Loading...
2001-05-22PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: MAY 8, 2001 *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS *C. APPROVE LIC,ENSES AND PERMITS 1. AMERICAN LEGION: MEMORIAL DAY PARADE 2. FIRE DEPARTMENT: CITY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION EVENT 3. CITY DAYS COMMITTEE: CITY DAYS PERMITS 4. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS *D. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS DALE & REBECCA SIMON: 4711 CUMBERLAND ROAD CASE # 01-14: VARIANCE PAGE 7278-7282 7283-7304 7305 7306 7307 7308 7309-7327 KEVIN & DEBRA LARSON: 4525 DENBIGH ROAD CASE #01-15: VARIANCE 7328-7338 o KEITH BROWN: 4957 EDGEWATER DRIVE CASE #01-16: VARIANCE *E. APPROVE EXTENTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT NO-LOSS REQUEST BY TIMOTHY BECKER LOTS 5-8, BLOCK 4, HARRISON SHORES DEVELOPMENT - XXXX THREE POINTS BOULEVARD COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) 7339-7352 7353-7354 10. 12. 13. ~ PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. RANDY MORIARITY: 4536 DENBIGH ROAD CASE #00-69: MINOR SUBDIVISION CASE#00-70: VARIANCE ACTION APPROVING 2001 BONDING PROJECTS & CALLING FOR SALE OF BONDS GRAMERCY CORPORATION PRESENTATION FOR THE MOUND VISION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, INCLUDING PROJECT TEAM REMARKS (To be held concurrently with HRA meeting.) STEVE MCDONALD, pRESENTING ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT BY INDEPENDENT AUDITORS ABDO, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP CONSIDERATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION FOR GUIDELINES FOR FACILITATING DIALOGUE BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS IN SUBDIVISIONS CONTAINING PRIVATELY DEDIDCATED COMMONS CONSIDERATION/ACTION ON AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO CSAH 15 AND 110 ACTION ON HENNEPIN COUNTY POLICE CHIEF'S MUTUAL AID PACT RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FOR PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE FOR POSSIBLE pRESERVATION AND USES FOR ISLAND PARK PUBLIC FACILITIES PARK & OPEN SPAE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS A. ACTION ON GUIDELINES FOR NAMING PARKS AND PUBLIC Bo FACILITIES AND PROVIDING MEMORIALS TO PARKS ACTION ON FISHING ACCESS IN DESIGNATED AREAS 7355-7389 7390-7439 7440-7442 7443-7451 7452-7481 7482-7495 7496-7498 7499 7500 7501 14. SET SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOPS A. APPROVE DATE/TIME TO AMEND NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCES B. APPROVE DATE/TIME TO DISCUSS DOCKS AND COMMONS PROGRAM AND FEES 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POLSTON, ET AL, LAW SUIT (To be held concurrently with City Council meeting. See City Council agenda.) 16. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ao LMC Friday Fax LMCD communications 7502-7511 7512-7538 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. CJ D. 1~. F. H. I. J. FYI: Administrative approval for street closing: Fire Department Fish Fry AMM call for members to Policy Committee Financial Reports: April 9_001 AMM Dill Tracking Report: May 11, 2001 Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative communications AMM Fax News Article: What Makes a Leader? Westonka Schools correspondence See: Meeting notes from Council Retreat 2000 Audit Report 17. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. citvofmound com. 7539-7540 7541-7544 7545-7547 7548-7563 7564-7567 7568-7570 7571-7581 7582-7590 More current meeting MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 8, 200'! The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 8, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Kim Anderson and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney, John Dean; City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; City Engineer, John Cameron; City Planners Loren Gordon and Bruce Chamberlain; Hennepin County Design Engineer, Bruce Palaczyk; Dan Parks of MFRA; Parks Director, Jim Fackler; Police Chief, Len Harrell; Bonnie Menken, Carl Bennetsen, Karl & Julie Weisenhom, Ron Helmet, John Helmet, Tom Stokes, Erin Wombacher, Mike Debner, Paula Larson, Ken Berres, John & Kelly anderson, Phil Bowman, Melissa Gross, Aaron Gross, Robert & Elsie Beadle, Frank Weiland, Robert Goodfellow, Leah Weycker, Cathy Bailey, jeffjesberg, phil Klein, Tom Awne, Jeff Hanratty, Gary DeRusha. *Consent Agenda: Afl items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council and wi//be enacted by a roll ca//vote. There wi//be no separate discussion on these items un/ess a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item wi//be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1, OPEN MEETING AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. APPROVE AGENDA City Manager pulled item 9 from the agenda and item 3E from the consent agenda. MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Brown to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3, CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Brown to approve the consent agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approval of minutes of April 24, 2001 regular meeting Approval of minutes of May 2, 2001, special meeting B. Payment of Claims in the amount of $179,157.28 -7278- Mound City Council Minutes - May 8, 2001 C. Approve Permits for the 2001 Fire Department Fish Fry Temporary On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit Public Dance Permit Set-ups Permit D. Approve 2001 LMCIT Insurance Renewal E, Removed F. Approve Updated Joint Cooperative Agreement and Contract for Fire Service with Cooperating Cities 3E. VOICESTREAM CELL TOWER ANTENNA AGREEMENT Loren Gordon explained that this lease was changed to strike item D regarding removal of structure. John Dean asked if VoiceStream is in agreement with this change and Gordon assured that they were. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve this agreement as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS None were offered. ,5. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Dan Parks reviewed the Surface Water Management Plan and the requirements needed to get this plan approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He informed the Council that the only issue that really needs to be finalized is that of the wetland buffers. Two goals of getting the approval now are so that the city can assume responsibility from the watershed district and to make the stormwater management plan part of the Comprehensive Plan. Parks informed the Council that the MCWD is planning to make these buffer restrictions more stringent, to 50' maximum, so this is an opportunity to have the plan approved with 35' maximum buffers rather than the 50' buffers. MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Anderson to include the items as outlined by Dan Parks (Wetlands Functions and Values Assessment, Wetland Buffers, and Excavation in Wetlands) and have this plan presented to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their approval. Ayes: Meyer, Anderson, Meisel. Nayes: Brown, Hanus. 6. PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR CSAH 15 & 110 INTERSECTION AND CSAH 15 REALIGNMENT Bruce Polaczyk of Hennepin County and realignment of CSAH 15. reviewed the proposed layout of the intersection Councilmember Anderson commented on a letter received from a business in Commerce Place Mall, expressing concern about the median that will be running down the center of the road in front of their main exits. It was explained that this median is needed for traffic regulation purposes, as well as safety purposes. 2 -7279- Mound City Council Minutes - May 8, 2001 Anderson expressed concern about how far the improvement will extend west of Commerce Blvd. The Plan states approximately 682' and she asked what approximately means in this context, and how far the project will extend, Polaczyk informed her that it will end at the designated driveway for the proposed MetroPlains project. The issue of no parking along the improvement was also a concern and Polaczyk explained that State Aid Funds are the main funds for this project and to secure these funds the design has to be by State standards. The no parking was a condition of the State Aid Funding. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. Ayes: Meyer, Brown, Meisel, Hanus. Nayes: Anderson. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 01-42: RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY LAYOUT NO. 11 FORTHE CONSTRUCTION OF CSAH 15 ON NEW ALIGNMENT BETWEEN EXISTING CSAH 15 APPROXIMATELY 191 FEET EAST OF CYPRESS LANE AND EXISTING CSAH 15, APPROXIMATELY 682 FEET WEEST OF CSAH 110 (AKA COMMERCE BOULEVARD) AS WELL AS ADJOINING PORTIONS OF CSAH 110, IN THE CiTY OF MOUND. 7. LANGDON BAY FINAL PLAT; CASE #01-12- RH DEVELOPMENT Loren Gordon reviewed the final plat and development plan for Langdon Bay. There are 74 lots in the final plat, instead of 75 as shown in the preliminary. One lot was lost due to moving of a park area, which is a positive to the development. Discussion followed regarding placement of sidewalks, street names and proposed walkways. MOTION by own, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution as presented, and changing: Pintail Lane to Sugar Mill road; Skylark Circle to Lady Slipper Circle; and Starling Circle to Alwin Circle. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 01-43: RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, FOR LANGDON BAY RESIDENTIAL DEVLOPMENT, CASE #01-12. 8. LANGDON WOODS FINAL PLAT; CASE #01-13 - BRENSHELL HOMES Loren Gordon reviewed the final plat, noting changes from the preliminary plat. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3 -7280- Mound City Council Minutes - May 8, 2001 RESOLUTION NO, 01-44: RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, FOR LANGDON WOODS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 5989 AND 5984 CHESTNUT ROAD, PID #14-117-24-43-0006, #14-117-24-43-0005, AN D #14- 117-24-43-0046. CASE #01-13 9. REMOVED FROM AGENDA 10. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPLICATION OF WOODLAND POINT DECISION TO OTHER PRIVATELY DEDICATED COMMONS City Attorney John Dean reviewed a memo that he wrote to the Council regarding the application of the Woodland Point case decision to other privately dedicated commons, and his recommendations for handling this situation. After discussion on the contents of Dean's memo, the Council received questions and comments from the public. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to table this item until the City Attorney can provide specific suggestions as to recommended guidelines, so that all residents can use the same process. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 11. ADDITION OF CITY-OWNED DOCK AT BEACHSIDE PARK Fackler presented the plans for a city-owned dock at Beachside Park. The configuration suggested will bring that area into conformance with the LMCD. The plan calls for three docks at a cost of $1500 for additional materials needed, and increase the in/out fees by $300.00 with all expenses against the Dock Fund. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve adding city-owned docks at Beachside Park as proposed. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Meisel called for a recess at 10:05 p.m. Mayor Meisel reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m. 12. ISLAND PARK HALL PRESERVATION AND USES The Council reviewed the past Commission minutes that were provided them regarding past discussions on Island Park Hall. Chief Harrell suggested that consideration be given to the youth when discussing uses for the Hall. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to request that the City Manager provide information needed to set up a task force to research feasibility of restoration, and possible uses of Island Park Hall. Meyer suggested putting a notice in The Laker to attract members for the task force. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4 -7281 - Mound City Council Minutes - May 8, 2001 13, NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE Chief Harrell was present to ask questions and take comments regarding the proposed amendment to the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance. It was determined that further consideration needs to be afforded to this ordinance before action is taken. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Anderson to table this item and set up a study session with the Planning Commission on this ordinance, as well as the related zoning ordinances amendments being proposed. The City Manager is to research and set the date for this session. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 14. CITY DAYS PARADE PARTICIPATION It was determined that not all of the Councilmembers wish to ride in the City Days Parade. Hanson suggested that if there are members who want to ride in the parade, they can participate with the Fire Department. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC Friday Fax B. LMCD Communication C. Mound Police Department monthly report: April, 2001 D. Letter: Mediacom on services and rates E. Mound Westonka communications F. Letters: City of Shorewood on phosphorus fertilizers G. AMM Fax News H. FYI: Letter of thanks to VFW for donation I. AMM Annual Meeting notice J. Urban Hennepin County project status report K. Zero Gravity Skate Park task force meeting minutes L. Westonka Senior Center newsletter M. Hennepin County Assessor's Report: 2001 Open Book meeting 16, ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Brown, seconded by Anderson to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Ayes: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Anderson. Nayes: Meyer. Motion carried. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor 5 -7282- AP-C02 -01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS i',A!LL SEASONS LANDSCAPE DESI VENDOR TOTAL ?A!o 414 26455 6,, ,i~i0431 2214 ,,-.:~! 5/22/01 5/22/01 5/22/01 5122101 213 17600 P U N C H A $"r. C!TY OF HOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 220.00 1,165.97 RE-KEY BUILDING 740.18 CARPET CLEANING 740.18 JRNL-CD JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER i:0i~ : 01-4320-3820 :~t'~0:~;0 =: 01-4320-4200 1010 C4.78 JRNL-CD 1010 1,324.70 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 ~ELLBOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 3001.72 512210]. 5122101 34.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ::~ 31.67 04-01 GARBAGE PICKUP 78-7800-3750 '.? 5/22/01 5/22/01 94.99 JRNL-CD 1010 : :.~ !"! 10084646 17.76 04-0]. GARBAGE PICKUP 7].-7100-3750 5/22/01 5/22/0Z 17.76 JRNL-CD lOlO -7283- AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER Bi0 7~) S: 0:t:~) 2 0i9 0~04~2 2.8~3.73 03-0Z TRAFFIC STUDY 55-5877-3Z00 5/22/01 5/22/0i 2,813.73 JRNL-CD 1010 -BR. AStLAg, DAVID 5/22/01 5/22/0i 250.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~B~UREAU OF CRIMINAL APPNEHE VENDOR TOTAL 160.00 ~HANP[ON AUTO VENDOR TOTAL i~:~O 970 6i3i4i09 92.i8 MIX 71-7100-9540 ~'-C.-!lO19 10362 5,565.00 RIP RAP LAGOON PARK 81-4350-5300 · --~ 5/22/01 5122/01 5,565.00 JRNL-CD 1010 5/22/01 5/22/01 5/22/0I 5/22/01 505.21 06-01 INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6~10 961.84 JRNL-CD iOlO 3,217.20 JRNL-CD 1010 VENDOR TOTAL 2740.00 -7284- r~u~_ ..... T F~'y"o~'° ~- AP-C02-01 CI MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 135001 1,809.75 BEER 71-7100-95. i3 5:0~3~,.~ · ~,.~ 3~ ~.~,5.~'E~ ;'0 . ' -- .................................... ~' ......... 5-/.2-~'/e'-~;-'~ ~.5,/~:~ -/,0-~. ,~,AY ~ISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTA~ 4068.10 ~IXCO ENGRAVING VENDOR TOTAL 8.52 - 5/22/0~ 5/22/0~ b87.60 JFNL-CD ~0~0 f.'~ '"~ 5/22/0~ 5/22/01 41.10 JRNL-CD 1010 5/22/0~ 5/22/0~ 588.00 JRNL-CD ~0~0 :"~' 5/22/01 5/22/01 3,547.75 JRNL-CD lOlO '~"%q 5/22/0; 5/22/0~ 203.00 J~NL-CD ;0~0 .... 83.11 05-01-0~ UNIFORHS 78-7800-2240 '¢;~ 15.84 05-01-01 MATS 01-42~0-2250 -7285- AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 41.43 05-01-01 MATS 01-4340-2330 --: ................................................... ?~*¢'2 ~/~O,i'"~:~'~ ~'/',~q'?'~=,'~ ................. ,' "'4'i?~-~':~' ':"~ '~ N~C-D ................. T 10i'0 ..... 639400 25.9~ 05-15-01 ~qTS 71-7100-4210 .... S~.~'~'i--'' ~'-~'~8-~''0~.~:~ ~+~O'R~,'~'~z'~' .............. : ................ 7~-'~ e~-`~-~'0 33.62 05-08-01 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2249 SERVICES '7B~:78:09-2250 / 2~:'AQ t 5 / 2;R./D1 1~1,. 85 tO'i 0 VENDOR IOTAL 656.t8 51196 5/22/01 5/22/01 51114 539.64 REPAIR OIL LEAK, ETC 5/22/01 5/22/01 539.64 JRNL-Co iO~D 01-4280-3810 1010 228.11 REPLACE RE;,R BRAKES, ETC. 01-&280-3810 228.11 JRNL-CD 1010 51198 1,414.56 REPAIR EXHAUSE, ETC. 01-4280-3810 5/22/01 5/22/01 1,414.56 JRNL-CD 1010 G~ARY'S DIESEL SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 4773.03 27,87 04- ~: ~¢~'A TE R 0~-~t bO -4t00 010430-B 46.65 04-01 YATER 01-4320-2200 -7286- AP-C02-01 K L M A b t: J 'i U K N A L CITY OF VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NU!4BER GiLENWOOD INGLEWOOD VENDOR TOTAL 118.52 S~iOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, INC VENDOR TOTAL ~,~iRAND, DE8 VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 115.23 5/22/01 5/22/01 616.15 JRNL-CD 1010 2,898027 Ii~2061 DM57084 19.58 CHLORINE PACKETS 73-7300-2260 20.00 4 CONTAINERS 73-7300-2260 5/22/01 5/22/01 20.00 JRNL-CD 1010 --~ 5/22/01 5/22/01 34.70 JRNL-CD 1010 ~%! 5/22/0L 5/22/02 L28 -7287- pA(Si- 6 P U R C H A S E J 0 tJ R N A L AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 0105O4 52.14 PAINT 73-7300-2310 010503 38.40 PLANTS FOR GREENSPACE 01-2300-0400 -. 306218-B 36.00 PLANTS FOR GREENSPACE 01-2300-0400 :~'2579 1250471 2,853.42 5122/01 5122101 2,853.42 : i:'~ 125 3205 745.92 5/22/01 5/22/01 745.92 ~'~HNSON BROTHERS LIOUOR VENDOR TOTAL 4522.40 i~!OHNSON, PliYLLIS VENDOR TOTAL 669.11 PRODUCTS, [NC. VENDOR TOTAL !~iONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 13.70 , -7288- FA(~- F P U tq L ti A b ~' J U U lq N A L AP-CO2-OZ CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE tiOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTIDN ACCOUNT NUMBER F~!OWELL,S AUTOMOTIVE/ZITCO$ VENDOR TOTAL 58.29 5/22/01 5/22/01 5/22101 5122/01 i51.20 JRNL-CD i64.80 JPNL-CD 1010 1010 275229 2,250.81 BEER 71-7100-9530 Z% '~'7:~3,0 -:: 2~:~.q~ .E~E'~i!ti:il ':":L: -':'t?~i':i!'' 7':t-710=0.-9~3'.0 27763i 97.50 BEER 71-7100-9530 ~ ~:--,~ --~ ..... ~-=,--~-~-~,. ..... t ~:~--, :. i~170 0000721825 29,700.60 06-01 WASTEWATER 78-7800-4230 · 5122101 5122/01 29,700.60 JRNL-CD i010 ':': '"":: :: ..:~L . .~:'].:' :: .,, :,-.~ : ~:.' . ' : ,' : .L:' :: t' ::.:: . ~: · :!! : :i' ..'. :.::. ': · · . ' ~ ~' 5122101 5/22/01 287.08 JRNL-CD 1010 M:3316 010503 46.00 WATER OPERATOR RENEWAL (2) 73-7300-4130 ................................................ ~? .2~-~ ,£ ....... '~.~/,2~,2~:0~ ........................A,.~,~).~=~ - -. J R N.I; ~C'.-~ .............. ~ ...... ~ ~ ~-1.~ ~3493 010515 750.00 SPONSORSHIp =EE DARE 71-7100-3500 ~"~ 5/22/0I 5/22/01 750.00 JRNL-Ci) -7289- PAGE 8 P U R C H A S F J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER TI-0067113 7&.55 COLOR SIGN 5/22/01 5/22/01 78.55 JRNL-CD q"3F:~S'~- "~(Yi~)'507 ........ ' .............. ~-'~':~: ' 4~5'~'0~ 2'$"~ i'-":M~'B~ R 5~ I"P '"B~ E 5 '31-- 419 O - ~l 3:0 " 5/11101 5/22/01 &5.00 JRNL'CD 1010 ~38~0 $05704'4 !* O 4:1,, ~"9 ~l T5tR' ~AL .:P~ 73~7300-2~00 NORTHERN WATER ~ORKS SUPPL VENDOF~ TOTAL 19 ~. 9~ :MIS:C.'EL'L:ANE Q:'US J~'O/EFI C E 5UB~:L I E:~ 01~,:~.090- 21,0'0 :.~' ~'9~798 ...... M'~"DeLE:E¥~'~?~U'S'"~'~'~t ~E'""S::~';P'PL~"~E:B'':'~ ........ 01-~ 1.40-2100 19.98 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 19.98 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 5/22/01 5/22/01 133.23 JR NL-CD 01-4280-2360 10!0 01-4190-2100 01-4340-2100 01---42-8'0 -2 t00 71- 7 100 -'21.0'0 78."7800.~2100 ,-',-,- 1010 '!?SI-COLA COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 112.64 I"! 716458 700.25 WINE 71-7100-9520 .... ~ 5/22/01 5/22/01 700.25 JRNL-CD 1010 ,L~, 7~8767 817.70 LIQUOR 7~-7700-95Z0 5/22/01 5/22/01 817.70 JRNL-CD lOlO ~j~ 718769 102.00 MISCELLANEOUS 7t-7100-9550 ~, 5/22/01 5/22/01 102.00 JRNL-CD 1010 -7290- AP-C02-OZ CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER !~4~$~ 423"04 &,,~'.g,~,~5' 424~7 723.30 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9 5/22/01 5/22/0~ 723.30 JRNL-CD 5/22/01 5/22/01 92.15 JRNL-CD 1010 47.60 0~-16-01 THRU 07-15-01 MONITOR 78-7800-4200 5/22/01 5/22/0i 142.,80 JRNL-CD 1010 5/22/0& 5/22/0~ 2,625.99 JRNL-CD LOLO 5/22/01 5/22/0i 47.85 JRNL-CD lOlO 5/22/01 5/22/01 42.52 JRNL-CD 5/22/01 5/22/01 85.30 JRNL-CD -.- 1010 ;~238 010522 263.18 03-18-01 THRU 04-17-01 BARTLET 01-4340-3720 ':~, '.., ~ : >. :"~ .' . ..,." ' .:...~..,a~ .::~*~8~.~:':.~u,;R~ .~ ~7.~;~:~:;..k.~uo~ ~*.7.~00 ~ 0 ;'" :: .'"~,. ,'":::' '", .'. X.:' ."z&.:2,,:8~ ::~-~!:8~'0,:~,::~0,:~0~,.;~:;;i,~-¢0'i'¢~R~~ :S:T',:: .', ....... :-- :'-..:., :, ,, .:~.:. :,, :;,,~ ....... ~;:: ;,:,,~ ...... ,; .................. '; .... :,:-~%,~,35,, ,,:~3-~8.-s~*,~%'-.:04,=,~ y--o~-~*~AYwo9~b ;- · .... ;0~-4.3 ~0,- 3,7 ,'? 333.60 03-28-02 THRU 04-27-0~ STREETS 0~-4280-~720 · ';" 189.55 03-18-01 THRU 04-17-01 WATER 73-7300-3720 : ..- ' ' ' . · :'lOiO · ,. ' . ,( .' ,: . :: · -7291 - PAGE Z0 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NM6R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 5/22/01 5/22/01 133.04 JRNL-CD 1010 23286 142.55 REPAIR OIL DRAIN,PLUG ETC. 01-4340-3810 i~;4390 010522 2,638.49 06-01 LIQUOR RENTAL SPACE 71-7100-3920 !~,~ 5/22/01 5/22/01 2,638.49 JRNL-CD 1010 5/22/01 5/22/01 53.25 JRNL-CD 1010 5/22/01 5/22/01 5/22/01 5/22/01 159.75 JRNL-CD 68.51 LETTERHEAD 68.51 LETTERHEAD 403.00 JRNL-CD 1010 01-4190-2100 01-4340-2100 1010 5/22/01 5/22/01 317.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~'PORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL 325.00 -7292- PAGE ].1 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER .~:4770 194304 303.00 BEER 71-7100-9S ~' 5/22/01 5/22/01 303.00 JRNL-CD ~,~0 226818 312.40 BEER 71-7100-9530 ..~.. 5/22/01 5/22/01 312.40 JRNL-CD 1010 :.:? 226857 6,836.60 BEER 71-7100-9530 ' i_:.! 5/22/0I 5/22/01 6,836.60 JRNL-CD 1010 "~:~i ,, :!~' :. ~ ' ii.. 22.75 04-0i MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 01-4340-2300 .... 17.11 04-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 01-4340-2330 "::~'~ 44.70 04-01 MISCELLANEOUS Il]EMS 78-7800-2250 ".i'? 38.42 04-0I MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 78-7800-2200 !-J. 343.65 04-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 22-4170-2200 ~-~ 5/22/01 5/22/01 807.00 JRNL-CD lOlO .... ~ 5/22/01 5/22/01 153.84 JRNL-CD 1010 ~:~ 6.07 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2100 .... 6.07 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2100 ~!~ 3.03 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2100 ~., 5/22/01 5/22/01 40.45 JRNL-CD -7293- PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-CO2-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 300867-0 7.44 WHITE EXACT VELL 01-4040-2100 300671-0 80.67 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2100 : : :: : :: ::: :::: 8,0:~:67: M.~S(~E~,~D~ 26.89 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 26.89 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2100 ;~'m:;":'~"'~ :~ ..... ' ':~-'~ :':'""~'?'~:~ .......... '~"~'; ~'~'~ b~E~:'t' ] ,: : ;~:~ ~:~ :' 't~ 5:C EEL ~,N~S' ;~ ~ ~f~:~ S~ P E~ ~ : · CITY OFF[CE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 636.01 0:" 68375 93.90 PANTS, HUSBY, JESSE 01-4150-2200 :... 0~0522 ~$.95 05-0~ BALBOA PARKING ~$.9S 05-0~ BALBOA PARK[NG :V5175 010522 8.20 04-01 612-296-9058 FINANCE 01-4090-3220 ~:~ 3.68 04-01 612-554-6520 WATER 73-7300-3220 ~ 3.68 04-01 612-554-6520 SEWER 78-7800-3220 - 27.44 04-01 612-581-6441 SQUAD 841 01-4140-3220 ~, 27.82 04-0! 612-581-6442 SUQAD 842 01-4140-3220 -7294- PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-Oi CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 27.44 04-01 612-581-6405 INVESTIGATO 01-4140-32 5/22/01 5/22/01 324.87 JRNL-CD l~lO 5/22/01 5122101 22.08 JRNL-CD 1010 'i:~ARNING LITES OF MINNESOTA VENDOR TOTAL 157.90 290436 i~i563 0 4289 960.00 .43 NUTS AND LUG COVERS .43 NUTS AND LUG COVERS 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 [~!5695 010522 4,983.77 ,-- 5/22/01 5/22/01 4,983.77 B~EAK AT CTY RD 110 THRU 04-30-01 0542-505-000-001 JRNL-CD 73-7300-3800 01-4280-3710 1010 ~ [.,:~ 2,882.46 04-01 0217-606-329 73-7300-3710 ~].~ 409.61 04-01 2184-407-147 22-4170-3710 ~ .'~ 2,267.64 04-01 0018-802-634 78-7800-3710 ,[~ 317.40 04-01 0009-604-835 01-4280-3710 010503 700.00 WARRANT, HOMLA, KENT S. 01-2300-0000 5/22/01 5/22/01 700.00 JRNL-CD 1010 -7295- VAL~ .L~+ H U iq C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NNBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER AND ASSOCIATES VENDOR TOTAL 2774.52 010507 5,150.00 CLEAN OUT 78-7800-4200 010501 383.90 6033 CHERRYWOOD INSPECTION FEE 78-7800-3800 5/22/01 5/22/01 383.90 JRNL-CD 1010 5/22/01 5/22/01 28.00 JRNL-CD 1010 :i!~iHOMPSON, JOEL VENDOR TOTAL 68.25 38.02 ;'~16860 010522 LSO.O0 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 : i:: i, : :.: .: [ .: ;: :,,:t' :: i 010522 185.00 REFUND LATE APPLICATION 81-3260-0000 5122101 5122101 185.00 JRNL-CD 1010 30.00 REFUND SHARE FEE 81-3260-0000 7.50 REFUND LMCD FEE 81-3200-0000 -7296- HAb~. 1) H U R (. Pi A 5 ~ J U U H N A L AP-C02-O.1. CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR [)ATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER i~'!INNETONKA BOAT RENTAL VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 VENDOR TOTAL 200.00 ~;FHLIN, ~RIAN VENDOR TOTAL 4L.2S ~ANZEN, DIANE VENDOR TOTAL 157.50 ::,: : ::,: , '~:LUME, WILIAM VENDOR TOTAL 161.25 '.~:::~7~ ' ~'C?: : ',~:: : ~[~6869 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 ~'~870 0~0522 ~50.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 8Z-3260-0000 ::~:~ 7.00 REFUND LHCD FEE 8~-3260-0000 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 7.50 REFUND LMCD FEE 010522 150 O0 7 · 50 REFUND DOCK FEE REFUND LMCD FEE 81-3260-0000 81-3200-0000 81-3260-0000 81-3200-0000 -7297- PAGE 16 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER IN, PATRICIA VENDOR TOTAL 5/22/0l 5/22/01 ~iALNESS, RUSS VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 191.25 JRNL-CD 1010 150.00 {~TORLIEN, MARY ELLEN VENDOR TOTAL 75.00 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 :~6879 010522 150 O0 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 -- 11.25 REFUND LMCD FEE 81-3200-0000 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 5/22/01 5122/01 150.00 JRNL-CD 1010 7.50 REFUND LMCD FEE 81-3200-0000 5/22/01 5/22/01 157.50 JRNL-CD 1010 11.25 REFUND LMCD FEE 81-3200-0000 5/22/01 5/22/01 161.25 JRNL-CD 1010 -7298- I-'A,ot: J.~' F U N L tl A :~ ~. J U U K N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ~ENNI GES, KEITH VENDOR TOTAL iYHOMPSON, MATTHEW VENDOR TOTAL 161.25 CRAIG VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 JENNIFER VENDOR TOTAL ;L57.50 ~:~AGNER, RICHARD VENDOR TOTAL 157.50 010522 150.00 REFUND DOC~ FEE 81-3260-0000 '~I'HERON, SEAN VENDOR TOTAL Jo0.o0 ~ESHAVARZ, MAIJEH VENDOR TOTAL ZSO.O0 .}~ARLSON. PHZL~P VENDOR TOTAL ZaS.O0 -7299- ?A~ 1~ P U R C M A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 5122101 5122101 11.25 REFUND LHCD FEE 81-3200-O000 161.25 JRNL-CD 1010 5/22/01 5/22/01 150.00 JRNL-CD ~AUDREAU, ANNETTE VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 ~TOFTEY, BRIAN VENDOR TOTAL 150 00 ,~'~6900 010 522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 ~J6901 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 '~'~!i 5/22/01 5/22/01 150.00 JRNL-CD ,~: 10 10 ::".: 5/22/01 5/22/01 150.00 JRNL-CD lO10 ~TLESKt, JOHN VENDOR TOTAL 150.O0 -7300- AP-C02-0i K L M A ~> r_ J U U K ~N A L CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE 5/22/0i DUE HOLD DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 5122101 150.00 JRNL-CD i~iROUTY, CULLEN AND STACYJO VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 ::~:~,~:,o'~:S~~:, i ',c ILL P, RICHARD VE.DOR TOTAL i:':,::~ ;' :>:, ~::~i~D':~:'~:' i; :::i~: · :~ :.:'j, !~ : ~,::, ~.~69~I 010522 lSO.O0 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 5/22/0i 5/22/01 150.00 JRNL-CD ,. 11.25 REFUND LHCD FEE 81-3200-0000 5122101 5122101 161.25 JRNL-CD 7.50 REFUND LMCD FEE 5/22/01 5/22/01 157.50 JRNL-CD 1010 81-3200-0000 1010 5122/01 5/22/01 150.00 JRNL-CD i010 -7301 - KA~ ,'U H U ~ ~ H R b ~ J U U K N A L AP-C02-OZ CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE .......................................... ~-~/.~2~,/~0-1:,,..-..$?/.2~,/,~0 ]L~.,-:,, ......... ... :--. -,t5 0 ,F~?O -~.jR,N.t.~.C~D P:-SA~ $ O~, 'F RAN K V E N DD.R T D 1 A L 15'0,'. 0.9: 16918 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 5/22/0i 5/22/01 150.00 JRNL-CD -C~HRISTEN~E~ GAR~ ~NDDM 10~L ~0.00 5/22/01 5/22/01 150.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ', ~E;N ~ 5~N ~-, ,,ID:M,, ,~,~ ......................... ~N,DO,R~=J,O-~ ~-L ................. 'HUSON, COREY VENDOR TOTAL 1010 'K~EINTZ, JORDIN VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 81-3260-0000 i~iEMSTOCK, CHAD VENDOR TOTAL 157.50 L~i692 ~ 010522 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 7.50 REFUND LHCD FEE 81-3260-0000 81-3260-0000 81-3200-0000 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 7.50 REFUND LMCD FEE 81-3260-0000 81-3200-0000 -7302- AP-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT ¢I OF MOUND DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ',t~ C K, SHAWN VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 ~iILLET, MARC VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 ~6930 010522 !50.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 i:~b931 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 !~932 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 ~;i 5/22/01 5/22/01 150.00 JRNL-CD 1010 :-i 5/22/01 5/22/01 120.00 JRNL-CD 1010 !S~ECHT, MICHAEL VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 ~CAUL, JIM VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 ,~THER, COLIN VENDOR TOTAL i57.50 -7303- AP-C02-O1 VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 5/22/01 5/22/01 150 .00 JRNL-CD lOlO GERALD VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 · ~ERL IN, MARGARET VENDOR TOTAL 82.50 i~I KA, EMIL VENDOR TOTAL 150.00 ~OTENBERG~ DAN VENDOR TOTAL 161.25 ~LSEN, MELODY VENDOR TOTAL 158.00 ~16946 010522 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 81-3260-0000 ........................................ ~ .~-2~J~0-1-~-,~2-/Oi~ ..... ~ ........ ~i~g .:~ ..... JR Nk ~2 .................... i Oi.-O ~OLDEN-, 'C'YNTH I,.A VEND:OR TOTAL ZS0.00, " TOTAL ALL VENDORS 159,914.48 -7304- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BONNIE RITTER SUBJECT: MEMORIAL DAY PARADE PERMIT The American Legion has applied for a Parade Permit for their Memorial Day Parade on May 28, 2001, from 10:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. Parade route is from Shirley Hills School, down Lakewood to Bartlett Boulevard, west to Mound Bay Park. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofrnound.corn TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BONNIE RITTER SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR PERMITS: CITY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION EVENT The following permits are being requested for the City employee recognition event, to be held at the Fire Hall on August 2, 2001. There is a request to waive the fee, which is normally $25/day for non-profit. Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer Permit Temporary One-day Set-ups Permit .printed on recycled paper -7306- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL BONNIE RITTER CITY DAYS PERMITS - June 14, 15, 16, 17, 2001 The following permits are being requested. Records show that last year all fees were waived except for the Beer Permits. I have noted the normal fees for your information. Approval contingent upon all forms, insurance, being submitted. Normal Fee Carnival (Entertainment Permit) - June 14 - June 17 $100/day Transient Merchant Permit (for craft show and concessions) - June 14-17 $30/day or $50/week Fireworks Display - June 16 (in case of rain, June 17) Public Gathering - Mound Bay Park for Events and Fireworks-June 16-17 $300/day Parade Permit- June 16 Public Dance Permit - Pond Arena - June 15 Temporary On-Sale 3.2 Beer - Pond Arena - June 15 Set-ups - Pond Arena - June 15 $100/day $25/day Live Musical Concert Permit - Mound Bay Park - June 16 Temporary On-sale 3.2 Beer- Mound Bay Park - June 16-17 $100/day $25/day CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BONNIE RITTER LICENSE RENEWALS - LICENSES EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2001. The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is July 1,2001, through June 30, 2002. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being submitted. CLUB ON-SALE - $500 American Legion Post 398 VFW Post 5113 SUNDAY SALES - $200 American Legion post 398 VFW Post 5113 ON-SALE WINE - $500 Al & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy 3.2 ON-SALE BEER- $500 Al & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy OFF-SALE 3.2 BEER - $150 By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell) Mainstreet Market PDQ Food Store SuperAmerica 1 printed on recycled paper -7308- Ma~ 18 O1 02:22p p.4 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4711 CUMERLAND ROAD P & Z CASE # 01-14 WHEREAS, the applicant, Dale and Rebecca Simon, have requested a variance for additions to their home located at 4711 Cumberland Road. The requested variance is as follows; Existing/Proposed_ Required Variance Side yard setback 5.2 feet 6 feet 0.8 feet and, WHEREAS, the proposed variances are being requested to accommodate a two stall detached garage and second story living quarters; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Zoning District that requires a 6,000 square feet lot area, 20 feet front yard setbacks, and 10 feet side yard setbacks for non lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the property does not currently have a garage and the proposal is the minimum needed to accomplish the project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the variance as requested -7309- Excerpts from MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY MAY 2001 CASE #01-14 VARIANCE DALE & REBECCA SIMON 4711 CUMBERLAND ROAD City Planner Loren Gordon introduced the case. The applicant has submitted a request for a sideyard setback variance of 0.8 feet to construct a two stall attached garage with living space above. The property does not currently have a garage. All existing lot and structure conditions conform to code requirements. The addition would provide an additional 650 square feet of living area above the garage. As the plans indicate, entry points to this split-level house are on the east side where the garage is planned. The stairway and landing causes the garage to be about 4 feet wider than normal and the interior of the garage is only 19 feet 6 inches in width. One particular with the lot that has some impact on the sideyard setback is the 79 feet lot width. As platted, the property shows 80 feet of width. In this case a 1 foot reduction is the difference between a conforming and nonconforming addition. Staff finds the addition is minimally sized to accommodate a two-stall garage and is affected by the irregular lot width. Discussion Weiland wanted to know where the shed was on the plan. Sutherland indicated that staff was aware that it was not on the drawing. He assured the commission that the shed will be in a conforming location. It does have to meet 4-foot setback to the side and rear. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to accept the variance as requested with the condition that the shed be relocated to a conforming location and that all hardcover requirements are met, MOTION carried unanimously. -7310- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 14, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Dale and Rebecca Simon CASE NUMBER: 01-14 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 4711 Cumberland Road ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a sideyard setback variance of 0.8 feet to construct a two stall attached garage with living space above. The property does not currently have a garage. All existing lot and structure conditions conform to code requirements. The addition would provide an additional 650 square feet of living area above the garage. As the plans indicate, entry points to this split level house are on the east side where the garage is planned. The stairway and landing causes the garage to be about 4 feet wider than normal and the interior of the garage is only 19 feet 6 inches in width. One particular with the lot that has some impact on the sideyard setback is the 79 feet lot width. As platted, the property shows 80 feet of width. In this case a 1 foot reduction is the difference between a conforming and nonconforming addition. Staff finds the addition is minimally sized to accommodate a two stall garage and is effected by the irregular lot width. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -7311- May 1, 2001 To: The Planning Commission of the City of Mound: From: Dale and Rebecca Simon 4711 Cumberland Road Mound, MN 55364 Reasons for proposed edition in regards to variance request: The lots 41 and 42, Block 10, Pembroke, we bought in 1986, was sized at 80 f~ in the front and back and the sides were 125 ff. We have an original survey that indicated these measurements. The city plot also indicates the same measurements. But the land survey that was done after we bought the land indicated the front at 79 ft instead of 80. We do not know what happened to the missing foot. We want to place an edition on the east side of the house with the dimensions of 25 ft by 26 ff by 25.8 ff. Because of the difference in the missing foot, the proposed edition goes over the east set back by about 10 inches. Currently we have a tri-level home in which each floor is only ½ the length of the house. It is a pre-fab home made in Stratford, Wisconsin. It came in 2 parts. The front part is ½ kitchen and ½ living room with stairway between the two moms. The back upper part consists of 2 bedrooms with a full bath in between. Because the house is basically in 2 parts we do not have flexibility in the placement of the edition. It can only be matched up with the east side kitchen door. The architect designed the edition to be the most efficient placement. Because of the way our house was constructed the proposed design was the only way it would work. If we pushed the addition back to the south, far enough to meet the set back we would not have access to the kitchen. If we make the addition narrower we would have to go to one large garage door. ~ desire was to have. two garage doors so as to make one side a useable shop space to work on projects. We have no room in our basement to do projects. There is only ½ a basement. It consists of laundry room, future ½ bath and a bedroom/den. The actual (car) garage area is set at 20 feet 4 inches. This is a minimum size. Keep in mind there is also a stairway on the right-side wall that takes up an additional 4 feet. The last foot is for clearance of the fight side garage door in the ceiling concerning the stairs above it. The total width footage is 25 feet. If the (car) garage space is narrowed to less than 20 feet in width, it will make it difficult to park two full size vehicles and open the doors on all sides. The architect designed the edition to be the most efficient placement of the stairs. It will connect the garage, basement, kitchen and dinning/family room. If we moved the stairs to the back (south) side of the garage, it would only access the family room, and not the basement. It would also be more costly as it would increase the length of the garage and size of the tresses. In summary, we believe the proposed design best meets our needs. Please consider it. Sincerely, Dale and Rebecca Simon -7312- Certificate of Survey. for Walter J. Carlson of Lots 41 and 42, Block 10, Pembroke Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 41 and 42, Block 10, Pembroke,.and the location of all existing buildings, if any, thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroaclunents. GORDON R. OOI~N CO., INC. Scale: 1" = 30' Date : 3-17-83 o : Iron marker ~o¥~-¥. Coffin /Reg. No. 6064 !.lark S. Gronberg Reg. No.12755 Land Stu-~-eyor~ and Planners ~ong Lake, Minnesota -7313- May 1, 2001 To the Planning Commission of the City of Mound: We, .loey and Amy Zaske of 4673 Cumberland Road, are neighbors to the east of Dale and Rebecca Simon. We have seen their plans of the purposed edition for the property of 4711 Cumberland Road. We see no problem with them building the edition over the setback line on the east side by 10 inches. This does not cause any hardship to our land. If you have any questions feel free to call us. Sincerely,,~~.~~ -7314- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 PAID APR 1 2 2001 CITY OF MOUND .~,~g) Application Fee: ~ (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner ~'i'O I city Engineer ._~',-/-/~ ] Public Works Case No. DNR PARK Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (iF OTHER THAN owNER) Address /-/?11 C.,, ~ ~ ¢ ,- I Lot ~// ~d~, Block / Subdivision PID# I ~ - ZONING DISTRICT R-2 R-3 B-1 Pla~ B-2 B-3 Name "~)~ Address ~'~ Phone (M). Name Address Phone (H) (W) (U) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~, no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 07-11-00 - 7315- Variance Application, P. 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: .sq ft .sq ft .sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~J, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? Il too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: Revised 07-11-00 - 7316- Vadance Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~ If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (10, No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vadance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Revised 07-11-00 - 7317- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE} PROPERTY ADDRESS: ,_j OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA ? ?'~ E; SQ. F~. X 30% LOT AREA SQ. LOT AREA SQ. ~. X 15% = (for ali lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have ~,0 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGFt~~ (~DRIVEWAY,,IbARKING ETC. DECKS Open decks (114" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTALHOUSE /~. X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x = X = PoO', X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = /6 HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UND~~VER ............................... (indicate difference) PREPARED BY ~ DATE ..... -7318-~ LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (7~) 560-~093 F~ No. Minneapolis, ~innesota DALE Property located in Section 19, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin. County, Minnesota Benchmark; Top nut hydrant at' Northwest corner Cumberland & Stratford Elev.= 992.96 INVOICE NO. 5BT56 F.B.NO. 88'7-07 SCALE: 1" = 20' o Denotes iron Ido~urnent n Denotes Wood Hub Set for excovotion only xO00.O Denotes Existing Elevotion (~)Denotes Proposed Elevotion Denotes Surfoce Droinoge NOTE: Proposed gredes ore subject to results of sob tests. Proposed bund{rig inforrrmtion must be checked with opproved building plon end development or grodlng plen before exc~votion end construction. ~ Proposed Top of Block ~ Proposed Gorage Floor ~ Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Buading #4715 1 -S--FR A'DP / / I Cumberland Road ~J 4711 -S~Sp TOE 996.45 36. I 1o" ,4~ .02 / . Ste~a Wag .10' Wol t2~ Tree 80.00 Plat & l~eas C. L Fence (4673 -S-FR TOF 997.69 i ! L_J_ L J._l___ iii LIJ_L-~ 1 'I -7320- -7321 - -7322- -7323- -7324- lie -7325- i I .J LJ -7326- CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET SURVEY ON FILE'?~ / NO 4[ LOT OF RECORD.'? ~ / NO ZONING D1SI'RICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:  1~,000/60 Bi '7,500/0 000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6 000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I130,000/100 DIRECTION I REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT xwD~ ! LOT DEPTH: YARD [ VARIANCE liOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR NS E W ,S E w N SOW N(~)E W N S E W 15' LAKE 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, STIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO 30% OR 40% lB": IDATED: This Zoning Infmmation Shcel ol._tly summarizes a portion of die requirements outlined in fire C'ily of Mouud Toning Ordinance. For furfl~er information, contact the City of at 472-0600. 171 8~ I Mound Ma~ 18 O1 02:22p p.3 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4525 DENBIGt-I ROAD P & Z CASE # 01-15 WHEREAS, the applicant, Kevin and Debra Larson, have requested a variance for a detaclied garage located at 4525 Dertbigh Road. The requested variance is as follows; Existing/Proposed ~Required Var/ance Front yard setback 4 feet 20 feet 16 feet and, WHEREAS, the property is adjacent to a platted but unused right-of-way that requires a 20 feet setback; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-i A Zoning District that requires a 6,000 square feet lot area, 20 feet front yard setbacks, and 10 feet side yard setbacks for non lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the property does not currently have a garage and the proposal is the minimum needed to accomplish the project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the variance as requested -7328- Excerpts from MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY MAY 7, 2001 CASE #01-15 VARIANCE KEVlN & DEBRA LARSON 4525 DENBIGH ROAD Planner Gordon indicated that the applicant has submitted a request for a 16-foot variance to a street setback to construct a 20 feet by 22 feet two stall, detached garage. The property does not currently have a garage. The garage would be located about 10 feet from the house and 24 feet from Denbigh Road right-of-way. The proposed garage is located 4 feet from unimproved Anglesey Lane, which is the east border of the property. Anglesey Lane is 20 feet in width and Staff does not anticipate any future street improvements. An existing shed would be removed as indicated on the survey. Staff finds that, because the property does not currently have a garage, the proposal is an improvement to the property and will not adversely impact future of Anglesey Lane. Discussion Burma pointed out that the hardcover calculations left only a 74 SF window. If the shed were moved to a conforming location would it put us over the hardcover limit? Applicant indicated that shed would be removed entirely. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to accept staff's recommendation in addition to requiring the shed be removed. Discussion Mueller inquired as to what precedent we are setting by allowing a structure being built this close to a "fire lane" similar to the requirements from the city with regards to a fire lane that runs down to a unimproved city-owned property. Would staff recommend the same setback from a fire lane of a 15 or 20 foot width of 4 feet for any structure being that close to it based on the fact that there's no vital use of that fire lane other than the fact that the city can run a hose down to the water and pump water?. Gordon responded that this is a little different than a fire lane down to a commons area where you don't have an encumbered space. In this situation, the adjacent property and the lot south of it on Wilshire have landscaping, driveway -7329- Planning Commission Minutes May 7, improvements, etc. in this right-of-way space. This is not an important connect between Denbigh and Wilshire. If you're going to have another access on Denbigl~_ would be on the other end. Mueller further inquired if a property immediately west o1~A Anglesy Lane was requesting a 4-foot setback for a garage staff would say, because we granted property on the east side a variance, we should grant a variance on the west side. Is staff's recommendation based on the fact it doesn't have a garage or that it's a property this close to an unimproved street? Gordon explained that these cases can't be grouped. Each fire lane acts differently depending on where it is. A connection to the lake is different than a street like this with a shorter connection back to Wilshire. Weiland said there are other items back by the shed that may be cleaned out that would increase the ability of city to use the land if need be. Whether it's a fire lane or narrow street, we don't want to set a precedent that would carry over to another property where it doesn't fit. MOTION carried unanimously -7330- May l2,2001 City Of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound MN 55364 Attn: Planning Commission / City Council We would like to again thank the Planning Commission for their approval/recommendation for our garage project. We are aware that the request will be forwarded to City Council for their May 22 meeting. However, we are expecting our first child and the evening of May 22 we have a childbirth class, and will be unable to attend the City Council meeting. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and ask that the City Council would be able to continue with approval of the garage in spite of our absence. In order to address any questions you or the council members have prior to approving our garage, I encourage you to call us anytime at the following numbers: Days (7am -4pm): 952-252-0537 (Kevin's office) Eves: 952-495-0025 Again, we do want to address any concerns the City Council has, and will be happy to meet with anyone who has any questions. Thank you for your understanding of our schedule conflict. Kevin & Debm Larson 4525 Denbigh Rd Mound MN 55364 -7331 - PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Illltt TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 4, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Kevin and Debra Larson CASE NUMBER: 01-15 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 4525 Denbigh Road ZONING: Residential District R- 1A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a 16 foot variance to a street setback to construct a 20 feet by 22 feet two stall, detached garage. The property does not currently have a garage. The garage would be located about 10 feet from the house and 24 feet from Denbigh Road right-of-way. The proposed garage is located 4 feet from unimproved Anglesey Lane, which is the east border of the property. Anglesey Lane is 20 feet in width and Staff does not anticipate any future street improvements. An existing shed would be removed as indicated on the survey. Staff finds that, because the property does not currently have a garage, the proposal is an improvement to the property and will not adversely impact future of Anglesey Lane. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -7332- --,:- -7333- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 PAiD App ~cab~ F'~e: '~'2~0.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: Ca, .o. 01'/5' City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner DNR City Engineer PA R K/~,.~4~ Public Works PROPERTYLEGAL LOtBiock /~ ~" ~ ¢ 0 ~ /o ¢ ~ (~'%) DESC. Subdivision .~~m ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi property? ( ) yes,~t, no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copie of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 3/16/01 - 7334- Variance Application, P. 2 of 3 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it'is located? Yes (), No~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot arf~a, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ~ Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NSEW) (Ns~w) (N ) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning, district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow describe: ~._ .f*~ ,~ ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Revised 3/16/01 - 7335 - Variance Application, P, 3 of 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No'~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No~,~/~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes'~(14, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature .~ :ant's Signature Revised 3/16/01 -7336- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA ~'-~' ~- ~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I LOT AREA LOT AREA J"~ 5'--z- SQ. FT. X 4O% ,)"-~ ~ SQ. FT. X = (for Lots of Record') ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT y~o x z~ = X = DETACHED BLD, G.S · DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with s pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover TOTAL HOUSE ......................... 'z_~ x 'z..~ = /,/o X = X ~ X TOTAL DECK .......................... OTHER X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) .... ~ ..... ¢1 ................... PREPARED BY DATE -7337- ','A'-/", CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ZONING DIS'FRICT, LOT,SIZE/WIDTH: A~DDRESS: ~ RECORD? YES / NO YARD SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE IH P, i,;Lq'I( } N W W ,E W N S E W N S E W R1 [t2 I REQUII{EI, ~-- EXIWFING/PROPOSED 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 6,Q00/40 B2 20,000/80 ~,ooo/~.~ ~o,ooo/~o 14,UUOTBU SEE ORD. I1 30,O00/100 ' OF BLUFF I0' OR 30' GARAGE, SHED ..... LOT WIDTH: +/_ ko'r I).~PTlt: / ~ VARIANCE FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE OR OILIER DETACIIED w NS E W NS E W BUILDINGS TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER ~ F coNFo ,No, l ATED: Thi4 Zoning Infi)rmation Sheet only summarizes a portion of Ihe requiremenls outlined in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For fur~er information, contact the City of Mound ~lanning Department at 472-06~. oo GOVT LOTS ~ O , c) '-4 CO 0 Ms~ 18 O10~:21p P-~ CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4957 EDGEWATER DRIVE P & Z CASE # 01-16 WHEREAS, the applicant, Keith Brown, has requested a variance to build a detached garage located at 4957 Edgewater Drive. 'The requested variance is as follows; E~xisting/Proposed ~ Variance Hardcover 3800 sf 3000 sf 800 sf and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Zoning District that requires a 6,000 square feet lot area, 20 feet front yard setbacks, and l0 feet side yard setbacks and 40 percent Ixardcover for non lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the property does not currently have a garage and the proposal is the minimum needed to accomplish tlie project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance as recommended, by Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the variance as requested with the following condition: a. Tl~e driveway be no wider than 10 feet in width north of the house. -7339- -7340- Excerpts from MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY MAY 7; .2001 CASE #01-16 VARIANCE KEITH BROWN 4957 EDGEWATER DRIVE Planner Gordon introduced the request for a hardcover variance of 800 square feet (48 percent total hardcover) to construct a two stall detached garage and an enclosed handicapped accessibility ramp on the rear of the home. The property does not currently have a garage. The proposed garage measures 24 feet by 24 feet and would be sited in the rear yard. A single lane drive, 9 feet 8 inches wide, extends from the street to the rear of the house where it fans to meet the garage width. The ramp would start at the southeast corner of the house and extend to the proposed deck shown on the site plan. The rear yard drops off quickly to the south so drainage plans will need to consider this during building plan review. Staff finds that became the property does not currently have a garage and there is not a better location to site it, a practical difficulty is present. Discussion Burma had the same concern about drainage, especially around the backside. Weiland wanted to know how a driveway is established when used by adjacent property owners. Gordon said that, in this case, everything on the neighbor's side of the property line will be split with a green strip. Applicant said there would be no change to the driveway. Weiland was concerned about the drainage to the back and the "neighborly" agreement in the future. Sutherland clarified with the property owner that the 1,689 SF of hardcover included the driveway to the property line. Gordon wondered, if they continue to use the present driveway, is hardcover still going to require a variance? And, should there be an easement for sharing the drive? For clarification, the applicant indicated that the garage would be as placed on the drawing (4 feet off the back lot line). They are asking for additional pavement from the existing to the garage. Wants to put an enclosed ramp in place of the deck. The driveway to Edgewater will not change. It will be as it currently sits from the property line to the new garage. -7341 - Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2001 Weiland wanted to know what the ordinances are regarding sharing driveways? Gordon said there is no ordinance regarding sharing driveways. There is a 1-foot setback for gravel driveways but no setback for paved driveways. Mueller wanted to know where the ramp would be? Gordon said it would be at the rear of the house in place of the existing deck. The applicant indicated it was included in the total hardcover. Weiland wanted to note that the 168 SF overage was because of the handicap ramp and that if it comes up again for any other reason we would not continue the variance. We should limit use for handicap ramp and that area cannot be converted to living space in the future. Mueller observed that, if we move the garage 4 feet forward (north) we take another 102 SF out of the variance and minimize the impact of the variance. Burma replied that closer to the house the angle would be impossible to get the cars out of the garage. Mueller observed that the garage is maximum size (24' x 24'). Can't we adjust the size to reduce hardcover? Gordon replied that, to take out 800 SF is difficult for this property. Weiland asked if the size could be reduced size of garage and angle it. Anderson responded that 24 feet wide is needed to get the wheelchair out of the car. Mueller thought that the applicant could be asked to reduce the driveway. Discussion continued regarding the width of the existing bituminous. The width of the ramp was discussed. Sutherland indicated that he spoke with the applicant about many options, including reducing garage, turning garage, and reducing ramp size. The run to rise ratio makes it necessary to have an enclosed ramp. Width of ramp, building code requires a 5-foot circle at the top of the ramp to turn into the house. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Anderson, to approve the variance in accordance with the staff recommendation, including making the building permit subject to City Engineer's approval. Discussion continued regarding the driveway, driveway width, and particularly the type of driveway material as it pertains to permeability. The drainage was discussed. Sutherland thinks it's directing the runoff in a positive manner. It would be important to get the City Engineer's review at the time of the building permit application. Mueller amended the motion to change the driveway to a maximum 10-foot width, in any configuration, from the north edge of house to the north property line. Anderson withdrew the second. MOTION died for lack of a second. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to approve the variance in accordance with staff's recommendation, including a maximum 10-foot driveway width, in any configuration, from the north edge of the house to the north propertY line. MOTION carried unanimously. -7342- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Ill[] TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP ~DATE: May 4, 2001 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Keith Brown CASE NUMBER: 01-16 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 4957 Edgewater Drive ZONING: Residential District R-lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a hardcover variance of 800 square feet (48 percent total hardcover) to construct a two stall detached garage and an enclosed handicapped accessibility ramp on the rear of the home. The property does not currently have a garage. The proposed garage measures 24 feet by 24 feet and would be sited in the rear yard. A single lane drive, 9 feet 8 inches wide, extends from the street to the rear of the house where it fans to meet the garage width. The ramp would start at the southeast comer of the house and extend to the proposed deck shown on the site plan. The rear yard drops off quickly to the south so drainage plans will need to consider this during building plan review. Staff finds that because the property does not currently have a garage and there is not a better location to site it, a practical difficulty is present. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -7343- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472.0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 APR I § 2001 Application Fee: $200.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Case No. DNR PARK Other SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot LEGAL Block o sc. Su d,v,s,on .... ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3  PERTY Name NER Address Phone APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone OWNER) (H). (W) .(M) Has an ap!)lication ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi property? ( ) yes,,t~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copie of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 3/16/01 - 7344- Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning distric in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason fo~ variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) _ft. ft. ft.  ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) "%,, ft. ft. RearYard: ( N S E W) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) '~---~'~. ft. ft. : (NSEW)" ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ff. ff. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft .sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~8[, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: ~7/~ p,~C7',.~/_~.~.~ soil existing situation other: specify Revised 3/16,/0 ~ - 7345 - Variance Application, P. 3 of 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No,,~ If yes, explain: o Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~: If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: ~'~- I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Revised 3/16101 - 7346- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOTJS SURFACE COVERAGE) tlPROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA LOT AREA q i~ OO LOT AREA "7, ~'")~-~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTI~ WIDTH SQ FT X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover TOTAL ~OUSE ' X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... OTHER X = TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate~if~eren~ . . ~ ......................... PREPARED BY DATE -7347- SITE PLAN -7348- ;Z -7349- -7350- '1 4" CONC;I~IETIE I=LOOf~ IIJ/I~I=INFOI~C:ING SLOtaE TOLUAI~D 24~0C NOTE~ ALL GARAGE IUALL5 ARE :2 X 4 HI)R- :2-1 $/4" X II 'i/a" HICROLAH$ 14' X 8' HIGH GARAGE DOOR VERFY RO ILIITH I)OORS $tELECTEED I&O-~,- &o-s- 24'-0" HAIN I=LOOR: ' PLAN b -7351 - CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMA'FION SHEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: B1 7,500/0 B~ 20,000/80 R2~ 6~000/40 B3 ~0~000/60 R2 [4,O00/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30~000/100  OF RECORD?~NO YARD ~ DIRECTION ] REQUIRED [ EXISTING/PR()P()SED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR N SfE) W N S E LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 50' R30' GARAGE, $11ED ..... FRONT  ER DETACiIED E W BUILDINGS FRONT N 5 E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 50' DDCOVER ~ CONFORMINO? YES I NO This Zoning Information Sheet only smnmarizes a portion o, f the requirement~ouflined .Planning Department at 472-O600. DATED: in tile City of Mound Zoning Ordin 05/1S/01 14:27 SIT UW STOUT-MEN WI ~ 815524?20620 N0.565 ~01 FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET University of Wisconsin-Stout College of Technology, Engineering and Management Menomonie, WI 54751 Fax Number (715) 232-5004 Deliver to: ~f'$. llf,~~{} If there are any questions concerning this fax, please call (715) 232- ~ ~et~. Number of pages being transmitted, including this cover sheet: ~-- 05×26/01 14:27 SIT UW STOUT-MEN Mound City Managcr SB41MaywoodRoad Moun~M_N 55364 Re: Applica~on for No-lo~s actcrminanon Dear Ms, H~son: This letter is to com~'trm a conv¢ _r~tion with Lorca Gordon on Wed May 16, 2001, wherein it was agr~ut by mc and on behalf of Dale and Lor¢ll Peeker that we would agree to a further extension O~t' thc tlIll¢ WlthltI which ttl¢ ~1~' ~o~lnc, tt ts I0 rentier a decision on tho at)ore rctercnc~ matter. By this letter we are ¢onse~ fi,~g to an extension for this period ~'nning May 22, 2001 and extending to August 24, 2001. Sincerely, 'l'tm Becket -7354- ~a~ 18 01 02:21p RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO DENY A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4536 DENBIGH ROAD P & Z CASE//00-69 AND 00-70 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a minor subdivision of property that would require a variance to lot area and bluff setbacks to build two new residences. The variance is indicated below: E_xisting/Propose_d Required Variance Lot Area 5980 sf 6000 sf 20 sf ; and, WHEREAS, the property is. located within the K-lA Single Family Kesidential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback, a 6 feet side yard, and 50 feet. lake side setbacks. Hardcover is a 30 percent requirement. WHEREAS, the applicant has demonstrated that tract A can meet the minimum lot area requirement but tract B fails short of the minimum as proposed; and, WHEREAS, the area is definedas a bluff and would require a variance to the Shoreland Management Ordinance to build the proposed residences; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council deny the variance as requested by the applicant; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the variance with the following findings: a. The proposed minor subdivision does not meet the minimum zoning district lot area. b. The property i.s locatedwith in a bluff zone Post-it® Fax Note 7671 :ax # -7355- (? -7356- Excerpts from MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY MAY 7:2001 CASE #00-69 CASE #OO-70 MINOR SUBDIVISION VARIANCE RANDY MORIARTY 4536 DENBIGH ROAD The applicant was not present. Planner Gordon reminded the commission that, because of the 60 day rule, we need to move these cases to the City Council by June 1,2001. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister, to move Cases 00-69 and 00-70 to the end of tonight's agenda to allow the applicant time to appear. MOTION carried unanimously CASE #00-69 MINOR SUBDIVISION CASE #00-70 VARIANCE RANDY MORIARTY 4536 DENBIGH ROAD Planner Gordon recommends that the Planning Commission take some action on these cases tonight because of the applicant's attendance record. Weiland felt that it should be sent back to the applicant to make corrections. Planner Gordon agreed with Weiland except that this process started with Mr. Moriarty last fall and his response has been less than timely. If we let the time run out he gets an automatic approval. Glister said that recommendations have already been made and he hasn't responded. What other action can be taken? Mueller wanted to know if there is a difference between the first submittal and the what is in front of the Commission tonight. Planner Gordon said Randy had agreed to meet staff recommendations. The biggest issue was hardcover and he has revised his plans. He reduced house size. The lot area conforms. He agreed to meet 30% hardcover, the grading and retaining wall requirements, and provide a park dedication fee. Mueller brought up the issue of the work rules and the requirement that the applicant be present to act on their application. Planner Gordon explained the 60-day rule. After clarification of the work rules it was discovered that Planning Commission could -7357- Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 20~ act upon an application with the applicant or his representative being present. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma, recommended approval in accordance' with staff recommendation and requiring removal of the current residence. Voting for were Commissioners Clapsaddle and Burma. Voting against were Commissioners Glister, Mueller, Hasse, Weiland, and Anderson MOTION failed. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend denial of the application. Clapsaddle states as a finding of fact that there was lack of complete and firm information on what the exact proposal was. Gordon added that the parcel did not meet minimum size requirements and that it was building in a bluff. MOTION carries unanimously. -7358- Excerots from Minutes Mound AdvisOry Planning Commission Monday, April 23, 2001 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #00-69 MINOR SUBDIVISION CASE #00-70 VARIANCE RANDY MORIARITY 4536 DENBIGH ROAD Sutherland offered to present the case even though Mr. Moriarity was not present. Mueller stated that the work rules, adopted in January, state that, if the applicant is not present at the meeting, the Planning Commission can table action until applicant is present. He feels it is a conflict of interest when the staff acts in the applicant's behalf when they aren't here. It jeopardizes the validity of our work rules. Clapsaddle is not comfortable with it either. It sets a bad precedence. MOTION by Commissioner Hasse, second by Weiland, to table consideration until the applicant is present or his designated representative. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Weiland brought up an additional concern. He wanted to be sure that, if Planning Commission sends a recommendation to the Council, there would be a requirement that the other house be removed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Sutherland was in agreement. -7359- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variances APPLICANT: Randy Moriarty CASE NUMBERS: 00-69 and 70 -Updated report ItKG FILE NUMBER: 00-5 LOCATION: 4536 Denbigh Road ZONING: R- 1A Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council reviewed this case at the March 27t~ meeting and asked that it be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. The applicant has redesigned the house to conform to Staff's recommendation which is for approval with the following conditions: 1. Submit updated lot area calculations. 2. Revise the survey to accurately indicate the property as a bluff. 3. Limit the hardcover on each parcel to 30%. 4. Pay park dedication fees as established by City Council resolution 10% land value or $500/unit. 5. All recommendations contained in the City Engineer's report dated February 21, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should review the updated material and determine if there is reason to send a new recommendation to Council. As you remember the recommendation on March 12t~ was for denial by a unanimous vote. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -7360- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -7361 - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR RANDY MORIARITY .... . .......................... IN LOTS 4, ,5, & 6, BLOCK 2, AVALON HENNEPIN couNTy, MINNESOT. A~ ....................... ,-, ~?:. / ,~ ,'.. Ex~.,~ 'hA ' ~ '~-- "",,, '-,. R A.'C T,".',.s, ~¢~..,- ...... ...~.... . ~. --~ '.. ..... ~_. ,,,..t?' '' / '" .... · ' ]XISTING '..']~, HOUSE " .-' ~ (TO BE REMOVED) EXlSTIN~ HOUSE: 968..~¥.'" EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Lots 5 and 6, and the southwesterly 20.00 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS : Tract A : The southwesterly 20.00 feet of Lot 4, and that part of Lot 5, lying northeasterly of the southwesterly 10.20 feet of said lot 5, Block 2, Avalon. Tract B : Lot 6 and the southwesterly 10.20 feet of Lot 5, Block 2, Avalon. o : denotes iron marker (908.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum --917 --- : denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, and proposed location of a proposed dividing line, and proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. GCOFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.{ ,CONSULTI~ ENGII~ERS, LAM) S~I:~/~¥ORS. SiT[ ~A~ 482 TAMARACK AVE~[, L~ LAKE, MN 55356 952-473-414 ~ APR 5 28{11 WAS PREPARED BY ~ OR UND[R MY DIRECT St. IP[RVI~ION ANO i¢. THAT I AM A ~Y L~D ~S~AL [~[R A~ LA~ ~ DATE ~Y~ ~ T~ LA~ ~ ~ S~AT[ ~ ~T~ J 1-2~1 DATE -~'~-~ ~ L~[~ ~ /Z 7~ _.J 01-024 .C)/b ,0% ~$ e ./ -J ~2 CERTIFICATE RANDY IN LOTS 4, 5, HENNEPIN OF SURVEY FOR MORIARITY & 6, BLOCK 2, AVALON COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE " <~" .4? MINNETONKA · ...... SURVEY ' LINE ' HOUSE / (g31.4)/~ / >~ ....'; .. EXISTING HOUSE (TO BE /- / EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Lots 5 and 6, and the southwesterly 20.00 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon APR .~ PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS : Tract A : The southwesterly 20.00 feet of Lot 4, and that part of Lot 5, lyin9 northeasterly of the southwesterly 10.20 feet of said lot 5, Block 2, Avalon. Tract B : Lot 6 and the southwesterly 10.20 feet of Lot 5, Block 2, Avalon, o : denotes iron marker (908.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum 917 : denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of on existing house, and proposed location of o proposed dividing line, and proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. COHSULTHG D'4CIh[£~. IAI'{) SURVEYORS. ~1[ ~At, NE~ 482 TAMARACK AV[NU[. LONG LAK£, 14dq. §$356 952-473-4141 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SL~ERVISION ANO THAT I AM A 0ULY LK~NS~D PROFESSIONAL ENGI'd[ER AND LAI4} sI.mRVEY(~R ~ T~ LAWS OF lt~ STATE OF Ul4'I[,SOTK IDATE $ ! : ! ! ; I i I '/cLi~ogg N Excerpts from Minutes March 12, 2001 Planning Commission CASE #00-69 CASE #00-70 MINOR SUBDIVISION VARIANCE RANDY MORIARTY 4536 DENBIGH ROAD Planner Gordon stated that Mr. Moriarty wants to divide his property into 2 lots and create 1 new home. Tract A is the existing home, Tract B would be the new home. Tract A home would be tom down later. The subdivision needs a number of variances. A 500 SF variance is needed on lot area. Each is in a bluff. Moriarty would like a 6 foot sideyard on Tract B which would typically be 10 feet. A 4 foot setback variance is needed. The hardcover on B is the major issue. He is over the 30% maximum. Staff feels we can recommend approval of this as long as we get within the 30% hardcover. The owner would need to reduce the building size, driveway and concrete walkway. Staff would require Moriarty to update the calculations, a survey recognizing the bluff, get the hardcover under 30% and submit park dedication fees in addition to John Cameron's recommendations. Discussion Weiland didn't think there was enough information to recommend approval. He felt it needs to be redrawn. After a site visit today, with all the snow, it was obvious why we don't want buildings to be closer to the street. Passage on the street was difficult. Glister felt the size of the house needs to shrink, that the grading will work to help the house and the hardcover needs to change. Clapsaddle thought that a timeframe for demolition of the house needed to be established. He sees no reason why this project should require a variance on the southwest side since the present house is being demolished. The contour is steep but buildable. Glister felt that the Planning Commission had allowed too many small parcels in the past. Gordon explained that the area below the 921 elevation cannot be considered in the lot area calculations. This is a 6,000 SF district and these parcels are similar to surrounding parcels in that a portion of the parcel is under the 921. These parcels are 7,500 SF as platted, but hardcover is figured only on buildable elevation, above the 921. Moriarty explained the house that is currently there is very close to the road and this project will eliminate that house. MOTION by Commissioner Clapsaddle to table the cases stating that the owner should bring back a clearer plan with changes made as recommended. Motion died for lack of a second. -7366- Burma commented that subdividing two undersized parcels and variance to build into a bluff is something that we haven't done in the past. Clapsaddle said he didn't want this project to go to City Council until it is designed the way it 6ught to be. We should give it a table and let the owner come back with no variances except maybe one to allow consideration of the lower portion of the property in the total lot area, which isn't as objectionable as much as some other variances. Otherwise, an owner should understand that some development cannot be done on certain sized parcels and live with that fact. He also said that overbuilding is not appropriate. This will become a political issue if we send it on to Council as it is. Weiland indicated concern that we be very specific as to the requirements of the removal of the old residence and what will be allowed, possibly guaranteeing removal with a bond or other form of agreement. Also, he is very concerned with the fact that this construction is in a bluff area. He thinks lot size is extremely important. Moriarty reminded the Commission of their approval of building in a bluff zone that was done on this property about 2 V2 years ago in conjunction with the gray house in the same block. They never followed through with the plan. It was subdividing 40 of his lot with the parcel to the west. Michael stated there were two alternatives. The Commission could table action and give Moriarty a chance to bring back something else or turn it down and let it move to the City Council without a Planning Commission recommendation. Clapsaddle reiterated his desire to table the action and send Council something worth considering. Glister and Burma both felt the undersized lots are the primary issue and they couldn't vote for the project simply because of that. MOTION by Chairman Michael, seconded by Commissioner Clapsaddle, to deny the recommendation. Motion passed unanimously. -7367- MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 21, 2001 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Minor Subdivision - Moriarty Property, 4536 Denbigh Road Case # 00-69 and 00-70 MFRA #11378 As requested we have reviewed the revised survey and house plan provided with the application for a minor subdivision of the Moriarty property on Denbigh Road, and have the following comments and recommendations: COMMENTS Tract B a. The original plat of "Avalon" did not include drainage and utility easements; therefore, easements should be provided along all new lot lines. This property is presently served with one sanitary sewer service and one water service as shown on the survey. Upon discussing this issue with Greg Skinner of public works, we are suggesting the following: bo A new water service be installed when the new home is constructed. The existing sewer service be replaced from the right-of-way line to the new home with a temporary connection provided for the service that enters the existing home. -7368- Mr. Jon Sutherland February 21, 2001 Page 2 Tract A go The existing water service could be used for the new home after removal of the existing structure. A new line must be installed from the curb box. bo A new sanitary sewer service must be installed from the City main in Denbigh. When the existing house is removed the temporary connection made to the sewer for Tract B must be removed. If at time of construction, the applicant's utility contractor wants to handle these services different then we have suggested, approval must be granted by Public Works. o The combination of these original lots was assessed one unit charge when the streets in this area were reconstructed in 1978. It is the City's policy to collect additional unit charges when property is subdivided creating additional building sites; therefore this property should be charged one additional unit or $1,170.90. o A complete grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted for Tract A when the existing house is removed and application is made for a building permit. The survey does not show the top or toe of the bluff using the definitions contained in the City Code. It appears the top of the bluffis at or very close to the curb line and the bottom is located at the 932 contour. This places the entire building area ~ithin the bluffwhich requires a variance from the shoreline ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend the following conditions become part of the subdivision approval. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot lines and ten feet wide along both the front and rear lot lines. The new sanitary sewer and water services either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. 3. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid. Final grading and drainage plan to be approved by the City Engineer at time of building permit application. o Recognize the entire building area as a bluff and show bluff line on the survey submitted for a building permit. s:\main:\mou 11378\CO~TespondenceXsutherland2-20 -7369- Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 May~vood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472.0607, Fax: 472-0620 Commission Date: City Council Date: ~d,~/~ ' Distribution: Case No. Application Fee: Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? $75.00 $1,000 ////~/'/~O City Planner ////~/~ DNR ,~//;//?'Z~ Public Works ~///g/~J Parks ' /~//~/dO Ci~ Engineer / ' Other Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following info~ation: PROPERTY Subject Address z'~/'~::~'-'~..~ D.~c_~J'~.~ ~/ ~'"~ INFORMATION EXISTING Lot Block Plat LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~ ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The appli~nt is: ~wner other: Address OWNER Name (if other than applicant) Address Phone (H) (W)_ .(M). .,me ENGINEER Address Phone (H) .(W) (M). Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. wner's signature Date Revised 07-13-00 Revised 07-13-00 - 7370 - VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PAID NO¥ 1 4:ZOO0 ITY F MO Applica~on FOee: t~l~80.OC (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Case No. DNR Other ~k,~-.¢---?~ Lot ~ ~ ,.9¢'~ Block 7_.-- Subdivision A~ &- [ o ~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 Name Plat # 3-7 oC~-'(--..) B-2 B-3 Address (~~ R-2 R-3 B-1 Phone (H) ~/7~ '~ ~ >'"~/~ (W) ~(M) Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?~, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 11114197) - 7371 - Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures co II area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Y~No (). If no, .specify each non-conforming use (describe .. SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW : NSEW Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. /0 ft. ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. /5--- ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to ali regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No(). Ifno, spec'~yeach non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ~)=~opography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: ~.0 ~ ~'~'; ~ ¢: (5 ( ) soil W'l'existing situation ( ) other: specify (Rev. Z l/14/97) - 7372- Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: Was the ha, rd/ship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No'~). If yes, explain: /- described in this petition? Yes'(), affected? Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property No ~:[~)lf no, list some other properties which are similarly ' t' ~,/ -- - ~ ~ ~-- - 9. Comments: I certify t-hat all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~ ~ ,/Z Applicant s Signaturl/~~ ~w~~/¢.? ~/, Date Date (Rev. 11114197) - 7373- CiTY OF MOUND HARDGOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) )PERTY ADDRESS= ~-~ ~ ./"~..¢'~'1,/'~ ~ ?~'._ ~ ' 'z = f III -- LOT AREA ~ SQ. ~. X 30% (ora ots) .............. ~~[~ LOT AREA SQ. ~. X ~% = (for Lots of Record') ....... ~ ~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE )ETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks {1/4" min.~ opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = X TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. f ~ × ~ ~/ _ X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTALOTHER X HARDCOV.,ER / IMPERVIOUS__~IRFACE ~ I ~--~'~0 ov.. .......... -7374- May27, 1997 RESOLUTION//97-52 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION//96-116, RELATING TO THE MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES OF 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD PID'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 P&Z CASE #9%19 WHEREAS, the applicant Randy Moriarty requested and received from the City Council a minor subdivision and related variances for lots 5, 6, 7, 8 & Swly 1'/2 of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon, address 4536 and 4552 Denbigh Road by Resolution g96-116, dated November 12, 1996, and WHEREAS, Resolution ~6-116 allows for the subdivision of three tracts known as A, B and C, and tracts B and C contain existing homes and the home on Tract C is in very poor condition and will be removed, and WHEREAS, the Resolution further states the home on Tract C will be removed prior to release of resolution for filing at the County, and WHEREAS, the granting of a lot subdivision must be recorded at Hennepin County within 180 days following the adoption of the resolution, and WHEREAS, by letter dated April 11, 1997, Mr. Modarty, has requested a six month extension and a modification of Resolution ~6-116, item If, to allow the house on Tract C to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new house on Tract A, or maintain the requirement that the house be removed prior to the filing of the resolution and extend the time limit to one year, and; WHEREAS, item lf, of Resolution ~6-116 states, "The house and garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days). A demolition permit is required.", and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the above statement to be amended to state "the house on Tract C will be removed before a building permit be issued for the house on Tract A, if the extension is only granted for six months, and WHEREAS, the Staff recommends tto extend the time for the minor subdivision for another 12 months and that resolution provision 1.f. remain as currently worded. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its May 12, 1997 meeting voted by a 6-1, with Hanus voting nay, to recommend denial of the extension and modification. This recommendation was consistent with their original recommendation to deny the development in 1996. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Planning Commission recommendations and determined, through careful consideration of the positive effects of the proposal and its relationship to the neighboring properties, and therefore approved the applicant's -7375- May 27, 1997 request to extend and modify item lf, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: .. To approve a 12 month extension on Resolution //96-116 and maintain the requirement that the house be removed prior to the filing of the resolution. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all conditions contained herein. The applicant shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County sro show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. The applicant shall also have the responsibility to pay all costs associated with such recording. Said 12 month extension in lieu of any other time period provided for, in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Polston and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Jensen. Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused. I I Mayor .~ttest: City Clerk -7376- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 1.9 CASE 97-19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION, RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 & 4552 DEN'BIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, 7, 9 & SW-LY lA OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, 13- 117-24 14 0008 & 0048. Councilmember Jensen stated that since she voted against this subdivision originally, she will again have to vote no. The Building Official explained that in the original approval resolution, item number 1.f. conflicts with the time that we would be extending the applicants request. The request for an extension is for one year and the resolution states 180 days. The City Attorney suggested the following language be added to the proposed extension resolution after the Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, add "3. Said 12 month extension is in lieu of any other time period provided for, in the City's Subdivision Ordinance." 5,lOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to add the language suggested by the City Attorney to the proposed extension resolution. The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. ?olston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: 288 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 RESOLUTION//97-52 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION AND MODIlrlCATION TO RESOLUTION//96-116, RELATLNG TO THE 5`rlNOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES OF 4536 & 4552 DENBIGIt ROAD, PID #'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048, P & Z CASE g97-19 - RANDY MORIARTY The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. -7377- November 12, 1996 RESOLUTION ~6-116 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDMSION AND VARIANCES FOR LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, & SWLY 1/2 OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD PID~S I3-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 P&Z CASE $~96-31 WI-IEREAS, the owners of the subject property, as listed below, have submitted a request for a Minor Subdivision in the manner required by Mound City Code Section 320 and Mimaesota State Statute Chapter 462, and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder: Lot 5 & Swly 1/2 of Lot 4 - Randy Moriarty, 4536 Denbigh Road Lots 6, 7, & 8 - Robert Baumgarten, 4552 Denbigh Road WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning Distr/ct, which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 50 foot setback to the ordinary, high water, and a 10 foot setback from the top of a bluff, and; V~rI-~REAS, the subdivision establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract C will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence, and; WHEREAS, all three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record, and; WI-tEREAS, the following variances are involved with this request: A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. A front yard setback for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. ~WHEREAS, all three of the proposed Tracts are in an area of very steep topography, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended denial with 7 in favor and 1 opposed, and; WI-IEREAS, the City Council has determined a practical difficulty exists and the proposal is in substantial compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, it is desirable to have the house on Tract C removed, and the minor subdivision and proposed new dwellings are consistent with the development in the surrounding neighborhood. and; WHEREAS, bluff. the majority of the properties on Denbigh are similarly situated as far as impacting the -7378- follows: 1. NOW, TR'~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Mi.unesota, as The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision as qhown on the attached Exhibit 'A', and subject to the following conditions: A park dedication fee of $500.00 for the one new parcel being created shall be paid prior to release of this resolution for filing. bo The site contains three existing water services and three existing sewer services. One of the sewer services is located in an un~_~ble location and as a result, the applicant will need to construct a new sewer service for Tract A. The sewer service for Tract A shall either be installed or some type of financial ,m.mrantee provided such as a cash escrow or performauce bond, prior to release of this resolution for filing. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be submitted as part of the building permit application for review and approval by the City Engineer. do The applicants shall provide drainage easements along all new lot lines, 5 feet in width along all sides lot lines, 15 feet in width along rear lot lines, 10 feet in w/dth along the front of Tracts A and C, and 4.5 feet in width along the front of Tract B. The easement descriptions and easement documents must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and then must be filed in conjunction with this resolution at the County. Proof of filing the easements must be provided to the City of Mound pr/or to building permit issuance. One deficient street unit charge in the amount of $1,170.90 shall be paid prior to release of ti:tis resolution for recording. The house and garage located on the proposed Tract C shall be removed prior to release of this resolution for filing (note: this resolution must be filed within 180 days, see #7). A demohrion permit is required. The City does hereby approve the following variances in conjunction with the minor subdivision: a. A variance from the bluff setback provisions for each lot. b. A front yard setback variance for the existing home on Tract B of 15.28 feet. The existing legal description is: Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Avalon, and Lot 5 and the Southwesterly half of Lot 4, Block 2, Avalon. The proposed legal descriptions are as follows: Tract A: The Northeasterly 15.00 feet of Lot 7 and the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. Tract The Southwesterly Half of Lot 4, all of Lot 5 and Lot 6, except the Southwesterly 35.50 feet of said Lot 6, Block 2, Avalon. Tract C: Lot 8 and Lot 7, Block 2, Avalon, except the Northeasterly 15.00 feet of said lot 7. It is determined that the foregoing subdivisionwill constitute a desirable and stable commu.nity development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. -7379- Resolution ~96-116 Moriarty Page 3 The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant upon compliance with all contritions contained her~in. The aFplicam shall bare the responsibility of ~ling this resolution in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County ~o show complimac~, with the sulxtivision regulations of the City The applicant ~dl also have the respons~ility to pay all costs assc~iated with such recording. 7. This lot subdivision is to be fried and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the ~e: Ahrens, Hmaus and Polston The following Councilmembers voted ha the negative: Jensen, Jessen Attest: Acting City Clerk Resolution adopted: November 12, 1996 Mayor -7380- MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 1.13 CASE//96-31: MINOR SUBDMSION & VARIANCE, RANDY MORIARTY, 4356 DENBIGH ROAD, AND ROBERT BAUMGARTEN, 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 4-8, BLOCK 2, AVALON, PID //19-117-23 24 0008 & 0048. DENIAL RECOMMENDED. Building Official Jon Sutherland reviewed the report. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of a different version of this plan in June. Part of the reason it was denied in June was that it created a new nonconforming lot and violated the bluff provisions. The new proposal establishes three Tracts labeled A, B and C. Tracts B and C contain existing homes. The home on Tract A will be eventually removed and replaced with a new residence. All three tracts comply with side yard setback requirements and hardcover restrictions for non-lots of record. There are 4 variances applied for. All three of the proposed tracts are in an area of very steep topography. Sutherland stated that the creation of the third lot appears to be an economic issue and not a hardship issue. He also mentioned the survey was not clearly understandable and more information would be needed. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to deny the request. Randy Moriarty and Jack Cook spoke before the Council regarding their efforts to make this plan workable. Hanus stated he had voted against the denial at the Planning Commission because the lots would be conforming except for the bluff area. Building on bluffs has been done before. He stated they had alleviated all nonconformities physically possible. Jensen stated she did not want another house built on a bluff. Jessen stated the Shoreland Management Plan does not allow this type of building, she was not in favor. Polston asked if the applicant could possibly redesign the plans to work around the bluff and they responded that they already had done that to remove the as many variances as possible. The only problem that is left is the bluff. (Councilmember Hanus was absent and excused from the October 8, 1996 meeting when these minutes were up for approval. He submitted comments on this item, they are as follows). "Hanus stated that in a previous variance grant_ed on the easterly property, one of the findings was practical difficulty due to the location of the bluff line leaving a restricted building envelope and that this applies in this case as well. He said if it were possible to build outside of the bluff or even more outside of the bluff he would be strongly in favor of this. But this is not possible in this entire area. He said all conditions of the new center lot are conforming except for the location of the bluff. He also pointed out other cases that received similar approval for like conditions. Hanus stated that it is his intention that any building constructed on this lot would be fully conforming except for the bluff setback. Hanus pointed out that in the Planning Commission minutes there was reference to the easterly -7381 - Minutes - Mound City Council September 24, 1996 property not having enough parking but clarified that this is an error. There actually are two spaces on this lot, one in the garage and one alongside the garage, so this property does have the required two spaces. Hanus said that there is an erosion problem that exists today because runoff is funneled into one area on the center of the proposed center lot. He felt that with proper mitigating techniques such as gutters, retaining wails, and other landscaping methods to direct and slow water flow, that an actual improvement could be realized over what exists today. Hanus said that the gain to the city is that it will get the removal of a very old, small, rundown house and get new housing in its place. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a minor subdivision and variance for lots 4-8, Block ~' Avalon and to include the 5 conditions listed in the Planner's report and to add condition #6 to include the removal of the house to the west (Tract C) before approval of the subdivision. The vote carried 3-2, Jensen and Jessen voting nay. " -7382- -7383- -7384- I -7385- -7386- -7387- CItY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~00/$0 Bi ~,S00/0 RiA 6,000/40 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. EXISTING LOT SIZE: LO'[' WIDTIt: LOT DI:P-FH: LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO I1 3o,ooo/ioo YARD '' I DIRECTION I REQUIRED I EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... ,t FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE N'SEW REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINC~% FRONT FRONT N S E W N S E w --4. SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' + " ,~ SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' ~ .~ ,, N S E W N S E W REAR LAKE 'FOP OF BLUFF 50' 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40% ,,:ON,:O.M,,.,.? / NO : I BY: I A--,L6--OI 'Fhis 7.oning Inl'ormation S'hcct only summariz~ a portion o? thc requirements cmllincd in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For fur~cr information, conhact the City of Mound .... . .-- :~ . .~-,- ..... :..~:~ ~ :~-.?=- - .... · : :~ "..i' ..~.....:,?:~::1 .' ---7389 .i U I/~!.."1 · o(~4~ -7390- -7391 - o ."'~ -7392- City of Mound Projected Tax Impact of Proposed Levy Increases 02/15/01 Levy Increase Taxable Net Tax Capacity Tax Rate Increase Market Value General Fund Levy $100,000 $7,742,487 0.012916 Est Annual Tax Increase* Residential Homestead Commercial/ Industrial $60,000 7O,O0O 80,000 90,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 $50,000 75,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 $7.75 9.04 10.67 12.80 14.93 25.59 36.24 $15.50 23.25 31.00 46.50 68.45 90.41 Prepared by Ehlers and Associates, Inc. -7393- Taximp00.123 TO Letter of Transmittal Engineering · Planning. Surveying 15050 23rd Avenue North . Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476/6010 . fax 763/476/8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com WE ARE SENDING [~'Attached [] separate cover [] FedEx [] Mail Under [] Messenger The following items: [] Shop Drawings [] Prints [] Change Order [] Specifications [] Copy of letter [] Plans [] Samples [] [] UPS COPY TO ~--~'-~'~t~ '~--~.~C)~..] SIGNED: I£ enc/osures are not -7394-;i,,~//y ,,otify us at EXHIBIT 1 · POSSIBLE STORM SEWER PROJECT & COST CITY OF MOUND List of major projects that could be funded by the storm water utility fund: YEAR PROJECT ESTIMATED COST 2000 Halstead/West Edge $65,000 'Storm Sewer Improvement 2001 Storm Water Ponding $150,000 CSAH 15 - Row Acquisition 2002 Storm Water Ponding $50,000 CSAH 15 - Construction 2003 Dakota Rail/Cottonwood LN $70,000 (2 Projects) 2004 Swenson Park $45,000 Storm Sewer Improvements 2004 Jennings/Dove $25,000 Storm Sewer Improvements 2005 Highland Blvd. Parkway $54,000 Storm Sewer Improvements 2006 Glendale/Avon $43,000 Storm Sewer Improvements 2006 Carlow LN/131ack Lake LN $40,000 ~- ,Storm Sewer Improvements TOTAL: $542,000 *Estimates are construction costs only and do not inc e engineering or administrative costs. Estimation at 1999 cost. ~ ~'~g> t ~5E2:~ Source: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. N:kMinnsotaXMound~Storm sewer cost estimates -7395- Engineering ~ Planning ~ Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: January 29, 2001 TO: Kandis Hanson, City Manager FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Water Supply System, Capital Improvements MFRA//08904 The following is a summary of the three capital improvement projects that the City has been considering for their Water Supply System. The estimated costs are very preliminary, based on the limited information available and a number of assumptions. 1. Municipal Well A new municipal well will need to be in place by spring or early summer of 2002. The proposed downtown redevelopment in the Auditors Road district will necessitate abandonment of Well No. 1. The estimated cost of a 16" to 18" diameter, 200-foot deep municipal well capable of pumping 750 to 1,000 gpm would be approximately $175,000. An additional $25,000 should be added for a building to house the chemical feed equipment and piping necessary to connect to the City's distribution system. Thus, for planning purposes I would suggest using $200,000 plus 25 percent for engineering, legal, fiscal, and administrative costs for a total of approximately $250,000. It must be understood that the actual cost to install a new well has a number of variables that can greatly affect estimates. It is conceivable that a well of much greater depth may be required at a specific location in order to achieve the output desired. Our estimate is based on the City's four existing wells, which range in depth from 175 feet to 317 feet. The City's primary well No. 7 is 195 feet deep, located in glacial drift. -7396- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 . fax 763/476-8532 e-mail: mfra@mfra, com Ms. Kandis Hanson January 29, 2001 Page 2 A logical location for the well and building would be the City owned property adjacent to the elevated storage tank on Evergreen Lane. There should be enough available space south of the tower without affecting the existing park. 2. West Edge Boulevard Watermain It appears that the Rottlund Homes development of the Alwin property on West Edge Boulevard will be moving forward this spring. A condition of their preliminary approval was the looping of the City's 10 inch watermain from their southwest property comer to the existing 10 inch 'watermain at West Edge Boulevard and Hastead Lane. This construction should be completed by fall of 2001. The estimated cost of this project, including engineering, legal fiscal, and administrative cost is approximately $200,000. Now that the final plans are nearly complete, a more detached construction cost can be provided. The Rottlund development will generate area charges in the amount of$111,000 that can be used to help fund the City project. 3. Elevated Water Storage The City of Mound's Water Supply Plan and the Water System Improvement update, both have indicated the need for additional storage capacity by the year 2005. With the recent approval of two residential subdivisions and the downtown commercial redevelopment plans, the need for additional water storage should be addressed sooner than 2005. We would suggest that a 350,000 to 400,000 gallon water tower should be in place by late 2002 or early 2003. It requires approximately one full year from when bids are taken, until completion of the tower construction. The elevated storage tanks are currently costing approximately around $1.60 per gallon; thus a 400,000 gallon tower would cost roughly $640,000 to construct. Here too an additional 15 percent or approximately $100,000 at a minimum, should be added to cover engineering, legal, fiscal, and administrative cost. With the expense of removing the old tower on Chateau Lane and connecting the new tower to the City's existing system the total cost could be in the range of $750,000 to $775,000. We do not have a good location to suggest for the new tower, except the present tower site on Chateau. The existing 75,000 gallon tower would be eliminated with the construction of a new tower, regardless of where a new tower is located. Any site should be fairly close to one of the City's larger distribution mains, otherwise there will be additional costs to install new watermain. cc: Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent, City of Mound Jim Prosser, Financial Advisor, Ehlers & Associates, Inc. s:h-nain:h-nou08904Xcorrespondence\hanson 1-29 -7397- Option A For Discussion Purposes Only City of Mound, MN Storm Sewer Cashflow Projections - 20 Year Par Amount of Bonds TOTAL SOURCES Total Underwriter's Discount (1.850%) Costs of Issuance Deposit to Project Construction Fund Rounding Amount TOTAL USES $755,000.00 $755,000.00 $13,967.50 $20,000.00 $720,000.00 $1,032.50 $755,000.00 Date 2/1/02 2/1/03 2/1/04 2/1/05 2/1/06 2/1/07 2/1/08 2/1/09 2/1/10 2/1/11 2/1/12 2/1/13 2/1/14 2/1/15 2/1/16 2/1/17 2/1/18 2/1/19 2/1/20 2/1/21 2/1/22 $785,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds Series 2001 Principal 20 000 25 000 25 000 25 000 25 000 30 000 30 000 30 000 35 000 35000 35,000 40 000 40 000 45 000 45 000 50,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 60,000 Rate Interest 4.65% 4.75% 4.85% 4.90% 5.00% 5.10% 5.20% 5.3O% 5.40% 5.50% 5.50% 5.65% 5.65% 5.75% 5.75% 5.85% 5.85% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 20,985 41,970 41,040 39,853 38,640 37,415 36 165 34 635 33 075 31 485 29 595 27 670 25 745 23485 21.225 18.638 16,050 13,125 10,200 6,900 3,600 Total P&I 20,985 61,970 66,040 64,853 63,640 62,415 66,165 64,635 63,075 66 485 64 595 62.670 65 745 63 485 66 225 63 638 66 050 63 125 65 200 61 900 63 600 Estimated Revenues 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operations IMaint. 79,015 38,030 33,960 35,148 36,360 37,585 33,835 35,365 36,925 33 515 35 405 37 330 34 255 36 515 33 775 36363 33950 36.875 34,800 38,100 36,400 755,000 551,495 1,306,495 2,100,000 793,505 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, inc. 4/24/01 -7398- Mound, MN $755,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds, Series 2001 20 Year DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+ I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 8/01/2012 2/01/2013 8/01/2013 2/01/2014 8/01/2014 2/01/2015 8/01/2015 2/01/2016 8/01/2016 2/01/2017 8/01/2017 2/01/2018 8/01/2018 2/01/2019 8/01/2019 2/01/2020 8/01/2020 2/O 1/2021 8/01/2021 2/01/2022 20,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 60,000.00 20,985.00 20,985.00 20,985.00 20,985.00 20,985.00 4.650% 20,985.00 40,985.00 61,970.00 20,520.00 20,520.00 4.750% 20,520.00 45,520.00 66,040.00 19,926.25 19,926.25 4.850% 19,926.25 44,926.25 64,852.50 19,320.00 19,320.00 4.900% 19,320.00 44,320.00 63,640.00 18,707.50 18,707.50 5.000% 18,707.50 43,707.50 62,415.00 18,082.50 18,082.50 5.100% 18,082.50 48,082.50 66,165.00 17,317.50 17,317.50 5.200% 17,317.50 47,317.50 64,635.00 16,537.50 16,537.50 5.300% 16,537.50 46,537.50 63,075.00 15,742.50 15,742.50 5.400% 15,742.50 50,742.50 66,485.00 14,797.50 14,797.50 5.500% 14,797.50 49,797.50 64,595.00 13,835.00 13,835.00 5.500% 13,835.00 48,835.00 62,670.00 12,872.50 12,872.50 5.650% 12,872.50 52,872.50 65,745.00 11,742.50 11,742.50 5.650% 11,742.50 51,742.50 63,485.00 10,612.50 10,612.50 5.750% 10,612.50 55,612.50 66,225.00 9,318.75 9,318.75 5.750% 9,318.75 54,318.75 63,637.50 8,025.00 8,025.00 5.850% 8,025.00 58,025.00 66,050.00 6,562.50 6,562.50 5.850% 6,562.50 56,562.50 63,125.00 5,100.00 5,100.00 6.000% 5,100.00 60,100.00 65,200.00 3,450.00 3,450.00 6.000% 3,450.00 58,450.00 61,900.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 6.000% 1,800.00 61,800.00 63,600.00 Total 755,000.00 551,495.00 1,306,495.00 Ehlers & Associates, thc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 Storm Sewer 750K Proj 20 Yr- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:58 AM Page 1 -7399- Mound, MN $755,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds, Series 2001 20 Year DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................... Average Life ........................................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................. Net Interest Cost (NIC) ..................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) ..................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ................................................................................................................................ Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................................................................... $9,617.50 12.738 Years 5.7342865% 5.8795165% 5.9187574% 5.6998168% 6.2431364% 5.7342865% 12.738 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 Storm Sewer 750K Proj 20 Yr- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:58 AM Page 2 -7400- Option B For Discussion Purposes Only City of Mound, MN Storm Sewer Cashflow Projections - 15 Year Par Amount of Bonds TOTAL SOURCES Total Underwriter's Discount (1.650%) Costs of Issuance Deposit to Project Construction Fund Rounding Amount TOTAL USES $755,000.00 $755,000.00 $12,457.50 $2O,0O0.OO $72O,O0O.O0 $2,542.50 $755,000.00 Date 2/1/02 2/1/03 2/1/04 2/1/05 2/1/06 2/1/07 2/1/08 2/1/09 2/1/10 2/1/11 2/1/12 2/1/13 2/1/14 2/1/15 2/1/16 2/1/17 $785,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds Series 2001 Principal Rate Interest 35 000 35 000 40 000 40 000 40 000 45 000 45 000 50 000 50 000 55 000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 70,000 4.65% 4.75% 4.85% 4.90% 5.00% 5.10% 5.20% 5.30% 5.40% 5.50% 5.50% 5.65% 5.65% 5.75% 5.75% 20169 40 338 38 710 37 048 35 108 33 148 31 148 28 853 26 513 23,863 21,163 18,138 15,113 {1,723 8,050 4,025 Total P&I 20 169 75 338 73 710 77 048 75 108 73148 76 148 73 853 76 513 73 863 76 163 73 138 75 113 76 723 78 050 74 025 Estimated Revenues 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Operations IMaint. 79 831 24.663 26 290 22 953 24 893 26 853 23 853 26 148 23 488 26 138 23 838 26 863 24 888 23 278 21 950 25 975 755,000 393,104 1,148,104 1,600,000 451,896 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, inc. -7401 - 4/24/01 Mound, MN $755,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds, Series 2001 15 Year DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 35,000.00 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 35,000.00 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 40,000.00 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 40,000.00 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 40,000.00 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 45,000.00 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 45,000.00 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 50,000.00 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 50,000.00 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 55,000.00 8/01/2012 2/01/2013 55,000.00 8/01/2013 2/01/2014 60,000.00 8/01/2014 2/01/2015 65,000.00 8/01/2015 2/01/2016 70,000.00 8/01/2016 2/01/2017 70,000.00 4.650% 4.750% 4.850% 4.9OO% 5.000% 5.100% 5.200% 5.300% 5.400% 5.500% 5.500% 5.650% 5.650% 5.75O% 5.750% 20,168.75 20,168.75 20,168.75 20,168.75 20,168.75 55,168.75 19,355.00 19,355.00 19,355.00 54,355.00 18,523.75 18,523.75 18,523.75 58,523.75 17,553.75 17,553.75 17,553.75 57,553.75 16,573.75 16,573.75 16,573.75 56,573.75 15,573.75 15,573.75 15,573.75 60,573.75 14,426.25 14,426.25 14,426.25 59,426.25 13,256.25 13,256.25 13,256.25 63,256.25 11,931.25 11,931.25 11,931.25 61,931.25 10,581.25 10,581.25 10,581.25 65,581.25 9,068.75 9,068.75 9,068.75 64,068.75 7,556.25 7,556.25 7,556.25 67,556.25 5,861.25 5,861.25 5,861.25 70,861.25 4,025.00 4,025.00 4,025.00 74,025.00 2,012.50 2,012.50 2,012.50 72,012.50 20,168.75 75,337.50 73,710.00 77,047.50 75,107.50 73,147.50 76,147.50 73,852.50 76,512.50 73,862.50 76,162.50 73,137.50 75,112.50 76,722.50 78,050.00 74,025.00 Total 755,000.00 393,103.75 1,148,103.75 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars .............................................................................................................................. Average Life ....................................................................................................................................... Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................ $7,147.50 9.467 Years 5.4998776% Net Interest Cost (NIC) .................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) ................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ..................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) .................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ............................................................................................................................... Weighted Average Maturity .............................................................................................................. 5.6741693% 5.7128775% 5.4756715% 6.1059420% 5.4998776% 9.467 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 Storm Sewer 750K Proj 15 Yr- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:59 AM Page 1 -7402- Option C For Discussion Purposes Only City of Mound, MN Storm Sewer Cashflow Projections - 10 Year Par Amount of Bonds TOTAL SOURCES Total Underwriter's Discount (1.500%) Costs of Issuance Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund Deposit to Project Construction Fund Rounding Amount $755,000.00 $755,000.00 $11,325.00 $20,000.00 $720,000.00 $3,675.00 $755,000.0O Date 2/1/02 2/1/03 2/1/04 2/1/05 2/1/06 2/1/07 2/1/08 2/1/09 2/1/10 2/1/11 2/1/12 $785,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds Series 200'1 Total Principal Rate Interest P & I 60,000 4.65% 65,000 4.75% 65,00O 4.85% 7O,OOO 4.9O% 70,000 5.00% 75,000 5.10% 80,000 5.20% 85,000 5.30% 90,000 5.40% 95,000 5.50% 19,268 38,535 35,745 32 658 29 505 26 075 22 575 18750 14590 10085 5 225 19,268 98535 100.745 97658 99.505 96075 97.575 98 750 99,590 100,085 100,225 Estimated Operations Revenues IMaint. 100,000 80,733 100,000 1,465 100,000 (745) 100,000 2,343 100,000 495 100,000 3,925 100,000 2,425 100,000 1,250 100,000 410 100,000 (85) 100,000 (225) 755,000 253,010 1,008,010 1,100,000 91,990 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, inc. -7403- 4/24/01 Mound, MN $755,000 G.O. Storm Sewer Bonds, Series 2001 ! 0 Year DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P + I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 60,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 75,000.00 80,000.00 85,000.00 90,000.00 95,000.00 19,267.50 19,267.50 19,267.50 19,267.50 19,267.50 4.650% 19,267.50 79,267.50 98,535.00 17,872.50 17,872.50 4.750% 17,872.50 82,872.50 100,745.00 16,328.75 16,328.75 4.850% 16,328.75 81,328.75 97,657.50 14,752.50 14,752.50 4.900% 14,752.50 84,752.50 99,505.00 13,037.50 13,037.50 5.000% 13,037.50 83,037.50 96,075.00 11,287.50 11,287.50 5.100% 11,287.50 86,287.50 97,575.00 9,375.00 9,375.00 5.200% 9,375.00 89,375.00 98,750.00 7,295.00 7,295.00 5.300% 7,295.00 92,295.00 99,590.00 5,042.50 5,042.50 5.400% 5,042.50 95,042.50 100,085.00 2,612.50 2,612.50 5.500% 2,612.50 97,612.50 100,225.00 Total 755,000.00 253,010.00 1,008,010.00 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................................................................... Average Life ........................................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................. Net Interest Cost (NIC) ..................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) ..................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ................................................................................................................................ Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................................................................... $4,842.50 6.414 Years 5.2247806% 5.4586474% 5.4992324% 5.2107324% 6.0240355% 5.2247806% 6.414 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 Storm Sewer 750K Proj 10 Yr- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:59 AM Page 1 -7404- o~ oOc~O ° ~'~.~ o~o~ z a.z< ~> -7405- 000000000000 Mound, MN $480,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2001 - 10 Maturities SOURCES & USES Dated 08/01/2001 Delivered 08/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS ParAmount of Bonds ........................................................................................... $480,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................................. $480,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.500%) .............................................................. 7,200.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................. 18,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund ................................................................. 450,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................... 4,800.00 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................................... $480,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 .sf-Ser 01 $355 GO Water t0- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:18 AM Page 1 -7406- Mound, MN $480,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2001 - 10 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 11,885.00 11,885.00 11,885.00 8/01/2002 11,885.00 11,885.00 2/01/2003 40,000.00 4.500% 11,885.00 51,885.00 63,770.00 8/01/2003 10,985.00 10,985.00 2/01/2004 40,000.00 4.600% 10,985.00 50,985.00 61,970.00 8/0t/2004 10,065.00 10,065.00 2/01/2005 40,000.00 4.700% 10,065.00 50,065.00 60,130.00 8/01/2005 9,125.00 9,125.00 2/01/2006 45,000.00 4.750% 9,125.00 54,125.00 63,250.00 8/01/2006 8,056.25 8,056.25 2/01/2007 45,000.00 4.850% 8,056.25 53,056.25 61,112.50 8/01/2007 6,965.00 6,965.00 2/01/2008 50,000.00 4.950% 6,965.00 56,965.00 63,930.00 8/01/2008 5,727.50 5,727.50 2/01/2009 50,000.00 5.050% 5,727.50 55,727.50 61,455.00 8/01/2009 4,465.00 4,465.00 2/01/2010 55,000.00 5.150% 4,465.00 59,465.00 63,930.00 8/01/2010 3,048.75 3,048.75 2/01/2011 55,000.00 5.250% 3,048.75 58,048.75 61,097.50 8/01/2011 1,605.00 1,605.00 2/01/2012 60,000.00 5.350% 1,605.00 61,605.00 63,210.00 Total 480,000.00 155,740.00 635,740.00 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................................................................... Average Life ........................................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................. Net Interest Cost ('NIC) ..................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................................... Ail Inclusive Cost (AIC) ..................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ........................... .. .................................................................................................... Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................................................................... $3,070.00 6.396 Years 5.0729642% 5.3074919% 5.3469318% 5.0593398% 6.0934667% 5.0729642% 6.396 Yeah Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 $355 GO Water 10- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:18 AM Page 2 -7407- Mound, MN $810,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2003 - 10 Maturities SOURCES & USES Dated 08/01/2003 Delivered 08/01/2003 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................... $$10,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................................. $810,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.500%) .............................................................. 12,150.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................. 18,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund ................................................................. 775,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................... 4,850.00 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................................... $810,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 .s£-Ser 02 $750 GO Water 10- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:17 AM Page 1 -7408- Mound, MN $810,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2003 - 10 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+ I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 21,361.25 21,361.25 21,361.25 8/01/2004 21,361.25 21,361.25 2/01/2005 65,000.00 4.850% 21,361.25 86,361.25 107,722.50 8/01/2005 19,785.00 19,785.00 2/01/2006 70,000.00 4.900% 19,785.00 89,785.00 109,5 70.00 8/01/2006 18,070.00 18,070.00 2/01/2007 70,000.00 5.000% 18,070.00 88,070.00 106,140.00 8/01/2007 16,320.00 16,320.00 2/01/2008 75,000.00 5.100% 16,320.00 91,320.00 107,640.00 8/01/2008 14,407.50 14,407.50 2/01/2009 80,000.00 5.200% 14,407.50 94,407.50 108,815.00 8/01/2009 12,327.50 12,327.50 2/01/2010 80,000.00 5.300% 12,327.50 92,327.50 104,655.00 8/01/2010 10,207.50 10,207.50 2/01/2011 85,000.00 5.400% 10,207.50 95,207.50 105,415.00 8/01/2011 7,912.50 7,912.50 2/01/2012 90,000.00 5.500% 7,912.50 97,912.50 105,825.00 8/01/2012 5,437.50 5,437.50 2/01/2013 95,000.00 5.500% 5,437.50 100,437.50 105,875.00 8/01/2013 2,825.00 2,825.00 2/01/2014 100,000.00 5.650% 2,825.00 102,825.00 105,650.00 Total 810,000.00 278,668.75 1,088,668.75 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................................................................... Average Life ........................................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................. Net Interest Cost (NIC) ..................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................................... All Inclusive CostffAIC) ..................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ................................................................................................................................ Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................ .~. ................................................. $5,170.00 6.383 Years 5.3901112% 5.6251209% 5.6681270% 5.3766165% 6.1116308% 5.3901112% 6.383 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 02 $750 GO Water I0- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:17 AM Page 2 -7409- oo Z 0 -741 O- Mound, MN $480,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2001 - 15 Maturities SOURCES & USES Dated 08/01/2001 Delivered 08/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................... $480,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................................. $480,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.500%) .............................................................. 7,200.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................. 18,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund ................................................................. 450,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................... 4,800.00 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................................... $480,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 .sf-Ser O1 $355 GO Water 15- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:13 AM Page I -7411 - Mound, MN $480,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2001 - 15 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/200i 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 8/01/2012 2/01/2013 8/01/2013 2/01/2014 8/01/2014 2/01/2015 8/01/2015 2/01/2016 8/01/2016 2/01/2017 20,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 35,0O0.O0 35,000.00 40,000.00 40,00O.00 40,000.00 45,0OO.0O 4.500% 4.600% 4.700% 4.750% 4.850% 4.950% 5.050% 5.150% 5.250% 5.350% 5.350% 5.500% 5.500% 5.600% 5.600% 12,456.25 12,456.25 12,456.25 12,456.25 12,456.25 32,456.25 12,006.25 12,006.25 12,0O6.25 37,006.25 11,431.25 11,431.25 11,431.25 36,431.25 10,843.75 10,843.75 10,843.75 35,843.75 10,250.00 10,250.00 10,250.00 35,250.00 9,643.75 9,643.75 9,643.75 39,643.75 8,901.25 8,901.25 8,901.25 38,901.25 8,143.75 8,143.75 8,143.75 38,143.75 7,371.25 7,371.25 7,371.25 42,371.25 6,452.50 6,452.50 6,452.50 41,452.50 5,516.25 5,516.25 5,516.25 40,516.25 4,580.00 4,580.00 4,580.00 44,580.00 3,480.00 3,480.00 3,480.00 43,480.00 2,380.00 2,380.00 2,380.00 42,380.00 1,260.00 1,260.00 1,260.00 46,260.00 12,456.25 44,912.50 49,012.50 47,862.50 46,687.50 45,500.00 49,287.50 47,802.50 46,287.50 49,742.50 47,905.00 46,032.50 49,160.00 46,960.00 44,760.00 47,520.00 Total 480,000.00 241,888.75 721,888.75 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ................................................. ". .......................................................................... Average Life ....................................................................................................................................... Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................ Net Interest Cost (NIC) .................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) ................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ..................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) .................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ............................................................................................................................... Weighted Average Maturity .............................................................................................................. $4,525.00 9.427 Years 5.3456077% 5.5047238~6 5.5364227% 5.3220960% 6.0933392% 5.3456077% 9.427 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 $355 GO Water 15- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:13 AM Page 2 -7412- Mound, MN $810,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2003.15 Maturities SOURCES & USES Dated 08/01/2003 Delivered 08/01/2003 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................... $810,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................................. $810,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.500%) .............................................................. 12,150.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................. 18,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund ................................................................. 775,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................... 4,850.00 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................................... $810,000.00 Ehlers & Associate's, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 .sf-Ser 02 $750 GO Water 15- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:17 AM Page 1 -7413- Mound, MN $810,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2003 - 15 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 8/01/2012 2/01/2013 8/01/2013 2/01/2014 8/01/2014 2/01/2015 8/01/2015 2/01/2016 8/01/2016 2/01/2017 8/01/2017 2/01/2018 8/01/2018 2/01/2019 35,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.OO 45,0OO.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 55,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 65,000.00 70,0O0.O0 75,OO0.OO 75,000.00 4.850% 4.900% 5.oo0% 5.100% 5.200% 5.3oo% 5.400% 5.500% 5.500% 5.650% 5.650% 5.750% 5.750% 5.850% 5.850% 22,235.00 22,235.00 22,235.00 22,235.00 22,235.00 57,235.00 21,386.25 21,386.25 21,386.25 61,386.25 20,406.25 20,406.25 20,406.25 60,406.25 19,406.25 19,406.25 19,406.25 64,406.25 18,258.75 18,258.75 18,258.75 63,258.75 17,088.75 17,088.75 17,088.75 62,088.75 15,896.25 15,896.25 15,896.25 65,896.25 14,546.25 14,546.25 14,546.25 64,546.25 13,171.25 13,171.25 13,171.25 68,171.25 11,658.75 11,658.75 I1,658.75 71,658.75 9,963.75 9,963.75 9,963.75 69,963.75 8,268.75 8,268.75 8,268.75 73,268.75 6,400.00 6,400.00 6,400.00 76,400.00 4,387.50 4,387.50 4,387.50 79,387.50 2,193.75 2,193.75 2,193.75 77,193.75 22,235.00 79,470.00 82,772.50 80,812.50 83,812.50 81,517.50 79,177.50 81,792.50 79,092.50 81,342.50 83,317.50 79,927.50 81,537.50 82,800.00 83,775.00 79,387.50 Total 810,000.00 432,770.00 1,242,770.OO YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars .............................................................................................................................. Average Life ....................................................................................................................................... Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................ Net Interest Cost (NIC) .................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) ................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ..................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) .................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ............................................................................................................................... Weighted Average Maturity .............................................................................................................. $7,685.00 9.488 Years 5.6313598% 5.7894600% 5.8261755% 5.6096336% 6.1558730% 5.6313598% 9.488 Yea~ Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 02 $750 GO Water 15- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:17 AM Page 2 -7414- Z~Z~ .~ n Z <~ -7415- ..... ~ ............. w;l'¢~,O 00000 0000 (DO0 Mound, MN $480,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2001 - 20 Maturities SOURCES & USES Dated 08/01/2001 Delivered 08/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................... $480,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................................. $480,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.500%) .............................................................. 7,200.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................. 18,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund ................................................................. 450,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................... 4,800.00 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................................... $480,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 und.sf-Ser 01 $355 GO Water- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:04 AM Page I -7416- Mound, MN $480,000 ©.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2001 - 20 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 12,981.25 12,981.25 8/01/2002 12,981.25 12,981.25 2/01/2003 15,000.00 4.500% 12,981.25 27,981.25 8/01/2003 12,643.75 12,643.75 2/01/2004 15,000.00 4.600% 12,643.75 27,643.75 8/01/2004 12,298.75 12,298.75 2/01/2005 15,000.00 4.700% 12,298.75 27,298.75 8/01/2005 11,946.25 11,946.25 2/01/2006 15,000.00 4.750% 11,946.25 26,946.25 8/01/2006 11,590.00 11,590.00 2/01/2007 15,000.00 4.850% 11,590.00 26,590.00 8/01/2007 11,226.25 11,226.25 2/01/2008 20,000.00 4.950% 11,226.25 31,226.25 8/01/2008 10,731.25 10,731.25 2/01/2009 20,000.00 5.050% 10,731.25 30,731.25 8/01/2009 10,226.25 10,226.25 2/01/2010 20,000.00 5.150% 10,226.25 30,226.25 8/01/2010 9,711.25 9,711.25 2/01/2011 20,000.00 5.250% 9,711.25 29,711.25 8/01/2011 9,186.25 9,186.25 2/01/2012 20,000.00 5.350% 9,186.25 29,186.25 8/01/2012 8,651.25 8,651.25 2/01/2013 25,000.00 5.350% 8,651.25 33,651.25 8/01/2013 7,982.50 7,982.50 2/01/2014 25,000.00 5.500% 7,982.50 32,982.50 8/01/2014 7,295.00 7,295.00 2/01/2015 25,000.00 5.500% 7,295.00 32,295.00 8/01/2015 6,607.50 6,607.50 2/01/2016 30,000.00 5.600% 6,607.50 36,607.50 8/01/2016 5,767.50 5,767.50 2/01/2017 30,000.00 5.600% 5,767.50 35,767.50 8/01/2017 4,927.50 4,927.50 2/01/2018 30,000.00 5.700% 4,927.50 34,927.50 8/01/2018 4,072.50 4,072.50 2/01/2019 30,000.00 5.700% 4,072.50 34,072.50 8/01/2019 3,217.50 3,217.50 2/01/2020 35,000.00 5.850% 3,217.50 38,217.50 8/01/2020 2,193.75 2,193.75 2/01/2021 35,000.00 5.850% 2,193.75 37,193.75 8/01/2021 1,170.00 1,170.00 2/01/2022 40,000.00 5.850% 1,170.00 41,170.00 12,981.25 40,962.50 40,287.50 39,597.50 38,892.50 38,180.00 42,452.50 41,462.50 40,452.50 39,422.50 38,372.50 42,302.50 40,965.00 39,590.00 43,215.00 41,535.00 39,855.00 38,145.00 41,435.00 39,387.50 42,340.00 Total 480,000.00 341,833.75 821,833.75 Ehlers & Associates, lnc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 $355 GO Water- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:04 AM Page 2 -74'17- Mound, MN $480,000 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds Series 8/1/2001 - 20 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................................................................... Average Life ........................................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................. Net Interest Cost (NIC) ..................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) ..................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost .......................................................... Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................................................................... $6,120.00 12.750 Years 5.5855188% 5.7031658% 5.7272384% 5.5518841% 6.1834487% 5.5855188% 12.750 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 $355 GO Water- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 11:04 AM Page 3 -7418- Mound, MN $270,000 G.O. Bonds Series 5/1/2001 - 20 Maturities SOURCES & USES Dated 05/01/2001 Delivered 05/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................... $270,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................................. $270,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.900%) .............................................................. 5,130.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................. 10,200.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund .......................................................... 10,205.63 Deposit to Proiect Construction Fund ................................................................. 240,00o.0o Rounding Amount ............................................................................................... 4,464.37 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................................... $270,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 1 $265K Judgement Bonds 20- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 4:22 PM Page 1 -7419- Mound, MN $270,000 G.O. Bonds Series 5/1/2001 . 20 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 5/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8101/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 8/01/2012 2/01/2013 8/01/2013 2/01/2014 8/01/2014 2/01/2015 8/01/2015 2/01/2016 8/01/2016 2/01/2017 8/01/2017 2/01/2018 8/01/2018 2/01/2019 8/01/2019 2/01/2020 8/01/2020 2/01/2021 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 I0,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 I5,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 4.150% 4.250% 4.35O% 4.400% 4.500% 4.600% 4.700% 4.800% 4.900% 5.000% 5.000% 5.150% 5.150% 5.250% 5.250% 5.350% 5.350% 5.500% 5.500% 5.500% 10,205.63 20,205.63 6,596.25 6,596.25 6,596.25 16,596.25 6,383.75 6,383.75 6,383.75 16,383.75 6,166.25 6,166.25 6,166.25 16,166.25 5,946.25 5,946.25 5,946.25 15,946.25 5,721.25 5,721.25 5,721.25 15,721.25 5,491.25 5,491.25 5,491.25 15,491.25 5,256.25 5,256.25 5,256.25 15,256.25 5,016.25 5,016.25 5,016.25 15,016.25 4,771.25 4,771.25 4,771.25 14,771.25 4,521.25 4,521.25 4,521.25 19,521.25 4,146.25 4,146.25 4,146.25 19,146.25 3,760.00 3,760.00 3,760.00 18,760.00 3,373.75 3,373.75 3,373.75 18,373.75 2,980.00 2,980.00 2,980.00 17,980.00 2,58&25 2,586.25 2,586.25 17,586.25 2,185.00 2,185.00 2,185.00 22,185.00 1,650.00 1,650.00 1,650.00 21,650.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 21,100.00 550.00 550.00 550.00 20,550.00 20,205.63 23,192.50 22,767.50 22,332.50 21,892.50 21,442.50 20,982.50 20,512.50 20,032.50 19,542.50 24,042.50 23,292.5O 22,520.00 21,747.50 20,960~00 20,172.50 24,370.00 23,300.00 22,200.00 21,100.00 Total 270,000.00 166,60&13 436,608.13 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ................................................................................................................... Average Life ............................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ..................................................................................................................... Net Interest Cost (NIC) .......................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) ........................................................................................................ Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes .......................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) ......................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ..................................................................................................................... Weighted Average Maturity ................................................................................................... $3,177.50 11.769 Years 5.2433715% 5.4048192% 5.4425713% 5.2098077% 5.9262645% 5.2433715% 11.769 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 $265K Judgement Bonds 20- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 4:22 PM -7420- Mound, MN $265,000 G.O. Bonds Series 5/1/2001 - 15 Maturities SOURCES & USES Dated 05/01/2001 Delivered 05/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................... $265,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................................. $265,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.800%) .............................................................. 4,770.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................. 10,200.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund .......................................................... 9,573.75 Deposit to Project Construction Fund ................................................................. 240,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................... 456.25 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................................... $265,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 1 $265K Judgement Bonds 15- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:07 AM Page 1 -742'1 - Mound, MN $265,000 O.O. Bonds Series 5/1/2001 - 15 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+ 1 FISCAL TOTAL 5/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2 003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 8/01/2012 2/01/2013 8/01/2013 2/01/2014 8/01/2014 2/01/2015 8/01/2015 2/01/2016 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,O00.00 25,000.00 4.150% 4.250% 4.350% 4.400% 4.5OO% 4.600% 4.700% 4.8OO% 4.9OO% 5.000% 5.0O0% 5.150% 5.150% 5.250% 5.250% 9,573.75 24,573.75 6,071.25 6,071.25 6,071.25 21,071.25 5,752.50 5,752.50 5,752.50 20,752.50 5,426.25 5,426.25 5,426.25 20,426.25 5,096.25 5,096.25 5,096.25 20,096.25 4,758.75 '},758.75 4,758.75 19,758.75 4,413.75 4,413.75 4,413.75 19,413.75 4,061.25 4,061.25 4,061.25 19,061.25 3,701.25 3,701.25 3,701.25 23,701.25 3,211.25 3,211.25 3,211.25 23,211.25 2,711.25 2,711.25 2,711.25 22,711.25 2,211.25 2,211.25 2,211.25 22,211.25 1,696.25 1,696.25 1,696.25 21,696.25 1,181.25 1,181.25 1,181.25 21,181.25 656.25 656.25 656.25 25,656.25 24,573.75 27,142.50 26,505.00 25,852.50 25,192.50 24,517.50 23,827.50 23,122.50 27,402.50 26,422.50 25,422.50 24,422.50 23,392.50 22,362.50 26,312.50 Total 265,000.00 111,471.25 376,471.25 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars .................................................................................................................................... Average Life ............................................................................................................................................. Average Coupon ...................................................................................................................................... Net Interest Cost (NIC) ........................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) ......................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes .......................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) ......................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ...................................................................................................................................... Weighted Average Maturity .................................................................................................................... $2,228.75 8.410 Yean 5.0015143% 5.2155356% 5.2564148% 4.9767876% 5.8808073% 5.0015143% 8.410 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 $265K Judgement Bonds 15- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:07 AM Page 2 -7422- Mound, MN $265,000 G.O. Bonds Series 5/1/2001 - 10 Maturities SOURCES & USES Dated 05/01/2001 Delivered 05/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................... $265,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES ............................................................................................. $265,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.700%) .............................................................. 4,505.00 Costs of Issuance .................................................................................................. 10,200.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund .......................................................... 9,127.50 Deposit to Project Construction Fund ................................................................. 240,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................... 1,167.50 TOTAL USES ..................................................................................................... $265,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 1 $265K Judgement Bonds 10- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:08 AM Page 1 -7423- Mound, MN $265,000 G.O. Bonds Series 5/1/2001 - 10 Maturities DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P + I FISCAL TOTAL 5/01/2001 2/01/2002 25,000.00 4.150% 9,127.50 34,127.50 8/01/2002 5,566.25 5,566.25 2/01/2003 20,000.00 4.250% 5,566.25 25,566.25 8/01/2003 5,141.25 5,141.25 2/01/2004 25,000.00 4.350% 5,141.25 30,141.25 8/01/2004 4,597.50 4,597.50 2/01/2005 25,000.00 4.400% 4,597.50 29,597.50 8/01/2005 4,047.50 4,047.50 2/01/2006 25,000.00 4.500% 4,047.50 29,047.50 8/01/2006 3,485.00 3,485.00 2/01/2007 25,000.00 4.600% 3,485.00 28,485.00 8/01/2007 2,910.00 2,910.00 2/01/2008 30,000.00 4.700% 2,910.00 32,910.00 8/01/2008 2,205.00 2,205.00 2/01/2009 30,000.00 4.800% 2,205.00 32,205.00 8/01/2009 1,485.00 1,485.00 2/01/2010 30,000.00 4.900% 1,485.00 31,485.00 8/01/2010 750.00 750.00 2/01/2011 30,000.00 5.000% 750.00 30,750.00 34,127.50 31,132.50 35,282.50 34,195.00 33,095.00 31,970.00 35,820.00 34,410.00 32,970.00 31,500.00 Total 265,000.00 69,502.50 334,502.50 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................................................................... Average Life ........................................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................. Net Interest Cost (NIC) ..................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) ..................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ................................................................................................................................ Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................................................................... $1,468.75 5.542 Years 4.7320851% 5.0388085% 5.0828183% 4.7162140% 5.9482006% 4.7320851% 5.542 Yeah Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-Ser 01 $265K Judgement Bonds 10- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:08 AM Page 2 -7424- 8 ~ o8§§§888§§§ooo 88~8 ooo §8~§888888o ooo -7425- 0 ~ o uJ o oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooo oo oo ooooooo oo~ooooooo oooooo~ooo -7426- o~§~§§°°§§~o ~o 888 oo o o oooo ~888o8o88~ ooo oo o oo oo 8ooo8oo8o8oo~oo c -7427- 8 ~ c 88°°888888oo 3388388 ..... oo 88§§888ooo~888888§§8 oo °o0888o°°° -7428- City of Mound Municipal Liquor Store Draft Budget Item Amount Building shell (6000 s. f.~$125 s.f.) 750,000 Architecture/Engineering/Finance 36,000 Land 50,000 Refrigeration system 50,000 Product Shelving 18,000 Conveyer system 7,000 Office equipment 1,500 Shopping carts 2,500 Telephone/IntercomJPA 3,500 Alarm (Fire suppression/burglary) 3,000 CCTV security 5,000 Checkout area cabinetry 9,000 Point of sale 5,000 Interior signage 4,000 Exterior signage 12,000 Subtotal 956,500 Contingency (15%) 143,775 Total 1,100,275 -7429- 0 o 0 0 ~ ~D ~ 0 r~r~z 0 0 < ~ ~ ~ · 0 ~ ~ o o ~ -7430- Mound, MN $1,155,000 Municipal Liquor Store Revenue Bonds Series 2001 ~ 20 Years SOURCES & USES Dated 08/01/2001 Delivered 08/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................ $1,155,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES .......................................................................................... $1,155,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Undetwriter's Discount (1.700%) ........................................................... 19,635.00 Costs of Issuance ............................................................................................... 34,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund .............................................................. 1,100,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................ 1,365.00 TOTAL USES .................................................................................................. $1,155,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 0 MunLiquor Store 20 Years- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 4:54 PM Page 1 -7431 - $1,155,000 Municipal Liquor Store Revenue Bonds Series 2001 - 20 Years DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 Z/01/2008 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 8/01/2012 2/01/2013 8/01/2013 2/01/2014 8/01/2014 2/01/2015 8/01/2015 2/01/2016 8/01/2016 2/01/2017 8/01/2017 2/01/2018 8/01/2018 2/01/2019 8/01/2019 2/01/2020 8/01/2020 2/01/2021 8/01/2021 2/01/2022 35,0O0.00 35,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 50,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 65,000.00 70,000.00 75,000.00 80,000.00 85,000.00 90,000.00 95,000.00 5.000% 5.100% 5.200% 5.300% 5.400% 5.400% 5.400% 5.650% 5.650% 5.650% 5.650% 5.900% 5.900% 5.900% 6.150% 6.150% 6.150% 6.150% 6.150% 6.150% 33,582.50 33,582.50 33,582.50 33,582.50 33,582.50 33,582.50 68,582.50 102,165.00 32,707.50 32,707.50 32,707.50 67,707.50 100,415.00 31,815.00 31,815.00 31,815.00 66,815.00 98,630.00 30,905.00 30,905.00 30,905.00 70,905.00 101,810.00 29,845.00 29,845.00 29,845.00 69,845.00 99,690.00 28,765.00 28,765.00 28,765.00 68,765.00 97,530.00 27,685.00 27,685.00 27,685.00 72,685.00 100,370.00 26,470.00 26,470.00 26,470.00 71,470.00 97,940.00 25,198.75 25,198.75 25,198.75 75,198.75 100,397.50 23,786.25 23,786.25 23,786.25 78,786.25 102,572.50 22,232.50 22,232.50 22,232.50 77,232.50 99,465.00 20,678.75 20,678.75 · 20,678.75 80,678.75 101,357.50 18,908.75 18,908.75 18,908.75 78,908.75 97,817.50 17,138.75 17,138.75 17,138.75 82,138.75 99,277.50 15,221.25 15,221.25 15,221.25 85,221.25 100,442.50 13,068.75 13,068.75 13,068.75 88,068.75 101,137.50 10,762.50 10,762.50 10,762.50 90,762.50 101525.00 8,302.50 8,302.50 8,302.50 93,302.50 I01,605.00 5,688.75 5,688.75 5,688.75 95,688.75 101,377.50 2,921.25 2,921.25 2,921.25 97,921.25 100,842.50 Total 1,155,000.00 884,950.00 2,039,950.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-2000 MunLiquor Store 20 Years- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 4:54 PM Page 2 -7432- Mound, MN $1,155,000 Municipal Liquor Store Revenue Bonds Series 2001 - 20 Years DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................................................................... Average Life ........................................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................. Net Interest Cost (NIC) ..................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) .................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ................................................................................................................................ Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................................................................... $14,827.50 12.838 Years 5.9683021% 6.1007250% 6.1405725% 5.9374362% 6.5050359% 5.9683021% 12.838 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sr.2000 MunLiquor Store 20 Years* SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 4:54 PM Page 3 -7433- 0 0 0 O0 m ~z ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 -7434- O~ 0 Mound, MN $ l, 155,000 Municipal Liquor Store Revenue Bonds Series 2001 - 15 Years SOURCES & USES Dated 08/01/2001 Delivered 08/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................ $1,155,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES .......................................................................................... $1,155,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.750%) ........................................................... 20,212.50 Costs of Issuance ............................................................................................... 34,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund .............................................................. 1,100,000.O0 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................ 787.50 TOTAL USES .................................................................................................. $1,155,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 00 MunLiquor Store 15 Years- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:42 AM Page 1 -7435- Mound, MN $ t, 155,000 Municipal Liquor Store Revenue Bonds Series 2001 - 15 Years DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 8/01/2008 2/01/2009 8/01/2009 2/01/2010 8/01/2010 2/01/2011 8/01/2011 2/01/2012 8/01/2012 2/01/2013 8/01/2013 2/01/2014 8/01/2014 2/01/2015 8/01/2015 2/01/2016 8/01/2016 2/01/2017 50,000.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 60,000.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 70,000.00 75,000.00 80,000.00 85,000.00 90,000.00 90,000.00 100,0000.00 105,000.00 110,000.00 5.000% 5.100% 5.200% 5.300% 5.400% 5.400% 5.400% 5.650% 5.650% 5.650% 5.650% 5.900% 5.900% 5.900% 6.150% 32,480.00 32,480.00 32,480.00 32,480.00 32,480.00 82,480.00 31,230.00 31,230.00 31,230.00 86,230.00 29,827.50 29,827.50 29,827.50 84,827.50 28,397.50 28,397.50 28,397.50 88,397.50 26,807.50 26,807.50 26,807.50 91,807.50 25,052.50 25,052.50 25,052.50 90,052.50 23,297.50 23,297.50 23,297.50 93,297.50 21,407.50 21,407.50 21,407.50 96,407.50 19,288.75 19,288.75 19,288.75 99,288.75 17,028.75 17,028.75 17,028.75 102,028.75 14,627.50 14,627.50 14,627.50 104,627.50 12,085.00 12,085.00 12,085.00 102,085.00 9,430.00 9,430.00 9,430.00 109,430.00 6,480.00 6,480.00 6,480.00 111,480.00 3,382.50 3,382.50 3,382.50 113,382.50 32,480.00 114,960.O0 117,460.O0 114,655.O0 116,795.O0 118,615.O0 115,105.00 116,595.00 117,815.00 118,577.50 119,057.50 119,255.00 114,170.00 118,860.00 117,960.00 116,765.00 Total 1,155,000.00 634,125.00 1,789,125.00 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars .............................................................................................................................. Average Life ....................................................................................................................................... Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................ Net Interest Cost (NIC) .................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) ................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ..................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) .................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ............................................................................................................................... Weighted Average Maturity .............................................................................................................. $11,007.50 9.530 Years 5.7608449% 5.9444697% 5.9911939% 5.7375146% 6.4329783% 5.7608449% 9.530 Years Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-2000 MunLiquor Store 15 Years- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:42 AM Page 2 -7436- 0 0 ~0 c~ 0 -7437- E Mound, MN $1,155,000 Municipal Liquor Store Revenue Bonds Series 2001 - 10 Years SOURCES & USES Dated 08/01/2001 Delivered 08/01/2001 SOURCES OF FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds ........................................................................................ $1,155,000.00 TOTAL SOURCES .......................................................................................... $1,155,000.00 USES OF FUNDS Total Underwriter's Discount (1.650%) ........................................................... 19,057.50 Costs of Issuance ............................................................................................... 34,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund .............................................................. 1,100,000.00 Rounding Amount ............................................................................................ 1,942.50 TOTAL USES .................................................................................................. $1,155,000.00 Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 00 MunLiquor Store 10 Years- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:43 AM Page 1 -7438- Mound, MN $1,155,000 Municipal Liquor Store Revenue Bonds Series 2001 - 10 Years DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+ I FISCAL TOTAL 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 31,228.75 31,228.75 31,228.75 8/01/2002 31,228.75 31,228.75 2/01/2003 90,000.00 5.000% 31,228.75 121,228.75 152,457.50 8/01/2003 28,978.75 28,978.75 2/01/2004 95,000.00 5.100% 28,978.75 123,978.75 152,957.50 8/01/2004 26,556.25 26,556.25 2/01/2005 100,0O0.00 5.200% 26,556.25 126,556.25 153,112.50 8/01/2005 23,956.25 23,956.25 2/01/2006 105,000.00 5.300% 23,956.25 128,956.25 152,912.50 8/01/2006 21,173.75 21,173.75 2/01/2007 110,000.00 5.400% 21,173.75 131,173.75 152,347.50 8/01/2007 18,203.75 18,203.75 2/01/2008 115,000.00 5.400% 18,203.75 133,203.75 151,407.50 8/01/2008 15,098.75 15,098.75 2/01/2009 125,000.00 5.400% 15,098.75 140,098.75 155,197.50 8/01/2009 11,723.75 11,723.75 2/01/2010 130,000.00 5.650% 11,723.75 141,723.75 153,447.50 8/01/2010 8,051.25 8,051.25 2/01/2011 140,000.00 5.650% 8,051.25 148,051.25 156,102.50 8/01/2011 4,096.25 4,096.25 2/01/2012 145,000.00 5.650% 4,096.25 149,096.25 153,192.50 Total 1,155,0O0.00 409,363.75 1,564,363.75 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ............................................................................................................................... Average Life ........................................................................................................................................ Average Coupon ................................................................................................................................. Net Interest Cost (NIC) ..................................................................................................................... True Interest Cost (TIC) .................................................................................................................... Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ...................................................................................................... All Inclusive Cost (AIC) .................................................................................................................... IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Cost ................................................................................................................................ Weighted Average Maturity ............................................................................................................... $7,442.50 6.444 Years 5.5003527% 5.7564159% 5.8095306% 5.4897384% 6.3991639% 5.5O03527% 6.444Yea~ Ehlers & Associates, Inc Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 File = Mound.sf-2000 MunLiquor Store I0 Years- SINGLE PURPOSE 4/24/2001 9:43 AM Page 2 -7439- 05/15/'01 TUE 10:06 FAX 952 876 4188 FAX TRANSMITTAL ~002 GRAMERCY C O Il P O I~ A T I O [N Mr. Jim Presser Ehlers & Assoc. 3060 Centre Pointe Dr. Rosevil[e .Mn 55] 13-1105 Dear Jim, As you know our development contract with the City of Mound iden~/fled three separate sites that make up the Mound Vision re-development area. 'Ne had originally thought that we would start the re-development pt, }ject with the Lost Lake site, however after invest/gating the softs and discussing the ex/st/~g cond/tic.ns with our environmental consultants it was determined that the so [ contamination at the site is greater than we had anticipated, therefbre we dee. ided not to proceed on the Lost Lake site at this time. We then l:,repa~ed concept plans for the Auditors Road area and were prepared to proceed immediately; however after our meeting of Wed. May 2 there are se ~eral issues of conc(:rn which effect our ability to start this portion of the project in a tirr ~ly manner, namely; 1.) The Post Office has a lease that is currently in effect until Oct. of 2002. 'J hey are in a restructuring mode and it would be difficult to move them at this time. 2.) The Force main and pump station has to be moved to aceomm:odate our pan_ This cannot be done until a new pump station and approximately 400' ft. of.'aain are constructed on the north side of the railroad tracks. The land needed to make this move is owned by the railroad so land acquisi!'on will have to take place so the construction of the new lift station could be started in M. y or June of 2002 and compleled in the fall of 2002. 3.) The County Road 15 re-alignment is scheduled to start in spring of 2002; nd completed in the fall of 2002 with the last link of the existing Auditors Road completed in sprin~: of 2003. Based on ~his information we would not be able to start our marketin¢ program until the fall of 2002 with a construction start of spring 2003 on this projectl A delay in any of the above start dates would push a construction stat' back even further. We are anxious to start on the Mound Vision project and therefore w,. have come to the conclusion that the best place to start th/s overall project would be the .ake Langdon site. 7900 In£ernatlrma! Drive $ - 7440-'~Y'"'n"~"m · ~:,,: 6~ 2,$$4.0467 800.852.0095 F,xx: 612,876.418~ MAY, 18, 200] 2:54PM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES NO, 3648,.._P, ..... ~, ........ -~-.,,~--.,,,,~ ...... ,,~.-, ........... · .............,-.. ......... -,--.,~...-..,.~-,---~- ..... ,,.,,-,,--, .... ,--..--,- ....,,...: ....... , ~ ...... ~ James Prosser - Gramercy ie~ '-' . ..... . .................. _ ........... ~.. , ........... - ..................... --, From: To: Data: Subject: Bruce <blc@HKGI.com> "Jim Prosser (E-mail)" <jim@ehlers-inc,com> 5/I 8/0'1 9:11AM Gramercy letter Jim, Here are some re-writes for the Gramercy letter, 1, Post office relocation has been delayed until October 2002 at the outside, Relocating the post office on an interim basis woutd not likely be economically feasible. 2. The metropolitan waste force main and lif~ station needs to be relocated to its future site north of the raitroad line before construction of the Auditors Road devetopment can proceed, 3. The realignment of County Road 15 will be completed fall of 2002. Since the final leg of Auditors Road cannot proceed until the post office is removed, the connection between the new CR15 and Auditors Road could not happen until spring of 2003. 4. Auditors Road development would require the abandonment of existing CR 15, Traffic rerouting could be challenging if he new old CR15 is closed before the new CR15 is opened, Hope this helps, Bruce -7441 - MAY, 18,2001 2'54PM EHLER$ & ASSOCIATES N0,3648 P, 2/3 EHLERS ASSOCIATES ~NC To: From; Subject: Date: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Jim Prosser Cn-ammercy Development Status Report May 18, 2001 Preliminary development agreement discussions with Gramercy have progressed to the point of pro}ecting tentative development schedules. These schedules are necessary to determine timelines for activities and reviews required prior to the potential start of construction. Gramercy has developed an preliminary site plan that includes both the Auditors and Langdon phases. Some of the factors impacting the development schedule include the following: 1. Post office relocation has been delayed until October 2002 at the outside. Relocating the post office on an interim basis would not likely be economically feasible. 2. The meu:opolitat~ waste force main and lift station needs to be relocated to its future site north of the railroad line before construction of the Auditors Road development can proceed. 3. The realignment of County Road 15 will be completed fall of 2002. Since ~e final leg of Auditors Road cannot proceed until the post office is removed, the connection between the new CR15 and Auditors Road could not happen until spring of 2003. 4. Auditors Road development would require the abandonment of existing CR 15. Tra~c rerouting could be challenging if he new old CR15 is closed before the new CR15 is opened. According to the preliminary schedule prepared for the Auditor's Road phase construction would be expected to begin in fall of 2002 or spring of 2003, if appropriate approvals are provided. Two ma}or factors influence this schedule including the relocation of the Metro Waste lift station and force main and the completion of County Road 15 reroute. Significant progress has been made in securing commitments to schedule both of these projects in the past several months. A review of the Langdon phase timetable indicates that construction could begin in the Spring/Summer of 2002, if appropriate approvals are provided. The Langdon schedule is not impacted by the li'R station and force main relocation or the County Road reroute. As a result Crramcercy has indicated a desire to begin work on the Langdon phase followed immediately by development of Auditors phase. This would allow Gramercy to begin their marketing this fall (Fall/2001). This would permit a Spring/Summer 2002 Langdon construction start and a Spring/2003 start for Auditors. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE --~ 651,697.8503 fax 65)..697,8555 3060 Centre Pointe Drive -7442- jim~ehlers-inc.corn Roseville, MN 551. ~ 3-3.105 May 16,2001 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: John Dean Subject: Thoughts about ways Mound can facilitate dialogue between property owners in subdivisions containing lxivately dedicated commons. At your May 8, 2001 council meeting suggestions were received from residents of several subdivisions that the city should consider "facilitating" discussions between residents with the hope that from such discussions would come a consensus recommendation to the city concerning how their commons should be treated. It was also apparent from those commenting that the city was not expected to mediate or arbitrate between the residents; but rather was expected to provide the opportunity for the residents to meet, and to begin formulating a consensus position. You asked me to review the public input from the meeting and provide the council with suggestions on ways to assist the residents in initiating the dialogue. I would recommend that the council consider lending assistance on two levels. A. Logistics. 1. 2. Provide a location for subdivision residents to meet. Provide mailing addresses for residents of the subdivision. B. Input. 1. Make available, for the meeting, individuals who are familiar with the Woodland Point case, and the city program in general. Provide fact sheet information regarding the particular common, i.e. size, footage, number of docks, any utilities or public uses, etc. The suggestions concerning logistics are straight forward. The decision to have a meeting, determination of the time and date of the meeting (or meetings) as well as the actual notifications will be the responsibility of the residents of the commons. Input from individuals who are familiar with the Woodland Point case is of crucial importance to these meetings. I am talking about the owners' perspective and not the city perspective. The city should look for several people who are willing to volunteer to meet with the owners. A few other observations: -7443- 1. The council and staff should not actively be involved in the owners meetings. Not even attending should be strongly considered. 2. Staff may need to provide some background information; but that should only be as requested. 3. Some of the dock sites on these commons are permitted to individuals that do not reside in the subdivision. They should also be informed of the meetings. 4. Subdivisions should be separated. 5. Notices of the meetings should make it clear that the discussions are not just about docks, but are about all aspects of use of the commons. -7444- Final MEMORANDUM To: Mound City Council From: Karen Cole and John Dean Date: May 3, 2001 Subject: Application of Woodland Point decision to other privately dedicated commons. On April 2, 2001, Hennepin County District Court Judge Steven Lange entered an order approving the stipulated settlement of the Woodland Point case. You will find a summary of the decision attached to this memorandum at Tab A. One of the key points in the Woodland Point case, and in the predecessor case involving Wawonaissa Common on Woodland Point is that the City had no authority to regulate that commons because they were not publicly dedicated either in the plat or by usage. The dedication of the commons in the Woodland Point plat was to the owners of lots in the subdivision. Several other commons that are incorporated in the Mound dock program are also dedicated to the owners of lots in the subdivision, and not to the public. Consequently, it may be advisable for the Council to formulate a process to follow in determining how to deal with those other "privately" dedicated commons. While the Woodland Point case may be helpful in approaching this subject, it should not be viewed as controlling for several reasons: 1. The only determination that was made as a matter of law was that Mound had no authority to regulate a common that was not dedicated to the public or used by the public, under the theories that were considered in that case. All of the provisions concerning docks, dock locations, costs, use of the commons and maintenance were the result of negotiated agreements of the parties that the Judge approved. It is not known how the Judge would have ruled on any of these matters had the parties disagreed. As a result, although the way those matters were handled in the Woodland Point case may be noteworthy, no one is bound by them in connection with any of the other private commons. 2. Mound was under no obligation to provide docks or stairways for non-abutting properties. Much of what Mound did was to attempt to provide for the continued availability of dockage for abutter and non-abutter alike upon its departure from the area. The high expense, staff time and city energy diverted to the settlement, were, far greater than was expected; and the Council may conclude that the price for a Woodland Point type settlement is too high. JBD-196700v3 MU220-6 -7445- 3. Each of the other private commons presents its own unique facts. (See attachment at Tab B.) At best, the Woodland Point type settlement would have to be modified to meet those facts; and it may not be of any value at all in some cases-even if the Council wanted it to. The Woodland Point case did provide Mound with an education, however, that should help prepare it to deal with the other private commons. Here are some of the things Mound has learned. 1. Because any agreement will not be effective unless it is binding on all of the property owners, including future property owners, and all lien holders and encumbrancers, the only practical approach is through a court approval of the agreement. 2. That means attorneys, title companies, and a great deal of time and money. 3. Negotiating a settlement is hard because one is never sure that all interests are represented. Abutters and non abutters frequently had different agendas, and a compromise that would be acceptable to one group might be unacceptable to the other. That "education" and the lessons it has taught form the basis for the following recommendations; 1. The City's dock and commons program has worked well and has provided broad exposure to recreational resources to the general public. As such it should not be voluntarily withdrawn from any of the commons unless and until a program can be worked out that preserves the opportunity for the greatest possible number of persons. 2. Because any settlement will bind 100% of the property owners, and because settlement discussions are a waste of time unless all segments are included, the City should not undertake to consider withdrawing from any of the private commons unless it is petitioned to do so by a large percentage of the property owners. A figure in the 75% range might seem unreasonable, but the grass roots organization necessary to get that sort of response will have a very positive effect in working out a final agreement. 3. Upon receipt of the petition, the Council should decide whether or not to consider negotiating a agreement to withdraw. That consideration should include a determination whether any aspect of the common has been dedicated to the public by use (i.e. beaches, utilities, etc.). The petitioners should be notified promptly of the Council's conclusion. 4. At that point, and before any suit is commenced, the owners and Mound should begin to discuss a possible settlement agreement. There should be ground roles, and they should include an agreement by the spokespersons for the owners that they will not present any proposal or respond to any proposal unless they have a reasonable belief that it will be their position is supported by a significant majority of the owners, including both abutters and non abutters. It would also be helpful if all the parties understood that recriminations and accusations typically do not foster a constructive atmosphere. Because of the need for consensus of the owners, it would be useful for the owners to make the first settlement proposal. -7446- 5. There should be an understanding even before Mound receives the first petition about how the costs involved in the lawsuit will be borne. In that regard, we make the following suggestions: a. The cost of title work to determine ownership should be the responsibility of the owners. b. Every party retaining an attorney or other professional or expert should be responsible for that cost. c. The cost of serving the summons or other initial pleading should be the responsibility of the owners. d. The cost of recording the settlement order should be the responsibility of the owners. e. The fees charged by any other governmental entity in connection with any permit or approval shall be borne by the owners. 6. There should also be some understanding regarding how far Mound is willing to go to provide docks and other infrastructure to the commons. The options generally include providing no docks and stairways, or providing these improvements at street ends. 7. Mound is currently undertaking a study to better quantify the amount of shoreline in the dock program. The results of the study may impact on the city's settlement posture. 8. Until the court has approved the settlement, unless otherwise directed by the court, Mound should continue to treat the common as part of the city dock and common program. -7447- HARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven, com KAREN R. COLE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9212 email: kcole~kennedy-graven.com April 19, 2001 Mayor Meisel and Members of the City Council Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Bailey et al. v. Lien et al. Court File No.: MC97-15540 Our File No.: BE295-34 Dear Mayor and Council Members: This is, I hope, my last report to you on the Woodland Point litigation. The Woodland Point Litigation Most of you are very familiar with the Woodland Point litigation. A short summary of the litigation follows for the benefit of the new council members who may not have followed it. The case was brought to apportion rights and responsibilities as to the Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons among four groups: the abutting landowners, the inlanders, the City and the public. The litigation was an outgrowth of an earlier case, Flack v. City of Mound, that was brought by six landowners on Wawonaissa Common against the City. in that case, the Court determined that the abutting landowners owned segments of the Common in front of their houses, but that the inlanders had some kind of interest, akin to an easement to some type, to use the Common. The Flack Court held that the City and the public did not have any interest in the parts of the Common at issue in that suit (the six segments of the Common adjoining the homes of the six plaintiffs). The Flack Court suggested that a new suit involving all the landowners in Woodland Point would be needed to really resolve everyone's interests in the entire Commons. The Bailey v. Lien et al. suit was brought in response to that suggestion. The suit was brought in the name of all the inlanders against all the abutting landowners and the City, and addressed rights as to Wawonaissa and Waurika Commons. KRC- 196400v 1 BE295-34 -7448- Mayor and Council Members April 19, 2001 Page 2 The Settlement Process After the suit was brought, there were extensive efforts to settle it. Judge Lange appointed a retired judge to assist in settlement discussions among the parties. After extensive efforts, the settlement process bogged down. The inlanders brought a motion asking Judge Lange to resolve a number of the issues in an attempt to move the case forward. As a result, the Judge made a number of critical decisions. First, he decided that because the Co~rLmons were private commons and there was insufficient evidence of widespread and sustained use by the public, the public as a whole (and therefore the City) does not have rights to use the Commons, except for Canary Beach which the Judge ruled is public. The Judge also found that the abutting landowners own the segments of Commons in front of their homes, but that the inlander homeowners in the Woodland Point subdivision have some rights akin to an easement of some type to use the Commons. The Judge said that further proceedings would be needed to determine the exact nature of the inlanders' rights. That ruling sparked another intensive round of settlement discussions. Those discussions were spearheaded by several landowners. Members of the City Council also played a key role. The discussions focused in particular on dock rights. It was eventually determined that the abutters docks would no longer be part of the City's program, and that the City would construct multiple slip docks at the street ends for use by the inlanders. The initial draft of the Settlement Agreement was prepared by Mark Hanus. After further additional discussions, key landowners and the City Council agreed to it. The Settlement Agreement was then taken to all of the landowners in the Subdivision, and virtually all of them signed it. The Judge's approval of the Settlement Agreement was needed because all of the landowners had not signed the Agreement. In spring 2000, the Judge held a hearing to determine whether or not he should approve the Agreement. A few landowners who opposed the Agreement came to the hearing and presented evidence on their objections. The hearing focused on a dock in the lagoon off Bluebird Lane South, and on several la~_downers' interest in eliminating the dock at Woodland Road. Eventually, the Judge approved the Settlement Agreement, contingent on approval of variances by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). The LMCD's Role Variances from the LMCD were needed because the strips of the Commons at the street ends were not wide enough for the multiple-slip docks under the LMCD's rules. Navigational easements were also needed to allow enough room for boats to maneuver in and out of the inner- most dock slips. Extensive discussions with the LMCD took place in 2000 culminating in KRC- 196400v 1 BE295-34 -7449- Mayor and Council Members April 19, 2001 Page 3 approval by LMCD of the needed variances. As a condition of the variances, the LMCD imposed a number of requirements, which it required to be included in the Settlement Agreement as modified by the Judge. Specifically, the LMCD required that the following language be included in the Agreement: The City of Mound shall not assign, transfer or otherwise divest itself of any of its rights or responsibilities under this Agreement, or transfer, sell or convey its interests in the street end easements which are created by the Agreement, and any attempted assigm2ent or transfer in violation of this section shall result in forfeiture of the right to maintain shared docks at the street ends After approval of the variances by LMCD, the Judge needed to approve the Settlement Agreement one last time, pursuant to his prior order. We also asked the Judge to make several additional changes to the Agreement, based on issues that had arisen after his preliminary approval. The Last Hearing The last hearing was held on April 2, 2001. At that hearing, we asked the Court to make several changes to the Agreement: · To adopt the conditions imposed by the LMCD as part of the Agreement; To clarify how the asphalt walkway at the end of Woodland Lane would be handled (since Mike Gardner had raised issues as to it); and · To clarify that the City may maintain and replace all utilities in the Commons. At the hearing, the inlanders' attorney also asked for a change to clarify that the parties to the Agreement may enforce it. Mike Gardner asked for several changes as well. Those proposed changes were not accepted by the Judge, except for one change requiring the City to remove the asphalt pathway near Woodland Lane when that asphalt is degraded. I revised the Settlement Agreement to reflect the changes lhe Judge said he would accept. On April 10, 2001, the Judge signed the Agreement. A copy of the Order signed by the Judge with the Settlement Agreement and attached Exhibits is attached. The City's Responsibilities Under the Settlement Agreement Exhibit C to the Judge's Order is the Settlement Agreement as modified by the Judge. The City has a number of responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement. These responsibilities are summarized below. KRC-196400vl BE295-34 -7450- Mayor and Council Members April 19, 2001 Page 4 The City will no longer administer its dock program as to the property on the Commons, except as to the street ends. The City has an easement at the street ends to construct multi-slip docks. There will be seven docks: · one 2-boat · one 4-boat · one 4-boat · one 4-boat · one 4-boat · one 2~boat · one 2-boat dock at Gull Lane dock at Finch Lane dock at Eagle Lane dock at Dove Lane dock at Bluebird Lane North dock at Woodland Road, and dock at Bluebird Lane South. Diagrams of these docks (except for the Bluebird Lane South dock) are attached to the Settlement Agreement. Slips at the docks will be available for use by the inlanders and, if not all taken by inlanders, by members of the public. The City will be responsible for maintenance and replacement of the docks. The City will also construct stairs at four locations (Bluebird Lane North, Dove Lane, Eagle Lane and Woodland Road) which are needed to provide access to the multiple-slip docks. The Agreement specified fees to be paid by the abutters to be applied to the costs of stairs construction. The Agreement indicates that the City will not be responsible for dealing with future disputes between the Woodland Point residents as to access to the Commons, trespassing or other features of the Agreement, but that any such disputes are to be resolved through the Court or mediation by the landowners. The purpose of this provision is to keep the City out of disputes among the landowners and to put the burden on the landowners to resolve these issues themselves. Lastly, the Agreement must be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder and Registrar of Titles, and must be mailed to the owners of all parcels in the subdivision~ We worked with the supervisor for the abstract and Torrens offices to assure that we will be able to file the document against all the parcels at minimal cost. The letters to the landowners wilt be ready to send out next week. If you have any questions about the Agreement, please let me know. Very truly yours, KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED Karen R. Cole KRC/cm Enclosure cc: Robert Weisbrod (LMCIT 11019873) John Dean KRC- 196400v 1 BE295-34 -7451 - artered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com May 16, 2001 ROBERT J. LINDALL Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9219 *Certified Real Property Law Specialist VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Kandis Hanson City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Fax: 952-472-0620 Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax: 338-6838 John Cameron McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 Fax: 763-476-8532 Re: Reconstruction of Hennepin Coun _ty State Aid Roads 15 and 110 Dear Kandis, Bruce and John: Enclosed to each of you for your review is my latest draft of the proposed Right of Way Agreement between the City of Mound and Hennepin County for the above project. Also enclosed is a blacklined version showing changes since the last draft. Please review and comment as soon as possible so that we may submit it to the County for their review. Call me if you have any questions. Very~rs, Robert Jo Lindall RJL:peb Enclosure cc: Jim Prosser (via fax and mail w/enc.) John Dean (w/enc.) RJL-197503vl MU200-92 *Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association -7452- Last Revised: 5/16/01 Agreement No. County Project No. 9417 County State Aid Highway No. 15 And County State Aid Highway No. 110 City of Mound County of Hennepin AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this ~ day of ,2001, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Mound, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The County and the City have been negotiating to bring about the complete reconstruction of Shoreline Drive, aka County State Aid Highway No. 15 (CSAH 15) between existing CSAH 15, approximately 191 feet east of Cypress Lane, and existing CSAH 15, approximately 682 feet west of Commerce Boulevard, aka County State Aid Highway No. 110 (CSAH 110); also known as County Project No. 9417, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, The County intends to receive competitive bids and award a contract for the consla'uction of said improvements to the CSAH 15 roadway commencing in calendar year 2002; and WHEREAS, The County and the City recognize that it is mutually advantageous and desirable for them that the City acquire the property necessary for the Project, but that the County advance the cost of such acquisitions to or for the benefit of the City (subject to the City's duty to repay the County for the City's share of such acquisition costs in accordance with this Agreement); and WHEREAS, The City and the County mutually desire to agree upon the properties which are necessary to the Project, and to set forth the division of costs of the acquired properties between City and County; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 -7453- Section 1. General 1.01. A map has been prepared which identifies those property parcels along CSAH 15 from which permanent right of way acquisitions, either partial or total, are necessary for the aforesaid CSAH 15 and CSAH 110 reconstruction. A copy of said map is attached hereto (marked, Exhibit "A") and by this reference made a part hereof. Section 2. Acquisition of Right of Way 2.01. The City shall acquire, in its name, fee title to the parcels of land, permanent and temporary easements, and access rights for the required right of way necessary to reconstruct CSAH 15 and CSAH 110 from Parcels 1-28 listed on Exhibit B, according to the following: a) It is understood that Parcel Nos. 1 through 6 have or will be acquired in total. b) Prior to June 1, 2001, County and City staff shall agree on the extent of the areas to be subject to acquisition pursuant to a right of way delineation. Thereafter, if it becomes apparent that it would be advantageous to modify the extent of a taking of any of the identified parcels, such a change may be effected by mutual agreement of the County's and City's designated representative identified later herein. An amendment to this Agreement will not be required to modify the type or extent of any acquisition. c) If a parcel remnant remaining after consideration for the portion required for the Project will not conform with City building requirements, the parcel shall be acquired in total. d) The Project will be constructed by County, following demolition of all improvements currently located thereon by City, in accordance with the plans and specifications and construction timetable contained in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein. City shall have input into the preparation of the plans and specifications for the Project. e) City agrees that it will subject all parcels so acquired to a covenant, to be filed mnong the land records, at the time City files its title, reciting the limitations placed on the sale and encumbrance of any remnants of the parcels not required for the Project, and describing the mechanism for release thereof, all as provided for in this Agreement. The City will transfer all right and title for the right-of-way required by County to accommodate the Project once those limits have been determined. Remnant parcels will be based on a survey provided by the City. f) It is hereby understood that the phrase "responsible for the acquisition of" as used in the immediately preceding section and elsewhere throughout this Agreement shall be construed to mean the performance of all efforts necessary and legally required to obtain the right to use the subject property for the purposes set forth in this Agreement. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to, direct purchase, dedication, donation or condemnation. RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 2 -7454- g) City shall contract with independent and qualified appraisers, property acquisition and relocation consultants as it may deem necessary to fulfill its obligations. Section 3. Funding. 3.01. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, County shall initially fund 100% of Project costs, subject to City's duty to repay to County the percentage of the cost of acquiring interests in each parcel as specified on Exhibit B. The intent of the parties is that City shall ultimately pay 100% of the acquisition costs associated with parcels located west of CSAH 110 and for which no interests are required for CSAH 15 (the parcels meeting this description are collectively sometimes referred to herein as "City Project"). 3.02. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.03 of this Agreement, County agrees to provide City the funds necessary to finance the cost of said right-of-way acquisition ("Project Costs"). The cost of such acquisition is estimated to be $ , however, the actual amount may be more or less. The parties agree that the costs to be funded by County will be the actual costs incurred, expended or committed by City heretofore or hereafter with respect to the Project for the following: · Purchase price for lands acquired whether by voluntary purchase or by condemnation. * Damages awarded to owners as just compensation for the taking of their property for the Project, or damage in procuring any acquisition, whether such damage is caused by the County or the City in the performance of such contract with respect to the Project. · Relocation payments made as the result of such acquisitions. ~ · Title and appraisal costs. · Filing, service and commissioner fees in condemnation actions. · Counseling and benefits. · Expert witness fees. · Real estate taxes or installments of special assessments that are required to be paid as a result of condemnation. (Subject to credit for City share) · Recording filing fees and deed tax for all real estate transfers. · Fees of City right-of-way consultants (appraisal and relocation), legal fees and staff costs. Staff costs shall be only for City staff time and expenditures directly related to right-of-way acquisition and relocation activities (per the hourly rate, overhead and fringe benefits at the 2001 rates). · Damages to private utilities in relocating or removing or adjusting main conduits or other structures located in or upon the land taken and within present right of way. · Property maintenance costs following closing and prior to demolition. · Demolition costs. RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 3 -7455- Phase I and Phase ri environmental site assessments which may include but not be limited to sampling, analyzing and characterizing the subsurface conditions of individual properties, the costs of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fees for technical review and issuance of liability assurance letters, as well as any subsequent environmental clean-up that may be required. · Environmental investigation and remediation. · Environmental cleanup. Other costs incurred by City in furtherance of the Project (including the City Project and including but not limited to those described in Section 5 or elsewhere in this Agreement). 3.03. Within thirty (30) days after the Project is completed, County and City shall agree upon the actual dollar amount of total Project Costs subject to this Agreement for which City is responsible to pay County ("City's Share of Project Costs"). City shall make application for its maximum entitlements of municipal state aids for funding .of its duty to pay the City's Share of Project Costs and, within fifteen (15) days after County gives written notice to City of City's Share of Project Costs ("Notice Date") or City' s' receipt of each payment which Cityreceives of municipal state aids, whichever is later, City shall pay such amounts to County (provided that it shall not be obliged to pay County more than City's Share of Project Costs). Beginning on the first installment of the Notice Date and continuing thereafter on the annual anniversary of the Notice Date until the remainder of the City's Share of Project Costs and accrued interest is fully paid, City shall pay County 20% of the principal balance of the City's Share of Project Costs which remains unpaid as of December 31, 2002, together with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per year on the unpaid balance from the Notice Date to the date of payment. Section 4. Right-of-Way Purchase Process and Timing of Approvals and Payments by County. 4.01. City will use its best efforts to acquire the fight of way required for the Project in accordance with the schedule described in Exhibit C. The parties understand, however, that the acquisitions may potentially be delayed by a variety of reasons; it is therefore understood and agreed that City cannot and does not guarantee the completion of the acquisitions by the Quick Take date described in Exhibit C. 4.02. City will be required to adhere to the following process for approval by Countygf any acquisitions and expenditures: City will be required to adhere to the acquisition and relocation procedures contained in United States Department of Transportation Regulation 49 CFR Part 24, and related Minnesota laws. a) As part of the land acquisition process, City will be required to prepare two appraisals for each parcel to be acquired in fee and where the just compensation due to the owner is estimated to exceed $250,000. For non-fee acquisitions, one appraiser may be used. City shall select its appraisers and relocation consultants from consultant lists maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Upon completion of these RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 4 -7456- appraisals, the appraisals will be forwarded to a review appraiser, selected by City from the approved list of appraisers, for comments, revisions, and certification. b) The certified appraisals, review appraisal, and recommended just compensation amounts shall be forwarded to the County Transportation Engineer, or his designee, for review and approval. c) The County Transportation Engineer, or his designee, will have five (5) working days to respond to City with approval or disapproval of the recommended just compensation amounts to be included in an offer to the property owner, or other party entitled to relocation benefits. At its discretion, County shall have the right to request an additional appraisal, to be developed by an appraiser selected by County from the approved list of appraisers. Upon approval by the County Transportation Engineer, or his designee, of the just compensation amount, City shall have authority to enter into purchase agreements for amounts up to 110% of the approved just compensation amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000. If the County Transportation Engineer disapproves any proposed settlement amounts, City and County will meet and confer to determine an acceptable settlement muount. . d) Should the value of any proposed settlement amount exceed ! 10% of the recommended just compensation amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000, County shall have ten (10) working days following such notice by City to approve or disapprove of such a settlement. Failure to respond shall be deemed as approval. Upon disapproval, City may nevertheless proceed with the proposed settlement, but in such event County's obligation shall be limited to the amount that does not exceed 110% of the recommended just compensation amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000. If City does not proceed with the settlement after County's disapproval, City may attempt to negotiate a settlement acceptable to County or proceed with condemnation proceedings until the amount of damages is finally determined. e) City shall notify County as soon as is practicable upon acceptance of any authorized offer by a property owner. Funds for any authorized settlement amount will be made available to City by County in advance of or at the time of closing. The closing date shall be coordinated with County' s accounts payable timeline to assure availability of funds. f) In cases where City is unable to negotiate voluntary terms of sale with a specific landowner, it will be necessary for City to proceed with condemnation actiohs to secure the parcel in time to meet the construction schedules identified in Exhibit B. At the earliest time possible, when it is determined by City that a condemnation action is required, County and City staff and legal counsel will meet and confer. The purpose of this meeting will be to assess the feasibility and costs of an alternative course of action and/or to prepare a joint legal strategy for condemnation action. g) In accordance with the requirements of condemnation proceedings, the County Transportation Engineer, or his designee, will authorize payments of quick-take deposits and any court awarded settlement amounts. RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 -7457- h) County payments to City for all other costs shall be made not later than fifteen (15) days following the date that County has received evidence from City that such costs have been incurred, committed, or expended, together with customary documentation reasonably supporting such request. Section 5. Allocation of Costs 5.01. The costs incurred by the City for the total acquisition of Parcel Nos. 1 through 6 shall be shared equally by the County and the City. The City shall use its best efforts to sell at the most favorable price those portions of said parcels which are not required for the Project. The proceeds from such sales shall be shared equally by the County and the City. If the City wishes to retain title to any such portions of said parcels it may do so upon payment to the County of an amount agreed to represent 50% of the land value per square foot of the remaining (as most recently established by the County Assessor) portion of the parcel. 5.02. The City has previously purchased Parcel No. 27 and Parcel No. 28 in total, even though in neither case is the total acquisition necessary to construct the Project. 5.03. In the event the City is unable to acquire the necessary right of way in a timely manner for the construction of the Project, the County may acquire it. In the event the County acquires the necessary right of way of any parcel for the Project, the City shall be obligated to pay 50% of the acquisition costs incurred by the County in connection with that parcel. 5.04. The City agrees to grant easements to the County over those lands presently owned or acquired by the City that are a part of the required right of way for said Project, and are not identified herein, if any. The City shall be paid just compensation for these easements based on damage caused by the taking of the interest. The price paid for the easements shall be paid 50% by the City and 50% by the County. 5.05. It is understood that there are access issues associated with Parcel Nos. 8-13, which directly affect the amount of right of way that may be required for the Project from those parcels. The City will maintain communications with the owners of the parcels during the development of the detailed plans for the Project in an effort to resolve the access issues in a cost effective manner. 5.06. The City will retain ownership of those portions of parcels acquired for the Project which are not necessary for the Project ("Remainders"). The Remainders of these parcels will be available for sale by the City and the net proceeds from such sales shall be shared equally by the County and the City. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, City shall pay 100% of the costs associated with purchase of parcels required only for the City Project and shall be entitled to retain 100% of the value of any Remainders from such parcels. 5.07. Each party shall be responsible to provide the necessary maintenance, security and risk management services on any property that is acquired by it for the Project. Said responsibility shall cormnence on the date right to title and possession is acquired. The party which acquires the property shall also be responsible to inspect or have inspected any structures on the property for the existence of hazardous materials which must be abated prior to the demolition of the structure. RJL- 195880v5 tq MU200-92 -7458- 5.08. The acquiring party shall have the option to have any structures removed under a separate contract or as part of the Project. All costs incurred for the demolition of any structures, including but not limited to, the actual demolition costs, the costs for hazardous materials inspections and abatement costs if required, shall be shared equally between the County and the City. 5.09. All costs of providing maintenance, security and risk management services on any vacant structures shall be shared equally between the County and City. 5.10. The City will acquire all temporary easements required for the construction of the Project. All costs incurred by the City for the acquisition of temporary easements shall be shared equally by the County and the City. 5.11. Both County and City intend to finance a portion of their respective Project costs through use of state aid funds. County and City shall each submit their own application for state aid funds for reimbursement of their respective share of the Project costs under this Agreement. 5.12. The City will conduct a Phase 1 environmental site assessment (ESA), which may include but not be limited to reviewing the existing and available historical information pertaining to land use and conditions of the properties within the limits of the Project. In the event a Phase 1I ESA is required on any parcel, the City will assume the responsibility to have the Phase II ESA completed. All costs incurred by the City for the completion of any Phase I or Phase II environmental site assessments shall be shared equally by the County and the City. 5.13. In the event the Phase 11 environmental site assessment identifies contamination within the new CSAH 15 or CSAH 110 right of way which must be cleaned up, the County will hire consultants and contractors as necessary to clean up the roadway right of way and obtain approval of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Any such clean up required may be accomplished under a separate project or may be included in the Project. It is agreed that the City and County will investigate and exhaust all available options for payment of costs incurred related to cleanup of said new CSAH 15 or CSAH 110 right of way. This includes, but is not limited to, commencing legal action for cost recovery and other relief against responsible parties. All environmental clean up costs incurred by the County which are not reimbursed from other sources shall be shared equally by the County and the City. Section 6. Records 6.01. All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. 6.02. City shall provide County with a report of the current status of negotiations on unobtained parcels when requested, but not more frequently than every other month. Said reports shall include, but not be limited to, such data as is necessary to keep County informed of costs, items of concern to the property owner, anticipated date of acquisition, and if condenmation will be necessary. RJL- 195880v5 7 MU200-92 -7459- Section 7. Representations 7.01. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The County and the City's liability are each governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. No provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any applicable limits on liability contained in said Chapter 466. 7.02. The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program. 7.03. Any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the pat of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered 'herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. 7.04. Any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. Section 8. Designated Representatives 8.01. In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Hennepin County Engineer or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and the City. 8.02. In 'order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the City's Manager or her designated representative shall manage this AgTeement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the County. Section 9. Entire Agreement; Amendment 9.01. It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be pa_tx of this Agreement. RJL- 195880v5 8 MU200-92 -7460- 9.02. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. Section 10. Termination 10.01. This Agreement may be cancelled prior to the completion of the objectives set forth herein with the mutual consent of both parties via an amendment hereto. Cancellation may be considered in the event the anticipated acquisition costs and/or environmental cleanup costs to be paid by the parties increase substantially above those estimated herein, or for any other reasons that may arise that jeopardize the feasibility of the Project. 10.02. In the event this agreement is cancelled, the parties agree to reconcile all costs previously incurred by them in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Section 11. Discrimination 11.01. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. Section 12. Acquisition Responsibility Only 12.01. This Agreement relates only to the acquisition of the right of way for the Project and City does not, by this Agreement, undertake or assume any responsibility for the construction or maintenance of the Project. Section 13. Transfer to County 13.01. City agrees that, as appropriate, it will transfer to County those rights and interests needed by County for transportation purposes. RJL- 195880v5 9 MU200-92 -7461 - IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. (Seal) CITY OF MOUND By: Mayor Date: ,2001 And: City Manager Date: ,2001 be COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board By: Chairman of the County Board Date: ,2001 Date: .,2001 APPROVED AS TO FORM: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator By: Date: Assistant County Attorney ,2001 Date: And: ,2001 Assistant County Administrator, Public Service and County Engineer Date: ,2001 APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Assistant County Attorney By: Director, Transportation Department Date: ,2001 Date: ,2001 RJL-195880v5 MU200-92 10 -7462- EXHIBIT A MAP OF PROJECT RJL- 195880v4 MU200-92 A-1 -7463- -7464- EXHIBIT C PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF TASKS TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PROJECT (INCLUDING THE CITY PROJECT) TASK City Council approval of preliminary plan County comment on draft ROW agreement City and County staff agreement on ROW agreement City and County order appraisals City and County letter to owners advising of inspection by appraisers City and County Order Phase I environmental report City Council approval of ROW agreement City and County receive Phase I environmental report Hennepin County Board approval of ROW agreement City and County receive appraisals City and County order Phase lli environmental investigations City and County execution of right of way agreement City and County receive review appraisals City and County determination of just compensation TARGET COMPLETION DATE May 8,2001 May l5,2001 May 30,2001 June 1, 2001 June 5,2001 June 5, 2001 June 12, 2001 July 15,2001 July 30,2001 Augustl,2001 Augustl, 2001 August 10, 2001 August 10, 2001 August 15, 2001 City and County send offers to affected owners August City and County send notice of eligibility for relocation benefits to August owners and occupants City and County obtain voluntary environmental fights of entry City and County adoption of eminent domain resolution City and County commence eminent domain proceedings City and County send quick take notices City and County serve petition, notice of hearing on petition and motion for order authorizing entry upon property by personal service Court hearing on motion for order authorizing right of entry Court hearing on public purpose and necessity and use of quick take City and County receive Phase II environmental reports County complete final plans and specifications City and County approve final plans and specifications City and County deposit or pay quick take amount ("Quick Take Date") County solicit construction bids City start demolition # 1 County receive construction bids City finish demolition #1 City begin environmental remediation #1 County award construction contract City begin demolition #2 2ity complete environmental remediation #1 City begin environmental remediation #2 City complete demolition #2 RJL- 195880v4 MU200-92 C-1 17, 2001 17, 2001 August 20, 2001 August 30, 2001 September 17, 2001 September 17, 2001 September 22, 2001 October 10, 2001 November 15,2001 November 15, 2001 December 1, 2001 December 15,2001 December 17,2001 January5, 2002 January20,2002 February 1,2002 February20,2002 March 1,2002 March 1,2002 March 30,2002 April 1, 2002 Aprill5,2002 April 30, 2002 -7465- TASK TARGET COMPLETION DATE City complete environmental remediation #2 May 15, 2002 Construction start Construction completed May 15, 2002 November 1, 2002 RJL- 195880v4 MU200-92 C-2 -7466- Last Revised: 5/0~,01 5/16/01 Agreement No. County Project No. 9417 County State Aid Highway No. 15 And County State Aid Highway No. 110 City of Mound County of Hennepin AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this ~ day of ,2001, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Mound, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The County and the City have been negotiating to bring about the complete reconstruction of Shoreline Drive, aka County State Aid Highway No. 15 (CSAH 15) between existing CSAH 15, approximately 191 feet east of Cypress Lane, and existing CSAH 15, approximately 682 feet west of Commerce Boulevard, aka County State Aid Highway No. 110 (CSAH 110); also known as County Project No. 9417, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, The County intends to receive competitive bids and award a contract for the construction of said improvements to the CSAH 15 roadway commencing in calendar year 2002; and WHEREAS, The County and the City recognize that it is mutually advantageous and desirable for them that the City acquire the property necessary for the Project, but that the County advance the cost of such acquisitions to or for the benefit of the City (subject to the City's duty to repay the County for the City's share of such acquisition costs in accordance with this Agreement); and WHEREAS, The City and the County mutually desire to agree upon the properties which are necessary to the Project, and to set forth the division of costs of the acquired properties between City and County; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: RJL-195880v5 MU200-92 1 -7467- Section 1. General 1.01. A map has been prepared which identifies those property parcels along CSAH 15 from which permanent right of way acquisitions, either partial or total, are necessary for the aforesaid CSAH 15 and CSAH 110 reconstruction. A copy of said map is attached hereto (marked, Exhibit "A") and by this reference made a part hereof. Section 2. Acquisition of Right of Way 2.01. The City shall acquire, in its name, fee title to the parcels of land, permanent and temporary easements, and access rights for the required right of way necessary to reconstruct CSAH 15 and CSAH 110 from Parcels 1-28 listed on Exhibit B, according to the following: a) total. It is understood that Parcel Nos. 1 through 6 have or will be acquired in b) Prior to June 1, 2001, County and City staff shall agree on the extent of the areas to be subject to acquisition pursuant to a right of way delineation. Thereafter, if it becomes apparent that it would be advantageous to modify the extent of a taking of any of the identified parcels, such a change may be effected by mutual agreement of the County's and City's designated representative identified later herein. An amendment to this Agreement will not be required to modify the type or extent of any acquisition. c) The .... ':~'" of ..... ~ ...... '~ which a" If a narcel remnant remainin~ after consideration for the portion required for the Project will not conform with City building requirements will ~^+ alone be cause ~^~ a .............. ~ ......... ,. the parcel shall be acquired in total. d) The Project will be constructed by County, following demolition of all improvements currently located thereon by City, in accordance with the plans and specifications and construction timetable contained in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein. City shall have input into the preparation of the plans and specifications for the Project. e) City agrees that it will subject all parcels so acquired to a covenant, to be filed among the land records, at the time City files its title, reciting the limitations placed on the sale and encumbrance of any remnants of the parcels not required for the Project, and describing the mechanism for release thereof, all as provided for in this Agreement. The City will transfer all right and title for the right-of-way required by County to accommodate the Project once those limits have been determined. Remnant parcels will be based on a survey provided by the City. f) It is hereby understood that the phrase "responsible for the acquisition oF' as used in the immediately preceding section and elsewhere throughout this Agreement shall be construed to mean the performance of all efforts necessary and legally required RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 2 -7468- to obtain the right to use the subject property for the purposes set forth in this Agreement. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to, direct purchase, dedication, donation or condemnation. g) City shall contract with independent and qualified appraisers, property acquisition and relocation consultants as it may deem necessary to fulfill its obligations. Section 3. Funding. 3.01. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, County shall initially fund 100% of Project costs, subject to City's duty to repay to County ~4msr40-~- 109% the percentage of the cost of acquiring interests in each parcel as specified on Exhibit B. The intent of the parties is that City shall ultimately pay 100% of the acquisition costs associated with parcels located west of CSAH 110 and for which no interests are required for CSAH 15 (the parcels meeting this description are collectively sometimes referred to herein as "City Project"). 3.02. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.03 of this Agreement, County agrees to provide City the funds necessary to finance the cost of said right-of-way acquisition ("Pro_____ject Costs"). The cost of such acquisition is estimated to be $. , however, the actual amount may be more or less. The parties agree that the costs to be funded by County will be the actual costs incurred, expended or committed by City heretofore or hereafter with respect to the Project for the following: · Purchase price for lands acquired whether by voluntary purchase or by condemnation. · Damages awarded to owners as just compensation for the taking of their Dror~ertv for the Project: or damage in procuring, any acquisition, whether such damage is caused by the County or the City in the performance of such contract with respect to the Project. · Relocation payments made as the result of such acquisitions. · Title and appraisal costs. · Filing, service and commissioner fees in condemnation actions. · Counseling and benefits. · Expert witness fees. · Real estate taxes or installments of special assessments that are required to be paid as a result of condemnation. (Subject to credit for City share) · Recording filing fees and deed tax for all real estate transfers. · Fees of City right-of-way consultants (appraisal and relocation), legal fees and staff costs. Staff costs shall be only for City staff time and expenditures directly related to right-of-way acquisition and relocation activities (per the hourly rate, overhead and fringe benefits at the 2001 rates). RJL- 195880v5 3 MU200-92 -7469- · Damages to orivate utilities in relocatina or removing or ad.iustin.~ main conduits or other structures located in or upon the land taken and within present right of way. · Property maintenance costs following closing and prior to demolition. · Demolition costs. · Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments which may include but not be limited to sampling, analyzing and characterizing the subsurface conditions of individual prooerties; the costs of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fees for technical review and issuance of liability assurance letters: as well as any subsequent environmental clean-up that may be required. · Environmental investigation and remediation. · Environmental cleanup. · Other costs incurred by City in furtherance of the Project (including the City Project and including but not limited to those described in Section 5 or elsewhere in this Agreement). 3.03. Within thirty (30) days after the Project is completed, County and City shall agree upon the ~"~*;^~ actual dollar amount of total Project ..... Costs subiect to this A~reement for which City is responsible to pay County ("City's Share of Project Costs"). City shall make application for its maximum entitlements of municipal state aids for funding of its duty to pay the City's sha~ Share of Project Costs and, within fifteen (15) days after County gives written notice to City of City's Share of Project Costs ("Notice Date") or City's receipt of each payment which City receives of municipal state aids, whichever is later, City shall pay such amounts to County (provided that it shall not be obliged to pay County more than City's Share of Project Costs). Beginning on the first installment of the Notice Date and continuing thereafter on the annual anniversary of the Notice Date until the remainder of the City's Share of Project Costs and accrued interest is fully paid, City shall pay County 20% of the principal balance of the City's Share of Project Costs which remains unpaid as of December 31, 2002, together with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per year on the unpaid balance from the Notice Date to the date of payment. Section 4. Right-of-Way Purchase Process and Timing of Approvals and Payments by County. 4.01. City will use its best efforts to acquire the right of way required for the Project in accordance with the schedule described in Exhibit C. The parties understand, however, that the acquisitions may potentially be delayed by a variety of reasons; it is therefore understood and agreed that City cannot and does not guarantee the completion of the acquisitions by the Quick Take date described in Exhibit C. 4.02. City will be required to adhere to the following process for approval by County of any acquisitions and expenditures: City will be required to adhere to the acquisition and relocation procedures contained in RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 4 -7470- United States Department of Transportation Regulation 49 CFR Part 24, and related Minnesota laws. a) As part of the land acquisition process, City will be required to prepare two appraisals for each parcel to be acquired in fee and where the just compensation due to the owner is estimated to exceed $ $250.000. For non-fee acquisitions, one appraiser may be used. City shall select its appraisers and relocation consultants from consultant lists maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Upon completion of these appraisals, the appraisals will be forwarded to a review appraiser, selected by City from the approved list of appraisers, for comments, revisions, and certification. b) The certified appraisals, review appraisal, and recommended just compensation amounts shall be forwarded to the County Transportation Engineer, or his designee, for review and approval. c) The County Transportation Engineer, or his designee, will have five (5) working days to respond to City with approval or disapproval of the recommended just compensation amounts to be included in an offer to the property owner, or other party entitled to relocation benefits. At its discretion, County shall have the right to request an additional appraisal, to be developed by an appraiser selected by County from the approved list of appraisers. Upon approval by the County Transportation Engineer, or his designee, of the just compensation amount, City shall have authority to enter into purchase agreements for amounts up to 110% of the approved just compensation amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000. If the County Transportation Engineer disapproves any proposed settlement amounts, City and County will meet and confer to determine an acceptable settlement amount. d) Should the value of any proposed settlement amount exceed 110% of the recommended just compensation amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000, County shall have ten (10) working days following such notice by City to approve or disapprove of such a settlement. Failure to respond shall be deemed as approval. Upon disapproval, City may nevertheless proceed with the proposed settlement, but in such event County's obligation shall be limited to the amount that does not exceed 110% of the recommended just compensation 'amount, not to exceed an additional $25,000. If City does not proceed with the settlement after County's disapproval, City may attempt to negotiate a settlement acceptable to County or proceed with condemnation proceedings until the amount of damages is finally determined. e) City shall notify County as soon as is practicable upon acceptance of any authorized offer by a property owner. Funds for any authorized settlement amount will be made available to City by County in advance of or at the time of closing. The closing date shall be coordinated with County's accounts payable timeline to assure availability of funds. f) In cases where City is unable to negotiate voluntary terms of sale with a specific landowner, it will be necessary for City to proceed with condemnation actions to RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 5 -7471 - secure the parcel in time to meet the construction schedules identified in Exhibit B. At the earliest time possible, when it is determined by City that a condemnation action is required, County and City staff and legal counsel will meet and confer. The purpose of this meeting will be to assess the feasibility and costs of an alternative course of action and/or to prepare a joint legal strategy for condemnation action. g) In accordance with the requirements of condemnation proceedings, the County Transportation Engineer, or his designee, will authorize payments of quick-take deposits and any court awarded settlement amounts. h) County payments to City for all other costs shall be made not later than fifteen (15) days following the date that County has received evidence from City that such costs have been incurred, committed, or expended, together with customary documentation reasonably supporting such request. Section 5. Allocation of Costs 5.01. The costs incurred by the City for the total acquisition of Parcel Nos. 1 through 6 shall be shared equally by the County and the City. The City shall use its best efforts to sell at the most favorable price those portions of said parcels which are not required for the Project. The proceeds from such sales shall be shared equally by the County and the City. If the City wishes to retain title to any such portions of said parcels it may do so upOn payment to the County of an amount agreed to represent ,h,,,~ .... , ~ .... ,~,c ~h~,,,~ County's ............. ,,,"~ ,,,,, 50% of the land value per square foot of the remaining (as most recently established by the County Assessor) portion of the parcel. 5.02. The City has previously purchased Parcel No. 27 and Parcel No. 28 in total, even though in neither case is the total acquisition necessary to construct the Project. 5.03. In the event the City is unable to acquire the necessary right of way in a timely manner for the construction of the Project, the County may acquire it. In the event the County acquires the necessary right of way of any parcel for the Project, the City shall be obligated to pay 50% of the acquisition costs incurred by the County in connection with that parcel. 5.04. The City agrees to grant easements to the County over those lands presently owned or acquired by the City that are a part of the required right of way for said Project, and are not identified herein: if any. The City shall be paid just compensation for these easements based on damage caused by the taking of the interest. The price paid for the easements shall be paid 50% by the City and 50% by the County. 5.05. It is understood that there are access issues associated with Parcel Nos. 8-13, which directly affect the amount of right of way that may be required for the Project from those parcels. The City will maintain communications with the owners of the parcels during the development of the detailed plans for the Project in an effort to resolve the access issues in a cost effective manner. RJL- 195880v5 6 MU200-92 -7472- .~ .................. ~ ~ .......... r .... Project .. required .............. ~ .... ~ w .......... ~ ........... ~. e City will retain owners of those potions of p~cels acquired for the Project which are not necessary for the Project ("Reminders"). The Reminders of these p~cels will be available for sale by the City ~d the net proceeds from such sales shall be shared equally by the CounW and the City. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, City sh~l pay 100% of the costs associated with purchase of p~cels required only for the City Project ~d shall be entitled to retain 100% of the v~ue of ~y Reminders from such parcels. 5.98 5.07. Each party shall be responsible to provide the necessary maintenance, security and risk management services on any property that is acquired by it for the Project. 'Said responsibility shall commence on the date right to title and possession is acquired. The party which acquires the property shall also be responsible to inspect or have inspected any structures on the property for the existence of hazardous materials which must be abated prior to the demolition of the structure. 5.09 5.08. The acquiring party shall have the option to have any structures removed under a separate contract or as part of the Project. All costs incurred for the demolition of any structures, including but not limited to, the actual demolition costs, the costs for hazardous materials inspections and abatement costs if required, shall be shared equally between the County and the City. 5.1O 5.09. All costs of providing maintenance, security and risk management services on any vacant structures shall be shared equally between the County and City. 5.11 5.10. The City will acquire all temporary easements required for the construction of the Project. All costs incurred by the City for the acquisition of temporary easements shall be shared equally by the County and the City. RJL- 195880v5 7 MU200-92 -7473- 5.13 5.11. Both County and City intend to finance a portion of their respective Project costs through use of state aid funds. County and City shall each submit their own application for state aid funds for reimbursement of their respective share of the Project costs under this Agreement. 5.14 5.12. The City will conduct a Phase 1 environmental site assessment (ESA), which may include but not be limited to reviewing the existing and available historical information pertaining to land use and conditions of the properties within the limits of the Project. In the event a Phase II ESA is required on any parcel, the City will assume the responsibility to have the Phase II ESA completed. All costs incurred by the City for the completion of any Phase I or Phase II environmental site assessments shall be shared equally by the County and the City. 5.155.13. In the event the Phase II environmental site assessment identifies contamination within the new CSAH 15 or CSAH 110 right of way which must be cleaned up, the County will hire consultants and contractors as necessary to clean up the roadway right of way and obtain approval of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Any such clean up required may be accomplished under a separate project or may be included in the Project. It is agreed that the City and County will investigate and exhaust all available options for payment of costs incurred related to cleanup of said new CSAH 15 or CSAH 110 right of way. This includes, but is not limited to, commencing legal action for cost recovery and other relief against responsible parties. All environmental clean up costs incurred by the County which are not reimbursed from other sources shall be shared equally by the County and the City. Section 6. Records 6.01. All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. 6.02. City shall provide County with a report of the current status of negotiations on unobtained parcels when requested, but not more frequently than every other month. Said reports shall include, but not be limited to, such data as is necessary to keep County informed of costs, items of concern to the property owner, anticipated date of acquisition, and if condemnation will be necessary. Section 7. R~epresentations 7.01. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The County and the City's liability are each governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. No provisions of this Agreement shall be RJL- 195880v5 8 MU200-92 -7474- deemed to constitute a waiver of any applicable limits on liability contained in said Chapter 466. 7.02. The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program. 7.03. Any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. 7.04. Any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County . in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. Section 8. Designated Representatives 8.01. In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Hennepin County Engineer or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and th6 City. 8.02. In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the City's Manager or her designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the County. Section 9. Entire Agreement; Amendment 9.01. It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. 9.02. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. RJL- 195880v5 9 MU200-92 -7475- Section 10. Termination 10.01. This Agreement may be cancelled prior-to the completion of the objectives set forth herein with the mutual consent of both parties via an amendment hereto. Cancellation may be considered in the event the anticipated acquisition costs and/or environmental cleanup costs to be paid by the parties increase substantially above those estimated herein, or for any other reasons that may arise that jeopardize the feasibility of the Project. 10.02. In the event this agreement is cancelled, the parties agree to reconcile all costs previously incurred by them in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Section 11. Discrimination 11.01. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. Section 12. Acquisition Responsibility Only 12.01. This Agreement relates only to the acquisition of the right of way for the Project and City does not, by this Agreement, undertake or assume any responsibility for the construction or maintenance of the Project. Section 13. Transfer to County 13.01. City agrees that, as appropriate, it will transfer to County those rightS and interests need needed by County for transportation purposes. RJL-195880v5 1 0 MU200-92 -7476- IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. (Seal) CITY OF MOUND By: Mayor Date: And: City Manager Date: ,2001 ,2001 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: . By: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board By: Chairman of the County Board Date: ,2001 Date: ,2001 APPROVED AS TO FORM: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator By: Assistant County Attomey Dae: ,2001 Date: And: ,2001 Assistant County Administrator, Public Service and County Engineer, Date: ,2001 APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Assistant County Attorney By: Director, Transp°rtation Department Date: ,2001 Date: ,2001 RJL- 195880v5 MU200-92 11 -7477- RJL- 195880v4 MU200-92 EXHIBIT A MAP OF PROJECT A-1 -7478- '-~ -- ~ .......... ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~:~o'~ ~ <~ ....................... -' -7479- PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF TASKS TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PROJECT (INCLUDING THE CITY PROJECT) TASK City Council approval of preliminary plan Zounty comment on draft ROW agreement City and County staff agreement on ROW agreement City and County order appraisals City and County letter to owners advising of appraisers inspection by City and County Order Phase I environmental report City Council approval of ROW agreement City and County receive Phase I environmental report Hennepin County Board approval of ROW agreement City and County receive appraisals and County order Phase II environmental investigations City City City City City TARGET COMPLETION DATE May 8, 2001 May 15,2001 May 30, 2001 June 1, 2001 June 5,2001 June 5,2001 June 12,2001 July 15,2001 July 30, 2001 August 1, ~2001 August 1,2001 and County execution of right of way agreement August and County receive review appraisals August and County determination of just compensation August and County send offers to affected owners August City and County send notice of eligibility for relocation benefits to August 17, owners and occupants City and County obtain voluntary environmental rights of entry City and County adoption of eminent domain resolution City and County commence eminent domain proceedings September City and County send quick take notices September City and County serve petition, notice of hearing on petition and September motion for order authorizing entry upon property by personal service Court hearing on motion for order authorizing right of entry Court hearing on public purpose and necessity and use of quick take - City and County receive Phase II environmental reports County complete final plans and specifications City and County approve final plans and specifications City and County deposit or pay quick take amount ("Quick Take 10,2001 10,2001 15,2001 17,2001 2001 August20,2001 August30,2001 17,2001 17,2001 22,2001 October l0,2001 November 15, 2001 November l5,2001 December 1, 2001 December 15, 2001 December 17, 2001 Date") County solicit construction bids City start demolition gl County receive construction bids City finish demolition #1 City begin environmental remediation #1 County award construction contract RJL- 195880v4 MU200-92 C-1 January 5, 2002 January 20, 2002 February 1, 2002 February 20, 2002 March 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 -7480- TASK City begin demolition #2 City complete environmental remediation #1 City begin environmental remediation #2 City complete demolition #2 City complete environmental remediation #2 Construction start Construction completed TARGET COMPLETION DATE March 30, 2002 April 1, 2002 April 15, 2002 ~pril 30, 2002 May 15, 2002 May 15, 2002 November 1, 2002 RJL- 195880v4 MU200-92 C-2 -7481 - LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: KANDIS HANSON~ FROM: LEN HARRE . SUBJECT: MUTUAL AID PAC~T DATE: 5/18/01 ArrAcl-mD YOU mi.I. m~D r}m O~'ENING Famv~ ~'~,Gm OF nm mJ'ruAL Am .~am~.~mNT FOR ,m~ ~_~,aWEPI~ COUNTY CUmFS O}~ POZ. ICE ASSOCUCnON ZNr~ ~ SXGN~ ~Gm ~O~ AG~NT. ~ PAG~ ~T I ~ NOT INCL~ ~ A "~OURCE L~' FOR ~CH OF ~ 60 S ~D W~ IN ~:~,~ OF ~DA~G. TO ~ ~O~DGE ~E~ W~ NOT A FO~ ~c~ ~s~s~ ~ouo, ~q~ ~o~'oU~ ~~ c~~ ~. SE~ CHIEFS FROM O~ ORG~I~ON ~ I~O~ ~ ~DA~ ~ ~ ~o~Y ~ ~O~T pOL[C~ ~ ~m Sy ~~y ~OM.~ L~U~ O~ CmOS (~OUGH NOT LI~D AS A ~ER). T~ AG~E~NT O~'~ U~I~ON OF ~R AGEN~ ~OURC~ ~ D~~SpONsm~ ~D L~mt~ ISSU~ FOR DISAS~K ~AG~. THE SIGNITUILE PAGES AND RESOL~ON ARE NEEDED TO CONTINUE AS A PARTNER IN THE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT. -7482- HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEF'S OF POLICE ASSOCIATION MUTUAL AID PACT Effective Date: July 1, 2001 -7483- HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEF'S OF POLICE ASSOCIATION MUTUAL AID PACT Effective Date: July f, 2ool TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................... 4 JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................ 7 I. GENERAL PURPOSE .................................................................................... 7 II. DEFINITION OF TERMS .............................................................................................. 7 III. PARTIES ................................................................................................................... 8 IV. PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................ 8 VI LIABLITY ............................................................................ 10 VI. EFFECTIVE DA TE .................................................................................................. 10 VII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION ...................................................................... AVAILABLE RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 12 AIRPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT ................................................................................ 12 BLOOMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT .....................................................................15 BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT ............................................................. 17 BROOKLYN PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT .................................................................. 19 CHAMPLIN POLICE DEPARTMENT .............................................................................. 21 CORCORAN POLICE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................... 22 CRYSTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT ................................................................................ 24 DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT ................................................................................. 26 DEEPHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT .......................................................................... 27 EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT ....................................................................... 29 EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT ..................................................................................... 31 GOLDEN VALLEY PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT ........................................... 33 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ......................... .~ .......................................... 35 ADULT DETENTION DIVISION .................................................................................. 35 CIVIL PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 35 COURT SECURITY UNIT ........................................................................................... 36 CROWD CONTROL/CIVIL DISTURBANCES ............................................................. 36 INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION ........................................................................................ 36 UNIFORMED PATROL DIVISION ............................................................................... 38 WARRANT UNIT ......................................................................................................... 42 HENNEPIN PARKS PUBLIC SAFETY ........................................................................... 43 HOPKINS POLICE DEPARTMENT ............................................................... 44 MAPLE GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT .......................................... 46 MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT .................................................................................. 48 METRO TRANSIT POLICE DEPARTMENT ...................................................................49 MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................ 50 Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -7484- 2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNIT ............................................................................... 51 BOMB DISPOSAL UNIT ............................................................................................. 51 PRECINCTS AND DIVISIONS .................................................................................... 52 MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RESERVES ............................................................................. 53 MINNEAPOLIS PARK POLICE ...................................................................................... 54 MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................ 56 MINNETRISTA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT ......................................................... 58 MINNESOTA ARMY AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD ....................................................... 60 MINNESOTA WING HEADQUARTERS ......................................................................... 62 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT ................................................................................... 64 NEW HOPE POLICE DEPARTMENT ............................................................................. 66 ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT ................................................................................... 68 OSSEO POLICE DEPARTMENT ................................................................................... 70 PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT ............................................................................ 71 RICHFIELD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ......................................................... 73 ROBBINSDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT ....................................................................... 75 ROGERS POLICE DEPARTMENT ................................................................................. 77 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT ................................................. 78 ST. ANTHONY POLICE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................ 80 ST. LOUIS PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT .................................................................... 82 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA POLICE DEPARTMENT ............................................... 84 WAYZATA POLICE DEPARTMENT ........................................................................ 85 WEST HENNEPIN PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT .................................................... 86 SANIPLE RESOLUTION ........................................................................................................... 87 SIGNATURE PAGE .................................................................................................................. 88 Hennepin County Chiefs of Po~ice Association Mutua/ Aid Pact -7485- 3 HENNEPIN COUNTY' CHIEF'S OF POLICE. A~OCIA TION MUTUAL AID PACT Effective July 1, 2001 FOREWORD The Mutual Aid Committee of the Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association was tasked with revising and updating the mutual aid pact among all the police agencies of Hennepin County. The original pact was created in 1968 with the various agencies joining the pact throughout the years. Many provisions of the original pact were continued into the new pact. The Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment in Hennepin County ("Joint Powers Agreement") was updated to reflect accurately the procedures, address current issues and enhance the ability of departments to share resources with each other. Each agency's resources will be included in the new pact. The general purpose of the pact is to permit agencies to share law enforcement resources with other agencies in Hennepin County. The Joint Powers Agreement specifically allows a requesting party to select the resources that best meets the needs of a given situation. A requesting party may call upon any other participating party for mutual aid. There is no requirement to make requests through a particular party. In addition, the Joint Powers Agreement should not be interpreted as restrictive in providing resources to deal with only major catastrophic situations. Participating parties can utilize the resources ~or many reasons including routine circumstances such as training efforts and back-up patrol service. This pact provides the flexibility for all agencies to use the resources located among all participating parties in Hennepin County. The decision as to when to invoke mutual aid and whether to respond is left to the discretion of the requesting or responding party. Each agency should acquaint supervisory personnel with Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -7486- 4 any internal procedures used for mutual aid. While the Joint Powers Agreement does not require particular words or actions to initiate mutual aid, agencies should be clear about whether mutual aid was requested and what type of assistance is being provided. Furthermore, each officer within a department should have a basic familiarity with mutual aid, the responsibilities when reporting to another agency and the protections afforded under the agency's worker's compensation. Management of a mutual aid situation specifically remains under the control of the requesting party. The sending party retains direction and control of any personnel provided. Yet, the sending party must coordinate with the requesting party the law enforcement assistance provided. A reminder about the time commitments for mutual aid requests. While there is no hard and fast time limit, the commitment of resources can be taxing on agencies. And, in some situations, an advantage can be gained by ending a mutual aid request and entering into some contractual assistance. Especially when the law enforcement costs need to be tracked or can be recovered from other sources. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Department ("SherifF) has again volunteered to serve as the administrative coordinator of the pact. As communities adopt the Joint Power~ Agreement, the appropriate documentation and signature page need to be forwarded to the Sheriff. The Sheriff will maintain a current list of the participating parties. The Sheriff will also distribute updates on available resources. The effective date for the new Joint Powers Agreement is July 1, 2001. This date was established to allow enough time for agencies to receive the appropriate authority and to Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -7487- provide some finality between the old pact and the new pact. When a party elects to enter into the new Joint Powers Agreement, their participation in the old pact will cease on July 1, 2001. Some agencies may elect to not participate in this pact; those agencies would be bound under other mutual aid agreements or state statutes. Again, this pact should be viewed as a means whereby participating parties may receive any needed assistance from other law enforcement agencies when such a request is made. The Mutual Aid Committee of the Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association; Chief Joel Downer, Brooklyn Center Chief Dean Mooney, Metro Transit Chief Dan Scott, Richfield Chief Jim Welna, Airport (MAC) Director Tim Turnbull, Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Mr. John Kedrowski, MAC Associate Attorney Mr. Scott Williams, Richfield Emergency Preparedness Captain Bill Chandler, Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Joni Schauer, Metro Transit Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -7488- 6 JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT I. GENERAL PURPOSE The general purpose of this Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment ("Agreement") is to provide a means by which a Party to this Agreement may request and obtain Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties when the Party deems such assistance necessary. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, which authorizes the joint and cooperative exercise of powers common to the Parties. I1. DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings: Subd. 1. "Eligible Party" means a governmental unit that is permitted to become a Party to this agreement, at its own option. The Eligible Parties are the County of Hennepin and every governmental unit authorized to exercise police powers within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Subd. 2. "Law Enforcement Assistance" means equipment and personnel, including but not limited to, licensed peace officers and non-licensed personnel. Subd. 3. "Party"means a governmental unit that elects to participate in this Agreement. Subd. 4. "Requesting Official" means a person who is designated by the Requesting Party to request Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties. Subd. 5. "Requesting Party" means a Party that requests Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties. Subd. 6. "Sending Official" means a person who is designated by a Party to determine whether and to what extent that Party should provide Law Enforcement Assistance to a Requesting Party. Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -7489- 7 Subd. 7. "Sending Parry" means a Party that provides Law Enforcement Assistance to a Requesting Party. Subd. 8. "Sheriff" means the Hennepin County Sheriff or designee. III. PARTIES The Parties to this Agreement shall consist of as many Eligible Parties that approve this Agreement and execute a separate signature page to become Parties. Upon approval, the executed signature page of this Agreement shall be sent to the Sheriff along with a certified copy of the documentation evidencing approval. Approval of this Agreement by a Party shall be evidenced by: · for a municipality, a resolution adopted by the governing body, or · for a non-municipality, a resolution adopted by the governing body or a letter executed by an official with sufficient authority to bind that party which recites the basis of that authority. IV. PROCEDURE Subd. 1. Each Party shall designate, and keep on file with the Sheriff, the name of the person(s) of that Party who shall be its Requesting Official and Sending Official. A Party may designate the same person as both the Requesting Official and the Sending Official. Also, a Party may designate alternate persons to act in the absence of an official. Subd. 2. Whenever, in the opinion of a Requesting Official of a Party, there is a need for Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties, such Requesting Official may, at their discretion, call upon the Sending Official of any other Party to furnish Law Enforcement Assistance to and within the boundaries of the Requesting Party. Subd. 3. Upon the receipt of a request for Law Enforcement Assistance from a Party, the Sending Official may authorize and direct personnel of the Sending Party to provide Law Enforcement Assistance to the Requesting Party. Whether the Sending Party provides such Law Enforcement Assistance to the Requesting Party and, if so, to what extent such Law Enforcement Assistance is provided shall be determined solely by the Sending Official (subject to such supervision and direction as may be applicable within the governmental structure of the Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -7490- Party by which they are employed). Failure to provide Law Enforcement Assistance will not result in liability to a Party. Subd. 4. When a Sending Party provides Law Enforcement Assistance under the terms of this agreement, it may in turn request Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties as "back-up" during the time that such Law Enforcement Assistance is provided. Subd. 5. Whenever a Sending Party has provided Law Enforcement Assistance to a Requesting Party, the Sending Official may at any time recall such Law Enforcement Assistance or any part thereof, if the Sending Official in their best judgment deems such recall necessary to provide for the best interests of their community. Such action will not result in liability to any Party. Subd. 6. The Requesting Party shall be in command of all situations where Law Enforcement Assistance is requested. The Sending Party shall coordinate with the Requesting Party the Law Enforcement Assistance that it provides. Subd. 7. When a Sending Party supplies personnel to a Requesting Party, such personnel shall remain under the direction and control of the Sending Party; shall be subject to the policies and procedures of the Sending Party; shall be paid by the Sending Party; shall be protected by the worker's compensation of the Sending Party; and shall otherwise be deemed to be performing their regular duties for the Sending Party. Subd. 8. A Sending Party shall be responsible for its own personnel, equipment, and supplies and for injuries or death to any such personnel or damage to any such equipment or supplies. Unused equipment and supplies shall be returned to the Sending Party by the Requesting Party when circumstances permit. Each party waives the right to sue any other Party for any worker's compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Party, its officers, employees or volunteers. Subd. 9. A Sending Party shall demand no charges or costs for Law Enforcement Assistance rendered under this Agreement. Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact I~ff~'fit/~' . hd~/ I ~Dnl -7491 - 9 VI LIABLITY The Requesting Party shall not be responsible for any injuries, losses or damages to persons or property arising out of the acts of any of the personnel of a Sending Party nor shall the Sending Party be responsible for any injuries, losses or damages arising out of the acts of any personnel of the Requesting Party or the personnel of any other Sending Party. No Party shall be responsible for injuries, deaths, losses or damages arising out of the actions of Law Enforcement Personnel of any other Party. By entering into this Agreement, the Parties are not waiving any provisions or liability limitations established in Chapter 466, Minnesota Statutes. For purposes of efficiency and similar interests, any Party to this Agreement may enter into an agreement with another Party for defending any claim arising out of the Parties' participation in mutual aid. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall become effective and operative beginning July 1, 2001, 12:01 A.M., local time, for those Eligible Parties that have provided resolutions and executed documents to the Sheriff by that date. An Eligible Party may join the Agreement after July 1, 2001, by providing the necessary documents to the Sheriff. This Agreement shall continue in force until a Party or this Agreement terminates under the provisions of Section VII. Upon the beginning date of this Agreement or any time after the beginning date that an Eligible Party joins, this Agreement shall supersede, replace and void for the Party the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Police Personnel and Equipment, dated 1968, that provides for mutual aid. The Sheriff shall maintain a current list of the Parties to this Agreement and, whenever there is a change, shall notify the designated Sending Officials. The Sheriff shall send a copy of each Party's executed signature page to all Parties of this Agreement. Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact l~ti~/~' . hdv 'I 9DD"I -7492- 10 VII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION A Party may withdraw at any time upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the Sheriff. The Sheriff shall thereupon give notice of such withdrawal, and of the effective date thereof, to all other parties. Parties that have withdrawn may rejoin after executing the appropriate resolution and document. This Agreement will terminate when the number of Parties to the Agreement falls below eleven (11 ). End of Agreement Hennepin County ChieFs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact -7493- 11 City of Mound RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. A Resolution Adopting the Joint And Cooperative Agreement For Use Of Law Enforcement Personnel And Equipment of July 1, 2001 From the Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact WHEREAS, the City of Mound has previously approved and participated in a mutual aid agreement between the police agencies within Hennepin County to provide cooperative use of police personnel and equipment; and WHEREAS, such agreement was most recently approved by the Council in May, 2001 and WHEREAS, the participating governmental units have determined that it is advisable to clarify and update the language of that agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, by the City of Mound, that the Joint and Cooperative Agreement For Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment, ("Agreement") dated July 1, 2001 from the Hennepin County Chief's of Police Association be approved; that the City of Mound is withdrawing from the previous Hennepin County Mutual Aid Agreement on the effective date in the new Agreement and that Mayor Patricia Meisel is authorized and directed to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Mound as a participating member of the Agreement. Passed by a vote of ayes and nays this __ day of ,2001. AYES NAYS~ ABSENT~ ABSTENTIONS Authorized Signature Witness -7494- HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEF'S OF POLICE ASSOCIATION MUTUAL AID PACT SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Joint Powers Agreement to be executed for the police agency for the City of Mound. Dated: By: Title: Witness: Title: -7495- Final MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Council From: City Manager Subject: Suggestions for Task Force on Island Park Public Facility At the May 8 council meeting you directed me to report back to you with suggestions concerning a task force that might be convened to make recommendations to the council about Island Park Hail and the parks maintenance shop also located on the property. BACKGROUND The proper disposition of the Island Park Hall, built in 1936, has been a topic of consideration for quite some time. Prompted, at least in part, by the deteriorating condition of the structure, the Parks and Open Space Advisory Commission began discussing the matter in late 1997. In the time since then no less that 17 meetings of the commission have included significant discussion about the repair and future uses of the hall and, to a lesser degree, the city maintenance shop. Because of a number of criticai problems such as roof, windows, basement and mechanicai plant, much of the discussion focused on these items. However, the commission did take the oppommity to do some visioning, and to consider the possibility of major improvements to the building. The commission also gave thought to the potential uses for the hall. In 1998 the commission retained Vedi Associates, Inc. to conduct a Visuai Condition Audit of the hall. The report also contained a list of suggested events and functions for the upgraded hall. The list contained the following: · Family oriented birthday parties along with outdoor activities · Small wedding parties · Neighborhood group meetings · Family resource center · Council activities · City election voting station · Special neighborhood oriented council meeting · Conference center for smail businesses · Technology center · Daycare center · Adult/Special educational seminars · Special computer courses · Continuing education learning center · City department conference center · Aerobic classes -7496- Although the list contains a number of desirable and worthwhile uses, it is not clear that it was the product of any canvassing of the needs or wishes of the community. There may also be other uses that would be suitable in an upgraded hall. The Vedi Audit also was not designed to examine any possible linkage or combination of the hall with the maintenance shop. CURRENT POSTURE The considerable efforts of the POSAC have presented the council with interrelated and difficult questions. The ones that immediately come to mind include. 2. 3. 4. a host of Should the hall be preserved in whole or in part, or should a new structure be built. At what price. Is Historical Register designation possible, desirable, should it be sought. Should the structure be designed to fit the uses or should the uses be conformed to fit the structure. What is the most cost-effective way to put the property back in use. What accommodation should be given to the landmark stature of the hall. What options are available for financing whatever is done. Although the work of POSAC has brought us to this point, I believe it is important that much of the further work in examining these and other issues, and in making suggestions to the council be done by an independent task force. Input from a broad-based community oriented group that can view this matter from a multitude of perspectives will be an important addition to the work of POSAC. It will also give the council a public perspective on financing any work on hall. THE TASK FORCE The task force should be representative of those groups or interests that are most impacted by any decision that might be made. I see the following "clusters" of groups or interest. · The island view neighborhood · Parks and recreation · City facilities · Community facilities · "Other" The council may have other groups or interests in mind as well. I recommend that these "clusters" be represented on the task force in the following manner. · The neighborhood be represented by a resident of the neighborhood selected by the council. · Parks and recreation be represented by a member of POSAC selected by POSAC. · City facilities be represented by an employee of the parks department selected by me. -7497- · Community facilities be represented by an individual selected by me following input from community groups and organizations including the schools, WECAN and the chamber. Representation for the members of the community that are not impacted by what may happen with the hall, except for possibly paying taxes to support what is done should be considered. I suggest that the council make the selection of such a person. The council may have other ideas concerning the task force makeup. I do recommend that, at least initially the number of members be kept small (perhaps 5-7). The task force may wish to augment its numbers as the matter progresses, but that should be up to them. As the council considers how to proceed on this matter, I would like you to all keep in mind that we are also in the process of beginning a general physical evaluation of all most of the city assets. You should expect that the analysis will likely result in a number of recommendations concerning the need to upgrade, renovate and, in some cases, replace current assets. Whatever recommendations are received from a task force on the Island Park Public Facility may have to be considered along with the other capital needs of the city. -7498- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 May 11, 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: REF-. Mayor/City Council GJ~dFe~knel:r~OPrarnakm.Dlni~eOc~O~'~rk~fa~ilities. As the City Council requested the POSAC has looked at reducing the previous guidelines from three pages to one. Attached you will find their new recommended guidelines that also had input from John Deans, City ~ttorney. _7499_'c'~""~r GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING THE NAME OF PARK FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA The purpose for these guidelines is to establish a procedure for the naming and approving of Park and Recreation Facilities with the City of Mound. The guidelines should not be viewed as mandates and the City Council may, in its reasonable judgement, depart from them in appropriate situations. Contributor. This can be an individual or organization that has contributed financially to the acquisition and/or development of the Park and Recreation System. Location. The name should fit the neighborhood. A Famous American or Prominent Citizen. Recognition shall not be ordinarily considered until termination of service or death. Occasion. A special event in history. Service. An individual living or dead who has significantly served the community above and beyond the call of duty. II. GUIDELINES FOR NAME OF FACILITIES AND PROVIDING MEMORIALS WITH THE PARKS. FACILITIES WITHIN THE PARK Facilities within a park can be named for an individual or organization who has made a significant donation of funds for the construction of the facility or has contributed service to the community. Examples of such facilities would include: Athletic Fields Tennis Courts Swim Pools Ice Arena Buildings Golf Course Wild Life Area The percentage of donation should ordinarily be at least 50% of the estimated cost of the facility when new, not including cost of the land. - , Service contributions to be eligible, would also be significant, generally at least 10 years of service to recreation in the City and a period of at least two years has passed from the, termination of service or the death of the individual .... MEMORIALS Memorials to deceased residents may be given. Objects (trees, benches, etc., and the size and material of the plaques( will be selected from a city list, and will be ordered, installed and maintained by the city. -75-00- Docks and Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 5__. DISCUSS' FISHING ACCESS/DESIGNATED AREAS MOTION by Goldberg, seconded by Jones 1. The Dock and Commons Commission is in favor of providing more fishing areas to Mound children, if a demand is determined. 2. The Docks and Commons Commission is opposed to fishing docks that would be set in front of resident's houses for the sole purpose of fishing. Dockage for fishing purposes should be in a residential setting. The Docks and Commons Commission is in favor of a communication program within the context of the City of Mound to establish a program to encourage dock and lakeshore residents to open up access to neighborhood kids, if a demand is determined. 4. The Docks and Commons Commission is to consider investigating a program to coordinate volunteers to take Mound children fishing. The Docks and Commons Commission encourages the Park Commission to address this issue and the Docks and Commission will work with the Parks Commission on this issue MOTION carried unanimously. -7501 - R~ 27 Z001 1Z:00:15 Vi~ P~× -> fldninistrator FRIDAYFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Pa~e 881 0£ 882 Number 17 April 27, 2001 PERA legislation advances in Senate, stalls in House Contact your House member The recommendations of the Legislation Commission on Pensions & Retirement to address the PERA coordinated plan deficiency have stalled in the House. Legislative inaction could increase the PERA coordinated plan's shortfall by an additional ,$70 million each year. League discussions with key mem- bers of the House indicate that the rank and file House membership currently does not believe the pension issue is a high priority. Although a delayed legislative response may )revent immediate pressure on ~erty taxes to fund the necessary contribution increases, the funding deficiency will not magically disap- pear. tn fact, the ultimate cost will only continue to rise. Action Needed Please contact your House member'. · Urge them to address the PERA coordinated plan deficiency this year. · Aisc, urge them to approve an annual state contribution to the plan to reduce pressure on local property taxes. In the past, the state has contributed state resources to other plans to assist with those funding deficiencies. Given that the state sets benefit levels and contribution rates, we believe state assistance to the PERA shortfall is justified. On Wednesday, the Senate State ~ment Committee merged the major pension bills and approved the bill including provisions that will begin to address the PERA coordi- hated plan's funding deficiency. Under the Senate bill, employer contributions would increase by 0.35 percent beginning on Jan; 1,2002, and an additional 0.35 percent on Jan. 1, 2003. Employee contributions would be increased by equivalent amounts. The Senate bill also appropriates a mere $2 million in state resources to reduce the needed employer/ employee contribution increases and would make modifications to the plan that will, over time, help address the fund's deficiency. These plan modifications include the implementation of a partial service credit and a delay in the amortiza- tion date until 2031. Although Education Minnesota, the state's teacher's union, has opposed a provision that would transfer school PERA employees to their retirement fund, the Senate bill still contains the transfer language. A Pension Commission recommendation that would have transferred the funding of excess mortality costs from the active fund to the post fund was eliminated from the final Senate bill. Tax committees delay omnibus bills The House Tax Committee has delayed the release of its omnibus tax bill until Monday. The delay was apparently forced by disagreement among House Republicans about the content of the bill, including the magnitude of income tax cuts and property tax reform. The bill will apparently contain many of the property tax reforms pro- posed bythe governor, including additional property tax class rate compression, a state takeover of the general ed ucation property tax levy, and a new state-imposed property tax that will be applied to businesses and possibly cabins. We believe it is likely that the House will use city HACA to pay for the state takeover of the general education levy, butwe believe it is unlikely cities will be granted a sales tax exemption for their purchases. The bill will likely contain a reverse referendum provision for counties and cities over 2,500 population. The reverse referendum would require that a city hold an election if a number of citizens equal to 5 per- cent that voted in the last general election sign a petition challenging a property tax levy increase. If the voters do not support the levy increase, the city's levy would be reduced to the previous year's amount. On Monday morning, the committee chair will unveil the bill and the members will walk through the initial draft. On Tuesday, the committee will take public testimony on the bill. On Wednesday, the committee will mark up the bill. The Senate Tax Committee still has not unveiled the specifics of their bill. We expect the Senate will finalize their bill in the near future. Currently, the Senate may be considering changes to the LGA formula and appropriation, additional property class rate compression, and at least a partial state takeover of general education property taxes. The Senate bill will not likely contain levy limits, nor will it contain a reverse referendum. The sales tax exemption for local government purchases has not been ruled out, but the bill might only contain an For more information on city legislative issues, contact an3' member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team, (651) v~l ~nt~ ^. ~oo~ 925-1122 Apr 27 2881 12:81:18 Via Fax -> Administrator Page 882 Of 882 FRIDAYFAX 27, 2001 ~ P,~E 2 exemption for certain purchases or a reduction in the sales tax rate applied to city purchases. Redevelopment Account lacks adequate funding Early indications of legislative support for state funding for redevelopment activities now appears to be in question. Early in the session, Rep. Bob Gunther (R-Fairmont) and Sen. Randy Kelly (DFL-5't. Paul) introduced legislation that would have appropriated $15 million for the Department of Trade and Economic Development's (DTED) Redevelopment Account. Unfortu- nately, funding anywhere near this level has not been included in the omnibus bills. The House Omnibus Jobs & Eco- nomic Development Finance bill does not contain an appropriation for the program, while the Senate has provided only $1.5 million. Efforts are underway to obtain funding through state bonding proceeds, but an appropriation is still critical. Please contact your legislators and share your concerns with the apparent lack of adequate funding for DTED's Redevelopment Account. House approves keg registration On Monday, the House approved on a 114-20 vote a bill introduced by Rep. Steve Dehler's (R-St. Joseph) that would enable beer kegs to be traced back to their original purchaser. While similar legislation has been introduced in the past, this is the first time it has made it all the way to the floor. Much of this success is attributable to support from several liquor industry trade groups. Others supporting the bill included the League of Minnesota Cities, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and organi- zations representing youth concerned with underage drinking. The Senate companion bill never made its way through the channels in that body, but the omnibus liquor bill still awaits floor action and is a possible vehicle for a keg registra- tion amendment. Transportation update House and Senate finance and tax committees reviewed and passed their respective omnibus transporta- tion bills this week, SF 2340 (Johnson, D., DFL-Willmar) and HF 2189 (Molnau, R-Chaska). The Senate bill is expected to be discussed on the floor Friday. The House will most likely take up their version of the transportation omni- bus bill on Tuesday. Aisc next week, each body will appoint five members for the conference committee, whi¢ will likely start at the end of the week. See next week's Bulletin for additional information, or contact Jennifer O'Rourke at (651) 281-1261 or jorou rke@lmnc.org. League of Minnesota Cities 200 I Annual Conference LMC's 88'~ Annual Conference June 19-22, 2001 Duluth, Minnesota c hall::en,l,e. con,ne'Cc REGISTER Attend LMC's premier conference event of the year and renew your ideas, enerD; and commitment to your ciD"s leadership. Registration information was mailed to your ciT' clerk--check the March/April or May issues of Minnesota Cities ma~zine for more details, or register online right now at www. lnmc. o~. Mark your calendar and we'll see you in Duluth in fune~ Conference Highlights: · Outstanding speakers - Camille Cares Barnett, Ph.D. ~id~6, rt,~ardtd a~ one of America} mv~t taknted city - Rod Rlymond Duluth tria&kte and OOmpian · LMC's Web For Cides &e elected officiaa' introduczion ONLINE ANYTIME: -7503- · Topics co suit every cky · Door Prizes every city can really use · LMC BayFronc Blues and Cruise ° City Nigh~ ar the Great Lakes Aquarium WWW. LMNC.ORG Mau 04 2801 15t08:14 Uia Fax -> ~Sministrator FRIDAYFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Page 8B1 0£ 082 Number 18 May 4, 2001 House To Act on Tax Bill--Senate in Limbo? On the floor today, the House of Representatives will consider its version of the omnibus tax bill. With only a little more than two weeks remaining in the regular session, the Senate Tax Committee has yet to unveil its version of the omnibus tax bill. As of Friday morning, the Senate Tax Committee has a hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m. today. However, if the week's activities follow suit and rumors of a lack of Senate progress on a direction for their tax bill are true, the hearing could very well be cancelled. This lack of progress is rather unprecedented. As described in this week's edition Cities Bulletin, the most inent feature of the House omnibus tax bill is the property tax reform article. The House plan includes many of the ideas contained in the governor's Big Plan reform initiative, including a state takeover of the K-12 general education levy and significant property class rate compression. To fund the $880 million cost of the levy takeover, House plan uses state resources, including city HACA, to fund the state-deter- mined portion of school finance. The loss of city HACA is offset by a total increase in city LGA of $104 million. The House bill includes two years of law limits--for taxes payable in 2002 and 2003. After levy limits expire, a new reverse referendum process is enacted that would allow voters to challenge levy increases. The provision would require cities over 2,500 population to hold a reverse ~rendum on a levy increase if a )etition is signed by a number of voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the last general election. Although the bill is not pretty for cities, perhaps a saving grace is the projected net impact on taxpayers. Overall, House Research analysis of the impact of the bill shows that net property taxes paid by all broad classes of property in all regions of the state are reduced. These esti- mated reductions are based on the assumption that all cities will increase their property tax levies to replace 100 percent of the lost HACA. The House bill includes more than 550 pages of tax changes. We will be working to moderate the content of the bill. Please see this week's edition of the Cities Bulletin for a more complete description of the bill or contact Gary Carlson at the League. PERA Pension provisions move forward in House Last evening, Rep. Harry Mares (R-White Bear Lake) offered an amendment to State Government Finance Committee Chair Phil Krinkie's omnibus state departments bill that will begin to address the PERA coordinated plan's projected deficiency. Rather unexpectedly, Rep. Mares was able to secure $8.9 million for each of the first two years to offset the need for employer and employee contribution increases. The amendment was signed and supported by Rep. Krinkie, a fiscal conservative who frequently chal- lenges state spending increases. Amendments to omnibus bills must maintain fiscal balance of the entire bill. The additional $18 million to fund the state contribution to PERA was generated by funding a Depart- ment of Revenue budget request to increase their income tax filing compliance efforts. Apparently, the department had estimated the increased compliance efforts would raise $9 million per year. The amendment includes plan modifications supported by the League, including a partial service credit adjustment for part-time employees and a delay in the plan's full-funding amortization date. The employer contribution will be increased by .35 percent beginning Jan. 1,2002. Employee contribu- tions will be increased by a similar amount. The amendment did not include a second employer/ employee increase for 2003. The Senate bill must still clear the Senate Finance Committee. That bill contains a smaller $2 million annual state appropriation and a .7 percent increase in the employer and employee contribution phased- in over two years. The committee was scheduled to hear the bill on Wednesday; however, the meeting ended unexpectedly when a hand- gun conceal-carry amendment was offered to another bill on the agenda. The Finance Committee may meet early next week. For more information on c#y legislative issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota (6s~ 2,]_ 7504_oo) 925-1122 Conference committee schedule With just two weeks remaining in the legislative session, the confer- ence committees will most likely begin their work next week. Confer- ence committee members should be announced in the next few days. Chief authors of the bills are almost always chairs of the conference committee and the lead negotiator for their side. At this point, lobbying efforts can be directed to them. Conferring this year's omnibus bills will be a juggling act. Senate and Cities Intergovernmental Relations team, May 84 2881 15:09:18 Via Fax -> ~dministrator Page 882 0£ 082 FRIDAYFAX MAY 4, 2001 m P,~E 2 House budget bills do not line up directly between committees: for example Sen. Cohen's State Government, Economic Development & Judiciary Budget Committee lines up with three committees on the House side. Nevertheless, the following is an educated guess on howthe bills will line up. (Bill numbers with an asterisk indicate which bill is actually moving.) · Omnibus Transportation Bill SF 2340'/HF 2189--Sen, D.E. Johnson (DFL-Willmar): Rep. Molanu (R-Chaska) · Omnibus Environment & Natural Resources/Agriculture Bill SF 2351'/HF 765 (also, HF 1266 Ag.)mSen. Price (DFL-Woodbury); Rep. Holsten (R-Stillwater); Rep. Ness, Ag. (R-Dassel)) · Omnibus Economic Development Bill SF 2360'/HF 2486'--Sen. Cohen (DFL-St. Paul): Rep. McEIroy (R-Burnsville) · Omnibus State Departments Bill SF 2360'/HF 218roSen, Cohen (DFL-St, Paul): Rep. Phil Krinkie (R-Shoreview) · Omnibus Corrections/Judiciary Bill SF 2361/HF 351--Sen. Berglin (DFL-Minneapolis); Rep. Stanek (R-Maple Grove) · Omnibus Health & Human Services Bill SF 2361/HF 1832--Sen. Berglin (DFL-Minneapolis); Rep. Goodno (R-Moorhead) · Omnibus Bonding Bill SF 1402/HF 1266--Sen. Langseth (DFL-Glydon); Rep. Ness, (R-Dassel) (Ag. bill substituted as bonding bill.) Sign up for the LMC legislative issues listerv Sign up for the up-and-running Intergovernmental Relations Legislative Listserv! Visit the LMC web site at www. lmnc. org/forms/llstserv, cfm to sign up and receive periodic up-to- the-minute leg islative news, We hope members will find this service especially informative as the Legislature completes its work over the next few weeks. League of Minnesota Cities 200 I Annual Conference LMC's 88'~ Annual Conference June 19-22, 2001 Duluth, Minnesota · ~t'~r~', ~l ~:,', c hall:e..nge. c o n.ne"c ; .... '.*;".;:?:::i.', .mn.ua Attend LMC's premier conference event of the year and renew your ideas, ener~; and commitment to your ci~"s leadership. Registration information was mailed ro your civ clerk---check the March/April or May issues of Minnesota Cities maDzine for more details, or register online right now at w~v. lmnc. org. Mark your calendar and we'll see you in Duluth in ~unel Conference Highlights: · Ourstandin~ speakers - Camille Caces Barnett, Ph.D. widely regarded a~ one of America's mvsz talented city manager~ - Rod Raymond Duluth tria~hlete and Olympian · LMC's web For Cities the elected official/introduction ~J z'-,~ouo"'nrnenl~ · Topics to suit every city · Door Prizes every ci£y can really use ' LMC Bay(font Blues and Cruise ' City Nit. hr ar the Great Lakes Aquarium REGISTER ONLINE ANYTIME: WWW. LMNC.ORG -7505- May OB 2001 14:34:13 Via Fax -) fldninistrator Page 001 §£ 903 LSIC 14.~ t.!T,iVUrgil.v /\venue \VeSt, SI. ILml, M IX' 5.51().3-2()44 lq,uT,e: (051 ) 2.8 I- I 2.()() ' (8()()) !')2~- I 1'2'2. I-'~,,~: (05 I) 281 -1299 ° 'I'D[) (0.5 I) 281 - 1290 May 8, 2001 SHOOTING RANGE LEGISLATION: IN BLACK AND WHITE It has been brought to my attention several legislators are telling their cities that the LMC is distributing misleading information regarding the shooting range amendment. The following is the text of the amendment as adopted by the House. Please read it. A simple reading of the amendment will let you know whether the amendment simply prohibits cities from adopting an ordinance to close down a shooting range, or whether the amendment is far more broad than that simple concept. While many legislators ma)' have voted for the simple concept of protecting shooting ranges from local government ordinances, the effect of the amendment is much more complex. It exempts shooting ranges from ever)' single future local ordinance a city may choose to implement. It prohibits any public or private nuisance lawsuits. It sets the noise standards to those established by the MPCA, only. It requires the DNR to be the sole arbiter as to whether a shooting range is dangerous to adjacent property. And if the DNR says it is dangerous, a range may only be closed if it is dangerous to adjacent NEW development. And if so requested, when possible the local government mus~ relocate the range and use eminent domain to acquire the new site. Finally, cities should view this amendment as being about whether land use decisions and balancing all property owners rights and interests should be done at the local level or be pre-empted by the state. Contact me at 651.281.12256 or rstone@lmnc.or~ if you have an)' questions or concerns. Thanks. Remi SHOOTING RANGE AMENDMENT: Hackbarth; Mahoney; Howes; Milbert; Dempsey; Sviggum; Tuma; Wenzel; Rukavina; Boudreau; Erickson; Finseth; Bakk; Walz; Solberg; Larsoa; Clark, J.; Kielkucki; Holberg; Schumacher; Smith and Seifert moved to amend S. F. No. 2351, the unofficial engrossment, as amended, as follows: Page 55, after line 4, insert: "Sec. 28. [87A.01] [DEFINITIONS.] Subdivision 1. [APPLICABILITY.] The definitions in this section apply to sections 87A.01 to 87A.06. Subd. 2. [PERSON.] "Person" means an individual, association, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, club, political subdivision, or other legal entity. Subd. 3. [SHOOTING RANGE OR RANGE.] "Shooting range" or "range" means an area or facility designated or operated for the use of firearms as defined in section 97A.015, subdivision 19, or archery, and includes shooting preserves as described in section 97A.115 or an)' other Minnesota law. Subd. 4. [GENERALLY ACCEPTED OPERATION PRACTICES.] "Generally accepted operation practices" means those voluntary guidelines adopted by the commissioner of natural resources for the safe operation of AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/A~_7506_ ACTION EMPLOYER May 08 2001 14:34:50 Via Fax -> fidminis~rator ~age 002 0£ 003 shooting ranges. In developing the guidelines, the commissioner shall consult with range operators. The generally accepted operation practices shall be reviewed at least every five years by the commissioner of natural resources and revised as the commissioner considers necessary for safe operation of a shooting range. The commissioner shall adopt initial guidelines by July 1, 2001. Subd. 5. [UNIT OF GOVERNMENT.] "Unit of government" means a home rule charter or statutory city, county, town, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities. Sec. 29. [87.~02] [LOCAL ORDINANCES; EXISTING OPERATIONS.] (a) A shooting range that is in operation and is in material compliance with existing law at the time of the enactment of an ordinance ora unit of government affecting, directly or indirectly, operation or use of a shooting range must be permitted to continue in operation even if the operation of the shooting range at a later date does not conform to the new ordinance or an amendment to an existing ordinance. (b) A shooting range that operates in material compliance with generally accepted operation practices, even if not in compliance with an ordinance ora unit of government affecting, directly or indirectly, operation or use of a shooting range, must be permitted to do all of the following within its geographic boundaries if done in accordance with generally accepted operation practices: (1) repair, remodel, improve, replace, construct, or reinforce any conforming or nonconforming building or structure as may be necessary or desirable in the interest of safety or to secure the continued use of the range, building, or structure; (2) reconstruct, repair, restore, remodel, improve, replace, or resume the use of any conforming or nonconforming building or structure damaged by fire, collapse, erosion, explosion, act of God, or act of war; and (3) do anything not prohibited by generally accepted operation practices, including: (i) expand or increase its membership or opportunities for public participation; and (ii) make those repairs or improvements necessary or desirable under generally accepted operation practices. (c) Nothing in sections 87A.01 to 87A.06 exempts any newly constructed or remodeled building on a shooting range from compliance with fire safety, handicapped accessibility, elevator safety, bleacher safety, or other provisions of the State Building Code that have mandatory statewide application. Sec. 30. [87A.03] [CLOSING OR RELOCATING SHOOTING RANGES; PAYMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS.] Subdivision 1. [WHEN CAN CLOSE OR RELOCATE.] A shooting range may be closed under subdivision 3, or relocated under subdivision 4, by a state agency or unit ofgovernment only it', because of new, permitted development of adjacent land, the range becomes a clear, immediate, and proven safety hazard to the adjacent population and it cannot be brought into material compliance with generally accepted operation practices with range or operation improvements. Subd. 2. [PROCEDURE.] The clear and immediate safety hazard must be proven at a contested case hearing. The hearing must be held after the commissioner provides notice to the owner and operator of the shooting range that includes a clear and precise statement of the factual basis for alleging a safety hazard. The owner and operator of the shooting range must be given an opportunity to be heard and meet the allegation. The commissioner must make written findings and conclusions as to the hazard and whether range improvements can bring the range into material compliance with the generally accepted operation practices. If the commissioner concludes that there is a clear and immediate safety hazard and the operation of the shooting range can be brought into material compliance with the generally accepted operating practices with range improvements, the state agency or unit of government that permitted the development must pay for the range improvements. Subd. 3. [CLOSURE.] Ifa clear and immediate safety hazard is proven as required under subdivisions 1 and 2, a shooting range may be closed by the state agency or the unit ofgovernment if the agency or unit of -7507- government closing the shooting range pays the fair market value of the range operation as a going concern to the operators and the fair market value of the land, including improvements, to the owner of the land. Subd. 4. [RELOCATION.] Upon request by the operator of the shooting range, the agency or unit of government must relocate the shooting range to a suitable new location il' available. The agency or unit of government may use its power of eminent domain to acquire the new location. Subd. 5. [TRANSFER OF TITLE.] The shooting range owner and operator shall transfer their interests in the property to the agency or unit of government after full and final payment under subdivision 3, or after the relocation is completed under subdivision 4. Sec. 31. [87A.04] [IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION; NUISANCE LIABILITY.] In all relevant actions, there shall exist an irrebuttable presumption that a shooting range that is conducted in material compliance with generally accepted operation practices is not a public or private nuisance and does not otherwise invade or interfere with the use and enjoyment of any other land or property. Sec. 32. [87A.05] [SHOOTING RANGES; NOISE STANDARDS.] A person who owns or operates or uses a shooting range in this state is subject only to the noise standards set forth in Minnesota Rules, part 7030.0040, subpart 2, in effect on March 1, 1999. Sec. 33. [87A.06] [NUISANCE ACTIONS; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED OPERATION PRACTICES.] .a. person who owns, operates, or uses a shooting range in this state which is in material compliance with generally accepted operation practices is not subject to any action for nuisance, and no court of this state may enjoin or restrain the use or operation of such a range. This section does not prohibit an action for personal injury resulting from recklessness or negligence in the operation of the range or bv a person using the range in a reckless or negligent manner. -7508- -) FRIDAYFAX A weekly legislative update fram the League of Minnesota Cities Page-08~ Of 082 Number May 11,2001 Senate Tax Committee passes tax bill On Wednesday, the Senate Tax Committee adopted their version of the omnibus tax bill with $609 mil- lion of tax relief and spending. The bill will be considered on the Senate floor today and conference commit- tee could begin as early as tonight or Saturday. The Senate tax bill will increase the overall state share of K-12 education costs by $100 million. That amount is significantly lower than the House proposal to assume 100 percent of the state's general education costs, which is closer to $900 million per year. Unlike the House bill and the governor's recommendations, the Senate bill does not establish a new state property tax to generate general fund revenues. The largest piece of the Senate property tax reform and relief article is the reconstituted and expanded homestead credit. Under current law, the education homestead credit pays 83 percent of the general education levy on homes, up to a $390 maximum. The new Senate homestead credit is equal to .5 per- cent of the market value of each home up to a $620 maximum. The bill will also provide property tax relief by increasing the appropriation for LGA by $30 million. The LGA formula will include several factor changes that will modify the distribu- tion of the LGA pool. in contrast to the House tax bill that will eliminate HACA for cities, the Senate will preserve HACA by folding a signifi- cant amount of the base appropria- tion into the LGA formula. The Senate bill does not contain the governor's recommendation for the general sales tax exemption for local governments, nor does it contain any of the specific local government capital project sales tax exemptions. The bill does contain authority for local sales taxes for the cities of Cloquet, Hermantown, Beaver Bay, Fairmont and the joint proposal for the cities of St. Cloud, Sartell, Sauk Rapids, Waite Park, St. Joseph, and St. Augusta. Unlike the House tax bill, the Senate's property tax reform article does not currently contain levy limits or a reverse referendum provision. The Senate bill will focus much of its property tax relief on mid-value homes. In addition to the revised homestead credit, the Senate bill increases the first tier of home value at the 1 percent tax capacity rate from the current $76,000 to $200,000. The value over $200,000 is reduced from the current 1.65 percent to 1.5 percent. The House places all homestead value at 1 percent. Smaller tax cuts will be provided to businesses, cabins, and apartment properties. The first tier preferential commercial and industrial class rate would be raised to the first $300,000 of market value and reduced from 2.4 percent to 2.0 percent. The value over $300,000 would have the class rate reduced to 3 percent. The class rate for large apartments would be reduced from 2.4 percent to 1.8 percent. The showdown between the House and the Senate could begin as early as this weekend. Given the differ- ences between the House and Senate tax bills, reaching a compro- mise may be difficult. Today, the House Tax Committee is consider- ing a revised Twin's stadium bill and three other tax-related bills that could become vehicles for the House to send portions of their tax bill to the Senate should conference committee negotiations break down. The next 10 days will undoubtedly be very interesting. Senate Finance Committee approves PERA bill On Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee approved the omnibus pension bill that includes provisions to address the PERA funding deficiency. The bill increases employer and employee contributions by .7 percent over two years, includes a state appropriation of S2 million per year transfers non-teaching school employees from PERA to the Teachers Retirement Association (TRA), implements pro-rated service credit for PERA, and extends the full funding target date to 2031. Under an amendment added by Sen. Larry Pogemiller, an additional $5 million of one-time money was added to the state appropriation. There was disagreement among staff and observers as to whether the $5 million state appropriation in the amendment was intended to replace or supplement the existing $2 million annual appropriation. We expect the intent of the amend- ment will be clarified on the Senate floor. The House pension provisions currently reside in the omnibus state departments appropriation bill. The House version does not transfer the school employees to TRA, include: $18 million of one-time funding, and includes only a .35 percent employer For more information on city legislative is$ne$, contact an)' member of the League of .&linnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team, ( so 2 i_ 7509 2oo) 25-H22 Xa~ 11 208t 14:3~:33 ~ia F~× -> A~minist~o~ P~ge 882 0£ 882 FRIDAYFAX 11, 2001 -- P^~E 2 and employee contribution increase. We expect a separate conference committee will be convened to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate positions. House amends keg registration onto omnibus liquor bill Earlier this week, the full House took up the omnibus liquor bill (SF 1752) and tacked on several provisions, including the language of HF 58 that provides for registration of beer kegs. The keg registration bill was introduced in both bodies, but did not go through the commit- tee process in the Senate. The message containing the new lan- ]uage was sent over to the Senate ~,nd the Senate refused to concur. ~, conference committee comprised of Sans. Solon, Metzen, and Lessard and Reps. Stang, Davids, and Entenza will work out the differences between the two bills. Representatives: Conference committee members appointed With less than 250 hours remaining in the 2001 session, the Legislature has become serious about conference committee work. After weeks of waiting, most of the conferees on the major omnibus finance bills have been appointed. Environment & Natural Resources Bill - SF 2351 Senators: Lan Price (DFL-Woodbury) Jane Krentz (DFL-May Township) Linda Higgins (DFL-Minneapolis) Dennis Frederickson (R-New UIm) Steve Dille (R-Dassel) Representatives: Mark Holsten (R-Stillwater) Tim Finseth (R-Angus) Dennis Ozment (R-Rosemount) Elaine Harder (R-Jackson) Tom Osthoff (DFL-St. Paul) State Departments Bill - SF 2360 Senators'. Dick Cohen (DFL- St. Paul) Jim Vickerman (DFL -Tracy) John Marry (DFL- Roseville) Jim Metzen (DFL-So. St. Paul) Dave Knutson (R-Burnsville) Representatives: Phil Krinkie (R-Shoreview) Jim Rhodes (R-St. Louis Park) Bruce Anderson (R-Buffalo Township) Tony Kielkucki (R-Lester Prairie) Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton) Transportation & Public Safety Bill- SF 2340 Senators: Dean Johnson (DFL-Wilmar) Randy Kelly (DFL-St. Paul) Jane Ranum (DFL-Minneapolis) Mark Ourada (R-Buffalo) Roy Terwilliger (R-Edina) Carol Molnau (R-Chaska) Tom Workman (R-Chanhassen) Mary Liz Holberg (R-Lakeville) Rich Stanek (R-Maple Grove) Mary Murphy (D-Hermantown) For phone numbers, addresses, or e-mail addresses, go to the Legislative web site (ww~v. leg.state.mn.us) or follow the link through the LMC web site (www. lm nc.org/llbrary/llnksdlrectory, cfm#mnleg). -7510- 2001 13:35~44 Via Fax -> Admi.is~rato~ Page 881 0£ 801 ERIDAYFAX How (or when) Only 84 hours remain in 2001 session Number ', May 18, 2001 One of the most bizarre legislative sessions in recent memory took a step closer to meltdown Wednesday and Thursday as the House, Senate, and governor apparently failed to reach any agreement on tax and spending targets--just four days before the constitutional end of the session. On Thursday, the governor announc- ed that if the Legislature could not complete its work, he would not call a special session until after the state's fiscal year begins on July 1. If that occurs, state agencies would run out of money and would not be able to continue operations. The lack of a state budget will not directly affect the appropriations for LGA and HACA distributed to cities. These programs contain separate, ongoing appropriation language in Minnesota statutes. However, the Department of Revenue would apparently have no staff to issue the LGA and HACA warrants to cities. Other state appropriations to cities, such as road funds distributed under the municipal state aid (MSA) formula, would apparently not be made without new appropriation language. Even if an agreement can be reached today, closure of the session may be logistically impossible. Legislative staff have openly discussed the difficulty in processing the massive amount of language contained in the eight omnibus spending bills and the omnibus tax bill. Compounding matters, several of the major conference committees, including the transportation and the environ- ment omnibus conference commit- tees canceled meetings on Thursday evening. The Tax Conference Committee met until shortly after 7 p.m., but only discussed and acted on relatively minor provisions that were consis- tent between the House and Senate positions. The State Departments Committee met until after midnight, but without targets they could not reach any final agreement on any major components of their bills. Apparently, House and Senate leadership are still discussing a plan to pass what amounts to a state "continuing budget resolution" that would provide minimum appropria- tions to state agencies to continue operations until the Legislature reconvenes next February. However, as of late last evening, there was no agreement between House and Senate leadership on this strategy. This morning, the House and Senate are scheduled to take up their redistricting bills during their floor sessions. Given the conten- tiousness of these bills, we expect several hours of floor debate. This means conference committees will not convene until later this afternoon. in addition to the potential impacts on LGA, HACA, and MSA men- tioned above, failure to enact tax and spending measures before June 30 would have mixed impacts on cities. No action on the PERA deficiency would increase the unfunded liability of the fund by an estimated $70 million. State funding for wastewater programs would not be available. The omnibus tax bill contains few, if any, essential elements for continued operation of local governments. Probably the greatest impact would be the indirect effects of having state agencies close. However, the potential negative political repercussions of failure to enact a state budget will likely push the Legislature to enact at least a stopgap solution. Staytuned. For more information on city legislative issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 -7511- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTOR3 AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 9, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster · LMCD Board Lake Inspection Tour (6/2/01 or 6/9/01) READING OF MINUTES- 4/11/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 4/25/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Bayshore III HOA, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a conforming multiple dock facility in Smithtown Bay. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Walden Tract X, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conforming, multiple dock facility under LMCD Code Section 2.015. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Walden Tract Y, application to reconfigure a non-conforming, non-multiple dock facility under LMCD Section 2.015. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration WATER STRUCTURES A) Tonka Bay Sales, new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 18 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 475' of continuous shoreline (tabled at the 2/28/01 Regular meeting to conduct a mandatory EAW); Excel Marina (Sites 1 & 2), new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 90 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 913' of continuous shoreline (tabled at the 2/28/01 Regular meeting to conduct a mandatory EAW); C) Consider possible Code changes for non-conforming structures to reduce setbacks and dock use areas by mutual consent. Review of memo from LMCD Attorney with pros and cons; -7512- D) (*) 2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal, without change, multiple dock license application for Driftwood Shores HOA; E) Additional Business; 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Hennepin Parks, 2000 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report presented by John Barten (Previously mailed out- please bring to meeting); B) Staff Report on the Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Force; c) D) Update on Boat Operators License and the Minnetonka Power Squadron; E) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (5/1/01 - 5/15/01); B) Review of timetable to consider 2002 draft LMCD Budget; C) Additional Business; 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*)Minutes from the 4/13/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting (handout); B) Evaluation of Truck Hauling Bids for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Program (handout); C) Additional Business; Update on 2001 Sheriff's Office Water Patrol Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season (handout); 5. SAVE THE LAKE 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 7. ADMINISTRATION 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT -7513- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Lili McMillan, Orono; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Uinnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Uinnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wed, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members Absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Eggers, Victoria. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster There were no Chair announcements. LeFevere administered the oath of office to Mr. Paul Knudsen. He was seated as the new representative on the LMCD Board from the City of Uinnetrista. Foster welcomed him on behalf of the Board. READING OF MINUTES- 3/28/01 Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Skramstad moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the 3/28/01 Regular Board meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (2; Nelson & Van Hercke); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, expressed his gratitude and appreciation for all the efforts the LMCD Board, Member Cities, Hennepin County, LMCD Staff and Chair Foster have contributed in the allocation of funds for the additional Water Patrol Project. He added that all the people brought it from an idea to reality in less than a year. Foster thanked Jabbour for all his work on this project. He also thanked the LMCD Board of directors for influencing their cities and obtaining support from 12 of the 14 cities. Mr. Paul Pederson read a letter from a group of Lake Minnetonka Businesses in support of the funding of 2 additional Water Patrol Officers for Lake Uinnetonka and submitted donations totaling $14,000 from these businesses. He asked that the donations be allocated toward the 2001 season with any unused balance for the 2002 season. In the event there was any remaining balance, it be used toward the Sheriff's Water Patrol Equipment Fund. The letter stated that all of the contributors believe that the additional consistency of patrol and safety that this effort will provide is money well spent. The letter additionally stated that the group strongly supports the program and hopes it will be permanently funded in the future. -7514- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page2 Pederson listed the contributing businesses: Al & Alma's Supper Club and Charter Cruises, Bayview Event & Conference Center, Excelsior Bay Harbor, Gray's Bay Marina, Greenwood Marina, King's Cove Boat Sales, Lake Uinnetonka Charter Boat Association, Lord Fletcher's, Maynard's, Nodh Shore Marina, Rockvam's Boat Yard, Sailor's Wodd, Tonka Bay Marina, Wayzata Marine, Uinnetonka Madne, Windward Madne. CONSENT AGENDA. Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Nelson moved, Wert seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carded unanimously. Items for approval included: 1E, 2001 Liquor Licenses, staff recommends approval of renewal Wine, and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License applications for the charter boat, Lady of the Lake; 2C, 2001 Multiple Dock License, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal without change multiple dock license application for Cudy's Uinnetonka Madna; 3B, February financial summary and balance sheet; 4A LMCIT Liability Insurance, staff recommends that the LMCD Board does not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. Ambrose ardved at 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS · Donald and Loretta Mann, variance application from LMCD Code for dock length requirements. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m, Foster asked staff for background on this proposed application. Harper stated that the applicants have submitted an application for vadance from LMCD Code for dock length requirements. It is to build a structure 327' into the lake measured from the 929.4 NGVD shoreline to reach open, navigable water. He stated the hardships listed on the application were emergent vegetation and shallow water. He also explained that on September 10, 1997, dock length and dock use area adjustment variances were granted to the McNeil and Strot properties for a 400' dock adjacent to the Mann property. Foster asked the Board members if they had any questions. Mann explained to the Board: · He had owned the property for five years and has never had a dock on the property · The McNeil & Strot dock was approved for a 400' length · The proposed dock was a seasonal dock · The McNeil & Strot dock was a joint dock used by two properties · He is currently in the process of selling his home and the prospective buyers would like a dock Foster asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Nelson seconded to direct attomey to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a dock length variance for Donald and Loretta Mann subject to no objections raised by the MN DNR. -7515- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page3 Wert questioned why there was very little discussion on this application compared to the discussion on the Oliver/Peterson dock length vadance application that was before the board in 1999. Foster explained that with that application, there were neighbors at the meeting opposed to the project and the dock was located in a high traffic area. He further explained that the Mann dock was located in a backwater bay with little traffic and the adjacent neighbors were granted a similar vadance in the past and were not opposed to the project. VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1; Wert); motion carried. · City of Minnetonka Beach, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conforming BSU at its Cross Point Road Site, Dock Site #10. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Foster asked staff for background on this proposed application. Harper stated that at the 1/10/01 regular meeting, the LMCD Board approved the applicant's multiple dock license for the 2001 season subject to eliminating BSU #2 at dock site 10. This was due to the withdrawal of mutual consent for encroachment of side setback requirements from the property to the south. There was discussion at the 1/10/01 meeting, that the City of Minnetonka Beach could make application to relocate BSU #2 to another dock site at a later date. This was the explanation of why the proposed application was before the Board to relocate BSU #2 to the North side of dock site 10. Foster asked the applicant if he had any comments at this time. Jim Gasch, Minnetonka Beach City Council Member, corrected Harper's comments by stating the neighbor that took away mutual consent was the property to the north of the site and the proposed relocation of BSU #2 was to the south side of the dock. Gilman arrived at 7:21 p.m. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. LeFevere gave some background on this application and LMCD Code, making the following comments: · The applicant is non-conforming with LMCD code for boat storage density and is grandfathered at the current density. · In the past, non-conforming facilities could not make changes to their docks and boat storage and still maintain their grandfathered boat storage density. · ·Subsequently, LMCD code was changed to give some flexibility for allowing reconfiguration of non-conforming grandfathered facilities as long as they met certain conditions. · The applicant meets every conditions of reconfiguration of non-conforming facilities except the two sections that state the application may not result in any further extension into non-conforming side setback areas than the existing dock. No new Boat Storage Units shall be located in the side setback area without first securing a variance and the application may not result in an increase in slip length on any slips opening toward the non- conforming side setback area. · He questioned whether the proposed changes would be allowed under current code. · There is a similar situation in the City of Deephaven, later on the agenda, and he questions if the Board would like an ordinance amendment to allow these situations to occur. -7516- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page4 Foster asked the Board members if they had any questions. Foster stated that if a minor code amendment was necessary to allow residential and municipal sites to waive side setback requirements for non-conforming facilities with mutual consent, the board should review it. He also stated that the consensus of the board does not oppose allowing this in the applicant's situation, but would like to review the overall impact this amendment would have on a lake wide basis. MOTION: Gilman moved, Wert seconded to table this application to the 4/25/01 regular meeting and directed staff and attorney prepare information on an ordinance amendment to allow residential and municipal non-conforming facilities to further encroach into non-conforming side setbacks with consent from adjacent property owners. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Wayzata Marine Inc., variance application from LMCD Code to continue a 6/14/00 temporary variance granted by the LMCD Code. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Foster provided some background information on the proposed application. He made the following comments: · The property to the east of Wayzata Marine was developed and that property owner installed a dock. With the installation of the dock at the adjacent property, navigability of the boats exiting the inside slips at the madna was difficult. The neighbor also expressed his concerns about madna traffic exiting towards his dock and swimming beach. · At the 6/14/00 Regular meeting, the applicant proposed to relocate three slips to allow navigation out of the inside slipsl The LMCD Board issued a temporary side setback variance for the 2000 boating season to relocate slips 18, 19 and 36 to the western side of the property. · The temporary variance was to expire at the end of the 2000 boating season unless modified or extended by order of the LMCD Board. · The reason for the granting of the temporary variance was to allow time for the applicant to reconfigure the facility to meet the required, grandfathered setbacks and to minimize the amount of traffic exiting towards the property to the east. · The applicant bought the marina in 2000 and was busy acclimating himself with the marina business and worked on cleaning up the marina on land and did not have time to reseamh the reconfiguration of the docks. · The proposed application is to extend the temporary variance two years to allow enough time to reconfigure the dock to meet the setbacks and to channel the traffic away from the neighbo¢s property to the east. · Staff recommended if the board were inclined to grant a temporary variance to the applicant, staff would recommend that it be done for only one season. · He felt comfortable granting a two season vadance provided that the board saw sedous, concrete evidence of progress on the reconfiguration process. Foster asked the Board members if they had any questions. Nelson stated that the Board has had experiences when temporary variances have become permanent over time and stated it was expressed well in the staff memo and wanted to make sure this wasn't a permanent variance. Foster asked the applicant, Dave Bdggs, if his business plan was to reconfigure the marina and install permanent dock facility and have a nice marina. -7517- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page5 Briggs explained that it was his plan to look at all the options and be the good neighbors and a good marina in the eyes of the City of Orono and the LMCD. He stated they have made significant progress with the building, the reduction of noise levels from the marina, eliminated the problem slip customers and they will look at every possibility to get the dock cleaned up. Foster explained to the Board that this site has historically had problems and even went to the supreme court Foster asked the applicant if the Board granted a one year temporary variance extension, could he come back to the board at the end of the season with proof of progress towards reconfiguration. Briggs stated that he underestimated the scope of the project last year and was busy with the operation of a new business so the proper reseamh wasn't completed. He received the renewal without change application and thought the variance would be continued. Staff contacted him and told him that the variance was good for one year and would have to reapply, or the slips may be lost. He explained that they have and are continuing to improve the marina facility. Wert asked the applicant if it was planning or economic reasons that delayed the reconfiguration process. Bdggs stated that it was both planning and money Foster asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments. Gabriel Jabbour stated that he didn't feel that the applicant should have to reconfigure the docks, Gary Bdggs stated that the main issue with this reconfiguration project was money. He stated that he doesn't foresee that Wayzata Madne would have the money necessary to undergo such a project in the near future. Foster made some clarifications to the applicant. He made the following comments:· The Board was not requesting the applicant to spend large amounts of money to reconfigure their facility. · He had understood that it was the business plan of Wayzata Marine to reconfigure the facility. · The only Board request was for the facility to come into compliance with LMCD Code. · The applicant could maintain the facility without reconfigufing but must come into compliance. · The problem is that the applicant is asking to maintain the facility without complying with LMCD Code for side setback restrictions, since the temporary variance expired. If the applicant were to eliminate the three BSU's from the west side of the madna, the facility would be in compliance with LMCD Code. LeFevere provided some history of the applicant's site. He made the following comments: · After the LMCD won the case in the Supreme Court, the pdor owner was required to bring their docks in from 300' to 200'. The Board had worked with the owner to maintain as many slips as possible, if not all slips, licensed for the facility. · The facility was consolidated into a much smaller area · This required side setback variances with hardships that were not very substantial. The reconfiguration resulted in a 1 boat per 4 feet of lakeshore frontage density. · The setback variances that were approved had little impact on the adjacent property since it was not developed. · The Board has been subject to some criticism for not towing in the line as variances have changed. An example of this is Sailors World. -7518- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page 6 · In the case of Sailors Wodd, district mooring areas were converted to slips and in order for them to be installed, a temporary side setback variance was approved. Later, the temporary vadance became a permanent variance. · It is difficult to say no or to take away BSU's from applicants that prior Boards had approved. · The question before the board isn't if the whole marina should be reconfigured, but rather if the three BSU's should be lost in order to come into compliance. Bdggs stated that only one boat would have to be lost to comply with code prior to the relocation of the three BSU's in 2000. He explained that they moved three BSU's to the west side of the madna for proper navigation of the madna and the safety of the adjacent neighbor to the east. Briggs stated that the Board could approve a permanent variance for the three BSU's on the west side of the marina as they are currently and then he might plan to reconfigure at a later date. He was unsure if it would take 2 or 10 years to reconfigure. Weft stated that at the 5/10/00 meeting, he voted against the variance allowing the relocations of BSU's 18, 19 and 36 since it would cause a larger imposition on the applicant. He added that he felt the board made a mistake in requiring the applicant to relocate the three BSU's. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. MOTION: Wert moved, Suerth seconded to extend the 6/14/00 vadance order for two additional years which shall expire at the end of the 2002 boating season. Seuntjens asked why a permanent variance couldn't be granted Foster stated with a non-conforming madna, reconfiguration outside of the established envelope is not allowed unless a variance is granted which was troubling to the Board. The Board granted this temporary vadance for a year to reconflgure and come into compliance. He discussed how two adjacent neighbors could agree on a zero side setback and could be against LMCD Code if one of the properties is a non-conforming grandfathered facility. The current Code does not allow a non-conforming facility to encroach further into non-conforming setbacks as the current dock exists. LeFevere explained that the 4/22/81 variance order specified that the setback variance on the east side of the marina noted that future development of the adjacent property might require that the applicant bdng his docks into full compliance with the Code. The property was developed and consent was taken away. The 6114100 temporary vadance was granted to relocate the non-conforming BSU's and allow the applicant time to determine whether it was feasible to reconfigure and maintain the density without violating the setbacks. Harper stated that temporary variance expired at the end of the 2000 boating season. When the vadance was granted, a concem of the Board was that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient hardship to justify the temporary variance. Seuntjens questioned if the intent of the Board was to eliminate the three slips because he felt it would be difficult to maintain the existing density inside of the required dock use area. Wert explained that his reason to propose a two year extension was to allow the applicant time to reseamh the possibility of reconfiguration or a possible change in LMCD Code referring to allowing further encroachment into non-conforming setbacks by mutual consent between governmental sites and commemial sites. -7519- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page7 Seuntjens stated that the reconflguration situation will not be solved in two years and the DNR has approved the setback encroachment on the west side of the marina, so the board should just approve a permanent variance for the three BSU's. Ambrose asked if granting a permanent variance in this situation would set a precedent that would be harmful for the lake as a whole. Harper stated that it possibly could. Foster stated that there is some concern about granting a vadance without proper hardships even though the adjacent governmental property consents to waiving the required setbacks for the non-conforming facility. He stated it is a similar situation with Uinnetonka Beach. The Board had directed the attorney to prepare ordinance amendments for review at the 4/25/01 Regular Meeting concerning allowing non-conforming facilities to further encroach into non-conforming setbacks with mutual consent from the affected neighbor. Wert stated in order to grant a permanent variance, the applicant must demonstrate a sufficient physical hardship. Seuntjens questioned what the hardship was to grant a one or two year variance. Foster stated that it was to give the applicant sufficient time to reconfigure the facility to comply with LMCD Code. McMillan asked if the applicant would have to reconfigure within the envelope concept, Harper stated that they would. McMillan stated that they would have to reconfigure with a lot of constraints. MOTION TO AMEND: Seuntjens moved, McMillan seconded to amend the original motion to make it a permanent variance. Foster asked the board if there was any discussion on the amendment. Gilman stated that granting a permanent variance was not the correct way to address the situation since the Minnetonka Beach application was tabled for review of possible code amendments. He also stated that it may create a precedent. Nelson explained that he opposed the amendment to grant a permanent variance and a temporary two year . vadance may allow enough time for a possible solution. VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: Ayes (2), Nayes (9; Ambrose, Foster, Gilman, Knudsen, Nelson, Skramstad, Suerth, Van Hercke, Wert); amended motion failed. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: Ayes (10), Nayes (1; Gilman); motion carried. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Review of information regarding the sale of fuel from a service boat to customers around the Lake. -7520- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page8 Joe Simonette and Jeff Indahl presented information that they had collected from multiple agencies that could possibly have jurisdiction over a proposed fuel boat business. McMillan asked Simmonette if they had contacted the Hennepin County Shedffs Water Patrol. Simonette stated that the Sheriff's Water Patrol wasn't very receptive to the proposed business because of the possibility of a potential mishap. Although, the water patrol stated they had no jurisdiction to restrict the business. Foster stated he talked to Lt. Brian Johnson of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. He stated that Johnson was concerned with any situation that would require his officem to respond to any kind of emergency. This business would add an additional possibility of an emergency, as remote as it may be. he stated if there was a large fire there would be no way the water patrol could put it out. Foster stated that he had talked to a handful of residents on the lake and they were in favor of allowing this type of service on the Lake. He stated the residents would use the service and it would be a great convenience. Nelson stated that the city of Orono in writing, and the City of Spring Park vocally, expressed their concems with allowing this type of business on the lake due to the potential risk of fire in residential areas near the shore. He expressed that there should be input from all of the individual city fire departments that could be potentially involved if a fire were to occur near the shore and possibly to buildings on shore. His concern was the potential difficulty of access for the fire personnel. Van Hercke asked if the potential business ownem were looking for the LMCD's approval. Foster stated this agenda item was just an informational discussion with the Board membem and the public to see if this type of business should be allowed on the lake. LeFevere stated that currently under LMCD Code, all sale of merchandise from any watercraft on the Lake is prohibited unless: the sale of food or beverages is to passengem that leave the shore and retum on the watercraft on which such food and beverages are sold. To allow this type of business would require an amendment to this Code section. In the event that the Board wished to allow this activity on the lake, the Board may want to look into licensing such a business. McUillan stated that if the Board were to allow this type of commercial sale on the lake, the Board would have a hard time denying any other commercial sale proposals on the Lake. It would set a precedent. She stated there was also a safety concern and the benefits would not surpass the potential problems. She stated, she wouldn't like to send the potential business owners out to collect additional research to present to the Board. When the Board will potentially just deny the proposal. Seuntjens, McMillan, Weft, Van Hercke stated they would not support an ordinance amendment to allow fuel sales from a boat because of precedent and safety concems of fueling at residential docks. Simonette stated that it was the same as fueling at a marina. Van Hercke stated that it was a similar situation except the fact that this business would operate in residential areas potentially near children and unsuspecting residents. Jabbour stated there was no way to compare on-shore marina fuel services to this prospective business. -7521 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11,2001 Page9 At marina fueling docks, the fueling boats are secured to a stationary dock, the fuel SOMme is on shore with automatic cutoff valves in case the line is punctured. It would not be the case in this potential business. Nelson stated that telling Simonette and Indahl to collect additional information would be stringing them along if the Board doesn't plan on allowing this type of business on the lake. He asked if the Board should give them an idea if there is any interest in allowing this activity on the lake. Foster stated that it was up to the potential business owners to determine if they would want to pursue obtaining additional information to try to convince the Board of the need, safety and compliance with all agency requirements. He stated that the potential business owners had heard the negative comments and additional concems from four of the Board members and would have to determine if it was worth pursuing. The potential applicants may request this agenda item put on a future Board Agenda if additional information is obtained. B. Discussion on the use of Lord Fletcher's of the Lake as a Port of Call for 2001 Charter Boats with Liquor Licenses. Foster asked staff to provide an overview on the proposed applications and issues. Harper made the following comments: · At the 3/28/01 LMCD Board meeting, renewal Wine and Non-intoxicating Malt Liquor License applications were considered for the charter boats Holiday Fair and Holiday Fair I1. Staff reported that Holiday Fair II and a second boat, Barefoot Bay, had identified Lord Fletcher's of the Lake as a port of call for the 2001 season. Staff was directed to gather additional information, for Board consideration, regarding the use of Lord Fletcher's of the Lake as a port of call for the 2001 season. Holiday Fair is a 1998 pontoon that has a 12' wide beam and is 38' long, passenger capacity is 22. Barefoot Bay is a 1977 Century Venturer that has an 11' wide beam and a is 30' long. · Staff contacted Mr. Alan Bell from Lord Fletcher's. He stated that he would like to be able to use the multiple dock facility as a pod of call; however he would also like to cooperate with the LMCD Board. · Staff Contacted Lt. Bdan Johnson of Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol regarding this matter. He recommended that the use of Lord Fletcher's as a port of call should be done on a trial period for the 2001 season with restrictions on the time of use and size of boat to be evaluated on a boat by boat basis. MOTION: Nelson moved, Skramstad seconded to accept the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol's recommendation of allowing Lord Fletcher's of the Lake as a pod of call for a trial period of the 2001 season with continued use being evaluated at the end of the season. Boats to be evaluated on a boat- by-boat basis with possible restrictions on length and beam width. The use of Lord Fletcher's of the Lake as a pod of call dudng non-peak periods. (before 6:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday; before 4:00 P.M. on Fridays and not used on weekends or holidays); the motion also included the approval of renewal Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license for the charier boat, Barefoot Bay. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. C. Update on Sheriffs Water Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season. Foster stated that he attended a meeting with representatives from Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Water Patrol and didn't have specific details in regards to staffing because the Water Patrol was still working on them. He stated that everyone at the meeting was excited about the addition of two water patrol officers. He also -7522- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page 10 stated that there are currently 12 of the 14 cities that have agreed to participate in partial funding of the additional water patrol proposal. A meeting with the Victoria City Council is planned in April. D. Discussion of 4/5/01 staff memo that provides an overview of goals and objectives for the Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Force, Foster stated that staff had set up a meeting to be held on April 18th, at 9:00 a.m. People invited to this meeting were experts in the field of Wetlands and interested parties around Lake Uinnetonka. He stated it was a public meeting but comments from the public would be limited to allow the experts to discuss the objectives of the task force determined by the Board. The reason for the Task Force was to give the Board direction as to where to proceed with the concept of non-motorized zones that would be helpful in protecting wetlands and tributaries identified by the task force. The Task Force members invited included representatives from the MN DNR, Uinnehaha Creek Watershed District, Hennepin Parks, LMCD Board and other interested parties. F. 2001 Liquor License, consideration of renewal, Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license application for the charter boat, Barefoot Bay. Foster stated this license approval was included in the motion of agenda item lB. G. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 2. WATER STRUCTURES A. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to ski jumps; amending LMCD Code Section 2.12, subd. 12, Foster introduced this agenda item, making the following comments: · Years ago a ski jump was installed on a large private property on Smithtown Bay for Olympic freestyle ski jump training. · An inquiry was brought to LMCD staff on what steps it would take to rebuild a similar structure. · Current LMCD Code states that a dock may exceed six feet, excluding posts, in either it's length or width, but not both. - · The LMCD Code does not address ski jumps that must be wider than 6 feet for safety reasons, · The amendment would allow ski jumps to be wider than six feet but no wider than twelve feet as long as it meets all other requirements of the LMCD Code. Skramstad stated that water ski jumps are typically wider than 12 feet and felt that the Board should address them also. He also questioned whether it would be good for the Lake to have these freestyle ski jumps erected around the shore of the lake. He stated that he understands that probably would not happen. LeFevere stated that the jump construction on the shore would not be under the LMCD's jurisdiction, only the portion of the structure that would extend in and over the water. The structure would have to be installed within the property's Dock Use Area. Skramstad stated that he lived near the area that the old ski jump was installed and enjoyed watching the people jump, but was concerned about the aesthetics. -7523- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page 11 MOTION: Wed moved, Knudsen seconded to approve first reading of the ordinance amendment as submitted, to waive second and third readings, and to adopt it. VOTE: Ayes (10), Nayes (1; Skramstad); motion carried. B. Staff update on docking issues between two abutting non-conforming facilities (possible need to amend LMCD Code Section 2.015). Foster asked LMCD attorney for background on this agenda item. LeFevere provided some background information on this agenda item. He made the following comments: · There has been a situation with two abutting non-conforming homeowners association facilities in St. Louis Bay. Walden Tract Y is a non-conforming, non-multiple facility and Walden Tract X is a non-conforming multiple facility. · They have a grandfathered non-conforming boat storage density and have been working with each other and neighbors for years to fit their boats in the area. · There were boat storage issues brought to staff's attention last spring. Staff and LMCD Board Chair, Bed Foster, have been working with representatives from Walden Tract X and Walden Tract Y. The City of Deephaven and Patdcia Florence are adjacent neighbors on either sides of Tract X and Y. They have been involved in the process of cleaning up this area also. · Walden Tract X and Y have been attempting to reconfigure their facilities to address the boat storage issues. They have come together to agree upon a dock configuration that would combine the two dock use areas and install two docks to store the total of ten boats. Walden Tract X would apply for a Reconfiguration of a Non-Conforming Multiple Dock License and Walden Tract Y would submit a Reconfiguration of a Non- Conforming, Non-Multiple Dock Application. · The LMCD Code allows the re-configuration of non-conforming facilities under Section 2.015, provided a number of conditions are complied with. It seems that they comply with all the requirements except for one. Subdivision 3d) could pose problems for these proposed applications. · Section 2.015, subd. 3d) states that the application may not result in any fudher extension into non- conforming side setback areas than the existing dock. Currently the approved site plan at both facilities appear to meet LMCD Code for side setback requirements from the common side site line extension. The proposed site plan for both facilities would consist of one dock that will not meet LMCD Code requirements for the common side site line extension and the side site line extension between Walden Tract Y and the City of Deephaven. Mutual consent on side setback requirement infringements appears to be agreed upon. · Under the current code, some adjustment of setbacks and dock use areas is allowed for conforming facilities, but is not allowed for non-conforming facilities. · The question before the Board is whether they are interested in amending the LMCD Code to allow this kind of reconfiguration and allowing non-conforming facilities to adjust setbacks and dock use areas with the consent of the affected neighbor. · If the Board were to amend the LMCD Code to allow this; the reconfiguration of Tract X and Y, City of Uinnetonka Beach Dock Site 10 and Wayzata Marine could potentially be allowed. Wert left at 9:50 p.m. Foster stated that he did not have concerns with two residential facilities or a municipality and a residential facility allowing setback and dock use area adjustments for non-conforming facilities with the consent of the affected neighbor. He had concerns about allowing the same right to non-conforming commercial facilities. -7524- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Gilman Page 12 Nelson stated that under current Code, non-conforming facilities are allowed flexibility to reconfigure under the envelope concept and allowing them to further encroach upon setbacks and adjust their dock use areas with mutual consent would be considered expansion, McMillan stated that mutual consent was not a good way to govern because properties change hands and new owners are not always comfortable waiving setbacks and then the LMCD is put in the position of taking away what is seen as a boat storage right. The Board directed attomey to prepare information for the 4/25/01 meeting to explain what was allowed under current LMCD Code in terms of conforming and non-conforming residential facilities, municipal facilities and commercial facilities and the adjustment of setbacks and dock use area with mutual consent. The Board also wanted information from these categories on what could be changed to allow these adjustments with consent. Several Board members were concemed about the potential lake wide impact an ordinance amendment might have. left at 10:05 p.m. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (411101 - 4/15/01). Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Nelson seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. ADMINISTRATION B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Harper gave a brief overview of staff's current activities. 6. SAVE THE LAKE McUillan stated she was working on the spring fund raising letter -7525- Lake Minnetonka Conservation,District Regular Board Meeting April 11, 2001 Page13 7. EWMIEXOTCS TASK FORCE There was no discussion. 8. OLD BUSINESS Skramstad stated that Shorewood Yacht Club had installed their new dock immediately after LMCD Board approval. He stated the dock looks great. McMillan discussed the need for the LMCD Board to re-evaluate the situation of snowmobile passage through Coffee Cove Channel in the winter. She explained that the City of Orono has been discussing possible solutions for the safety concerns. She requested that it be included on a future agenda. 9, NEW BUSINESS. Van Hercke stated that when she started on the Board she had requested an orientation meeting for the new membere to learn more about LMCD Code and the history of the agency. She asked when the meeting would be held. Harper stated that staff had been waiting for the cities to appoint new representatives to the Board. With the appointment of Paul Knudsen from Uinnetrista, the cities are fully represented. There was further discussion from other Board members to set a informative workshop for all the Board members. McMillan presented the idea of setting up a meeting with all of the commercial marina owners. Foster suggested that she create a list of goals and work with staff to organize a meeting with the madna owners. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Albert Foster, Chairman Tom Skramstad, Treasurer -7526- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 25, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Member present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Lili McMillan, Orono; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Uinnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Uinnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Uinnetonka; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Membere absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster Foster announced that Lt. Brian Johnson has recently replaced Lt. Ken Schilling with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol. He reported that Lt. Schilling had recently transferred within the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department and he welcomed Lt. Johnson to Lake Minnetonka on behalf of the Board of Directors. The Board discussed the background of Lt. Johnson and the status of the increased Water Patrol presence project for the 2001 boating season. Foster stated that further details of this project would be discussed later in the meeting. Foster stated that staff has prepared draft Resolution 101, a proclamation of recognition of valued service in memoriam of Frank Mixa, past Executive Director of the District. He asked for feedback from the Board on the draft resolution or entertained a motion to approve it. MOTION: Nelson moved, Seuntjens seconded to approve draft Resolution 101, a proclamation or recognition of valued service in memoriam of Frank Uixa, as submitted. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously, READING OF MINUTES- 4/11/01 Regular Board Meeting Foster stated that staff has informed him that minutes from the 4/11/01 Regular Board meeting have not been finalized, These minutes will be finalized for the 5/9/01 Board packet. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board membe~ requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. -7527- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page 2 moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carded unanimously. Items for approval included: lC, March financial summary and balance sheet, 3E, 2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal, without change multiple dock license applications for Cedarhurst Association, Dr. Glen Nelson, and Sandy Beach Place, 5C, Motion to accept resignation letter of Diane Sails, effective 5/1/01. PUBLIC HEARING · U.S. Boat and Recreation, new on-sale non-intoxicating Malt Liquor License application for the charter boat, Looneytoon. Foster opened the public headng at 7:11 p.m. He asked for background on the proposed application from staff. Nybeck stated that the applicant has submitted a new on-sale, non-intoxicating malt liquor license application for the charter boat, Looneytoon. Originally, they submitted two additional new on-sale, non-intoxicating malt liquor license applications; however, they have withdrawn these applications. They have requested fees to be refunded on these applications and he asked the Board whether they would like more details on this request at this time. Foster stated that he would prefer these details after the public hearing has been closed. He asked the applicant why they withdrew the two new on-sale, non-intoxicating malt liquor license applications. Ms. Janet Burmeister, Vice President for U.S. Boat and Recreation, Inc., stated that they withdrew these applications because originally they had two pontoon boats that they would like to designate as both a watercraft for hire and a rental watercraft in a boat club. When it became apparent that this could not be done, they made a decision to designate the two watercraft as rental rather than watercraft for hire because they generate more business in this capacity. She requested that the fees submitted for these two watercraft be refunded, There being no further comments, Foster closed the public headng at 7:14 p.m. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the new, on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license application, for the 2001 season, for the charter boat Looneytoon. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Foster asked for clarification from staff on fees submitted by the applicant that they have requested to be refunded. Nybeck stated that the applicant has requested a refund of the fees submitted for charter boat regi-stration ($300), the preliminary investigation deposit ($500), and the fees submitted for the non-intoxicating malt liquor license applications ($400). Language on the charter boat registration applications does not preclude the Board from refunding the $300 and staff would recommend refunding the $500 preliminary investigation deposit. He questioned whether the $400 for the non-intoxicating malt liquor license applications should be refunded because there is language on the application that states fees are non-refundable. Foster stated that he would prefer the Board first discuss fees received that appear can be refunded. MOTION: Van Hercke moved, Skramstad seconded to refund the $800 received in fees from U.S. Boat and Recreation, Inc. for charter boat registration applications withdrawn, and the preliminary investigation deposit. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Wert arrived at 7:20 p.m. -7528- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page 3 MOTION: Skramstad moved, Eggers seconded to refund the $400 received in fees from U.S. Boat and Recreation, Inc. for the non-intoxicating malt liquor license applications withdrawn. Van Hercke expressed concem with the motion because of the precedent it could set regarding non-refundable fees. VOTE: Ayes (6), Nayes (2; Seuntjens and Van Hercke), Abstained (1, Wed); motion carded. FINANCIAL A. Abdo, Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, discussion of draft 2000 LMCD Audit. Foster introduced Steve McDonald who oversaw the 2000 LMCD Audit process. He welcomed him on behalf of the Board and asked for an overview of the draft 2000 LMCD Audit. McDonald made the following comments on the draft 2000 LMCD Audit: · One of the main focuses of the audit is to give a qualified opinion based on the financial records of District. The opinion does not include an inventory of the fixed assets, such as the harvesters and trucks, noting this is common for smaller governmental organizations. · Another focus of the audit is to evaluate the intemal controls of the District, especially segregation of duties. This is difficult to deal with internally at the staff level because of the limited staff. Outside controls, including contractual bookkeeping and oversight by the Board, assists in addressing this. · The'audit also looked into compliance by the District with laws, regulations, contracts, and bidding. He reported no instances of non-compliance. · The General Fund balance as of 12/31/00 was $103,730, a decrease of $7,570 from the previous year. This represents approximately 33% of current year expenditures, below the six-month reserve policy for the District agreed to by the member cities. This is the second consecutive year that the reserve level is below agreed upon reserve levels and that this should be addressed in future LMCD budgets. Contributing factors to the reduction in General Fund balance include a reduction in court fine revenue and a 2000 Lake Uinnetonka Boat Density Study. The Board discussed the 2000 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey, noting they believed it was included in the 2000 LMCD Budget. The consensus of the Board that staff needed to clarify this with McDonald. McDonald continued his comments: · The Special Revenue Fund balance, which consists of Save the Lake, New Equipment Acquisition, Eurasian Uilfoil, and Equipment Replacement, was $542,226. Two of these reserve funds, Save the Lake and New Equipment Acquisition, were provided by donations and totaled $330,145. The new harvester purchased in 2000 used New Equipment Acquisition funds. The other two reserve funds, Eurasian Uilfoil and Equipment Replacement, totaled $212,081 and were provided through dues. · The Eurasian Uilfoil balance as of 12/31/00 was $47,285, a decrease of $46,141 from the previous year due to cost overruns of the project. This represents 33% of the current year expenditures, below the 12-month policy for the District agreed to by the member cities. This should be addressed in future LMCD Budgets. · He entertained question or comments from the Board. Gilman arrived at 7:40 p.m. Foster thanked McDonald, on behalf of the Board, for the preparation of the draft 2000 LMCD Audit. -7529- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page 4 MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Gilman seconded to accept the 2000 LMCD Audit, subject to staff investigating whether the 2000 Lake Uinnetonka Boat Density was included in 2000 LMCD Budget and to revise the Management Letter, if needed. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Audit of vouchers (4/16/01 - 4/30/01). Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. MOTION: Nelson moved, Seuntjens seconded to approved the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. D. Additional Business. There was no additional business. = LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Lake Minnetonka Charter Boat Association, consideration of request to amend Code pertaining to charter boat regulations. Foster asked staff to provide some background on this agenda item. NYbeck stated John Lambin, from Queen of Excelsior, and David Lawrance, from Paradise Charter Cruises were in attendance. The annual, mandatory training courses have been completed, with LMCD rules and regulations reviewed. One rule reviewed, which some charter boat owners expressed concern with, was that amplified music needs to be fully contained within the watercraft. The Association has requested that the Board consider amending the Code to allow for light background music for their customers. Lawrance stated that the Association would like to provide a little bit of background music to break the silence for their customers. The Association does want the Board to consider amending the Code for live bands or loud amplified music. Foster stated that one of the major complaints he has received over the years from the public is loud music on charter boats, especially in the evening when it is calm. He stated he supports the charter boat business because it provides an additional public access to Lake Uinnetonka; however, he questioned whether this section of the Code should be amended. Seuntjens expressed concern with regulating light background music versus loud background music. It is difficult to regulate between these once you open up exceptions to the Code that restricts this. Foster stated that he believed some of the main violators to this Section of the Code have either left the lake or are being better controlled because of the charter boat association. Lambin stated that the establishment of the charter boat association approximately one year ago allows for better control of its own members. He encouraged the Board to consider the request to amend this section of the Code because he believed it is too restrictive. -7530- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 No action was taken by the Board on this agenda item. Page5 B. Meeting Repod from the 4/18/01 Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Fome meeting. Foster asked for an update on this meeting from Wed. Wed stated that minutes from this meeting have not been prepared and that they will be in the 5/9/01 Board packet. In general, there was a good turnout of Board members and a variety of experts. The focus of the discussion at this meeting was determine the characteristics of wetlands in Lake Minnetonka and to determine the impacts on them from activities on the water. He reported that he learned a lot from this meeting and that the experts believe that the establishment of "Non-Motorized" areas on the Lake might be a good idea for a variety of reasons. This includes water quality, fisheries, plants, and phosphorus. It might be easy to identify some of these areas, including Painters and Six Mile Creeks. The challenge might to identify some of these other areas that could be owned by either the public or private sector. Foster stated that he believed there is a need to evaluate Lake Minnetonka wetlands in two phases. First, there is a need to look at the tributaries leading into Lake Uinnetonka. Second, there is a need to look at other wetlands around Lake Minnetonka. Skramstad stated that he had "Wetland Restoration" brochure being mailed to him that he would forward for review by the Board. C. Update on Sheriff's Office Water Patrol Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season. Foster · updated the Board on this project. He made the following comments: He attended a Hennepin County Commissioner Committee meeting with Nybeck and Gabriel Jabbour to get the funds released from the contingency fund for 2001. It was unanimously approved and would be on an upcoming consent agenda at a Hennepin County Commissioner meeting. · Staffing of the two additional Deputies would include one hired on a full-time basis, with a second one taken from the Patrol Division backfilled through overtime. The five months of the two additional Deputies would commence on around May 20 and the staffing would be approximately 60 percent less than what was originally anticipated, · Decisions need to be made on how to collect the money from the 12 member cities that have committed to the project for 2001. A visit is planned with the Victoria City Council on 4/26/01. · He encouraged Board members to schedule a dde with Water Patrol this upcoming summer to better- understand what they do. He entertained feedback from the Board on this project. McMillan asked Foster whether Hennepin County approved $50,000 or 50% of the project costs for the 2001 boating season. Foster stated that they approved 50% of the anticipated costs. The Board discussed the possibility of having a surplus of funds if the member cities contribute what they have committed to for the 2001 boating season. The consensus of the Board was to have staff forward the updated figures for review at the next meeting. D. Additional Business. -7531 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page 6 Foster updated the Board on a meeting with Tom Maple, past Board member with the District and the MCWD, and a representative on the MCWD regarding the possibility of funding the harvesting program in the future as an environmental project through the MCWD. This would possibly allow for less tax burden on the 14 member cities and he would continue to explore it in the future. He stated that he would keep the Board informed on this possibility. The consensus of the Board was to allow Foster to continue investigating into this possibility. Foster stated he had recently talked to Dennis Caslavka, the new Commodore of the Minnetonka Power Squadron. They are currently placing a national test situation on the Internet where people can take a test and receive a certificate if they pass the it. This is one step in the dght direction in the establishment of a boat operator permit, with a long-term statewide goal. He reported that this is an exploratory mode and that he would like future discussion on this in the future. WATER STRUCTURES A. Donald and Loretta Mann, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for appreval of variance application from LMCD Code for dock length. Foster asked for feedback on the draft Findings or entedained a motion to approve them. MOTION: McMillan moved, Knudson seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for a dock length variance for Donald and Loretta Mann as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Smithtown Bay Association, consideration of 2001 new multiple dock license, with minor change, application to reconflgure BSU's 15, 16, and 17 at a non-conforming facility on Smithtown Bay. Foster introduced the agenda item stating that staff has recommended Board approval of the proposed application with two conditions. They included not receiving negative feedback from the MN DNR and the City of Victoria, and the submittal of a revised site plan, to scale, by the end of the 2001 boating season. He entertained feedback from the Board or a motion to approve the proposed application. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Eggere seconded to approve the 2001 new multiple dock license, with minor change, application for Smithtown Bay Association, subject to not receiving negative feedback from the MN DNR and the City of Victoria, and subject to the submittal of a revised site plan, to scale, by the end of the 2001 boating season. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Suerth arrived at 8:27 p.m. C. Ordinance Amendment, Discussion of an ordinance relating to the waiving of setback requirements, through mutual consent, amending LMCD Code Section 2.015. Foster introduced the agenda item noting that LeFevere had prepared a spreadsheet that summarizes what the Code allows for to reduce side setback requirements, by mutual consent, at conforming structures. The spreadsheet addresses this for private, commercial, and municipal dock structures on Lake Uinnetonka. There has been some limited discussion on how these exceptions might be applied to non-conforming structures. He was not -7532- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page 7 opposed to making some changes for grandfathered facilities around the Lake; however, he expressed concern with unintended consequences. He asked for an overview on the spreadsheet from LeFevere. LeFevere provided an overview of the spreadsheet, noting it addresses reduction of setbacks by consent, combined dock use areas for common dock, and adjusted dock use area for conforming structures. The spreadsheet addresses what the Code allows for conforming dock structures and he needs direction from the Board for non- conforming dock structures. Currently, the Code does not address non-conforming structures and there were three cases at the 4/11/01 Regular meeting where there was interest from parties in changing the Code. This included Walden Tract X, Walden Tract Y, and the City of Minnetonka. Previous Boards have expressed concern in making Code changes for non-conforming structures similar to conforming structures. He asked the Board how they want to proceed pdor to possibly making any Code changes. The Board discussed the spreadsheet prepared by LeFevere. Detailed below is a summary of the comments: · There was concem with making Code changes for non-conforming Commemial structures and the possibility of unintended consequences. There was discussion that it might make sense to duplicate the changes in non-conforming structures that are allowed with conforming structures, possibly excluding commercial structures. · There was discussion on whether the variance process made more sense rather than a Code amendment. Concern was raised because of precedent setting on the Lake by making Code changes on specific projects. There was discussion on what possible physical hardships or practical difficulties might be in these cases for variance applications. · There was concem that writing Code changes for specific sites that are currently grandfathered encourage.~ them to stay bigger for a longer period of time. The variance process or another process, something like. conditional-use permit, might allow for Board review on an annual basis. · There was concem on whether it is realistic for the District to assume that non-conforming facilities will come into compliance with Code sometime in the future. · There was discussion on how the District deals with situations where consent was originally agreed to and rescinded by an abutting site. Foster asked if there were any comments from the public that were interested in this agenda item. Mr. Dan Gilbert, a representative of Walden Tract X, stated that the Association is making an attempt to stay with what they currently have and that there is no growth. The focus is to reconfigure the 10 boats allowed for Walden Tract X and Y, and to fit within what he believed is allowed by Code. The facilities have been grandfathered for a number of years and he encouraged the Board to consider changes to the Code. Mr. Peter Thompson, a representative of Walden Tract Y, stated that the Deephaven Boat Committee has approved the proposed plan for Walden Tract X and Y and will be recommending approval to the Deephaven City Council, which would include a slight encroachment over the extended side site line between Walden Tract X and the City of Deephaven. The consensus of the Board was that there is a need to have a memo that outlines the pro's and con's of any possible Code changes pdor to directing the attorney to prepare Code amendments. The Board directed LeFevere to prepare this memo for review by the Board at the 519101 Regular meeting. D. City of Minnetonka Beach, consideration of new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conformi% BSU at its Cross Point Road Site, Dock Site #10. -7533- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page 8 Foster stated that a new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conforming BSU at Dock Site #10 was tabled at the 4/11/01 Regular meeting to allow LeFevere to investigate whether the Code would allow for the proposed change. He asked for an update from LeFevere. LeFevere stated that LMCD Code Section 2.015 has limitations on reconflguring of non-conforming structures. Specifically, the Code prohibits new BSU's from being located in the side setback area without first securing a variance. The proposed BSU relocation is not only in the side setback area but encroaches over the extended side site line. A variance application would need to be secured with a physical hardship or practical difficulty. Another option is a Code amendment for non-conforming structures. Nelson stated that he would prefer to separate the issues because that places more pressure on the District. Nybeck stated that one option the applicant has is to amend the new multiple dock license application to relocate the BSU in question to another site within the City of Minnetonka Beach. Mr. Jim Gasch, a liaison to the Minnetonka Beach City Council, stated that is not a preferred option that they would not like to explore at this time. Nybeck updated the Board on the variance application submitted by the applicant for this dock site some years ago. Originally, the variance applied for was dock length, side setbacks, and an adjusted dock use area. The Board reviewed this site and determined that a dock length variance could be granted with shallow water as a hardship, with a Code amendment prepared to address side setback issues with the abutting property owners. The Board at that time concluded that there was not a hardship or practical difficulty to approve a variance for side setbacks and an adjusted dock use area. LeFevere stated that the Code amendment that was adopted for this site because the District was dealing with a historical situation that was grandfathered back to 1977. The proposed change at this dock site would impact its grandfathered status for boat storage density and side setback requirements. McMillan stated that she concurred with Nybeck that the easiest solution to address this the non-conforming BSU at Dock Site #10 is to relocate it to another docking location within the city because there is a lack of a physical hardship. The consensus was that if the applicant wants the District to consider the proposed relocation of the non- conforming BSU at Dock Site #10, a variance application rather than a Code amendment seemed to make more sense. If the Board is uncomfortable with the variance application, a Code amendment could be discussed at a future meeting. F. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 4. E~VMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. 2001 EWM Harvesting Season, staff overview of project. Nybeck stated that plans have commenced for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Season. He provided an overview of the project and made the following comments: · The changes implemented during the 2000 harvesting season were successful; however, they caused significant cost overruns. The changes implemented included increasing harvesters in the fleet from four to -7534- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page 9 five, launching the harvesters in the water earlier, operating five harvesters rather than four, operating the harvesters for 48 hours per week rather than 40, and operating a skeleton review from mid August through at least Labor Day. The EWM Harvesting Program Working Group discussed changes for the 2001 season to bring costs to within budget. Recommendations of the Working Group for 2001 include launching in the harvesters in the water when the crew ardves in mid June, launching five harvesters in the water with a staff for four of them, operating these harvesters for a 40 hour work week rather than 48, and operating a reduced crew at the tail- end of August only if the budget allows for additional expenditures. The implementation of these · recommendations would result in a reduction of full-time position from 11 to seven. · Harper is planned to be the Project Manager, with Todd Grams as Site Supervisor and John Evans as Assistant Site Supervisor. Proposed hourly rate for Grams is $18, with an hourly rate of $13.50 for John Evans. All other position are projected at an hourly rate of $9.50 for first year employees, with a $.50 per hour adjustment for each successive year they retum. · Harvesting is planned to commence on 6/11/01 through 8/17/01, with daily hours planned from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Overtime would only be allowed if approved in advance by Harper or myself. · In 2000, the harvesting crew implemented the Lower Lake Option. For 2001, staff is recommending the South Upper Lake Option be planned, with the changes being rotated every fourth year. · Trucking bids are due in the District office on 5/2/01, with a recommendation anticipated for the 5/9/01 Regular meeting. MOTION: Suerth moved, Wert seconded to approve the 2001 EWM Harvesting Budget as submitted by staff. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Report from the 4/13/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting. Suerth provided an update from the 4/13/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting, noting that minutes will be prepared for the 5/9/01 Regular meeting. Items discussed at this meeting included the need for consolidation of signage at public accesses, the 2001 Lake Minnetonka Weevil Survey and Augmentation Project, and the idea of staffing public accesses with volunteers to address the possibility of watercraft coming to Lake Minnetonka with zebra mussels on them. He encouraged the Board to approve $1,000 to the Lake Minnetonka Association for the Weevil Survey and Augmentation Project. Foster encouraged Suerth to bring forward a proposal at a future meeting, C. Additional Business. Suerth expressed concern with plans for the 2001 Zebra Mussel Program. The Board encouraged Suerth to bring a proposal forward at a future meeting. J ADMINISTRATION A. Consideration of Proposal received regarding improving District computer operations. Skramstad reviewed the computer proposals received from Foster Computer Consulting and Computer Update. There have been some issues with reliability and performance, with recommendations on how to address them. The proposal submitted addressed labor rates, estimated time, re-wiring, server/workstation, an additional -7535- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page t0 workstation, software, Intemet capabilities, and other factors. He asked Harper for clarification on availability of when the work could commence if the Board approves one of the proposals. Harper stated that wiring could commence almost immediately, with the computers being placed on order shortly after the approval by the Board. The consensus of the Board was that RAM should be increased'from 128 MB to 256 MB. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, McMillan seconded to approve the proposal submitted by Computer Update, subject to increasing RAM on the computers from 128 MB to 256 MB. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Staff update on LMCD Website, Foster stated that he reviewed the new Website and he complimented the efforts of staff. Several other Board members also stated that the reviewed the Website and they concurred with Foster. Skramstad stated the new Website, www.lmcd.org, is planned to be tumed on in the near future and he was looking for authorization from the Board. MOTION: McMillan moved, Knudson seconded to authorize staff to turn on the new LMCD Website. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D, Additional Business. There was no additional business. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · The lake level for Lake Minnetonka as of 4/23/01 was 929.46'. · There will be a vacant Administrative Assistant position, effective 5/1/01, and staff plans on re-filling this position later this upcoming summer. · He complimented the efforts of Harper as Technician for the District, noting his first year anniversary is on May 1. A performance appraisal is scheduled in the near future, with a compensation adjustment to be recommended to the Board in May. 7. SAVE THE LAKE McMillan reported that the Water Patrol has placed a request for the District to consider using Save the Lake funds to replace their PFD's. She thought this was not an emergency and the request could be addressed at a future meeting. The consensus of the Board was to bring this proposal forward at the first meeting in June. McMillan also updated the Board on the "Boat Smart" course planned for the 2001 season by the Minnetonka Power Squadron in coordination with the Mound Westonka School District. She also updated the Board on the progress of the -7536- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting April 25, 2001 Page 11 pending legislation that would ban the sale of fertilizer with phosphorus in it. She noted support at the legislature appeared dead for this session; however, she hoped the momentum would continue in future legislation sessions. The Board complimented the efforts of Mayor Love on this effort. 8. OLD BUSINESS Van Hercke asked for an update on the status of scheduling an introductory Workshop/Planning Session for new Board members Nybeck stated that this request has been taken under advisement and that a Workshop/Planning Session is being targeted sometime early during the summer. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. .Albert Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -7537- BOARD MEMBERS Bert Foster Chair, Deeohavem ~: Craig Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Lili McMillan - Secretary, Orono ~:' Tom Skramstad '- Treasurer, Shorew~od Andrea Ahrens -,_- Mound Bob Ambrose _~ Wayzata Douglas E, Babcock · Tonka Bay Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Paul Knudsen Minnetrista Tom Seuntjens Minnetonka Beach ' Herb J, Suerth Woodland Katy Van Hercke Minnetonka Sheldon Wert Greenwood LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT, 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD, · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 952/745-0789 · FAX 952/745-9085 Grego~ S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR . May 3, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: EWM/Exotics Task Force Members ,¢ Greg Nybeck,Executive Director Notice of Cancelled Meeting Chair Suerth has cancelled the EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting schedUled for Friday, 5/11/01. The next EWM/Exotics Task Force meeting is scheduled for Friday, 6/8/01. Feel free to call the office if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. 50% Recycled Content 20% Posl Consumer Waste Web Page Address: http://www.imcd.org E-mail Address: Imcd@imcd.org -7538- 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 May 10,2001 Chief Len Harrell We are writing you regarding our request of closing Wilshire Blvd. Saturday, June 2, 2001 from 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. for our fish fry. on Thank You, TSny Myers Mound Firefighter -7539- LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: TONY MYERS FROM: LEN I-IARRFJ J .~ SUBJECT: STREET CLOSURE/FISH FRY DATE: 5/16/01 CC: KANDIS HANSON I am in receipt of your request to close Wilshire Blvd. on Sa'~hrd&y, June 2, 2001 from noon until midnight for the fish fry. I have discussed your request with Kandis and have forwarded a copy of the request for information to the council. Barring any unforeseen conflict from the council your request will be granted. It is requested that you contact Grkg Skinner for the appropriate barricades to block offthe street as you have done in the past. If you need further assistance, please contact me or one of the sergeants. -7540- A o¢iation of Metropolitan Municipaliti¢ BULLETIN DATE: TO: FROM: RE: May 15, 2001 Member city officials Terry Schneider, AMM president AMM policy committees WE NEED YOUR HELP-- SERVE ONA POLICY COMMITTEE! Please consider serving on one or more AMM legislative policy committees and make a big impact on the AMM legislative effort. Enclosed are committee descriptions and a sign-up form. To ensure your city's representation, complete and return the sign-up form TODAY! The tentative committee schedules are included in the committee descriptions. Each committee will meet four times during July, August and September to develop AMM policies. If necessary, committee meetings may be called during the legislative session to respond to changing conditions. As city officials, we cannot afford to speculate and anticipate what the governor and the legislature may do. In the past, the AMM has been included in the development process of important legislation such as the Omnibus Tax bill, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) policy, the Livable Communities Act, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, housing policies and others because AMM had specific, well-defined policy and persistent presentation. This must continue, and only through active participation by all city officials can decisive, insightful and well-reasoned positions on critical metro issues be developed and achieved. Thank you in advance for your participation. Regardless of whether or not you are currently serving on a committee, please mail or fax the enclosed form to the A_MM by Monday, June 18, 2001. If you have any questions, please call Roger Peterson at (651)215-4002. NOTE: This bulletin was mailed to mayors, managers/administrators, councilmembers and current committee members only. However, other city employees such as finance directors, planning directors or city engineers, etc., are also welcome to serve on a committee -- so please route the enclosed form to these people. 145 University Avenue West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044 Telephone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: amm@amm 145, org -7541 - The following committees annually de- velop policy based on input from member city representatives. The committees sub- mit their policy recommendations to the Board of Directors for review, modifica- tion and distribution to the general mem- bership. The membership meets in No- vember before each legislative session to debate and adopt the AMM policies. Metropolitan Agencies Considers legislative issues and other poliCies related to the Met Council and metro agencies. It monitors the struc- ture and relationship between the regional and local units of government and reviews amendments to the Metro Development Guide Policy Chapters. It has previously developed policy on land use planning, solid waste management and the Met Council selection process. It reviews the Council's yearly budget and monitors other Council policies and plans being developed. Will meet on Tuesdays from 11:30 a.m. - l:30p.m. (July 17, July 31, Aug. 21 and Sept. 4) Municipal Revenues Considers any matter concerning city revenues, property taxes and city ex- penditures, including state aid formulas and dollars, levy limits, property tax as- sessments and fiscal disparities. Willmeet on Tuesdays from 2 to 4p.m. (July 17, July 31, Aug. 21 and Sept. 4) Housing & Economic Development Considers all issues related to eco- nomic development and housing, in- cluding subsidized housing, affordable housing and activities of the Metro HRA (Housing and Redevelopment Authority). It also reviews all amendments to the Met Council's Housing Guide Policy Chapter and develops policy dealing with eco- nomic development issues, HRAs, tax in- crement financing (TIF) and development authorities. Will meet on Thursdays from 11:30 a.m. to l:30p, m. (July 19, Aug. 2, Aug. 23 and Sept. 6) Transportation & General Government Considers all major issues related to air and surface transportation, in- cluding funding sources at all government levels, and issues which have an impact on metropolitan area cities but are outside the scope of other AMM committees. AMM members of the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) are encour- aged to join, along with other city offi- cials. This committee has developed policy on issues such as transportation funding, regional transit, traffic law compliance and airport noise mitigation. Will meet on Wednesdays from noon to 2p.m. (July 18~ Aug. 1, Aug. 22 and Sept. $) -7542- Name: Title: City: (Street Address or P.O. Box) (City) (ZIP code) (Phone) (Fax) (E-mail) Committee Choices: (Please indicate your first and second choices) Municipal Revenues (Tuesdays: 2-4p.m.) Metropolitan Agencies (Tuesdays: 11:30 - 1.'30p. m.) Housing & Econ. Dev. (Thursdays: l l : 30-1: 30 p. m.) Transportation & General Govt. (Wednesdays: noon to 2p.m.) Issues which should be studied: Please mail or fax completed form to: ATI'N: Laurie Jennings Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Fax: 651-281-1299 ~ Phone: 651-215-4000 -7543- Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Reminder! AMM's 2001 Annual Meeting is Thursday, May 31! Four Points Sheraton -- Minneapolis Metrodome 1330 Industrial Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55413 5:30 - 8:30 p.m. All mayors, councilmembers, administrators & managers and city staff are encour- aged to attend. This is a great opportunity to dialogue with your metro-area peers and cast your vote in the election of Board officers and directors. This year's meeting will feature Senator Roy Terwilliger (R-Edina) as the keynote speaker. Senator Terwilliger will recap the 2001 legislative session, with special attention to issues important to the metro area - such as transportation. The cost is $30 per person and guests are welcome. We will start with a social hour at 5:30 p.m. and buffet dinner at 6:30 p.m. The business meeting and program will follow at 7:30 p.m. If you have not already done so, please R.S.V.P. by faxing back this form or calling Laurie Jennings at (651) 215-4000 no later than Thursday, May 24. Please specify special dietary needs when you make your reservation. There is no fee if you only attend the business meeting, but please R.S.V.P. so a chair can be reserved for you. Name(s):. Title: City: [] Yes, 1~we will attend FAX BACK to the AMM at (651) 281-1299 -7544- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT April 2001 33.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers April 2001 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE 81,320 5,795 32,270 4,000 0 0 48,000 80 80 229,430 16,041 51,718 2,300 45 142 73,450 10 22 196,830 15,164 58,820 18,950 142 14,706 118,980 15,396 37,102 1,125,850 135,450 416,527 6,950 137 1,577 261,980 20,578 76,562 496,120 58,887 204,118 80,440 10,289 61,522 247,740 38,019 85,709 42,260 0 0 25,000 59,000 59,654 206.740 15,847 63,388 VARIANCE 49,050 4,000 47,920 177,712 2,158 73,428 138010 4 244 81 878 709.323 5 373 185 418 292 002 18 918 162,031 42,260 (34,654) 143.352 PERCENT EXPENDED 39.68% 0.00% 0.17% 22.54% 6.17% 0.03% 29.88% 77.60% 31.18% 37.00% 22.69% 29.22% 41.14% 76.48% 34.60% 0.00% 238.62% 30.66% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,266.340 390,880 1,163,917 2.102.423 35.63% Area Fire Service Fund 415,850 TIF 1-2 0 Recycling Fund 135,480 Liquor Fund 551,450 Water Fund 478,620 Storm Water 712,000 Sewer Fund 948,210 Cemetery Fund 7,500 Dock Fund 144,620 45,177 138,444 277,406 33.29% 20,283 179,453 (179,453) 15,967 33,992 101,488 25.09% 38,999 114,680 436,770 20.80% 36,929 168,760 309,860 35.26% 1,480 2,427 709,573 0.34% 62,952 292,326 655,884 30.83% 0 1,377 6,123 18.36% 13,029 46,734 97,886 32.32% Exp-00 05111/2001 Gino -7545- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT April 2001 33.33% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments April 2001 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,429,370 0 0 4,340 515 2,640 160,920 11,519 34,523 970,380 0 38,466 132,750 3,752 23,041 100,000 10,297 25,086 142,400 773 61,777 153,000 0 0 12,500 733 4,267 VARIANCE (1,429,370) (1,700) (126,397) (931,914) (109,709) (74,914) (80,623) (153,000) (8.233) PERCENT RECEIVED 0.00% 60.83% 21.45% 3.96% 17.36% 25.09% 43.38% 0.00% 34.14% TOTAL REVENUE 3,105,660 27,589 189.800 (2.915.860) 6.11% FIRE FUND 403,270 38,695 156,272 (246,998) 38.75% RECYCLING FUND 121,880 13,180 26,928 (94,952) 22.09% LIQUOR FUND 1,900,000 137,251 515,796 (1,384,204) 27.15% WATER FUND 510,000 73,848 146,277 (363,723) 28.68% STORM WATER UTILITY 101,000 12,620 25,000 (76,000) 24.75% SEWER FUND 990,000 129,621 309,148 (680,852) 31.23% CEMETERY FUND 6,250 0 400 (5,850) 6.40% DOCK FUND 81,350 546 78,936 (2,414) 97.03% 05/1112001 rev01 Gino -7546- General Fund $263,410 CDBG 1,347 Area Fire Protection Services 258,828 MSA 2!,338 Sealcoat 19,469 _P~W_ Facility_ .......................................................... 6_2_,_6~6_9_ Capital Improvement 930,277 CDB 663 Commerce Place TIF 20,736 Downtown TIF 1-2 (1,120,544) Grant Revolving 7,725 Recycling 81,227 Liquor Store 418,072 Water 794,786 Storm Water 15,874 Sewer 915,200 Cemetery 533 Dock 288,383 Fire Relief (_4__4;~!_1__7_) HRA 0 Note: The above schedule shows the combined cash and investment balances by fund for the months Indicated as recorded in the General Ledger. The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers, encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc. Only some accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included. A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before we close the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the audit from the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. In no way this schedule is intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. 05/1112001 CashReportCouncil Gin~ -7547- C : : : : : : : : : : : : : : r' : : : : : : · :::3 · : : : : : : iLL : .. : ~ : · : -'~ : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : u3 : :vt: ~ · · 0 ~ : : .~.,,~ I::: : :~-- : : ~..~ : :~>, : : :..{:3 o : ~.,~J Q) r : :-~_ r' : .,,.., ~.., $::: · -- i:).~ 0 -- -- LL m ~ ~ .~-, _~ '=. 0 .--~ 0 . ~,~ u> E Ex m~ .J_ ~ t--I (13 "~ '~'-- '~' I-- o.~ ~ ~) c m_o ~ m~ -7548- o o -7549- 0 0 -7550- 0 0 -7551 - -7552- -7553- 0 0 -7554- o -7555- 0 0 (o :0 (BO 0 0 (BO 0 ~0- ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ o .- ~ O~ 0 0 · 0 o ~ ~x · - · o-~~ ~o~ · ~'- o~ .... '~ ~E~ x~ m E.~ ~ ~,~ ~~= o- ,- ~o,~ ~ 8E~ ~=-~ _,~o~ - _ o~ o~o ~o m .- · o o ~ ~ o~ m ~ -~mo~ ~' ~ .- ,_ .- - ~=o.. ~ ~ ~°8 ~ ~'- ~ ='= ~'= ~ = ~ ='-~E TM ~= ~= ~ ~~ - - - o = ~ =.~ o ...... ~ ~ ~ E~ o m c~ -~ ~ ~ · -- 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 N o -7556- 0 0 0 -7557- 0 -7558- 0 0 0 o -7559- o o -7560- o o o -7561 - -7562- 0 0 0 0 -7563- Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Agenda. May 18, 2001, 7:15 - 9:00 a.m. Mound City Hall 1. Social Coffee, tea, rolls, fruit and juice start at 7:15 2. Introductions 7:30 3. Additions or Changes to the Agenda / Minutes 4. Announcements (15 m~n.) 5. Summer School Bus Update (15 min.) Because of timing, the Executive work group looked at the request for funding the summer school bus this year. They have approved to spend up to $1,000 on scholarships for kids participating in the middle school's summer school program. 6. Work Plan for 2001-2002 (45 min.) Each of our work group's chair people will update us on what they have planned for the upcoming budget. 7. Approve the budget for 2001-2002 (20 min.) The Finance and Operations work' group is recommending approval of the budget for July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002. The items in the budget are a reflection of the work plans presented earlier. "You cannot build a reputation on what you are going to do." Henry Ford Any comments or questions, call Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or WeyckerL@westonka.k 12. mn. us -7564- Target Group Updates Health Carol Olson, Patricia Anderson, Sandy Olstad, Carolyn Schmidt, Mary Goode, Jeanette Metz, Mark Brekke The Health Group is looking at arranging focus groups of youth to talk about depression which relates to suicide and self esteem issues. We are hoping that the focus groups will get us good data that will best address the youth needs in our area. Youth Activities Sandy Rauschendorfer-temp chair, Chris Valerius, Sue Cathers, Jean Ann Thayer, Patsy Kiesow The skate park task force is still waiting for confirmation on the site next to the Mound Police Department. The City is going to do soil tests to determine if the park can be in that location. We are planning a logo design contest for Zero Gravity Skate Park will be decided on May 24. Once a logo is developed, we will start concentrating on fund raising for the skate park. We hope to have many contacts and donations to start the process with a good base of support. The Youth Activities Group is working on getting referrals for the NYPUM projects for the second year. Parenting' Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Jeanne Stortz, Bill Erickson The Parenting Group has new brochures for parent education. They interviewed Annie Lewis from MAP- Management Assistance Program for Nonprofits to do a survey of parents and how we can best get information to them. The Parenting group will make a decision at their next meeting. Community Margaret Holste, Cathy Bailey, Cheryl Fischer A group of people from Hopkins' SCIP group and the County are compiling the information from thesurvey. Once we get the results, we will review the Human Service Pilot Project and come up with some recommendations for improving the project. Communications Anne Wilbur, Carol Olson We are working on a communications plan that uses the skate park as a sample project. Finance and Operations Mary Hughes, Len Harrell, Margaret Holste, Craig Anderson The final budget is coming to the WHCC for approval. Executive Carol Olson, Margaret Holste, Sandy Wing, Sandy Raushendorfer The Executive Group looked at a request for the summer school bus. We also discussed if Leah would have time to go to the NYPUM program for 10 Wednesdays this summer. At least one adult bringing the kids needs to be willing to RIDE the mini bikes. -7565- Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative · Minutes o April 20, 2001 Present: Craig Anderson, Patricia Anderson, Cathy Bailey, John Braland, Bill Erickson, Mary Goode, Len Harrell, Margaret Holste, Kathy Jones, Patsy Kiesow, Carol Olson, Brian Powers, Sandy Raushendorfer, Jeanne Stortz, 'JeanAnn Thayer, Edith Travers, Leah Weycker, Anne Wilbur, Sandy Wing Guests: Beth Fagen- Storefront Group, Sue Hembroff- Storefront Group, Dena Kuenzel - Presbyterian Homes Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: There was an addition of a request from Micheile Alexander, Investigator for the Mound Police Department, for funding the start up of a School Resource Officer (SRO). Announcements: The people that receive the Collaborative agenda were told about a recognition for Jeanne Stortz, since this will be her last Collaborative meeting. The Collaborative offered Jeanne a personalized bag and everyone offered an acknowledgement of Jeanne's contributions to the Collaborative, the community, the children and ourselves. Anyone that knows Jeanne knows that her bag was overflowing with wonderful things. Jeanne's footprint is forever on the Collaborative. Margaret Holste announced that Edith Travers is leaving WeCAN and heading for a warmer climate. Her short stay here has been a benefit to the whole community. We reviewed the Spring Message for the students as they arrived back from Spring Break. We passed out pictures and two newspaper articles. We have many extra gummi worms if anyone has any ideas for using them. We announced a logo contest that is going out to all the schools via the art teachers and the student announcements. Dave, from Westonka Sports offered us a 15% discount on gift certificates that will be used for prizes. The kids picked the name "Zero Gravity". We are still waiting on word from the City of Mound on the soil conditions of the site next to the Mound Police Department. The next step is to put an emphasis on fund raising. Request for funding the start up of a School Resource Officer (SRO) Leah read a letter that was received from Michelle Alexander, Investigator with the Mound Police Department, We had briefly discussed this at our last Collaborative meeting. The letter requests funds from the Collaborative to assist with the start up of a School Resource Officer that will be in the Mound Schools - Shirley Hills, Our Lady of the Lake and Grandview. There is already a SRO in the schools within the Minnetrista City limits. Michelle's request asks for a start up, one time donation of $7,500. They have already received $12,500 from Wells Fargo and $5,000 from the Lion's Club. The City of Mound will match Federal funds in the amount of $43,682: Patricia Anderson made a motion to approve $7,500 for the start up of a Mound School Resource Officer. Jeanne Stortz seconded the motion. Craig Anderson asked if -7566- they would be responsible for doing the outcome based reporting that we need to have done for the State reports. The motion makers agreed to the change to add a condition of the motion that Mound Police Department would fill the requirements of our funding process. John Braland called for the vote. The motion passed. We discussed the process for funding requests. Should the Finance and Operations group be the ones responsible for all the funding requests? It was explained that each work group usually covers the funding requests that fall with in their area. The School Resource Officer was one of the projects that didn't fit neatly in any of the work groups and there was indication at our last meeting that this project fit well with the goals of the Collaborative and the funding requirements of the LCTS funds. In the future one of the work groups should look at the funding requests. Carol Olson and Leah had developed a form for requests. (Project Request Form) We need to look at that form as send it to all of the projects that we fund. Storefront Group - Family Community Support Program, Sue Hembroff Sue Hembroff presented information on one of the projects that we fund "Family Community Support Program". Sue is the counselor that works half time with our school district families and half time with the Wayzata School District. She serves 12 families, every other week, some more often. Mainly the students were referred because of academic problems. The counseling addresses parent education and assists the family with additional services that are available. So far, in the four years of this program, there have been no out of home placements with these kids. Six of the kids are from the elementary school level and all of the students are form the special education case load. Many of the families need assistance because they are over burdened, over worked, and under skilled. The focus is on families that wouldn't get counseling services if it weren't for this program. Lenny Harrell made a motion to adjourn and Craig Anderson seconded, the motion passed. -7567- AMM FAX NEWS April 30 - May 4, 2001 (no. I I III Association of Mc[ropolitan unicipalities Tax and Spending Bills Taking Shape The Housc and Senate have approved their spending bills and conferenc,~, committees to resolve differences between the bills should begin work next week, The I louse tax bill should be debated on the floor today (May 4), while the Senate tax bill should be off the floor early next week, A summary of some of the issues ur ~;oncern to local governments contained in the bills is as follows: The House State Depar'tmunts bill was amended Thursday night to include a comprehensive pension amendment. The amendment, which was offered by Rep Harry Mares, modifies several pension provisions and contains provisions regarding the Public Employee Retirement Association (PEP. A). The PERA amendment provides approgimnt~.ly $180 million m state penston aid and Increases the employee al~d employer contribu- AMM N'ew.*: Far i. e farmd to all AMM city and .~l~ to ke~ them abreast & i~or- rant met~ city 14~ Unlve~'lty ~venue Phone: (6~l) 21~-4000 ~ne: (~0 281.1299 tion in each of the next two years by 0.35% The Senate HERA bill is scheduled for a hearing In the Finance Cummittee on Monday. The Senate bill contains similar language and rates but the pro- posed appropriation is currently only $2.0 million. The, House tax bill would remove the metropolitan transit operations I~.vy t:om the property tax and replace It with state general fund- lng. Transit debt would continue to be paid from the property tax, The House Housing and Eco- nomi6 Development Finance bill appropriates $129.6 million to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). Of the total $14.9 mfll~on ~s from federal funds (Tem- porary Assistance for Needy Families) and thc remainder from the state general fund. Thc federal funds are "one time ~und- lng." The ~enate appropriates a similar amount in base fundi.~ the MI IFA and $75.0 million in "one time" general fund~. ~c one time money will be used to fund such prngram~ ~ the in~ltmion2~ housing program ($4.0 million). [be challenge rund ($20,039 million), and the Housing TnJ~t Fund ($23,017 million). Inclu$io#ery ttousieg The Senate bill contains provi- sion~ regarding a developer initi- ated affordable housing program, If a dewloper proposes to have 20 percent of its units affordable to households having incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median ine. nmP., the c~ty ~s required to provide tl3e developer with a 30 percent den~iLy bur'ms and one additional regulatory relief moa- sum, There are no ~imilar provi- signs in the House bill. Legislative Commie./on off the Metropolitan Council The House tax bi/I includes the legislative commission as pro- posed in HF 981. The Senate companion as amended is in the Senate Tax Committee. The Sen- ate vcrsion proposcs an clcctcd Metropolitan Council. Additional information on these and uthur issues is included in the tracking report to be sent later today or accessed now on the AMM website, Once the Senate tax hill i¢ introduced, a future fax will summarize the bill and compare It to time House bill. Z66 JO Zg6 aae~ uosu~H sTpu~a -7568- ¢- xot ~!fi IS:S£:ZI Tggg ~6 fi~U AMM FAX I1 / sodation of Hetropolitan Huni[ipalitie Senate Omnibus Tax Bill n Monday the Senate Tax cradle is created to replace the ,Transfer the annual TIF reporting O~ommittee released dr..a, fts of their Omnibus bite. It wilt be marked up Wednesday, on the Senate floor Thursday, and possibly [n confer- ence Friday or Saturday. · The major difference between the Senate and House is the overall spending level. The Senate has $609 million in permanent spending compared to twice that for the House, The Senate's rebate is $425 million, half that of the House, · The Senate bill does not have levy limits as of yet nor reverse referen- dum. The LGA formula is modified, HACA is rolled into LGA and $30 million is added. According to Tax Chair po§,miller, the changes are to get most cities on formula. No city will get less LGA than current LGA plus HACA. · The Senate targets the average house ($70,000 to $200,000) for property tax relief, benefiting metro homeowners significantly. The 1 ~' tier (with a 1% class rate) is increased from $76 ,(300 to $200,000 and the 2n* tier rate drops from 1,65% to 1,5%. The maximum homestead property tax refund is increased to match the renters' credit, A new homestead A__MM News Fa~.is foxed to all ~4MM ct~y manager.~ and adrnlnistrators, legislative contacts and Board rn~rnbers, Please share thls ftzx with your mayors, councilrnembers and staff to keep them abreast of impor- tant metro ci~ issues. I45 University Avenue West Et, paul., M3[ 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 Z~]~,r~l~145'°re current education credit and agricul- ture credit programs. · State Education levy buy down is $100 million compared to House at about $800 million. Education per pupil spending is increased. · 'Limited Market Value (LMV) is phased out over three years com- mencing with assessment year 2002 by ;adding one-third of the LMV to full market difference each year. The House plan phases LMV out over 5 years. · Other class rates are reduced and tie,'s adjusted. Single family rental is th(; same as homestead 1% up to $200,000 and then 1,5%, Duplex/ Triplex will be the same in pay 2003, Apartments drop from 2.4 to 1.8%, and C/I goes to 2,0 from 2.4% and 3,0 from 3.4% with the lower tier increasing from $150,000 to $300,000. .Gas tax is indexed annually by inflation starting January 1,2003. · Sales Tax Rebate is half ($425 million) of surplus because the Senate spends about $300 million on one-time transportation projects and the rest in education and other areas. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Amendments to the tax increment financing act and special TIF laws are included in the Local Government A~ticle. The article also includes pr.ovisions related to tax abatement, airport noise abatement, and border city development and continuation of the Richfield redevelopment. The TIF sections: ,, Include the technical TiF bill function from the Office of State Auditor (gSA) to the Department of Revenue. · Transfer the enforcement of the 'I'IF law f[om the gSA to the county attorneys, · Provides for a ten-year rule for redevelopment and soils districts. The provision is effective for districts certified after April 30,1996. The provision can not be implemented until the county board approves the city's request. · Makes the housing replacement TIF district general law. Therefore a cit~ would not need to obtain legislative authorization to establish a housing replacement district. · Authorize special laws for Aurora, Brooklyn Park, Duluth, Minneapolis, Gaylord, and St. Paul. The article does not include a new definition of substandard building nor does it propose a time limit for pre - 1990 districts. Metropolitan Council The Metropolitan Area Financing and Governance Article relates to the governance of the Metropolitan Council, The article contains Senator Orfield's elected Metropolitan Council/county commissioner bill The article provides for a twenty-five member Metropolitan Council. The article also includes a provision that permits the Metropolitan Council to issue bonds or other obliga- tions to finance transit capita[ imp!ova- ments. The limit for the first year l: $45.0 million, in subsequent years .... limit amount is adjusted for inflation, uosu~H s!pu~H -7569- <- AMM FAX Association of ¢tropolitan unicipalitle Legislature nears adjournment: closure in dc)ubt As the legislature nears the constitutional deadline of Monday (May 21), the lack of a budget agreement between the House and Senate could result in the major conference committees not completing their work. In an effort to resolve their differences legislative leadership has been l frequently and several )ptions are being considered, Among them is the passage of continuing budget resolutions with an inflation factor, a budget pack- age that has minimal expenditure increases and a tax bill that has property tax reform. The continuing budget resolution option would have the legislature pass a base budget bill that would authorize spending for a portion of the biennium, During the 2002 session the legislature could complete the budget. The budget/ AMM News Fax is faxed to alJ AMM city managers and adminlstratar~', leglslattve contacts and Board members. Please share this fax with your mayors, councilmembers and staff to keep them abreast of impor- tant metro city issues. 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN $5103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: a~mmI 4$.org tax pf,ckage is also being consid- ered but given the time constraints, the bills could be streamlined to include "core" provisions. Core provisions include but are not limited to property tax reform, the rebate, and appropriations. As more information becomes available, we will keep you in- formed through a Fax/News. Status of Several Bills: Update Pensions (PERA). The PERA provisions in the omnibus state departments bill (SF 2360) are being discussed and could be pas=sad this session, Streamlining Development. SF 1619 authored by Senator Rest has been amended onto HF1310, the fees bill. HF 1310 as amended ha... been sent to the House. Rep. Abrams, the House author, can either accept the bill or request a conference committee, At this time the bill has not been discussed on the, House floor. Tax Bill. The conference Commit- teE; on HF2498, the omnibus tax bill, has been meeting, To date the committee has reviewed the bill arid has engaged in discussions regarding levy limits and tax incre- ment financing, The Senate is opposed to the levy limits and reverse referendum. The TIF articles of each bill are significantly different and the chairs have indicated that they will probably attempt to resolve the TiF issues. Economic Development and Housing Omnibus Bill, The bill's (HF2486) conference committee has been meeting and has taken extensive testimony on several issues including inclusionary housing. The committee has begun to agree on language but the housing policy issues have not been resolved, Transit Funding. Transportation Bill. The conference committee on SF2340 has met and discussed bill differences and similarities but has not discussed compromise, Sev- eral meetings have been cancelled due to the lack of targets. The House version has no transit increases and little for highways except the 60% MVET constitu- tional amendment, The Senate provides a reasonable transit increase but with a full rebate of $850m being discussed its unclear just where transit and highway funding will end up. ZSg JO Zgg OBUcI u°suuH s!puu8 -7570- <- XUcl u!fi LI:SE:t,I I00Z BI fiu~l ,. IQ and technical skills are important, but emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadersha'p. What Makes a Leader? BY DANIEL GOLEMAN EVERY BU$INESSPERSON knows a story about a highly intelligent, highly skilled executive who was promoted into a leader- ship position only to fail at the job. And they also know a story about someone with solid-but not extraordinary-intellectual abilities and technical skills who was promoted into a similar position and then soared. Such anecdotes support the widespread belief that identifying individuals with the "right stuff" to be leaders is. more art than science. After all, the personal swlcs of superb leaders vary: some lead- ers are subdued and analytical; others shout their manifestos from the mountaintops. And just as important, different situations call for different Daniel Goleman is the author of Emotional Intelligence (Ban- tam, z 99 5 ) and Working with Emotional Intelligence (Bantam, 5998). He is cochairman of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, which is based at Rut- gets University's Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology in Piscataway, New Jersey. He can be reached at Goleman~javanet. com. ARTWORK BY CRAIG FRAZIER Copyright © 1998 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All fights reserved. -7571- WHAT MAKES A LEADER? types of leadership. Most mergers need a sensitive negotiator at the helm, whereas many turnarounds require a more forceful authority. I have found, however, that the most effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emo- tional intelligence. It's not that IQ and technical skills are irrelevant. They do matter, but mainly as "threshold capabilities"; that is, they are the entry- level requirements for executive positions. But my research, along with other recent studies, clearly shows that emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership. Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive, analyti- cal mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won't make a great leader. In the course of the past year, my colleagues and I have focused on how emotional intelligence operates at work. We have exam- ined the relationship between emotional intelligence and effec- tive performance, especially in leaders. And we have observed how emotional intelligence shows itself on the job. How can you tell if someone has high emotional intelligence, for exam- ple, and how can you recognize it in yourself? In the following pages, we'll explore these questions, taking each of the components of emotional intelligence-self- awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill-in turn. abilities like analytical reasoning; and competen- cies demonstrating emotional intelligence such as the ability to work with others and effectiveness in leading change. To create some of the competency models, psy- chologists asked senior managers at the companies to identify the capabilities that typified the organi- zation's most outstanding leaders. To create other models, the psychologists used objective criteria such as a division's profitability to differentiate the star performers at senior levels within their organi- zations from the average ones. Those individuals Effective leaders are alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of emotional intelligence. Evaluating Emotional Intelligence Most large companies today have employed trained psychologists to develop what are known as "com- petency models" to aid them in identifying, train- ing, and promoting likely stars in the leadership firmament. The psychologists have also developed such models for lower-level positions. And in re- cent years, I have analyzed competency models from x88 companies, most of which were large and global and included the likes of Lucent Technolo- gies, British Airways, and Credit Suisse. In carrying out this work, my objective was to determine which personal capabilities drove out- standing performance within these organizations, and to what degree they did so. I grouped capabili- ties into three categories: purely technical skills like accounting and business planning; cognitive were then extensively interviewed and tested, and their capabilities were compared. This process re- suited in the creation of lists of ingredients for highly effective leaders. The lists ranged in length from 7 to x 5 items and included such ingredients as initiative and strategic vision. When I analyzed all this data, I found dramatic results. To be sure, intellect was a driver of out- standing performance. Cognitive skills such as big-picture think- ing and long-term vision were particularly important. But when I calculated the ratio of technical skills, IQ, and emotional intelli- gence as ingredients of excellent performance, emotional intelli- gence proved to be twice as important as the others for jobs at all levels. Moreover, my analysis showed that emotional intelligence played an increasingly important role at the highest levels of the company, where differ- ences in technical skills are of negligible impor- tance. In other words, the higher the rank of a per- son considered to be a star performer, the more emotional intelligence capabilities showed up as the reason for his or her effectiveness. When I com- pared star performers with average ones in senior leadership positions, nearly 9o% of the difference in their profiles was attributable to emotional intel- ligence factors rather than cognitive abilities. Other researchers have confirmed that emotional intelligence not only distinguishes outstanding leaders but can also be linked to strong perfor- mance. The findings of the late David McClelland the renowned researcher in human and organiza- tional behavior, are a good example. In a x996 study of a global food and beverage company, McClelland found that when senior managers had a critical mass of emotional intelligence capabilities, their 94 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1998 -7572- WHAT MAKES A LEADER,~ Motivation Skill Definition Hallmarks the abIhty to recognize' and understand self confidence your moods, emotions, and drives, as well as their effect on others the ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods the propensity to suspend judgment- to think before acting a passion to work for reasons that go beyond money or status a propensity to pursue goals with energy and persistence the ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people self-deprecating sense of humor trustworthiness and integrity comfort with ambiguiW openness to change strong drive to achieve optimism, even in the face of failure expertise in building and retaining talent skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions cross-cultural sensitivity service to clients and customers proficiency in managing relationships effectiveness in leading change and building networks persuasiveness an abihty to find common ground and build rapport expertise in building and leading teams divisions outperformed yearly earnings goals by 20%. Meanwhile, division leaders without that critical mass underperformed by almost the same amount. McClelland's findings, interestingly, held as true in the company's U.S. divisions as in its divi- sions in Asia and Europe. In short, the numbers are beginning to tell us a persuasive story about the link between a compa- ny's success and the emotional intelligence of its leaders. And just as important, research is also demonstrating that people can, if they take the right approach, develop their emotional intelli- gence. (See the insert "Can Emotional Intelligence Be Learned?"l Self-Awareness Self-awareness is the first component of emotional intelligence-which makes sense when one con- siders that the Delphic oracle gave the advice to... "know thyself" thousands of years ago. Self-aware ness means having a deep understanding of one'g,- ~ HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1998 95 -7573- WHAT MAKES A LEADER? emotions, strengths, weaknesses, needs, and drives. People with strong self-awareness are neither overly critical nor un_realistically hopeful. Rather, they a_re honest-with themselves and with others. People who have a high degree of self-awareness recognize how their feelings affect them, other peo- ple, and their job performance. Thus a self-aware person who knows that tight deadlines bring out the worst in him plans his time carefully and gets his work done well in advance. Another person with high self-awareness will be able to work with a demanding client. She will understand the client's impact on her moods and the deeper rea- sons for her frustration. "Their trivial demands take us away from the real work that needs to be done," she might explain. And she will go one step further and turn her anger into something constructive. Self-awareness extends to a person's understanding of his or her values and goals. Someone who is highly self-aware knows where he is headed and why; so, for example, he will be able to be firm in turning down a job offer that is tempting financially but does not fit with his principles or long-term goals. A person who lacks self-awareness is apt to make decisions that bring on in- ner turmoil by treading on buried values. "The money looked good so I signed on," someone might say two years into a job, "but the work means so lit- tle to me that I'm constantly bored." The decisions of self-aware people mesh with their values; conse- quently, they often find work to be energizing. How can one recognize self-awareness? First and foremost, it shows itself as candor and an ability to assess oneself realistically. People with high self- awareness are able to speak accurately and openly- although not necessarily effusively or confession- ally-about their emotions and the impact they have on their work. For instance, one manager I know of was skeptical about a new personal-shopper service that her company, a major department-store chain, was about to introduce. Without prompting from her team or her boss, she offered them an ex- planation: "It's hard for me to get behind the rollout of this service," she admitted, "because I really wanted to run the project, but I wasn't selected. Bear with me while I deal with that." The manager did indeed e;~amine her feelings; a week later, she was supporting the proiect bally. Such self-knowledge often shows itself in the hiring process. Ask a candidate to describe a time he got c~rried away by his feelings and did some- thing he later regretted.. Self-aware candidates will be frank in admitting to failure- and will often tell their tales with a smile. One of the hallmarks of self-awareness is a self-deprecating sense of humor. Self-awareness can also be identified during per- formance reviews. Self-aware people know-and are comfortable talking about- their limitations and strengths, and they often demonstrate a thirst for constructive criticism. By contrast, people with low self-awareness interpret the message that they need to improve as a threat or a sign of failure. Serf-aware job candidates will be flank in admitting to failure- and will often tell their tales with a smile. Self-aware people can also be recognized by their self-confi- dence. They have a firm grasp of their capabilities and are less likely to set themselves up to fail by, for example, overstretching on assignments. They know, too, when to ask for help. And the risks they take on the job are cal- culated. They won't ask for a challenge that they know they can't handle alone. They'll play to their strengths. Consider the actions of a mid- level employee who was invited to sit in on a strategy meeting with her company's top execu- tives. Although she was the most junior person in the room, she did not sit there quietly, listening in awestruck or fearful silence. She knew she had a head for clear logic and the skill to present ideas persuasively, and she offered cogent suggestions about the company's strategy. At the same time, her self-awareness stopped her from wandering into territory where she knew she was weak. Despite the value of having self-aware people in the workplace, my research indicates that senior executives don't often give self-awareness the credit it deserves when they look for potential leaders. Many executives mistake candor about feelings for "wimpiness' and fail to give due respect to employ- ees who openly acknowledge their shortcomings. Such people are too readily dismissed as "not tough enough" to lead others.' In fact, the opposite is tree. In the first place, peo- ple generally admire and respect candor. Further, leaders are constantly required to make judgment calls that require a candid assessment of capa- bilities- thek own and those of others. Do we have the mana~mem tml~rtise m ~c4a2e a ~umpetimr! 96 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Novemb~r-~ I99~ -7574- WHAT MAKES A LEADER? HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1998 -7575- WHAT MAKES A LEADER? Can we launch a new product within six months? People who assess themselves honestly-that is, self-aware people-are well suited to do the same for the organizations they run. Self-Regulation Biological impulses drive our emotions. We cannot do away with them-but we can do much to man- age them. Self-regulation, which is like an ongoing inner conversation, is the component of emotional intelligence that frees us from being prisoners of our feelings. People engaged in such a conversation feel bad moods and emotional impulses just as everyone else does, but they find ways to control them and even to channel them in useful ways. Imagine an executive who has just watched a team of his em- ployees present a botched analy- sis to the company's board of directors. In the gloom that fol- lows, the executive might find himself tempted to pound on the table in anger or kick over a chair. He could leap up and scream at the group. Or he might maintain a grim silence, glaring at every- one before stalking off. But if he had a gift for self-regu- lation, he would choose a differ- ent approach. He would pick his words carefully, acknowledging the team's poor performance without rushing to any hasty judgment. He would then step back to consider the reasons for the fail- ure. Are they personal-a lack of effort? Are there any mitigating factors? What was his role in the de- bacle? After considering these questions, he would call the team together, lay out the incident's conse- quences, and offer his feelings about it. He would then preseni his analysis of the problem and a well- considered solution. Why does self-regulation matter so much for leaders? First of all, people who are in control of their feelings and impulses- that is, people who are reasonable-are able to create an environment of trust and fairness. In such an environment, politics and infighting are sharply reduced and productivity is high. Talented people flock to the organization and aren't tempted to leave. And self-regulation has a trickle-down effect. No one wants to be known as a hothead when the boss is known for her calm ap- proach. Fewer bad moods at the top mean fewer throughout the organization. Second, self-regulation is important for competi- tive reasons. Everyone knows that business today is rife with ambiguity and change. Companies merge and break apart regularly. Technology transforms work at a dizzying pace. People who have mastered their emotions are able to roll with the changes. When a new change program is announced, they don't panicj instead, they are able to suspend judg- ment, seek out information, and listen to execu- tives explain the new program. As the initiative moves forward, they are able to move with it. Sometimes they even lead the way. Consider the case of a manager at a large manufacturing com- pany. Like her colleagues, she had used a certain software program for five years. People who have mastered their emotions are able to roll with the changes. They don't panic. The program drove how she col- lected and reported data and how she thought about the company's strategy. One day, senior execu- tives announced that a new pro- gram was to be installed that would radically change how in- formation was gathered and as- sessed within the organization. While many people in the com- pany complained bitterly about how disruptive the change would be, the manager mulled over the reasons for the new program and was convinced of its potential to improve performance. She eagerly attended training sessions-some of her colleagues refused to do so- and was eventually promoted to run several divisions, in part because she used the new technology so effectively. I want to push the importance of self-regulation to leadership even further and make the case that it enhances integrity, which is not only a personal virtue but also an organizational strength. Many of the bad things that happen in companies are a func- tion of impulsive behavior. People rarely plan to ex- aggerate profits, pad expense accounts, dip into the till, or abuse power for selfish ends. Instead, an op- portunity presents itself, and people with low im- pulse control just say yes. By contrast, consider the behavior of the senior executive at a large food company. The executive was scrupulously honest in his negotiations with local distributors. He would routinely lay out his cost structure in detail, thereby giving the distribu- tors a realistic understanding of the company's pric- hag. This approach meant the executive couldn't al- ways drive a hard bargain. Now, on occasion, he felt the urge to increase profits by withholding informa- 98 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1998 -7576- WHAT MAKES A LEADER? tion about the company's costs. But he challenged that impulse-he saw that it made more sense in the long run to counteract it. His emotional self- regulation paid off in strong, lasting relationships with distributors that benefited the company more than any short-term financial gains would have. The signs of emotional self-regula- tion, therefore, are not hard to miss: a propensity for reflection and thought- fulness~ comfort with ambiguity and change~ and integrity-an ability to say no to impulsive urges. Like self-awareness, self-regulation often does not get its due. People who can master their emotions are some- times seen as cold fish-their consid- ered responses are taken as a lack of passion. People with fiery tempera- ments are frequently thought of as "classic" leaders-their outbursts are considered hallmarks of charisma and power. But when such people make it to the top, their impulsiveness often works against them. In my research, extreme displays of negative emotion have never emerged as a driver of good leadership. vation If there is one trait that virtually all ef- fective leaders have, it is motivation. They are driven to achieve beyond ex- pectations- their own and everyone else's. The key word here is achieve. Plenty of people are motivated by exter- nal factors such as a big salary or the status that comes from having an im- pressive title or being part of a presti- gious company. By contrast, those with leadership potential are motivated by a deeply embedded desire to achieve for the sake of achievement. if you are looking for leaders, how can you iden- tify people who are motivated by the drive to achieve rather than by external rewards? The first sign is a passion for the work itself-such people seek out creative challenges, love to learn, and take great pride in a job well done. They also dis- play an unflagging energy to do things better. Peo- ple with such energy often seem restless with the status quo. They are persistent with their ques- tions about why things are done one way rather than another~ they are eager to explore new ap- proaches to their work. A cosmetics company manager, for example, was frustrated that he had to wait two weeks to get sales results from people in the field. He finally tracked down an automated phone system that would beep each of his salespeople at 5 ~,.~a. every day. An automated message then prompted them People who are in control of their feelings can tame their emo- tional impulses and redirect them in useful ways. to punch in their numbers-how many calls and sales they had made that day. The system short- ened the feedback time on sales results from weeks to hours. That story illustrates two other common traits of people who are driven to achieve. They are forever raising the performance bar, and they like to keep score. Take the performance bar first. During per- formance reviews, people with high levels of motiva- tion might ask to be "stretched" by their superiors. Of course, an employee who combines self-aware- ness with internal motivation will recognize her limits-but she won't settle for objectives that seem too easy to fulfill. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1998 99 -7577- WHAT MAKES A LEADER? And it follows naturally that people who are driven to do better also want a way of tracking progress-their own, their team's, and their com- pany's. Whereas people with low achievement mo- tivation are often fuzzy about results, those with high achievement motivation often keep score by tracking such hard measures as profitability or mar- ket share. I know of a money manager who starts and ends his day on the Internet, gauging the perfor- mance of his stock fund against four industry-set benchmarks. Interestingly, people with high motivation re- main optimistic even when the score is against them. In such cases, self-regulation combines with achievement motivation to overcome the frustration and depression that come after a set- back or failure. Take the case of an another portfo- lio manager at a large invest- ment company. After several successful years, her fund tum- bled for three consecutive quar- ters, leading three large insti- tutional clients to shift their business elsewhere. Some executives would have blamed the nosedive on cir- cumstances outside their con- trol; others might have seen the setback as evidence of personal failure. This portfolio manager, however, saw an opportunity to prove she could lead a turn- around. Two years later, when she was promoted to a very senior level in the com- pany, she described the experience as "the best thing that ever happened to me~ I learned so much from it." Executives trying to recognize high levels of achievement motivation in their people can look for one last piece of evidence: commitment to the organization. When people love their job for the work itself, they often ~eel committed to the orga- nizations that make that work possible. Commit- ted employees are likely to stay with an organiza- tion even when they are pursued by headhunters waving money. It's not difficult to understand how and why a motivation to achieve translates into strong leader- ship. If you set the performance bar high for your- self, you will do the same for the organization when you are in a position to do so. Likewise, a drive to surpass goals and an interest in keeping score can be contagious. Leaders with these traits can often build a team of managers around them with the same traits. And of course, optimism and organiza- tional commitment are fundamental to leader- ship- just try to imagine running a company with- out them. Empathy Of all the dimensions of emotional intelligence, empathy is the most easily recognized. We have all felt the empathy of a sensitive teacher or friend; we have all been struck by its absence in an unfeeling coach or boss. But when it comes to business, we rarely hear people praised, let alone rewarded, for their empathy. The very word seems unbusi- nesslike, out of place amid the tough realities of the marketplace. But empathy doesn't mean a kind of "I'm okay, you're okay" mushiness. For a leader, that is, it The very word empathy seems unbusinesslike, out of place amid the tough realities of the marketplace. doesn't mean adopting other people's emotions as one's own and trying to please everybody. That would be a nightmare-it would make action impossi- ble. Rather, empathy means thoughtfully considering em- ployees' feelings-along with other factors-in the process of making intelligent decisions. For an example of empathy in action, consider what hap- pened when two giant broker- age companies merged, creat- ing redundant jobs in all their divisions. One division man- ager called his people together and gave a gloomy speech that emphasized the number of people who would soon be fired. The manager of another divi- sion gave his people a different ldnd of speech. He was upfront about his own worry and confusion, and he promised to keep people informed and to treat everyone fairly. The difference between these two managers was empathy. The first manager was too worried about his own fate to consider the feelings of his anxiety- stricken colleagues. The second knew intuitively what his people were feeling, and he acknowledged their fears with his words. Is it any surprise that the first manager saw his division sink as many demor- alized people, especially the most talented, departed? By contrast, the second manager continued to be a strong leader, his best people stayed, and his divi- sion remained as productive as ever. Empathy is particularly important today as a component of leadership for at least three reasons: the increasing use of teams; the rapid pace of global- ization; and the growing need to retain talent. 100 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1998 -7578- WHAT MAKES A LEADER? Consider the challenge of leading a team. As any- one who has ever been a part of one can attest, teams are cauldrons of bubbling emotions. They are often charged with reaching a consensus-hard enough with two people and much more difficult as the numbers increase. Even in groups with as few as four or five members, alliances form and clash- lng agendas get set. A team's leader must be able to sense and understand the viewpoints of everyone around the table. That's exactly what a marketing manager at a large information technology company was able to do when she was appointed to lead a troubled team. The group was in turmoil, overloaded by work and missing deadlines. Tensions were high among the members. Tinkering with procedures was not enough to bring the group together and make it an effective part of the company. So the manager took several steps. In a series of one-on-one sessions, she took the time to lis- ten to everyone in the group- what was frustrating them, how they rated their colleagues, whether they felt they had been ignored. And then she directed the team in a way that brought it together: she encouraged people to speak more openly about their frustrations, and she helped peo- ple raise constructive complaints during meetings. In short, her empathy allowed her to under- stand her team's emotional makeup. The result was not just heightened collaboration among members but also added business, as the team was called on for help by a wider range of internal clients. Globalization is another reason for the rising im- portance of empathy for business leaders. Cross- cultural dialogue can easily lead to miscues and misunderstandings. Empathy is an antidote. Peo- ple who have it are attuned to subtleties in body language; they can hear the message beneath the words being spoken. Beyond that, they have a deep understanding of the existence and importance of cultural and ethnic differences. Consider the case of an American consultant whose team had iust pitched a proiect to a potential Japanese client. In its dealings with Americans, the team was accustomed to being bombarded with questions after such a proposal, but this time it was greeted with a long silence. Other members of the team, taking the silence as disapproval, were ready to pack and leave. The lead consultant gestured them to stop. Although he was not particularly fa- Social skill is friendliness with a purpose: moving people in the direction you desire. miliar with Japanese culture, he read the client's face and posture and sensed not rejection but inter- est-even deep consideration. He was right: when the client finally spoke, it was to give the consult- ing firm the job. Finally, empathy plays a key role in the retention of talent, particularly in today's information econ- omy. Leaders have always needed empathy to de- velop and keep good people, but today the stakes are higher. When good people leave, they take the company's knowledge with them. That's where coaching and mentoring come in. It has repeatedly been shown that coaching and men- toring pay off not just in better performance but also in increased iob satisfaction and decreased turnover. But what makes coaching and mentoring work best is the nature of the relationship. Out- standing coaches and mentors get inside the heads of the people they are helping. They sense how to give effective feedback. They know when to push for better performance and when to hold back. In the way they motivate their prot~g6s, they demonstrate empathy in action. In what is probably sounding like a refrain, let me repeat that empathy doesn't get much re- spect in business. People wonder how leaders can make hard deci- sions if they are "feeling" for all the people who will be affected. But leaders with empathy do more than sympa- thize with people around them: they use their knowledge to improve their companies in subtle but important ways. Social Skill The first three components of emotional intelli- gence are all self-management skills. The last two, empathy and social skill, concern a person's ability to manage relationships with others. As a compo- nent of emotional intelligence, social skill is not as simple as it sounds. It's not just a matter of friendli- ness, although people with high levels of social skill are rarely mean-spirited. Social skill, rather, is friendliness with a purpose: moving people in the direction you desire, whether that's agreement on a new marketing strategy or enthusiasm about a new product. Socially skilled people tend to have a wide circle of acquaintances, and they have a knack for finding common ground with people of all kinds-a knack HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1998 lOl -7579- WHAT MAKES A LEADER? for building rapport. That doesn't mean they social- ize continually; it means they work according to the assumption that nothing important gets done alone. Such people have a network in place when the time for action comes. Social skill is the culmination of the other di- mensions of emotional intelligence. People tend to be very effective at managing relationships when they can understand and control their own emo- tions and can empathize with the feelings of others. Even motivation contributes to social skill. Re- member that people who are driven to achieve tend to be optimistic, even in the face of setbacks or fail- ure. When people are upbeat, their "glow" is cast upon conversations and other so- cial encounters. They are popular, and for good reason. Because it is the outcome of the other dimensions of emotional intelligence, social skill is recog- nizable on the job in many ways that will by now sound familiar. Socially skilled people, for in- stance, are adept at managing teams-that's their empathy at work. Likewise, they are expert persuaders- a manifestation of self-awareness, self-regulation, and empathy combined. Given those skills, good persuaders know when to make an emotional plea, for instance, and when an appeal to reason will work better. And motivation, when publicly visible, makes such people excellent collaborators; their passion for the work spreads to others, and they are driven to find solutions. But sometimes social skill shows itself in ways the other emotional intelligence components do not. For instance, socially skilled people may at times appear not to be working while at work. They seem to be idly schmoozing-chatting in the hall- ways with colleagues or joking around with people who are not even connected to their "real" jobs. So- cially skilled people, however, don't think it makes sense to arbitrarily limit the scope of their relation- ships. They build bonds widely because they know that in these fluid times, they may need help some- day from people they are just getting to know today. For example, consider the case of an executive in the strategy department of a global computer man- ufacturer. By x993, he was convinced that the com- pany's future lay with the Internet. Over the course of the next year, he found kindred spirits and used his social skill to stitch together a virtual commu- nity that cut across levels, divisions, and nations. He then used this de facto team to put up a corpo- rate Web site, among the first by a major company. And, on his own initiative, with no budget or for- mal status, he signed up the company to participate in an annual Internet industry convention. Calling on his allies and persuading various divisions to donate funds, he recruited more than 5o people from a dozen different units to represent the com- pany at the convention. Management took notice: within a year of the conference, the executive's team formed the basis for the company's first Internet division, and he was formally put in charge of it. To get there, the Emotional intelligence can be learned. The process is not easy. It takes time and commitment. executive had ignored conven- tional boundaries, forging and maintaining connections with people in every corner of the or- ganization. Is social skill considered a key leadership capability in most companies? The answer is yes, especially when compared with the other components of emo- tional intelligence. People seem to know intuitively that leaders need to manage relationships effectively~ no leader is an island. After all, the leader's task is to get work done through other people, and social skill makes that possi- ble. A leader who cannot express her empathy may as well not have it at all. And a leader's moti- vation will be useless if he cannot communicate his passion to the organization. Social skill allows lead- ers to put their emotional intelligence to work. It would be foolish to assert that good-old-fash- ioned IQ and technical ability are not important ingredients in strong leadership. But the recipe would not be complete without emotional intelli- gence. It was once thought that the components of emotional intelligence were "nice to have" in busi- ness leaders. But now we know that, for the sake of performance, these are ingredients that leaders "need to have." It is fortunate, then, that emotional intelligence can be learned. The process is not easy. It takes time and, most of ail, commitment. But the bene- fits that come from having a well-developed emo- tional intelligence, both for the individual and for the organization, make it worth the effort. ~3 Product no, 3790 To place an order, call x-8oo-988-o886. 102 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW November-December 1998 -7580- FURTHER...] ARTICLES "The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact" by Henry Mintzberg (Harvard Business Review, March-April 1990, Product no. 9021 O) Whereas Goleman emphasizes emotional intelligence, Mintzberg focuses on specific skills. In this HBB Classic, Mintzberg uses his and other research to debunk myths about the manager's role. Managerial work involves interpersonal roles, informational roles, and decisional roles, he notes. These in turn require the ability to develop peer relation- ships, carry out negotiations, motivate subor- dinates, resolve conflicts, establish informa- tion networks and disseminate information, make decisions with little or ambiguous information, and allocate resources. Good self-management skills are characteristic of most leaders; outstanding leaders also have the ability to empathize with others and to use social skills to advance an agenda. "The Work of Leadership" by Ronald A. Heifetz and Donald L. Laurie (Harvard Business Review, January-February 1997, Product no. 4150) Successfully leading an organization through an adaptive challenge calls for leaders with a high degree of emotional intelligence. But Heifetz and Laurie focus on the requirements of adaptive work, not on emotional maturity. The principles for leading adaptive work include: "getting on the balcony;' forming a picture of the entire pattern of activity; iden- tifying the key challenge; regulating distress; maintaining disciplined attention; giving the work back to the people; and protecting voices of leadership from below. What Makes a Leader? "The Ways Chief Executive Officers' Lead" by Charles M. Farkas and Suzy Wetlaufer (Harvard Business Review, May-June 1996, Product no. 96303) CEOs inspire a variety of sentiments ranging from awe to wrath, but there's little debate over CEOs' importance in the business world. The authors conducted 160 interviews with executives around the world. Instead of find- ing 160 different approaches, they found five, each with a singular focus: strategy, people, expertise, controls, or change. The five com- ponents of emotional intelligence, singly or in combination, have a great effect on how each focus is expressed in an organization. BOOKS John P. Kotter on What Leaders Really Do by John P. Kotter (1999, Harvard Business School Press, Product no. 8974) In this collection of six articles, Kotter shares his observations on the nature of leadership gained over the past 30 years. Without leader- ship that can deal successfully with today's increasingly fast-moving and competitive business environment, he warns, organiza- tions wiU slow down, stagnate, and lose their way. He presents his views on the current state of leadership through ten observations and revisits his now famous eight-step process for organizational transformation. In contrast to Goleman's article on emotional intelligence, which is about leadership quali- ties, Kotter's work focuses on action: What does a leader do to lead? And how will leader- ship need to be different in the future? HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING · www.hbsp.harvard.edu U.S. and Canada: 800-988-0886 617-783-7500 ° Fax: 617-783~7555 To learn about other products from HBR OnPoint, please visit:~' www.hbsp.harvard.edu/productslarticleS /hbr°np°int'html -7581 - Page 1 of 4 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:44 PM Subject: westonka.news westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 25 April 27, 2001 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12, mn. us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Shirley Hills News Bowl Team 1st in State for Third Year in a Row --We Love Westonka Volunteers! --Budget / Legislative Action Update --Annual Recognition Banquet Honors Retirees, Veteran Employees 2. Focus Topic: So What Happens on a Teacher Workshop Day? 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **Shirley Hills News Bowl Team 1st in State for Third Year in a Row** If you're looking for a current events debate, don't mess with Karen Lueders' fourth-grade class at Shirley Hills. They'll leave you scratching your head and wishing you could go back to primary school, just to catch up. For the third year in a row, a Shirley Hills News Bowl team has earned top honors in Minnesota in News Bowl, a national current events competition. Lueders' class fielded three News Bowl teams this year, and those teams took three of the top five spots in the state. And it gets even better: the "Newshounds" team scored so well that they ranked sixth in the -7582- 04/27/2001 Page 2 of 4 nation, out of 289 fourth-grade teams. The News Bowl is a state and national current events competition open to 3rd-8th graders. The contest measured student knowledge of current events from January 1 to February 28, 2001. **We Love Westonka Volunteers? April 22-28 is Volunteer Appreciation Week, and a fitting time to give public thanks to the legions of volunteers who share their time and expertise in the Westonka Public Schools. Volunteers are involved at every level in our school district: in the classroom, in curriculum advisory committees, school parent-teacher organizations, building committees, fund raisers, school activities like plays and class parties-you name it, volunteers are there. In Westonka, we're grateful to every one of the hundreds of people who commit time and energy to improving education through personal involvement as volunteers. Thank you! **Budget / Legislative Action Update** The Minnesota House and Senate are putting the final touches to their omnibus bills related to K-12 education, and school districts throughout Minnesota are plowing through the fine print to try to determine the potential financial impact of the proposals. While the omnibus bills are not yet posted on the Legislature's Web site, school district staff are working to acquire copies so that we can provide some sort of analysis and suggestions for legislative advocacy efforts. So far (from published newspaper reports), it appears that the proposed modest increases in the per-pupil formula would not be enough to offset increasing costs for the next two years. Therefore, it remains highly likely that Westonka will have to cut expenditures by approximately $300,000 for 2001-2002. A special "budget issue" of westonka.news will be sent to Key Communicators (those receiving this newsletter) next week, focusing on the impact of budget cuts. If you would like to receive e-mail correspondence regarding how you can convey your support for the Westonka Public Schools to your legislators, please send a message to welisten@westonka.k12, mn. us. **Annual Recognition Banquet Honors Retirees, Veteran Employees** Fifteen retirees were honored at Westonka's Recognition Banquet last week, along with 21 employees who were recognized for having 15-35 years of service in the district. Retirees (including some who retired at the end of last year): Jeanne Connors, Joy Fleming, Lucille Geffre, Mary Ann Grottodden, Doug Hage, Gil Maim, Susie Matachek, Bern Millimaki, Ardelle Morano, Clarice Pauly, Jan Ptacek, Lou Turk, Mary Vogel, Jane Zambreno, and Mary Zulk. - 7583- 04/27/2001 Page 3 of 4 15 Years of Service: Pam Berent, Beth Harstad, Kay Johnson, Leigh Ann Kaminski, Sheila Smith, Rex Tasche, Lois Van Dyke, Gene Zulk, Mary Zulk 20 Years of Service: Heidi Baill, Leigh Kallestad, Deb Kornhauser 30 Years of Service: Sandra Boll, Dennis Eckman, Mary Hurley, Daphne Jacobs, Steve Lafave, Bob Lohmann, Lou Turk, Barbara Zins 35 Years of Service: Pat Furlong This year's event received generous sponsorship from: Upper Lakes Foods, Inc.; Gallagher & Associates, Inc.; Metro Athletic Supply; Prairie Bus Service; and TSP One, Inc. FOCUS TOPIC **So What Happens on a Teacher Workshop Day?** Today, April 27, is a Teacher Workshop Day in the Westonka Public Schools. If you're not sure what teachers do on a day like this, take a look at their schedule for today (this is just a summary of what they'll work on today. If you would like to see the full agenda, contact Barbara Olson at olsonb@westonka.kl2.mn.us): Morning: --K-12 subject area meetings (all K-12 teachers in a particular subject area--such as social studies, world languages, science, math, or art-meet and work together) + review & edit the graduation standards documents for 2001-2002 + plan activities related to the curriculum review cycle --Breakout sessions (participants can choose two) + special needs assessment + computer training for staff who are moving from ClarisWorks to MS Word word processing software next year + understanding disabilities + working more effectively with parents and students Afternoon: --Presentation of new reading curriculum. Breakout groups meet by grade level (K-6) to discuss implementation. --Teacher team meetings, curriculum planning (Grandview Middle School) --Department meetings, textbook orders, 8th and 9th grade teachers and guidance department analysis of Basic Skills Test scores in math and reading. Teacher Workshop Days are considered essential to good communication and planning across grade levels and among buildings. - 7584- 04/27/2001 Page 4 of 4 UPCOMING EVENTS --April 21, ECFE Annual Kid's Stuff Sale, 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., Pond Arena, Mound. --April 23, GMS Title I Family Night, 4:45 p.m., Grandview Middle School. --April 23, School Board Special Study Session, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary School. --April 24, Special Education Advisory Council, 6 p.m., Grandview Middle School. --April 24, PTO, 7 p.m., Grandview Middle School. --April 26-29, Grandview Spring Musical, "Guys and Dolls." Call 952.491.8300 for more information. --April 27, NO SCHOOL, grades K-12. --April 27, Shirley Hills Carnival, 5:30 p.m. WE WANT TO HF_AR FROM YOU! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us http://www.westonka.k 12. mn. us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. -7585- 04/27/2001 Page 1 of 1 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 1:21 PM Subject: calendar correction to westonka.news Editor error! The calendar portion of this week's electronic issue was not updated properly. Please note the corrected version below. UPCOMING EVENTS --April 26-29, Grandview Spring Musical, "Guys and Dolls." Performances at 7:30 p.m. on Friday, and Saturday. The Sunday matinee is at 3 p.m. --April 27, Shirley Hills Carnival, 5:30 p.m. --April 30, Joint Parent Advisory Council, 3:30 p.m., Early Childhood Center. --May 1, Awards Night, Mound Westonka High School. Call 491-8100 for more information. --May 3, Band Concert, 8 p.m. Mound Westonka High School.. --May 4, Grandparents' Day, 9 a.m., Hilltop Primary School. My apologies... - 7586- 04/27/2001 Page 1 0£4 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 2:01 PM Subject: westonka.news westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 28 May 18, 2001 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://wvvw.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka, kl 2. mn. us. Contents 1. News Briefs --World Language Department Receives Grant --All Westonka Schools Earn NCA Accreditation --What's Not Happening at the State Legislature --May 30 Celebration for Mary Gorder, Minnesota Music Educator of the Year 2. Focus Topic: MWHS Principal Gene Zulk Named "Principal of the Year" 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **World Language Department Receives Grant** The World Language Department at Mound Westonka High School has received a $500 grant from Educators Personal Insurance Center Agency, Inc., for the purchase of interactive language learning software for Spanish students. According to Christy Keeley-Zachow, World Language Department co-chair, the software will appeal to different learning styles and provide more opportunities for students to continue learning beyond the classroom. "There are all sorts of great things the new software will enable us to do. Without the grant, we wouldn't have been able to afford to enhance our curriculum with this type of software, and we're excited' about the possibilities," Keeley-Zachow said. -7587- 05/18/2001 Page 2 of 4 **All Westonka Schools Earn NCA Accreditation** The North Central Association recently announced that it has accredited all four Westonka schools for 2000-2001. Accreditation is important because it signals that each school: has met NCA standards and criteria; is focused on continual improvement processes; and has undergone an objective evaluation by a peer review team of recognized NCA evaluators. Shirley Hills and Hilltop Primary Schools were accredited for the ninth consecutive year, and Grandview Middle School was accredited for the eighth consecutive year. Mound Westonka has been accredited since 1966. Current data for other school districts is not yet available, but in previous years, Westonka has been among fewer than 15% of all Minnesota school districts that had earned NCA accreditation for every school within the district. **What's Not Happening at the State Legislature** There is growing concern over inaction at the Capitol regarding education funding for the next two years, in spite of next Monday's deadline for adjournment. At this writing, there is talk of a potential special session in August. If the legislature does not come to agreement on education funding by Monday, all Minnesota schools will be put in a grim position: planning programs and cutting budgets without any idea of how much funding will be available for next year. By law, school district budgets for 2001-2002 must be filed with the state prior to this coming July 1. If the legislature waits until August to determine education funding, school districts across the state will be required to meet the filing deadline by submitting budgets based largely on conjecture. According to Westonka Supt. Dr. Pam Myers, "The current legislative session offers a clear example of why school districts aren't allowed to be run more like for-profit businesses. No for- profit business would manage its finances the way the state manages K-12 education funding. The legislature is holding Minnesota students and teachers hostage, demanding that school districts be fiscally responsible but requiring that we prepare budgets with completely unknown funding." What's next? Stay tuned to next week's westonka.news for an update. **May 30 Celebration for Mary Gorder, Minnesota Music Educator of the Year** Mary Gorder, Westonka Public Schools music teacher and Minnesota Music Educator of the Year, will be honored at an afternoon tea on Wednesday, May 30, from 3:15 to 4 p.m. in the media center of Shirley Hills Primary School, 2450 VVilshire Boulevard, Mound. - 7588- 05/18/2001 Page 3 of 4 Gorder was named Music Educator of the Year by the Minnesota Music Educators Association last fall. The award goes to up to four teachers annually, honoring their outstanding contributions to music education. Gorder has taught music 27 years, 26 of them in Westonka. All community members and former students are welcome to attend the celebration for Mary Gorder. For more information, call Shirley Hills Primary School at 952.491.8409. FOCUS TOPIC **Mound Westonka High School Principal Gene Zulk Named "Principal of the Year"** Gene Zulk, principal of Mound Westonka High School, has been named "Principal of the Year" by the Hennepin Division of the Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals (MASSP). According to a press release from MASSP, Zulk was selected for this honor by his peers who are high school principals in more than 250 schools in Hennepin and Carver counties. His selection recognizes his "many accomplishments in the field of education and his involvement in MASSP." Zulk is now a candidate for Minnesota Principal of the Year, whose selection will be announced in October 2001. Zulk has served as principal at Mound Westonka High School for 15 years. He will receive his MASSP honor at the organization's annual awards ceremony in mid-June. If you would like to send a note of congratulations to Gene Zulk, you may write him at: Mound Westonka High School, 5905 Sunnyfield Road East, Mound MN 55364. UPCOMING EVENTS --May 21, Hilltop fourth-graders leave for a week at Wolf Ridge Environmental Learning Center, Ely. --May 21, Joint Parent Advisory Council, 3:30 p.m., Early Childhood Center. --May 21, --May 21, --May 22, --May 22, --May 23, --May 24, --May 24, --May 24, --May 28, Gr. 7 Choir Concert, 7 p.m., Grandview Middle School. School Board Study Session, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary School. Special Education Advisory Council, 6 p.m., Hilltop Primary School. GMS PTO, 7 p.m., Grandview Middle School Ali-School Talent Show, 7:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School. Preschool Moving Up Night, 6 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary School. Gr. 5 Band Concert, 7 p.m., Grandview Middle School. Ali-School Talent Show, 7:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School. Memorial Day, No School K-12. - 7589- 05/18/2001 Page 4 of 4 --May 29, Late Start for Gr. K-4 for teacher planning. No AM Kindergarten. Primary school day starts at 11:10 a.m.; bus schedules are adjusted accordingly. WE WANT TO HE. AR FROM YOU! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at <olso n b@westo n ka. k 12. mn. us> It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us http://www.weston ka. kl 2.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. - 7590 - 05/18/2001 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -7591 -