Loading...
1984-03-27 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA A~]~NDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Approve Minutes of March 13, 1984, Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING; Delinquent Utility Bills for March ~UBLIC HEARING; Proposed Year X Community Development Program - Total Funds Available $76,870 CASE #84-910 - Mr. & Mrs. Henry Paumen, 5657 Grandview Blvd., Lots 108 & 109, Mound Shores REQUEST: Lot Split Consideration of a Request to Increase Mound Fire Department Relief Pensions to $240.00 per month, Effective 7-1-84 and $250.00 per month, Effective 1-1-85 Request to Conduct Soil & Survey Analysis on Town Square Development Site Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present .~Application for a Bingo Permit - Mound Fire Dept. Auxiliary Suggested Goals & Objectives for Public Works Building Study Committee and suggestions from the Council on possible appointees Pg. 597-607 Pg. 608 Pg. 609-660 Pg. 661-666 Pg. 667-669 Pg. 670-685 Pg. 686 Payment of Bills INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Pg. 687 Ae Letter Confirming Watershed District Grant to City for $3,000. Pg. 688 B. Westonka Chamber Announcement Pg. 6 89 C. Planning Commission Minutes Pg. 690-692 Progress Report on Water Meters & Outside Readers - Greg Skinner Pg. 693 Page 595 E. Gambling Report - Legion Post #398 F. Westonka Senior Citizens Letter G. Metropolitan Council Review - March 9, H. Interesting Anonymous Letter I. Labor Market Bulletin J. Letter from City of Excelsior K. AMM Bulletin L. District #277 School Board Minutes M. Article on Public Finance N. Redesign Bulletin on Housing O. APA Announcement 1984 Pg. 694 Pg. 695 Pg. 696-697 Pg. 698 Pg. 699-702 Pg. 703-704 Pg. 705-710 Pg. 711-712 Pg. 713-717 Pg. 718-730 Pg. 731 Page 596 43 March 13, 1984 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on March 13, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Councilmember Pinky Charon was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and the following interested citizens: Frieda Olson, Paul Withers, Oswig Pflug, John Morgan, Peter Zubert, Chris Gerold representing Frieda Olson, Bill Magrand and Larry Connolly. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the February 28, 1~84, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. Councilmember Paterson noted a correction on Page 37, Resolution #84-38 should not have read "to concur wi'th the Planning Commission recommendation". Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the February 28, 1984, Regular Meeting, as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC,HEARING; ,PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF DENBIGH ROAD The City Engineer explained that the proposed improvement of the now private portion of Denbigh Road would make this road 18 feet wide from the back of the curb to back of the curb. Putting in a cul-de-sac'was impossible due to the limited space available. The road would be 22 feet from the nearest garage with an es.timated cost of $23,900.00. He then explained the City of Mound's assessment policy to the public. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments for or against the proposed improvement of Denbigh Road. FREDA OLSON - 4414 Wilshire Blvd. stated that she would not benefit from this road because her driveway is on Wilshire Blvd. and she never uses Denbigh. Also that the road would be within 22 feet of her house and would depreciate her value. March 13, 1984 PAUL WITHERS - 4416 Denbigh Road, asked'what the engineer had planned for the end of this road. The City Engineer answered that a dead end road is planned because it would be a safety hazard to bring this road onto Wilshire Blvd. and being a dead end would probably keep the traffic down. OSWIN PFLUG - 4440 Denbigh Road, stated that he is completely against the improvement of this road as it is proposed because it would, only be 16 feet wide and would not leave enough room for 2 cars to pass during the winter when there is snow on the sides of the road. Parking would also become a problem if the street were a public street instead of a private road. If it were left a dead end street people would have to turn around in someones driveway which would cause a problem. As it is now all the properties on that stretch of Denbigh have easements to cross property to get to Wilshire Blvd. JOHN MORGAN - 4400 Wilshire Blvd., stated that he is for the Alternate A improvement because as it stands now people are going out to Wilshire on his property. He has checked his deed and has no private easements recorded on it for people to use his property. The City Attorney explained that the subject of those easements is a private matter which does not concern the City. They are private easements. PAUL WITHERS, stated he would like to see the road put in and be able to see what he is paying taxes for, i.e. snow plowing, garbage service, etc.. PETER ZUBERT, 8238 Oregon Rd., Bloomington, MN., stated he owns Lots 94, 95 and 96 and is against the road and the assessment because his lots front on Wilshire Blvd. and do not benefit from the road. The road may also have a negative impact on the buildability of the lots with streets on both sides of the lots. He is also against the City'taking 15 feet of his property while taking less on the other side of Denbigh. The City Engineer explained that the reason they would be taking more property on Zubert's side of the street is that they are trying to keep the proper setbacks for the garages on the other side of the street. The City Manager stated that Mr. Zubert may not be able to get permission from the County to have a driveway access on Wilshire because of the safety aspect. 45 le38 CHRIS GEROLD - attorney representing Freda Olson, stated that it was his understanding that in order for the City to assess someone for an improvement they had to benefit. The City Attorney explained that we are here tonight only to- consider if we should have an improvement. FREDA OLSON - stated that the City would be taking more than 15 feet of her property on the curve for the road. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Peterson thanked everyone for their comments and the points brought out. He further stated that he felt when equal amounts of land are not being taken from both sides of the road, the people who have to give more should be compensated. Councilmember Paulsen agreed. Councilmember Jessen asked if there would be any on street parking after the new street is installed. The City Engineer answered no.. - Councilmember Jessen questioned how many of the people who originally signed the petition for the improvement were still in favor of the road because there only appeared to be two people present for the road, three against and the remainder on the petition did not show up or comment either way. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-31 RESOLUTION TO DENY MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO A NOW PRIVATE PORTION OF DENBIGH ROAD THAT RUNS EAST TO CARDIFF LANE The vote was 3 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. carried. Motion Mayor Polston stated that the City has spent $1,500 of taxpayers money to get this far with this proposed improvement and he feels before anymore of these petitions are presented, the citizens should have more Of a consensus for a project so this work is not done for nothing at a cost to the general taxpayers. PUBLIC HEARING; ARVIN SENNE,'MARK JOHNSON, STEVE TESSMER. LOT 3, AUDITOR'S SUBD. ~170, ~558 AUDIT.QR'S ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WHOLESALE AND ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS - CASE ~84-~0~ The City Manager explained that this request is for a Conditional Use Permit for the rear portion of the building that houses the House of Moy fronting on Auditor's Road. It is the space that Watson was going to use for the arcade. The'area is proposed for sailboard storage and sales center marketing area and an area for March 13, 1984 a cabinet shop. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. No outside storage of any materials will be permitted· No painting, staining, varnishing or similar activity will be permitted on the premises. No space within either business shall be subleased or used by another party in any manner. Expansion of the floor area of either business shall not occur without modification of the conditional use permit. The alternate fire separation between the A-3 restaurant and H-3 woodworking shop will be reduced from a 4 hour occupancy separation to a 2 hour fire rated assembly under the Uniform Building Code provisions for partition 'walls and structural members with a sound rating of 50 decibels. ~ Councilmember Paulsen asked what the difference was between manufacturing and assembly. The City Attorney stated there are no defintions in the zoning ordinance to clarify this point. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the citizens present. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmembers Jessen .and Paulsen asked the applicants how they would be disposing of scrape and sawdust. The applicants replied they have a 1 cubic yard dumpster and a dust collector hooked to each machine that empties into one area. They also stated they would be cleaning the shop daily. Peterson mbved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #84-32 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CABINET SHOP AND 'SAILBOARD STORAGE AND SALES CENTER - PID ~13-117-24 33 0005 The voted was unanimously in favor. Mo~ion carried. PUBLIC HEARING; WARREN 0RTENBLAD, VACATE ALLEY ABUTTING WES! SIDE OF LOT 36, MOUND ADDITION, PID ~14-117-~4 41 00)5, 5824 SUNSET ROAD - CASE ~84-304 The City Manager explained that this vacation is being requested so that. the property owner may build a garage. The alley has never been and never will be used. The Planning Commission has 46 March 13, 1984 a cabinet shop. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. No outside storage of any materials will be permitted· 2. No painting, staining, varnishing or similar activity will be permitted on the premises. No space within either business shall be subleased or used by another party in any manner. Expansion of the floor area of either business shall not occur without modification of the conditional use permit. The.alternate fire separation between the A-3 restaurant and H-3 woodworking shop will be reduced from a 4 hour occupancy separation to a 2 hour fire rated assembly under the Uniform Building Code provisions for partition ~walls and structural members with a sound rating of 50 decibels. - Councilmember Paulsen asked what the difference was between manufac%uring and assembly. The City Attorney stated there are no defin%ions in the zoning ordinance to clarify this point. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the citizens present. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmembers Jessen .and ~gulsen asked the applicants how they would be disposi'ng of scrapXand sawdust. The applicants replied they have a 1 cubic yard du~pster and a dust collector hooked to each machine that empties into one area. They also stated they would be cleaning the shop daily. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-32 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDI%IONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CABINET SHOP AND 'SAILBOARD STORAGE AND SALES CENTER - PID ~13-117-24 33 0005 The voted was unanimously in favor. Mo~ion carried. PUBLIC HEARING; WARREN ORTENBLAD, VACATE ALLEY ABUTTING WEST SIDE OF LOT 36, MOUND, ADDITION, PID ~14-117-24 41 0055, 5824 SUNSET ROAD - CASE ~84-304 The City Manager explained that this vacation is being requested so that the property owner may build a garage. The alley has never been and never will be used. The Planning Commission has March 13~ 1984 CHRIS GEROLD - attorney representing Freda Olson, stated that it was his understanding that in order for the City to assess someone for an improvement they had to benefit. The City Attorney explained that we are here tonight only to consider if we should have an improvement. FREDA OLSON - stated that the City would be taking more than 15 feet of her property on the curve for the road. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Peterson thanked everyone for their comments and the points brought out. He further stated that he felt when equal amounts of land are not being taken from both sides of the road, the people who have to give more should be compensated. Councilmember Paulsen agreed. Councilmember Jessen asked if there would be any on street parking after the new street is installed. The City Engineer answered no. Councilmember Jessen questioned how many of the people who originaIly signed the petition for the improvement were still in favor of the road because there only appeared to be two people present for the road, three against and the remainder on the petition did not show up or comment either way. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resoiution: RESOLUTION ~84-31 RESOLUTION TO DENY MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO A NOW PRIVATE PORTION OF DENBIGH ROAD THAT RUNS EAST TO CARDIFF LANE The vote was B in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. carried. Motion Mayor Polston stated that the City has spent $1,500 of taxpayers money to get this far with this proposed improvement and he feels before anymore of these petitions are presented, the citizens should have more Of a consensus for a project so this work is not done for nothing at a cost to the general taxpayers. PUBLIC HEARING; ARVIN SENNE,'MARK JOHNSON, STEVE TESSMER, LOT 3, AUDITOR'S SUBD, #170, 5~8 AUDITOR'S ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WHOLESALE AND ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS - CASE ~84-303 The City Manager explained that this request is for a Conditional Use Permit for the rear portion of the building that houses the House of Moy fronting on Auditor's Road. It is the space that Watson was going to use for the arcade. The'area is proposed for sailboard storage and sales center marketing area and an area for 47 March 13, 198~ recommended approval with the stipulation that all abutting property owners be notified. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for comments from citizens present. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #84-33 RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN ALLEY EASEMENT BETWEEN GRANDVIEW BOULEVARD AND SUNSET ROAD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING; DOW-SAT OF MN,, 2381. WILSHIRE B.LVD, CONDITIONAL ~S~ PERMIT TO. EXPAND EXISTING 40 FOOT TOWER TO A HEIGHT OF 80 FEET CASE ~84-~06 The City Manager explained that Dow-Sat would like to raise the existing tower from 40 feet to 80 feet to increase reception on local antenna stations here in Mound and to microwave interconneting with other communities. The Planning Commission has recommended approval with the following conditions: Only lineal type antennas, excluding dish antennas, and similar devices shall be attached to the top of the structure and any other portion thereof. Dow-Sat is presently utilizing their building under a temporary occupancy permit with an expiration date of June, 1984. In order to obtain a permanent occupancy permit, minor building improvements need to be completed and a landscaping plan must be submitted and approved by the City. Th'e applicant shall submit revised town analysis data to the Building Inspector for review and approval. Polston moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING ~0 FOOT ANTENNA .SUPPORT STRUCTURE TO 80 FEET ON PROPERTY OWNED BY DOW-SAT OF MINNESOTA, INC. - PID ~13-117-24 3~ 0071 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. March 13, 1984 CASE ~84-309, JON SCHERVEN, ~71 COMMERCE BLVD., LOT 52, M & B LYNWOLD PARK, LOT SIZE VARIANCE, PID #14-117-24 44 0039 The City Manager explained that a lot size variance was granted when Mr. Scherven remodeled the front part of the building and now he is asking for the same variance in order to remodel the rear of the building. The Planning Commission recommended approval at their meeting last evening. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-35 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE LOT SIZE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR PART OF LOT 52, LYNWOLD PARK ADDITION (2271 COMMERCE BLVD.) (PID ~14-117-24 qq 0039) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~84~311~ CITY OF MOUND, SUBDIVISION/LOT SPLIT, LOT ~ BLOCK 1, RUSTIC PLACE, PID #23-117-24 31 The City Manager explained that this was part of the purchase agreement when the Council approved selling the lots in Rustic Place. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this subdivision/lot split as requested. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-36 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOT 3, BLOCK 1, RUSTIC PLACE .(FID #23-117-24 31 0075) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DISCUSSION' OF CITY-HRA STAFF RELATIONSHIP Councilmember Paulsen requested this item be put on the Agenda. The Ci~ty Manager 'explained that he sees no problem or conflict in his working with the HRA on any tax increment project, etc. Councilmember Paulsen stated that he felt that the HRA will be receiving an indirect subsidy from the City by having Jon work for them as a consultant. He feit they requested a levy and should use it to pay for the service of a consultant whether it be Jon or whoever. Councilmember Jessen stated that she supports the Manager working with th9 HRA on these projects'. 49 M rch 13, 19B4 The City Manager presented a memo from City Planner Mark Koegler estimating that the total costs for a preliminary feasibility recommendation should not exceed $1,000. It also gave an estimated timetable for the report. The City Manager also presented the formal application from Smiley/Glotter ASsociates requesting tax increment financing assistance for the project identified as Town Square. Councilmember Paulsen requested that the Council pass a motion supporting the Manager working with the HRA and having him keep the Council up-to-date on the progress. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion supporting the position of the City Manager working with the HRA on tax increment financing and asking that the Manager keep the Council informed of the progress and the hours he is putting in on this process. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen~moved and Jessen second-ed a motion to accept the application for tax increment financing assistance as submitted by Smiley/Glotter Associates and refer it to the HRA..The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ' POTENTIAL DUMP SITE IN MINNETRISTA Councilmember Paulsen explained that he asked for this item to be put on the Agenda so that the Council could take a position against the potential selection of Minnetrista as a dump site. The Mayor explained that the Council last year submitted a resolution opposing Minnetrista as a dump site. Councilmember Paulsen felt tha-t another resolution should be submitted Opposing this site. Councilmember Jessen stated that she feels for Minnetrista but that the Metropolitan Council is doing a complete and thorough study in the site selection and that we should leave that decision to them to decide. Anyone in any of the potential areas selected for the dump site would be against this. Paulsen moved and Polston seconded a motion to take a formal position opposing the potential selection of Minnetrista as a Iandfill site. The vote was 2 in favor with CounCilmember Jessen voting nay and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Motion denied. STATUS REPORT. ON COUNTY ROAD 1~ MEETINGS Councilmember Paulsen requested that this item be on the Agenda. 5O March 13, 1984 Mayor Polston read a memo that was sent to all Hennepin County Commissioners by Commissioner Bud Robb regarding County Road 15 improvements between CSAH 19 and 110. He informed the Council that the Public Service Committee wilt hear comments regarding County Road 15 on March 22, 1984, and urged all who could attend to be there. No further action was taken. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONIS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any citizens present with comments or suggestions for the Council. There were none. BLACK LAKE BRIDGE~ LAKEWINDS CONDOMINIUMS Mr. Bill Magrand representing Northco Development, owners of Lakewinds Condominiums was present. He explained that Northco has invested a considerable amount of money in the remodeling of the Lakewinds Apartments to sell them as condominiums with the new name being Lakewinds Sports and Health. Northco had already started this process when they learned last Fall that the County was planning to replace the Black Lal~e Bridge on County Road 125 this Spring. They have contacted the County and have it all lined up to delay the replacement of this bridge because it will interfer with their marketing program this Spring. The County would like the City to favorably concur with the delay in an effort to work with the developers. The County has promised that they will still replace'the bridge this Summer. The bridge will take 60 working days to replace so it would mean delaying the start of the bridge replacement until possibly May or-June. The Council discussed this problem and also the problem of having the bridge uncompleted by the time school starts and the school buses have to use alternative routes. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to concur with the delay the County is contemplating for starting the replacement of the Black Lake Bridge. The vote was 2 in favor with Polston and Jessen voting nay. Motion denied. SOIL, ANALYSIS WORK. ON LOST LAKE The City Manager reported that he must again table this item. He has.met with the PCA and they said no to all questions. The two proposals the City have cannot be compared on an apples to apples basis and will have to be clarified by the two proposers. No action was taken. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: COpE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING Peterson moved and Paulsen' seconded a motion to set April 10, 198~, at 7:30 P.M. to hold a public hearing to amend the 49 March 13, 1984 The City Manager presented a memo from City Planner Mark Koegler estimating that the total costs for a preliminary feasibility recommendation should not exceed $1,000. It also gave an estimated timetable for the report. The City Manager also presented the formal application from Smiley/Glotter Associates requesting tax increment financing assistance for the project identified as Town Square. Councilmember Paulsen requested that the Council pass a motion supporting the Manager working with the HRA and having him keep the Council up-to-date on the progress." Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion supporting the position of the City Manager working with the HRA on tax increment financing and asking that the Manager keep the Council informed of the progress and the hours he is putting in on this process. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to accept the application for tax increment financing assistance as submitted by Smiley/Glotter Associates and refer it to the HRA.. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. POTENTIAL DUMP SITE IN_MI~NETRISTA Councilmember Paulsen explained that he asked for this item to be put on the Agenda so that the Council could take a position against the potential selection of Minnetrista as a dump site. The Mayor explained that the Council last year submitted a resolution opposing Minnetrista as a dump site. Councilmember Paulsen felt that another resolution should be submitted opposing this site. Councilmember Jessen stated that she feels for Minnetrista but that the Metropolitan Council is doing a complete and thorough stu'dy in the site selection and that we should leave that decisiOn to them to decide. Anyone in any of the potential areas selected for the dump site would be against this. Paulsen moved and Polston seconded a motion to take a formal position opposing the potential selection of Minnetrista as a landfill site. The vote was 2 in favor with Councilmember Jessen voting nay and Councilmember Peterson abstaining. Motion denied. STATUS REPORT ON COUNTY ROAD 1) MEETINGS Councilmember Paulsen requested that this item be on the Agenda. 5O March lB, 1984 Mayor Polston read a memo that was sent to all Hennepin County Commissioners by Commissioner Bud Robb regarding County Road 15 improvements between CSAH 19 and 110. He informed the Council that the Public Service Committee wilt hear comments regarding County Road 15 on March 22, 1984, and urged all who could attend~ to be there. No further action was taken. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONIS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any citizens present with c~ments or suggestions for the Council. There~~were none._ ~~ BLACK LAKE BRIDGE, LAKEWINDS CONDOMINIUMS~~''- Mr. Bill Magrand representing N.~co Development, owners of Lakewinds Condominiums was pr~nt. He explained that Northco has invested a considerable~ount of money in the remodeling of the Lakewinds Apartments t~9~sell them as condominiums with the new name being Lakewinds ~ Hea!th~ Northco had already started this process when they learned last Fall that the County was planning, to replace the Black La]{e Bridge on County Road 125 this Spring. They~~%gntacted the County and have it all lined up to delay the~-~l-g~ement of this bridge because it will interfer with their marketing program this Spring. The County would like the City to favorably concur with the delay in an '' effort to work with the developers. The County has promised that they will still replace'the bridge this Summer. The bridge will take 60 working days to replace so it would mean delaying the start of the bridge replacement until possibly May or.June. The Council discussed this problem and also the problem of having he s~oo the bridge uncompleted by the time school_._.....star~s~n~'t 1 buses have to use alternative routes..- ~~~o~ncuN~' Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded~ m~~n to r with the delay the County is contempl ting for starting the replacement of. the Black Lake Bridge. The vote was 2 in favor with Polston and Jessen voting nay. Motion denied. SOIL,ANALYSIS WORK ON LOST LAKE The City Manager reported that he must again table this item. He has met with the PCA and they said no to all questions. The two proposals the City have cannot be compa?ed on an apples to apples basis and wiI1 have to be clarified by the two proposers. No action was taken. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING; CODE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING Peterson moved and Paulsen' seconded a motion to set April 10, 198~, at 7:30 P.M. to hold a public hearing to amend the 51 March 13, lg8 Zoning Code to allow (1) Motor Fuel Station and (2) Motor Fuel Station, Convenience Store in the B-1 Central Business Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the payment of the bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $164,940.98, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. POLICE RESERVES The Mayor suggested that the Council recognize all the hours the Police Reserve Unit donates to the City by proclaiming March 27, 1984, Police Reserve Recognition Day in the City of Mound. Jessen moved, and Peterson seconded the following proclamation: RESOLUTION 84-37 RESOLUTION PROCLAMING MARCH 27, 1984, AS POLICE RESERVE UNIT RECOGNITIOR DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS/~NFORMATION A. Commons maintenance proposal for 1984. B. Shopping Center Conference Memo. C. Metropolitan Council Review - February 24, 1984. D. Westonka Seniors Newsletter - March, 1984. E. Appointment of a City Representative to HUD Citizen_Advisory Committee. F. Chamber of Commerce Newsletter - March, 1984. G. Compost Information. H. Humphrey Institute March Calendar. I. Memo from Congressman Sikorski regarding IRB's. J. Public Service Redesign Project Memo (Two Alternate Routes to the Improvement of Education). 52 March 13, 1984 The City Manager gave the Council a financial update on the end of the year report (198B). The Mayor suggested setting up a Committee to study the public works building question. Some of their goals could be as follows: 1. Whether a public works building is needed. 2. What site. 3. How to finance. The Council asked the City Manager to put together a structure for a Public Works Task Force with goals and objectives for this Committee. This should be brought back to the Council at the next meeting. Mayor Polston stated that Nancy Clough is interested in being appointed to the Park Commission. Peterson'moved and Polston seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk BILLS .... MARCH 13, 1984 Widmer Bros 1,258.00 ieger,Inc 33,413.00 Water Product omm~ss~oner of Revenue 3,903.78 City wide Services Karol Charon 330.00 Robert Cheney Bill Clark 011 1,811.71 J.P. Cooke Co. Director of Property Taxa 637.44 Day Distributing Jon Elam 779.00 Decker Supply Co. Griggs, Cooper 2,467.88 Dependable Services Govt Training Srv 75.00 East Side Beverage Bill Hudson 31.O5 Fire Control Extinguisher Larry Heitz 740.00 Glenwood Inglewood Henn Co. Recorder 90.00 Hecksel Machine Shop ISFSl 120.OO Henn Co. Treas Phyllis Jessen 330.00 Heiman Fire Equip Johnson Paper 248.05 Kromer Co. Johnson Bros. Liquor 2,920.77 Lathrop Paint Supply Dick Johnson 35.00 Lowells Metro Waste Control 420.75 The Laker City of Mound 46.23 Minnegasco Mound Postmaster 100.O0 Mound Fire Dept Metro Waste Control 29,986.80 Munic Finance Offic Assn Quality Wine 1,109.93 City of Mound Ed Phillips & Sons 3,118.17 Municipals Barry Palm 740.00 Martins Navarre 66 Nels Schernau 24.18 Marina Auto Supply Air Comm 114.O0 Wm Mueller & Sons Babler Auto Body 945.06 ~ Navarre Hdwe Cromer Management 245.00 North Star Waterworks Henn Co. Chiefs Police-PTAC 390.00 N.S.P. iIMC Conference 195.00 Neptune Water Meter Co. Metro Fone Communications 23.60 Chas. Naslund Real One Acquisition 708.05 Newman Signs Suburban Community Services 898.25 A.J. Ogle Co. United Business Machines 17.29 Oswald Fire Hose Westonka Community Services 7,810.41 Popham Haik Kaufman Western Tree Service 604.00 Pepsi Cola/7 Up Allstar Electric 269.O1 Pogreba Distributing American Flagpole ~ Flag Co. 300.00 Royal Crown Bev. Air Power Equip 239.96 ..Road Machinery Rustique Decorating Ashland Chemical 115.50 Spring Park Car Wash Holly Bostrom 251.O0 Suburban Tire Donald Bryce. 1oo. Oo Shepherds Rugs Butchs Bar Supply 211.50 Stevens Well Drilling Burlington Northern 533.33 Don Streicher Guns Bowman Barnes 155.88 Twin City Garage D~or Berry Auto, Inc. 18.00 Thorpe Distributing Bryan Rock Products 283.03 Twin City Home Juice Blackowiak & Son 56.00 Specialty Equip Bradley Exterminating 19.00 ]hurk Bros Chev Cargill Salt 179.76 Village Chev Coast to Coast 123.66 Westinghouse Elec Coca Cola Bottling 217.55 Xerox City Club Distributing 2,248.20 TOTAL BILLS 367.OO 93.43 3,046.66 165.OO 33.00 3,305.94 165.o0 48,90 12.00 1,515.25 13,909.72 8,698.00 123.64 29.61 88.78 ~,75~.84 4,341.15 10.00 29.60 5.O0 3O.OO 324.~1 1,971.50 202.40 34.63 4,O92.21 588.19 372.20 414.50 983.90 2,053.00 1,$19.26 378.6O 4,387.25 ]]9.80 180.00 4.34 129.00 178.52 13.45 123.12 102.25 80.0o 3,598 15 102 74 97 72 67 127 448 82 164,940. 25 56 93 72 98 22 232 2355 91 22 238 4854 61 22 238 4860 31 22 238 4900 71 22 238 4925 41 22 238 5020 31 J22 238 5024 51 22 238 5035 11 22 238 5120 11 22 244 5019 31 22 256 4782 11 22 259 5463 11 22 259 5872 32 22'259 6070 31 22 26~ 3120 31 22 271 2919 O1 22 271 2925 71 22 280 5883 61 22 280 5921 41 22 280 5928 91 22 283 5900 21 22 286 6040 91 22 292 6016 71 22 295.3186 41 22 298 2965 62 22 301 2910 41 22 304 2926 41 22 310 3198 6i 22 316 2882 31 22 318 2871 21 22 332 2611 31 22 346 5667 21 22 364 2571 21 22 382 2308 11 22 397 2524 11 22 397 2539 93 22 404 5050 81 Delinquent water and sewer $ 83.54 312.36 102.94 52.38 1 78.72 70.20 191.82 94.64 73.10 1 O5.68 113.86 1 38 .O4 171.40 90.60 105.90 129.54 67.92 6O. 72 56.36 13O. 48 115.00 124.68 93.74 12o. o5 118.79 151.60 96.76~ 97.74 111.31 155.o2 lO6.12 7O.O4 91.16 lO7.24 101.38 85.08 128.84 $4204.75 3-21-84 22 232 2355 91 22 23B 4860 ~1 22 238 ~900 71 22 238 4925 41. 22 238 5020 31 22 238 5024 51 22 238~5035 11 22 238.5120.11 22 24450'19 31 22 259 5463 11 22 259587232 22 259'.16070 31 22 262 3120 31 22 27.1 2919 O1 22 271 2925 71 22 280 5883 61 22 280 5921 41 22 280 5928 91 22 283 5900 21 22 286 6040 91 22 292· 6016 71. 22 295..3186'41 22.'298 2965 62 22 301 2910 41 22 304 2926 41 22 310 3198 61 22 316 2882 31 22 318 2871 21 22 332 2611 31 22 346 5667 21 22 364 2571 21 22 382 2308 11 22 397 2524 11 22 397 2539 93 22 404 5050 81 Delinquent.water and sewer Rick Lindlan Weldon Hendrickson Doc Bosma Elma Jensen David Himlle Kerber & Tieva Ron Konek Ron Hayes Paul Ipsen Herbert Kurschner David Oliver Perry Ames Victor Rocchio Ed Monet~e Fritz Johnson John. Gaines 'Bryan Lee Brad Elmore Randy Lingen L.D. Clifford Ron Anderson John Melzker June Mc Carthy Diane Rowley Conrad Ftacek Robert Brown Carol Evans Tim Heyman R. Pugh Douglas Evanson Stephen Swenson Paid $60.00 Paid $25.00 * Paid $50.00 Paid $10.00 * $ 83.54 52.38 , 178.72 7O. 2O 191.82 94.64 * 73.10 '105.68 113.86 * 138.04 171.4O 90.60 105.90 * 129.54 67.92 56.36 130.48 115.00 93.74 120.05 i18.79 151.60 97.74 ~ rr 02 106.12 7O.O4 91 .16 107.24 * 101 .38 85.08 '128.84. $4204.75 70,2C', 191 o8~.:, 1 C 5 · c; C 1 1 25,CC- 106-i2+ 70~04 107.24~ 128. $207 Paid 3198 Westedge Blvd. 2882 Halstead Ln. Paid ' 2611 Granger Ln. 5667 BuSh Ln 2571 Lakewood Ln. 2308 Driftwood Ln. 2524 Emerald Ln. 2539 Emerald Ln. 3050 Shoreline Blvd ~3207.27 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Notice is hereby given that Hennepln County and the City of Mound, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, are sponsoring a public hearing on March 27, 1984, at 8:00 P.M., at the City Hall Council Chambers to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban County housing and community development needs and to provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives/1984 and the City of Mound's proposed use of its Year X Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant planning allocation of $73,656. The City of. Mound is proposing to fund the following activities with Year X Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting jUly 1, 1984. ACTIVITY BUDGET Rental Rehabilitation Program . Downtown Improvement Financing Street Imp. - Special Assessment Grants Parking Improvements - Downtown $ 15,OO0 35,OOO 3,656 20,000 $ 73,656 For additional information on proposed activites, level of funding and program objectives, contact the City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364, 472-1155. The public hearing is being held in accord with the Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement pursuant to M.S. 471.59. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in The Laker March 5, 1984 March 19, 1984 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER RE: REVISED ACTIVITY AND BUDGET PLAN FOR CDBG FUNDS FOR 1985-86 ACTIVITY Neighborhood Park Improvements Downtown Improvement Financing Street Improvement - Special Assessment Grants Small Business Financing Assistance $16,000 35,000 3,656 22,214 $76,870 Since we set the date for the hearing on CDBG funds, I have been working with Hennepin County to develop our 1985-86 work program. Originally I had budgeted $15,OOO for Rental Rehabilitation Projects, but the County said that this was unnecessary since they were going to receive a separate .$140,000 allocation to cover Hennepin County's needs. At this point I developed the Neighborhood Park Improvement component. The other components are a continuation .of our community economic develop- ment efforts, but provide us with funds for the next two years, as the present funds are expended. These program pieces include: - Design Grants up to $750.00 or 50% of the cost. - FiX-Up/Paint-Up Grants up to $500. - Store Front~ Rehabilitation (Interest reduction program) - 2% Interest Commercial Loans up to $25,000. JE:fc STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 1984 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM DRAFT 2-8-84 INTRODUCTION The Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives provides direction for planning and implementing the 1984 (Year X) Urban Hennepin County Com- munity Development Block Grant program consistent with national and local objectives. The national objectives of the CDBG program are: developing viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suit- able living environment and expanded economic opportunities principally for low and moderate income persons; aiding in the prevention~or elimi- nation of slums or blight; and meeting other con~nunity development needs having a particular urgency. Urban Hennepin County objectives are supportive of the national objective and detail their application specifically to the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. Each activity carried out with CDBG funds must, of course, be eligible under program regulations (24 CFR 5?0) and ~eet the objectives of the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. Consistent with the 1983 amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 51% of the program funded over the next three years must be used for projects which directly benefit low-and moderate-income persons. CDBG funds may be utilized to address a wide range of housing and com- munity development needs. The Statement of Objectives identifies Urban Hennepin County Community Development needs which should be addressed through the use of CDBG funds as well as how these funds should be pro- grammed and usedJ The Statement of Objectives is divided into program subheadings, under which are specific objectives and procedural statements supporting how' the objectives can be achieved. PROGRAM PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION Ob j ecti ye: Develop and implement a Housing and Community Development program which addresses Urban Hennepin County objectives and meets local needs and priorities in a timely and efficient manner. Objective: Maximize the benefit resulting from each activity. Objecti ye: Provide each participating community establishing a local' contingency account six months from the grant award date to implement a program activity for use of the reserved funds. Objective: Emphasize activities which'provide for 'a balanced program primarily benefiting low-and moderate-income persons and providing for the el'imination of slums and blightJ Obi ecti ve: Use CDBG funds in a manner that generates program income whenever possible to maintain the level of program activity with a decreased annual grant amount. Objective: Assure citizen involvement in the formulation, implemen- tation and evaluation of the CDBG Program. Objective: (Encourage and) Facilitate mutual cooperation among participants in the development and implementation of multi-community and intra-Planning Area determination of CDBG activities to address common concerns and needs. Procedural Statements: · Establish a project specific implementation schedule not to exceed 24 months from the grant award date. · Proposals for project funding should~e kept to a minimum (no more than three) generally consistent with the effective utilization of the planning allocation available to the participating community. Monitor ~he established 24-month implementation schedule to ensure effective project implementation and/or the reallocation of assigned funds. Monitor the performance of all participating communities on at least a quarterly basis to review their ability to implement local programs. Through the Planning Area Citizen Advisbry Committee, provide a structured opportunity for citizen participation in the develop- ment, implementation and ongoing evaluation of the CDBG program. Encourage greater citizen involvement in the CDBG program through expanded communication on the program funding levels, program objectives and eligible activities. - · Assign funds in community contingency acounts remaining at the end of six months from the date of the beginning of the program year from which they were awarded to a Planning Area contingency account for reprogramming. · Assign funds for programmed activities remaining at the enJ of two years from the date of the beginning of the program year from which they were funded to Planning Area contingency accounts for reprogramming. Provide monthly project status reports to all participant 'communities and planning area citizen advisory committee members to assist in program~evaluation activities. Plan and implement activities which can return funds to the program through maximizing the use of loans and repaYment agreements. Plan and implement activities which pool resources of several participants to meet a shared needJ Look to the total allocation within Planning Areas az a resource to address priority concerns and provide adequate funding to address them in an expeditious time frame. NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION Obi ecti ve: Maintain and preserve viable neighborhoods and neighborhood service centers through concentrated community development activities. Procedural Statements: Target CDBG funds for use in Conjunction with other available Federal, State and Local resources for a combination of housing and community development activities )n identified neighborhoods. Define neighborhoods geographically and/or statistically con- sistent with adopted local plans and identified needs~ specifically those of low-and moderate income residents. Upgrade i'dentified neighborhoods consistent with local policies developed in consultation with'residents. Demonstrate that component activities are supportive of improve- ments in the neighborhood housing stock, physical condition and/or economic development. HOUSING Objective: Obi ecti ye: Direct housing resources to sectors of the housing market that provide the greatest benefit to lower income persons. Explore all potential resources for the financing of as- sisted housing and actively participate in their use to construct and/or subsidize the development and/or rehabi- litation of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. New Construction Obi ecti ve: Facilitate the development of new housing, including, but not limited to, site acquisition, public improvements, assistance with front-end costs and multi-community · projects. Procedural Statements: · Develop a priority list of' communities for housing development consistent with priorities established in the HAP. · Establish multi-community housing development projects whenever possible, based on realistic market service areas. · Utilize all available approaches to finance housing .development. Existing Rental Objective: Maximize utilization of available rental assistance programs. Procedural Statement: · Participate in the existing rental assistance program. · Participate in the Rental Rehab program. · Utilize all available approaches to ~inance improvements to the existing housing stock and assure its availability to low-and moderate-incOme persons. HOUSING REHABILITATION Objective: Provide housing rehabilitation assistance to eligibl'e house- holds. Procedural Statements: · Offer a variety of housing rehabilitation assistance utilizing loans and grants and affecting owner occupied and rental units. Follow uniform Urban County'Procedural Guidelines including ap- plicant income and asset eligibility requirements and client assistance levels. · Utilize all available housing rehabilitation/improvement programs either in conjunction with or independent of the CDBG rehabili- tation programs {i.e., MHFA loans, MHFA-CETA Weatherization). Encourage the pgoling of housing rehabil'itation funding on a Planning Area basis for those programs managed through Hennepin County. X~PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS Objective: Rehabilitate e~isting public improvements and facilities and assist in the development of new facilities and improve- ments. Obi ectl ve: Objective: Emphasize direct benefit activities for low-and moderate- income persons. Coordinate the development of senior centers in locations suitable for the provision of other services to the elderly. ~ Procedural Statement: Use'the provision of public improvements to encourage general revitalization and new development. · Limit the use of grant funds to the payment of special assessments to low and moderate income homeowners. HANDICAPPED IMPROVEMENTS Objective: Obi ecti ye: Ensure that program supported facilities and housing units are accessible to handicapped person.s. Assure that each accessibility improvement meets a parti-' cu)ar need, removes a specific barrier and represents a defined priority in the co,unity. Procedural Statement: Develop a handicapped accessibility plan for improvements which identifies the barrier(s) to be removed, establishes needs and priorities, explains how mobility and accessibility will be im- proved and lSsts the facilities and programs to benefit from such action. The plan must identify~non-construction options for moving barriers. ~/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Objective: Undertake activities .to stimulate economic development consistent with local economic development strategies. Objective: Provide additional permanent, private sector employment opportunities to low-and moderate-income persons. Obi ecti ve: Provide job training opportunities,, in conjunction with private sector economic development activities, to low and moderate income persons. Procedural Statements: Provide assistance to private-for-profit developments in a manner that will generate program income whenever possible. Economic developmen% activities must have evidence of commitment or interest by developers and provide for new or expanded employ- ment opportunities for low and moderate income persons and/or the elimination of existing blighting influences. · Economic development activities may be undertaken onl.y when they are consistent with local plans or policies. ENERGY Objective: Objective: Develop the Urban County CDBG program in a manner sensitive to energy conservation issues. Provide assistance to low-and moderate-income homeowners for energy improvements. . Procedural Statement: Develop energy use strategies which as a minimum emphasize local needs and include items such as those listed under eligible activities in Section !05~a)(16) of the Housing and Community Development Act a~ amended in 1983. PUBLIC SERVICES Objective: Obi ecti ve: Provide funding for public services to the extent they are consistent with CDBG regulations and the program needs of Hennepin County and the participating communities. Public Services mu~t directly benefit low-and moderate- income persons. Procedural Statements: · Limit the expenditure of CDBG funds for public services to no more than fifteen percent {15%) of the Urban County grant. · CDBG funding of public services must be'for new or increased levels of service. CDBG funds can be used to maintain or increase an existing public service only when it can be demonstrated that local funding is no longer possible. DISPLACEMENT 0bi ecti ve: Urban Hennepin County will implement the Con~nunity Development Program and Housing Assistance Plan.minimizing the direct or indirect displacement of owners or renters from occupied dwelli.ng units~ and business locations. Procedural Statements: The displacement of families, individuals or businesses, whether they occupy their premises as owners or tenants, shall be under- taken when: (1) the owner requests that the municipality acquire the property due to a hardship situation resulting from an action of the local government, (2) the premises is found to be sub- standard to.a point.beyond repair, (3) the health and welfare of theresident is in jeopardy and (4) acquisition/relocation is necessary to implement a physical development activity consistent with adopted local policies and/or plans. When temporary relocation is necessary to complete the rehabi- litation of a dwelling unit, it will be so timed as to minimize the period of displacement, When acquisition/relocation is necessary, the process will be conducted according to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, as amended. Disp.laced residents or businesses shall be assisted through the provision of relocation counseling and assistance.in s6curing an al ternative location. The costs of relocation payments and assistance under Title II of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act shall be paid from funds provided by the CDBG program and the funds available locally from any source.. 7 March 19, 1984 CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER In 1983, the CDBG Program was amended to allow for Neighborhood (by census tracts) Development Projects that had 509 or more low income. From the enclosed map, you can see these areas include the area around City Hall and the first section of the. Island as you come across the bridge. I reviewed the various public works items for these two areas and found that all the basic utilities are in good shape, i.e. water, sewer, streets, storm sewer. That really leaves the Parks as the logical place to use an estimated $16,000 worth of 1985-86 CDBG funds. There are four (4) parks in this target area: Wychwood Beach - Brighton Blvd. Avon Park - Avon Drive Swenson Park - Leslie Road Carlson Park - Bartlett Blvd. I went back to the Master Park Plan we did a couple of years ago and looked over the improvement projects that are needed. They are as follows: WYCHWOOD BEACH - Grade the beach to the south and install new sand. - Plant trees and do some landscape (15) improvements. (Estimated Cost: $4,000) AVON PARK - Plant trees. Every tree i'n this park.has been lost to Dutch Elm Disease or storms. (30) - Picnic tables - mounted. - Park benches - mounted. - Resurface basketball court and install new basketball standard. (Estimated Cost: $5,000) Page 2 City Council March 19, 1984 SWENSON PARK - Softball benches - Plant trees .(30) (Estimated Cost: $4,000) CARLSON PARK - Grading wOrk on hillside. - Re-sod - Plant limited number of trees (Estimated Cost: $2,000) Some of these items may vary from the proposed budgets, but probably not by much. I am delighted to be able to again put some HUD funds into the neighborhoods versus using it ever so slowly in Downtown Mound. Plus, it's for items that everyone can benefit from. JE:fc YEAR X (1984) URBAN HENNEPIN ~OUNI~F CDBG PROJECT PROPOSAL THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY ER Status: / status Environmental Review Specialist Project Number: / number Financial Manager Project Eligibility: / '~itation -PA representative date date date A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: MOUND 2. Project Name: NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IMPROVEMENTS 3. Contact.Person: J'ON ELAM ' B. PROJECT DATA 1'. Location: Census Tract/s 276.02 City Wide Street Address ~ee ~ttached map (Attach map, if applicable) 2. Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities' Be as detailed as possible. (Add sheet if necessary.) A project that wi)) continue the'.nei~ghborhood 'upgra~ilng that has occurred over the past five years, i.e. new streets, storm s~wer, water i'mprovements with n6n--CDBG funds. By investing in basic park improvements, (trees, equipment, etc,), the'overall quality and identity of these parks will greatly improve. Thus, improv~.ng the' quality, of the low income neighborhoods ~hat surround them. These improvement projects come from the ci'ty of'Mound's Master Rark ~rpgram which has received wide. support from the City. Council of the Park Commission. Is this a multi-year project: yes C~BG Year Started , Project Number X no, if so please indicate Identify the. Con~nunity need that the project is intended '{o meet and explain how the project will make substantial improvements. Upgrade neighborhood parks by planting trees, installing new equipment, imp~ovlng swimming beaches, ~ll'of which will make the parks more visible and useable. State the accomplishments the project is meant to achieve in a quantifiable manner. (For example~ the rehabilitation of 10 houses for low and moderate income families) ~ ~ - plant 80 trees - upgrade one swimming beach - upgrade one neighborhood basketball court - install park equipment (picnic tables and benches) - relandscape o~ paFk for increased,,use for picnicing, etc, Implementation Schedule. Note: The Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement requires the expenditure of funds'within two years of the grant award date. a. Identify projected starting and completion date' 7/1/84 - 6730/85 b. if not availablej please explain~ 7. Fundability This project will: (check one and provide requested inf6rmation) X Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special'considerations you have given to benefit the moderate income persons, the number of persons directly benefiting, and how they will benefit. The focus of this project component is only in the two neighborhoods which jointly meet the 51% low to moderate income requirement. Remove slums and blight or Describe the blight and. indicate whether the municipal government has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to do so. Not APplicable' Meet a Particular Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. Not Applicable Identify which element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project addresses: Citation: Neighborhood Revitali'zati'on Budget'. Using the following budget lines~ please list the amount budgeted for each component of the project. a. Acquisition of Real.Property b. Senior Centers c~. Parks and Playgrounds Development d. Street Improvements/Sidewalks e. Streets/Sidewalks Special Assessments f. Water and Sewer a.$ b.$ c. $ l~:onn d. $ e.$ f.$ Water/Sewer Special Assessments '. g. $ Clearance Activities h. $ Diseased Tree Removal i. $ Relocation Assistance J. $ Removal of Architectural Barriers k. $ Rehabilitation of Private Single Family Property 1. $ Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures m. $. Rehabilitation of Rental Property n. $ Planning o. $ Administration (general program overview) p. $ Public Service q. $ Contingency .. r. ~ Other - please explain s. $ TOTAL BUDGET $ 16,000 * The cost of administering a funded project is to be i~cluded within the proposed project budget and not on line "p". February 1984 PE]:~:ENT OF LO~ AHO MODERATE PERSONS BT DLOCK CROUP FOR H[NNEPIN COUk'"TT, MR LOW AND hOD INCOME LEVEL USED: FAMILY 19666 UNRELATED IHDIVIDUAL 6913 i ~D 140 141 140 140 143 CENSUS TRACT {26293 PZ62P4 ~263{1 126311 A264tI 927). ~277 {277 ~276~I ~27692 )276~Z ~276~Z ~ZT~Z ~Z15~Z ~21582 821593 8215~3 ~Z1594 8215~5 ~Z~5~5 ~15~5 PERCENTACE BLOCK OF PERSONS CROUP LOW-MOD I 16.~ 3 13.67 16.62 3 31 33.33 I' 4.57 912.38 17.17 3 8.55 4 Zl.?Z 24,73 3 I%53 9 7,95 1 18.84 Z 23.44 I ItLZ7 I 4I..4'9 Z 9 23.59 'q' - 33,15 I ZZ.58 Z 33.I5 ,3 46.49 4 4Z,71 I 18,41 · 2 3?.26 3 3Li~ 5 26.19 (:~ ' 5L25'" B 24,66 2 15.38 I 39.56 2 5(.43 I 32. ?8 2 19.~3 3 IB.ll I Z1.28 2 22..35 I 18.77 2 28.91 3 14.{~5 TOTAL LOW-MOD PERSONS 356 163 &31 Z5 27 144 97 178 32~ iB6 57 39 39Z H7 371 ~7 338 138 77 39~ 1249 27} '188 234 LOW-MOD UNRELATED PERSONS 18 Zl ZZ 27 147 25 5 38 .35 2.~ I3 77 5' .? J? 25 87 31 88 85 Z? JZ 5 55 5 ZI 63' 7 IBI 27 58 LOW-MOD PERSONS IN FAN 338' 321 Z6Z 141 633 i73 · 78 ?1 167 373 2.18 253 17I 443 375 1153 2.71 181 371 (27 ~OURCF_~ 178(~ CENSUS SUrI{~AR! TAPE 3, FOR STATE OF MINNESOTA TOTAL PERSONS 29?5 2593 75 591 1163 '629 1135 888 ?28 Z265 1391 2483 555 1%7 1172 8(1 13S8 861- 458 55? 1618 1735 1795 ~365 9B1 2923' 1875 I259 ZZI8 1955 1247 2(35 1~33 TOTAL UNREL PERSONS 81 B( 72. 88 38{ 31 14 191 9I 78 14 ~3 723 3I 7t &3 74 43 127 BI J18 457 75 254 32 '~AT. TOTAL LOW-MOD FAMILIES· FAMILIES 693 59~ 89 47Z 69 217 6~3 117 ~5 13 '! 1BI 7 2.67 51 156 ZZ 317 25 252 56 223 83 195 2{7 38 692. 52 '392 76 663 152 14 37 17 534 128 312 156 34 232 Z34 199 378 156 Z37 I81 IZ? 15~ 36 78 23 75 Z83 145 418 137 33~ 458 71 37Z 163 272 161 753 275 488 49 339 63 578 595 1]3 342 617 Z~Z 3BI 53 FA~{Ib 3,34 3.6! 3,79 3.6Z 3,78 3,Zl 346 3,53 3,3? 3.54 3.98 3,Zi 3,45 3,58 3,3{ 3,15 3,ZZ 3,lZ 2,83 3,72 3.81 3.18 2.58 3,Z8 3,63 3,4l 3.68 / 'C~- Z. 0 0 YEAR X (1984) URBAN H'ENNEPIN ~OUNI~ CDBG PROJECT PROPOSAL THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENtIEPIN COUNTY ER Status: / status Project'Number: / number Project Eligibility: ~itation Environmental Review Specialist ~Fi nanci al '" Ma'na get / 'PA representative date 'date date GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: 'MOUND " 2. Project Name: DOWNTOWN'IMPROVEMENT FINANC'ING 3. Contac~ Person: ~ON ELAM B. PROJECT DATA 1. Lo~ation: Census Tract/s '276.02 & 2y6.01 City Wide Street Address Central Business DJ'strict (Attach map, if applicable] Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities -Be as detailed as possible. '{Add sheet if necessary.') SEE ATTACHED SHEET . 3. Is this a multi-year project: X yes CDBG Year Started 1981 , Project )~umber no, if so please indicate Identif~ the. Com~aunity need that the project is intended ~o meet and explain how the project will make substantial improvements. - Economic Renewal of the Downtown ~rea. The'project will allow.the Cityto facilitate and create an. economi'~.development framework or foundation by undertaking'a number of basic studies, i,e. soil · analysis, marketing reports,'etc., but with only ~35,000 earmarked fo~, thi's program activity, the economic reneWal.of]downtown could not be achieved.' 5. State the accomplishments the project is meant to achieve in a quantifiable manner. (For examplej the rehabilitation of 10 houses for low and moderate income families) · A. Continue the Store Front Assistance Pr~ram - Ass[st 4-5 bu~i'nesses. B. Facilitate the implementation of these large economi'c development acti, vi, t).es; 1. Town Square - Tlr' Project 2. Yonka Plant ReLUse' Kraus-And~rson.HOusing Development. Implementation Schedule. Note: The Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement requires the expenditure of funds' within two years of the grant award date. a. Identify.projected starting and c0mpletioh date.· 7/1~84 - ~/30786 b. If not available~ please explain~ Fundabil ity ~. ' a.. This proje,ct will: {check one and provide requested infbrmation) Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special 'considerations you have given to benefit the moderate income persons, the n6mber of persons directly benefiting, and how they will benefit. Not Applicable Remove slums and blight or Describe the blight and. indicate whether the municipal 9overnment has officially designated the area fs blighted or when i% plans So' do so. The Mound Cis¥.Councll has designated She area of this Project as a redevelopment area~, ® Meet a Particular Urgent Need Descr'ibe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. With the closing, of the Tonka Toys ~lan.t in 1983, 504 people'losS their jobs. To re,use their plant and continue the efforts to bui. ld a strong economic base i's particularly' urgent. Identify which element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project addresses: Citation:. Housin~ (new construction), economic development. Budget' " ' Using the following budget linesj please list the amount budgeted for each component of the project. · a. Acquisition oF ReallProperty b. Senior Centers C. Parks and Playgrounds Development d. Street Improvements/Sidewalks e. Streets/Sidewalks Special Assessments f.. Water and Sewer Water/Sewer Special Assessments Clearance Activities Diseased Tree Removal Relocation Assistance F~emoval of. Architectural Barriers Rehabilitation of' Private Single Family Property Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures Rehabilitation of Rental Property P1 anning Administration {general program overview) Public Service Contingency '" Other - please explain Economic Development al $ ' b.$ C. $' e, $ f. $ g. $ h.$ i.$ j.$ k.$ 1. $ n. $ o. $ p. $ q. $ r. S- s. $ 35,000 $ 35, OO0 TOTAL BUDGET The cost of administering a funded project is to be i~cluded within the proposed project budget and not on line "p". February 1984 B. PROJECT DATA 2. Description In 1981, the City of Mound appointed a Downtown Improvement Committee which has started a slow but steady effort of downtown renewal,' which promises in Program Year X to .pick up additional momentum. Initially, the focus was just limited to store front upgrading and some basic improvements. Although this component envisions a continuation of these on a small basis, the primary focus for Year X will be on several more major'proposed development projects. These include: Ae The proposed re-use, by Balboa Construction. Co. of Los'Angeles, California, of the412,000 square"foot former Tonka Toys Plant. The proposed Town Square, Tax Increment Project, which is proposing to redevelop a major area of the Central Business District and build a 44,000 square foot shopping center which could include a new medical clinic, bank, drug store and a variety of retail sh6ps. The proposed 100~120 unit high rise housing complex by Kraus-Anderson on a former city dump site.near downtown. This project will not only use a site which is a major community eyesore, but by developing the many housing units close to downtown, can mean a major shot in the arm for the existing downtown retail area. Proposed uses o.f CDBG funds to.encourage these projects for development · may include: - soil surveys, - land appraisals, - marketing reports, - land use and traffic studies - economic and retail development consulting reports and training By using the CDBG funds to. cover front-end costs, it is clear a'major leverage of these funds will occur to the level of at least 20:1 if not more. Successful economic development occurs as a solid foundation of information is formed and organized. This component envisions that this will Occur, while, at the same time continuing the City small Store Front Programs. EXisting & Newly PrOposed CommerCial-' and Ret'ail.' ~ L ..BUsinesses: .Tile. 'MOund :CitY.'Council ' ' Wants to repeat .its announcement of the IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY of SeVer'al City Business Loan and Grant Programs to Assist local businesses to remodel' or upgrade their .storeS.'These include:':" ' · CommerCial Design Assistance Grants for 50% or up to s750 for new Storefront'design; · An Interest Subs. idY program to reduce borrowing costs for storefront 'i~np'r~vements Up to s20,000; · Commercial. Fix-Up/Paint-Up Program ,. grants bp to s500 or 25% of Fix-Up/,Pain.t-Up costs up to ~2,000 are avaiiable' '- cA 2% Interest Mortgage Assistance Program for; up to 50% of a loan with at°pvalueof ~ ' ~50,000 for terms not to exceed 20 years. These programs are available to both owners & tenants and are available after determining eligibility on a first- come, first-served basis until all fu'nds are .depleted. 'If you have any questions or would like further information, call The City Manager at the City of Mound' 472.1155 CITY OF HOUND ANNOUNCES NEW PAINT AND FIX-UP PROGRAM WILL PAY UP TO $500.OO TO BEAUTIFY YOUR BUILDING EXTERIOR The Mound City Council annouces a new program to encourage storefront and streetscape improvements within the commercial areas of the City of Mound. The funds will be used to encourage (and pay) all eligible Mound retial enterprises (owners and tenants) to paint and fix-up their building exterior. The City will use these funds to reimburse up to.25% of the improvement costs to $2,000. An initial allocation of $6,200.00 will enable the City to make a minimum of 12 grants for facade and streetscape improvements. To apply: - Determine the amount of exterior work you would like to do. - Obtain estimates for all the work. - Complete and return the Paint and Fix-Up Program Application on the reverse side. Qualified applications will be accepted and approved in the order they are received until all $6,200.00 has been exhausted. Applicants will be notified of their 'approval or denial within one week of the receipt of the application. Work does not have to be under way in order to submit your application. If you have lpreviously received a Grant from the City for storefront assistance, you will not be eligible for this program. contact: For additional information or assistance in completing your application form, Jon Elam City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN. .55364 Phone: 472-1155 ELIGIBLE WORK - Paint Your Building - Sandblasting - New Doors, Windows or Siding - New Awning - Exterior Signage - Tuck-Pointing - Street Furniture - New Shrubbery - Blacktop - New C~ment Walks or Stairs Solid lines are eligible areas. FIRM NAME CITY OF MOUND PAINT AND FIX-UP PROGRAM APPLICATION FORM PHONE ADDRE$~ ZIP ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE IMPROVED (One application per property) NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (If different than applicant, owner must sign this form to indicate approval.) NUMBER OF YEARS AT THIS LOCATION (Established concerns receive preference points over newer firms.) PRESENT ZONING STATUS OF PROPERTY TO BE IMPROVED (Property must be clearly in conformance with Zoning Codes & Ordinances.) (If you are unsure of the zoning status, check with City Planning: 472-1155.) DESCRIPTION OF PR.OPOSED IMPROVEMENT(S) (Improvement(s) must be designed to be compatible with surrounding properties. Applications for work flagrantly inconsistent w~th their area will be denied. If the improvement(s) are required by the City or Courts, you must indicate that your work will be in excess of requirements. Attach a picture of building.) NUMBER OF STREET FRONTAGE FEET TO BE AFFECTED BY IMPROVEMENT(S) ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENT(S) $ (Attach a copy of the estimate. Personal labor cannot be in inciuded.) WHAT PERCENT OF THE LABOR WILL YOU B'E DOING YOURSELF? (Personal labor or 'sweat equity' received preference points.) DATE WORK WOULD BEG IN COMPLETION DATE APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE RECEIVED DATE APPROVED (DENIED) Complete and return to: City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364 The City of Mound is an equal opportunity/affirmative action organization. April 5, 1~83 MOUND DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL BUILDING REHAB. LOAN PROGRAM: DRAFT #5 · The purpose of this program is to provide financing at attractive interest rates to stimulate the rehabilitation of commercial buildings in Downtown Mound in response to the new improvement plan. During Year VIII of the Mound Community Development Block Grant (began J~ly 1, 1982). the City budgeted $40,000 for interest subsidies on rehab loan for commercial buildings. ~This procedure is viewed as one of the most effective ways of both 'leveraging the available funds, and making the largest amount of money available as quickly as possible. An additignal sum of $5,000.is available during Year VIII of the Block Grant program to help'underwrite design costs'incurred during the development of plans for rehabi- litation work. Finally, some administrative funds will. be made available to assist in the preparation, reglew and administration of loans and loan applications. · Design Services· Grants The City will make available $5,'000 in Community Development Block Grant monies to · provide design assistance to those planning improvements' to a downtown commercial building. Interested persons should apply to the City for the money, and must meet all the following requirements, before receiving funding: 1. The appli.'cant must match the grant on a dollar per dollar basis with private funds for the design work. 2. Grants are limited to $750 per applicant. 3. The grant monies may only be used for"~'design consultation" or "deSign sketches" services. These services· may range from rough concept sketches, to architectural schematic and design·development drawings that show materials, finishes and colors for a'project. 4. All des'ign work must be·consistent with the provision set forth in "The Design · . Guide for Downtown Mound". 5. The structure must be located in the downtown strategy area. 6. The structure must be a building in commercial or service use. A Commercial Rehab Loan Program The $40,000 in Block Grant funds will be used to pay a portion of the interest charged by banks on $100,O00 in loan monies. These funds wil.1 be loaned by the State Bank of Mound or any other financial institution following their standard loan procedures and requirements; however, the loan applicants will first be required to submit a separate preliminary'loan application to a special Downtown Loan Qualification Committee. Committee is made up of the Downtown Advisory Committee Chair, the Planning Commission Chair and the City Manager. This Committee will examine the applications received to determine if the proposed activities are consistent with the objectives of the downtown revialization plan, In summary, the loans will be judged both on their financial merits and on the extent to which they are consistent with the objectives and guidelines of the downtown revitalization plan. Terms of the Loan D~scussions wlth the State Bank of Mound indicate the standard rehabilitation loan for a commerical structure has a five (5) year term, and is available at a fixed interest rate near the current prime lending rate. The State Bank of Mound has agreed to set. up an initial loan pool of $1OO,O00 to initiate the program. However, other financial institutions may be approached b~ applicants to participate in the program. Applicants should ask their bank to contact the City of Mound for details. The Block Grant funds would Potentially be used to reduce the interest rate, to an effective interest rate of about '8-9 percent on the loan. Example of Loan Subsidy in Operation * A standard loan of $10,OO0 - 5'years @ 17% ~ Monthly Payment - $248.53 Total Interest Paid = $4,91].80 * Special loan of $10,OO0 - 5 years ~ 9% - Monthly Payment - $207.59 ' Total Interest Paid. = $2,455.40 Community Development Block Grant Interest Subsidy to loan = $2,456.40 Another issue concerns the'maximum of individual loans~ Although'this will be determined through the loan applicants ability to secure and repay the loan, a ceiling is established to insure several large borrowers do not monopolize the funding. The maximum amount of loan funds permitted for each applicant'will be $20,O00. Interest ' subsidy amounts cannot exceed 25% of the loan amount, i.e. Loan of $10,OOO - Interest' subsidy = $2,500. Invitation for App]icatlons and Eligibility Requirements.. The Downtown Loan Qualifi'cation Committee will make a public announcement to all downtown.store owners and occupants that appliQations for assisted loans will be accepted. The loans will be considered on a first come, first serve basis. As the Committee receives applications, it will review them in the order of their submission. Each application will be examined to determine it meets the basic terms set for the loans regarding size and matching funds, and that the loan meets the following basic eligibility requirements. -2- Basic Eligibility Requirements for Participation in the Mound Downtown Commercial Rehab Loan Pro~ram A. General - a rehabilitation loan may be made only with respect to commercial or mixed residential-commercial use properties located w.ithin'the Mound Downtown Strategy Area. Commercial property shall mean property which is engaged in the sale of goods or services to the general public'and is an income producing investment. Mixed-use~propert~ shall refer to property for which the ground level will be used, after rehabilitation, for commercia.1 purposes, and no more than 50% of the building will be used for residential and common'space purposes. The applicant is responsible for securi.ng all necessary appr.ovals-for the l°an from conventional sources. B. Applicant. Eligibility - the loan applicant must: 1. Own the property.under consideration or be the :purchaser occupant of the Property under a land sales co~tract or any similar agreement for the purchase of real property. OR 2. In order for a commercial lessee to be considered for a loan, the lessee must first provide written permission from the owner of the structure. C. Property Eligibili'ty - the property must: 1. Be located within the Mound Downtown Strategy Area. 2.- All present property taxes and municipal charges paid in full, and be in conformance'~ith zoning and all other applicable city codes. D. Scooe of Eligible Project Activities and Costs 1. General - a rehabilitation loan may be made only with respect to property in need of improvement in accordance with the activities outlined under Allowable Costs. 2. Allowable Costs - a rehabilitation loan may be made to underwrite the following costs: a. Improvements to t.he buildings exterior.surfaces, including, front, side posterior oLrtside walls, that will lead to the improvement in appearance of the down~own and esthetic enhancement consistent with adopted downtown plans and themes. b. Modifications and replacement of exterior signage consistent with adopted design quidelines for .the downtown. c. Corrective measures and modifications to roofs, windows, doorways and other exterior building components necessary to successfully conclude rehabilitation of the building facade. d.' Building permits, architectural fees and related costs as included in the project description. Upon determination that the applicant meets all requirements, the Loan Qualification -3- Committee will certify the application as acceptable, and recommend the applicant to. submit a loan application to the State Ban~ of Mound or'any other financial nstitutlon willing to participate in the program. -4- YEAR X (1984} URBAN H'ENNEPIN ~OUNI~ CDBG PROJECT PROPOSAL THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENtiEPIN COUNTY ER Status: / status Environmental Review Specialist Project Number: / numSer 'Financi il Mahager Project Eligibility: / ~i tati on PA representative date date da~ GENERAL INFORMATION '1. Community: · 2. Project Name: 3.. Contac:.~erson: m ' MOll~n " SPECIAL ASSESSMENT GRANTS' B. PROJECT DATA JON ELAM 1'. toEation: Census Tract/s Street Address " (Attach map, if applicable) City Wide X Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities. Be as detailed as possible.. {Add sheet if necessary.) To provide assistance to. any eli"gi'bie per~on who has~ 6een )~mpa~ted 6y~ City sponsored public faci)Ft¥5 improvements.' This: may. include water, sewer, street, and drainage projects, Is this a multi-year project: yes CDBG Year Started , Project Number no, if so please indicate ~dentif~ the,Co.unity need that the project is intended ~o meet and explain how the proje.c.t will make substantial improvements. To assist and, minimize the impact of communi..ty improvements on low income residents. State the accomplishments the project is meant to achieve in a quantifiable manner. (For example~ the rehabilitation of 10 houses for low and moderate income families) · . Help 1-2 families.~· Impl ementatl on Schedule. Note: The Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement requires the expenditure of funds'within two years of the grant award date. 'a. Identify projected starting and c6mpletion date~ 7/1/84 - 6/3~/86 b. If not available~ please explain. Fundabil fry ~..' a. This proje, ct will: (check one and provide requested information) X Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special 'considerations you have given to benefit the moderate income persons, the number of persons directly benefiting, and how they will benefit. Only Iow and moderate income persons are el igi61e. Remove slums and blight or Describe the blight and-indicate whether the municipal government' has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to' do so. NOT APPLICABLE'~ . Meet a Particular Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. NOT APPLICABLE'- Identify which element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project addresses: CitatiOn: Pub.lic faci'li{~'es..&'~mprovements m. n. o. * p. q- $. Budget'.. Using the following budget lines; please list the amount budgeted for each component of the project. ~ a. Acquisition o~ Real .Property Senior Centers Parks and Playgrounds Development Street Improvements/Sidewal ks e. Streets/Sidewalks Special AsseSsments f.- )Rater and Sewer g. Water/Sewer Special Assessments '.. h. Clearance Activities i. Diseased Tree Removal j. Relocation Assistance R6moval of. Architectural Barriers Rehabilitation of Private Single Family Property Rehabilitat.ion of Public Residential Structures Rehabilitation of Rental Property P1 anning Administration (general program overview) Public Service Contingency v Other - please explain b.$ c. e. $ f.$ g.$ h.$ i.$ k.$ 1.$ o. $ p. $ q. $ s. $ 3,656. TOTAL BUDGET $ 3,656 * The cost of administering a funded project is to be i~cluded within the proposed project budget and not on line "p". February 1984 YEAR X (1984) URBAN HENNEPIN ~OUNI~ CDBG PROJECT PROPOSAL THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HEN~IEPIN COUN~ ER Status: '. / status Environmental Review Specialist Project' Number: / n'umbe r 'Fi nanci'~l - Manager · Project Eligibility: / . 'citation "PA represen=ative date aate 'date GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: 2. Project Name: SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING ASSI'STANCE 3. Contact Person: iON ELAM PREX]ECT DATA 1'. Lo~ation: Census Tract/s 276.01.~ 276.02 Street Address (Attach map, if applicable) City Wide Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities.-Be as detailed as possible. {Add sheet if necessary.') (SEE ATTACHED PROGRAM QESC~IPTION AND GUIDELINES) - Is this a multi-year project: X yes CDBG Year Started 1983 .., Project Number no, if so please indicate (Jobs Bill Project) Identif~ the. Con~unity need that the project is intended ~ meet and explain how the project will make.substantial improvements. - Shgrtage of small business financiml assistance. - Generate new businesses and.jobs. · · - Creation' of 6-8 new jobs. State the accomplishments the project is meant to achieve in a quantifiable manner. (For example~ the rehabilitation of 10 houses for low and moderate income families) ' - The committment of 1-2 new commerc['al loan~ between danuat¥. ~, 1985 and December 31,.1985' - Leverage.ratio of-4 private dollars'for, every CDBG dollar. Implementation Schedul e~ Note: The Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement r~quires the expenditure of funds'within two years of the grant award date. a. Identify ~ro~ected starting and c0mpletioh date~' 7/36/84 -'12/31/85~ b. If not available~ please explain~ Fundabi 1 i ty ~. a. 'This proje.ct will: (chec'k one and provide requested inf6rmation) Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special 'considerations you have given to benefit the moderate income persons, the number of persons directly benefiting, and how they will benefit. Remove slums and blight or Describe the blight and-indicate whether the municipal government has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to, do so. Meet a Particular Urgent Need Descr'ibe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. Identify which element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project addresses: Ci tati o'n: . Economi c Deve l'opmen ~ Budget' '. . Using the following budget lines; please list the amount budgeted for each component of the project. , a. Acquisition o~ Real.Property b. Senior Centers Parks and Playgrounds Development d. Street )mprovements/Sidewalks e. Streets/Sidewalks Special Asse§sments f.-Water and'Sewer g. h. i. j. Water/Sewer Special Assessments Clearance Activities Diseased Tree Removal Rel ocati on Assi stance ~emoval of. Architectural Barriers Rehabilitation of.'Private Single Family Property Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures Rehabilitation of Rental Property P1 anni ng Administration (general program overview) Public Service Contingency · .' Other - please explain Economi~c Development b.S ¢o $ e. f.$ g. $ h.$ 1.$ j.~ k.$ 1.$ mo 5.. o. $ p.$ q. $ r. s. $ 22.21b TOTAL BUDGET $ 22,214 )* The cost of administering a funded project is to be i~cluded within the proposed project budget and not on line "p". February 1984 CITY OF MOUND SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE LOAN PROGRAM SEPTEMBER, 1983 BACKGROUND In the Spring of 1981, the Mound City Council appointed a Downtown Advisory Committee to begin the process of Studying the revitalization of the downtown commercial areas of the City. Initially this started with a study of shopping habits and an inventory of the existing commercial services. The second step included a detailed design guide for Downtown. The City Council adopted this plan in early 1982, although final funding and implementation has yet to be decided. An additional focus that came from the two efforts was the need to develop some creative financing to encourage existing businesses to begin the process of reinvesting in their commercial properties. Using Housing and Community Development Funds (HUD), two separate programs were initiated. The first was a Design Grant Program, whose purpose was to take the Downtown Design Study to its next step and apply it to specific buildings. By using a 50% Grant up to a maximum of $750.00, the Committee felt that people would work with professional designers, where they otherwise might not, thus giving MOund a more professional coordinated appearance. The second program was an Interest Assistance Program for the store front rehabilitation efforts. This focuses on reducing the interest rate charged by local banks from the going rate (14 -16%) to a more manageable level of 8 - 9 %. As of May 1, 1983, these two efforts have achieved some success. Four businesses have participated in the Design Grant Program and two have received Store Front Rehabilitation Grants. Public costs for these efforts have amounted to approximately $13,000 and private investment has exceeded' $180,000, a leverage ratio of better than 15:1. Although these efforts are up and operating, gaps still- remain in the effort of the City to develop a comprehensive plan of capital financing assistance in commercial areas. To further add to the available resources the following Small Business Loan Program is offered. CONCEPTS As a second phase of our Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation efforts, the City is creating a revo-lving loan fund from which high risk, front-end financing and technical assistance could be available. The goal of the program would be the improvement of the commercial areas of Mound, improved job opportunities for city residents and leverage of private investment tha.t otherwise~ would not occur. This will address the lack of small, lower interest, longer term loans available t.o the small business owner (particuarly the tenant business or Contract for Deed purchaser) for real e'state related improvements. Reductions in the availability of public funds ~for these purposes (SBA, etc.) are likely to widen the gaps in the future. Extension of the public/private partnership created in the City in early 1982 in its downtown interest reduction program, will offer the opportunity to continue and improve the capability to meet such needs. This new concept suggest~s a partnership be established by the City of Mound to fund a $44,428 Small Loan Progrm to assist downtown business so they can improve their markets and service and retain or expand job opportunities. The Program will provide $22,214 from City CDBG Funds and at least $22,214 from area financial institutions. The City's fund will be the source of longer term loans of up to $22,214 for a term up to 20 years at 2% interest. This will be matched by equal loan amounts from area financial institutions at going interest rates to provide a total loan up to $44,428 at a melded interest rate of about 8 - 9%, currently. This pilot program is projected to operated for a two year period. The program Objectives will include the following: 1. Be limited to or give high priority to the provision of loans and technical assistance to small business for real'estate purposes. 2. Be responsive to identified small business needs. 3. Be targeted to the central business district as deter- mined by the Downtown Advisory Committee. 4. Service existing small retail, service or commercial businesses, or start up businesses that would use undeveloped land and vacant or underutilized buildings and retain or create new job opportunities. 5. Be coordinated with existing and proposed small bus- iness assistance programs available. 6. Serve as a catalyst to leverage additional public and private resources and actions. 7. Be operated on a revolving fund concept. 8. Be established on a two year program basis. These objectives will address a number of gaps in service to the smaller retailer and services businesses, These include: - Current financial assistance tends to favor the larger business with a good track record and the new businesses that have high potential for growth and job creation. - Shortage of revenue bond financing which is too costly for the small business that requires under $50,000. - Contract for Deed and tenant businesses are often unable to finance improvements. - A smail flexible longer and lower cost loan is needed to compliment the present City Commercial Storefront Reha- bilitation Loan Progrm. .~ - The smaller retailer does not have time to devote to planning physical improvements for his place of business ... or joint efforts with others. - Technical assistance in management and marketing is often needed but operator is not aware of the need, the resources available or the poten.tial benefits. Eligible improvements may include, facade or other exterior improvements including parking, and interior improvements that result in new business or new jobs. ~ Administration of the Program will be conducted by the City of Mound under the guidance of policies set by the Downtown Advisory Committee and the City Council. The City of Mound will responsible for: - Identifying the area to be served. - Improvements to be f~nded. - City requirements and ordinances requiring com- pliance. - Determining individual applications eligibility based on above factors. The City of Mound will be responsible for information and advice as to: - Any special design criteria established by the Downtown Advisory Committee. - Proposed public improvements to be made by the City (street paving, parking, lighting, street furniture, etc. - Distribution of Program information to area businesses. - Referral of applicants to local banks. - Participation Agreements with local banks. Financial institutions will be responsible for: - Receipt.and processing of applications. - Provision of matching loan funds at least equal to funds to be provided from the City's Revolving Loan Fund. - Determiningapplicants credit risk and required colla- teral. - Determining loan amortization period. - Approval or disapproval of loan, subject to City Certi- fication as' to Program eligibility. - Collection of lien waivers, and other documents deemed necessary for loan disbursements. - Distribution of loan funds subject to final approval of the City of Mound. - Distribution of principal and interest payments to the City o£'Mound Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. On default, the claims of the City of Mound are subordinate to .the bank's. ADMINISTRATION FEES A processing fee of $250.00 will be charged each loan applicant. This fee will cover the time of City Employeesin reviewing and determining the eligibility of the application to be in conformance with Program and City rules and regulations. March 19, 1984 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a copy of the letter I sent last year to Judy Brekke of the Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center. As you might remember, she requested $4,800 of CDBG funds to provide for a sliding fee child care subsidy. She has again requested assistance. I have not integrated her activities into the budget because: 1. Our CDBG Budget was cutback from $110,OOO in 1983 to $76,OOO this year. 2. We could find ourselves in a tight fiscal situation with these funds if any or all the economic development projects get going. 3. I worry about funding social services from a year to year Federal Grant, i.e. How do you cut them off, etc? 4. Monitoring programs of subgrantees opens up another administrative problem at a time when we are having a hard time keeping on top of what we already are doing. . If you want to undertake this activity, that would be fine, but I will need to cut back in one of the proposals I've included in the 1984 proposal. JE:fc .. CITY of MOUND April 12, 1983 53~1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MIN'NESOTA 55364 (612) 47~'-1155 Ms. Judy Brekke Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center, Inc. 3745 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN. 55391 Dear Ms. Brek'ke: The Mound City Council considered your request for a $4800 grant at its April 5, 1'983 Meeting. After consideration it was felt that since 1983's funds.had already been submitted that this item could be reconsidered in February-March 1984 for 1984 funding. Thank you for submitting the materials. hearing from you for the 1984 funding. Sincerely, City Manager We wi 11 look forward .to JE:fc Early Childh o o d Developrn en t Center c. Shoreline Early Childhood Development Center, Inc. is. a non-profit' tax exempt corporation dedicated to providing a safe and secure environment for community children while enabling them to meet the demands of a complex world. Shoreline Early Chiidhood Development Center, Inc. includes: 1. Childcar~ . · 2.. Pre-School 3. .Early Intervention (a D'evelopmental'Achi~vement Center) 4. Bridge. program (a Developmental Pre~scho01) -~'-- Our proposal focuses on two of these programs.' ' CHILDCARE The'Childcare program, in Light of our current economy, i's "' e~sential to provide families of two and/or single parents the opportunity to".work and/or seek work. Shoreline has for the past 11 years served your community by providing a quality, safe 'and secure.program. Shoreline Childcare in January, 1983 received designation as a Special Needs D~ycare program by . .. Hennepin COunty. Special Needs 'children now. have the opport'unit~i" to be' pla.ced in. a social and learning situation with~ age-mates--~ to' furthe, r enhance their development in various delayed areas . (i,e. speech, motor, etc.). Unfortunately, not all our families can afford to finance their Childcare needs fully and thus are,-- not. able to obtain t~elr full potential in the workforCe. · ~:. Cost of care-for the childcare program which operates 12 hours per ~ay,5 days per week, on a year round basis, 'is as follows:- * Full Day {5.days a week,, more than 6 hours).', .... $2 .00 per month *'Full Day {4 days or less; more than 6 ~ours.), .... ..12,00 .per day lf'Day ( 5 to 6 haurs) · 9 25 per d y * Ha ........ ..... ................. a H ly (up 4% ) ' * our Fee- to ho~rs ...... · .................... :-"2.15 per hour LOCA"I'ED IN GOOD SHEPHERD CHURCH, 3~45 SHORELINE DRIVE, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391. 471-8433 ~,.~-~" P. age 2 Included in the fees are'meals· and snacks..On a twelve hour da~ this would includ~ breakfast, a hot lunch, and two upp- lemental'"snacks..'" EARLY iNTEaVENTION The Shoreline Early Intervention Program is an individualized program designed.for developmentally delayed, neurologically impaired; mentally retarded or physically~handicapped infants from birth to four years of age, and their parents or guardians.. Using the normal, sequence of development, this program is adapt- ed to the child and his environment; realizing, although he may have ~pecial°needs, he is also a part of a'family unit. · Suggested programs and~ activities are written with the concern that they enhance the parents~ interaction With the child, not impose an additional burden to the family. 'The' Philosophy of this program is Ghat the 'parents and .guardians' are the prime educators. With instr'ucti6n~ assist.ance and re- · ~assurance, a parent-or'guardian can p~ogide an effective home .program.for their child. ... Service is.pr0vided on an In-center as ~well'as'Homebound basis- either.individually, or.'if appropriate~ wi~ a group. ~unding for this ,,program' is provided through Title XX monie§ -and parent fees determined' by a Hennepin County instituted sliding fee scale. Charge for l½ - 2 hour Visit is $70.85. 'Parents' ~ees .range from $9.00 - $93.00 monthly.· Although the parents: portion of these fees sometimes may be covered by insurance, .there are' circumstances when insurance c, overage is not available. For moderate and low incbme families.,' already burdened with the unexp.ected costs of a special needs child, these additional costs can be a determining factor in cont- inuation of the program. ~ Co.unity funding could be used to .cover DAC par,ent fees and/or additional, phMsician ordered, ther- apy In cases where .insurance does .not cover the cost for-low or moderate income families tha~ are in financial crisis. 48% of the families using these programs, are' drawn fr6m kommuni{y. It is,Shoreline Early .Chil~e_ve!opment Center's 'proposal' that funds 'in the amount of ~~ appropriated from Mouf Hennepin County community deve o-f~-~pment block grant program allocation to assist more parents of lower and moderate _,~.~ incomes in Mound and afford them the opportunity to' use our services. ShoceHne Early Childhood De~looment ~entec SUBURB COALITION,VOiCE An Afflflafe of Greafer Minneapolls Day Care Assoclat$on Serving the Suburban Communities of Hennepin County * volume 2 issue I March 1982 Child' Care Sliding Fee: Members of the Suburban Child Care Co- alition, and other residents of suburban Hennepin County actively concerned about the high cost of qua.lity child care, and- the plight of working parents who cannot meet that cost, have been busy during the last two months carrying on convers- ations with city council members in a. variety of municipalities. Following up on information received from the Hehn- epin County Office of Planning and Devel- opment that cities may spend up to 10% 6f their Community Development Block Grant Funds on public services, and that ld care' sliding fee program for low- derate income families is both an eligible and a fundable project, a-lnumber of communities have begun to look-into the lodal need for this 'kind. of service. In the process we have uncovered some interesting statistics. -, The suburbs are the home of 65% of the County's children aged 0-9, and 47% of .the female-headed families. In some cities the number of female-headed fam- .ilies in 1980 had increased as much as 557% in l0 years. 64% of female heads of household have at least one child under the age'of..6. 60% of all Minnesota single parent mothers with pre-school-age chi'ldren, and 78% with school-age child, ten are in the labor force. In 1976 the median income for a female-headed family in Minnesota was $8,050. Nationally, for female-headed families with children, if at least one of the children is under 6 years of age, the percentage in poverty m~8% o In Hennepin County, costs of child care for 2 children, if one ~is an infant and the other a pre-school er,. can easily run to as much .as $530 per month. If one is a pre-schooler, and the other is in schoo A Community Development Issue? full-time and under the age of 9 o~0, good child care may cost $375 per month or more. The advantage of a sliding' fee child care program is that it allows a working parent to remain on the job, without worry- ing that a slight raise in salary may make her ineligible for federally or state-fund- ed subsidies for low-income families, and' thus force her out of the job market and back on welfare. As a parent's income in-" creases, the fee she pays for child care increases proportionately, until she reaches the top level of the Section VIII CDBG in- come limits, at which point she is presum- ably able. tlo pay the full cost of care. A sliding fee child care subsidy is NOT n income maint, ena_nc.e or well, are program. t i-~-~n fact just the opposite in the way that it operates, providing-support for parents to maintain employment without penalizing them for upward economic mobil- ity. There is an impressive body of data available to prove that the tax payments of parents participating' in a ~lidtng fee pro- gram significantly exceed the amount of subsidy, ..-Thus the child care sliding fee concept 'is a positive support to the econ-  omic development of both the recipient par- ' ent and ~he co..mm, unity in which she resides. 'Helen WatL~ns, staff Subu~bdn ,Hennepi. n Obil d Care Coal ition Cost Effectiveness of Quality Programs The Subur. ban Hennepin Child Care Coalit- ion has purchased the High/Scope slide and cassette presentation on the long term '~ soc.ial and economic effects of high quality e.arly childhood education, The production dramatizes the results of a study performed in Ypsilanti, Michigan, by the Center for the Study of Public Policies for Young Chi}dren, Evidence of the benefits, as reported to the 1982 Southern Governors' Conference in South Carolina, in a paper t.ttled The Cost-Effectiveness of Nigh Quality' EarlS Chil'dhood Programs, led to the conclusion that '.Ibudget-minded policy makers: looking for hard evidence that-.a program works ,. wil 1. certa inly understand the implications for policymaking which this, research supports." As noted in the Minneapolis Tribune, May ll, 1978: .. "Children who attend nursery school be- 'fore they begin elementary school have a better chance of getting into college, will make more money in their lifetimes and probably, will not end up-on welfare, a 17-year study shows. '~We' believe the findings a~e astounding and have great social and political im- plications,' said David Weikart, a psych- ologist who conducted the study among dis- advantaged youths, The study, which divided 123... econom- ically and educatio, nally disadvantaged i Ypsilantt students, into two groups, showed . the group of children who .received two years of preschool education outperformed the group of students who entered school at kindergarte, n. ' Eigh~y-~hr~e percen~ o~ t~e ~re~ch~ol group performed on at least average levels during early grade school years, compared with 62 percent of the other group. Teachers perceived the preschool stu- .dents as better behaved, more disciplined and more motivated t.han the other stu- dents, Several of the preschool students are now in college. None of the other group are. None of the preschool students are on welfare, .compar:d with lO percent of' the other group. Weikart said., the preschool Paid fo~'"'-'.- self because th~ children required fewer special programs in later school years. He also said the study indicated the pre- school children had prospects Df higher life- time earnings." (Thanks to Gay Touhey for this information.) The Suburban Coalition believes that the same benefits result from high quality care of any kind, whether .in small.groups within a home setting, with a trained family day care pro.vider,.or in.larger schools-and centers. Anyone may become a co-owner .of the slide/ tape-presentation by sending a check for $2.00 (made oul~ to the Suburban Hennepin Child Care Coalition) c/o Helen Watkins, GM_DCA, 1006 West Lake St., Minneapolis 55408. A co-owner' may reserve the slides and tape for a maximum of 3 days, at a minimum of one week's advance registration. They are espec- ially appro)'~riate for viewing by parent groups, school district administrators,, councils, and anyone, interested i5 corrc ,r- ating the long term value.of investing in early childhood services. S"pecial Needs Training Thursday, April 7, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m: "WORKING TOGETHEI~" This workshop will deal with the effective development of a team approach to working in the classroom. Instructor: Barbara Iq-auk,. Early/Special Educatio'n Teacher; Roseville Public School s. Place: St. Louis Park Preschool, ~' 6715 West Minnetonka Boulevard Monday, April 18, 1:00 -. 3:00 p.m. ".MOVEMENT IS VALUABLE" This workshop emphasizes Physical devel6pment as part of the total developm6nt of the child Instructor: Wisti Rorabacher, Early/Special Education Teacher, Minneamolis Public Schools. Place: Community Child Care, 60th & Nicollet Avenue South, Richfield Reservations: call Nancy at 823-7243 ;.ommunity Recognition or Quality Child Care uburban Directors'' Group has been look- ~g variet-y of models for a quality-con- · oiled'professional accreditation program, 'eferably using a peer-evalQation team app- )ach. Among those studied is ~Up.qrading Pre- :hool Programs in Phoenix, Arizona. Since 369, UPP has given recognition and endorse- · _nt to programs for young children that have ~intained.a standard of excellence. UPP's Landards-a~low' for a'wide range of teaching ~d.learning philosophies. The .format for :creditation provides for self-assessment as ell ~s outside observation and evaluation. )nsultation services are maintained by vol- nteer teams of parents and professionals. riteria of quality relate to staff attitudes ~wards children, staff/child ratios, program oals', creative environments for varied act- vities and self-educa.tion, health and nutri- ion standards, and a positive social and motional climate. UPP's list of approved rograms is used by many families when e.l~cting,child care appropriate to their eeds. rmation provided ~(ith the help of ;ay Touhey, Director, St. Mary's of .the Lake Iursery School, and Kathy Dayton, Director, :hildren~ Learning Center, Plymouth.) ~ Some of the questions being raised, by. the ;uburban Directors Group are: Ihat might broad-based community recognition ~f high quality in programs - family and lroup family day care, nursery schools, ;dhool-age programs, a'nd day care centers - Io for the whole child care system in our Lrea? How might this kind of education of )otential consumers impact on the reputation Df child care in general, as a profession, ~nd as a service ~orthy of public support? In addition, the Suburban Directors Group ~as been gathering and collating data on fee ;cales, staff salaries and benefits, adminis- trative costs, parent and staff policies, and )ther budgetary concerns. As a group, these ~irectors have developed a highly effective 'k for sharing inf6'rmation of profess- benefit to all. Future meetings will %. ~-stigate further the economics of child care, and will present an opportunity to dialogue with the new CountY Community Health Day Care Consultant concerning the needs of child care p~ograms.-- The next officially scheduled meeti.ngs of the Suburban Directors Group are: Thursday, March 24, at the Children's Learning Center, Harley Hopkins Elementary School, 125 Monroe Avenue S., Hopkins, and Tuesday, April lg, at Lenox Community Center 6715 Minnetonka Blvd. (betw. ~eorgia & Hampshire All meetings begin ~ith a bag lunch at 12:30, and proceed with the official agenda from 1:00 to 2:30 'p.m. To get on the mailing list, or to find out how you can start a similar support group of child care providers in your area, contact Helen Watkins at 823-7243. American 1R d Cross ~Heaith & Safet~ Workshop for'Providers DATE: Saturday, April 9. CO~T:'" $11'.00. P're-r'~g'ist~ati6n by check; mail to Therese Crisman, American Red Cross, 3915 Adair Avenue N., Crystal, MN 55422. Telephone: 533-3048 LOCATION: Northridge C~re Center (3rd floor), 5430 Boone Avenue N., New Hope AGENDA 8:30 - 9:00 Registr~t. ion 9:00 - 12:00 Developmental Stages and Reactions to Stress, with Rochelle Brandt, Director of Child Guidance Clinic, l~orth Memorial Hospital - Accident Prevention and Poison Control - Childhood Diseases and Medications, with Nurse Practitioners -leO0 - 4:00 Emergency First Aid, with "Hands-on" Practice (Choking, Shock, Bleeding, Bone. breaks, Eye injuries and Head injuries) This class meets all First Aid requirements under MN DPW RuTe 3. PLEASE BRING A BAG LUNCH; coffee will be provided. 80txSg e3oseuu!lAI 'SllOdeauu!lAI )EI~IJ1S i)Xl~'l ),S8~A 900 I, 'J~)lu~)o uetuqe-i uo!~.moss~ eJeO XeCI s!!odeauu!ihi ~e~ OTHER HEALTH AND SAFETY CLASSES Infant and Child Safety.: This course deals wit~ accident prevention and first-aid treat- ment of childhood inj~es; toy, playground, and car safety; how to prepare for an emerg- ency; and who, when, and how to call for assistance.- Rands-on learning of infant resus- citation. ' Tuesdays, 4 weeks,beginning April 5, 6:30-9:30 p.m., Minnetonka Sr. High School $25.00 Wednesdays, " , beginning April 6, 9:00-12:00 a.m., Hennepin Technical Center ~ommunity Center, 6300 Walker Street, St. Louis Park $25.00 Thursdays, " , beginning April .7, 6:30-9:30 p.m., HTC Community Center $25.00 Infant and First Aid for Child Care Providers: This course is designed for child' care providers and'meets the first aid requirements from Minnesota DPW. It is a condensed version of the 12 hr. Infant and Child Safety Class, including: burns, head injuries,. seizures, lacerations, poisons. Hands-on learning of infant resuscitation techniques will also be covered. For more information on all these programs., contact Margaret Becker, Project GIFTT Coordinator, HennePin Technical Centers-Central: 920-4122.: MULTIPLE CHOICE: CELEBRATING FAMILIES - an upcoming SW Cable TV Production Some m~nbers of the Suburban Coalition have joined with staff of the Fraser Infant and Preschool'Programs in Richfield, the Richfield Fun Club, Storefront/ Youth Action, and Community Education Parenting Programs in Edina, Hopkins, and Eden Prairie to form a. volunteer consortium known as MULIIPLE CHOICE. Their first production - a panel dis- cussion among a variety of parents on-the differences between their expectations and the realities of parenthood - titled CELEBRATING FAMILIES, will be aired on the public ~ccess channel of S.W. Cable TV sometime in April. Watch for it~ CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 84-310 Planning Commission Agenda of March 12, 1984. Board of Appeals Case No. 84-310 Location: 5657 ~randvlew Boulevard Legal Desc.: Lots 108 and 109, Mound Shores Request: Lot-split subdivision Zoning Dist. R-3 Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Henry Paumen 5657 ~randv~ew Boulevard Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 472-7427 The applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Henry Paumen, are requesting to subdivide the South 75.06 feet of Lots 108 and 109 from the parcel that their home presently is placed upon with a waiver of provisions of Chapter 22 subdivision of less than 5 acres. The area of the.newly created parcel would be 7,493 square feet' with the remaining area of Lots'lO8 and 109 to be 18,377 square feet. Both parcel front on an improved public right-of-way. The R-3 Zoning District requires 6,000 square feet minimum lot size for single family and 12,O00 square feet minimum lot size for a two (2) family dwelling. The proposal would exceed the lot area for a single family home and the lot width re- quirement of 40 feet. Recommend: I recommend approval of the lot-split subdivision waiver of Chapter 22 provisions of less than 5 acres and recognize the existing dwelling 3~foot non-conforming setback to Bellaire Lane upon the condition the newly created parcel be assessed an additional unit c'harge Of $1828.15 for.a building site. The abutti.ng neighbors have been notified. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes Marc..h .1_2~ .19_84/~ Case No. 84-310 3. Case No. 84-310 Lot-split Subdivision, 5657 Grandview Boulevard Lots. 108 and 109, Mound Shores Mr. and Mrs. Henry Paumen were present. The Building Official explained that the lot-split"is self-explanatory on the survey. Existing house is about 3 feet off of what the Zoning Ordinance now would require on a corner lot; but subdivision hasn't anything to do with the existing home. Parcel B (south lot) is proposed to be 7,493 square fdet and the minimum requirement is 6,000 square feet. Zoning is R-3 which allows a duplex wit'h 12,OOO square feet. Minimum frontage would be 40 feet on the street, Lot'mo~e than meets the mini.mum r~quirements for a single family home. The ?aumen"s are probably lookTng at sometime dividing off another lot. Byrnes moved and Michael seconded a motion to recommend to the Council.that subd[visi°n,be approyed...The vote was unanimously in favor. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND CASE NO. LAND 84-3]0 FEE FEE. OWNER /¥-// x- ,/- Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: To be divided as follows: (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimensi® of proposed buildin9 sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No, From Square feet TO Square feet APPLICANT Applicant's interest in the TEL. NO. DATE This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSED LOT DIVISION FOR: MRS. HENRY IN MOUND SHORES Case No. 84-310 -~ GRANDVIEW BLVD. I00 0 I I000t N I hereby certt?y that this is t, tlm~. and cor~'c-,'% repre~entation cf e su~,ey of the ~)undavi~ cf: A. ~ts l~ and lcd/ u~cept tr,,~ South 75 feet th,?~o~, ~u~d 5horo~, ~d TLc Smith 75 feet ot' ~ts LO~ and ~09, ~%'~,d SLores, the later!m, of all existinl~ builcings thereon. It aoes nnt our~ri, to oho~ other lm),rov~- Date: 2-15-8~ Case No. 84-310 MOt SHORES Z~ BELLAIRE LA'~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION C'ASE NO. 84-310 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM- MENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 108 AND 109, MOUND SHORES .(PID.#14-117-24 14 0033) WHEREAS, an application to'waive the subdivision requirements contained in - Section 22.00 of the City Code'has been filed with.the City of Mound by Henry and Mildred Paumen; and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, it ls hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict .application of-the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their land; and that' the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a sub- stantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to .the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED' BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: The request of. Henry and Mildred Paumen for a waiver from the provisions .of Section 22.00 o~.the Cit.y.Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as Lots 108 and IO9, Mound Shores,.PID # 14-117-24 14 0033, is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner: PARCEL "A".- Lots 108 and 109 except the South 75 feet thereof, Mound Shores. 'PARCEL "B" - The South 75 feet.o'f Lots 108 and 109, Mound Shores. The new buildin9 site pay or be assessed an additional un'it charge of $1,828.15. It is d'etermined that the foregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is i~harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution ·to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registra£ of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. 5. This lot/split subdivision to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. March 22, 1984 CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is the letter from Dave Carlson, the President of the Mound Fireman's Relief Association, requesting an increase in the monthly Fireman's Relief Pension payment. Presently they are at $210 per month. They are requesting an increase to $240.00 per month, effective July 1, 1984 and an increase to $250.00, effective January 1, 1985. The necessary funds either are or will be on hand to support these increases as was spelled out in the Actuarial Study that was in the packet a couple of weeks ago. It is the Staff's recommendation that this be approved. I think they also should be complimented on the very professional way they've handled this. Quite different than in the past when they wanted retroactive funding, etc. JE:fc enc. Box 37, Mound, Minnesota 55364 March 15, !98h Mr. John ham City ~na~er City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road ~ound, MN 5~364 Dear John, Previously, a copy of an actuarial valuation for the Mound Fire Denartmeut Relief Association pension fund was submitted to you for review. %'he study was conducted by James Dordewick- Consulting Actuary which determined costs for the current program as well as eff&cts of various benefit increases. Because of good returns on investmentS, increased city con- tributions, and increased 2% state aid we have seen this Derision fund ~row. The ~rowth has resulted in l~er costs to keep this pension fund adequately funded and prevent the unfunded liability from increasing. We also now have a situation where the pension fund can afford to p~y a hi~her benefit with the current incoming revenues. In 198~ the City of Mound will be contributing $36,300.00'to the Mound Fire Department Relief Association pension fund. In addition, we expect to receive aoprox~mate]y $30,000.00 from 2% state aid (b~sed on 1983 receiots). TherefoMe, in 198h the pen- sion fund expects funding of $66,300.00. The chart on ps~e four of the s. ctuar~.al report Lists the ~nnual contrib~tiou requirem=nts for vardous monthly benefit levels. The current benefit is $2~0.00 per month which will require ~51613.00 to keep the pro,ram adequately fuud~d. A Benefit increase to $2[~0.OO per ronth will require $63,580.00 of funding. Based on your recom~mendations the releif association board of directors would like to prooose the following benefit increase pack- a~e: l) Effective June l, 198h the monthly benefits and all correspomding portions of the plan (se~~ ~xhibit A- page 5) be raised to $2~O.O0 ocr month 2) Effective January l, 198~ the monthly benefits and sll corresponding portions of the plan he raised to $2~0.00 Per month. Ton indicated that you expected the City Council to r~ise the City's contribution to t~e pension fund for ]985 to cover the additional costs for a $2~0.00 per month benefit. PAGE 2 March 15~ 198h The board of directors of the Relief Association is willing to discuss this proposal with you or the city council members and answer questions or concerns. Otherwise, we would appreciate if you would place this proposal on the docket for the Mound City Council's consideration at their next regularly scheduled Meeting. Please notify us of the date for this council m~etin~. Please feel free to contact me with any questions concernio~ t~is matter. Sincerely, David J. Carlson, President Mound Fire Departmant Relief Association Smiley/Glotter Associates 1021 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 612/332-1401 Architects Engineers Planners Interior Designers S.C. Smiley, F.A.I.A. J.H. Glotter, A.I.A. R.Y. Laiderman, A.I.A. G.R. Nyberg, A.I.A. March 19, 1984 Mr. Jori Elam City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Jon: As a follow up to our phone discusslon yesterday, we would llke to request a start of the survey and soil testing. Since our plans for Town Square are moving forward very rapidly, this information is most essential. Would you please see if the City could get these services scheduled for us. We will be happy to review with the surveyors and soils investigating firms that information that we specifically need for our design purposes and the City's as well. Thank you for your personal assistance. Cordially, SMILEY GLOTTER ASSOCIATES --"'%'c~. C. Smiley, FAIA, RAIC SCS:eh McCOMBS-KNUT$ON ASSOCIATES, INC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS January 11, 1984 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Downtown Redevelopment Site Dear Jon: Your letter dated January 5, 1984 requesting a quotation for doing survey work for the above subject property was referred to me by John Cameron. I have reviewed the Property Survey Data Request form and site drawing you sent with your letter. Based upon information requested for this survey and the winter conditions that now exist, John Cameron and I estimate the cost to be in the range of $4,500 to $5,500. If the area between Lynwood Boulevard and the railroad right- of-way is excepted from the survey site, we would estimate the cost to be $4,000 to $5,~00. If you should have any questions or need additional information regarding the estimate, please contact either John or myself. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul .6.. JohnSon, R.L.$. PAJ:sj GARY L. GABRIEL, DEMARS -- GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 HARBOR LANE, SUITE 111 PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 PHONE (612) 559~908 January 9, 1984 Mark Koegler Van Doren Hazard Stalling 3030 Harbor Lane Suite 104 Minneapolis, Mn. 55441 Dear Mark, As you requested we have prepared an estimate for land surveying services necessary to furnish a property survey in the proposed downtown redevelopment site in Mound, Minnesota. We have prepared the estimate based on the "Property Survey Data Request''~ furnished by you. Our estimate for furnishing the survey based on the information requested ~f~s $5500.00. The survey would be completed within 30 working days after authorization to proceed. Very truly yours, DEMARS-GA!)~I ELgLAND SURVEYORS I iJ Ii' . Gary/L?[Gabr~.el L.S. INC. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS SUBDIVISION DESIGN BOUNDARY SURVEYS CONSTRUCTION STAKING 501L E XI:H. ORBI30n 662 CROMWELL AVENUE ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PHONE 612/645-6446 January 27, 1984 a sister corporation to TWIN OITY TESTING AND ENGINI:I::RINQ LABORATORY INC. City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Attn: Mr Jon Elam Gentlemen Subj: Geotechnical Engineering Proposal Proposed Town Square Redevelopment Mound, Minnesota #120-11265 Soil Exploration Company is pleased to present this proposal for conducting a preliminary geotechnical exploration and engineering 'program for your proposed Town Square redevelopment project in Mound, Minnesota. This proposal is intended to define a work scope, schedule and estimated costs for our services. Project Information We understand the proposed project would include buildings of one and two stories of light construction such as a shopping center. The exact location of the buildings is not known at this time. There is a potential for basements under a portion of the complex if soils and water table levels permit. Purposes of StudS The purpose of this study would be to provide preliminary subsurface information to assist in planning of the project. Additional sub- surface exploration will be performed prior to finalizing building locations and design. Scope of Services In accordance with your proposal request, our work scope would consist of the following: OFFICERS: CHARLES W. BRITZlUS chairman of the board NORMAN E. HENNING president ROBERT F. WlTTMAN executive vice president CLINTON R. EUE secretary/treasurer HOME OFFICE: ST. PAUL, MN OFFICES IN: MANKATO, MN ROCHESTER, MN WAITE PARK, MN AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS. THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES, ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF THE CLIENT City of Mound January 27, 1984 Page two Put down four standard penetration borings (ASTM: D 1586) approxi- mately at the locations you indicated on a sketch furnished to us, and attached. You have indicated to us that the boring locations are accessible with a normal two-wheel drive, truck-mounted drill rig. If snow removal is required, you will make arrangements for that work. The borings would each be to a depth of 20' below the present ground surface. Provide a data report including the results of the field and laboratory tests as well as a general engineering review of the conditions with opinions and preliminary recommendations for the following: a. Foundation types, depths and allowable bearing capacity. b. Settlement estimates. c. Ground floor slab support. Fees Our fee for these services would be charged on a time and materials basis in accordance with our current schedule of fees~h is attached. For the work scope described above, the estimated cost i~ Conditions The attached sheet entitled "GENERAL CONDITIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL AGREEMENT" is part of this proposal. Performance Schedule Weather permitting, we will begin field work within five days after receiving written authorization to proceed and will have our report completed within one week after completion of the field work. Acceptance Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by endorsing the enclosed copy and returning it to us. Soil Exploration Company appreciates the opportuni°ty of being considered for this work and looks forward to providing service to you on your project. If you have any questions or need additional information,, please contact us. ACCEPTED: Very truly yours Donovan K Stormoe, P.E. 6eneral Manager DKS/mlc Client: Authorized Signature: Typed Name: DatE: 001-- IIIIIlilllllllllllllL I,- Z Z ~ ' O' 0 SOIL EXPLORATION COMPANY GENERAL CONDITIONS OF GEOTECHNICAL AGREEMENT SECTION 1: PROJECT INFORMATION 1.1 The Client will make available to SEC all known information regarding ex- isling and proposecl conditions of the site. The information will include, but not be limited to, plot plans, topographic surveys, site plans, hydrographic data, and previous soil data including borings, field or laboratory tests and written reports. 1.2 Client will immediately transmit to SEC any new information which becomes available to it or its subcontractors, so that recommended actions can be res. tawed, The information will include any subsurface or latent physical con- ditions at the site or in an existing structure differing materially from those indicated in the contract documents, different conditions encountered dur- ing construction or any changes in plans. 1.3 Client will provide a representative at the jobsite to supervise or coordinate the job when required by SEC upon 24 hours notice. 1.4, SEC will not be liable for any incorrect advice, judgment or decision based on any inaccurate information furnished by Client, and Client will indem- nify SEC against liability arising out of or contributed to by the information. SECTION 2: SITE LOCATION/ACCESS/PERMITS AND APPROVALS 2.1 The Client will indicate to SEC the property lines and be responsible for ac- curacy of markers. 2.2 The C!ient will provide for right-of-entry of SEC personnel and equipment necessary to complete the work. 2.3 SEC will assist the Client in.applying for and obtaining permits and approvals normally required by law: however, ultimate responsibility for obtaining the permits remains on the Client.. 2.4 While SEC will take reasonable precautions to minimize any damage to pro- perry, it is understood by the Client that in the normal course of the work some damage may occur. The correction of any damage is the responsibili- ty of the Client, or at SEC's option, the damage may be corrected by SEC and billed at cost plus 15% to the Client. SECTI(~)N 3: UTILITIES 3.1 The Client will be responsible for locating all subterranean structures or utilities. In performing this work. SEC will take reasonable precautions to avoid damage or injury to subterranean structures or utilities. 3.2 The Client will hold SEC harmless for any damages to subterranean struc- tures which are not called to SEC's attention and correctly shown on the plans furnished. Any damage may, at SEC's option, be repaired by SEC and billed at cost plus 15% to Client. SECTION 4: SAMPLES 4.1 SEC will retain representative samples of soil or rock for 30 days after sub- mission of SEC report~ Upon request by Client, samples can be shipped, Charges collect, to destination selected by Client; or SEC can store them for an agreed storage charge. SECTION 5: FEE PAYMENT 5.1 SEC will submit invoices to Client monthly, and a final invoice upon com- pletion of services. Invoices will show charges based on current SEC Fee Schedule or other agreed upon basis. A detailed separation of charges and backup data will be provided at Client's request. 5.2 The Client will pay the balance stated on the invoice unless Client notifies SEC in writing of the particular item that is alleged to be incorrect within fifteen (15) days from the invoice date. 5.3 Payment is due upon receipt of invoice and is past due thirty (30) days from invoice date. On past due accounts, Client will pay a finance charge of 1.5(%) per month, or the maximum allowed by law. in the event of litigation, Client will pay 5EC on all past due balances. 5.4 In the event Client fails to pay SEC within sixty (60) days following invoice date, SEC may consider the default a total breach of this agreement and all duties of SEC under this agreement terminated. SECTION &: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 6.1 All documents prepared by SEC as instruments of service will remain the property of SEC. 6.2 Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client or his agents, which are not paid for. will be returned upon demand and will not be used by the Client for any purpose. 6.3 SEC will retain all pertinent records relating to services performed for a r~,riod of (3) years after the reporl is sent: during that time, the records will be made available to the Client during SEC's normal business hours. SECTION 7: DISPUTES 7.1 If SEC instilutes suit against the Client to enforce any pan of this agreement, then all litigation expenses or collection expenses, includin8 attorheys' fees, will be paid to the prevailing party. 7.2 If the Client institutes a suit against SEC which is dismissed or for which ver- dict is rendered for SEC, Client will pay SEC for all costs of defense, inciudin8 attorneys' fees. expert witness' fees, and court costs. SECTION 8: STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 SEC will perform consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exer- cised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar con- ditions. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. 8.2 SEC will be responsible for its data, interpretations and recommendations. but will not be responsible for interpretation by others. SECTION 9: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 9.1 SEC's liability to the Client and all contractors and subcontractors on the project, for damages due to professional negligence, negligence or breach of any other obligation to Client or others, will be limiled to an amount not to exceed $50,000 or the SEC fee, whichever is greater. In the event Client does not wish to limit SEC's liability, SEC will waive this limitation on writ- ten notice from the Client received within 10 days after this agreement is fully executed or before the work is commenced, whichever is earlier, and Client will pay additional consideration equal to 10% of the total fee as a -charge for a Waiver of Limitation on Liability. This charge is not a charge for insurance but is an increase in consideralion for the greater risk involved where work is performed with no limitation of liability. 9.2 Client will notify any contractor or subcontractor who performs work in con- nection with any work done by SEC of the limitation of liability for design defects, errors, omissions or professional negligence, and to require as a con- dillon precedent to their performing their work, a like indemnity and limita- tion of liability on their part as against SEC. In the event the Client fails to obtain a like limitation and indemnity. Client agrees to indemnify SEC for any liability to any third party. 9.3 The Client agrees that in accordance with generally accepted construction practices, the construction contractor will be required to assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construc- tion of the project, including safety of ali persons and property: that Ibis re- quirement shall be made to apply continuously and not be limited to nor- mal working hours, and the Client further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold SEC harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except liability arising from the sole negligence of SEC. SECTION 10: INSURANCE 10.1 SEC will carry workers compensation insurance and public liability and pro- perry damage insurance policies which SEC considers adequate. Certificates of insurance will be provided to Client upon request. Within the limits and conditions of the insurance, SEC agrees to indemnify Client against any Joss. SEC will not be responsible for liability beyond the limits and conditions of the insurance. SEC will not be responsible for any loss or liability arising from negligence by Client or by other consultants employed by Client. SECTION 11: TERMINATION 11.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days wril- ten oolite if there is substantial failure by the other pany to perform. 'Ter- mination will not be effective if substantial failure is remedied before expira- tion of the seven days. Upon termination, TCT will be paid for services, plus reasonable termination expenses. 11.2 If the contract is terminated prior to completion of all reports contemplated by this Agreement, or suspended for more than three months, TCT may com- plete analyses and records as are necessary to complete its files and may also complete a report on the ser¥ices performed. Termination or suspen- sion expenses will include direct costs of completing analyses, records and reports. SECTION 12: ASSICNS 12.1 Neither party may assign duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. FEE SCHEDULE Field ~er~ces A. Drilling equipment and crew: !. Rocar~ Drill (75 H.P. or over) with two-man crew. Ospable of 6 in. Io 10 in. fire auger borings, 3'i in. I.D. bollo~' stem auger borings, s,~ndard penetration borings, rock cor- ing aM special soil sampling. -per g hour day Light Rotary Drill (less than 7.5 H.P.) with two-man crew. Capable of 4 in. to 6 in. rite auger borint:s. 3 '~ in. I.D. hollo,,,' stem auger borings, s~x~ard penetration borings, rock co, ring and special soil sampling. · .per 8 hour day Non-Rotary Soil Machine with two-man crew. Capable of standard penetration test bor- ings to depths of approxima-'ly 50 feet in soil. Ust:d where drilling location or access is confined. ..per 8 hour day 4. Power Auger with one operator. Capable of 4 in. or 6 in. rite auger borings only. to · depth of approximately 35 feet in soil. -per 8 hour day Eo Fo Vehicle charges: (in ~ldition to above rates) I. Rental · . i-~n truck or smaller -~:r day 22.00 b. l~rger than Iqon truck -per day 45.00 c. Truck-tra~or & lowboy -~cr day 90.00 d. All terrain vehicle--when necessary for access '-per day 195.00 Travel for sites away from immediate vicinity of home laboratory: Transportation lo from Job site services ~:ltor consultation: i. Crewman -per hr 24.00 2. Technicians -per hr 28100 3. Senior Technicians ..per hr 32.00 4. Engineer and Geologist Assistants -per hr 40.00 Specialized field services: (s~e Appendix for description and rates) I. In-Sim Testing: &. Vane Shear b. Static Cone Penewometer c. P'ressurerneter 2. Geophysical Surveying: m. Seismic .t. Field Instrumentation and Monitoring: ,,. Inclinometer 2. MLle~ge: m. Automobiles b. 14on truck or ~naller c. ].~rger than iqon truck 5. Engineers or Geologists 6. Senior Engineers or Geologists 7. Principal Engineers g. Senior Consultants d. Pile Analyzer (Case~le Method) e. Double Ring Inflhrometer f. Bore Hole Permeability b. Electrlczl Resistivity b. Pcnumatic Trm"tsducers Expenses: !. Living expen.s~s when wo~ing away from immediate vicinity of borne bt)oratory 2. Bit wear (diamond or ca~idc bit we. ar. when coring is required) 3. Replacement of abandoned equipment is charged when it is considered more economical to abandon sampling equipment and casing than to recover mt our regular daily rams Miscellaneous job-incurred expenses not covered specifically by Obis fee schedule Overtime (Saturday. Sunday or 14oliday) when necessary or authorized by client or client's ·gent will be charged at regular time plus 20%. Note No. I - Actual divkled by 080 (When actual cost exceods $500. spex:ial rates will be consid, emd.) Subject to Clumge Wilhout Notice (REV. 1-83) SOIL I XPLOREll IOI'I ,., 368.00 -per mile 0.32 -per mile 0.50 -per mile 0.60 -per hr 45.00 -per hr 50.00 -per hr 55.00 -per hr 65.00 Actual -- 0.8 Actual Cost Actual Cost Note No. I FEE SCHEDULE H. ~ ,,nd l.~borMoo* Services A. Consultation. ~lysis and report I. T~hmc~ns ~ 2. ~niot T~hn~ians 3. ~i~t or ~lo;i; A~is~nts 4. En;i~t~ or ~nior En~in=~ or ~logis;s 7. ~ninr Consul~ms 9. ~p~mfion for n~ ~;a] C~l;;ion 10. C~ A~mnccs (Min. 4 Hm) ~ ~it~ns B. C~r~al ~ices J, T~ or Libra~ 2. Rcpr~u~ion of A~,io~l R~n C~ics ~plicilor - Fiat ~ - ~ct 2~ Sh~u b. C~ ~chi~ e. Microfilm C. ~m~ T=s of ~il: per hour 26.00 per hour 32.O0 per hour ~O.O~ per ho~r 45.00 Per ho~r 50.00 pet hour 55.00 per hour 65.00 Lump sum depcodinF o~ complexly), per hour 75.00 peT hour 100.00 per hr 16.00 min. cEnr8e 25.00 per sheet 0.25 per sheet 0.15 per sheet 0.35 per sheet 1.50 Moiuure coment and densi~,.': a. Mercur)' immersion method 16.00 b. D~rea caliper mtasur;:ment method 19.00 c. In-tube me..asurcment method 29.00 d. Moisture content only (AS'TM :D2216) '7.00 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. UNIT PRICE 8000 to 190 iX) 30.00 to 130.00 24.00 Hand P~n~rome~cr 4.00 Hand Torvanc Shear Test 8 ~ Unconfin~ C~p~ssi~ Test: a. C~sivc ~il (A~M:D21~): I. R~nin$ ~aimum n~ss M failure 2~.~ 2. Rc~nin$ c~plcte ~ss-st~in ~c 29.~ b. R~k ~s (A~M:D2938) i~l~in~ ~m- c. ~imng tensile ~n~ of ~k m~s ~.~ m 45.~ Di~'~ Shear Test: (per nonnd load) a. (ASTM:D30~0) 50 00 ~o 160.00 b. Residal s~rtng~h 5500 to 135.00 c. Controlled stress (creep ot other ~,pe tesl) 60.00 ro 330.00 Trinxial Compression Test: Or'porting slt~ss-s~rain curves) ~r ~fining ~u~) a. U~l~l~mi~ (A~M:D28~) b. C~li~mi~ d. ~ ~finin~ ~u~s e. ~m~6on.~ck 55.130 to 100.00 7500 lo 1~O.00 90.00 to 185.00 50~ to of above 50.00 to $5.00 40.00 m ! 10.fi) ';5.00 to 350.00 Anerberg Limits: · Phsticit) Index (ASTM.~23 & 424! 35.00 b. Liquid L~mit ot Plastic Limit Onl) 23.00 ¢. ShrmLagc Limil (ASTM.D4'~7) 28.00 3. L4r~ar ghrinJ~Lee (Bar Method'~ 33.00 4. MecCa,cai Amlysls of ~il~. a. ~mu~h No. ~1) (ASTM.DI I~) 18.~ b. ~gh No. ~ or No. 270 s~vr (A~M:~) 31 c. ~k Run d. ~gh .~1~ b) hydro--er [mvi~ ~)' ~ ~ ~) 49.~ e. ~s~m~n ~t 49,~ 6. ~r~i~t~n of pH by ~ct 9.~ ~. ~png ~,m of mil 29.~ [ ~lfate ~tent 23.~ 9. ~e ~mcm 10. Re~fve ~nsity of ~i~less ~ils {ASTM :D2~9) ~.~ {ASTM.~gg. AAS~O Ne p~m6on, if ~s~. 12. ~bility T~in~: n. Omnular ~ils-~ss ~ i0~ fi~s {ASTM:D24~) includmf ~rali~ ~-~ b. All ~t ~ils-falhn~ ~d or ~s- ~m ~d: 18. Cm~solidallon Test~: (ASTM:D2435) Sufficient loads to dettrn~m primar cu~e-up Io 32 uf (s~if~ ~vi~ Ant~rg limits extra) a. R~nin$ P~ ~rve ~ ti~ ~tin~ Cv. Pc ~ Cc b. R~nin~ P~ o~e only a. Swell ~u~ 2 I. C~mb 23. R-Value (~M:D2~) ~ ~ R~st c~sif~t~n c. ~om~e of ~mples in humldi~ ~trol~d ~m (Mini~m ~r ~ ~t M~h 245.00 195 O0 8500 to 16000 45.00 to I0000 18.00 45.00 to 150.00 45.00 to IOD.O0 55.00 Io 100.00 14.00 32 .IX) 15.00 per ~ 30.00 10.00 Where a price mnSe is shown for an iodh,'klunl test, the ch~$c depends on r~l ~ znd:oT sample size. (REV. 1-83) Subject to Change Without No~ice . 4::31L eXl:q, olantlOn E. APPENDIX (SPECIALIZED FIELD SERVICES) 1. la-Situ TestiK in-sisu K-ming. as differemia~ed from I. aboralot) testing, is thc Icstmg of soil or ~ck in ils ratural environment. The les! equipment is btou~hl lO the fiekl, rather than removing sm. all ~mples and transporting them lo the iahorato~. The ~tsts are ctmducted b) engineers, geologists, or Ir·tried "chnicians. depending on me q~cific test and project c'ond~tiom,. a. Vane Shear {ASTM:D2573). The vane shear test is u~ed to determine shear strength of cohesive ~'or organic soils al various depths in a drilled hole. Torque is applied through a geared drive with proving ring readout. Charges are based on the following daily rate for rental of special equipment plus ap- plicable rates and expenses under thc regular fee schedule for drill rig and operators, teal operator (engineer or techn~cianl, and da,, r~:luction in the o~cc. Rental of Equipmem-Pcr b. Static Cone Penetrometer (ASTM:D34411. Thc ca·tlc cone is ur, cd lo pro- vide · Conlinuous strength profile with depth. The cone is md~anced hydraulicaJl) al a sb~n~rd ate of penetration with special adal~ions on a drill- ing rig Charges are based on ~ following ~ail) ra~s for special equipment plus applicable rates and expenKs under the regular fee schedule for drill rig and o~,erator(s), field engin~r, if m:ctssa~, and clam reduction in th~ ofl'~ct. Rental of Equipment-Per Day SIO0.O0 ~reme~er. Thc pre~uremeict is us~ to del·rathe the deformation modulus and strength charactcrislics of pracl~call} an> ~.'pc of soil and most ~ofi rocks. The lest is conducted with ~ expandable probe Iov, cred ~k~wn · drilled hole Charges are ba~'d on thc folloving per teal rate fc~r rental of ~ecial equipment, plu.,, ap~cab~e rates and expert',, under regular fee K'h~fluk' for drill rig and ul~:~etnrs. ~est oytrator lengin~r. Fok~gi~ or echni- cianl. ~ data mducuon in the off, ct. Re·al of Equip·em-Per Test $6000 Maxtmum Dail.~ Charge do Pile An~l)ztr (Cmse-G~ble M~thod). Thc C~Ic ~th~ is u~d ~o ~n,of p:k ~ ~r ~ffo~. ~ to p~q ~ ~:ng ~- cie) of pilc~. ~c ~l)~is is EcomplJsh~ using a field co~tcr m wh~h ~ is fed ds~cd) from fore a~ accclc~tion t~n~u~n ~n~d on ~e pile. ~ ~uip~nl is ~ral~ in ~c field by a ~n ~in~nn~ ~w. C~rfcs a~ ~ on a ~il~ ~1c for ~nal of ~c~l ~ui~nl plus ~- plicabk ~s a~ e~n~s u~t ~gubr f~ ~h~ulc fm ~o enumer- ation. ~hiclc. ~6 tx~n~s. Quomd on n Proje~ Basis e. D,o~ble Rin~ lnllhromeCer (ASTM:D3385L Our ~ui~nt ~lu~s ~o sizes of ~r~ne m~s foe amo~fic sipS·Jag s~ ~m~ ~su~$ of ~'atct ~ ~ d~e~incs ~fil~ation ~s imo ~c ~mu~ ~n~ubrl) u~l in oval·ling ~) i~fafion was~ di~l ~uire~ J ~man ~c~. ~all) ~ cn~in~r ~d ~chn~ian. C~r~ art M~ on ~ follo~ Jn~ ~r ~ met for ~n~l of s~cial ~ui~m plus phcablc ~s ~ cx~s u~ct ~bt f~ K~ulc for ~ veh~le. ~ for ~m ~t~n in ~ o~. Rental of Equipment-Per Test $4000 ~ Ho~e Per'rm~biliL~. T~ bore hole i~rencabiliD I~-~ ~ ~,,,~bili- ~nt ~o ~kc ~su~nb usi~ ~h ~nl h~d ~d fallm~ ~ ~sU. P~s~ ~stin$ using ~ckc~ b al~ ~ffo~. T~ rests a~ ~duc~ m drilled ~)c ~ ~) ~quitc ~ cn~in~r in ~ field CMrg~ ~ ~ ~ ~e follo~ ing ~r ~) ~n~l of ~c~l ~uip~nl plu~ appl~abk m~ ~ ex~n~s foe a drill fi~ ~ o~ramm. ~ o~rator. ~d ~ ~u~mn in ~c o~ct. Rental of E. quipmeni-Per I:)a) $60.00 2. C, eophy~k~ Surveytn~ Goophysical surveying is thc ar1 of delineating the ptn).sicat characl:risl3c~ of ~c mrth's ~bsurGee. The ~s.ulls l~ght are ur, a~ll)' more general m ~ ~n ,.ith in-sim testing Thc work is performed by a geologist or te..~hnic~an defending on · e complcxil) of the parlirular ~rvcy. Seismic Sorv~'tni:. Seismic surveying invol..es measuring the vel~tly of ~ismic ~a~es ~r~;h wbsurfa~e ~t~. ~c~ ~urr~nl~ are u~ed lo ~e%i~.. C~rges are ~ on ~e following ~il~ rate foe ~n~l of s~%al ~ip~nl plus m~hcable ales m~ e%~n~s u~er ~ular f~ ~h~ule for mst ~mlon ~mlogis~ ~m). vehicle. ~ da~ ~uclion in the off~ce. Rental of Equipment-Per ~)a) $6000 b. Eieetrk~ Red. ivey Sorv .t~. Resi~fivi~' surveying involv~ ~fin~ · e el~tncml ~si~ivi~ of ~U a~ ~km T~K ~mm~n~ mm u~ Jo ~lin~te ~un~ries ~'~n ~tcr~l~ wi~ ~nt~slin~ clc~rical pro~nies ~ for ~sivi~' ~ el~t~ml sys~m g~ing ~ks. ~c ~e) is ~o~ge of a ~logist m ~hnican de~ing on ~mplexi~. C~rges a~ ~ ~ ~ following ~ily ~nml offal ~nl ~us ~licable n~ ~ ex~n~ u~er regular f~ ~ule for ~ ~mtor(s) ~ml~is~ Rental of F. quipmcm-Per D~)' $60.00 3. Field Inslrumentmtion and Monitoring The tar~ always ~'sponds lo the forces impo~d b) c~si~ion or b) ~mre ~lf. T~ ~s~n~ ~n ~ ~vc~nt (unin) or chanfc in st~s ~ms ~ ~)'~ical pm~nies. Ficld in~l~n~tmn ~ ~ni~ofing is dcsign~ lo ~a~ure ~K c~nge~, w~r ~). a~ c~t~ by ~n's ~nst~c~n or by t~ forces of ~ture. in, i~clinome(er. The inclinornettr measures thc change in ye·seal alignment of a casing (mhc) placed in a drilled ~lc. T~ c~nge can ~ ~a~rcd at mn) ~lc~ ~p~ ~ ~p~s. ~ often as is ~ccs~. o~r ~ unhmiled I~ f~. L~ bag as ~ ~sing is ~ ~stroy~ M~sure~nt~ m~ ~dc by ~ m~i~r ~ ~chnie~ C~ges am ~d ~ ~e follo~ ing mn~l of s~cal incli~t ~uip~m plu~ a~lJcahle rotes a~ ex~n~ u~er regular f~ ~h~ule for ~m~ of ~sings. drill ng ~ ~ralom. engi~ or ~hni- c~n m ~e ~in~s. wh~le. ~d ~a ~uct~n in ~e offs. Rental of Equipment-Per C,,qng Reading 5,80 00 IVLu. imum Per Month bo Por~ Pr·murk, Karth Pr·sum, er .ScUll·men! Monltortnt b) P'ne~malic Tr'n.-tsduc~r. C'Eanges in thc pore pres~re, soil pre~,sure or senlcment of thc r~il can be dett'x'~ed b) special sensors placed on the surf·cc prior to placing earth fills. Pon: pressure and senlcrnem tran~uctrs can also bc placed in drill holes. Readings art taken as often u neCCss.~/~' over as long a period ms required, provided thc insolled equipment is not destro)ed Rcadmg~ arc lake· b) an engineer or technician. Chat~es art based on thc followini: dad) rates for rental of s~eOal ·',·ding equipment plus applicable rate~ and ex- peases under regular fee schedule for porch·se of installed sen~r~,, drill rig and ol~'rators caf nece~sa~ }. engineer or technician to tale re·drag,, and data f~ducuon in the ot'fi~, Rental of Equip·em.Per Re·dig $]~,0 O0 Maximum Per Month S330.00 (R.EV. 1-83) Subject to Change Without Notice SOIL explanation MINNESOTA: Minneapolis, Hibbing, St. Cloud, Rochester, St. Paul NORTH DAKOTA: Williston MONTANA: Billings LBMHfl'] Services Since 1957. J.S. BRAUN, P.E. G.D. KLUEMPKE, P.E. P.H. ANDERSON DALE R. ALLEN, P.F C.G. KRUSE, P.E. JAMES J. CRAIG, D.R. HAUSLER, P.E. LOUIS P. MATIS. i Reply To: January 10, 1984 P.0. Box 35108 Mpls , MN 55435 (612i 941-5600 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attn: Jon. Elam RE: PROPOSAL FOR SOIL BORINGS AND FOU~DATION ENGINEERING REPORT SERVICES Town Square Site Church Road & Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN Mr. Elam: As requested by your letter of January 5, 1984, we are.pleased to furnish this proposal for the taking of soil borings and prepara- tion of a foundation engineering report for the above referenced project. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT We understand that the project consists of potential 1 to ~-story buildings. The exact locations of these buildings are not known at this time. You are therefore requesting 4 preliminary borings to establish some foundation for finalizing the building loca- tions. SCOPE OF SERVICES You indicated that 4 borings are desired to a depth of 20 feet for the evaluation' of the soil conditions. The borings Will be CONSULTING ENGINEERS / soILs AND MATERIALS Affiliated Company for Chemical & Environmental Testing and Consulting -- Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc. City of Mound -2- January 10, 1984 taken in accordance with ASTM D1586 and D1587 procedures so that "N" values will be recorded in the granular soils and 3-inch Shelby tube samples may be taken in the representative cohesive materials. Laboratory tests will be conducted to provide additional data as a basis for making engineering recommendations. Potential tests include unconfined compression, moisture content, moisture- density, and classification tests. The preliminary engineering report furnished will give recommen- dations regarding development of the site. BASIS FOR PROPOSAL We will furnish these services on an hourly or unit cost basis as stated in the attached hourly or unit cost SCHEDULE OF CHARGES. We have not seen the site, but from your description, have assumed the boring areas are accessible to a truck-mounted drill rig. The borings would thus be performed with equipment described in sections 201a and 203. We estimate that the mobili- zation, demobilization, and drilling will require approximately 6 hours, so the estimated cost of field services is $660. The types of laboratory tests cannot be determined until samples have actually been obtained. The laboratory tests will be con- ducted in accordance with section 300. The estimated cost .for those services is $1_~_50. We estimate the cost of the engineering services, in accordance with section 1OO, at $240. Frozen soils do not significantly impede the. investigation. However, snow removal, if necessary, would be billed in accor- dance with item 203h. The total projected cost of the field investigation, laboratory tests and engineering report is then $1_~O50. This projected cost will not be exceeded by more than 10% without additional authori- zation. GENERAL Current scheduling will permit us to begin these services within approximately 7 days of receipt of authorization. On the order City of Mound -3- January 10, 1984 of 1 week would be required for the field investigation, and pre- paration of the engineering report. If your project requires faster scheduling, please do not hesitate to contact us. Terms on payment for services are net 30 days with interest added to unpaid balances, in accordance with the attached GENERAL. CONDITIONS which are a part of this proposal. We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal. This proposal is being presented in duplicate so that one copy may be signed and returned as an authorization to proceed. If there are questions on this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. NEH:bmb Enclosures: SCHEDULE OF CHARGES GENERAL CONDITIONS Very truly yours, BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Norman E. Hall Business' Development GC:SI ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL Date Client's Name Authorized Signature Title The content of this report and supporting document5 are for the exclusive use of the addressee In the absence of our prior wrilten approval we make no representation and assume no responsibility to any other parties regarding such content I BR Ufl' ENGINEERING ENGINEERING OLIS 6800 S. County Rd. 18, P.O. Box 35108, Mpls., MN 55435 Additional or affiliated offices in: [] CENTRAL MINNESOTA 1520- 24th Ave. N., P.O. Box 189, St. Cloud, MN 56301 Hibbing and Duluth, Minnesota [] SOUTHERN MINNESOTA 1704 - 3rd Ave. S.E., Rochester, MN 55901 Williston and Hazen, North Dakota [] ST. PAUL 235 Roselawn Ave., St. Paul, MN 55117 SCHEDULE OF CHARGES 100 ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES Field and Other Services, per hour 01. Engineering Technician I 02. Level I NDT Technician 03. Eng. Tach. n or Level II NDT 04. Engineering Assistant 05. Level III NDT 06. Engineer or Geologist 07. Registered Professional Engineer 08. Senior Staff Engineer 09. Principal of Firm Reg. Over Double Time Time Time $28.00 $34.00 $40.00 31.00 37.00 44.00 34,00 41.00 49.00 38.00 47.00 52.00 43.00 45.00 50.00 60.00 75.00 NOTE: Reduced weekly & monthly rates available for continuous service. 200 SITE EVALUATION SERVICES 01. Drill Rig and Personnel Charges' a) CME 55 or 75 drill rig taking penetra'.ion test borings (ASTM D1586-7) or power auger borin,gs, using solid or hollow-stem augers or rotary drilling methods, with crew chief and drill rig assistant. b) CME 45C drill rig per above. c) CME 45 power auger taking power auger borings (ASTM D1452) for soil classification and water level determinations only, with crew chief and drill rig assistant. 60.O0/hr. d) Two-man field crew on surveying, taking hand auger probings or other field tests. 60.00/hr. e) Extra crew man -- when special conditions require to facilitate operations (in addition to hourly charges in "a" through "d" above): 1) regular time basis 28.00/hr. 2) overtime basis 32.OD/hr. f) Overtime addition to all 2-man crew operations for work on Saturday as requested by client or in excess of 8 hours per day on weekdays. 24.00/hr. 'Hourly rates apply for travel and when conducting tests and are for regular time (8 hours or less on week- days) and do not include truck or carrier rental or use, supplies consumed in drilling or abandoned in test holes (when more economical than recovering supplies at normal hourly rates) or per diem expenses on projects more than daily travel distance from location where equipment is based. 02.Equipment Charges for Other Field Testing Services (in addition to drilling equipment, when required, or field crew). a) Thin Wall Sampling (ASTM D1587) hourly rates plus sampling tube cost. $9.00/sample b) Diamond core drilling (ASTM D2113) hourly rates plus 1.15 times actual diamond bit wear. Cost + 15% c) Dutch friction-cone soundings. 11.00/hr. d) Vane shear test (ASTM 02573). 7.00/hr. e) Screw-plate test. 7.00/hr. f) Electrical resistivity testing. 10.00/hr. g) Refraction Seismic surveying. (1) h} Digitilt Inclinometer, (1) i) Pore Pressure Indicator. (1) j) Pressure Meter. $200.00/day 03. Truck Rental, Mileage and Other Expense Charges. a) Auxiliary truck for transporting crew and supplies: 1) per day 35.00 2) per mile 0.45 b) Drill Rig Truck: 1) per day 7500 2) per mile · 0.55 c) Flotation Tired Drill Rig Carrier 27.O0/hr d) Flextrac-Nodwell FN-160 Rubber Tracked Carrier (10-foot wide unit) 32.00/hr. e) Low-Boy Tractor/Trailer to haul 203c and 203d -- Metro area 585 per one-way trip inot to exceed $135/day) Outside Metro area-- $1.00/mHe (round trip basis) Stand by - $75/day $85.00/hr. 75.O0/hr. /1) Ouoled on an ~nd~wdual basis 300 400 f) Materials for specialized unrecoverable installations such as piezometers, well-points, settlement plates, etc. Rental of road signs, special insurance, permits. Consumable supplies such as roller bits. drilling fluid additives, etc. g) Replacement of abandoned or ruined equipment per 201. h) Subcontracted specialized services such as snow plowing, grading for access, towing, etc. 'i) Welder or shop person on fabricating, assembly, or loading of specialized equipment LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS Cost + 15% Cost Cost + 15% $30.O0/hr. Per Test except as noted a. Proctor -- modified or standard (ASTM D1557 or D698) 1. Method A $44.00 2. Methods B, C, or D 55.00 b. Mechanical Analysis (gradation) (ASTM D422) 36.50 1. Wash through #200 sieve only 17.00 C, Mechanical-Hydrometer Analysis (ASTM D422 & Dl140) 48.00 d. Moisture Content and Density (Mercury Immersion Method) 20.00 e. Moisture Content 8.00 f. Atterberg Limits (ASTM D423 and D424) 37.50 g. Liquid Limit (ASTM D423) 25.00 h. Relative density of cohesionless soils (ASTM D2049) 80.00 i. Specific Gravity (ASTM D854) $27.00 to $45.00 j. Organic Content (ignition method) 23.00 k. Sample preparation (ASTM D421 or other applicable method) 32.00 I. Unconfined Compression (ASTM D2166): (1) Maximum stress at failure 25.00 (2) Complete stress-strain curve 28.00 m. Consolidation-primary consolidation curve up to 32 tsf. Cost varies depending upon number of loadings required for a specific soil (1) n. Direct Shear (per normal pressui'e) $50.00 to $250.00 o. Triaxial Compression -- ASTM D2850 (per confining pressure) $50.00 to $210.OO p. Hveem Stabilometer ("R" value test) $75.00 to $175.00 q California Bearing Ratio (1) r. pH determination -- by meter 7.50 s. Permeability (does not include sample preparation or Proctor if required) $90.00 to $250.00 t. Oxidation-Reduction potential, sulfide determination, and resistivity for cathodic protection 30.00 u. Torvane Shear or pocket penetrometer .6.50 v. Shrinkage Limit (ASTM D427) 27.00 w. Extrusion of thinwall sample for visual examination -- NO tests conducted 8.50 x. Specialty testing (sulfate, etc.) -- hourly basis as in "100" above y. Sample pick-up -- hourly basis as in "100" plus mileage CONSTRUCTION CONTROL TESTING & OBSERVATION 01. Earthwork (Excavation observations, compaction control testing, special foundation installations) a. Engineering consulting services as in "100" above, as required. b. Resident observations and testing services, including soil compaction control testing, Proctor tests, earth- work observations and/or other field testing of soil. Hourly rate as shown in "100" above. 1. Nuclear moisture-density meter charge in addition to hour rates in "100" above c Field laboratory rental, if required 11/15/82 $10.50/hr. (1) M. CM. SM d Intermittent tesling serv,ces by soils technician Per test of relurnmg to laboratory for processing samples, except as noted 1. Cornpachon Test. Sand-Cone Method ASTM Dt556. or Nuclear Method ASTM D2922 (normal conditions) $16.00 2. Laboratory Proctor Test ~ Standard or Modified (ASTM D6g8 or D1557): t) Method A 44.00 2) Method B. C. or D 55.00 3. Relative density of cohesionless soils (ASTM D2049) 80.00 4. Sample preparation, il required 32.00 e. Origination and Trip Charge (depending Varies with on mileage from originating office) dislance 02. Concrete or masonry a. Engineering Consulting Services as in "100" above, if required. b. Concrete Mix Design 1. Theoretical based on ACl 211 (aggregate test costs not included) or verification ol mix design 50.00/mix 2. L~boratory design mix and trial batch (does not include aggregate tests or concrete cylinder COmpression tests) (1) C. Observation of Concrete production or placement including batch planl inspections, slump, air content and cylinder casting at project site. hourly basis as in "100" above plus mileage. d. Laboratory moist-curing and compression testing of · concrete cylinders delivered to laboratories. I. Standard Curing ASTM C39 6.50 2. Accelerated curing and fasting ASTM D684 25.00 e. Pullout testing for strength of inplace concrete (I) f. Special trip for c~/finder Pick-up. origination and trip charge depending on mileage . Varies with . . from originating laboratory distance g. Curing and handling of "spare" untested cylinders 4.00 h. Sawing of. cores or concrete cylinders with poorly cast ends i. Concrete cylinder molds (includes labels and data slips. 1. 6" x 12" cardboard 2. 6" x 12" tin 3. 3" x 6" cardboard j. Compressive strength of mortar cube k. Compressive strength of concrete blocks, including physical measurements and moisture absorption determinations. I. Compressive strength of concrete block or brick prisms m. Concrete coring -- portable core'drill with diamond bits at 2 to 12-inch diameter. 2-man crew. and generator. Plus mileage, truck rental and bit wear. 1.Bit wear. per inch of diameter per inch of core length n.Compressive strength of concrete cores including physical measurements o.Physical test of Portland Cement . (ASTM C150) p. Non-destructive on-sire lesling of inplace concrete. Hourly basis as in "100" above plus material costs or equipment charge as follows. 1. Schmidt Hammer -- equipment included in hourly charge 2. Windsor Probe Tests. material costs Ultrasonics 4. Maturity Method qr. Computer analysis of concrete cylinder strengths r. Specialty testing of concrete or masonry units ~ hourly basis as in "100" above. 03. Bituminous a. Engineering Consulting Services as in "100" above, if required. b.Mix Design -- Marshall Method (aggregate test costs not included) c.'Extraction and gradation of hot mix (ASTM 02172) 1~ Extraction only on pavement cores d. Marshall stability and flow lasts on laboratory compacted specimens (per set ct 3) e. Marshall density determination Ol hot mix sample ASTM DI55g t .50 blows 2 75 blows B~tum~nous Coring -- see 402M and 402L 25.00/cylinder 0.85/each 1.25/each 0.75/each 6.00 42.00 42.00 60.O0/hr. 1.00/in./in. 10.00 (1) 10.O0/probe (I) (1) (1) 55.00 40.00 30.00 38 O0 43.00 60 O0 5OO 601 g, Th,ckness and Oenslty of pavement cores 16.(~0 1. Density only 13.50 h Voids analysis of compacted mix (in addition to . "b" and "d") 12.00/mix- i Nuclear density Of pavement (does not include trip charge).-- normal conditions (ASTM D2950) 15.00 j. MoishJre content Of bituminous hOt mix 20.50 k. Observation ol bituminous production or placement inCluding inspection at batch plant and job site checking batch weights, moisture and temperature. Hourly basis as in "100" above. I. Sampling or sample pick-up -- hourly basis as in · '100" plus mileage 04. Roofing Components a. Observations of produclion and placement on job site -- hourly rate as in "100" above, minimum 2 hours at project plus mileage. b. Laboratory analysis ol built-up roof sample. including number Of piles, top and bottom coat bitumen application interply bitumen and lapping felts and voids analysis (4" x 36" specimen) 65.00 t. With glaze 75.00 05. Structural Steel a. Random testing of bolt tension, special laboratory setupS, etc. (hourly per "100") b. Field observation of welds and shear studs ~ hourly basis as in "100" above c. Procedure review, procedure qualification, welder qualification (hourly per "100") d. Magnetic Particle and Penefranl Testing. Ultrasonic and Radiographic Testing. Hourly basis plus materials {film. penetrant, couplant, etc.) mileage and per diem expenses as required (1) e. Tension testing ol relnlorcing bars or machined specimen including stress-strain CUrVe (1 } -. f. ' Preparation ol mechanical specimens Cost + 15% g. Bend Testing of welding coupons (1) h. Hardness Testing (1) 06. Aggregate Testing for concrete, bituminous. roofing, etc. a. Sieve Analysis (ASTM C136) 25.00 b. Analysis of Materials finer than ~200 sieve {ASTM C117) 17.00 c. Organic Impurities (AS~'M C40) :16.00 d. Soft Particles {ASTM C851) 27.00 e. Lightweight Particles (ASTM C.123) . 30.00 f. Clay Lumps (ASTM C142) 16.00 g. Soundness (ASTM C88) -- 5 cycles 100.00 h. Abrasion (ASTM C131) (1) i. Dry Rodded Density 16.00 j... Specific Gravity and Absorption Analysis (ASTM C127 & ASTM C128) 38.00 k.Sampling or sample pick-up -- hourly basis as in "100" above plus mileage. 07. Other Testing Services a. Pile driving observations or Icad testing, observation of caisson installation, hourly basis as in "100" above plus mileage). 1. Case-Goble Method of Analysis (i) b. Vibration or sound level investiga¥ion -- hourly basis as in "100" above, plus mileage and equipment rental (1) c. Subcontracted services such as equipment rental, special insurance, permits, etc. Cost .~ 15% d. Resale or rental of test equipment (1) EXPENSES 01: Ve[ticle charge and mileage applying to Section 100 and other sections when not included, in hourly rates a. Per day 15.00 b. Per mile 0.32 02. Per diem expenses when working away from head- quarters or branch locations, applies to Sections 100, 200 & 400 Cost '* 15% 03, Long distance telephone, shipping charges and miscellaneous expenses Cost * 15% CLERICAL SERVICES 01. Secretarial services, per hour 17,50 02. Report copies (3 copies furnished with initial distribution of report) ~ minimum charge tOt additional copies alter initial report issued 25.00 a. Library retrieval for additional copies after initial distribution ol report. (minimum charge) 15.00 b Report feproduclion of extra cop~es 0.25/per page c Postage Cost. 15% GENERAL CONDITIONS CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES (I) Scope of Work ,.~. [Iraun Engineering Testing, Inc. (hereinafter called BRAUN) shall peneorm the services defined in this contract and shall invoice the Client for those services at the rates shown on the attached SCHEDULE OF CHARGES. Any estimate of cost to the Client as stated in this contract shall not be considered as a firm figure, but only an estimate, unless otherwise specifi- cally stated in this contract. BRAUN will provide additional services under this contract with charges for those additional services at the stated rates. BRAUN will provide observation and testing services either on a full-time or on-call basis, as agreed upon between BRAUN and the Client. BRAUN will attempt to make observations and tests representative of the work executed by the contractor but will not observe or test each and every increment of the work. Tests and observations will be conducted using standard test procedures (where applicable). {I1} Responsibilities BRAUN's efforts will be directed toward assisting the Client in determining that the earthwork and other materials to be tested conform to project specifications. · BRAUN will not be responsible for the contractor's failure to perform the work in accordance with the contract documents and BRAUN's presence on the site shall in no way relieve the contractor of his responsibilities. BRA UN will not be responsible for superintending, supervising or directing the work of the contractor, or for job or site safety, those being the whole ,responsibility of others. BRAUN will not be responsible' for construction staking or surveying, unless those functions are specifically included in the accompanying des- cription of services. BRAUN will reference results of tests and observations to control lines and elevations set as part of surveying and/or construction staking by others. On the basis of on-site observations and tests, BRAUN field personnel, under the supervision ora qualified design professional, will orally inform the Client or his representative of the results of tesls and observations. Follow-up written reports will give professional opinions regarding con- formance of the contractor's work to project specifications. (lid Reports BRAUN will furnish a copy of each report to the Client, the owner, architect and government officials in accordance with pre-construction instructions and agreements. AIl reports, boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calcula- tions, estimates, and other documents prepared by BRAUN, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of BRAUN. Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client or his agents which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not bc used by the Client for any purpose whatsoever. BRAUN wiql retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to the Client at all reasonable times. (IV) Invoices Invoices will be submitted monthly. 9ayment is due upon receipt of invoice. Interest will be added beginning 30 days after the date of the invoice at the rate of 1V2% per month, but not to exceed the maximum rate by law. For extended projects, the billing rates as described in this contract may be increased on each anniversary of the date of this contract at an annual rate not to exceed 10%. {V) Insurance BRAUN is protected by Workers' Compensation Insurance (and/or employer's liability insurance) and by public liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage and will furnish certificates of insurance upon request. If the Client requests increased insurance coverage, BRAUN will take out additional insurance, if obtaintable, at the Client's expense in accordance with item 203f, but shall have no liability beyond the limits and conditions of the insurance coverage. (VI) Limitation of Liability The Client recognizes thc inherent risks connected with construction and the potential for variation in subsurface conditions. In performing its professional services, BRAUN will usc not less than that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable members of its profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made or intended by the proposal for consulting services or by furnishing oral or written reports of the findings made, and this statement may not be modified e_xcept in writing by authorized signature. In the event that BRAUN is held liable for damage due to its negligence or breach of any other obligation to Client or others, such liability is limited to an amount not to exceed $50,000 or the fee, whichever is greater. In the event that Client does not wish to limit BRAUN's liability, BRAUN agrees to waive this limitation upon written notice from the Client received within five (5) days after the date this agreement is fully executed, and Client agrees to pay an additional consideration equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total fee, said consideration to be called "Waiver of Limitation of Liability Charge." This charge will in no way be construed as being a charge for insurance of any type but will be increased consideration for the greater risk involved in performing work for which there is no limitation of liability. Further, Client agrees to notify any contractor or subcontractor who may perform work in connection with any design, report or study prepared by BRAUN of such limitation of liability for design defects, errors, omissions or negligence, and to require as a condition precedent to it performing its work, a like limitation and indemnity on its part as against BRAUN. In the event the Client fails to obtain a like limitation and indemnity, Client agrees to indemnify BRAUN for any excess liability to any third party. Under no circumstances shall BRAUN be liable for extra costs or other consequences due to changed conditions or for costs related to the failure of others to install work in accordance with the plans and specifications. BRaun ENGINEERING TESTING GC:CT 10/81 CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION FOR BINGO PER,,lIT (If an organization, give organization name) Address Bingo Manager (Name) Address Phone No.' Address of where Bingo will be played /:'/~-'~3 /'//~- 5' Dates and Hours Bingo will be played (Attach separate sheet if more room necessary)· 6. .Is Licen'se Fee' a~tached? Yes N~ ~. Amount 7. Fidelity Bond: (a) Amount (b). ·'Name of Bonding Company * (Minimum $10,000.) (c) Expirati:on Date of Bond *NOte: Praternal.;'relig.ious.i veteran an~ other n~n-pr~fit organizat'ion's may r~'quest the Bond t6 be waived. Please. indicate below if you are making such a request'~ Sic3-~a~[ur~ of pearson making applicatiu,~ BILLS MARCH 27, 1984 Air Comm Acro-MN Holly Bostrom Blue Cross/Blue Shield Janet Bertrand Continental Tele Fran Clark Jon Elam Feed-Rite Controls ~ First Bank Mpls Eugene Hickok & Assoc Illies& Sons Lake Mtka Conserv. Distr MacQueen Equip M¢Combs Knutson Minnegasco Mound Locksmith Mound Medical Clinic Mound Super Valu MN Dept Public Safety Minn City Mgmt Assoc MN Recreation & Park Mtka Vinyl Repair Mpls Oxygen Co N.S.P. NW Bell Tele No Star Waterworks Popham Haik PDQ Food Stores Road Machinery & Suppl Nels Schernau Don Streicher Guns S.O.S. Printing Mike Sullivan Painting Smoke-Eater State of MN Documents Sun Electric Corp Thrifty Snyder Drug Water Products Winner Industries Xerox, Inc. Air Cond. & Refrig Fran Clark Bill Clark Oil Griggs Beer Griggs, Cooper & Co. Henn Co. Recorder Hachiyo Elec Johnson Bros. 135.00 50.39 150.00 137.O1 67.50 1,120.98 25.17 15.06 122.29 4.OO 3,127.00 698.75 2,116.25 348.56 3,972.75 222.59 16.50 116.50 49.32 4O.OO 25.OO 85.OO 15.55 21.o0 5,111.08 270.05 23.29 1,911.80 1,414.72 455.64 27.72 56.75 444.7O 114.00 155.OO 15.50 628.42 17.98 149.60 2.O5 944'09 6.OO 149.OO 550.14 7O5.25 3,429.97 5.OO !5.O0 3,993.89 Brad Landsman LaBelles Merrill Lynch Realty' MN Dept Transp Munici-pals Mound Explorer Post 776 NCGA 20. 300. 1,9o0. 2. 175. 1,637. 5. 41 5O OO 00 Orono Police Dept Ed Phillips Quality Wine Register of Titles Unitog Rentals 35.28 2,615.46 2,503.81 60.50 350.26 TOTAL BILLS 42,884.30 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF MANAGERS: David H. Cochran, Pres. · Albert L. Lehman · John E. Thomas · Michael R. Carroll · Camille O. Andre March 20, 1984 WATERSHED BOUNDARY LAKE MINNETONKI~ M t~E$OTA f~VER Mr. Chris Bollis, Park Director City of ~Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: 1984 Water Maintenance and Repair Fund Dear Mr. Bollis: At the regularly scheduled March 15, 1984 me~ting of the Board of Managers, the City of Mound request for funding of five separate projects was considered. An allocation was approved from the 1984 Water Maintenance and Repair Fund to be applicable to the shoreline erosion repair project along the Devon Commons on Spring Park Bay. Funding of the remaining four projects in the City of Mound was not approved. The approved allocation is equal to 40 percent of the actual construction cost for the shoreline erosion repair work except that the allocation shall not exceed $3,000. Upon completion of the work, please forward documentation of construction costs along with your request for payment. As a reminder, the project along Devon Commons should be constructed in accordance with MCWD Permit No. 84-19. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 473-4224. Very truly yours, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District Michael A. Panzer, P.E. bt CC: Board G. Macomber S. Stewart March 23, 1984 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER I think we need to institute a Real Estate Research Fee to cover the cost of answering questions typical of that which is on the attached letter. What we have found is that real estate agents ask the same questions time after time on the same property. In addition, since most agents are acting for potential buyers, the information we~o give ends up in most cases not being used. I would suggest an intial fee of $10.O0. This will force agents to do their own research and perhaps be a little less casual about their calls and requests. This policy would not apply to any residents or city property owners. JE:fc enc. Burnet WEST SHORE OFFICE 4000 SHORELINE DRIVE SPRING PARK, MN 55384 (612) 476-0400 March 21, 1984 City Manager John Elam 5341Maywood Road Mound, ~n, 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: Please send me what information you cmn find regarding Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition. I have enclosed a self-addressed envelope for your convenience. Primarily, the information I need is: 1) closest proximity.to the property of city water and sewer, for the most feasible connection, 2) Whether the storm sewer easement is a possible route, 3) if gas is available to the property, and 4) the possibl~: zoning'~or this particular property. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Christopher K Merrill Lynch Realty/Burnet CR/lg Enclosure A SUBSIDIARY OF MERRILL LYNCH REALTY ASSOCIATES WESTONKA CHAMBER OF COM~RCE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE The Westonka Chamber of Commerce invites you to participate in a panel discussion concerning the proposed re-construction of Highway 15. This has been a "hot" issue for several years and the iocal newspapers have written several articles. I think a first hand report would be very informative. The panel discussion would take place at our General Membership meeting on Wednesday, May 16. This will be an 11:30 luncheon meeting at the Minnetonka Mist, lower level. We usually have 75-85 people at these meetings and I am sure that this subject will draw at least that many people. I would appreciate hearing your. thoughts on the subject, please call me to arrange the details. My office number is 559-0940. Very truly yours, Daniel F. Regan cc: Jerry Rockvam Mary C. Butler Robert Polston DANIEL F. P, EGAN CERTI~ED PUBI~C ACCOUNTANT polis Lane Suite 110 Minneapolis, MN 55441 Telephone (612) 559-0940 MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 27, 1984 Present were: Chairman Frank Weila~d; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, Liz Jensen, 'William Meyer, Geoff Michael and Thomas Reese; Council ~epresentative Pinky Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand; Kirk Corson, Planner and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioners George Kinser and Michael Vargo were absent. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 1~84 were presented for consideration. Byrnes asked that on Page 4, the reason for his nay vote be changed to read, "doesn't want public hearing to be done twice". Reese moved and 'Byrnes seconded a motion to.approve the minutes as revised of {he February 13th, 1984 Planning.Commission meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. The. Chairman welcomed and introduced the new member, William Meyer. SIGN CODE DISCUSSION' The City ·Planner,. Mark Koegler, briefly reviewed where we~are today on the sign cod~. The Sign Committee (a sub-committee of the Planning Commission.was basically the group responsible for Coming wp with the draft of'the slgn'ordinance. Last month, the Planning Commission started going.t~rough'the process of reviewing the draft and trying to come up with a collective .agreement; the draft would ultimately ' go on to.the bus|ness community and eventually go-to the City'Council for.recommenda- tions for ano~dinance and subsequently go to public hearing. In the previous review, the Planning Commission~went".through the first three sections of the ordi'nance draft and the only' note of modification the Planner had, was on Page 3 in Section 3.O5(1) "exempt from pe'rmi'ts and not exceed more'than 25~ of area".. The Chairman had'noted in Section 3.O4'to'add "and a record kept",:and in Section 3.08 change to read ..."within three ~nths after notification of this ordinance". The Planner stated there are two. major, areas Of signs'not adequately covered in the draft and need further attention - off premises advertising sign (billboard type, etc.) and Variable electronic sign. '. The Planner had taken slides of signs, around town to give the Commission an overview of signage in general and as he went through them, he highlighted points on how the ordinance fits with the si.gnage that you see. He noted that the roof signs shown in the slides do'not meet the draft as roof signs are not permitted in,ny district. · Signs are to be designed as an integral part of building and not stuck.on·top. The sandwich portable signs'are not permitted. Window signs in Clothing Store, Netka's .. and Snyder's were definitely in excess of the allowable 25%. The Bank sign is an example of.t'ime and temperature type of approach. Minnesota Federal doesn't conform because it has wall signs on each of 4 sides of the building; ordinance al'lows one sign per street frontage. Ben Franklin and Body Shop - ordinance doesn't allow sig~s painted on bui.lding.' Locksmith's sign blinks and he thinks it sticks out over the sidewalk more than 18 inches. House of Moy has what appears to be a roof sign.. The Body Shop has two types of wall signs - new ordinance does or will have language that contribute a little bit more attractive signs. Hole in One - has roof sign (not per- missible); in building with a couple of. businesses, encourage to have signage together and have one sign board. Wall signs or free standing sign per street frontage allow~ Trading Pos't sign is permissible because it doesn't extend above top of roof line. Tulberg's - this is considered wall sign; size problem; think this one is in excess of the 10% of area. On Hardee's, you may want to consider a certain amount of Planning Co~mission Minutes February 27, 1984 - Page 2 flexibility - ordinance allows either wall sign or free standing per street frontage', but not both. Surfside - banner - can have 4 times a'year; exemPt from fees..0rdl- [.i'. ~nce doesn't cover flags; flags should be addressed. 'Gas Station.- either free ~ lng sign or wall plus signs ~ha~ are integral part of pump (other si'gns are not permissible). PDQ and'Pizza. Factory have free standing slgn'plus wall sign; but .... signage not excessive. Anthony's free standing sign is too large.. Bickm~n's building - ordinance does permit for sale/lease sign up to 32 square feet on commercial; the for sale sign tacked on the bottom of sign doesn't meet the ordinance. Dr..Segner~s off premise advertising sign -'have to consider this type of sign. Also, there is nothing in ordinance on bench advertising - this should be considered. Seasonal signs are allowed only in the commercial area;'2 months per y~ar and allowed only as part of overall signage. "The Planner stated that he had tried to pick a few examples to begin with to crystalize what this ordinance actually says; if anything, you've pKobably gotten the idea this is pretty 'restrictive and we just want to makelsure you're aware of.all that as we go ~lhrough so.'you can discuss areas such'as the'free standing vs..the wa~l sign, as you · may have some different thoughts on that. The discussion on the-ordinance continued. Reese'brought up. that we were going to define windOWlsigns in Section 4 - make it Item nonconforming and illegal'signs and pr~s and cons 6f' making signage conform to a new'ordinance. The City Manager stated that the challenge above al)' other is how to re'ch the. point that you want to have some kind of organized way for signs over a period of time so :hat businesses are.not harmed along the way or feel they've been harmed. The Chairman thought signs would be grandfathered in, but when they needed.repair or replacing, they'd have to conform. The Planner thought this whole.sthing comes down to: "What do you want to.do with signage in Mound? There's got to be a betterlway! How do you go abou~ defining a better w~y? And do.you go about' making everything conforming? And how many waves do'you want to make?" The Planner continued with going over each Section with comments starting with 5.01. Section 5.02 - extremely restrictive.; 5.04 - can be distracting; 5.05 discussed that over 18 inches could block vision - basically trying to reserve a corridor through the downtown adea. The Chairman questioned if special liability coverage needed for overhanging sign. The City Manager felt the business' liability would cover signs. Section 5.06 relates to.si, gns like Ben Franklin and the Body Shop - painted on the-. wall~ 5.07 basically'a standard safety'clause (Section 23.714.- clear space at inter- section); 5.08 - ~his is safety clause, wall sign can't~block portion of door. Dis- cussed Section 5.09 Temporary Signs.. 5.0~(2)(e) Reese felt that this is about the · time they'd ~ant twice the signs out; Byrnes recommended '~hen 90% complete". 5.O9(2)(f) Reese recommended 100 feet rather than~the 200 feet. 5.09(4) This should 'be for special events such as grand openings, tire specials, rather than every day" advertising such as Sunday Brunch - is limited to 4 occasions per year. The Planner thought the way this ordinance is written, fl~gs at Surfside would be considered banners. Council Representative Charon asked how lake side is considered? Not addressed and should be. · Section 5.09(6)(e) & (fi were discussed at length and it was decided that garage Planning Commission Minutes February 2~, 1984 - .Page 3 sales signs should be limited to 5 occasions of 5 days each and under (fl Christmas should be omitted. The boutiques, craft sales, etc. shall be limited to the 5 occa- 'sions of 5 days each. 5.09(7) After discussion of seasonal signs, it was decided to pull.out "not in addi- tion to" in the sixth line of this section. 5.14 Discussed that window signs should be handled with definition of window. It was agreed to stop at Section 6 and continue on at the next discussion meeting. The Planner asked the Commission to'think about some of the comments and start 'thinking about the district regulations - free standing vs wall signs and what would · be trade offs and Hardee's situation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION Planner Kirk Corson distributed a Comprehensi've Guide Plan Outline. He stated~that he has been working on a'comprehensive plan for about a month now and has been doing research with Metro Council and a number of different cities. He then went through his outline briefly to explain where he's going and what he's trying to accomplish. The Comprehens!ve Plan was developed because of the Land Planning Act of 1976 and Corson is'updating the plan. Reese questioned the purpose and Corson stated basically to know what your policies are on each set Of goals for~each area and to have policies for each goal.. Plan outline was discussed briefly and why police and fire were left out of plan. the neXt meeting, there will be an update of the work done on the Comprehensive Pian.' ...... ADJOURNMENT Weiland moved and Michael .seconded a motion to adjourn. adjourned at 9:30 P.M. All were in favor, so meeting Frank Weiland, Chairman Attest: March 12, 1984 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Elam Greg Skinner Progress Report on Water Meters & Outside Readers Figures ~as of March 12, 1984. Total number of accounts Total number of OR's installed Total number of OR's left to install 3,O10 2,751 259 Total percent of accounts that are completed is 91%. As of March 12, 1984 we have 30 accounts that are inoperable. This computes to a 1% failure rate. 3,O10 3O 2,98O = 1% In January and February we sent out meter cards for each account. We asked the homeowner to read the inside water meter and mail or call in the reading. This was done so we could compare the inside reading to the outside reading. We asked the homeowner this for one reason, if there was a difference between the two we would be able to fix the problem within a couple of weeks, thus eliminate high bills due to early detection of faulty equipment. We have had fairly good response from the homeowners. District #3 received cards in January with a 60% return. District #1 received cards in February with a 65% return. This program will be conducted once each year. In closing I would like to thank the City Council and the City Manager for their patients and support thru this water meter and outside reader program. Also a very special thanks to my crew, Joyce, Sharon, and Lois for their determination and drive to make this program a success. Respectfully, Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. American 'Legion Post 398 DATE Feb. 29~ .198A GAMBLING REPORT CURRENT MONTH ~281o. oo YEAR TO DATE f?'85.oo GROSS: EXPENSES: S~,] ~s tsx Suppl i e s 237. PAYOUT AS PRIZES: PROFIT: DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS: A.F.S. CubScouts Memorl~ls 1700.00 ~622.4A 3200.00 '715,56 1662, ~6 ~350.00 60.00 100. O0 20. O0 25'. O0 ~555.o0 ~920.00 Checking Account ~3072.19 WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS INC. SPONSORED BY SUBURBAN COMMUNITY SERVICE · AUNITED WAYAGENCY · BOX 42 MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 March 19, 1984 Dear Mr. Elam: The Westonka Senior Citizens wish to thank you for your support of their recent application for a Tit~ III grant. We feel certain that with the cooperation and support of the community such as you have demonstrated, we will receive more favorable consideration for our application. Thank you for your efforts in our behalf. Sincerely, Dorothy 0'Brien, Secretary Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. 300 Metro Square Bid[[., St. Paul, MN $$101 General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359 REVIEW" 53qi M~YWDDD B_VD A Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Community Leaders MOUND MN 5536 For more information on items/n this pub//cot/on, ca//the ...................... said the city should ensure that 20 percent of the units are reserved for tenants with Iow ar~d,rnoderate in.co,me"~'for at least 10 years. ~ ~ q ~,;,;,'~;~ . / Development Grants--In a review reques~'~'~l by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, the Council said eight Metropolitan Area applications for federally funded Small Cities Development Grants totalling $4.5 million are consistent with local and regional plans. The applicants seek funding for a variety of urban improvements. The eight governmental units are in competition for funding. statewide. They a~"e: Carver County, Forest Lake Twp., Forest' Lake, Lake St. Croix Beach, St. Paul Park, §tillwater, Shoreview and Hopkins. Water Qualit~,;The Council entered into an interagency agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission an~ the park implementing agencies for Hennepin and Dakota Counties to survey water quality in 42 lakes. The information will be used to determine the effectiveness of surface water management. Parks--The Council said it will discourage, but no longer disqualify, grant applications for active recreation (such as ball fields) located in rural areas of the Region. The g~ants are provided by the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and the.state Legislative Commission on Minnesota ResourCes (LCMR). The Council will rank s.uch applications below other' applications located in the urban service area. Crime Control--The Council asked its Criminal Justice Advisory Committee to address two issues in 1984. The com- mittee should determine what the role of the Council should ' be in regional criminal justice and public safety. The commit- tee sh'euld also define the structure and resources the Council would need to carry out a new role. State Planning Agency RePort on Regional Structure- The Council said it supported the major findings and recom- mendations made in the State Planning Agency report, "Metropolitan Agencies: Structure and Process Issues." While in general agreement, the Council said it would continue to look at the specific i~ues raised and give detailed responses st a later date. The planning agency rdport was prepared for Gev. Perpich, NEW APPOINTMENTS : March 9, 1984 RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (Feb. 27-March 9) Solid Waste-The Metropolitan Council said Site 2 in Eden Prairie is environmentally unsuitable for solid waste disposal. The site became the seventh the Council has rejected in Hennepin County during the last year. The Council will now review four sites that had not been selected for consideration by Hcnnepin County: two in Indepsndence, one in Corcoran and one in Minnetrista. These sites are environmentally "intrinsically suitable" according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, but land in each site is at least partially in an agricultural preserve and planned for long-term agricultural use. By law, each courity must adopt an inventory of four pro- posed landfill sites. Hennepin County has only two approved sites and has not proposed any additional ones. The law requires the Council to pick the sites when a county fails to do so. The Council set a public meeting for 7 p.m., Wednesday, April 4 at the Woodbury Jr. High school cafeteria to hear public comment on a potential solid waste disposal site in Maplewood. The Council said while large-scale composting of sewage sludge and co-compost/rig sludge with mixed municipal solid waste are currently not practical alternatives to incineration of sludge, small-scale projects should be pursued. The informa- tion is in a report that recommends the legislature provide the University of Minnesota up to $500,000 over the next five years to research co-composting as a solid waste alternative. The report, The Potential. for Large-Scale Sewage Sludge Compo$ffng and. Co-Compost/ng in the Metropofftan Area, no. 12-84-033, was sent to the Legislative Commission on Waste Management. For a copy, call the Communications Department at 291-6464. Air Quality--The Council adopted a report that says violations of federal carbon monoxide standards at the inter- section of University and Shelling Ars. in St. Paul are confined to the intersection itself and do not extend to the surrounding neighborhoods. The report will be sent to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to help the agency redefine the'area of pollution. For a copy of the report, An Analysis of Carbon Monoxide Dora From the Intersection of Unive~ity and Snel/ing Av~. in St. Paul, no. 09-84-027, 64 pp., $2.50, call the Communications Department at 291-6464. Health--The Council concurred with the Metropolitan Health Planning Board, recommending approval of a certificate- of-need request for a nuclear magnetic resonator proposed by the University of Minnesota Hospitals and Clinics. Purchase of the machine, the latest advance in providing images of the body, plus site renovation, will cost S3.2 million. The machine is expected to be in operation this fall. Housing--The Council said a rental housing bond program proposed by Burnsville is consistent with Council guidelines. The city plans to issue approximately S19.5 million in tax- exempt revenue bonds to finance a 370-unit rental apartment complex. The housing is proposed at the intersection of proposed Southcross Dr. and County Rd. 5. The Council also The Council named Marge Hals, St. Paul, as its new director of communications, one of 14 Council departments. Hals has been publications manager at the Council since 1978. COUNCIL TO AMEND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Metropolitan Council is proposing an amendment to its regional'Transportation Policy Plan that would revise the process for developing priorities for regional transit and high- way proiects. The proposed amendment includes estimates of costs and revenues for the projects. Under the amendment, project priorities would be reviewed every year and updated every two years. After adopting the amendment, the Council would begin set~ing up criteria and identifying priority transit and highway projects. The Council is expected to adopt the amendment in May 1984 and the priorities by mid-1985. Here is a proposed schedule for adopting the amendment. 14 The Council's Metrol~olitan Systems Committee aclopt~. March 15 March 22 March 23 April 25 May 8 May 16 May 24 hearing draft and a recommended hearing date Transportation Advisory Board acts on hearing draft Council adoots hearing draft for public hearing Hearing draft mailed to affected agencies and governments Metropolitan Systems Committee holds public hearing Hearing closes Metropolitan Systems Commit"tee ac~s on amendment Metropolitan Council adopts amendment SEARCH FOR NEW COUNCIL CHAIR NARROWS TO FIVE CANDIDATES The search committee chaired by Harlan Cleveland . presented its candidates for a new Metropolitan Council chair to Gov. Perpich March 2. The committee recommended Joan Campbell, Metropolitan Council member; Vern Johnson, former Citizens League executive director; Barbara Lukermann, senior fellow at the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota; Robert Orth, chair of the Ramsay County Board of Commissioners; and Alice Rainville, president of the Minne- apolis City Council, The governor is expected to name a new chair by May 1. RICK NOLAN TO KEYNOTE STATE OF REGION EVENT Rick Nolan, chair of the Governor's Council on the World Trade Center, will address local government officials and other interested citizens on how the World Trade Center will affec~ our regional economy at the Metropolitan CounciVs annual .tare of the Region Event April 30. The event will take place the Hilton Inn, 1330 Industrial Blvd., Minneapolis, from 8 a.m. to 1:40 p.m. Concurrent morning seminars will include the following: 1994--New Regional Services and Governmental Structures, chaired by John Brandl, professor at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs; Money/nc the Waters--What Does "Fishable" and "Swimmable" Mean to the Twin Cities Area7, chaired by Sandra Gardebring, director of the Minnesota Pollution Con- trol Agency; Home Equity Vs. Public Subsidies-Who Pays to House Elderly PeoPle?, chaired by Tom Byrne, chair of the Council's Long-Term Care Task Force; and Paying for Parks- What's the Best Way to Pay for Operating and Maintaining Our Regional Parks?, chaired by Rep. Gordon Voss of Blaine. The event will also include an address by Council Chair Gerald Isaacs, comments by the new Council chair, the first Recjio.-.al Citizen of the Year award and a slide presentation. To register, send a check for S10, payable to "State of the Region," by April 20 to the Metropolitan Council. For information, call 291-6464. INVITE A PLANNER TO DINNER Would you be interested in inviting a small group of planners from around the nation into your home for dinner Monday, May 7? About 2,500 American Planning Association (APA) members from all 50 states and Canada will be in the Twin Cities May 5-9 for their annual national conference, and a dinner with local residents is one of the activities planned for them. The evening is an opportunity for you to describe what you like about living in the Twin Cities Area, and a way to help the planners feel more at home here. You can even choose guest planners according to their area of professional interest. For more information on being a host, call the Minnesota chapter of the APA at 348-6962. APRIL PLANNERS' FORUM: ZONING FOR NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Zoning for wind machines, earth-sheltered buildings and solar access will be the focus of a planners' forum held by the Metropolitan Council on April 10 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council offices. Jan/ce Thompson, state energy and land use planner, will discuss the recently published guidebooks for Minnesota communities: Zoning for Wind Machines, Zoning for Earth. Sheltered Buildings and Planning and Zqning for Solar Acce~ For more information on the April forum, call Jim Uttley at 291-6361. NEW PUBLICATIONS Long-Term Care: Is It M/n/on tmpo~/b/e? Jan. 1984. No. 19~4~23; 73 pp.; S2.75. Crime Trends in the Twin C/t/es Metropolitan Area: An Update. Feb. 1984. No. 36-83-153; 64 pp.; $2.50. COMING MEETINGS (March 19-29) (Meetings are tentative. To verify, call 291-6464.) Community Services Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Aging, Monday, March 19, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Conference Room E. .lyletropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Monday, MarCh 19, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee, Tuesday, March 20, 11 a.m., Council Chambers. Transportation Advisory Board, Wednesday, March 21, 2 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan Systems Committee, Wednesday, March 21, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Ridesharing Board, Thursday, March 22, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, Thursday, March 22, 1 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council Committee of the Whole, Thursday, March 22, 2.:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council, Thursday, March 22, 4 p.m., Council Chamb.ers. Advisory Committee on Aging, Friday, March 23, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. Aviation Policy Plan Task Force, Friday, March 23, 9 a.m., St. Paul Downtown Airport Terminal Building Conference Room. LAWCON/LCMR Grant Process Study Committee (Parks and Open Space), Monday, March 26, 7 p.m., Conference Room B. Metropolitan Systems Committee, Tuesday, March 27, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. University Av./SW Corridor Study Steering Committee, Wednesday, March 28, 9 a.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority Advisory Committee, Wednesday, March 28, 11 a.m., Conference Rooms C and D. Environmental Resources Committee, Wednesday, March 28, 3 p.m,, Conference Room E. Metropolitan Health Planning Board, Wednesday, March 28,~ 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council's Telecommunications Issues Forum, Thursdav, March 29, 1-5:30 p.m., Council Chambers (tentative). Metropolitan and Community Development Commit-tee, Thursday, March 29, 1 p.m., Council Chambers. Arts Advisory Committee Meeting, Thursday, March 29, 5:15 p.m., Conference Room E. City of Mound. Mr Jori Elam. Dear Sir: I look with amusement at a statement from your City Clerk/ Administrator Charlotte Paterson. "If you know that your sump pump is connected to the city sewer, it should be disconnected immediately." Is this illegal? Is there a fine? Who in the city has the job of enforcing this? Really! Over the past several years I have reported numerous ogoing's on and all I everhear is. Thats not my job~ Maybe in the next issue of the Laker you could tell me who has this fateful job. The meter reader goes past these pumps in the older homes and buildings every time he reads the water.meter and he never tells. Mound has been in the process of replaqing water meters with the new tkpe that can be read from the outside. How' do they miss the sump pumps? I forgot, Thats~. not their job. All one has~ to do is leave City Hall drive to Cty 15 go left to the Stop lites and go into The Recently Remodeled Law Offices and you have your first Culprit. Go North and South and you have some more. Lake Langdon drains more through the sewer than Lake Minnetonka. Why not start with the business district? Do they have §pecial treatment? 3 of your city employees know of this but its not their Job. "Fantastic" TWIN LABOR CITIES MARKET INFORMATION LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS Vol. 8 No. 3 MARCH 1984 · .Preliminary estimate~ for January show a strong start for 1984 job market conditions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. For only the second time in the past 14 years, the unemployment rate dropped between December and.January. Typically, the unemployment rate increases by 0.5 percentage points as seasonal layoffs in the con- struction and retail trade industries result in higher jobless rates. While the total number of employed residents decreased by 1.1 percent, this was considerably less than the 13 year average of -2.8 percent. Month-to-month changes in labor force statis- tics, especially in the number of unemployed workers, can be somewhat unpredictable because of the'nature of the estimating methodology. However, year ago comparisons of the number of unemployed show more accurately t~e extent of improvement in the unem- ployment situation. The number of unemployed is 29,000 or 31.6 percent less than a year ago at this time. The unemployment rate for January is now the lowest it has been since 1981 when it was 4.7 percent. NOTE: 1983 LABOR FORCE DATA FOR MINNESOTA, THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL SMSA, AND ITS SUBAREAS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO THE'1983 ANNUAL AVERAGE CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY BENCHMARK. LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES {not seasonally adjusted) AREA CIVILIAN [JkBOR FORCE T01JkL F.J~PLOYMENT -. UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE JAil. ~ DEC, ~ JAil.. JAN. ~ DEC. ~ JAN. ~ JAN. ~ DEC. ~ JAN. ~ JAil. p DEC. ~) JAN. ~ 1984~ 1983K 1983K 1984r 1983~ 1983K 1984r 1983K 1983K 1984' 1983~! 1983~ Minneapolis- 1,1'86. l 1,203.4 1,157.2 1,122.5 1,134.7 1,064.7 63.6 68.6 92.6 5.4 5.7 8.0 St. Paul SIVA* County: Anoka 112,737 114,374 110,644 106,267 107,422 100,788 6,470 6,952 9,85'6 5.7 6.1 8.9 Carver 21,458 21,555 21,056 20,086 20,304 19,050 1,372 1,251 2,O06 6.4 5.8 9.5 Chisago 15,362 15~489 14,767 13,943 14,095 13,224 1,419 1,394 1,543 9.2 9.0 10.4 Oakota 111,732 113,505 109,073 105,244 106,388 99,817 6,488 7,117 9,256 5.8 6.3 8.5 Henneptn 535,683 543,813 522,834 510,417 515,968 484,101 25,266 27,845 38,733 4.7 5.1 7.4 R~msey 262,977 266,~61 256,194 249,2B7 251,998 236,~34 13,690 14,863 19,760 5.2 5.6 7.7 Scott 25,710 25,886 25,115 23,739 23,997 22,515 1,971 1,889 2,600 7.7 7.3 10.4 Washington 65,184 66,247 63,193 61,576 62,246 58,401 3,608 4,001 4,792 5.5 6.0 7.6 Wright 35,239 35,629 34,329 31,967 32,316 30,321 3,272 3,313 4,008 9.3 9.3 ll.7 City of 211,294 214,449 206,417 201,123 203,310 190,754 10,171 l1,139 15,663 4.8 5.2 7.6 XI nneapol tS City of 155,159 157,367 151,267 146,514 148,107 138,960 8,645 9,260 12,307 5.6 5.9 8.1 St. Paul Minnesota' 2,150.7 2,175.2 2,111.2 1,983.9 2,007.2 1,895.0 166.8 168.0 216.2 7.8 7.7 10.2 United State~* 111,025 111,795 109,779 101,270 102,803 97,262 9,755 8,912 12,517 8.8 8.0 11.4 P · Preliminary R - Revtsect * U.S., Minnesota, and SMSA data in thousands. NOTE: BENCHMARK ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO 1983 MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS ESTIMATES. EHPLOYMENT, HOURS AND EARNINGS in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area PERCENT PRODUCTION WORKERS' HOURS & £ARNI~G~-/ £MPLOYME~I' CHANGE Average Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekly INDUSTRY (UUU) FROH Earnings Earnings Hours JAN. Month Year Month Year JAN. Year JAN. Year JAN. Year 1984 A o Ago Ago Ago 1984 Ago 1984 1984 ......... ~ Ago Aqo '~O~'~L NONAGRJCULIURAL 1089.0 1106.6 1043.3 -1.6 4.4 XX XX XX XX xx XX ~tA~UFACIURING 237.5 237.8 225.3 -0.2 5.4 421.89 386.12 10.24 g.85 41.2 39.2 Uuroble~Goods 151.4 151.7 142.0 -0.2 6.6 436.90 395.60 10.28 9.72 42.5 40.7 l. umber& fur,iture 6.2 6.3 5.7 -0.6 9.3 427.99 395.26 10.62 10.24 40.3 38.6 Stone, Clay & Glass 3.6 3.5 2.8 4.6 28.1 366.15 395.92 9.79 9.80 37.4 40.4 Prlllidry Metals 4.4 4.3 4.0 2.4 12.0 393.36 351.54 8.94 8.68 44.0 40.5 F,bricated Metals 26.1 26.4 25.8 -1.2 1.O 481.10 453.95 11.32 10.86 42.5 41.8 Ho,-Electrical Machinery 63.3 63.3 58.3 -O.1 8.5 1441.09 393.09 10.33 9.73 42.7 40.4 Office & Cm,puting [qui~ent 32.9 33.0 29.8 -0.4 10.4 XX XX XX XX XX XX Electrical Mu~hinery 17.4 17.5 16.6 -0.9 4.8 393.39 357.98 9.30 9.04 42.3 39.6 lrdnsportation Equi~m~t 4.0 4.1 2.1 -2.1 93.4 598.46 428.65 13.0l 10.77 46.0 39.8 Scientific I,strume,ts 22.8 22.6 22.7 0.6 0.2 ~35.16 391.13 9.89 9.16 44.0 42.7 Miscellaneous 3.7 3.6 4.0 0.7 -8.9 324.69 339.44 8.39 8.34 38.7 40.7 i(ondurable Goods 86.0 86.2 83.3 -0.2 3.3 398.04 371.95 lO.lB 0.08 39.1 36.9 Food & Kindred PrOduCtS 17.7 18.2 18.1 -2.5 -1.8 395.20 351.22 9.71 9.57 40.7 36.7 Textiles a Apparel 2.2 2.2 2.3 1.O -4.6 214.53 184.08 5.91 5.90 36.3 31.2 Paper & Allied I'roducts 24.6 24.S 23.7 0.6 3.B 411.70 424.32 9.71 10.20 42.4 41.6 I','i,~ti,g & Puhlishi,g 25.2 25.0 23.9 0.8 5.6 404.26 365.26 11.65 ll.17 34.7 32.7 Ci,emical & P~troleum Products 7.7 7.8 7.7 -0.9 0.5 464.52 403.21 11.76 10.81 39.5 37.3 RobOt. r. Pla~ti~, ~,d Leather 8.5 8.5 7.6 0.3 12.0 365.31 336.30 9.11 8.85 40.l 38.0 NONHANuFACTURIHG 851.5 868.7 818.1 -2.0 ~.l XX XX XX XX XX XX ICONSTRuCTION 34.3 37.4 30.2 -8.3 13.6 599.90 567.58 16.04 15.55 37.4 36.5. Building Construction 9.8 10.7 9.1 -8.3 8.5 588.89 560.60 16.09 15.07 36.6 37.2 Highwdy & Heavy Co,structiun 2.3 3.1 2.3 -26.1 -1.2 439.71 498.55 14.23 14.75 30.9 33.8 bpecial lrades Contracti,g 22.2 23.6 18.8 -5.9 17.9 620.54 579.62 16.16 15.88 38.4 36.5 TRANSPORTATION 41.6 41.8 39.9 -0.5 4.1 XX XX XX XX XX XX ' Railroads 6.4 6.5 7.0 -0.6 -7.4 534.11 503.32 11.34 11.16 47.1 45.1 Trucking & Warehousing lS.1 15.3 13.5 -1.S ll.8 434.51 427.38 12.45 12.46 34.9 34.3 PUBLIC UIILIllES & COl~t. 21.0 21.2 20.7 -1.0 1.1 )04.34 464.90 12.64 11.89 39.9 39.1 TRADE 263.4 272.0 257.1 -3.2 2.5 241.68 227.21 7.95 7;65 30.4 29.7 - Retail Trade 191.7 200.6 187.4 -4.5 2.3 ~88.64 175.27 6.81 6.54 27.7 26.8 G~,eral Merchandise Stores 33.1 36.3 31.6 -8.9 4.7 )176.90 166.70 6.10 6.04 29.0 27.6 Food Stores 24.2 24.6 25.5 -1.5 -4.8 ~43.98 238.26 8.16 8.36 29.9 28.5 Eating & Drinking Places. 60.5 62.3 59.6 -3.0 1.5 84.73 87.88 4.58 4.53 18.5 lg.4 Specialty Merchandise~/ 73.9 77.4 70.7 -4.5 4.5 161.03 1231.27 7.70 i 7.18 33.9 32.2 W~olesale lrade 71.7 71.4 69.7 0.5 2.9. 108.06 391.72 lO.4g/lO.D7 38.9 38.9 FINANCE, INS. & REAL ESTATE 75.9 76.4 73.0 -0.6 4.1 312.66 301.68 8.36 7.96 37.4 37.9 li,,ance 32.8 33.0 30.9 -0.5 6.2 331.45 311.54 8.91 8.22 37.2 37.9 Insurance 29.7 29.7 29.2 -0.2 1.5 349.81 337.84 8.47 8.24 41.3 41.0 Ru~l Estate 13.5 13.7 12.8 -1.6 4.8 194.77 204.70 6.58 6.54 29.6 31.3 5ERVICF & HISCELLANEOUS 263.1 265.3 247.3 -0.8 6.4 XX XX XX XX XX XX Lodging & Recreation 24.3 24.6 23.0 -1.2 5.7 135.90 131.54 5.88 5.77 23.1 22.8 P,.rsu,~l Services ll.2 ll.2 ll.1 0.0 l.O XX XX XX XX XX XX lsUsi,ess Services 56.5 57.6 48.8 -1.9 15.7 XX XX XX XX - XX XX Rep, ir Services 12.9 13.0 12.0 -0.2 7.6 258.49 256.70 6.93 6.72 37.3 38.2 Health Services 74.1 74.3 72.9 -0.3 1.6 232.14 217.65 7.95 7.61 29.2 28.6 Hospitals 30.1 30.2 30.4 -0.5 -1.0 ~67.90 250.70 9.40 8.89 28.5 28.2 Nursing Ilomes 20.1 20. I 20.4 -0.2 -1.8 92.23 183.26 6.89 6.64 27.g 27.6 Other H~alth 23.9 24.0 22.1 -0.2 8.4 XX XX XX XX XX XX Ley~l Services 8.3 8.3 7.7 0.8 8.g q36.18 357.77 11.95 9.49 36.5 37.7 Private £~ucation 15.9 16.1 14~4 -1.4 10.2 XX XX XX XX XX XX Other Services~/ 56.9 56.7 54.4 0.4 4.6 XX XX XX XX XX XX ~OVERNHENT 152.2 154.6 149.8 -1.5 1.6 Feaural 17.8 17.7 17.5 0.5 1.4 State 46.6 47.2 46.7 -1.2 -0.2 Local 87.8 89.7 85.6 -2.1 2.6 " Luss than .05 I/ Averag,~ eernincjs data are on a "gross" basis and 'are derived from reports of payroll for full- and part-time produC,:iun or nonsup{~rvisory workers. The payroll is reported before deductions of any kind. Bonuses, retrO- active pay, tips, p,yment in kind, and "fringe benefits" are excluded. 2_/ Includes Building Materials, Automotive, Apparel, Home Furnishings, Drug, Mail Drder and Miscellaneous ketai ) i,g ~/ ]ncluOes Social Servfces. ~mbership Organizations. and Mis~el)aneous Services such as Engineering and Account lng. Source: Current £mpl~yl.unt Statistics Program (Figures rounded to nearest hundred). EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONDITIONS )TE TO READERS: The table on the opposite page has undergone some changes which we pe will provide you with a more complete picture of trends in employment~ hours and earnings in Twin Cities area industries. In order to provide more information on the fast-growing industries, we have expanded the service and trade industry sections'as well as reported monthly estimates for the computer subgroup of the nonelectrical machinery industry. After reviewing the quality of the monthly sample, we have also expanded the hours and earnings section. Some data still cannot be reported because either it is not collected or because the industry is so diverse that an average hour- ly figure can be very misleading. Finally, we will provide year ago comparisons of hours and earnings rather than month.ago.. '~ 'As noted on the table, monthly estimates for 1983 have been :revisedo This process, called benchmarking, resulted in an upward revision of wage and salary estimates in five industries, while two industries, trade and government, experienced minor down- ward revisions. Overall, revised December total wage and salary employment Was 17,000 or 1.6 percent higher than originally reported. A brief note of explanat4on may be useful to users of the employment figures. Each month a sample of about 1,500 employ- ers voluntarily send us payroll employment figures. At the beginning of each year, these sample-based estimates are revised to more complete employment counts which the Research Office'receives quarterly from employer~ reporting employment and wages for Unemployment Insurance tax purposes. Presently,-quarterly reports through June, 1983 are available. Figures for the balance of 1983 and the upcoming months of 1984 will reflect month-to-month changes in employment based on the sample of employers. C~I~ACTERISTICS OF PERSONS C~IImMING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE The number of unemployment insurance claimants rose by 3,749 from December. This monthly increase of 21.4 percent is near the past six year average of 24.7 percent, reflecting, seasonal develop- ments in all industries. The January rise is most pronounced in construction, which now has the largest number of CNARACTERISTICS OF THE I~SURED UI(E)tPLOYED (Regular Benefits Program) MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL SMSA Week Ending 1/12/84 Percent Change Industry and From: Percent Percent ~ Occupational ~onth Year of ILong-Term~ Percent Attachment .. Number Ago Ago Total Unemployed Women Total, All Industries 21,285 21.4 -41.9 lO0.O 13.9 25.3 Construction 6,271 36.9 -17.3 29.5 3.3 3.4 ~anufacturing 4,711 10.3 -62.4 22.1 15.9 31.1 Durable Goods 3,341 ll.O -65.6 15.7 14.5 2~.7 Nondurable Goods 1,370 8.8 -51.2 6.4 lg.4 36.7 Trans., Coa~., and Public Utilities 899 22.6 ~40.7 4.2 15.5 15.6 Wholesale Trade 1,470 16.5 -47.6 6.9 20.8 22.8 Retail Trade 2,336 20.2 -37.9 . ll.O 21.2 34.9 Fin., Ins., and Real Estate 700 4.9 -36.2 3.3 30.9 54.3 Services 3,466 19.4 -35.6 16.3 21.4 51.6 Public Admtn. 463 8.9 -16.4 2.2 17.1 33:.3 All Other 884 33.3 -)8.1 4.2 2.6 7.8 Inf. Not Available 85 70.0 -73.8 0.4 2.4 17.6 lotal, All Occupations 21,285 21.4 -41.g 1D0.O 13.g 25.3 Prof., Tech., Mgr. ~,935) 10.3 -42.4 13.B 26.6 '37.4 Clerical 2,331 9.6 -43.4 ll.O 28.D 75.9 Sales B13) 16.6 -37.4 3.B 26.1 27.1 Service 1,40~ 15.4 -35.8 6.6 23.2 43.1 Farm., For., Fish. 553 25.4 -12.6 2.6 2.2 7.8 Processing 326 23.0 -42.5 1.5 ll.3 13.2 ~chtne Trades 1,1951 16.2 -62.2 5.6 15.A )5.2 Benchwork 1,734 7.8 -62.8 8.1 10.8 52.8 Structural Work 6,336 37.6 -2g.2 29.8 4.2 2.1 Miscellaneous 3,634 26.9 -37.6 17.1 B.1 10.1 Inf. Not Available 25 -7.4 -80.C 0.1 16.0 36.0 NOTE: Percentages may not total to lO0.O due to independent rounding. l_/ Long-Term unemployed refers to unemployment insurance clmimants whose current spell of unemployment has lasted 15 weeks or longer, claimants at 6,271,-.close to one-third of the total. Consequently, the per- centage of long-term unemployed now stands at 13.9 percent, its lowest point in four years due to these recent con- struction laYoffs'and th~ significant drops in claimants from one year ago that other industries continue to show. January marks the tenth straight month that their number has decreased from last year's levels, with the manufactur- ing sector displaying the greatest per- centage change. Only 22.1 percent of all claimants hail from that industry, lowest share since April of 1979, gh their number still exceeds 1979 and 1980 levels. THE JOB MARKET As noted previously estimates for 1983 figures. in the bulletin, labor force and nonagri.cultural wage and salary have been revise~. The following tables present the revised 1983 ANNUAL AVERAGE LABOR FORCE STATISTICS Minneapolis- St. Paul SMSA* 1,17g.1 County: Anoka 112,549 Carver 21,049 Chisago 14,872 Dakota 110,454 Hennepin 534,820 Ramsey 261,675 Scott 25,145 Washington 64,338 Wright 34,244 City of Minneapolis 211,316 City of St. Paul 154,164 City of Bloomington 46,375 Minnesota* 2,175.0 United States* 111,550.0 Civilian Unemployment Labor Force Employment Unemployment Rate 1,100.8 78.3 6.6 * U.S., Minnesota, and SMSA data 104,210 8,339 7.4 19,697 1,352 6.4 · 13,673 1,199 8.1 103,206 7,248 6.6 500,537 34,283 6.4 244,461 17,214 6.6 23,279 1,866 7.4 60,384 3,954 6.1 31,35,0 2,894 8.5 197,230 14,086 6.7 143,678 10,486 6.8 43,509 2,866 6.2 1,997.0 178.0 8.2 100,834.0 10,717.0 9.6 in thousands. 1982 AND 1983 ANNUAL AVERAGE NONAGRICULTURAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT 1982 Total, All Industries 1,067.1 Manufacturing' 234.7 Durable Goods 150.1 Nondurable Goods 84.6 Nonmanufacturing 832.4 Mining Construction 35.8 Trans., Con~., Pub. Util. 60.9 Trade 262.7 Wholesale 73.2 Retail 189.6 Fin., Insur., Real Est. 73.2 Services 257.3* Government 151.8 Federal 17.7 State 45.6 Local 88.5 Includes mining. (In ThousandS) Minneapolis-St. Paul Minnesota Percent Percent 1983 .Change 1982 1983 Change 1,075.5 0.8 1,706.8 1,714.2 0.4 232.9 -0.8 346.6 345.0 -0.5 147.7 -1.6 206.4 204.5 -0.9 85.2 0.8 140.2 140.4 0.2 842.6 1.2 1,360.2 1,369.3 0.7 9.5 8.4 -ll .0 36.6 2.2 59.9 60.3 0.7 -61.1 0.4 93.1 92.4 -0.8 261.8 -0.3 ' 429.5 428.6 -0.2 70.5 -3.6 ll2.0 lO9.1 -2.6 191.3 0.9 317.5 319.4 0.6 75.1 2.7 98.2 100.8 2.6 248. O* 3.8* 392. l 380.6 3.0 150.7 -0.8 289.4 286.8 -0.9 17.6 -O.g 30.5 30.3 -0.6 .46.1 1.1 71.3 70.2 1.6 87.0 -1.7 188.7 185.1 -1.9 7oz CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 TELE: 612--474-5233 MAYOR Richard J, Knapp COUNCIL Lucille Crow James R, Olds, Jr, Charles S, Thomson Carl H, Weisser CITY MANAGER Timothy G. Madigan March 16, 1984 Dear Local Officials: I am enclosing a copy of a March 13, 1984 letter from Marcia Bennett, Metropolitan Council Representative and Chairwoman of the Metro Systems Committee. Her letter invites local officials (and I assume those "customers" of Metropolitan Waste Control Commission) to an "informal bri efi ng". Though this "informational briefing" might sound like a waste of time to you, I encourage you or one of your staff to attend to impress these people with our numbers and our concern with rapidly rising sewer rates. I am working with our City Manager, Tim Madigan, to get more control by user cities of the MWCC Board. This can be accomplished through our in- volvement in a management and reorganization study with the'Governor's office - which is being proposed by our group. The heat is on MWCC NOW - NOW is the time to get things changed so that we have an opportunity to control our sewer costs. We can do this by attending ALL meetings concerning MWCC - if you are unavailable, be sure one of your staff gets to the meetings. By working together, we have a lot of talent and power; and we can succeed. With success in hand then we can relax our efforts - but the ~present op- portunity will not last long. I believe others are trying to forestall reform efforts by reviewing them to death. And the Legislature probably will not deal with MWCC reorganization in this session - which probably means never. So it has to be done now, if ever, in the Governor's office. Please join in - and help.' Encl. Charlie Thomson, Councilman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-635b l,tar'ch 13, 1984 Dear Local Official: A special meeting of the Council's Metropolitan Systems Comntttee is being '~ held, with Commissioners of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (~CC), in the Council Chambers on Wednesday, March 21, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to receive an infomational briefing from Commission staff on the I~CC's cost allocation system. A question and answer period ~ll fo 11 ow. This meeting has been scheduled as a result of the Council's consideration of the findings of the Regional Services and Finance StudY concerning the MWCC. In the course of committee discussion of that section, it became apparent that more information was required before the Council could respond to local concerns regarding the equity and efficiency of the current system. Although I realize that the meeting has been scheduled on relatively short notice, I hope you will be able to attend this important session. If a significant number of interested local officials cannot attend this meeting, but inform us that they still wish an opportunity to participate in a general review of the ~t~CC's cost allocation system, a subsequent session can be schedu 1 ed. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact John Harrington of the Council .staff, at 291-6324. Sincerely, ~r~ta Bennett, Chair Metropolitan Systems Committee An Equal Opportunity Employer o o ,o,o o BULLET metropolitan munici'palitiee March 9, 1984 IN TO: AMM Member Cities Mayors and Managers/Administrators FROM: AMM Staff There are several items we would like to bring to your attention: AMM ANNUAL MEETING - WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 30, 1984: The 1984 AMM Annual Meeting for the major purpose of electing officers and board members has been set for Wednesday evening, May 30, 1984. The location has not been selected as yet but it will be a dinner meeting. A meeting notice with the complete details and agenda will be mailed in early May but we wanted to inform you of the date now so you can plan accordingly. NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICERS/DIRECTORS FOR 1984-85 WANTED: A Nominating Committee was appointed by the Board of Directors at the March lst., Board Meeting as required by the AMM By-Laws. The offices' of President, Vice- President and eight Board Directors are to be filled. If you have nominations/ recommendations for these positions, please submit them to any Nominating Committee member or to the AMM office, attention: Vern Peterson by no later than Friday, April 6, 1984. The Committee members are Mary Anderson, Golden Valley Mayor, Chair Gary Bastian, , Maplewood Councilmember, Jim Lacina, Woodbury Administrator, Dennis Schneider, Fridley Councilmember, Maureen Warren, St. Paul Mayor's Office, and Duane Zaun, Lakeville Mayor. PRESENTATION ON ALLOCATING METROPOLITAN SEWER COSTS - WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1984, 1:30 PM: The Metropolitan Council is inviting city officials to attend a presentation on hQw costs of the regional sewer system are allocated among the Region's communities. The presentation, to include discussion and a question period, will be made at a joint meeting of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Systems Committee and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission March 21 at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The meeting will provide an overview of the costs of capital investments and sewage treatment and how they are billed to local communities. For more information, call Council planner John Harrington at 291-6324. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 -2- LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID - BOARD POLICY: A new 1985 LGA Distribituion policy has been developed by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Revenue Committee and adopted by the Board of Directors. The AMM is urging the legislature to give careful consideration to the proposal as an interim solution to what has become a very difficult problem. As stated in the policy preamble, the combination of the 1979 LGA formula and the 1983 modifications have caused a tremendous amount of dissension and bickering among cities. If the current formula is allowed to operate, ir'will considerabley aggravate the problem for the 1985 session. .If a flat 6% increase were granted, to all cities, there would be some breathing space for tempers and emotions to cool off and · ti=~ for both local officials and legislators to attempt, in a mmre concilliatory mode, to arrive at. long range solutions. Remembering tha't the property taxpayers (residential homestead, agricultural, and business persons) are the ones that are either helped or hurt by the decision; a 6% across the board LGA increase will at least keep property tax increases for 1985 stable throughout the state rather than some people experiencing a 5 or 6% municipal increase versus others experiencing up to 15 t~ 20% municipal increases. LGA, unlike some other pro~rty tax and credit programs, provides tax relief across the board to all property types. A 6% increase for 1985 is well within the bounds of reasonable support for the LGA program when one considers that in the past few years municipal LGA has steadily declined as a percentage of the state budget overall and that the increase of $15 million dollars has no impact on the current biennium but will be expense allocated to the 1985 - 1986 biennium. (a copy of the AMM Board Policy is attached). METROPOLITAN TRANSIT REORGANIZATION. UPDATE: As predicted in the February 1984 AMM Newsletter, the Legislative Study Commission on Metropolitan Transit has submitted a Transit Reorganization bill (SF 1703) which is becoming a hot issue. The Commission Report and subsequent bill do follow basic AMM Policy. However, as in most bills, there are some exceptions which we will attempt to have changed before final passage. The bill closely follows AMM policy by concentratingtransit responsibility in a single new agency entitled the Regional Transit Board (RTB) which will do intermediate and implementation planning, contract for service provision, determine funding criteria and type, and distribute funds. The Board will be similar to the curreht FFC with eight members appointed bg the Metropolitan Council after consultation with legislators and local officials. The MTC 'Bus' operation will be headed by a three member, board appointed by local officials. The Metropolitan Council retains long range planning authority. The bill differs from AMMpolicy in four areas which hopefully will be modified before passage. The RTB chair is proposed to be appointed by the Governor. Both the AMM and Governor have suggested the RTB chair be appointed by the Metropolitan Council. The bill proposes that the Metropolitan Council have approval authority of. the RTB operating budget as well as the capital budget. The A~LM opposes this and will lobby for review and comment only for the operating budget. The bill proposes that the RTB may establ3sh an advisory committee of providers and local officials. The A~M will seek to make t. advisory committee, mandatory. The final divergent point concerns funding. Whereas, the commission strongly suggested a feathered property tax with replacement funds from the automobile excize tax, the bill leaves this issue to the RTB to study an~ make recommendations. The AMM is strongly suggesting this be included in the bill. -3- Lastly, the bill does provide as ~r A3HM polic~ a continued and more flexible oRtout provision and does strongly encourage development of local area planning boards'to be involved in determining the service provisions for developing suburban or subregional areas of the Metropolitan community. This bill will move rapidly through the process.AMM staff will be following its progress and will call on local officials from time to time for local input at the legislature. If you want to be involved and need additional information, please contact Roger Peterson at the AMM office f227-5600;. (A cop~ of the Board Policy attached). 1985 LGA DISTRIBUTION (AMM BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY) The 1983 LGA formula changes coupled with the already growing dissatisfaction over the 1979 LGA formula results have caused much dissension and bitterness among city officials in the state resulting in various coalitions forming to lobby extremely diverse points of view. There will almost certainly be major LGA distribution changes considered in the 1985 legislative session for 1986 and beyond. The current distribution formula causes an accelerated differential or disparity in aids to individual cities which will only be greatly increased if left ~n place for 1985 distribution. Therefore, it is reasonable that until long range policy decisions are made and formula changes are enacted in the 1985 legislative session, the current formula be suspended for 1985 distribution and in its place a percentage increase be granted to all cities. This can most certainly be justified to inhibit larger than necessary property tax increases from occurring sporadically in some cities within the state. THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES URGES THE 1984 LEGISLATURE TO ADOPT AN LGA DISTRIBUTION FOR 1985 THAT INSURES THAT ALL CITIES WILL RECEIVE THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED FOR 1984 PLUS A 6% INCREASE. 70 ? J~nua~j ~0, 19~4 Joint Chalrs: Sen. Steve ~ovak and Rep, I:athleen Ve~lenga Association of t~etropolltan ~micipalttles ~etropolltan Transit Reco__~e__ndatlon - A~N Board of Directors Polic~ ..~ FUNDING. In the past 2. years there has be~n a great deal of discussion ~onc~rn~ng the appropriate level of property tax versus service in the various areas of the Wetropolitan A'rea. Wany cities and organizations Including the W~C and Wetropoli.ta~ Council have suggested thaC the level of property tax and service availability should be more ~. igned as is the current fare box policy. THE ~ S~PPORTS A FEATHERED TRANSIT PROPERTY TAX SYSTEH WHEREBY THE TAX RATE IS REDUCED IN PROPORTION TO SERVICE IN O~TLYING AREAS. THE ~OSS OF PROPERTY TAX F~DS SHOULD BE REPLACED FROB A PORTION OF THE HOTOR VEHICLE EXTISE TAX TRANSFER FUNDS. ORGANIZATIONAL ~NITS *BY F~NCTION.* Cu~rentl~ ~ seperate la,ers or levels of governmental agencies have. a direct but somewhat confusing and overlapping role in providing He'tropolitan Transit. These are WNDOT, Hetropolitan Council, and MTC. Ail .four proposed mode-ls suggest concentrati*ng t~e major polic~, planning,and funding decisions in a single agency. Even Hodel .4, which uses an expanded subregional mid range planning System places the major decision making responsibilitv with the Hetropolitan Council. IT SEEHS LOGICAL TO CONCENTRATE SPECIFIC ~UNCTIONS AS PROPOSED IN ALL HODELS AND CREATE ONE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY WHICH WOULD COORDINATE AL~ FOR~_g OF TRANSIT AND TRANSIT PROVIDERS: THIS ALSO IMPLIES AUTHORITY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS. PLANNING. The four models discuss long range and mid range implementation planning, neither of which is well defined. With the exception of Hodel 3, long range planning is /eft to the*~etropolitan Council. Hid range and imple~-ntation planning raise questions as to degree and content. It m~y be possible that we should be 'discussing three rather t~n two levels of planning activity, a theoretical level discussing needs of the area and providing discussion that if X transit is provided then Y highways are needed but that if 2 X transit can be achieved then only part Y is needed is one level. A ~lddle range adght provide more specific ~.eds with alternative modes for more specific areas along with c~ordi~ation a~ng areas. Finally, the last level or i~pl~ntatlon level would discuss specific equipment and alternatives to satisf~ the de.rids as specified in long and ~tddle planning. -2- LOWG RAMCE PZAN~IZHG SHOULD RESIDE WITH T~ RETROPOLITA~ COUNCIL, AT IMTERACT WITH OTHER PHYSICAL PLAMBI~G RESTRAIMTS SUCH AS HIGHWAYS, MJD RA~CE PLANWING AND TRANSIT COORDIHATIO~ S~OULD RESIDE WITH. THE AGENCF WHICH COORDINATES ALL TRAMSIT AND DETERMINES FUNDING. IMPLEMEWTATION pLANNING SHOULD RESIDE WITH THE TRANSIT PROVIDER/OPERATOR I~ COWJOWCTION WITH. THE OVERALL TRANSIT AUTHORITY. SPECIFIC TRANSIT AUTHORITY ORGANIZATION. The alternatives for a Transit 'Authoritv *that controls the major*functions of planning, ~coordinating, M~del:$ ~ and 4 designate the' .M~t.'ropolitan Council, "~odel 3 designates a 'new agency, and it has been suggested the. current MTC assum~ an expanded 'role. 'Based on current data *and discussions; (a) ~t would seem that an expanded current MTC is .unacceptable du~ to a perception that'operating vs other func~iOns should be seperated; .(b) HNDOT is unacceptable because it is a · Statewide agencV with a possible conflict of m~tro' vs non-metro; and (c) Metropolitan Council is unacceptable baseu' on current .A~M policv of seperation of area .pollcV making and anV cdnnection t~ actual service .provision. A 'do nothing' position would continue the current fragmentation of authoritV, responsibilitv, and accoun~ab~iitV. Finallv, a new superagencV *or Transit aut.horitv raises questions' of appointment process, accounta, bilitw, and general. hesitencg because of unknowns and creation of another laver of government. It must be assun~d that an~ solution presents a problem of appointment and acCOuntabilit~ which will be discussed' seperatelv. THE OPTION WHICH SEEMS TO PROVIDE THE. EEWEST DRAWHAC~ ALONG WITH THE GREATEST.FLExIBILITY TO SATISFY POLITICAL, PRACTICAL, ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCESS CONCERNS WOULD BE CREATION OF A SEPERATE TRANSIT AUTHORITY AS BASICALLY DESCRIBED IN 'MODEL 3. A NEW AUTHORITY NEED NOT LOOK MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE CURRENT SITUATION. IT WOULD RE POSSIBLE TO UTILIZE THE CURRENT MTC 'COMMISSION' CONSTITUTED 'AS IT IS OR EXPANDED ~O BECOME THE MTA. IT MAY *NOT BE NECESSARY TO HAVE A FULL COMMISSION TO OVERSEE T,~E MTC 'BUS~COHFANY' UNLESS AN OPERATIONAL '~OARD OF DIRECTORS' IS · FELT NECESSARY. · APPOINTMENT AMD AccOUNTABILITY. Local officials feel that ~re ~local input' is needed in the appoint~nt process to gain accountability. '. THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS SHOULD DIRECTLY INCLUDE LOCAL OFFICIAL~ IN THE SELECT~ON PROCESS. '. ADVISORY BOARD. Several of the models suggest an advisor~ board including local offlcials similar to the current Transportat/on Advisorg Board. REGARDLESS OF WHICHEVER ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED OR ADOPTED, A TAB WITH LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS AS SUGGESTED IN ~ODEL 2 WITH REAL AUTHORITY SHOULD BE CREATED. -3- u~ ZZ U~- 7// U~UZU Local Government Financing: The Shirltails or the Alternatives Given the panorama of new financing approaches, local leaders need guidance on various methods of financing. By Harvey Goldman, Partner, and Sandra Mokuvos, .'. Senior Consultant, Arthur 'Young & Co. The decline of federally funded programs, the tightening of fed- eral and state purse strings, and local concern over tax rates and user fees have many communities seeking in- novative financing alternatives to fund needed capital intensive projects. What local governments seek, professional advisors are starting to provide. The responses have ranged from cre2 alive applications of conventional fi- nancing mechanisms, to relatively new uses of leasing concepts and full-service delivery methods such as privatization. In some cases, private credit in the form agreements has been used by public sector to secure needed fi- nancial resources. Given the panorama of new financ- ing approaches and resultant emergence of new and often confusing terms de- scribing them, local leaders need guid- ance on various approaches to financ- ing and providing delivery o~ needed services. These include: · Actions at the state government level; · short- and long-term financing op- tions for local governments; · leasing concepts; · privatization. An important point to note is tfi'at often the most cost-effective project fi- nancing method incorporates a combi- nation of specific approaches from within several of the above categories. In a report prepared for Congress, the money necessary to meet infrastruc- ture needs through the early 1990s was cited at $2.5 trillion to 5;3 trillion. Among the capital intensive needs that exist are municipal water systems, wastewater treatment facilities, schools, transportation networks and prisons. According to statistics cited in the re- port, at current expenditure levels,~less than one-third of these needs ~vill be met through conventional approaches. Given the limitations~of capita/markets to fund all the needed projects, new ap- proaches to financing facilities must' be developed. As federal funds decrease, local gov- ernments have traditionally looked to- ward 'two places for assistance: their state governments and their own credit worthiness in terms of local access to the bond market· There are traditional and innovative alternatives available under each of these options. State assistance At the state level, as less money comes down the federal pipeline, more responsibility for meeting statewide needs falls to each individual state. With an increasing fiscal burden on state shoulders, the amount of money that passes through to the local level will American City & County/March 1984 continually decrease. HoweVer, the~e are some alternatives available for com- munities seeking local assistance from their state governments. Economic Development Funds -- The purpose of these funds is to provide state assistance to local governments or private sponsors in the development of projects. Assistance takes the form of state loans, grants or below-market in- terest rates for a portion or all Of the costs of a local project. General Fund Appropriations -- General use funds include property taxes, sales tax, cigarette taxes and fed- eral general revenue sharing funds. Typically, these taxes and revenue streams are dedicated for specific pur- poses. Direct Slate Purchase -- As an alter- native to grants and loans, some states buy municipal bonds for specific local projects. Local governments benefit by &m~rlean City & Count/March 1954 paying a lower interest rate. Another alternative is for the state to use the funds to pay for a portion of construc- tion costs, take title to the project and then sell it back to the sponsor over a long period of time. ' Bond Banks -- A state or federal bond bank could be empowered to issue · bonds and notes in its own name; the proceeds being used to purchase the bonds and notes of local government units, hopefully driving down the inter- est costs by trading upon the credit of the state or the credit of multiple rather than individual projects. In addition, state loan funds are also being con- ceived. Commonly referred to as an "Infrastructure Bank," the program would combine state and federal grant money and provide local government with zero interest or low interest loans that would eventually be repaid out of project revenues. Communities have traditionally used bonds to finance construction of needed facilities, although-in some portions of the country "pay-as-you-go" ap- proaches have been utilized. While pay- as-you-go avoids interest charges by ac- cumulating the capital requirements for a project in advance of construction, it · typically is limited to more affluent or fiscally conservative arenas. The volume of both short- and long- term, tax-exempt debt offerings has in- creased dramatically in recent years. Long-term municipal debt issuance av- eraged 5;45 billion per year between 1977 and 1981. In 1982, ]ong-terrfi financing volume totaled 5;77 billion -- amount- ing to a 67 percent increase in one year. Short-term financing volume has simi- larly risen, more than doubling from. $21 billion in 1979 to $43 billion in 19827 Up until a few years ago, there were relativ.eiy few options for a community seeking to finance capital-intensive projects with bonds, and credit worthi- ness has always been a limiting factor. Often, a community's ability to issue ms is limited by a statutory ceiling utstanding debt capacity or the unity's credit rating is not high enough to be competitive with other is- sues at a given interest rate. Many growing communities do not have cur- rent revenues sufficient to meet debt service requirements for the large vol- ume of debt issuance needed for capital projects. While a number of new financing al- ternatives have become available, with them have come new problems associ- ated with the complexities of the credit market. Traditonal investors, banks and insurance companies are being replaced by money market funds and private in- dividuals. Investors want more security and more acceptance of risks, such as interest rate fluctuations, by the issuer instead of the investor. An area that is still of concern to is- suers is how to improve their credit rat- ing, which has an impact on the interest rate that will need to be offered to suc- cessfully market the secur-ities. Finan- cial analysts have provided local com- munit.ies with a number of alternative mechanisms to increase their ratings. of municipal bond insurance have the ability to repay debt,· use MBI to enhance their credit rat- ing, lower interest costs and expand their access to the market. Prior to marketing the bonds, an issuer obtains an insurance policy for a one-time pre- mium of approximately 0.6 percent to 1.5 percent of the aggregate principal and interest due on the bonds from the delivery date to the final maturity date. The insurance, in effect, guarantees to the bond holders timely payment of in- terest and principal. · There are several firms 'that provide bond insurance with the American Mu-. nicipal Bond Assurance Corporation (AMBAC) and Municipal Bond Insur- ance Association (MBIA) being the most well known. Standard & Poor's rates both AMBAC-insured and MBIA- insured bonds as triple-A. Moody's tends to ignore the insurance when as- signing the rating. Another method for a community to improve its bond rating is to secure an issue with a bank letter of credit. The cost of obtaining a letter of credit is usually an annual fee of approximately 3.4 percent to 1 ¼ percent of the amount lores outstanding. If a letter of credit to repay any or all of the issue, then the obligation converts to a direct bank loan. These alternatives provide lower bor- rowing costs, presently up to 500 basis points, or 5 percent, lower than long- 32 term debt. While these alternatives usu- ally provide lower initial costs, there are important risks to consider. For exam- ple, financial markets may change and subsequent long-term borrowing costs could be higher than if long-term fi- nancing was initially used. An adequate strategy to protect the issuer against this potential risk should be developed be- fore going forward. Some of the more prevalent short-term financial ap- proaches, which can later be convened to long-term debt, include: · Tax-exempt commercial paper; · Obond anticipation notes; · variable rate demand notes. Tax-Exempt Commercial Paper (TECP) -- Can be used during con- struction to allow the issuer to select a better market for long-term financing. TECP usually matures between 15 days and 45 days. Additional costs associ- ated with TECP should be given con- sideration. These include a fee of 3A of I percent or more for a letter of credit and a fee of ¼ of I percent or more for the agent who places the commercial paper: Bond Anticipation Notes (BAN) ~ These bonds are issued in anticipation of a long-term bond issue. BANs typi- cally mature in one year to three years and are payable from the proceeds of the long-term bond issue. Prior to the refinancing, interest on the BANs may be capitalized from the proceeds of the notes or paid from revenues of the project. The principal is payable in one lump sum. Grant anticipation notes (GANs) are a variation of this theme and are used when a grant, rather than a bond, is expected to provide long-term financing. Variable Rate- Demand Notes (VRDN) -- Usually having a maturity of two years or three years, the interest rate on these notes fluctuates periodi- cally with a prescribed municipal bond market index or an alternative index based on a major bank's prime lending rate. As in any demand note, the holder has the option of holding the note to maturity or tendering the note to the is- suer for redemption at the original par value upon seven days notice. LongLlerm financing There have been a number of inno- vative approaches and variations of tra- ditional long-term financing methods. General obligation bonds, revenue bonds and special assessment bonds have traditionally been used, but are now being supplemented by creative concepts to tailor repayment schedules and renegotiation options to project- specific and community-specific needs. Care must be taken to ensure that the proper long-term financing approach is matched to the circumstances at hand. General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds) ,- Backed by the general credit and taxing authority of the issuing agency, GO bonds are typically at somewhat lower interest rates compared to less conventional bonds. Their use "draws down" a community's borrow- ing capacity and credit standing, be- cause they are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer. GO bonds are becoming a limited source of funding due to bond market fluctuations, inter- est rate increases, statutory and consti- tutional limitations on municipal debt, and referendum requirements. · Revenue Bonds-- Revenue bonds are repaid exclusively from the earnings of a specific enterprise, e.g., a water sys- tem, a toll road, etc., and are normally used for capital .intensive projects,. which generate their own revenue streams from users served by the proj- ect. The interest rate is generally not as favorable as that of general obligation bonds, although the security of the project's revenue stream will influence the rate. Limitations on revenue bond issues are: 1) typical underwriters' re- quirements that service charges be set at 120 percent to 150 percent of the level required to meet annual debt service costs, and 2) the capability of service users to pay the user ~harges. Industrial Development Bonds (IDBs) -- IDBs are a specific type of bond used to encourage private investment in a particular area. A municipality, a non- profit authority or other governmental unit issues an IDB for a private sector firm, which uses the proceeds of the bond sale to build a facility. IDBs pro- · 'vide private sector groups with tax-ex- empt financing rates for projects. Limitations exist on the size of the is- sue allowable to still be eligible for the tax-exempt status and on the types of facilities for which IDBs can be used. There has been recent concern about potential abuses of the use of IDBs and one should exercise due care when plan- ning on their future use. Infrastructure projects in the water, wastewater and American City & County/March 1984 resource recovery field receive special favorable treatment under current leg- islation. Special Assessment Bonds -- These bonds are used to finance elements of a project, e.g. the collection system of a wastewater treatment facility, which benefit individual properties. Usually, these bonds are sold locally or region- ally by the issuing political subdivision and discharged by the individual prop- erty owner over a five-year to 20-year term. The issuer's taxpaying power may or may not be pledged as additional se- curity. Innovative approaches There are a number of creative con- · cepts that have been applied in the field of 'long-term financing. These innova- tive, long-term bonding options in- clude: · Deferred interest approaches, -- zero coupon bonds, -- step coupon bonds; · tender option bonds; · floating rate bonds, ~-- floating rate bonds, ~ adjustable floating rate bonds, --- floating fixed rate bonds. Zero Coupon Bonds (Zeros) -- These bonds pay no current interest coupon and are sold at a deep discount. Inves- tors in these bonds forego current inter- est income for appreciation in princi~ pal. The attraction to investors is the ability to lock in a guaranteed yield to maturity based on the discounted price at the time of purchase. Stepped Coupon Bond -- Like zeros, these bonds provide lower than normal interest rates in the early years and higher rates in later years. Their use can produce a lower total debt service, be- cause more principal is repaid earlier in the term. The bonds attract investors desiring an increasing rate of return. A lower interest rate in eaHy years can mean substantial savings on projects for which interest is capitalized during the construction period, because the capi- talized interest is based on the lower coupon rate. However, the call premi- ' urns are unusually high to offset the investors' loss of coupon income in the early years, making it costly to refi- nance the debt. Tender Option Bonds (Put Bonds) -- Having a maturity of 25 years to 30 years, these bonds also give the holder the option to tender the bonds to the is- suer for repayment at par value at the end of a specified period, usually at least three years to five years. There- after, the option can be exercised pe- riodically at either one-year or three- year intervals. Because of this liquidity feature, investors will accept signifi- cantly lower yields on put bonds than on standard 30-year bonds. Floating Rale Bonds (FRBs) -- As indicated in the name, these bonds bear a varying or "floating" interest rate. These are typically issued by those who want to take advantage of current inter- est expense savings, compared to long- term rates. Issuers might expect interest rates to decline in the near future, whereas purchasers might anticipate that rates may rise and do not want to be locked into a fixed rate at the cur- rent level. Adjustable Floating Rate Bonds (AFRB) ~ An AFRB, which functions like a tender option bond, is a combi- nation of the option bond and the floating rate bond. If prior to any op- tion date, the interest rate for short- term bonds is higher than the coupon rate on put bonds, it is very likely an is- suer can expect that a large portion of the outstanding put bonds Will be ten~t- ered. At that time, a repricing commit- tee will propose adjusting the rate on · the put bonds so that the tendered bonds can be remarketed. Floating Fixed Rate Bonds (FFRBs) -- Long-term floating rate financing with the option of fixing the rate under.' more favorable market conditions can be obtained without the expense of re-. funding through FFRBs. An FFRB is issued for a maturity of 30 years to 40 years. During the floating rate period, which can extend' to the entire term of the bond, the interest rate floats relaiive to a predetermined index. Bonds with Warrants (Warrants) -- When a "warrant" is sold with a bond, the purchaser of the bond is entitled to buy an additional bond of the same coupon rate at any time within a one- year period. The investor is most likely to exercise the option if interest rates on alternative investments go down. Leasing: using vs. owning Leasing is another financing alterna- tive available to municipalities. Leasing is equivalent to borrowing; one borrows physical assets instead of cash to ac- quire the assets. Lease payments typi- cally are a fixed obligation, just like principal and interest payments on · bonds. A lease is a contract through which an owner of property conveys the right to use it to another party. The decision to lease, from the perspective of the les- see (the party to a lease agreement who is obligated to pay the rentals is entitled to use the property) is based on whether it costs less to borrow the money to buy the property or to acquire the use of the property by leasing it. Other considera- tions, which typically enter into the lease or own decision, include the fol- lowing: -- Risk of obsolescence of the asset; -- intended'period of use of the as- set; -- avoidance of restrictions accom: partying debt financing; -- preservation of debt capacity for °ther needs. In a tax-oriented lease, the potential use of the investment tax credit (ITC) and depreciation is transfered from the user of the property (the lessee) to the owner (the lessor) in return for lower rental payments. Under the appropriate conditions, leasing can offer advantages to both the public and private sectors in that the private sector is able to Use tax benefits, and the public sector pays less for needed property: There are numer- ous types of leases, including: Operating Lease -- An agreement be- tween the lessee and the lessor for rental of property for a specified period of time. The lessor would probably take certain tax benefits and be responsible for maintenance in return for a pay- ment of a periodic fee. Financing Lease -- In this type of ar- rangement, the lessee negotiates a pur- chase with a supplier of property and simultaneously arranges for a bank or leasing company to buy the property. The lessee then rents the property from the bank or leasing company and is ob- ligated to make periodic payments. Sale/Leaseback -- The owner of an existing facility or asset sells it to a fi- nancing entity and enters into a lease for use of the property. Because the new owner realizes certain tax benefits, the sale/leaseback approach may result in savings to the user, compared to tradi- tional financing approaches. The usage fee covers the financing cost of the pur- chase asset. Leveraged Lease ~ A combination of debt and equity is used to construct a new facility or to obtain ownership of an asset. The equity contributor obtains the tax benefits of ownership and fi- nances the bulk of the project employ- ing tax-exempt bonds or other debt in- struments. Leverage comes from using a small percentage of equity, usually about 20 percent, to acquire the tax Circle No. 20 On Reader Service Card ~ American City & County/March 1984 bcnefit~ on thc larger value of the asset. Levcraged leasing became a particu- larly attractive option for partnerships formed by municipalities and private sector firms as a result of certain excep- tions contained in the Tax and Fiscal Responsibility Act of i982 (TEFRA). Potential users of financing tech- niques that combine leasing and tax benefits should be wary of pending leg- islation, which, if passed, may impose limitations upon the use of these tech- niques. Privafization 'A financing and service delivery al- ternative that combines many of the ad- vantages of the approaches described above is privatization. The privatization concept is based on public/private part- Derships. The key is that both sides gain, but neither benefits at the expense of the other. The private sector gets a business opportunity, enhanced by the use of taxx benefits. The public sector gets a needed service at a lower cost than otherwise possible and, if desired, eventual ownership of the facility that provides the service. Certain types of projects can be con- structed by 2_be private sector'more effi- ciently and at a lower cost than if the · identical project is constructed by the public sector. This is because the pri- vate sector does not have to abide by the bureaucratic procedures and pro- curement regulations of federal, state and local funded proiects, and through operational efficiencies realized through economies of scale. The private sector, pursuing a legiti- mate "service contract" with a local government unit, is also eligible for tax benefits not available to tax-exempl municipalities.. The benefits include ACRS depreciation, tam credits and the deductability of interest payments on the debt used in the project financing. When private sector cons.truction and operational savings are combined with available tax benefits, the lower project costs which result can be shared with the local community in the form of lower user fees, while providing a fair return on the investment to the private sector. While many loca] government ~ffi- dais are still frowning over the cut- backs in federal grants and state sup- port for capital intensive infrastructure projects, some see a brighter future. Advisors to public officials are formu- lating creative and innovative financinl~ approaches. Public officials and their advisors are becoming familiar with '. these alternative approaches, learning where and when the different concepts make sense. Equally important, they are discovering how to blend the concepts together to provide the most cost-cf icc- tire form of'service delivery to the pub- lic. [] 7/7 March 20, 1984 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER RE: REDESIGN PROJECT BULLETIN Enclosed is the latest in Redesign Project Bulletins. This one is on housing. National Housing Policy has been in continual evolution since the first National Housing Act was passed during the 1930's. Like National Urban Development Policy, it has moved from "in thing" to "in thing". Over the years, those communities and areas that have "sophisticated" staff and meet program low-income eligibility requirements have spawned an amazing array of projects and programs. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon how you view it, your City Manager has the urge to develop and promote the latest and "best" program that comes along. Whether this is good or bad, time will tell. Clearly, those that benefit like it and those that don't probably donlt, since it's everyones tax dollars which are being used. The "in" housing program is "Housing Allowances and the Rehabilitation of Rental Housing". The latter of these we are moving toward implementation this Summer. The allowance program is not yet being implemented in the Twin Cities. In the urban development area, downtowns are in. What the next fad will be, time will tell. One thing for sure is that there will be a new one. The sad part to this evolution is, like everything else, all of this is getting increasingly more complicated and sophisticated. That means, only those who are interested in keeping on top of all of this can benefit. That can be a major job in itself. Hope you enjoy the attached memo. JE:fc enc. Humphrey Institute University of Minnesota '-" 909 Social Sciences ~",- 267 19th Avenue South --*:.. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 (612) 376-9855 " Ted Ko'lderie Judy. Hauer Project Director Associate G THE HOUSING PROBLEM: AFFORDIN THE RENT "-:'.-': - In November of 1983 Congress authorized a $9.9 billion- "'-_ .~ housing package with a unique feature for low income renters. In addition to the traditional funding that subsidizes buildings, .. this legislation includes a demonstration program that pays a '".. .... . share of the exorbitant rent burden borne by low income families. With this "housing allowance" program, the federal " government is shifting its emphasis from housing builders to ~:~.~:.~i-"~."i' ~ .... .: housing buyers. Until now the federal role in housing was - largely in th'e form of assistance to the "sellers" of housing--A..~ ~ i.~ those who built housing for low income people and landlords who :- . .- rented to low income people. Subsidies were attached to the :; ...... housing unit. With an allowance program the government will- redesign assistance to run to the household, the "buyers" of housing. Housing allowances allow the buyers to choose where to live and how much to s~end, with the restriction that the housing .... must meet quality standards set by HUD. Because the allowance is . not tied to a particular building, the household is free to shop : around the housing market. This 'creates an incentive for the - . market to be responsive to the household. And the family has an_ incentive to shop prudently for housing: If the housing costs more than the allotted allowance, the recipient pays the additional cost; if the family selects less expensive housing the family can reduce its housing expenses. Housing policy has been evolving in response to changes in housing problems. A growing consensus in the field of housing now'views the affordability of housing as the central -issue People are focusing their attention on enhancing tenants' capacity to pay the rent, rather, than expanding the number of "' ..... housing units. This memo'explores the changes in our housing -:':'-:':" problem and the redesign of housing policy resulting from them. We are very much interested in hearing your thoughts and reactions to this memo. We remind you th.e conclusions and opinions expressed in this memo are those of the Public Services Redesign Project, not those of the Institute, which does not take positions on policy issues. (JH 2/84) The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs The Humphrey Institute fuses policy analysis, midcareer education for leadership, and training of your~jer students for roles in the policy process. The Public Services Redesign Project is dedicated to creating diversity and choice, access and equity in the provision and production of public services. 2/7 ~:'~""< much of the housing 'stock was.-poor~.~:.~: Legislation first targete "',~? federal assistance t6:. n'ew'construd~:~°n"~and" t° the -:'- of housing with the intent .to expand the housing supply - . ::~i~ ~ This traditional'L/federal'assi'st'ance' fulfills a dual mission:"-::~ -"~"J' It makes adequate housing physicall-:y'-avai'lable, that is, it.~-'.l '..~ ...,, . ensures construction of low income dwelling units that might 'not' ~..- otherwise be built. And it makes housing financially accessible to low income households.. But'beta'use housing needs have changed over. bime, the aim of housing affordability is gradually ' : superseding this two-'fold mission..-~;, ...... : ..... . .'-- ' :'- Public..Housing'kThe government's housing strategies have' traditionally been construction-o~iented. With the United Housing Act of 1937' Congress decided to inv'01ve government i-. directly in the production of housing. 'Public housing is now the largest and oldest federally supported housing program.' As we think about th& financing, building and operation of public housing, the extent of government involvement becomes . '.~>,.~.' '' clear. The federal government finances and regulates the ~,' development-of public housing; 'local" public housing auth°'rit'ies-L:'~.i'L:i:L.'-'i~,.'~i:~ .... t~- ... ar'range the development_ and construction of' the housing; new _. units are built, in p~ojects, and 'Owned publicly; the PHA -' ..... operates and maintains the projects, partly with operating subsidies provided bY. the fader-al 'government. i'---'- section 236--The results of public ho'using production simply did not.meet the ever-burgeoning demand for low income shelter. '' There was difficulty in getting sites. There were problems with ..... projects,' per se: steering large groups of low income people into locations carefully controlled.by local municipalities., and in buildings where deferred maintenance often became the rule'. The turnabout from projects is forever symbolized in the televised taping of Pruitt-Igoe being dynamited. Public housing..'~L~'i-:: aut'horities had trouble meeting oPerating-expenses, partlY ". --- because they maintained rents low enough to be affordable to low. income families. -Although the government remained the provider of low income housing, it gradually incorporated the private sector into housing services. Section 236 differs in that it provides subsidies for private sector construction of multifamily housing projects, reducing the interest rate paid by mortgagers and in turn, lowering rents to tenants. HUD also insures the mortgages. (Section 235 is similar except it assists homebuyers.) Under this variation in housing strategy the federal government still finances and regulates the development; new projects are built, and owned privately; instead of the PHA, the owner/landlord is resp~onsible for operati~n..and maintenance of "' Section 8 New Construction--Enacted in the 197 Housing and- Community Development~Act,- Section 8 continued the 'trend of federally subsidized, but privately constructed and owned housing. New units are built, or substantially rehabilitated, .... on a scattered-site basis rather than on a project basis. Again, the owner/landlord is responsible for operation and maintenance of the building. The New Construction and Substantial Rehab elements of Section 8 provide a guaranteed, long term rental stream to developers who elect to build or reh@b dwelling units under the program. State housing, agencies financed many of the units. In some cases developers also obtain mortgage financing from HUD through the Government National Mortgage Association, and have HUD insure the mortgage through the Federal Housing Administration. - .-~ · Section 8 Existing--Congress designed the Existing Housing component of Section 8 for areas where the housing market was open enough to allow cities to rely on the existing stock._ Thi~ reflects a further step in the evolving housing policy. The program addresses housing affordability problems, not housing supply. The federal government still-finances the program, but existing housing, owned and operated privately is used. Local PHAs contract with owners of existing dwelling units that meet housing quality standards. HUD pays to the landlord the ~ difference between the tenant's rental contribution (now 30% of adjusted income) and the actual 'rent, up to a maximum "fair market rent" established by HUD. By the end of fiscal year 1980 the number of publ·ic housing units was just under 1.2 million. Section 236 accounted for 538,000 units, Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehab accounted for 277,000 units, and the Section 8 Existing Housing assistance accounted for 588,000 units. Several other smaller scale, rental programs exist, such as the Section 202 program which is designed to serve the elderly and nonelderly-handicapped populations. These federal initiatives all have had one thing in common: the direction in which the assistance flows The aid is attached to the housing unit, not to the household. Section 8 Existing differs slightly in that its participants are limited to living in those buildings whose owners agree not to charge rents above the fair market rent established by HUD. So although participants are theoretically free to look for housing virtually anywhere, their choices are limited to neighborhoods and buildings where rents qualify. Favorable Financing Also Enhances Construction--Tax shelters allowing apartment building o~ners to depreciate buildings in 15 years, to deduct mortgage interest and taxes from gross rental income, to use capital gains tax advantages, and to receive these 3 benefzts on both the equity and.the-.-loan~, stlmulate.constructlon{:~-:.,~. ' - 'Large amounts' 0f'feder'~l ~0'6S'ihg''?a~sistan'c~' g°'..t~'''¥n'i~-~ and upper income families. oriented policies. - Sinee~the~:1930s',the~'federal' gov impacted th'e housing financiaI~'syste~"With:- a insurance program with FHA and VA loans; long term, mortgages; a secondary home mo'rtgage-finance progr'am Federal National Mortgage Assoclatzon, the Federal Home Loan.... - - Mortgage Corporation,- and- the 'Government: National -Mortgage.~..- ..... .':'- Association; and the deduction of home .mortgage interest.-and~. local property taxes from federal income taxes. ~The .. Congressional Budget Office estimated the tax revenue loss-from. 'mortgage interest 'and Property 'tax' dedUctions at-about $29..~ billion for' 1981. -These prograi~s'gene~aily stimuiate ConstrUcti'on~".~:i~'~.~i~i Availability. and Acc'~ssibility with Minimal ConStruction Other strategies increase the availability and accessibility of housing without relying on hew construct'ion. In the Twin- Cities region a mismatch is evolving between the size of.the - ~..i.~.,>~ . families in need of'housing and the siZe of the available'.~ housing. A 1982 Citizens League Study'reported that in Minneapolis, the same number.and type' o'f-housing units -in[] 978 housed 60,000 fewer people than"in~1970:~-' According 'to the ~-'~ .... Metropolitan Council. the metro area's' household size declined: from 3.16 to 2.65 persons per housing-unit from 197'0 to 1980, and -it is projected to decline still further. '.' AlthOugh new housing construction is still needed, the trends in household size and occupancy indicate we currently have housing units that are simply-used inefficiently. This situation arises when parents_ find themselves" living alone in a three- bedroom house after their children move out. Or when a spouse dies and the widow(er) remains in the same living space. The"bigges% near-term demand 'for'~housing in the Twin Cities-.' Metropolitan. Area' will 'be by families'needing two- and three~'!'' ~.~-:.~'[J'" bedroom housing units acc°rd'lng to Metropolitan' Council ~--~ ./:':'~'~, estimates. Over 355 of the housi'ng units needed by 1987 will be three-bedroom and.another 32% will be two-bedroom. As of the 1980 census the metropolitan community occupied about 208,000 two-bedroom units and about 240,000 three-bedroom units. According to the Metropolitan Council there is also a sizable population of young people in their 20's who will be searching for housing in the 1980's. This group is estimated to create a significant but temporary demand for ~ental housing that will decline at the end of the decade. The demand for multiple bedroom units does not necessarily mean we 'need to construct that many more new buildings. An increasing share of the housing market is being met through the reuse of existing structures; over'2~% of-the housing across the country .from 1973 to' 1980 came from additions other than new construction (such as loft renovation and older home-..- cohversion). Before 1973, only 10%.came from such conversions.- Indirect Production--Attempts' {0 r~medy the inefficient use~ .... of housing increase the availability'and affordability of housing units. One such attempt is the use of "accessory apartments". - 'An accessory apartment is a self contained rental unit created within what was originally a single-family dwelling.. Without constructing an entirely new house~ accessory apartments open up more living space. Homeowners who might take advantage of adding. accessory apartments are elderly people who want to stay in their homes but can not afford the rising costs of upkeep; single parents who need extra income or young coupies who need rental income to help finance their single-family home~ or homeowners making arrangements to house elderly relatives or adult children. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is offering a ~ ~ .~ demonstration' low-interest-rate loan program for homeowners who' want to create an accessory-apartment in their home. With MHFA funds the' Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority at the Metropolitan Council' awarded the first of these loans for an accessory unit to a homeowner in Lexington last November. There are approximately 25,000 single-family homes in areas~'~ zoned for higher density units within Minneapolis and St. Paul. Adding accessory apartments to these homes is expected to be less expensive than building new apartment units, would maintain the character of the neighborhoods (since they are already zoned for two-family residences), and would allow for relatively easy re- conversion to a single-family residence should the future need for accessory apartments decrease. Another attempt to remedy the' inefficient use of housing units is the concept of "rollover housing." This tactic indirectly produces housing for large families: new units 'are built to entice those smaller households currently living in large homes into smaller, more suitable living quarters, thus opening up the larger dwelling units for families needing the. additional bedroom space. Successful rollover housings, proposals use financing assistance to help the first,time homebuyer. The city of Brooklyn Center developed Brookwood Residences as part of a rollover housing project. Its design resulted from a market analysis which revealed what features the potential customers wanted. The development is designed to attract elderly residents, both homeowners and renters. It is located in the same neighborhood where many of its potential customers now live and is near stores, medical facilities, a bus route and a park. Amenities like garden plots, a workshop, a community room, an exercise room and underground parking are available. No neighborhood opposition to the development arose because from the project's beginning, the city and the citizens committee under the direction of local resident Duane Om, took care to solicit 5 input from neighborhood residents; ~-~!'-"'"'~-~'"~'~"?~'~"'~ The new develo ment should ~ttr~ct those older'-resxdent's-wh~. are .still healthy'and like.the community, b~t prefer.'living~i~'~' smaller ~nits less maintenance.. The larger.~ Mortgage money with lowered interest'~'rates is avail~bl'~ bot'~-.~O~~~'~ . . ~ . ' . "' , ~ ~ · : ' ~ ~ - - A local ho~sxng ~assoc~atxon, Common Space, xs-us~ng a share-loan' financing 'tool to finance cooperativ~ ho~sing for incOme households. They take o~t~a second mortgage on the~'~-~.~ cooperatively owned build'ins, car.ye it up into "apartment-sized" shares, and loan it to' people moving into the building. This arrangement targets money to the neediest households. ' Increasing the Av.ailabilitY°f~ UnitS--Other strategies ex~st to. ~ncrease the availability or housing. such option is.simply, renting~0ut.-sp~e~ that currently have empty bedrooms. A simila~r strate haSr. gy . elderly people sharing their homes with younger people who place to live. Luth'eran Social SerViCes. of Minnesota sponsors program called Share-A-Home which for a small fee matches an older resident living 'in a single-family home with a younger.. -'~ person needing a place to stay. Many times the younger' live-i'n'. receives accommodations in exchange for helping the homeown '~ w~th chores;- --..~.. ~ Another po~ble ~tr~teg7 to ~noKe~e the l~v~n~ ~p~ees wou~d utilize ~truetures now ~t~nd~nR v~o~nt.- A~ or the 1980 oen~us over .1~700 rent~ housing un~t~ ~n the Twin C~t~e~ ~re~ h~d been v~o~nt for at ~e~t ~x months. ~ny v~o~nt bu~d~n~ require ~t least eosmet~o work to m~ke them ~v~b~e. Making the Available units Financiall~ Accessible Increasingly the real problem associated with housing the nation's low income is to make"the housing that does exist and is on the market more affordable~ and more financially accessible .... The programs that construct new loW-income units have laudable -:'. goals for those regions with housing shortages. However, in a- ..-. growing number of .areas theY now represent solutions to the wrong problem. Deficient housing is no longer the problem it once was. Overcrowded conditions and housing with incomplete facilities have declined steadily since the 1940s. The 1977 Annual Housing Survey reported that 97% of all occupied dwellings in the country had complete bathrooms and kitchens, hot and cold running water, and electricity. Only 5% were overcrowded. Even though inadequate housing tends to be more common for very low income families, the number of such families with inadequate housing is about on'e-fourth the number with affordability problems. Excessive rent burdens afflict-iow.income families hardest. Almost one fourth of the very low income households pay more than.~ half of their income for adequate housing, according to the 1977 Annual Housing Survey. And over 50% of the very low income households pay more than 30%.of their income towards housing. Allowances Improve Accessibility Because the problem in housing has substantially shifted toward how to afford housing, the policy response should be to bring the low income households into the range where they are paying an appropriate rent burden. Housing allowances do that. Allowances are cash payments for low income families to pay for decent housing that they obtain from the privat, e market through their own efforts. The allowance pr°gram operates on a co-payment arrangement: An eligible family pays..a portion of its housing costs and . receives a subsidy for the other portion, usually the difference between 30% of the family's income and a rent payment standard set by HUD (adjusted for the area and type of unit rented.) Households must agree to housing inspections that ensure the units meet health and safety conditions. As with the other housing programs, government finances the allowances; however, the allowance program uses existing housing stock, on scattered-sites; and it is up to the occupant to- arrange to have the dwelling meet quality standards, or find other housing. Housing allowances offer the household a free choice of vendor arrangement; the family can choose where to live and how much to spend on housing. If the family shops around for less expensive living quarters it pays less out of its own pocket on housing; conversely if the 'family desires more expensive accommodations it pays any rent above the allowance amount. This choice arrangement is key to the incentives for improved performance on the part of the vendor. When customers have the option to leave a vendor and seek other competitors, they create incentives for the vendor to work to retain his customers and increase revenues. Similarly,' the G.I. Bill uses the free choice of vendor concept in the way it finances education for veterans. Colleges and universities must attract the students. The veterans select whichever educational institution best 'meets their needs. Then the VA sends a monthly check to the student to cover some part of the school costs. If students dislike the quality of the education they receive they may spend their school dollars at a different institution. A housing allowance proposal relies on an open, functioning market. Discrimination in housing restricts accessibility just as seriously as affordability can. Without continuing efforts to 'combat discrimination, a free choic~ of vendOr system 'is misleading. ~ -'~- ...... ~-'.~,~.~? -. '~ · AnY public system of prqduction is limited by its physical system; hospital care .for veterans, is limited to the number of VA hospital beds available. .The traditional government housing . programs face the physical constraints of a limited number of available housing units. Allowing the client a free choice of vendor anywhere in the community opens up a much wider market of housing; the physical limits to capacity ~no longer exist.- An allowance system must therefore, ration its finite aid among potential program participants through eligibility restrictions. The Experimental Housing Allowance Program Back in 1971 the U.S. Department of-Ho~sing and Urban Development began a decade-long housing allowance experiment. The Rand Corporation conducted the supply .component of the ~ -~ experiment, looking at the market and communi, ty effects of .... housing allowances. -i . _~ -~ Rand operated the experimentai program~in two contrasting housing markets. 'Brow~ County, Wisconsin was a metropolitan area with a growing urban center, Green Bay. Its housing stock was relatively new and in good condition; vacancy rates were low and property values high. St. Joseph County in Indiana was an area with a declining urban center, ~South Bend, and a segregated minority population.- Besides its declining urban population there was a price-dePressing surplus of older homes in the central city. Rents for .comparable dwellings were equivalent for the two different sites .... To be eligible for housing allowances households could not receive other federal housing assistance. A family's net assets were limited to $32,500 for elderly hou.seholds.and $20,000 for others (adjusted after 1978 to reflect changes in the consumer price index.) Only 10% of the households authorized for assistance could be one-person households. After. determining a ~ousehold's eligibility, the Housing AlIowanee Office (HAO) set the.f, ami~y's~ho.using allowance-i according to its income level and the standard cost of housing in the area. A typical renter family in Brown County had an adjusted gross income of $3,551. during the second year of the program; 25% of the income was subtracted from what the HAO determined to be the cost of adequate h.ousing in the community. This amounted to an allowance of. about $925 a year, or $77 a month. The allowances took into account income and family size so that larger payments went to lower income and bigger families. Then families had a free choice of vendor; they could use the allowance on any housing that met the quality standards. Rather than a housing program administrator, the family, decided how muc~ housing it would consume and where to live. They paid for any rental~costs over the amount of the subsidy and paid less out of their own p0ekets if they eh0se housing with lower rents., " The units, were sub3e~t to regular inspections to ensure quality standards; if the housing failed the inspection the family either had to repair the defect (or. negotiate with the landlord for the necessary repairs) or find dlfferent housing that met the standards. Results of the Housing Allowance Experiment~ Housing allowances made housing more financially accessible. Before receiving the allowance, eligible families spent excessive shares of their ad3usted incomes on housing; renters paid an average of 66% of their incomes on housing and homeowners paid an average of 53%. With the help from the housing allowances, renters' ' and homeowners' housing expenditures declined to an average of 38% and 36% respectively of their adjusted gross incomes. Instead of ensuring subsidies for~a fixed number of dwelIing units the program helped lOw.income families meet the cost 'of decent living quarters. ._ ' ' . ...... ~ _ The allowance program did not exorbitantly drive up housing. prices as a result of increased demand, as some feared it would. Renters increased their consumption of housing services 8%, but . the price of those services inCreased-only 2% for allowance recipients, and not at all for others. Comparatively, in the early years of the Section 8 Existing .Housing program, rent ~ prices increased an average of 26%. _. ~-~ " Administrative costs for the allowance Program were relatively., low. Rand estimated that 85% of each dollar directly benefited the participants, with most of the remainder going to program administration.. In the public housing and Section 8 Existing programs, only 34% and 57% respectively of the program dollars directly benefited participants. Moreover, it was administratively, easy to accommodate households whose eligibility fluctuated; the subsidy checks easily increased or decreased depending on household circumstances, with little di. sruption to the family in its home, and sizable savings in terms of t'he subsidies~ The program required households to live in "decent, safe, and sanitary" housing. After households enrolled, the HAO inspected the dwellings against standards for health and safety conditions, sufficient living space, and basic facilities. With the housing allowances as incentives, about 60% of the renters arranged to repair their houses, 20% moved and abou.t 20% simply dropped out of the program; about 80% of the homeowners repaired their homes, and about 20% dropped the program. Overall, about 80% of the households that enrolled eventually qualified for payments. Many of the violations of the housing standards were inexpensive to repair. The average amount spent on the repairs needed to bring the house up to program standards was about $100. Most defects were repaired by nonprofessional labor; owners and their friends did four-fifths of the work on owner-occupied dwellings; renters/and. their friends did over-half the '~ork on~--~?..',' rented dwellings, and their 'landlords did most of the rest.' .... ~.---- .-_ .. About one fourth of the'repairs were done completely-with --..-~:. materials on hand and unpaid .labor.- .._ There was virtually no neighborhood resistance to 'the. '- program. -~ ~ ~ - ' - . .... Allowances as a Housing Strategy .-__..'.. '- '- .~...~ The housing allowance experiment spanned a time period during which we had several presidential 'administrations, of both parties. Its results came in at ~bout the same time federal government began substantial cutbacks in many domestic programs.- The 1981 President's Commission on Housing reviewed the results-of the experiments and' recommended that housing....- allowances become_the main-form 0f ~federal housing assistance.'--< Congress passed the-Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery_ Act_of last November, which included a $242 million authorizatiOn demonstration housing allowance program. The program will fund over 15,000 allowances for five years. (The FY84 housing allowance appropriation received approval last summer, prior to the authorization.) -~ -- . - - Among the recommendations by the President's Commission on HoUsing was the suggestion that the--federal government' get 'out of housing production programs except in regions with actual 'housing' shortages~ In addition to the growing consensus that housing affordability is now the main problem, many believe government' '- simply can nOt afford to-continue the long-term subsidies for construction. Although it authorizes money for development~ t'he housing law repeals Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehab beginning in FY84, except for the 202 program which funds housing for the elderly and handicapped. Specific amounts for fiscal year 1984 earmarked in the authorization legislation include $1.290 billion for public housing, $2.217 billion for Section 8 Existing housing, $540 million for Section 8 moderate rehab, and $350 million for a new rental housing supply program. The allowance idea faced opposition from housing' p~oducers wanting subsidies run through the producer side. In a kind of ingenious compromise worked out. in the legislation the allowance program will be tied to the assistance for the rental housing grant program, known as Section 17 in the new law. Locally, St. Paul and Minneapolis are reviewing the Section 17 program regulations to determine whether they will apply for the construction funds. Minneapolis' Community Development Agency and St. Paul's Public Housing Authority would then be responsible for administering the housing allowances to the dwellings' residents or displaced tenants. Whether or not we see housing allowances used in Minnesota depends in part on.which communities qualify for and are interested in the rental rehab grants of Section 17.. Approximately two-thirds of the 15,000 allowances are tied to this rehab program. (Although the household will have a free choice of vendor PHAs will pay the allowance subsidy directly to landlords, for ease of administration.) To be eligible for the $150-million rental rehab grants in FY84, cities must meet HUD guidelines regarding 1) a low-income renter population, 2) overcrowded rental housing, and 3) extensive physically inadequate housing. As a method of rationing the allowances tied to these rental rehab grants, only families with incomes below 50% of the median income will be eligible. Priority will be given to families now occupying substandard housing, those involuntarily displaced by the construction~projects, or those paying more than 50% of their income towards housing. ~ In light,of limited program dollars, some eligibility.requirements such as these arc'necessary'to restrict the number of~program participants. The remaining one-third of the allowances are to be part of a freest~anding voucher experiment. HUD designed this controlled experiment,for an effective comparisG_n between allowances and Section 8· certificates; the two subsidies, will be administered at the same time by local.PHAs. HUD will select 10 sites to test variety of geographical locatiOns ~nd housing markets. The Twin '.Cities are one of the sixty or so areas being considered. Housi'ng Assistance' for. the Future' Given current trends, allowances will play a lar.ger role in the ~ federa l government's policy toward housing low-income people. In the administration's 1985 budget proposal, the allowance program is significantly expanded, up to 87,500 new allowances. This would replace further growth in the Existing Housing component of Section 8. A common fear about''any proposal that funds users is that some'eligible people simply would not have the information base. or ability necessary to find their own housing and best use the allowance. But' in effect the existing information network would not have to change. PHAs would still administer~the subsidies, as under Section 8; they would explain the allowance program as they now explain the existing programs. The information and referral services that today assist people in need of housing could help allowance r.,ecipients in the same way. Those households lacking the requisite capacities to locate housing in the private market still have the option to aPply for public housing, just as they do today. Moreover, R@nd's housing allowance experiment showed that only a very few people who applied to the program could not cope with it. Of the 20% or so of the eligibles who did not go on to receive allowances, most were households making conscious decisions that the trouble involved with moving or repairing their place was not worth the 11 allowance they Some areas of the country still need additional housing unit's. Allowances will do little to increase the availability low income housing, stock in those places. 'But increasingly th'e housing problem for low-income people- is~ affording the rent and the focus of housing policy will be on devices like the housing Acknowledgements ' We would like to thank those people who answered our questions and. shared .their ideas on housing policies, including Dan Alesch who worked for Rand on the housing assistance supply experiment in Green'Bay; Nancy Reeves, Housing Department :. Director at the Metropolitan Council; Phil Cohen and Mike Quaranta of 'Senator Durenberger's staff; Jim Solem and staff of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; and members of the Minneapolis Community Development Agency, the St. Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development and St. Paul's Public Housing Authority. Valuable written material included Rand's_ executive summary, Experimenting with Housing Allowances; James P. Zais, et al, Housing Assistanc~r Older Americans; The ~eport of the President's Commission on Housing; as well as various reports on the 1983 law from ~usin~ & Development ' Reporter, Housin~ Affairs Letter, and the Low Income Housing ~nforma~'ion Servi~ MINNESOTA CHAPTER 12TH FLOOR * CITY HALL ANNEX · 25 W. 4TH ST. · ST. PAUL, MN · 55102 March 12, 1984 TO: Mayors, Council Members, Planning Commissioners, Planners, Interested Parties On behalf of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association, I want to extend this personal invitation to you to attend the 1984 national conference of the American Planning Association, May 5 to 9. This year's conference will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Minneapolis. The national conference offers us a unique opportunity to showcase our Metropolitan Area and state to a national audience. The national APA organization selected the T~in Cities for this year's conference in large part because we have used planning fully and in some novel ways to bring about the kind of communities we have wanted. The national conference will focus on how we do things in the Twin Cities. There will be a full schedule of workshops at the hotel, plus 26 field trips (mobile workshops) to see first hand the results of planning here and to talk to the people that made it happen. In addition, this year's conference will cover developments in p~anning nationally, the planning experience in Canada and the role of computers and telecommunications in planning. Several "get acquainted" receptions are also planned. I can assure you that your attendance at the c~nference will be well worth the investment. And by participating, you can play an important part in helping our 9uests feel welcome here. The registration fee'is $250, if paid before April 6. But check with your city. They may have already taken care of registration. For more information about the conference, call me or A1Lovejoy at 292-1577. I look forward to'seeing you there. Cordially, ,Ya.~es J. Beq~us PWesi dent Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association JJB/lle RUDY PERPICH GOVERNOR ~TATE OF MINN. E~OTA OFF1C_,E OF TI-IX GOVEK'~OI~ ST. PAUL 55155 Dear Local Government Official: The 1984 Legislative Session is well underway 'with a number of issues of concern to local and metropolitan officials. Plans are still on course for an April 20th adjournment which means that many of these key issues will be decided in the next few weeks. Governor Perpich would like to meet with metropolitan area local officials to discuss these'issues along with such items as the new Metropolitan Council Chair, metropolitan governance, transit, etc. and whatever else concerns you. As a result, we have set up a meeting on Monday, April 2 from 8:00-9:00 A.M. at the Transportation Building cafe- teria. The setting and meeting will be very informal with coffee and rolls being served. We hope you can take time from your busy schedule to take advantage of this oppor- tunity to meet with the governor. We hope further'to have- several members of the governor's cabinet available also. Please call my secretary at 296-0037 to give us an approxi- mate headcount if you can attend. Thank you. Sincerely, AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~80S