip- ment that will perform such diag- noses as checking horsepower, brakes and emissions while the bus is assembled. The MTC's revenue section will centralize its money-counting opera- tions at the new garage. Approxi- mately $19.3 million goes through the MTC's fareboxes annually. This approximately $70,000 in cash daily, which calls for secure and safe working conditions for employees. The money counting area will be entirely self-sufficient - employees will have showers, restrooms and a lunchroom in the secured work area. A computerized money-counting sys- tem will handle a larger coin volume in a shorter time and a closed-circuit television system will provide the best security possible. The sensitive computers that are part of the MTC's Information Ser- vices Division were given high prior- ity when the new office complex was designed. The Information Services Division provides the operation of, and technical support for, auto- mated systems ranging from the MTC's complex system of 120 bus routes to storing financial data. The area in the new building that will hold the MTC's computers will have a climate controlled environment and an uninterruptable power source so that, in the event of a power shortage, the computers will continue operating. Convenience for passengers and a clean environment are two top prior- ities at the MTC. The MTC has looked toward alleviating traffic problems in the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtown areas as the Twin Cities have become clogged with automobiles and buses. One of the ways is to find a more convenient method of getting into the downtown areas. The Minneapo- lis Gateway Transportation Facility is one step toward merging transit and traffic and creating a cleaner,' safer environment. The facility, located at Washing- ton Avenue South and 4th Avenue South, is a joint effort of the MTC. City of Minneapolis and Xorwest Banks, Inc. The facility has a 1,200 car parking ramp, a layover facility for over 40 buses and a connection into the downtown skyway system. It is the first fcicility of its kind in tnt, Twin Cities. The purpose of the facility is to provide parking and more impor- tantly to provide an area where buses can layover before beginning their runs. Congestion is virtually eliminated in that quadrant of downtown Min- neapolis since the facility intercepts traffic on the fringe of the city. Commuters can also drive as far as the Gateway facility and either take a bus into downtown or use the skyway. A passenger terminal com- plete with bus schedules provides a warm waiting area for bus riders. CONCLUSION The MTC, in 1983, sought to sta- bilize its operations. Recent perfor- mance statistics show service relia- bility at an all-time high. For example, in 1983 there were only four trips missed or late on an aver- age during the month of July. Safety, as measured in miles-per-avoidable- accident, exceeded 130,000 miles between accidents during that same month. The system can and must improve, and management will be looking for ways to fine-tune and streamline operations throughout 1984. Management will also be looking at new ways to deal with service equity including introducing service to test the subregional concept in the suburban areas, looking at new and enhanced service to other sub- urlSan areas not part of the subre- gional demonstration, and generally looking at ways to become more creative and innovative in pursuing the mission of the agency. Overall, the major challenge for the upcoming year and beyond will be to halt the ridership declines through improved services and mar- keting/communications efforts. The success in reversing this recent trend will, in large part, determine the future design of and outlook for :his transit ?:stem. The new Minneapolis Gateway Transportation Facility (pic. tured on the opposite page) is located at Washington A venue South and 4th A venue South in Minneapolis. It serves as a con. yen ient layo ver.for passengers like Luisa Cocchiarella (above). Luisa is a student who uses the bus daily for Commuting back and forth to school. And, because she doesn't own a car, Luisa finds taking the MTC a great wa3' for run ning errands and shopping. She enjoys the relaxing a nd reliable service. Financial Statements METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION BALANCE SHEETS Assets December 31, CURRENT ASSETS: Cash and short-term investments .................................. Accounts receivable ............................................... Property taxes receivable, less allowance for uncollectibles of $528,000 (1982 - $173,000) ........................................ Due from Federal government ...................................... Due from State of Minnesota ....................................... Accrued interest receivable ........................................ Material and supplies ............................................. Prepaid expenses ................................................. Total current assets ...................................... TRICTED ASSETS: Debt service: Cash and short-term investments ................................ Receivables ..................................................... Capital acquisitions: Cash and short-term investments ................................ Receivables ..................................................... Total restricted assets .................................... PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT (Note 3) Liabilities and Equity CURRENT LIABILITIES: Accounts payable ................................................. Accrued payroll liabilities .......................................... Accrued interest .................................................. Accrued injury and damage claims ................................. Other liabilities ................................................... Current maturities of long-term debt ............................... Total current liabilities ................................... LONG-TERM DEBT (Note 4) EQUITY: ' Contributed capital ............................................... Retained earnings: Reserved for debt service ........................................ Invested in or committed to property, plant and equipment ......... Available for working capital ..................................... Total equity .............................................. 1983 $ 19,885,200 756,900 1,356,800 8,746,700 3,522,400 124,200 2,832,700 126,500 37,351,400 4,075,600 205,200 8,668,000 2,022,100 14,970,900 81,215,600 $133,537,900 3,617,700 5,910,900 502,100 8,124,800 521,500 1,700,000 20,377,000 16,410,000 61,584,700 3.825.300 9,293,200 22,047,700 96.750,900 S133.537,900 1982 $ 14,960,800 633,700 2,149,400 8,753,400 3,708,500 69,800 2,962,500 80,000 33,318,100 3,432,100 204,600 11,423,400 1,375,400 16,435,500 67,018,900 8116,772,500 $ 2,800,200 4,187,000 337,300 7,967,600 424,100 1,850,000 17,566,200 18,110,000 48,710,300 3,299,400 9,607,100 19.479,500 81,096,300 Sl16.772,500 METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS Year Ended December 31, OPERATING REVENUES: Passenger fares ................................................... State special fare assistance ....................................... Contract fares .................................................... Charter .......................................................... Advertising ................................................ : ..... Total operating revenues ................................. OPERATING EXPENSES: Labor ............................................................ Fringe benefits (Note 1) ............................................ Workers' compensation ............................................ Material and supplies Professional and technical services ................................. Claims and insurance ............................................. Utilities .......................................................... Leases and rentals ................................................. Purchased transportation services .................................. Advertising and promotion ......................................... Miscellaneous .................................................... Total operating expenses ................................. OPERATING LOSS BEFORE DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION OPERATING LOSS ................................................. NON-OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES): Property taxes .................................................... Federal grants (Note 2) ............................................ State grants ...................................................... Interest income ................................................... Interest expense .................................................. Other (Note 6) .................................................... Total non-operating revenues ............................ NET LOSS ................................................. 1983 $ 32,350,600 4,573,500 1,068,100 133,300 499,400 38,624,900 49,860,000 19,681,200 3,369,800 13,217,500 2,126,100 1,085,100 1,826,800 774,800 207,200 30i,600 528,100 92,978,200 (54,353,300) 6,719,100 (61,072,400) 42,345,600 9,088,000 7,584,500 2,119,100 (1,285,600) 1,177,400 61,029,000 $ (43,4O0) 1982 $ 32,407,700 4,942,600 1,676,300 148,000 484,700 39,659,300 49,187,100 19,114,300 2,935,500 14,797,200 1,719,700 1,098,800 1,647,300 850,100 195,200 305,300 353,900 92,204,400 (52,545,100) 6,890,800 (59,435,900) 33,585,400 9,074,700 7,708,100 2,698,400. (726,600) 139,800 52,479,800 $ (6,956,100) See notes to financial statements. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION STATEMENTS OF RETAINED EARNINGS AND CONTRIBUTED CAPITAL Years Ended December 31, 1983 and 1982 BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 1981 .................................... Net loss .......................................................... Capital grants .................................................... Depreciation on contributed improvements .......................... BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 1982 .................................... Net loss .......................................................... ~Capital grants .................................................... Depreciation on contributed improvements .......................... Adjustment of prior years' depreciation on contributed improvements (Note 1) ............................................ BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 1983 .................................... Retained Earnings $34,105,100 (6,956,100) 5,237,000 32,386,000 (43,400) 5,106,600 (2,283,000) $35,166,200 Contributed Capital $46,580,900 7,366,400 (5,237,000) 48,710,300 15,698,000 (5,106,600) 2,283,000 $61,584,700 notes to financial statements. STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION Year Ended December 31, CASH PROVIDED BY OPERATIONS: Net loss .......................................................... Add depreciation .................................................. Working capital provided by (used for) operations .................. Changes in: Receivables ..................................................... Material and supplies ........................................... Prepaid expenses ............................................... Accounts payable ............................................... Accrued liabilities ............................................... Net cash provided by operations ......................... FINANCING: Sale of general obligation certificates of indebtedness ................. Reduction of long-term debt ........................................ Capital contributions .............................................. Decrease (increase) in restricted assets .............................. Net cash provided by financing ........................... ADDITIONS TO PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT ............. INCREASE IN CASH AND SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS ............ CASH AND SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS: Beginning of year ................................................. End of year ....................................................... 1983 $ (43,400) 6,719,100 6,675,700 807,800 129,800 (46,500) 817,500 2,143,300 10,527,600 (1,850,000) 15,698,000 1,464,600 15,312,600 (20,915,800) 4,924,400 14,960,800 S19,885,200 1982 $ (6,956,100) 6,890,800 (65,300) 3,920,500 (57,600) 32,200 1,241,400 (924,300) 4,146,900 8,910,000 (2,150,000) 7,366,400 (7,779,500) 6,346,900 (9,906,500 587,300 14,373,500 S14,960,800 METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1983 AND 1982 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies: ORGANIZATION -- The Metropolitan Transit Commission of the Minneapolis- St. Paul metropolitan area (MTC) was established in 1967. The MTC has the responsibility to develop, maintain and operate a public mass transit transporta- tion system for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. This taxing district includes substan- tial portions of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott and Washington Counties and all of Ramsey County. CAPITAL GRANTS -- The IvITC records receivables for capital grants when the related grant expenditures are incurred. The capital grants are recorded as contributed capital and are not included in revenues. Assets acquired with contributed capital are included in property, plant and equipment. Deprecia- tion on these assets is included as an expense in the statement of operations and then transferred from retained earnings to con- tributed capital as a reduction of contributed capital. In 1983, the MTC completed the automation of its property accounting system, which pro- vided a more accurate amount of depreciation on contributed improvements. The cumulative effect on prior years is reflected as an adjustment in the state- ment of retained earnings and contributed capital. REVENUE RECOGNITION -- Operating assistance grants available under the Urban Mass Tran~?rtation Act of 1964, as ;:.'-:~,vr, ded, ar(, recc)rded as non-op- erating revenue in the year in which the grant is applicable and the related reimbursable expen- diture is incurred. Operating assistance grants from the State of Minnesota are recorded as non-operating revenue in the period when earned. The MTC is authorized to levy limited general purpose ad valo- rem taxes for operation of the regular route bus transit system and unlimited ad valorem taxes for the retirement of principal and interest on outstanding indebtedness. Property taxes are . recorded as revenue in the year in which the taxes constitute a lien on the property. STATE SPECIAL FARE ASSISTANCE -- The MTC receives special fare assistance from the State of Minnesota for transportation of handicapped, senior citizen and student passengers. This assist- ance is classified as operating revenue as it is intended to pro- vide for differences between full fares and reduced special fares. PROPERTY -- Property, plant and equipment are stated at cost less accumu- lated depreciation. Depreciation is computed using the straight- line method over estimated use- ful lives as follows: buildings -35 to 45 years; buses- 10 to 12 years; and other equipment - 4 to 14 years. Proceeds from sale of deprecia- tion through tax leases are deferred and amortized over the lease term using the straight-line method. MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES -- Material and supplies are stated at cost using the weighted average costing method. VACATION AND SICK PAY -- Vacation pay is charged to expense when earned by the employee. Sick pay is expensed when paid because all sick leave expires upon termination of employment. The MTC refined its method of computing accrued vacation pay at December 31, 1983, resulting in an additional charge of. $1,050,000 to 1983 operations. RECLASSIFICATIONS -- Certain reclassifications have been made to the retained earn- ings detailed in the 1982 balance sheet in order to conform to the 1983 presentation. Federal Operating Assist- ance Grants: Operating assistance grants are made available to the MTC under Section 9 (Section 5 prior to 1983) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. Funds are apportioned on an annual basis and are avail- able for a period of three years following the close of the fiscal year for which they are apportioned. On March 27, 1984, the MTC applied for a Section 9 grant relating to operations for the fis- cal year ended December 31, 1983. The requested grant of $8,528,982 is included in Federal grant revenues for the year ended December 31, 1983. The 1982 operating assistance grant of $8,529,981 was applied for on February 23, 1983. The grant was approved by UMTA on .May 20, 1983 and all payments were received by November, 3. Property, Plant and Equipment: Property, plant and equipment consists of the following: Land and buildings ....................... Buses ................................... Other equipment, furniture and fixtures .... Capital projects in progress ............... Les.s accumulated depreciation ............ December 31, 1983 1982 $ 44,957,200 $ 40,197,300 64,842,200 55,956,700 10,036,900 9,644,100 17,397,400 11,334,200 137,233,700 117,i32,300 56,018,100 50,113,400 $ 81,215,600 $ 67,018,900 Capital projects in progress at December 31, 1983 are primarily for the construction of the Fred T. Heywood Operating and Office Facility. The estimated total cost of construction and equipment for this facility i's $21,955,000. At December 31, 1983, the MTC has commitments of $4,035,000 for construction and $9,970,000 for the purchase of 37 articulated buses. 4. Long-Term Debt: Long-term debt outstanding is as follows: General Obligation Final Net Certificates of Maturity Interest Indebtedness Date Rate October 1, 1971 2/1/85 4.28% March 1, 1976 12/1/86 4.77% September 1; 1979 2/1/98 5.58% November 1, 1982 2/1/95 8.49% All certificates of indebtedness mature serially. The 1971 certifi- cates may be redeemed before the due dates at redemption prices ranging from 101.5% to par. The 1982 certificates may be prepaid beginning in 1991. The other cer- tificates cannot be redeemed prior to maturity. All certificates are payable, both as to principal and interest, from the proceeds of a tax levied by the MTC on all taxable prop- erty within the Metropolitan December 31, 1983 1982 $ 400,000 $ 800,000 700,000 1,200,000 6,600,000 7,200,000 8,710,000 8,910,000 $ 16,410,000 $ 18,110,000 Transit Taxing District. Long-term debt maturities will be $1,700,000, $1,400,000, $1,100,000 and $1,500,000 for the years ending December 31, 1985 through 1988 respectively. Pension Plans: All full-time employees are required by State law to belong to the Public Employees Retire- ment Association or the Minne- sota State Retirement System. The MTC's portion of the unfunded liability in either plan is not determinable. Pension expense for the years ended December 31, 1983 and 1982 was 82,760,800 and $4,986,700, respectively, which includes approximately $700,000 and $2,000,000 in 1983 and 1982, respectively, to fund a deficit created when a former MTC retirement plan was merged with the State retirement system in 1978. The deficit was fully funded as of May 31, 1983. Pen- sion expense for 1983 was reduced by approximately $550,000 of additional employee contributions mandated by State law for the six-month period ended June 30, 1983. Other Non-Operating Revenue: Other non-operating revenue for 1983 includes $849,000 for the settlement of damages with AM General Corporation for 338 defective buses acquired in pre. vious years. The MTC received 48 new bus engines valued-at S624,000, one bus valued at $125,000 and $100,000 in cash. Contingent Liabilities - Fed- eral and State Grants: Expenditures financed by grants received from the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis- tration (UMTA/are subject to audit by UMTA, and grants received from the State of Min- nesota are subject to audit by the state for compliance with condi- tions of the grants. The grantors retain their interest in assets acquired with grant funds should thev be disposed of prior to the end' of their economic lives or not be used for mass transit. During 1983, the MTC received an audit report from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) citing differences in the calculation of State special fare assistance. On March 1, 1984, MnDOT notified the MTC that they would be billed for refund of overpayments amounting to $386,000 for the two-year period ended June 30, 1979 and S495,000 for the two- year period ended June 30, 1981. The MTC is disputing the charges, in part because the 1977.79 period had been pre- viously audited and accepted with minor changes. As a result, the MTC continued to use the same calculation methods for the 1979-81 period. No adjustments to the financial statements have been made pending final resolu- tion of this matter. In November, 1982, the MTC received an audit report from MnDOT citing differences in the calculation of State performance funding assistance. Initial esti- mates indicate that overpay- ments of approximately $1,700,000 may have been made for the two-year period ended June 30, 1981 under a strict interpretation of the contract. However, the MTC believes that the contract does not properly reflect legislative intent and therefore believes that no mate- rial liability will result from this audit. No adjustment has been included in the financial state- ments for this matter. Subsequent Events: Cash flow of the MTC is uneven during the year because the majority of general property · taxes are received during the last six months of the year and time lags occur in the receipt of Fed- eral and State grants. In order to provide for sufficient operating cash until taxes and grants are received, the MTC must obtain working capital to provide for expenditures which must be made prior to the receipt of revenues. On April 1, 1984, MTC issued $11,000,000 of General Obliga- tion Tax Anticipation Certifi- cates of Indebtedness to provide for working capital needs in 1984. The interest rate on the certificates is 6.25% and both interest and principal are due on April 1, 1985. The MTC pledged proceeds of taxes levied in 1983 and payable in 1984 as security for the certificates. On April 24, 1984, the State of Minnesota enacted legislation creating a fifteen-member Regional Transit Board. This body will assume most of the planning and policy-making functions of the MT(;, including approval of budgets and levying of property taxes. The MTC will be reduced to a three-member commission responsible for oper- ating the regular route bus tran- sit system. The effect of this leg- islation on MTC's financial statements has not been determined. REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Metropolitan Transit Commission We have examined the balance sheet of the Metropolitan Transit Commission as of December 31, 1983, and the related statements of operations, retained earnings and contributed capital, and changes in financial position for the year then ended. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and, accordinglx.', included such tests of tke acc, '.::'.tin~ records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circum- stances. The financial statements of the Metropolitan Transit Commis- sion for the year ended December 31, 1982 were examined by other audi- tors, whose report dated April 13, 1983 expressed an unqualified opin- ion on those statements. In our opinion, the 1983 financial statements referred to above present fairly the financial position of the Metropolitan Transit Commission at December 31, 19S3 and the results of its operations and the changes in its financial position for the year then ended, in conformity with generalb: accepted accounting principles ap- plied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year. Saint Paul. Minnesota April 6, 1954, except for the last paragraph of Note 8 as to which the date is April 24, 1984. Commissioners Peter P. Stumpf, Chairman Edward Bayuk Alison Fuhr Paul Joyce Edward Kranz Ron Maddox Bruce Nawrocki Margaret Snesrud Frank Snowden ~!! GERRY SIKORSKI 6TH DISTRICT, M~NNESOTA FRESHMAN WHIP COMMFVrEES: ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE CIVIL SERVICE POSTAL OPERATIONS AND SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES t ongre of ti e tniteb tate of epre entatibe a Oington, 20515 WASHINGTON OFFICE: 414 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BLDG. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2271 DENNIS McGRANN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DISTRICT OFFICE: 8535 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. BLAINE, MINNESOTA 55434 (612) 780-5801 SHIRLEY BONfNE DISTRICT DIRECTOR 3uly 198# Dear Friend= More than 71 billion gallons of hazardous wastes are generated in the United States every year, enough to supply every man, woman and child in the nation with six 55-gallon drums of toxic waste. Hazardous waste threatens the health and safety of thousands of Americans in all parts of our country, including Minnesota. I would like to take this opportunity to bring you up-to-date on the progress made in cleaning up the hazardous wastes sites in the Mound community. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has identified three potential hazardous waste sites in the Mound area. The sites consist of alledged past disposal of waste products by the Tonka Corporation. The City of Mound has undertaken a water and soil analysis of the one publicly owned site. That data is now being reviewed by the MPCA, however the preliminary findings indicated that it was not a hazardous waste site. In addition, the MPCA is working with Tonka and the owners of the other two sites on a proposal for investigation and.clean up. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the Federal Superfund, I have been very involved in efforts to improve hazardous waste clean up. I recently offered an amendment to the Superfund law which will enable citizens to obtain expert advice and technical assistance relating to hazardous waste sites in their community. You have my assurance I will continue to do everything I can to assist citizens in their efforts to stay informed and be involved in the process of hazardous waste cleanup. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance on this vital issue. Y~SKi Member/of Congress 7701 COUNTY ROAD 110 W · MINNETRISTA, MINNESOTA 55364 · 446-1660 NOTICE OF MEETING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL SIGN USE PERMIT. This is to provide you with notice that the Minne- trista Planning & Zoning Commi~ion will hold a meeting on Monday, July 23, 1984, at 8:00 p.m. at City Hall to consider the requests of Mr. and Mrs. Roger Rager, 1649 Gull Lane, Mound, MN, and Mr. Richard Diercks, 1765 County Road 110 North, Min- netrista, MN, for a conditional sign use permit to allow construction of a 4 ft. by 4 ft. directional sign on property legally described as follows: The South 1/2 of NE 1/4 of NE 1/2 except road, Section 14, Township 117, Range 24. If you wish to express your concerns, it may be done so at this time or by letter received in this office no later than Monday, July 23rd, 4:30 p.m. Thomas J. Link City Planning Director 7701 County Road 110 West Minnetrista, MN 55364 TABLE 5 HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPALITY POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1980 YEAR ~ Mun ici~alit~z (cemsus) 1990 2000 Blocmzin~ 81, 831 87,096 93,910 Brooklyn Center 31,230 31,692 33,477 Brooklyn Park 43,332 52,338 55,800 Champlin 9,006 10,873 11,401 Corcoran 4,252 5,150 5,527 Crystal 25,543 25,432 26,482 D~ytc~ '4,000 4,657 4,988 Deephavem 3,716 4,047 4,494 Ed~ ~rm~!.i.e 16,263 20,975 -23,095 Edina 46,073 50,100 55,762 Excelsior 2,523 2,508 2,565 Fort Snelllng 223 220* 210' Golda3 Valley 22,775 .24,255 26,611 Greenfield 1,391 1,572 1,707 Gre~m~Dcd 653 630*' 600* Hamover 248 280* 340* Hassan 1,766 2,103 2,328 Hopkins 15,336 16,180 16,667 Independemoe 2,640 2,925 3,256 Lcmg Lake 1,747 1,822 1,972 Loretto 297 350* 360* Maple Grove 20,525 27,389 29,653 Maple Plain 1,421 1,460 1,513 Medicine ,Lake 419 440~ 420* Medima 2,623 2,828 3,106 Minneapolis 370,951 344,318 319~ 757 Minnetcmkm 38,683 43,505 47,864 Minnet.c~ka Beach 575 540* 520* Minnetrista 3,236 3,633 4,033 Mound 9,280 10,268 10,739 New Pbpe 23,087 24,533 26,436 Orcno 6,865 7,447 8,114 Osseo 2,974 2,999 3,185 Plymouth 31,615 39,561 44,358 Richfield 37,851 36,886 37,386 Robbin sdale 14,422 14,285 14,540 Rockford 380 490* 560* Rogers 652 900* 1,160' St. Andy 5,619 5,562 6,138 St. Bc~ifacious 857 1,020* 1,120' St. Louis Park 42,931 42,833 43,152 Shore~mod 4,646 5,023 5,512 Spring Pmrk 1,465 1,411 1,468 Tcmka Bay 1,354 1,375 1,485 Wayzata 3,621 3,699 3,927 Woodland 526 540* 520* Total of Mum ici~a 1 tt~ Pro~ecticms 941,411 * [.~etropolitam Council Projection, 4/84. ** ?mese totals are slightly higher than County as a whole. See text. (968,150)** I988,218)** the totals projected for Henmepin sps¢i report I-Iennepin County Solid Waste Disposal dF Recovery Hopkins., Richfield to begin residential recycling programs The Hennepin County Board has approved funding assistance for a pilot curbside recycling program in Hopkins and a citywide recycling program in Richfield. The county previously helped fund demonstration programs in Minneapolis and St. Louis Park, both of which have expanded to citywide programs. The county grant to Hopkins is not to exceed S5,000, which is about half of the cost of conducting a pilot program for one year in ~ 300-home neighborhood. As in the St. Louis Park program, a set of plastic containers for recyclable materials will be purchased for each household in the demonstration area. Hopkins city officials said the program will in this summer, probably in August. ' of Richfield plans to conduct a citywide curbside collection program involving 15,000 residences. The program will use community volunteer organi- zations, such as the Boy Scouts, churches and civic clubs, to collect newsprint on a monthly basis. The county grant is not to exceed $20,000 and will be used to purchase 10 trailers to collect and haul newspapers to be recycled. If the program, which is to begin in September, is successful, other types of recyclables may be collected in the future. Both Hopkins and Richfield are to provide Hennepin with information about waste quantities, recycling participation and citizen attitudes. During the first citywide recycling collection in St. Louis Park in April, 77 percent of the households participated, or 9,232 of 12,000 homes. That figure is about 25 percent higher than the rate during the pilot program. Minneapolis has had a 22-percent participation rate in its citywide program. The county encourages other municipalities to establish residential recycling programs to help reduce the need for landfills. Firm conducts comprehensive recycling study The St. Louis Park recycling program expanded to citywide collection in April. Hennepin County has contracted with Pope-Reid Associates, of St. Paul, and that firm's consultant team to look into all the recycling options available to the county. A waste-composition analysis also will be done as part of the recycling study and will include at least two sampling periods to take into consideration seasonal waste variations. A consultant-selection committee inter- viewed six firms which were interested in conducting the study and recommended that Pope-Reid be hired. In May, the County Board directed the county administrator to negotiate a contract with the consulting firm. Conducting the recycling study with Pope-Reid Associates will be Resource Conservation Consultants of Portland, Ore., and a Massachusetts company, E & A Environmental Consultants, Inc. Plastic containers will be used in the Hopkins curbside recycling program, as in the St. Louis Park program. Containers are to be used for paper, glass and metal. Hennepin County is offering technical assistance and possible funding to cities interested in starling residential recycling programs. County officials expect that recycling will become Hennepin's second most important method of handling solid waste, following a large-scale waste-to-energy system which is being planned. Presently, about 10 percent of the county's solid waste is being recycled through recycling businesses, volunteer groups, city and county programs, and other activities. The study will investigate several recycling alternatives, including economic incentives and mandatory recycling throughout the county. In addition to the waste-composition component, the study will provide for community involvement and technical assistance to local recycling programs already underway. Pope-Reid said it is interested in an overall system approach, obtaining input from all groups presently involved in waste management and recyclin9, and a plan to combine all recycling elements. Hennepin officials predict that a major county recycling program could be implemented within a year. ua~pnus~ r~o? ]o ~u~u0~a~d~G ~86L eun¢ £g~,gg 'uxb. IAI 's.r[od'een-n~.IhI ,ze0,ueo ~,uattru,zaaoo gOgT quou.~a'edoQ .'¢-~u-noD uTda'u-uoI--I Including resource recovery New laws affect waste management The Minnesota Legislature passed several laws and amendments during its 1984 session which directly affect the management of solid-waste disposal in Hennepin County. The County Board late last year selected the West Riverbank site in nodh Minneapolis--across the Mississippi River from Nodhern States Power Co.'s Riverside power plant--as the location for a 2,000-ton-per-day resource-recovery facility. The supplemental appropriations bill prohibits the county from building a facility at the West Riverbank site. The law also ri~quires that any county-proposed plant in Minneapolis larger than 1,000 tons of waste a day must be approved by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council. The law allows the county broad discretion to directly locate sites for facilities of less than 1,000 tons per day. According to the Legislature, each county is to establish an advisory committee to aid in the preparation of a county solid- waste master plan. The committee make-up ~s to be one-third pnvate citizens, one-third representatves of towns and cities, and one-third representatives of private waste-management firms. The committee must represent at least a third of the municipalities with exisiting sanitary landfills and those communities with a potential landfill on the Metropolitan Council's disposal-site inventory. Metropolitan objectives now will state land-disposal abatement levels by specific components of the solid-waste stream, either by type of waste or by class of generator. Objectives for local abatement will be set for cities of the first, second and third class. In other words, cities, as well as the county, are charged with meeting objectives of the metro- politan land disposal abatement plan. The Legislature also imposed a solid- waste disposal surtax in the metropolitan area--a 50-cent per-cubic-yard fee on trash disposed at landfills. Half of the proceeds will go into the landfill abatement fund, and the other half into the metropolitan landfill contingency action fund. The metropolitan abatement fund can be used for solid-waste management planning assistance, grants and loans for resource-recovery projects and related public education, and administration and technical assistance by the Metropolitan Council. This fund also will be used to re- imburse cities with qualifying abatement programs 50 cents per household per year. Money from the metropolitan landfill contingency action fund can be used for water-supply monitoring, landfill closure and postclosure costs, and clean-up payments. The administration of both funds will be handled by the state. Changes to the state Waste Management Act allow metro counties to charge up to 25 cents per cubic yard for solid-waste disposal. The fee is to be used only for landfill-abatement purposes, such as : composting and recycling, or costs of closure, postclosure care and response actions to help mitigate and compensate the local risks, costs and other adverse effects of the facilities. Law changes also allow a city or town to charge up to 15 cents per cubic yard of waste accepted at land-disposal sites ~n the municipality. REPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD TRANSITION TASK FORCE TO THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD July 1984 Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359 Publication No. 25-84-109 Rll) TRANSITION TASK FORCE MEMBERS Metropol iran Council Sandra Gardebring Maurice Dorton Ghaleb Abdul-Rahman Peter Bachman Metropolitan Transit Commission Peter Stumpf Judith McCourt William Zwart Minnesota Dept. of Transportation A1 Schenkelberg Minnesota Department of Finance Dwight Pederson Minnesota Dept. of Administration Terry Bock Minnesota State Planning Agency Charles Kenow Others Dirk deVries Ron Maddox John Williams TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 SECTION I: ENACTMENT OF RTl) ENABLING LEGISLATION ...... 2 A. Problems with Metropolitan Transit ......... 2 B. The RTB Enabling Legislation ............ 4 SECTION II: TRANSITION ISSUES AND OPTIONS .......... 6 A. Initial Administrative Start-Up .......... 7 B. MTC Appointments .................. 9 C. Biennial Budget ............ 10 D. Implementation Plan ................. 11 E. Tax Levy ................... ~, . .12 F. Annual Budget, Financial Plan and Staffing Plan...13 G. Contracts .................... 14 H. Federal Gra~t~ ................... 18 I. Unified Planning Work Program ............ 20 J. Transit Alternatives Analysis Studies ....... 21 K. Metro Mobility Consultant Evaluation ........ 21 L. Legislative Reports ......... _.. _.. 22 M. RTB Committee Structures ~n~ ApPointments ...... 23 SECTION III: CALENDAR OF RTB ACTIONS ............ 24 APPENDIX ..................... Each Item Available As Separate Document A. Task Force Meeting Agendas, Minutes and Correspondence B. Personnel Guidelines C. Metropolitan Council Personnel Code D. Metropolitan Transit Commission Personnel Regulations E. Metropolitan Waste Control Co~mission Personnel Regulations F. Metropolitan Council Bylaws G. Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Transit Report H. Metropolitan Council Report - Regional Service and Finance Study on Transit I. RTB Enabling Legislation and Tax Feathering Provisions J. RTB Enabling Legislation Sun~aries INTRODUCTION The Regional Transit Board (RTB) Transition Task Force was created in mid-May, 1984, by the chair of the Metropolitan Council at the request of the Governor's Office. The purpose and charge of the task force is as follows: to lay the groundwork necessary to enable the RTB to meet the various deadlines for action specified in the RTB enabling legislation; to identify and take appropriate action on transition issues; to provide, upon request, short-term assistance to the RTB after its chair and members are appointed; and to coordinate administrative activities of the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), the Metropolitan Council, and the Minnesota Department of Finance to facilitate consistent actions by each agency insofar as each agency is affected by the creation of the RTB. Members of the task force include a representative or representatives from the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Minnesota State Planning Agency, the Minnesota Department of Administration, and the Minnesota Department of Finance. The task force will remain in existence until the RTB members and chair are appointed and until any assistance requested by the RTB has been rendered. The agendas and minutes from task force meetings are included in the Appendix. In ful,filling its charge, the task force was (and remains) cognizant of its role as facilitator rendering transition assistance. The task force recognized at the outset that it had no authority to speak for the RTB or to commit the RTB to any action. The task force has maintained a.policy-neutral stance and has not made assumptions about how the RTB would deal with an issue once the RTB chair and members were appointed. The focus of the task force has been "transition issues." Transition issues are those issues that the RTB is statutorily empowered or required to deal with during the transition period. The transition period extends until such time as the RTB'assumes responsibility for all programs statutorily transferred to it, which will not occur until July, 1985 at the earliest. Issues identified as transition issues fall into two general categories: (1) administrative matters that must be resolved or addressed to permit the RTB to become fully operational as soon as possible; and (2) substantive issues that the RTB is empowered or required by statute to deal with promptly and that require significant lead-time preparation before action can be taken. In most cases, the task force has performed its role by identifying the issues and making arrangements to ensure that, wherever possible, administrative prerequisites have been met. This document is the task force°s report to the RTB. The report is divided into three sections: Section I is a summary of the background leading up to enactment of the RTB enabling legislation and a summary of the major provisions of the law. Section II is a discussion of the transition issues and options. Section III is a sun~ary of actions the RTB is empowered or required to take and a display of various RTB deadlines. -2- An appendix is available upon request containing task force meeting agendas, minutes, and correspondence; sample personnel policies; sample bylaws; report of the Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Transit; Regional Service and Finance Study on Transit report; RTl)~enabling legislation and tax feathering provisions; and RTl) enabling legislation s ummari es. I. ENACTMENT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD ENABLING LEGISLATION A. THE PROBLEM WITH METROPOLITAN TRANSIT The 1984 Minnesota Legislature responded to perceived inadequacies in the metropolitan area transit system by creating the Regional Transit Board and reorganizing metropolitan transit governance structure. 1984 Minn. Laws, Chapter 654, Article 3 (hereinafter referred to as "enabling legislation~ or "legislation"). The enabling legislation, which is included in the appendix, is in large part a response to the work of the Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Transit {LCMT). The LCMT was created by the 1983 Minnesota Legislature to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of metropolitan transit and was co-chaired by Senator Steve Novak and Representative Kathleen Vellenga, chief authors of the RTB enabling legislation. In February, 1984, the LCMT issued a report identifying certain structural and financial problems of the metropolitan transit system and making recommendations to deal with those problems. Most of the LCMT reco~nendations on structural issues were enacted into law. Because of its major impact on the enabling legislation, the LCMT Report is briefly summarized in the paragraphs which follow. A copy of the LC~FF report is included in the Appendix. The LCMT identified three functions of effective transit service: planning, arranging, and delivering. Misallocation of these functions among various agencies and levels of government was found to be a major cause of inadequacies in the transit system. Misallocation of functions resulted from an unclear assignment of responsibilities among agencies and levels of government and from an over-~oncentration of responsibility at the MTC. The LCMT evaluated the role that the Legislature, the Metropolitan Council, the MTC, Mn/DOT and local units of government presently play in metropolitan transit and made various recommendations regarding the role that these agencies or units of government should play in the future. The LCMT's evaluations and recommendations regarding each agency are as folloWs: 1. The~ Legi sl ature. The LCMT found that the Legislature has been too heavily involved in specific transit service development and operation issues and too little involved in the process of establishing broad policy objectives. The LCMT recommended that the Legislature discontinue its involvement in specific transit service and operation issues and establish its proper role by developing a set of overall transit policy goals for the region. The-goals for regional transit recommended by the LCMT were adopted nearly verbatim by the Legislature and incorporated in Section 115 of the enabling legislation. -3- 2. The Metropolitan Council. The LCMT found that there was a lack of coordination between the transit planning done by the Metropolitan Council and that done by the MTC. It was recommended that the Metropolitan Council continue its long-range transit planning function, but that its transportation policy plan be amplified to include specific policies on funding levels and distributions, revenue sources, service objectives, and allocation of service. These recommendations were incorporated in Section 108 of the legislation. The amplification of the Metropolitan Council's policy plan is evidence of the moderately increased role that the Legislature wants theCouncil to play in the regional transit scheme. As further evidence of this intent, the Metropolitan Council is given expanded authority to ensure compliance with its policy plan. By these means, the LCMT thought that better coordination could be achieved between the long-range planning functions of the Metropolitan Council and the mid-range planning and implementation functions of the RTB. 3. The Metropolitan Transit Commission. The LCMT observed that the MTC~s responsibility for the region's transit planning was in conflict with its responsibility for operating .the region°s major fixed-route bus system. It was thought that the MTC's involvement in transit operations interfered with the MTC's independent judgment as policy- maker. After examining a continuum of alternative transit agency organizational structures from complete centralization of transit control at the state level on the one end to completely decentralized local control on the other, the LCMT recommended a regional model in which transit planning, financing and arranging would be separated from transit operating functions. This model required the creation of a new regional body, the RTB, to assume certain functions from the MTC and from Mn/DOT. Under the enabling legislation, the membership of the MTC was reduced to three commissioners and its responsibilities reduced to transit operations with financial assistance from the RTB. 4. Minnesota Department of Transportation The LCMT noted that the trend toward assignment of metropolitan transit responsibilities to Mn/DOT had been done by the Legislature in an attempt to fill gaps in the regional transit system. The increasing authority of Mn/DOT, a state agency, over local and regional transit questions was thought by the LCMT to be inappropriate. The LCMT therefore recommended that Mn/DOT's participation in the arrangement of metropolitan transit services {including administration of state transit subsidies and administration of Metro Mobility and ridesharing programs) should be phased-out and transferred to the RTB. It was further recommended that Mn/DOT continue its role vis-a-vis outstate transit systems and continue to enforce operating and safety rules for all transit providers. The Legislature adopted these recommendations with minor modifications. The primary remaining involvement of Mn/DOT in metropolitan transit is the distribution of transit assistance funds derived from the motor vehicle excise tax to providers of transit services. -4- 5. Local Units of Government The LCMT observed that the inadequacy or nonexistence of transit service in many areas of the region is due,'in part, to the nearly total lack of involvement of local units of government in metropolitan transit. It was recon~nended that local units be assisted and encouraged to plan and arrange transit services that meet their needs consistent with the Metropolitan Council's transportation policy plan. This reco~endation was incorporated into Section 120 of the enabling legislation. B. THE RTl) ENABLING LEGISLATION In general terms,, the legislation: establishes the role of the Legislature in metropolitan transit as providing broad policy oversight; establishes the role of the Metropolitan Council as preparing and overseeing the implementation of a detailed long-range transportation policy plan; Removes mid-range transit planning authority from the MTC and establishes the MTC as on operating agency with short-term operations and service planning authority; Creates the RTB to perform mid-range transit planning policy and administrative functions and to foster new types of transit services; Reduces the role of Mn/DOT in metropolitan transit by transferring most of Mn/DOT~s metropolitan transit responsibilities to the RTB; Establishes a program of local participation to provide an avenue for local units of government to have meaningful input in the design and operation of transit services; and Removes the authority of the Transportation Regulation Board to establish fares and determine routes for any regular-route passenger transportation service receiving operating assistance from the RTB. Focusi~ng on the RTB, the enabling legislation establishes a board consisting of 14 members appointed by the Metropolitan Council and a chair appointed by the Governor. The RTB is organized and administered like a metropolitan commission except as specifically provided otherwise in the legislation. (Enabling legislation, Section 116, subd. 1.) This means that most of the statutory provisions governing metropolitan commissions (E.g., Minn. Stat. §§473.141 and 473.163) apply to the RTB and govern such matters as qualifications of members, vacancies, compensation of members, meetings of the RTB, personnel code requirements, appointment of officers, certain operating procedures and budget preparation and review. -5- The major functions and activities of the RTB as specified in the enabling legislation include: - To prepare implementation plans (§118); - To certify property tax levy (§136); - To assume Mn/DOT°s operating assistance contracts and enter into new operating assistance contracts 1§121, subd. 9); - To appoint members to the restructured MTC (§126, subd. 2); - To prepare and present required budgets, financial plans and staffing plans; - To request, r~view and approve MTC budget (§131); - To study and report to the Legislature on certain enumerated issues (§151 to 152); - To implement local government participation program 1§120); - To convene annual transit conference (§116, subd. 5); - To take steps to become a designated recipient of. federal funds (§117, subd. 8); - To implement a transit information program i§117, subd. 14); - To execute and administer paratransit project contracts (§121, subd. 8); - To assume rideshare program responsibilities except for the statewide vanpool leasing program (9121, subd. 8); - To assume Metro Mobility Program responsibilities (§122); - To assume Replacement Service (Opt-Out) Program responsibilities (§123, subd. 6); - To establish and appoint members to various advisory committees; and - To conduct research and render advice on transportation issues 1§117, subd. 10). Many of the above-listed activities are included within the various transition issues identified by the task force and discussed more fully in Section II of this Report. In addition, many of the above-listed activities are set forth in Section III of this Report indicating when each action must or may be taken. -6- II. TRANSITION ISSUES AND OPTIONS Under the enabling legislation, some of the planning and policy functions of the MTC, the metropolitan transit program administration functions of Mn/DOT and the metropolitan transit regulation functions of the Transportation Regulation Board are transferred to the RTB. Thus, the RTB will have before it, for at least the next year, the issues of how best to integrate these functions into its organization. The programs transferred generally fall into three categories: (1) financial, (2) planning, and (3) program management. The RTB functions which are primarily financial in nature include review and approval of the MTC budget, preparation and submission of the RTB capital budget and financial plan to the Metropolitan Council, preparation and submission of the RTB budget request for state operating assistance to the Governor and the Legislature, levying of property taxes for transit purposes, the issuance of bonds for capital improvements, investments and management of funds, and the development of payroll and accounting systems to deal with payroll and program management functions. The functions that are primarily planning in nature are those associated with the development of interim and 5-year implementation plans and other special planning projects. Areas which may be covered by the implementation plans are regular route transit, suburban services, ridesharing, and paratransit services. The program management functions transferred to the RTB include the provision of financial assistance to the MTC, contracting for financial assistance with other transit providers, program management for rideshare, Opt-Out and Metro Mobility, administration of federal grants, management of the Exurban Community Assistance Program, and the development of contract procedures, policies, and regulations to govern the RTB. The task force identified thirteen transition issues: A. INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE START-UP 2. 3. 4. 5. Transfer of funds Adoption of personnel code Location of office space Availability of employee insurance Availability of administrative services assistance B. MTC APPOINTMENTS C. BIENNIAL BUDGET D. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .E. TAX LEVY F. ANNUAL BUDGET, FINANCIAL PLAN AND STAFFING PLAN -7- G. CONTRACTS 1. Mn/DOT 2. MTC H. FEDERAL GRANTS I. UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM J. TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDIES K. METRO MOBILITY Service Evaluation Eligibility Criteria L. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS M. RTB COMMITTEE STRUCTURES AND APPOINI~IENTS Each of these issues is discussed below. A. INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE START-UP The RTB is statutorily empowered to commence operations as soon after July 1, 1984, as the chair and at least seven other members have been appointed and qualified. (Enabling legislation, Section 116.) There are numerous actions that the RTB must take before the end of the year and the task force believes it is crucial that the RTB become operational as soon as possible to deal with these actions. To assist the RTB in establishing its operations, the task force has made certain administrative arrangements for possible adoption by the RTB. 1. Transfer of funds. The task force has taken steps to assure that funds and a method to disburse those funds are available to the RTB promptly upon the RTB°s commencement of operations. The enabling legislation transfers $1,084,800 of the amount originally appropriated for the MTC to the RTB and $14,700 of the amount originally appropriated for Mn/DOTto the RTB for fiscal year 1985 (total transfer: $1,099,500). The funds are reappropriated to the Commissioner of Transportation for transfer to the RTB. The Commissioner of Finance is empowered to supervise this transfer of funds. The Department of Finance and Mn/DOT have agreed and propose to the RTB that the transfer of funds occur as follows: The Mn/DOT will transfer to the RTB the sum of $1,099,500.00 of which $219,900.00 (20%) will be transferred on August 1, 1984. One-tenth of the remaining $879,600.00 will be transferred on the first day of each subsequent month of fiscal year 1985. The Mn/DOT will consider accelerating the transfer of the remaining $879,600.00 provided the RTB submits to the Commissioner of Transportation a request with appropriate justification and receives approval by the Commissioner of Transportation. If an accelerated transfer of funds is approved, the balance of funds available for transfer will be transferred in equal installments over the remaining months of fiscal year 1985. -8- 2. Personnel Code. The RTB is required by Minn. Stat. §473.141 to adopt a personnel code in conformance with guidelines established by the Metropolitan Council. A copy of those guidelines is included in the Appendix. the personnel codes of the Metropolitan Council'n I addition, sample copies of the Metropolitan Transit Co~ission and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission are included in the Appendix so as to provide the RTB with detailed models for its own personnel code. Because the law does not specify a particular date by which the RTB must adopt its personnel code, the RTB will have a "reasonable time" for adoption. 3. Office space. At the request of the task force, the Metropolitan Council has agreed to make temporary office space available to the RTB in the Metropolitan Council°s offices in the Metro Square Building in St. Paul. Arrangements have been made so that the RTB will have furniture, telephones and other services available almost immediately if the RTB chooses to use the space. In addition, the owners of the Metro Square Building have agreed to reserve space adjacent to the Metropolitan Council's offices in case the RTB desires to locate its permanent offices there. 4. Employee insurance. The RTB may wish to hire some staff almost immediately after appointment of its chair and members. The task force did not want the lack of employee insurance by the RTB to be an impediment to hiring staff and requested the Metropolitan Council to investigate whether RTB employees could be included as a subsidiary group in the Metropolitan Council°s employee insurance programs. The Metropolitan Council's insurance carriers have agreed to provide such coverage. Arrangements have been made for the provision of life, health, disability, and dental insurance coverage to RTB employees to become effective only if and when adopted by the RTB. 5. Administrative services. During the transition period, the RTB may desire various types of administrative assistance. The Metropolitan Council and the MTC are prepared to provide short-term administrative services and staffing assistance to the RTB upon request at terms to be agreed upon. Possible services which could be rendered include: a. Finance/account assistance i) Provide forms for purchase requisitions, time sheets, purchase orders, and member expense claims. ii) Establish business accounts. FICA employer number Minnesota State Retirement Service Checking account Federal employer number -9- iii) Establish accounting system. Ledger Registers Journals Procedures manual b. Payroll assistance. c. Personnel and equal employment opportunity services assistance. d. Information systems assistance. i) Provide assistance to the RTB in acquiring and operating word processing, data entry systems. ii) Provide assistance in accessing state computers, including access to transportation programs and data files. e. General administrative services: i) Provide purchasing and space planning servicJs upon request. ii) Provide printing and reproduction services upon request. f. Provide legal assistance. B. MTC APPOINTMENTS Under the enabling legislation, the membership of the MTC is reduced from 9 members to 3 members. One member must be a-resident of the City of Minneapolis, one must be a resident of the City of St. Paul, and one must reside in the service area of the commission outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The term of each member of the commission is three (3) years and until a successor is appointed and qualified. The initial terms of members commence on the first day after August 1, 1984, that all three members have been appointed and qualified. One member must be appointed to an initial term of one year, one to an initial term of two years, and one to an initial term of three years. The current MTC members retain office until the new members are appointed. Since the new MTC members will elect their own chair, the RTB need not appoint a chair. The MTC members' qualifications are as follows. Each member of the commission must have management experience. Furthermore, a member may not during his term of office be a member of the Metropolitan Council, the RTB, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, or any other independent regional commission, board or agency, or hold any judicial office. Appointments to the MTC must follow the procedures specified in the Minnesota Open Appointments Law, Minn. Stat. §15.0597. The task force coordinated with the MTC to ensure that the required notice of vacancy was published in the June -10- 18, 1984, State Register. The Secretary of State wiql receive applications until July 10, 1984, at which time the Secretary of State will forward the applications to the appointing authority. The RTB may appoint a person other than one for whom an application was submitted, but it must complete an application form on behalf of that person and submit it to the Secretary of State indicating that the application is bein9 submitted by the appointing authority. The RTB may not appoint any person until 10 days after applications have been forwarded to the RTB by the Secretary of State, or July 20, 1984. A public hearing on the appointments is not required by law. After it is decided who the appointees shall be, the RTB must issue a public announcement and inform the Secretary of State in writing of the names of the persons it intends to appoint to fill the positions. Five days after the announcement of the intended appointees by the RTB, they may take office (but no'earlier than August 2, 1984). C. BIENNIAL BUDGET The 1985-87 biennial budget process officially began with Governor Perpich's speech to Commissioners and agency heads on May 8, 1984, and continues through the 1985 legislative session. This process leads to the authority to spend state funds for the period of July 1, 1985, to June 30, 1987~ The Regional Transit Board°s request for state funds will be transmitted to the Governor and Legislature using Mn/DOT as the budget vehicle. The Commissioner of Transportation will have no responsibility or authority relative to the RTB's budget other than providing this budget mechanism and acting as a fiscal agent for the state in transmitting legislative appropriations to the RTB. The RTB chair will be responsible for developing and presenting the budget request to the Governor and Legislature. The Mn/DOT staff is prepared to draft budget narrative for consideration by the RTl), provide historical data, and provide technical assistance for budget development as requested by the RTB. By statute, the Deparbnent of Finance has the overall responsibility for managing the budget process. Budget requests are collected and reviewed, and specific recommendations are developed for the Governor by the Department of Finance. The role of the Department of Finance Controller includes providing technical assistance, assistance in interpreting the budget guidelines, and developing options and recommendations for the Governor. So that the Biennial Budget submission deadline can be met, the following timetable is suggested by the task force: Mn/DOT transit staff presents draft budget narrative to'RTB Task force provides budget orientation to RTB RTB makes preliminary budget decisions Final budget submission due in the Department of Finance Aug. 1 Aug. 1-15 Aug. 15-30 Sept. 28 -11- D. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Under Section 118 of the enabling legislation, the RTB is required to prepare a transit service implementation plan for submission to the Metropolitan Council by August 1, 1986, for review and approval. In addition, the RTB is required to prepare a scaled-down version called an "interim implementation plan by December 1, 1984. The task force addressed itself only to interim implementation plan issues. The interim implementation plan is intended to describe the planning, functions and activities of the RTB to be conducted.in the years 1985, 1986 and 1987 to implement the Metropolitan Council°s transportation policy plan, The interim implementation plan is an important document for at least two reasons: (1) it establishes a three-year overall work plan for the RTB; and (2) adoption of'the plan is a prerequisite for becoming a recipient of federal funds and for assuming program and contract responsibilities from Mn/DOT and the MTC. The enabling legislation provides the RTB with some flexibility in determining the contents of the interim plan. The plan should be in the scope and detail that the RTB deems "appropriate and practicable" except that it must contain at least the following: Capital Development Program (Minn. Stat. §473.161, subd. 1). a. description of improvement; b. manner of financing; c. development schedule; d. description of need for improvement, alternatives, and environmental and social effects; e. impact of improvement on the metropolitan commissions (MWCC is only remaining commission); f. estimate of operating costs and funding sources; g. priority ranking of the improvement; h. additional information as deemed appropriate by the Metropolitan Council. Schedule of expected levels of public expenditure, both capital and operating, for the services and facilities planned; 3. Schedule of funding sources; and 4. A plan and schedule of fund distribution. Additional elements may be included in the interim plan at the discretion of the RTB. The plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 1, 1984, and the Council has 90 days to review and approve or disapprove it. The Metropolitan Council can approve or disapprove the plan in whole or in part based upon its consistency with the Metropolitan Council's transportation policy plan. -12- E. TAX LEVY Under Section 136 of the enabling legislation, the authority to levy transit taxes in the metropol,itan area is transferred from the MTC to the RTB. The transfer of authority is effective for taxes levied in 1984, payable in 1985, and for each succeeding year. On or before October 10, 1984, the RTB must certify to the auditor of each metropolitan county the total amount of the transit property tax to be levied in the taking district. The tax must be based upon the level of service provided to the property, up to a maximum of two mills. One of the first major issues to be decided by the RTB is the level of tax relief to be provided to outlyin~ communities in the October 10, 1984, tax levy. Some background information is helpful to understand the issue. Under Minn. Stat. §473.466, the MTC has, until last year, levied a fixed-mill rate tax in the transit taxing district of the metropolitan area. It has also levied a tax equal to 10% of the transit taxing district mill levy in areas outside of the transit taxing district but within the metropolitan transit area. In addition, the MTC has levied amounts within and without the transit taxing district sufficient to provide for timely payment of capital debts. In 1983, the transit tax levy law was changed to require the MTC to "feather" taxes within the transit taxing district so that the tax rate would be based upon the level of transit service provided for the community, subject to the two mill maximum. (!983 Minn. Laws, Chapter 293, section 106.) Thus, last year the MTC provided limited tax relief to communities eligible for the nopt- out" program based upon the level of transit service provided in those come, unities. Some communities had their mill levy rate .reduced from 2 mills to 1.75 mills; others had their mill levy rate reduced to 1.65 mills. Several communities were not entirely satisfied with the MTC tax relief program. Two primary objections were raised. First, relief was granted only to those communities eligible for the "opt-out" program. Thus, communities receiving a relatively low level of transit service but not eligible to "opt- out" did not receive any tax relief. Second, many communities felt that the amount of tax relief granted was too small in comparison to the level of service they were receiving from the MTC. In response to this, the Legislature acted in 1984 to statutorily mandate transit property tax relief according to a specified formula. (1984 Minn. Laws, Chapter 502, Article 3, Section 25.) When this section becomes effective, the mill levy in areas receiving full, all-day service will be 2.0 mills; in areas receiving full peak and limited off-peak service, 1.5 mills; in areas that receive limited peak service, 1.25 mills. The tax relief will be accomplished through a reduction automatically made by the county auditor of the county in which the property is located and certified to the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of Revenue will then reimburse the RTB for the amount of proceeds lost through the property tax relief program. However, this state-funded tax relief program does not take effect until the 1985 tax levy. -13- The 1983 tax feathering legislation thus remains in effect and governs the October 10, 1984, tax levy. The 1983 legislation requires that some level of feathering be done based upon the level of service received by comunities within the transit taxing district. Furthermore, the Legislature felt that, although state reimbursement would not be available for property tax relief in this biennium, the MTC (or the new RTB) would be in a position to grant the level of tax relief set forth in the 1984 legislation to be paid out of the MTC's current fund balance. Thus, many communities and legislators anticipate that greater tax relief will be given in the upcoming tax levy, even though no state funding will be available to reimburse the transit taxing district for the funds lost through the property tax relief program. The actual process of certifying the levy is not uncommonly difficult or compl, ex. MTC staff has assured the task force that it is willing and able to provide the RTB, upon request, with any information needed on a timely basis and that it is able to adjust the levy certification to account for any tax feathering approved by the RTB. F. ANNUAL BUDGET, FINANCIAL PLAN AND STAFFING PLAN The annual budget is governed by Section 119 of the enabling legislation and by Minn. Stat. §473.163 (Metropolitan Con~nission Budget Preparation). The annual budget is based on the calendar year and must be prepared by August first of each year (except for the budget prepared in 1984, discussed below). The capital improvements portion of the budget must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. The RTB must prePare an implementation plan and a three-year financial plan for review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. These plans must contain a schedule of anticipated operating expenses, but the Council has no direct review of the RTB°s operating budget. As to the annual budget prepared in 1984, the enabling legislation requires that it be prepared by December 1, 1984, for presentation to the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees. (Enabling legislation, Section 150, subd. 4.) In addition, the RTB's 1985 capital budget and financial plan for 1985-87 must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 1, 1984, for review and approval. The Council has 30 days for review. (Enabling legislation Section 119, Subd. 3.) Thereafter, the RTB shall by resolution adopt its final budget and file a copy with the Metropolitan Council. Except in emergency, the RTB is prohibited by Minn. Stat. §473.163 from spending any money for any purpose, other than debt service, without an appropriation in its budget. This appears to be in conflict with the enabling legislation because the enabling legislation requires the RTB to perform certain actions requiring expenditure of funds before adoption of its final budget. Under princi-ples of statutory construction, it is clear that the RTB has authority to spend funds to accomplish, actions required by the enabling legislation to be taken before a final budget is adopted. Authority of the RTB to spend money before adoption of its final budget for purposes not specifically required by the enabling legislation is, however, questionable. -14- Whenever there is any question that an expenditure may not be reasonably necessary in furtherance of actions that are required to be taken before adoption of the final budget, the RTl) may wish to postpone the expenditure until a budget is adopted or obtain approval from the Metropolitan Council of a temporary budget. The enabling legislation also requires, that the RTB present a staffing plan to the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Comittee by December 1, 1984. The approved complement of the RTB may not exceed 19 full-time positions. (Enabling legislation, Section 150, subd. 4). This limit on staff size will expire on June 30, 1985, unless extended or amended by the Legislature. The staffing plan is the RTB°s opportunity to tell the Legislature what staff it will need to adequately perform its functions. The enabling legislation further provides that the chief administrative officer of the RTB shall hold the position of executive director. The executive director is appointed by the chair subject to the approval of the board. The RTB may authorize the chair or executive director to recommend employment decisions, but the RTB must make all decisions regarding appointment, promotion, demotion, suspension or removal of employees under a merit system. The RTB enabling legislation does not provide for automatic transfer of staff from the MTC or Mn/DOT to the RTB. Staffing decisions are a matter for the RTB to determine. G. CONTRACTS The creation of the RTB affects numerous contracts held by Mn/DOT and the MTC as summarized below. 1. Mn/DOT Metro Area Service Contracts Mn/DOT currently administers a total of twenty-six Metro Area transit contracts. The majority of these contracts are processed according to the regular annual procedure for state transit assistance grants, a brief description of which follows: - Application forms are prepared by Mn/DOT and sent out in June. Applicants develop a project budget and a management plan describing how the proposed system operates. Applications must be submitted by July 30. Mn/DOT assists where needed in: preparation of operating budgets, ridership projections, and cost/deficit estimates; deSign of transit service elements; development of project goals and objectives. Mn/DOT analyzes~ application to determine if costs are eligible for reimbursement, and negotiates with the applicant those costs that appear unreasonable. When applicant and Mn/DOT are in agreement, Mn/DOT prepares a calendar year contract. Providers receive contract for signature in mid-October. -15- Contracts are processed by Mn/DOT and finalized by the end of November. Contracts are audited pursuant to Mn/DOT procedures and federal regulation. Before assuming responsibility for any Mn/DOT operating assistance contracts, the RTB must adopt an approved interim implementation plan and certify to the Con~nissioner of Transportation that it is ready to assume the contracts. (Enabling legislation, §121, subd. 9.) The RTB's interim implementation plan will likely not be adopted until late December, 1984, or early January, 1985. The RTB may or may not be ready to assume responsibility for administering all or some of Mn/DOT°s metro area transit contracts at that time. To ensure an orderly transition, the task force has requested that Mn/DOT deal with the various categories of contracts as set forth below. The RTB can assume these contracts when it is ready to do so after adoption of its interim implementation plan. If the RTB disagrees with an anticipated Mn/DOT action on metro area transit contracts, it should notify Mn/DOT as soon as possible. The chart on page 16 shows each of the projects currently under contract and sets forth anticipated Mn/DOT action. By category, those actions are as follows: MTC Mn/DOT will contract with the MTC for state operating assistance through the ~ ~ ~ ,,~ ~ ~ ,.,~1 ' end of th= ~,=n,,i~,,,. ,h,~ .,,, necessitate ' ~' .... ~ -~--~ ~- ~ Q ~l^ ,,,o,,~h co,,~,Q~ ~u beg,n on 1/1/85 and end 6/30/85. The RTB can assume this contract after adoption of its interim implementation plan and when ready~ The MTC social fares reimbursement contract was written for the entire biennium. No further Mn/DOT action on the social fares reimbursement contract is anticipated. Private Operators Private regular route operators in the Metro Area, Medicine Lake Bus Company and North Suburban Lines, have contracts for the fiscalyear. The contracting procedure outlined above is applicable except that it is initiated at the beginning of the year and finalized in June. Mn/DOT is in the final stages of contracting for these projects through the end of the biennium. The RTB can assume these contracts after adoption of its interim implementation plan and when ready. Metro Mobility All contracts for Metro Mobility, with the exception of Morley Bus Company, are on a calendar year basis. Mn/DOT will contract for Metro Mobility services through CY 1985. A mid-year assumption of these contracts by the RTB is anticipated. (Enabling legislation, Section 122, subd. 7.) Morley Bus Company is under contract through the Department of Administration, Division of Procurement, until the end of the biennium (6/30/85). These services were procured by competitive bid. No further action by Mn/DOT is anticipated on the contract. METRO AREA SERVICE CONTRACTS MN/DOT - sTATE FUNDS June 5, 1984 Provider Regul ar Route MTC - Operating MTC - Social Fares Medicine Lake Bus Co. North Suburban Lines, Inc. Special Service MTC - Project Mobl')ity MTC - Transportatio~ Center Yellow Taxi Blue and White Cabs Red and White Taxi Transportation Mgmt. Inc. City Wide Cab Company Diamond Taxi Suburban Paratransit, Inc. Morley Bus Company Small Urban and Rural AnoKa County Carver County Col umbi a Heights D.A.R.T.S. Hastings Hopkins STEP Scott County Washington County White Bear Lake Opt-Out City of Plymouth.~ City of Shakopee CZO000 Contract End Date 12131184 6130/85 6/30/84 6/30/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 6/30/85 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 12/31/84 Anticipated DOT Action ContKact to 6/30/85 None Contract to 6/30/85 Contract to 6/30/85 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract Cy 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract Cy 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 None Contract CY 1986 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 Contract CY 1985 -17- Small Urban and Rural Mn/DOT will contract with all projects-falling within the small urban and' rural category for CY 1985. A mid-year assumption of these contracts by the RTB is anticipated. Opt-Out Mn/DOT will contract for local service with Plymouth and Shakopee for CY 1985. A mid-year assumption of these contracts by the RTB is anticipated. (Enabling Legislation, Section 123, subd. 6.) It should be noted that Plymouth will have completed a full year demonstration and that an evaluation is scheduled for the first three months in 1985. A transit feasibility study for Chaska and the surrounding area has been approved under this program, and a contract will be established between Mn/DOT and the City of Chaska. 2. MTC Contracts The MTC contracts with providers to supply paratransit and ridesharing services in outlying portions of the transit area. This area, con~nonly.referred to as the exurban area, lies outside of the metropolitan transit taxing district but inside the metropolitan transit area. The exurban program is funded by property taxes collected from the exurban area, which is taxed at 1/lOth the level of the metropolitan transit taxing district. The program was developed in response to the 1981 Transit Omnibus Bill that required funds collected from the area to be returned to the area in the form of paratransit services or ridesharing programs. In 1984, the exurban program provides funds to one ridesharing project and nine paratransit projects. The chart on page 18 identifies these contracts. The exurban program and contracts will become an RTB responsibility. Several projects funded by the exurban program are also funded by the Transit Assistance Program. These projects rely on funds from the exurban program to meet a portion of their local funding match. Program continuity is, therefore, essential. The MTC procedure for exurban contracting has three steps. The first step, which generally occurs in September, entails the Commission reviewing and approving funding guidelines and determining the percentage of funds to be allocated for paratransit and the percentage of funds to be allocated for ridesharing. Traditionally, the MTC has retained twenty-five percent of the exurban funding to support Minnesota Rideshare. The second step entails soliciting proposals from parties interested in providing paratransit services. These proposals are requested following the approval of the funding guidelines and are due to the MTC in November. In the third step, the' proposals are evaluated and funding allocations are made and the contracts are negotiated. This step occurs in November and December. The MTC will continue to administer the exurban program until program transfer is requested by the RTB. -18- The MTC also contracts for supplemental service in the Stillwater and Bayport area with a private provider (Valley Transit). This contract is funded through MTC general property tax proceeds. The contract is negotiated annually with negotiations beginning in October and concluding by December. The MTC will continue to administer the Valley Transit contract until program transfer is requested by the RTB. Metro Area Service Contracts MTC - Property Tax Proceeds Provider Cl assi ficati on Anoka County* Carver County Dakota County DARTS City of Hastings Scott County Suburban Community Services Washington County Minnesota Rideshare Valley Transit exurban/paratransit exurban/ri deshari ng regular route two contracts Contract end date 12/31/84 H. FEDERAL GRANTS Presently, the MTC is the recipient of federal grants of several types. The intended role of the RTB as the regibnal provider of transit financial assistance may require that it begin to receive some or all of those grants. The decision of which agency should be the grantee for a particular type of funding will depend upon how the pu?ose of the grant relates to the responsibilities of the local agencies, as well as to federal program requirements and administrative concerns. The majority of funds are received from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) and are referred to by the section number of the law under Which they are appropriated. Section 9 funds are allocated each year in an amount determined by formula. A portion of the funds are available to support transit operating costs; the balance is available for capital improvements and planning. Because of the regular annual nature of the grant, the types of capital improvements expected to be funded through this source are routine ones, such as bus replacement. Section 9 funds go to a designated recipient, selected by "The Governor, responsible local officials, and publicly owned operators of mass transportation services..." {UMTA, Section 9(m){1)~ The MTC is presently the designated recipient for the Twin Cities metropol,tan area. The enabling legislation provides that the RTB shall become a designated recipient for the region and further provides that "no political subdivision within the metropolitan area may apply for federal transit assistance unless its -19- application has been submitted to and approved by the board." (Enabling legislation Section 117, Subd. 8.) Multiple recipients may be designated; for example, one agency might be the recipient of capital funds and another the recipient of operating funds. Any of the agencies involved in transit could be designated recipients. (Enabling legislation, Section 114.) Deciding which agency should be the designated recipient for these funds during the transition period will require some analysis. The Section 3 funds are somewhat simpler to address. These funds are available for capital improvement purposes only. They are awarded on a discretionary basis so that there is no prior assurance that any amount will be awarded to a given metropolitan area in any year. These funds are intended to be used primarily for non-routine improvements, such as the construction of a service garage, a bus layover facility or a rail transit project, and can also be used under certain circumstances for bus purchases. Unlike Section 9 funding, there is no designated recipient for Section 3 funds. Any public entity may apply for funds for an eligible transit purpose. However, to the extent that the funds constitute "federal transit assistance," under Section 117, subd. 8 of the enabling legislation, approval of the RTB is required. For a given grant, either the RTB or the MTC could be the applicant, depending upon the purpose of that particular grant. UMTA Section 18 funds (operating and capital assistance for areas under 50,000 population) and Sec. 16(b)(2) funds (capital assistance for private, non-profit providers) will continue to be administered through'Mn/DOT although all applications must be submitted to the RTB for review and approval. Other UMTA funds are available for such purposes as training and demonstration projects, but these funding categories do not create issues of identification of grant recipient. Federal highway funds are also used for certain portions of the metropolitan transit program. Federal Aid Urban System funds have been used for such purposes as purchasing buses, developing park-ride lots, and supporting the rideshare program. Interstate substitution funds have been used for bus purchases, and are programmed to be used for the construction of the University of Minnesota transitway linking the campuses. All federal highway funds which are used by the region come through Mn/DOT, and can be passed through to the appropriate local agency based upon program responsibilities. A related issue has to do with reporting of transit operating and financial statistics to UMTA. This reporting is required under Section 15 and provides the data used in the formula which allocates Section 9 funds. Presently, the MTC submits a Section 15 report annually, covering its fixed route bus operations, Project Mobility and Rideshare, as well as the other operators which it assists, including Valley Transit and exurban operators. Mn/DOT does not report statistics for the private operators which it assists. After the RTB is established, it will have to decide whether to take over the Section 15 reporting function. If it does so, some means will need to be established to collect the necessary data from all private as well as public operators. -20- I. UNIFIED P.I~ANNING WORK PROGRAM The Unified Planning Work P~ogram (UPWP) is a document which lists and describes the federally funded transportation planning to be carried out in the region during a given year. The UPWP serves both as an information tool for local decision makers and as the basis for a federal grant application for planning funds. Previously, Mn/DOT, the Metropolitan Council and the MTC jointly developed the UPWP with the Council as the responsible agency in accordance with federal regulations. With the creation of the RTB, and its assumption of certain planning responsibilities, it will become a participant in the development of the program. The act of defining RTB projects in the UPWP is significant. Planning is to be one of the major functions of the RTl), so defining its UPWP projects begins to define the RTB~s role and means of discharging its responsibilities. Two issues need to be resolved. One is the identification of RTB projects in the 1985 UPWP, the other is the question of whether revisions should be made to the -existing 1984 UPWP. The process of developing the 1985 UPWP has already begun. This creates a problem because it requires that the RTB~s planning activities be at least generally defined before the RTB is appointed and functioning.-To cope with this problem, M-FC and Metropolitan Council staff have developed proposed RTB planning projects for inclusion in the initial draft 1985 UPWP. The projects are broadly defined and are considered to be in draft form until the Board can address this issue. The 1985 UPWP will undergo an extensive interagency review process before being submitted to the United States Department of Transportation in the fall for funding approval, so final local approval of the document need not occur for several months. The RTB must review and adopt its portion of the 1985 UPWP and submit the program to the Metropolitan Council for approval. The 1984 UPWP presents a different issue. The projects in it are already defined and underway. Some of the projects now being carried out by the MTC are in areas of responsibility that will move to the ~TB. These projects include subregional transit planning, development programs, and'paratransit planning and evaluation. Under the enabling legislation, the RTB is given authority to conduct metropolitan transit planning as of July 1, i984. The RTB must decide whether it should attempt to assume certain 1984 UPWP activities currently being performed by the MTC or whether it should allow the MTC to continue administering the projects through 1984. If projects remain with the MTC through 1984,.unexpended project funds would be reallocated to the RTB for 1985. -21- J. TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDIES Two important studies of transit alternatives are on-going in the metro area. These studies are evaluating the transit alternatives available within the Hiawatha, Southwest and University Avenue Corridors. Hiawatha Corridor - The preferred alternative selected is light rail transit, final EIS work is close to being completed and approved by federal agencies. Southwest and University Avenue Corridors - A transit Alternatives Analysis and a Oratt Lnvironmenta~ ~mpact Statement (AA/DEIS) are being conducted for the University Avenue and the Southwest corridors. The purpose of the study, sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), is to analyze and evaluate four different transit improvements or alternatives in each of these two corridors. The study will culminate with the selection of a preferred alternative in each corridor based upon the information contained in the DEIS document and the testimony received at a public hearing. The alternatives considered include both light rail transit and busways. The Metropolitan Council is the recipient of the funds granted by UMTA to carry out the analysis. The study, however, is being conducted under the direction of a'Steering Committee composed of policy-level representatives from eleven participating agencies. A draft EIS is expected, to be available by the middle of September. The Steering Committee is expected to hold a public hearin~ by the end of October and select the -~ .... ~ '~ .... ~ ~, :,:, , :~ ~, ~:, ,,:~,ve for each corridor by the end of 1984. Once a preferred alternative is selected in each corridor, priorities among corridors will have to be established if federal funding is pursued. The priority corridor for which federal aid would be sought will be selected by the Metropolitan Council in the context of the regional transportation planning process. This will include the involvement of the RTB and the TAB/TAC. K. METRO MOBILITY CONSULTANT EVALUATION 1. Evaluation Study In March, 1984, Mn/DOT contracted with the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., for the purpose of evaluating the Metro Mobility coordinated transportation system which provides public transit service to eligible elderly and handicapped persons with special transportation needs. The Department seeks to identify possible service improvements and cost efficiencies under this contract. The evaluation is expected to be completed early this November. The Urban Institute will provide answers to questions like: Does the current provider mix and method of operation provide need-specific service in the most cost-efficient manner possible? Under current arrangements, ar~ we getting the maximum service that five million dollars per year could possibly provioe~ If not, why not, and what can we do about it? -22- The following major contract items have been accomplished: a) all Metro Mobility providers have been interviewed; b) Metro Mobility forum workshop for users and social service agencies; c) peer-to-peer workshop; d) literature review of other specialized services has begun; and e) progress reports to Metro Mobility management policy committee have been made. It is expected that a set of draft system options will be produced for Mn/DOT review in July. Since the RTB will be assuming responsibility for the Metro Mobility program, a role for RTB°s participation in the review of the evaluation study needs to be defined. 2. Eli~iblity Criteria. During the 1981 Third Special Session of the Legislature, there was considerable discussion regarding who should be eligible to use Metro Mobility and to what extent there was mis-use of the system due to inadequate certification criteria. As a result of those discussions, the Legislature mandated that Mn/DOT develop and adopt agency rules that would establish individual eligibility criteria. These rules were published in the State Register on August 16, 1982. On April 2, 1984, the Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rules (LCRAR) heard testimony on a request to review these rules governing eligibility of blind persons. On June 13th the LCRAR recommended that Mn/DOT amend these rules so that people who cannot learn to use mainline service, and who do not necessarily have a mental impairment or emotional problem be more adequately addressed in the rules. The LCRAR's recommendation to amend the rules will most likely require the RTB's direct involvement due to Section 122 of the enabling legislation which requires establishment of criteria for determining eligibility. L. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS The enabling legislation requires that the RTB make the following reports to the Governor, the Legislature, and to legislative committees: Section I19 of the enabling legislation requires the RTB to prepare a financial plan for submission to the Metropolitan Council for approval. Under Section 116, subdivision 5(c), the chair of the RTB is required to present the financial plan to the Governor and the Legislature after it has been approved by the Metropolitan Council. The RTB~s first financial plan must be approved by the Metropolitan Council no later than December 31, 1984. Section 117, subd. 16 of the enabling legislation requires that the RTB submit an annual report to the Metropolitan Council, the Governor, and the Legislature detailing its activities and finances for the previous year. The legislation does not specify a particular date by which these reports must be made. -23- Section 150, subd. 4, of the enabling legislation requires the chair of the RTB to present a complete budget and staffing plan to the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees by December 1, i984. Section 151 of the enabling legislation requires the RTB to conduct a study and issue a report to the Legislature by February 1, 1985, on the following issues: (1) changes needed in replacement service and contract programs; and (2) changes needed in the RTB's authority to contract indebtedness and to levy property taxes to retire debt. Section 152 of the enabling legislation requires the RTB to make a progress report to the Legislature by February 1, 1985, regarding the RTB°s progress in (1) developing programs to improve service in inadequately served areas and (2) preparing and implementing the required implementation plan and financial plan. Section 117, subd. 8, of the enabling legislation requires the RTB to certify to the Governor when it has adopted an approved implementation plan and is ready to receive federal funds. The RTB will then be designated by the Governor as a recipient of federal transit assistance for the metropolitan area. M. RTB COMMITTEE STRUCTURES AND APPOINTMENTS The enabling legislation specifies that the RTB shall or may establish or appoint members to various committees. These appointments are as follows: Under Section 109 of the enabling legislation, the Metropolitan Council°s Transportation Advisory Board shall contain a representative of the RTB. This position may be filled any time after July 1, 1984. The enabling legislation does not require that the appointment occur by any particular date. Under Section 117, subd. 9, of the enabling legislation, the RTB is authorized (but not required) to establish one or more advisory committees representing transit providers, transit users and local units of government to assist the RTB in carrying out its purposes. Members of any RTB advisory committees established receive no compensation. Under Section 117, subd. 11, of the legislation, the RTB is required to appoint a rideshare advisory committee to advise it in carrying out the program. No date is specified in the legislation by which the advisory committee must be established. A Metropolitan Ridesharing Board is currently in existence under the auspices of the Metropolitan Council. -24- Under Section t22, subd. 2, the RTB is required to establish a management policy con~nittee to set management policy for the special transportation (Metro Mobility) program and an advisory task force to advise the management policy con~nittee. A Metro Mobility Policy Management Committee and Advisory Task Force are currently in existence under Mn/DOT's administration of the program. (Minn. Stat. ~174.31.) Under the terms of the enabling legislation, the membership of the Policy Management Co~ittee, the Advisory Task Force, and the Metropolitan Ridesharing Board do not transfer automatically at the time the program is assumed by the RTB. The RTB may reappoint all, some or none of the existing members as it sees fit. Since the Management Policy Committee sets management policies for the Metro Mobility pro~ram, it will have to be in place at the time that the RTB assumes responsibility for the program. III. CALENDAR OF RTB ACTIONS The followin9 is a list of activities which have occurred or actions which are required or expected to be taken by the RTB. !984 May - Task Force established by the Metro Council chair (May 16) June July Metro Council holds public hearings for the selection of the RTB members. (June 6 - June 28) Metro Council nominates a list of six candidates for RTB Chair to the Governor (June 28). Metro Council makes temporary office space available for RTB. Required notice of vacancy for MTC members published in State Register. (June 18) Mn/DOT, MTC and Dept. of Finance staff begin to prepare draft FY 1985-1987 biennial budget. Metro Council and MTC staff begin to prepare draft Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Metro Council and Dept. of Administration staff prepare administrative services check list. Task Force adopts it report to the RTB {July 11) Metro Council selects RTB members (July 12), new members take oath of office. Governor appoints RTB Chair. August Sept, Oct. NOV. Dec. -2S- RTB holds organizational and orientation meeting. RTB selects and appoints MTC members (no earlier than August 2, 1984). RTB receives draft FY 1985-87 Biennial Budget from MTC. Task Force provides budget orientation to RTB (August 1 - 15) RTB makes preliminary Biennial Budget decision (August 30) Review existing CY 84 UPWP activities and review proposed CY 85 UPWP Metro Council staff provides orientation on the Transportation Policy Plan. MTC staff provides information and assistance to RTB to start process of certifying the tax levy. Prepare for development of interim implementation plan. Request MTC operating and capital budget. Adopt final Biennial Budget (Sept. 28) Review MTC annual budget Submit CY 85 UPWP comments to Metropolitan Council Receive and prepare comments on draft transit alternatives analysis study for Southwest and University Corridors. Certify tax levy (Oct. 10). Review draft Interim Implementation Plan Approve MTC annual capital and operating budget. Approve Interim Implementation Plan (Dec. 1) Adopt annual budget and financial plan and submit capital budget and financial plan to Metro Council (Dec. 1); Adopt staffing plan and submit staffing plan and complete budget to House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees (Dec. 1); -26- 1985 Feb. - Study and report to Legislature on changes needed in replacement service and contract programs (Feb. 1); - Study and report to Legislature on changes needed in authority to contract indebtedness and levy property taxes {Feb. 1); - Report to the Legislature on progress in developing and implementing programs to improve service in areas that are not adequately served at present (Feb. 1); - Report to the Legislature on progress in preparing the regional implementation and financial plan {Feb. 1). The following is a list of actions or activities to be taken by the RTB at some time in the future: - Appoint a member to the TAB. - Appoint members to various advisory co~ittees. - Convene annual transit conference. - Governor certifies RTB as a recipient of federal funds. - Assume Mn/DOT operating assistance contracts. - Assume exurban contracts. - Establish a program for local government participation. - Review any temporary borrowing requests by MTC. - Require submission of operation plans and service plans from MTC. - Establish procedures for review and approval for financial assistance. - Chair presents financial plan to Governor and Legislature. - prepare or require financial assistance applicants to prepare transit study. - Conduct research and render advice on transportation issues. -27- Perform MTC impact assessment on contracts for operating assistance. Establish transit infomation program. Assume responsibility for rideshare programs; and establish Rideshare Advisory Committee (after June 30, 1985). CZOI08