The URL can be used to link to this page

86-01-28 CITY OF' MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1986 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Approve Minutes of January 14, 1986, Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING; Delinquent Utility Bills for January PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendment to the District Provisions and Performance Standards of the Zoning Ordinance to Regulate Satellite Dish Antennas Consider Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the Operation of a Water Ski School at 2627 Commerce Blvd. On Lake Langdon. CASE ~86-502: Mr. Richard C. Halvarson, 2501 Emerald Drive, Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit B. Request: Front Yard Setback Variance Request for Extension of Variance Resolution #83-23 Mr. Walter Helland, Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores Request from Anthony VanDerSteeg. Public Access to Lake Minnetonka - Mark Koegler, City Planner. (Additional information to be handed out at the Meeting). Discussion/Direction - Lost Lake Property. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Public Works'Facility Proposal (Additional Information to be handed out at Meeting). Lynwood Blvd. Project and M.S.A. Fund Balance - John Cameron, City Engineer Preliminary Engineering Report - Street Improvement of Westedge Blvd. from County Road 15 South to Woodedge Road - John Cameron, City Engineer Gramm Rudman Deficit Reduction Process - Action Alert LMC Pg. 156-163 Pg. 164 Pg. 165-172 Pg. 173-~95 Pg. 196-207 Pg. 208-211 Pg. 212-218 Pg. 219-237 Pg. 238-239 Pg. 240-24i Pg. 242-243' Pg. 244-253 Pg. 254-256 Page 1 53 Membership in Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) Resolution to Fro¥ide for a Free Flow of Information to the Public and for a More Open City Govenment - Couneilmember Steve Smith 1986 Commercial Insurance Program Risk Management Pg. 257-270 Pg. 271 Pg. 272-287 Pg. 288-290 Proclamation: Tournament 3rd Annual Shoot Out Basketball Pg. 2 91 Payment of Bills Pg. 292-304 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Mill Rate Information for 1986 from Hennepin County B. Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 1986 Pg. 305-306 Pg. 307-311 Ce Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program - Background & Direction Pg. 312-320 De Ee F® Ge Model Agreement for Reliable Access Parking between L.M.C.D. and City of Minnetrista Pg. 321-327 LMCD Memo on Prosecution of LMCD Violations on Lake Minnetonka Pg. 328-330 Proposed L.M.C.D. Ordinance on Public Nuisances on Watercraft. Pg. 331-332 Report on Recycling - A Proposal by the Metropolitan Council from Jon Elam. Pg. 333-356 Page 155 The vote was unanimously in favor· ~ MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER SMITH January 14, 1986 Motion carried. MOTION made by Smith that the Council request that area newspapers publish the individual votes of Councilmembers on 4~e~ ~-m~es. The motion died for lack of a second. ~~~(e~-' iNFORMATION/MISCELLAN£OUS A. School District Minutes of December 9, 1986. B. Letter from City Attorney regarding planning and zoning law. C. Letter from City Attorney to U.S. Magistrate regarding the dismissal of Gregory J. Skinner vs. City of Mound. D. Letter and report from Metropolitan Waste Control Commission regarding rate setting. E. Memo from League of Minnesota Cities regarding appointments to 1986 Conference Planning Committee. F Cover Memo of 1986 Proposed City Policies and Priorities from · ~ League of Minnesota Cities. G. Cover Letter from Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding 1985-86 Policies and Legislative Proposals. H. 1987 Local Government Aid Formula based upon LMC's Prop°sed Policies RS-2 and RS-3. I. Summary of area bond sales as published by Ehlers & Associates. J. Article from Metro Monitor (.Metro. Council) regarding public access to Lake Minnetonka. K. Article from Metro Monitor regarding recycling programs. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to adjourn at 9:~5 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City'Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk BILLS ...... JANUARY 14, 1986 Batch 854122 .... Computer Run dated 1/7/86 Batch 854123--'--Computer Run dated 1/9/86 Batch 85h12~ .... Computer Run dated 1/10/86 Batch 86h01] .... Computer Run dated 1/]0/86 ~59,130.$1 7~,35~$1 '13,834.$5 5,973.22 Total Bills 553,292.79 Delinquent Utility Bills 1-Z3-86 ~,lol u,, n~o~, n aid 33 424 4759 O1 ' - Car'ol Grande 33 439 4446 Zl 33 439 4510 51 33 439 4681 42 33 439 4948 73 33 439 5017 Ol 33 442 4574 52 33 445 2764 71 v. Brandenburg Carol Stodola John Zambori Robert Henderson James Christensen Dick Haley Richard Breustad '~°.~ ~:75 II~~'r.¢ 3~- 33 478 2854 71 33 484 3106 91 :33 518 4660 92 33 518 4717.72 33 521 3101 92 33 53O 3118 42 33 530 4823 81 33 539'4838 71 33 548 3107 91 33 572 4872 71. '33 575 4853 02 '33 581 2893 62 33 593 4933 32 33 596' 5137 31. 33 620 4828 61 · 33 623 5313 22 33 635 5227 81 33 647 5211 71 33 65O 4610 51 David Borrett Doug Hasti.ngs D. Lindgren Charles Hamm Mark Jones Mary 6rones Joseph Fink Rand Sarles John Lien Deanna Mohn M. Maas Wm. Latour Susan Arne ,Mellisa Heinzen Douglas Nelson Fred Denn Luccille Steere Duane Nelson Gordon Wolf * made arrangements u .... 2703 · 77.69 4758 Galway Lane 157.71 4446 Wilshire Blvd. 129.24 4510 Wilshire Blvd. 159.48 70.85 136.12 104.54 73.37 · ~73.22 4681,Wilshire Blvd. 4948 Wilshire Blvd~ 5017 Wilshire Blvd. 4574 Denbigh Rd. 2764 Cardigan Eh. ~/~u 6eOford ~. 68.67 97.70 107.41 119.22 183.81 181.48 lq~;.75 ' 433) ~runswiUk R~oJ" · '~. ~.. 66 1;5'.3 ;-;o,,~:,~. tar 2854 Essex Lane 3106 Tuxedo Blvd. 4'660 Hampton Road 4717 Hampton Road 3101 Paisley Road 3118 Donald Drive 4823 Donald Drive 164.71 4838 Glasgow Road 54.81 3107 Argyle Ln. 188.34 4872 Monmouth Road 101.94 4853 Plymouth Road 54.81 . 2893 Cambridge Lane 156.28 159.31 257.66 112.45 82.77 162.47 60.00 4933 Drummond Road 51 37 Hanover Road 4828 Island View Drive 5313 Phelps Road 5224 Waterbury Road 5211 Phelps Road 4610 Kildare Lane I3841.06 3307.40 Delinquent Utility Bills 1-23-86 33 406 2700 32 33 424 4759 O1 33 439 4446 21 33 439 4510 51 33 439 4681 42 33 439 4948 73 33 439 5017 O1 33 442 4574 52 33 445 2764 71 33 463 4740 81 33 466 4937 31 33 475 4645 31 33 478 2854 71 33 484 3106 91 33 518 4660 92 33 518 4717 72 33 521 3101 92 33 530 3118 42 33 530 4823 81 33 539 4838 71 33 548 3107 91 33 572 4872 71 33 575 4853 02 33 581 2893 62 33 593 4933 32 33 596 5137 31 33 620 4828 61 33 623 5313 22 33 635 5227 81 33 647 5211 71 33 650 4610 51 $ 88.03 77.69 157.71 129.24 159.48 70.85 136.12 104.54 73.37 179.22 114.75 1'11.66 68.67 97.70 107.41 119.22 183.81 124.56 181.48 164.71 54.81 188.34 101.94 54.81 156.28 159.31 257.66 112.45 82.77 162.47 60.00 $3841.06 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553.1950 TO: City Council and Staff FROM.- Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 27, 1985 SUBJ-. Satellite Dish Antennas The purpose of this memorandum is to update the City Council on the status of the ordinance regulating satellite dish antennas Attachments to this memo include .- · 1. Memorandum - January 22, 1985 2. Planning Report - March 4, 1985 3. Memorandum - July 31, 1985 4. Planning Commission Minutes - August 12, 1985 The memorandum of January 22, 1985, contained the original draft of a satellite dish antenna ordinance. This ordinance amendment was denied by the City Council on a 2 to 2 vote. Following that action, the Planning Commission, at the direction of the Council, discussed further modification of the ordinance and directed staff to prepare the ordinance that is found in the March 4, 1985, planning Report. At the July 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, staff was. asked to prepare additional material for the Commission's reviewl That material is found in the memorandum dated July 31, 1985. Prior to the establishment of a public hearing on the revised satellite dish antenna ordinance, staff feels that the City Council may want to discuss three specific provisions: materials, grandfathering and placement locations. The Planning Commission, at 'its meeting on August 12, 1985, recommended that only open mesh-type dish antennas should be permitted. They specifically recommended excluding the solid fiberglass antennas for aesthetic reasons. ~n response bo existing antennas, the Commission recommends that all existing antennas be grandfathered providing that they meet the placement criteria (location, setbacks, height, etc. ) identified in the new ordinance. The staff memorandum also addressed the permitted location of antennas. The intent of the ordinance is to prohibit satellite dish antennas in front and side yards. Front and side yards are intended to mean the entire front and side portions of a lot. Therefore, antennas could be placed ~nly at the rear of a structure subject to applicable setbacks. Placement in any other area would require a variance. If the City Council wishes to pursue a dish antenna ordinance, the issues of materials, grandfatherlng and placement need to be addressed. The Council could either discuss these items and modify the ordinance as appropriate prior to the public hearing or leave the ordinance in its present form and, after hearing public cogent, make appropriate modifications. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minne~,polt8, Minnesota 5544t 612/553-1950- TO: City coUncil and Staff FRfkM.- Mark Ko~31er, City Planne~- DATE.' ,'~rch 4r 1985 ~~ ~i~ ~in~ ~e~nt - Satellite Dish ~te~s T~ P~i~ C~isst~ has pre~r~ an amendment to the zoning Drdinance regulating satellite dish ante~as. The ame~nt of the o~i~n~ involves 1'. Es~hI~h ~finiti~ 4A (~f~ 23.302) as foll~s:I (4A) ~te~a, Satel}ite Dish L A ~rabolic dish ante~n~ greater t~n t~ee (3)' feet ~ dia~ter w~ pu~ or o~r si~al~ fr~ o~fting ~tellites and othe= eXt~te~estriaI ~s. Su~ ~vices ~ically inclu~ a 1~ noi~ ~lifier (LNA) . which is situate'at t~ fo~l ~int o~ the ~ pu~ is ~ ma~i~ a~' ~ansfer sisals. 23.604.4 ~itt~ Ac~s~ Uses (R-l) Satellite dish antennas - Subject to appli~ble ~stricti~s in Sec~i~ 23.732. 23.625.3 ~ditional U~s (B-l) ~tellite dish anten~s - S~4ect to applicable ~stricti~s in ~cti~ 23.732. '23.630.3 Conditional Uses (g-2) Satellite dish antennas - Subject to aopticab.]e restrictions in Section 23.732. City Coun¢,i.1 and Paqe Tw~ .March 4, 1985 2326/5.3 _Conditional Uses (8-3) ~. _ _ ; _ _= .... Satellite dish antennas - Subject to applicable restrictions in Section 23.732. 23.640.3- Conditional Uses (I-l) Satellite dish a~tennas - Subject to applicable restrictions in Section 23.732. In Section 7, PER~ STkNDARDS, add the following-- 23.732 23.73Z.! SATEtL'IIE DISH ANTENNAS Satellite Dish Antennas in Residential Districts Dish antennas shall be prohibited within any front and side yard area or rooftop. Dish antennas are permitted rear yards if they are effectively screened from pubItc view b~ fencing or vegetation. Installation of a satellite dish shall require a building' permit. - .. ~ size of the dish antenna shall be no greate= than ten (10)' feet and limited to one satellite dish per zoning lot. All setback requirements shall c~mply with the established setbacks in each respective zone. Maximum height of ground mounted dish antennas shall be twelve (12) feet from top of antenn~ to ground, All ground mounted antennas shall be constructed so a~ to withstand a wind load of 80 miles per hour. Depending on site conditions, the dish antenna must be mounted in accordance with the slab on grade and. provisions of the State Building Code or mounted in a concrete pier footing that is at least 8 inches below the frost line. % satellite dish antenna shall be constructed of galvanized steel or aluminum, have a perforated (meshlike) or opague surface and of a color that is compatible to the surroundings. High Glare, metallic finishes or bright colors are not .permitted. · City Counci! and staff Page Three ..March 4, 1985 23.7-32.2 Satell{te Dish Antennas. tn Commercial and Industrial Districts All the pecformance standards listed in 23.732.l shall apply ~o satellite dish antennas in ccmmerciaI and industrial districts unless modified or suppIemented as follows: Dish antennas may be permitted within, side and rea~-yards if they are effectively screened-from publ~ic view by fencing or vegetation. Dish antennas shall be prohibited from cooftops unless it is determined by the City Council that placement within' side or teac yards is impractical. If a roof mounted dish antenna is permitted, the dish,must be fully screened public view-with bui.l, ding. ma~ecials similar in appearance to th~ principal bui.ldl.ng and Sn proportion to the height an~ size of .the buzld~ng. Anchoring must'be approved by the.buildirg~ official. Size of dish antenna shall be no greater than twelve (12~ feet and limited to one satellite dish per zoning lot. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55441 612/553.1950 TO: Planning Commission and Staff From: Mark Koegler, City Planner 6~/ DATE: July 31, 1985 SUBJ: Satellite Dish Antennas At the July 8, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, staff was directed to prepare additional information in two areas: dish materialz and grandfather clauses. The followin~ addresses these conce..rns: Satellite Dish Material - I spoke with several suppliers of satellite dish antennas. In general, ~olid dishes are the most popular because they require a size of 10-feet ir~ diameter or less.- Of the solid dishes, the best ones are made. of 100 percent aluminum althOugh the steelO~h type covered with fiberglass are most common due to lower cost. There is no substantial difference in cost between steel mesh (open) dishes and fiberglass (solid) dishes. Mesh dishes are required to be larger (about I2-feet) because the openings decrease the amount of signal captured which decreases picture quality. Technology is continuing to make dishes smaller and one supplier stated that 8 1/2 foot diameter solid dish antennas will be on the market in the very near future. Although dishes may be ordered in a wide variety of colors, most dishes are either white or black. Many people prefer black in wooded areas because they feel that they blend in with the dark tree trunks. Black antennas, however, have to be larger than light colored ones because the carbor~ ir~ the black paint absorbs a portion of the signal requiring a larger surface area. One supplier also mentioned that Kansas City, Missouri, has adopted a satellite, dish antenna ordinance that requires the owner to construct a fiberglass building around the dish antenna, 12o Grandfather Clause -There are a variety of ways of handling the grandfathering of existing dish antennas. The "by the book' approach would grandfathe~ existing antennas providing:, that~ they were installed acc~.~ding to the city codes in affect prior to adoption of the satellite-'dish"ordinance. Since the city code presently prohibits all dish antennas, none would be eligible for ~randfatherinG. A second approach is to consider ali existinG antennas as grandfathered providing they meet the placement criteria identified in the new ordinance. This approach would probably result in the grandfatherinG of a few of the. existing antennas, however, a significant number would probabIy not meet the set-backs, type of installation, screening etc. and would not be eligible fo~ grandfathering status. A third and much more lenient approach would be to grandfathe~ in all existinG antennas providing that they do not pose a threat to publim health and saferF nor do they conflict with the reasohable usage of'any adjacent property.. Findings regarding public health/safety and reasonabIe usage would have to t~ made by the City Council o~ a case by case basis. Upon further direction fro~ the Planning Commission, staff can prepare language for the ordinance which will establish one of these approaches for the grandfatherinG of existing dish antennas. Antenna location - At the la~.t meeting, there was discussion regardinG Section 23.732.1(a) which states that "dish antennas shall.be prohibited within any front and side yard area or rooftop.." There seems to be some' confusion pertaining to this statement. The intent of this provision is to' prohibit antennas in front and side yards. This section requires that antennas be. placed in the rear yard; which under the definition in the Zoning Ordinance, would include the lake front area in most situations. If someone did not desire to place an antenna between their house and lakeshore, & variance would' be required to place it ir~ a side yard location. Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission clarify their intent regarding each of the three items noted in this memorandum. Upo~ clarification, it is recommended that the ordinance draft be submitted to the City Council for further action. Planning Commission Hinutes August 12, l 85 - Page 6 that is not their intent[on. . They will-leave bUi.lding essentially the way it is; wi !1 make window improvements and they will be improving. Lunalite office area.which wil~l be part of the truck dock turned into office space. .The Planner reviewed.the conditions outlined in the resolution. He also asked that Item J be added which would read, '~prohibit exterior parking o'f vehic]es exceeding 2/4 hours duration except in designated areas". He stated that parking was going to be extreme].y tight;, nothing.on the south side of Shoreline Boule- vard is part of their' application. The Commission discussed at length parking', what constitutes storage of .indus- trial mater|als~ etc. It was agreed that Hark COuld put something together for Item J such as e'No oul~side parking and storage.excePt by operations Permit process for period exceeding 2/4 hours duration ~leiland moved and Ken Smi'th"seconded a motion to recommend. apprC~va] of Resolu- tion Granting Conditiona] Use Permit to Balboa Hinnesota Company for the Establishment of a Planned .Industrial Area The vote was unanimously in favor. Hotion carried. -' Operations Permit for Lunalite, Inc. . The Planner advised 'that this'permi.t'does not requi~e comment by the Commission; it is in the packet for informational purposes. He also stated the form of this may change; by the time the next.one comes in, City may have an established 'app]ication form. The permit was discussed briefly. Sate]lite.Disl) Antennas The P]anner stated the Commission had asked.him to research this subject. Basically there is not a significant difference .in the cost of satellite dish antennas; they can be gotten in any color; the mesh need to be slightly larger for reception purposes. The Commission discussed types, color and the grandfathered issue. It was agreed we should require a mesh type in'a dark color (gray or black). The second approach to grandfathering was the Commiss. ion~s choice. The Commission looked over the informational items briefly and signed the letter to be sent to former Commissioner Vargo. Adjournment I~eese moved and Heyer seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at ]0:30 vote was ali in favor. Heeting was adjourned. The 'E'lizabeth Jensen, Chair Attest: 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Planning Commission and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner November 26, 1985 Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Steve Tessmer LOC_~TION: 2627 Commerce Blvd. CASE NO: 85-451 VHS FILE NO.: 85-310-A29-Z0 EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-l) COMP~NSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to establish a water ski school on Lake Langdon. In addition to water ski lessons, Water Club West will offer sailing and windsurfing rentals and lessons at Mound Bay Park which is across the street from the proposed ski school site. COMMENTS: This case presents three primary issues: 1) the use of a public park by a for-profit enterprise, 2) the land use aspects of the proposed ski school, and 3) the impact of the proposed use on Lake Langdon. The first issue is being addressed by the Park and Recreation Commission. They will provide the City Council with a recommendation on the proposed usage of the park. 'The Planning Commission needs to address the land use and environmental aspects of this proposal. Comments on each of these issues are as follows: Land Use - The zoning ordinance allows commercial recreation as a conditional use in the Central Business (B-1) Zone. In order to be approved, proposed conditional uses must m~et the criteria for granting a permit. Essentially, the criteria which are listed on page 25 of the Zoning Code. require that a proposed use not be detrimental to the use of the surrounding properties, that the proposal be consistent with City policies and plans and that adequate infrastructure be available to support the proposed level of development'. /73 Water Club West, appr0ved will establish a ski s~hool in an existing house (labeled B on the applicants site plan). The lower level of the house will serve as an office and the upper floor will be used for employee housing. The operation will employ approximately 4-5 people and adequate parking is available for both and staff ~nd customer use. Accordin~ to the applicant, the water ski school will only involve one boat on the lake at a time. They propose to equip the tow boat(s) with extra mufflers in order to control noise. Environmental Impact_- The second item that needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission is the impact that the water ski school will have on Lake Langdon and the surrounding properties. In order to obtain background information on the lake, I talked to the DNR and the Minnehaha Watershed District. A 1983 survey of the lake noted the following: - Total water area 143.9 acres - Maximum depth 38 feet-83% of the lake is less than 15 feet in depth - 1.8 foot clarity - Pea soup green color - Low oxygen levels " - Residual pollution from treatment plant that was discontinued 10 years 'ago - Predomlnately bullheads, some northerns, black crappies and s~fish Additionally, a recreation census conducted in 1979 found very little rec~eational usage of the lake. Impacts on the surrounding properties due to noise frc~ boat operations is controllable through the use of mufflers. Environmental impacts to the lake and specifically to water quality are not as easily controlled. The operation of the tow boat will agitate the lake, .particularly, since the majority of the lake is less than 15 feet deep. City Staff lacks .the expertise to accurately assess what, if any, impact this agitation may have on water quality. I assume that such an operation may potentially increase algal blooms which will further lower oxygen levels possibly resulting in a summer kill of the few game fish in the lake. In discussing the agitation/water quality issue with both the DNR and Watershed District personnel, they indicated that they agreed with my assumption. It was not assumed by any of the individuals that I spoke with that the approval of the proposed operation would pose any health hazards to the ski school operators or patrons. If the Planning Commission has serious reservations about the water quality impacts of the proposed use, the City could, at the applicants expense, retain a qualified, li~nologist to review the information and provide the City with a recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission finds that the land use is appropriate and that the operation of the ski school will not negatively impact Lake Langdon, it is recommended that the conditional use permit for Water Club West be approved subject to the foll~{ing conditions: Operation of the tow boats and ski lessons shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. No more than two boats may be tied to the Water Club West ~ock and both boats must be registered tm the owner of the water ski soho61. Application for sign permits shall be filed with the City. Noise generated from the operation of tow boats shall not exceed 65 decibels as measured from any Doint along the lake shore. The request shall be reviewed by Mound's Insurance-Carrier to determine if the City assumes any liability as a result of the issuance of a conditional use permit and, if applicable, the owners of Water Club West shall hold the City harmless for any damages resulting-from the operation of the ski school. If the Planning Commission has any concerns regarding the long term operation of the 'proposed ski school, the conditional use ua-rmit could be issued on an annual basis. BOARD OF APPEALS~ HOUND ADV.ISORY PLANNING COHHISSION HEETING | DECEHBER ~','1~85 Case ~o. BS-qSl. Public ~earlng on Conditional Use Permit ~r the ~peratlon of a Water Ski School at 2627 Commerce 'Boulevard on Lake Langdon Heres $ Bounds'OAscrlpt'lon - Part ~f Lot 1., Auditor~s SubdivisiOn 168 .. Pi0 23-117-2q lq Steve Tessmeff of' Water Club West Was present. Hark Koegler; Clty Planner,.revlewed his report, stating th~ ~he'a~pllcant seeking a 6ondltlonal use permit {o establ, i.sh a..water ski schoql and In con- junction with that, he Is proposing to offer salllng and w. indsurflng rentals and'lessons at Hound Bay Park· As a package, that presents 3 Issues:. I) the use of a public park by a for"profit enterprise, 2) the land use aspects of the proposed ski s6ho01, ~n~ 3) the Impact of.~he proposed use on Lake Langdon. He stated the' first Issue Is being addressed by both the City Council and the Park Comalsslon. The other, two, the Planning Com~i.sslon needs to address. There wi. Il be a public hearing before the. City Council a week from tomorrow · evening. . Land U~e - He commented the zoning ordinance allows commercial recreation as a conditional use in the B-1 Zone; they are asking, if approved, tp establish a ski 'school.in an exist.lng house with the lower level serving as'an office and the upper floor used for employee housing. Operation will employ q-5 people and there.is adequate parking for both staff and customer use. .They Propose to use one boat on the lake at a time and further added, they would also pro- pose t° equip the tow boat{s) with ex~ra mufflers to control noise. Environmental· Impact.- He commented he talked to a number of people at theJONR ' and 'the Hinnehaha Watershed District in order to get some background material on the lake. He has listed some Information from'a 1983 survey, such as size, depths,.water color, etc. Potentially, the operation of boating activity of any kind will cause some agitation of the lake, particularly since the majority of lake is.shallow. He stated City st~ff does not know and can only assume that such an operation may potentially Increase algae blooms whtch will lower oxygen levels possibly resultlng'inla summer kill of the few game fish In the lake; No one he .talked wi. th' assumed that the proposed operation would pose any health hazards 'at all to users of the lake. He stated that. If the. Planning Commission has' reservations about water quality Impacts', they could require the retentldn of somebody from the Freshwater Biological Institute or somebody working ~n a 'free'lance basis to do some further testlng and get some recommendations back to the City. He itemized the followi'ng conditions.he would recommend if the Commission finds the land use Is .appropriate. and the ski school operation will not negatively ." impact Lake Langdon: 1. Operation of the tow boats and ski .lessons shall 'be.limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. to control noise a little blt further ~nd also with stipulation one boat at a time be allowed on the lake. 2. No more than two boats may.be tied ~o the ~ater C]ub ~est dock and both boats must be registered to the 'owner of the water ski school. 3. Application for sign permits shall be'filed with the .City. q. Noise generated .from the operation of tow boats shall not exceed 65 decibels as measured from any point along the lake shore. .. Planning Commission Hlnutes December 9, 1~)85 - Page 2 $. The request shall be reviewed by Ho. und*s Insurance Carrier to determine-if the City assumes any liability as a result of the i'ssuance of a conditional use permit and, if appllcable, the owners of Water Club'West shall hold.the City harmless for any damages resulting from. the ski school operation. In conclusion, he stated tha~ the condltional use' permit cbuld be'Issued on an annual basis If the Commission has. concerns regarding the long 'term operation... The Planning Commission had questions and.comments on who was notified of this hearing, number of other,'h~ats..that Use the lake, noise levels~ slalom course and Jumps planned, 'etc.' ." App]icant. Steve Tessmer.stated that.they researched-this prOject a year ~go ... and also Lake Langdon because they. knew It was a'green lake and not particularly attractive'.for a'swlmmlng 'place. The type of operatlon they'hope to cohduct will bring enthusl&stlc'water, sklers Who want. togo-one at.a.tlme on a lake without other boats and where there, are'not waves to contend ~lth and they can train and practlce behind a. tournament quallty ski bo~t wlth'some professional Instructlon. They think there;Is a real. market for that in the whole Twln City area...They also addressed the state of the lake..and.all the green algae. Up. until last week's newspaper article, they thought they .had all these concerns' pretty we11 taken.care. Of. He talked with several .people on this. Any lake stratlfies"In the summer' time. It Is very difficult to.mix, that. lake up. Ali the phosphorous..ls trapped at the.bottomof the lake and a boat does not mix the water'at the'bottom of lake any significant amount. Dr. Swain of the Fresh- water Blologlcal Instltute'told him a ~indy day does more to stl,r.up a lake than 1 boat. They have a. boat that is deslgn&d to'Pun in shallower water; only. takes 22'inches of water, to run in; purpose, is less stirring up of the bottom i of 'lake;.'They Intend'to do most water skilng'on the east shore;'they realize the 'long term use of this thing will be determined by ho~ fe~ comp]aints they get. So, as far as the noise.issue, the.boat they intend to use has a noise rating of.50 decJbels; lt~s an 'inboard.ski boat equipped with additional muf- flers. In response .to a. question, Tessmer stated they would have slalom'skiing, but no jumps. The Chair then opened.the public·hearing. The followlng persons responded: DEANNA BURGESS, 576'q Bartlett Boulevard-- 5poke against the. use;.felt-it w~uld- destroy.the wil.dlife'and tranquility of the lake; against .the.constant zoom of a motor boat. H..L.'SYCKS, 5~00 Bea~h~ood. Road. -'Spoke in favor.~f the. use on..a'limite~ basis with a one boat operat, l&n the first year. and with"the'.appllcant flnanclng...a water quality study at the end of the first year~s operation. He also stated one agency suggested the C-lty request, funding from the Hinnehaha..Creek Water- shed District to imprdve the quality of the water.. .. ., JIH BEDELL,.C~ner of 2617-2613 Commerce Boulevard~ .~s very. much in. favor of use; he mentioned that approximate, ly ~0~ of lake i's commercial .(~r~m.2631 Commerce .past the Lynwood 'Apartments); doesn't see that the noise would bother him. DUDLEY FITZ, 5776 Bartlett BOulevard , Spoke.against'the use; wants to be able to keep Langdon a-fairly quiet area and for non-motorized boats. After everyone had an opportunity to'be heard,'the Chair closed the public hearing. 177 December D, IDB5 - Page 3 'The Commission discussed the pOssll~le e'nvlronmen.tal impact, the noise 1eve!, the p0sslblllt¥ of havlng, a study don= on 1ak= conditions, before and after a ' perlocl of tlme (such as a year) an.d who would finnnce 'the stu'd¥, whether C.U.P. st~ould be granted on an nnn'ua'l bas~s',"number and frequency of Power/other boats(' presently using lake, Heyer.asked to hear'more 'from the appl'icant on the other ,cti'vit¥ that is planned other than l~he actu'al water skiing on Lake Langdon. . Tessmei' stated .that In th~ pns~, they have worked with Community Servlces to coordinate windsurfing.'lessohs'..]n"~ound: Bay Park 'through the Ski'~lut In ~ayz~ta.. i~r. Ulrlck. suggested 'that they' off. er sal 1lng lesson~ and even ~ater skllng'. That Is one of 'the reasons they s. tarted'to invest.igate' thls' thl. ng. What propose to do In Hound:Bay .Park"In conjunction' ~ith th!s .is to have probably windsurfers and ;~ little sunfl~h sailboats; p~imar11¥ for lesson.use." However, to pay the bllls,.¥ou-also;need to rent them. ".They would not. be renting td any- one wlSo had not taken'.lessons or'Has nol:.certlfi.ed. They wi11 address the situatio'n?clth 'the park'-Comml. Sslon of a chase boat for if ther~ are probl.ems, etc.. They' h'ave also made app11, catlon ~ith the Park Comis. sion to store wind-. surfers, etc. In pa.rt of the Depot. Reese moved a motion'that the P1anning. Commission find~ the-la~d 'iJse is appro- priate and that th~ staff recommendations, i through 5 '(inclu'ding adding onto .Item I ~.one boat at a tlme~) be granted. The notion died for lack of a second.' Hlchael moved and Ken Smith seconded a m~tion tb approve the request subject to the staff recommendations and that after one'year, the Commission review It and on an annual basis thereafter ........ '"~'~eve Smith asked that motion be amende-~l' to have operator'-~'r°vlde lnsuranbe ." 'poll. cy with City named as 'additional lnsur'ed" and that am6un't: be approved· bY the City. As the maker and seconder of the motion agreed,.thSs wi'l! be added to the. mot ! on. -. The vo~e on the motion as amended was;Byrnes and Reese opposed, ali others, voted in favor. ' ·: The City Counc11 has set the date of the public hearing fc~r December 17, '3'D85. /?g NOV 2 ! 19 5 Case No. CITY OF' HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following inforn~tion) 1. Street Address of Property 2.. Legal Description of Property': Aud. Subd. 168 Addition Fee Paid ~o~. Date Filed //-~/-~- 2627 Com~0erce Blvd.. Lot Metes & Bounds PID No. Block 23-117-24 14 0049 0wner's Name Steve Hesse - Address 2631 Commerce Blvd. Day Phone No. 472-3523 Mound, MN Applicant (if other than owner): Name Water Club West Day Phone No. 472-4988 Addre.ss 'e/o Steve Tessmer, 5319 Bartlett Blvd., Mound, MN 55364 5. Type of Request: e ( *If other, specify: ( ) Variance (X) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ) Wetland Permit (.) P.U.D. ( 3 Amendment (") Sign Permit ( )*Other Present Zoning District Bi1 Existing Use(s) of Pro'perry, Muitiple dwelling rental Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? I~ so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) e Copies of previous resolutions shal.1 accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the' premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City 'of Mound for the purpose of inspecting,.or of posting, maintaining'and removing such Signature of App1 icant ~- Date '. . ~ ./~ Steven A. Tessmer Planning Commission Reco~endation: Copies sent to M. Koeqler Approve the staff recommendations subject with'the conditions that Commission review )[ ~fter one year anu on an annual basis thereafter and further that the operator provide insurance policy with City named as additional insured & policy Date 12-9-85 Council set the date of the public hearing at the 11-26-85 C.M. '~approval by'the Cit' Council Action: Resolution No. Date 12-17-95 REQUEST FOR CONDITiOi~AL USE PERMIT We nerbv aoolv for a (commercial recreation) conOitior, al use detroit to ooerate a Water SKi School on Lake LanOoon arid offer winOsurfing/saiiing lessons and rentals a~ Mound Bay Parr.. Our seasonal office (May-Seote~,~bep) will be located at :~6~_-Z Commerce Blvd. in existing structure(B) r, eeOing no modification. Our services will be offered ~o the general ~uOlic by reservation only tnrotig~ community services ar, o other retail 0ealers. Current zor, ir,~ is B-1 ano ctlr~er;~ use is m,ii~ioie dweiiino in both existing struotlires- ~e orooose to use only 1/~° of the small house(B) on La~e Langdc, n for tnis ouroose. The cost of tn..s oroject is orojected to oe ~.°500-00 including a docW. on LaKe Lanodon and a sign on Commerce Blvd. (see sight =lan ar, d sketch). Ail imorovements should be comoleted by May 10, 1986. Density Data: 1. 8 s~ruc~ures (A & B) Structure A: S Units 1 S bedroom Structure B: ~ Units p_ ~ bedroom m Lot area bet dwelling uni~: olus souare fee~. 10,000 Total lot area: 58, 5~¢, scuare feet. /go IV We feel this conditional use will cause no r:egative ir~oact on the vacinity. We have taken ste~s to ad~ress t~e foliowir~g l_.~: will be controlled bv the use of a soeci.aily r,~ace towboat with extra r,,ufflers. ','n a~ditic,~, it should be nc, teO t~at only one boat wli. 1 be used at any one t i~e. ' PARKING: should not be a oro~le~ because ail iess,,,ns wi il ~e by aoooint~en~. Oniy 4-6 extra ~eooie would be on the sight a~ any one tir~e. There is curpentiy a~eouate s~ace ~o Dark 20 cars on t~e si.~nt. HOURS: Wa~er Club'Wes~ will only c,~epa~e during dayiigbt. VISUALLY: Only a doc~ on Lake Lan~Oon is oianned for the sioht. A sion will be ~iaced near the entrance. A s~etch of the ~oo,:,seO sign is included. The ~o~osed ~ock is shown on the sight ~lan. ~e feel t~is venture ~iii ~ositiveiv effec~ our com~unitv Oecause it offers resioen~s ar:d visitors ~reater access to our r, aCurai resc, u~-ces ano retreat lot, al faci i i~ies. WEST ~/~TE~ S~ ~ILIJ~G ~IT~S 12 j :'5 ! I ! ! 33 (............ - 3 RD DATE: December 9, 1985 TO: City of Mound Planning Commission FROM: M.L. "Buzz" Sycks - residence at 5900 Beachwood Road, Mound w/Lakeshore on Lake Langdon SUBJECT: Concern on proposed commerical venture on Lake Langdon. I have been the appointed Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Lake Level and Precipitation recorder for Lake Langdon for the past four (4) years. As such, I have access to Hydrologic Data Reports from Hickok & Associates. My main concern was whether additional boat traffic would increase the phosphorus in the water by.aeration. I have contacted: Dr. Swain & Bob Pillsbury of the Gray Fresh Water Biological Society, Bruce Wilson head of the Lakes Team for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the person I submit reports to, Mr. Jim Mahady, of Minnehaha Creek Watershed DiStrict. Conclusion - Not enough is yet known about the effects of boatin~ disturbing and stimulating phosphorus count. 4. Recommendation - Limited use (1 boat) for the first year and a provision that the requesting person or company pay for and submit a water analysis test to the City and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District at the end of the boating year for further study. It is also recommended that this Planning CommisSion and the City of'MOund contact the necessary persons or agencies responsible for funding, a program to speed up and eliminate the surplus phosphorus count in Lake Langdon. MLB:cm cc: Dr. Swain Bob Pillsbury Bruce Wilson Jim Mahady 851 Forest Road New Haven, CT. 06515 ~¢cember ~, 198~ Mound City Council Mound, Minnesota 55365 Dear Council Membcrm t Plcase consider this letter, w~tten on my mother Goldi¢ M. To=ge=son's behalf, her rcsponS~ to a recent conditional zone change ~tucst submitted by Mr. Steve Tessmer,'2627 Commerce Blvd., Mound, Minnesota 55364. Recently widowed, my mother, who h~ ~csided at 5?65 Bartlett Blvd.:, Mound, MN. 55364 since 19~4, im visiting with me,' her daughter, in Connecticut. Even though she cannot be ~=esent for you~ Monday, December' 9$hipublic hearing on s~id proposal, her strong fcclings a. gain.St~:it'!h~v~:~o.~pted this letter.' ...- To 'begin, authorities with Whom we have ~'p0ken havc ass?red uS 'that approval of this conditional use pezmi.t by your council ~.ill, without qu%s- tton, significantly lower the prm~crty, values of all Lake Langdon x~midents. We were also informed tha.t it is mother's legal ~ight to sue in oxdcr to =ecover said loss: Secondly, the pastoral nature of beautiful Lake Dangdon, as it exis.ts in its p~esent state, is second to ~on*. Its valu~ goes beyond that of any one ~esidcnt. It is a national tr~.asurc. Here nests the loon, Minn- esota's majestic state biz~. To hca= its plaintive cry during the twilight hours could bring tears to the eyes of even the most insensitive members of the human race. Thc variety of wildlif6 which thrives in and around ,this aquatic haven boggles th~ mind.' .I recall, for instance,, the tiny, wrinkled baby mud turtles, which aw~-k, cn from their silent chambers within the muddy banks, and, in blind determt5.ation make their way do~n into {he peaceful subterfuge of Lake Langdon. Here too, .we find thc noble' crane', standing atop an half-submerged tree stump, proudly holding "the catch of thc day" in his glistening beak. With nothing to disturb their oc.~ce ~ve the heavenly peal from the bells of historic Our Lady of the L~ke church or the quaint whistle from the timely little .freight train which glides along the tracks on, thc opposite shore, these c~eatures find a s~nctuary in Lake Langdon. An approval of Mr. Tessmcr's requeSt would sound the death kmell for these pre- cious cl~aturcs. Thimily, Mr. Tcssmcr's proposed venture is strictly s~lf-serving. City officials h~vc openly admitted that it will bring n_~o ~dded rcv~nue into the city's coffers. It could, however, cost the city by driving away its present high tax p~yers and/or require the. city to .;,ay out huge sums in punitive. damages to ~g~ ~ics. ~ initial ~tion to ~.M. Tessme~'s ~- quest was one of uttcr dis~li~. We ~dc~nd that ~ movcd to his ~n~on si~ o~y vc~ ~c~tly. ~en so, on~ wo~ ~onder how ~anyonc, ~ (' a ~wcomcr,cco~ld help but ~pp~ci~te thc ~vilege of finding such ~ sanc- tua~ in w~ch to live. As 'one ~c~t ~isitor to mother's home obs~ she g~z~ out the pict~ window upon ~ ~autiful ~k~ ~n~on s~sct~ "Any- one who can look at the view fro~ t~s window an~ not ~ish to livc he~, do~n't dcs=~= th~ place.". I wo~ vent~ to say ~hat, since the pr~t ~c~ an~ ~s~ile~ ~uty of ~k~ ~on esca~ Mr. T~smc~'s ~D~ci~i~ to the ~int of his want~ to destroy it for ~o~ so that he c~ make ~ few dollars, he do~n't dcs~c to live h~. Unfo~a~ly, some ~ople luc~ enoch %o ~t' thins w~ch they do not d~. Nonetheless,. that sho~ not give ~cm the ~ght %o ~ob oth~ of'their ~ghts to ap~t~ the ~ts of life. ~c~fo~, shoed Mr. Tcssm~'s ~asonable, self-se~t~ ~qu~t ~ ~nt~ by yo~ co~cil, ~e sh~ll make cv~ effo~ ~ o~g~ntze the ~ti~ co~u, iSy into a cl~ss-~tlon l~ws~t. Afar ~11, ~ tho~h local o~[nance ~u[~s that only those pro~y o~ne~s living ~it~n t~c h~. f~ of Mr. ~asme~'s ~o~y ~ notifi~ by m~il of his Zone change' ~qu~t, c~i~y the neg~ivc ~~ssions ~s~t[ng from such ~ cha~ will ~ felt By ~ ~k~ ~n~on' sho~ dwells. His motor boa~, ~[nd s~, ~tcr et. al. will cover the ~tt~ l~kc, s~ing thor noise ~ othcr ~llu~nts " like ~ ~cious Finally, ~s ~ resedit of thc ~t Co~st, which h~s thc so~i~ disti~ion of h~ving ~ c~llous d[s~cg~ for N~t~, I h~ve al~ys ~ ~ou~ of my csot~ roots. For, it h~ long ~ ~co~iz~ and ~evc~ ~s ~ s~ which is able and willing to live in barony ~ith n~t~. How s~ to t~ that this ~[Sttnction is no longc~ meritS. ~i~on Kcillor, ~ clmssm~tc ~ith whom I ~u~tcd from Anok~ High School tn 19~, 'w~s ~ly' touted ~s a l~tter~ay ~ark ~in in ~ cover sto~ (~imc m~zinc, Nov~r $, 198%). Hg cha~s the whole co~t~, including m~ny of my ~st'Co~st f~ends ~nd n~gh- . bors.; w[th his cndcaring anecdotes about homcsp~ :~[nncso~ valucs. ~o~d this travesty ~minst Minncsot~ wildlifc and v~lucs bc ~ovcd by your co~cil, I shall cont~t ~son ~rSon~lly to request that he w~te ~ little 'of s~ti~ on:.~ re~l ~kc Wob~on, entitled "City Co~cil S~ ~k~ Bc Gone ~" In conclusion, then, my mother an~ h~ f~ily i~plor~ c~ch cocci1 m~bc to seriously consider thc s~ conscqu~c~s of a zone' change approval. P[~s~ do not rob this ~om~n of thc l~st rcmaining ~;~ ~ith h~ husband ~oscph, with whom she sp=nt thcir reti~mcnt years enjoying countless hours of pc~cc and contcntmcnt on .Lake Langdon. It ~s, if you will, their own "Golden Pond". Allow her and her nclghborS, who have for years SUpport~i the city of Mound through h~gh taxes and meticulous care of their properties,f~reta, in their faith in the "m~jority rule' of democracy. Mr. TessmeT's motivation is selfish w~l, perhaps, bcnefit him financially --- but, alas, at what price to othex~? Let him satisfy his greed on some lcsse~ shore --- some plmc¢ which long ~go was ~ispotled beyond reclaim by others of his ilk.. Valene Torgerson .Cornelius Goldte M. Torgerson January lO, 1986 Dear Mayor: ! am concerned about the proposal to allow a water ski school on Lake. Langdon.' I believe it is important that the total impact of such a major change to the lake and 'the resider,ts be fui~ther · evaluated. Thi~ should include the impact on the wildlife and a more thorougb"evaluation of the turbidity and the impact of this proposal on possible phosphorous toxicity. The additional noise level and rupture lake traffic should be better evaluated as well. While a )etter from the University of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources indicated one boat would likely not stir up enough phosphorous to make the lake' toxic, there is already some boat traffic. We also have no guarantee only one additional boat will be added. Tessmer himself stated "If we are really successful we'd be using it a lot." Mufflers and low wake boats will not prevent the loss of nesting birds, other wildlife and the peace and serenity we now enjoy. I ask that you DISAPPROVE this proposal and protect our wildlife' on one of the few refuges they can still enjoy..-In doing so you will also protect our ability to appreciate them. Mr. Tessmer can'still occupy the old Tonka Toy bOilJi6~ and develop his water ski school on one of the Bays of Minnetonka, which are deeper and less sensitive to the pollution problems of Lake Langdon. Please inform me of ~he date of your council meeting when this issue is on the agenda so I will have the option of attending. Thank you for your attentioh to this matter. Sincerely, Address Name January 10, 1986 Dear Mayor: I am concerned about the proposal to allow a water ski school 'on Lake Langdon.' I believe it is important that the total impact of such a n,~jor.'ch:nge to the lake ahd Lhe residents be .......... · ) ut' bmm~r' evaluated. This should include the'impact on the wildlife and a more thorough evaluation'of the turbidity and the impact of this proposal 'in possible.phosphorous toxicity. The additional noise level and. future'lake trafqic should be better evaluated as well. While a letter ~from.the University of Minnesota, Department of Naiural Resources indicated one boat would likely not stir up enough phosphorous to make the lake toxic, there is already some boat traffic. We also have no guarantee only one additional boat will be added. Tessmer himself stated "If we are really successful we'd be using it a lot." Mufflers and low wake boats will not prevent the loss of nesting birds, other wildlife and the peace and serenity we now enjoy. 1 ask that you DISAPPROVE this proposal and protect our wildlife on one of the few refuges they can still enjoy. .In doing so you will also protect our ability to appreciate them. Mr. Tessmer can still occupy the old Tonka Toy building and develop his water ski school on one of the Bays of Minnetonka, which are deeper and less sensitive to the pollution problems of Lake Langdon. Please inform me of the date of your council meeting when this issue is on the agenda so I' will have the option of attending. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Address January 10, 1986 Dear MaYor: I am concerned about the proposal to allow a water ski school on Lake Langdon ' I believe if' is important that %he total impa, ct of Such a major change to the lake and the residmqts be further, ~ev~].~a~~i$'shoul~_lude the impact on the wildlife and a ~?e,Jtho.~. h~ evalua,..t~i"~(~.'.t,~, he turbidity and the impact of this ~P]ro~'os~a-~. p,.ossiblm~h~)~'h~us toxicity. The additional noise lak . sho, ld better evaluated as well. While %l'letter from th~ University of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources indicated one boat would likely not stir up enough phosphorous to make the lake toxic, there is already some boat traffic. We also have no guarantee only one additional boat will be added. Tessmer himself stated "If we are really successful we'd be using it a lot." Mufflers and low wake boats will not prevent the loss of nesting birds, other wildlife and the peace and serenity we now enjoy. I' ask that you DISAPPROVE this proposal and protect our wildlife on one of the few refuges they can still enjoy.. .In doing so you will also protect our ability to appreciate them. Mr. Tessmer can still occupy the old Tonka Toy building and develop his water ski school on one of the Bays of Minnetonk~,,which are deeper and less sensitive to the pollution problems of Lake Langdon. Please inform me of the date of your council meeting when this issue is on the agenda so I will have the option of attending. Thank you for your attention to this matter. sincerely, Name I¢/ Address January 10, 1986 Dear Mayor: I am concerned about the proposal to.atlo~a water ski school on Lake Langdon' I believe it is 'important that~.the't°tal impact of such a major change to the'lake and the resldcnts .be further. evaluated. This should include the impact on the wildlife and a more thorough evaluation of the turbidity and the impact of this proposal on possible phosphorous toxicity.. The additional noise level and future lake traffic should be better evaluated as well. While a letter from the University of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources indicated one boat would likely not stir up enough phosphorous to make the lake toxic, there is already some boat traffic. We also have no guarantee only one additional boat will be added. Tessmer himself stated "If we are really successful we'd be using it a lot." Mufflers and low wake boats will not prevent the loss of nesting birds, other wildlife and the peace and-serenity we now enjoy. I' ask that you DISAPPROVE this proposal and protect our wildlife on one:of the few refuges they can still enjoy...In doing so you will also protect our ability to appreciate them. Mr. Tessmer can still occupy the old Tonka Toy building and develop his water ski school on one of the Bays of Minnetonka, which are deeper and less sensitive to the pollution problems of La'ke Langdon. · Please inform me of the"date of your council meeting when this issue is on the agenda so I will have the option of attending. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ~me ~ Address January 1 O, 1986 Dear Mayor: I am concerned about the proposal to allow a water ski school on .Lake Langdon.' I believe it is important that the total impact Of Su¢.h a majOr change-to the lake and the residents'.be further evaluated. This should include the impact on the wilJlife and a more thorough evaluation of the turbidity and the impact of this proposal on possible phosphorous toxicity. The additional noise level and future lake traffic should be better evaluated as well. While a letter from the University of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources indicated one boat would likely not stir up enough phosphorous to make the lake t°kic, there is already some boat traffic. We also.have no guarantee only one additional'boat will be added. Tessmer himself stated "If we are really successful we'd be using it a lot." Mufflers and low wake boats will not prevent the loss of nesting birds, other wildlife and the peace and serenity we now enjoy. 1 ask that you DISAPPROVE this proposal and protect our wildlife on one of the few refuges the~ can still enjoy. In doing so you will also protect our ability to appreciate them~ Mr. Tessmer can'still occupy the old Tonka Toy building and develop his water ski school on one of the Bays of Minnetonka, which are deeper and less sensitive to the pollution problems of Lake Langdon. Please inform me of the date of your council meeting when this i'ssue is on the agenda so I will have the option of attending. Thank you for your attention to this matter. , Sincerely, Name / Address January lO, 1986 Dear Mayor: I am concerned about the proposal to allow a water ski school on Lake Langdon.' I believe it is important that the total impact of such a major change to the lake and the residents be further' evaluated.. This should include the impact on the wildlife and a more thorough evaluation of the turbidity and the impact of this proposal on possible phosphorous toxicity. The additional noise level and future lake traffic should be better evaluated as well. While~'a l~tter from the University of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources indicated one boat would likely not stir up enough phosphorous to make the lake toxic, there is already some boat traffic. We also have no guarantee only one additional boat will be added. Tessmer himself stated "If we are really successful we'd be using it a lot." Mufflers and low wake boats will not prevent the loss of nesting birds, other wildlife and the peace and serenity we now enjoy. I' ask that you DISAPPROVE this proposal and protect our wildlife on one.of the few refuges they can still enjoy. -In doing so you will also protect our ability to appreciate them. Mr. Tessmer can still occupy the old Tonka Toy building and develop his water ski school on one of the Bays of Minnetonka, which are deeper and less sensitive to the pollution problems of Lake Langdon. ? ' Please inform me of the date of your council meeting when this issue is on the agenda so 1 will have the option ofattending. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Address ~ .. January 1 O, 1986 Dear Mayor: I am concerned about the proposal to allow a water ski school on Lake Langdon.' I believe it is important that the total impact of such a major change to the lake a~d the residents bu further evaluated. This should include the impact on the wildlife and a more thorough evaluation of the turbidity and the impact of this proposal on possible phosphorous toxicity. The additional noise level and future lake traffic should be better evaluated as well. While a letter from the University of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources indicated one boat would likely not stir up enough. phosphorous to make the lake toxic, there is already some boat traffic. We also 'have no guarantee only one additionallboat will be adUed. Tessmer himself stated "If we are really successful we'd be using it a lot." Mufflers and low wake boats will not prevent the loss of nesting birds, other wildlife and the peace and serenity we now enjoy. I1 ask that you DISAPPROVE this proposal and protect our wildlife on one.of the few refuges they can still enjoy. ~.In doing so you will also protect our ability to appreciate them. Mr. Tessmer can still occupy the old Tonka Toy building and develop his water ski school on one of the Bays of Minnetonka, which are deePer and less sensitive to the pollution problems of Lake Langdon. Please inform me of the date of your council meeting when this issue is on the agenda so 1 will have the option of attending. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Nam~ / ' -/'""' -' -- Address January 1 O, 1986 Dear Mayor: I am concerned about the proposal to allow a water ski school on Lake Langdon.' I believe itis'important that the total impact of such a major'change'tolthel.lake and the residents be further evaluated. This should include the impact on the wildlife and a more thorough evaluation of the turbidity and the impact of this proposal on possible phosphorous toxicity. The additional noise level and future lake traffic should be better evaluated as well. While a letter from the University of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources indicated one boat would likely not stir up enough phosphorous to make the lake toxic, there is already some boat traffic. We also have no guarantee only one additional boat will be added. Tessmer himself stated "If we are really successful we'd be using it a lot." Mufflers and low wake boats will not prevent the loss of nesting birds, other wildlife and the peace and serenity we now enjoy. 1 ask that you DISAPPROVE this proposal and protect our wildlife on one'of the few refuges they can still enjoy...In doing so you will also protect our ability to appreciate them. Mr. Tessmer can still occupy the old Tonka Toy building and develop his water ski school on one of the Bays of Minnetonka, which are deeper and less sensitive to the pollution problems of Lake Langdon. · Please inform me of the date of your council meeting when this issue is on the agenda so I will have the option of attending. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~ Sincerely, _H §BAND S December 23, 1985 Ms. Fran Clark Acting City Manager CITY OF MOUND 5741May~ood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Water Ski School Dear Fran: The information your City Attorney has given you concerning the insurance requirements on the Water Ski School is well within acceptable bounds, particularly with the $1',000,000 Umbrella. The major consideration would be to have the Water Ski School name the City of Mound as an additional insured and not just certificate holder. If they're named as an additional insured with the statutory limits plus the $1,000,000 Umbrella, the City of Mound will be as well protected as they can be. We need to understand this still will not preclude the City of Mound being sued, but it should enable the Water Ski School insurance carrier to pick up the defense costs of most cases. Some of the other cases which may arise would still require the City of Mound's insurance company to respond, but I feel these risks are so small as to not be significant enough to turn down the Water Ski School operation. It must be remembered that if we turn them down, we also could be subject to a public officials suit for turning them down on insurance reasons · As I indicated to you several weeks ago, I will be more than happy to meet with you, the Water Ski School people or appear before the City Council if someone would like. If you need any further 'information, please advise. Regards, Husbands, CPCU WEH/cp PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 85-451 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING.A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A COMMERCIIAL RECREATION WATER SKI SCHOOL AT 2627 COMMERCE BOULEVARD ON LAKE LANGDON P!D NO. 23-117-24.14 0049 WHEREAS, the City Council had a pub]ic' hearing on December 17, 1985, pursuant to Section 23..505 of the Mound Zoning Code, to consider the issuance of a conditional use permit for a water ski.school on Lake Langdon; and WHEREAS, commercial recreation and multiple dwellings are allowed as a conditional use In the. Central Bus|ness (B-I) Zone pursuant to Section 23.625.3 of the Mound Zoning Code; and wHEREAS, the existing structures have five (5) living units with the lower level of Building B to be converted to office as per Exhibits A & B; and WHEREAS, the proposed operation of.the Water Club West Water Ski School consisting of water ski instruction and water skiing only qualifies as a com- mercial, recreation facility; and WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval.. NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the conditional use permit is granted for the operation of a water ski school for water ski instruction and the continuance of multi-housing at 2627/2631 Commerce Boulevard on Lake Langdon subject to the follOWing con- ditions: 1. Operation of a tow boat and ski lessons'shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Only one tow boat shall be operated at a time. 2. No more than two boats may be tied to the Water Club West dock and both boats must be registered to the owner of the water ski school. Application for sign permits shall be filed with the City. Noise generated from the operation of tow boats shall not exceed 65 decibels as measured from any point along the lake shore. The operator shall name the City as an insured party and coverage, shall be in an amount 'as approved by the City. This conditional use permit shall be renewed on December 17, 1986, and shall be renewed annually thereafter. ITl X / / III REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT We herby apply for a (commercial recreation) conoitional use permit to o~erate a Water Ski School on. Lake Langdon and offer windsurfing/sailing lessons aha rentals at Mound Bay Park. Our seasonal office (May--September) will be located at 262? Commerce Blvd. in existing structure(B) needing no modification. Ou~ services will be offered to the general public by reservation only through community services an~ other retail dealers. ..Current zoning is B-1 ar,~ currer, t use is multiple dwelling ir, both existing structures. We ~rooose to use only 1/2 of the small house(B) on Lake Langdon for t~is puroos~. The cost of this project is projected to be $2500.00 including a dock on La~e Lan~don and a si~n on Commerce Blvd. (see sight ~lan and sketch). All improvements should be completed by May 10, 1986. Density Data: 1. ~ s~ructures (A & B) Structure A: ~ Units 1 ~ bedroom 2 2 beeroom Structure B: 2 Units 2 ~ bedroom ~ot area per dwelling unis: 10,000 olus souare feet. 4. TOtal lot area: 58:500 souare feet. IV We feel this conditional use will cause no negative i~pact on the vacinity. We have taken Steps to address the following NOISE: wili be controlled by the use of a soecially ma~e towboat with extra mufflers. In addition, it should be noted that only one boat will be u~ed at any one time. PARKING: should not be a oroble~ because all lessons will Be by a~oin~ment. Only 4-6 extra ~eoDle would be on the signt a~ any one"ti~e. There is currently a~eouate sDace to Dark ~0 cars on the sight. HOURS: Water Club West will only ooepate during daylight. VISUALLY: Only a doc~ on Lake Langdon is planned for the sight. A sion will be ~laced neap the entrance. A s~etch of the ~rooosed sign is included. plan. The prc, oosed dock is shown on the sight We feel this venture will .oositively effect our community because it offers resioe~ts and visitors greater access to our r, atural resources ar, o rec~eational facilities. CASE NO. 86-502 CITY OF MOUND MOund, Minnesota Planning COmmission Agenda of January 13, 1986: Board of Appeals Case' No. 86-502 Location: 2501 Emerald Drive Legal Desc.: Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 6, 'Shirley Hii'ls Unit B Request: Front Yard Setback Variance Zoning Dist.: R-I Applicant Richard C. Halvarson 2501 Emerald Drive Mound, MN. 55364 Phone No.: 472-4060 The applicant is requesting to construct a 16 foot by 28 foot tuckunder garage addition to the west of his existing tuckunder garage and maintaining the 16.2 foot setback to the north'property line; also to replace his existing 9.8'foot by ll.9 foot porch With a 16 foot by 11.9 foot family room. The new family room would project 6.2 feet closer to the west property line which has an existing setback of ~O feet. The Zoning Code for the R-) Zoning District.requlres front yard setbacks of 30 feet to the property lines abutting the three platted street right-of-ways except for lots of record with a 51 to 80 foot width, one front yard to the north may.be .reduced to 20 feet. The platted Emerald Drive is a bike path only with Ruby Lane and Glendale Drive improved streets. The boulevard is approximately 8 feet which would set the tuckunder garage at 25 feet + to the curb line. The garage would be set Into the hill.and would not visually ob- struct the required 30 foot setback to the west. However, the family room addition would project 6.2 feet closer to the west and would be above the existing grade with a setback of 22 feet + to Ruby Lane. The site is on a hill with large wooded lots and nodrlveway access to the east as Emerald Drive is a bikeway. RECOMMENDATIOfI: With the structure being placed high on the hill, the family room addition may not cause a visual problem to the neighbors. Staff does recommend approval of the tuckunder garage addi- tion as it should have no'visual impact being set into the hill and setback 18 feet from the north property line and 22 feet to the west property line. due to the topography and forestation on the-lots. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on January 28, 1986. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 page 3 Cas~ No. 86~502...FrOnt Yard Setback. Variance - 2501Emerald'Drlve Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block.6,'Shlrley Hills Unit B -. Richard Halvarson was present. The Building OffiCial· explained that this property fronts.on.three, plat'ted streets the platted Emerald.Drive Is a bikeway, apd Ruby and Glendale are 'Improved streets. Ruby Lane (being the.narrowest width) Is really the front yard. All three streets require a'30 foot setback;.however~, the' Zon.l'ng Ordinance.allows,.on 'lots with a width of 80feet or less.to go.to'a 20. foot .s~tback (Glendale), Applicant is re- questing to ~onstruct. a.16,foo~ by' 28"foot..tuckunder garag~'additlbn to the west of his existing., tuckbnder garage'and to ~eplace his existing 9,8 foot-By 11,9.foot porch with a'1.6 foot by 11.9 foot famlly'roOm...'The garage'would, n°t visually ob- struct the requlred 30 fool setback to the.west.; however,, the' family room addition requires an 8'foot vat.lance to ~he..west'(Ruby. Lane) and the garage WoU'ld require a 2 foot setback ~arl.ance'to the .nort;h'prope[ty line (Glendale Drive), The ' ~ff does recommend approval. Hr. Halvarson expla.ined that he has been trying to see where he.might.put a big double garage"and did not wish to p~t it toward Emerald because of the 28'Maple trees. Also the family has q cars and'he wants'to keep the parklng as condensed as possible. Meyer moved and.~elland seconded.a-motioq recommending approval of.the staff recommendation. The vote wa's unanimously in favor. This item wi]] be on the Councl)"agenda on January 28, 1986. CITY OF MOUND · 198 ':;'" ,., APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION oD (p .ase :ype :he following nform tlon) Street Addre~ of Property Block Fee pal d'~F$~O, 2. Legal Description of Property: tot/.._~ J 24-117-24 12 0038 .~ // ~..~ h ,.~--,,¢~ PlO No.. 3- Owner's Name ' - Address ' ~. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Addre~f~ 5- Type Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit ( ) Wetland Permit (.)P.U.D. ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District . 7- Existing Use(s) of Pro~tY~ -----' '8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? /~to I? so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken-and provide Reso~tion No.(s) . ll accompany present request. meats and the statements contained in any required , ~+~fv that all of the above state .......... ~ I consent to the entry in :-:;~;'~ ~ahs to be submitted here~mtn ale t[~e a~ :~"~C~orized official of the City P~P · ' ' d in this appiicat{on y y · or upon the premises descr~b~ _~, .... ~f nostino, maintaining and re~v~ng such of Mound for the purpose of ~n~pec[~-~,.~- ~ ~ /~F -- ' notices as may be required by/t/aw.~ ! -- ' ' .Signature of Applmca t~ . Planning Commission Reco~endation:~roval of the staff's reco~endation. 1-13-86 Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date 1-28-86 Request for Zoni.ng Variance Pr~.cedure '(2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction · F. Any addltional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III..Request for a Zonln9 Variance " Al1 Information below; a slte plan, as described In Part !1, and general application must be .provided before a hearing will be scheduled. Does the present use of the property'conform to ~l]~:~se regulations for the zone district In which it Is located/ Yes. (V) t~o ( )' If."not~, specify each n~nT.conformlng use: height .~l~.ulk egulatlons for the.zone district in which It Is.located? Yes (/,~ No ( Do the existing structures comply, with al1 area · If 'no~, specify each non-conforming use: D. h'hich unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its re.asj;m~ble use for any o.f,~uses.permitted'in that zoning district2 ( ~)' .Too narrow (~ ' Topography ' ( ) Soil ... ( ) Too. small.. .. ' ( ) Drainage.· .-. ( XSub-surface " ( "~ Too shallow (; ) Shape " ( Other: Specify: E. ~/as the hardship, de.scri~bed above created by the action of ' Zoning Ordinance was adopted3 pr. operty lnterests~ ~q/~h.e land after, the. anyone having Yes I .yes, explain: F. Va~ the hardship created by any'o~he, r,~man-made chan~e, such as. the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (L~, If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship* for which you request ava. rl~e peculiar · ·only t:o the property described In this petition? Yes (//) No ( ) If no, how many other pr.opertles are similarly affected?* What is the"minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that wi'il permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and ~ritten explanation, Attach additlonal sh~)s, if necessary.) same zone, or to the ~nforcement of this ordinance/ / /?? · CASE NO. 86-502 As of now we have a single stall tuck under garage and want to expand to a double garage. Because of the no parking on streets in the winter time and being that our house is bordered by three streets, we do need the extra parking stall and also the extra storage space which will be provided by the additional-garage. The addition will be on the west side of the existing garage and will not change the appearance of the house, but only a new garage door on the north side. We cannot go to the east because of the chimney and the fire place. It is our plan, also, to remove the existing porch and then to build a new family room the length of the new garage, (16 feet) and kbep the new room at the existing width of the old porch, (ll feet 9 inches). Certificate of Survey for Richard C. Nalvarson of Lots 1,2, m Block 6 5O I hereby certifg that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots ;,2, and 3, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit B, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. N Date : 8-6-85 S6ale: 1" . 40' o : Iron marker COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Gordon R. Coffin Reg' No. 6064 Engineers & Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota Phone: 473-414~ Certificate of Survey for Richard C. Halvarson/ of £ots 1,2,3 Block I hereb~ certif~ that ghis is ~ grue and correcg representation of a surve~ of =he boundaries of Lots 1,2,and 3, Block 6, Shirlew Hills Unit B, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Date : 8-6-85 Scale: 1" = 40' o : Iron marker ~~12755. Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Engineers & Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota Phone: 473-4141 :'-':: .~.~':.':.'"..::'.::::i =-..:'";~'""~°;~'~ ........................ ~ '=:::==:i :::":'::::::;:: ';:==:=::: :::::::::::::::::: !::::/:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::=:::..'::::~ ................................. ~ ......... ==:'.: .- ............................. =~ ;;;;;;;;;;........; ::::::::::::::::::::::: ........ '~ ................................. ~ ............... i ................. I .......... ..... ::!~:::::::: ::::::::::::::::: :::::::::==:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~.~...;:;;~.. ............. ~ .............. ~. ............. ~.~ .......... ....... t ............. ~.i.=::=':'= ............... ~ .............. '~I .......... .... -~-t ............. ~,. ......... :-:~:,:::::::::::::~.'.:::::::::::::::::::::::::: .... ~,.! ............. ~ ............. .~ .............. .~ .............. .~.~ .......... =" '~ ............. " .............. ~: ............ ~ .............. ~t'"""'~" PARK _~ 0 ~ E[~ER ( t961 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-502 RESOLUT'I ON 86- RESOLUTION TO..CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION 'TO APPROVE. SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 6, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B PID # 24-117-24 12 0038. (2501 EMERALD DRIVE) WHEREAS,.Richard -C. Halvarson, applicant, owner o-f the property described as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block..6, Shirley Hills Unit B, has applied for variance in setbacks to the front yard-to' the north and we{t in order to construct an'addition to his existing dwelling; and WHEREAS, Exhibit 'lAJ~ a.nd.'JB~' has also been submitted to indicate the requested setbacks'to'G]endale·Drive.at 16.2 feet+ and Ruby Lane ,of 22 feet+ for the construction of'a tuckunder garage and three season porch or family room to the west; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires 20 foot setback to the north property llne with a lot width'of 5) to 80 feet and.a 30 foot setback to the west property line at Ruby Lane in the R-) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission·has reviewed the request and does recom- mend approval of the setback variances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT.RESOLVED: That.the City Council'of the City, of. Hound does hereby approve the variances as requested'and shown on Exhibits ~A" and "B" for 2501 Emerald Drive,. Lots 1, 2 and 3, B]ock 6, Shirley Hills Unit B, PID # 24-117-2h ]2 0038, to construct an addition for tuckunder garage and family room wlthln 16.2 feet + to the north lot line and 22'feet to the west lot line upon.the condition that any further structural repalrslor additions would require additional variance approval. Walter Helland Box 128 Mound, MN 55364 January 14, 1986 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Council Members: Please consider our request for an extension of this varience (Resolution #84-20, 83-23) for a period of one (1) year. We thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation. R~ spectfully %vours/~ February 26, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85L27 RESOLUTION GRANTING.AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO RESOLUTION #83-23 WHEREAS, on February 15, 198B, the City Council approved Resolution #SB-2B, entitled, "Resolution to Concur with the Planning Commission Recommendation to Approve a 10 FoOt Street Setback Variance as Requested for Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores (PID #13-117-24 21 0049)"; and WHEREAS, the applicants, Walt .and Joan Helland then requested that this variance resolution be granted an extension of-1 year because they had not been able to sell their present home and begin construction of their new home; and WHEREAS, the extension was given as per Resolution #84- 20; and WHEREAS, they have now requested an additional one year extension. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant an additional 1 year extension of Resolution #83-23 until February 15, 1986. .The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk February 14, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-20 RESOLUTION GRANTING ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR RESOLUTION ~83-23 WHEREAS, on February 15, 1983, the City Council approved Resolut'ion #83-2B, entitled, "Resolution to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve a 10 foot street setback variance as requested for Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores (PID #13-117-24 21'0049); and WHEREAS, the applicants, Walt and Joan Helland has requested that this variance resolution be granted an extension of 1 year because they have not been able to sell their present home and begin construction of their new home. NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby grant a 1 year extension of Resolution #83-2B until February 15, 1985. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember ~haron. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk PlO Councilmembe~ Paterson moved the fo!lowing resolution. RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, RESOLUTION TO CONCUR .WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATI. ON TO APPROVE A 10 FOOT STREET SETBACK VARIANCE '. AS REQUESTED FOR. L'OT 4, BLOCK ~i, REPLAT OF HARRISON SI~Oi~E~ " PID #13-117-2~i 21 00/~. the owner, Mr. & Mrs. ~/alter F. Helland, of'the property described as.Lots 3 and /4, .Block /4; Replat of Harrison Shores, PlO #13-1i7-2/4 21 00/49 has applied for a'buliding setback variance of 10 feet frc~n the required 30 foot street front .off from .Three Points Boulevard on 'Lbt /4 pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance'Section 23./403 which would dlsallow the 1or to be. defined as"a lot of record, and the City Code requires the existing principal structure to be 10 feet from the side lot lines and it ts 8.~ feet at its closest point, 50 feet from the shoreline (Mean High Water elevation), 50 feet from the street front on Lot 3 and It is 23.33 feet at 1ts closest point, 'and WHEREAS, the property owner has requested that Lot /4, Block /4, Replat of Harrison Shores be a separate parcel t. hereby creatlng'-a future building site with the lot width and area, building bulk and height, and, except for. a building setback variance of 10 feet to Three Points Boulevard, all other setbacks'to be~c0nfo[ming, a proposed driveway easement to be-bbtalned from Lot 3 for garage access, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commls~lon recommended approval of thrs variance, due to the unusual shape of the original platted lot as to provide maximum utilization of lake shore land to property o~ners; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO BY THE Ci~Y COUNCIL OF HOUND, HINNESOTA: That the City Council. does hereby concur with the Plannlng Commission recommendation to approve a 10 foot street front v~rlance for Lot 4, Block q, Replat of Harrison Shores· 'Also the City Council recognizes · the existing Lot 3 non-conforming building setbacks. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and property owner that a survey be submitted and reviewed 'by the Bulldlng Inspe6tor and/or City . Engineer to assure..c.omPllan~e ~lth this :resolutlon ~ef'ore a building permit is Issued to construct on Lot /4, Bldck /4, Replat of Harrison Shores. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember P~ulsen and upon vote being taken thereon; the roi.lowing voted ~n favor thereof: Charon, Paulsen, Paterson,.Swanson and Polston; the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared, passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Attest: Mayor City Clerk 247 November 26, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-152 RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND THE GRADING AND LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT OF ANTHONY VANDERSTEEG, 1861 COMMERCE BLVD. WHEREAS, on September 25, 1984, the City Council issued a Grading and Land Reclamation Permit (Resolution #84-150) to Mr. Anthony VanDerSteeg, 1861 Commerce Blvd. to fill behind the aforementioned address; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 1985, the City Council ~assed Resolution #85-143, regarding the above mentioned Grading and Land Reclamation Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby suspend the Grading and Land Reclamation Permit until such time as Mr. VanDerSteeg oomplies with the original conditions in Resolution #84-150; and the conditions in Resolution #84-143. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor ' ' Attest: City Clerk 237 November 12, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-143 RESOLUTION REGARDING GRADING AND LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT OF ANTHON~ VANDERSTEEG, 1861 COMMERCE BLVD. WHEREAS, on September 25, 1984, the City Council issued a Grading and Land Reclamation Permit (Rsolution $84-150) to Mr. Anthony VanDerSteeg, 1861 Commerce Blvd. to fill behind the aforementioned address; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 1985, the City Engineer and the Building Inspector inspected the area behind 1861 Commerce Blvd. and found at least 5 violations of the 9 conditions in Resolution #84-150; and WHEREAS, of major concern is the dumping of construction -debris that contains materials which will support decay such as plywood, boards, sheetrock, acoustical tile, cardboard, paneling,. .hardboard siding, carpet, foam pads, brush, trees and other material which probably will never decompose such as plastic, metal and P.V.C. pipe, tires, steel studs, concrete block, brick and fiberglass insulation; and WH-EREAS, Mr. VanDerSteeg has never completed the requirements of the Mlnnehaha Creek Watershed District and has not received a permit from them; and WHEREAS, soil boring have never been provided to the City from Mr. VanDerSteeg which was also a condition of the Permit; and WHEREAS, it has now been discovered that there is an old concrete control structure in the dike between the old treatment ponds and Dutch Lake which has an open top on it and should have a solid, permanent cover placed over it so it is not a hazard to children in the area; and WHEREAS, th~ ~ity Engineer and the Building Inspector have recommended that the Permit be revoked until the following three conditions are.met: 1. All unacceptable material be removed from the site. 2. The owner posts a bond in the amount of $10,000.00 to insure that all conditions of the permit are met. 3. The owner follow thru and secure a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnes6ta, asked that the following conditions be met: 1. Mr. VanDerSteeg to work with the Staff on a plan of action and timetable for removing the illegal fill November 12, 1985 and report back to the Council in 2 weeks. Suspend any further dumpin8 until there is a plan of action for the next year and all' requirements of the original Permit are met. 3. Mr. VanDerSteeg to find out who dumped the ill.egal materials. Cover the concrete structure on the rear of the property with exterior plywood. 5. Have the soil testing done. 6. Obtain the necessary permit from the Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District. The foregoing'resolution was moved by Councilmember. .Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in'the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Polston was absent and excused. Mayor Pro Tem Attest: City Clerk 22~ September 25, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 8q-150 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GRADING AND LAND RECLAMATION PERMIT FOR GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION lq-ll?-2q (PID #1~-117-2q lq 0003) WHEREAS, Antonie VanDerSteeg, owner of the property described as the North 435 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 14- 117-24 West of the §th Principal Meridian, EXCEPT that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North. line of said lot distant 606.62 feet West from the Northeast corner of said lot; thence East to the Northeast corner of said lot; thence South along the East line of said lot a distance of 165 feet; thence West parallel with said North line to an intersection with a line drawn South parallel with said East line from the point of beginning; thence North to the point of beginning, together with an easement for ingress and egress and driveway purposes over the South 50 feet of the Weset 246 feet of said excepted tract, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. PID.#14-117-24 14 0003; has applied for a grading and land reclamation permit pursuant to the City Code, Section 35.200; and WHEREAS, City Staff has reviewed the request and does _ recommend approval with stipulated conditions. ['~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED that the City Council does hereby approve the requested grading and reclamation permit %._ for the Anthonie VanDerSteeg property as stated on ~he attached Exhibit "A" with the following conditions: 1. The Exhibit "A" fill area be adhered to by the applicant with the silt fencing installed at the perimeter continuously and maintained in good condition. 2. Seeding or sodding shall be accomplished by October 1, 1986, or when the filling is completed, whichever date is sooner. 3. The fill material that has been placed will have all material r.emoved that will support decay. At the recommenda'tion of the Building Official, a soils engineering firm will be retained and a report submitted to .the City Engineer to verify compliance of this at the owner's expense. 4. Submit. to the City Engineer any other required permits; i.e. Watershed District. No further fill material will support decay with a lot (or record) to be kept by the property owner of future fill to be used stating the date received, where the 225 September 25, 1'984 fill was transported from, the name of the transporter and the number of yards received· The owner is required to provide garbage/refuse service by an independent service for his floral and home use. Erosion and dust control shall be by the use of haybales staked and secured in place or equal and dust control as approved by the City Engineer and Minnehaha Creek Water- shed District. This permit will expire October 1, 1986, or may be renewed by the City Manager. The permit is non-transferable to a new property owner and it may be revoked after notification to the property owner. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Charon and seconded by Councllmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers .voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none· Mayor Attest: City Clerk ZONE 1 2 3 TABLE 1 O[STRIBUT!ON OF CAR-TRAILER PARKING SPACES AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITI~S BY ZONl~ TASK FORCE GOAL FOR RELIABLE~''' ACRES PARKING IN OF VICINITY' OF WATER ACCESS SITES 2,780 139 2,880 144. 3,100 155 2. 520 126 2~720 136 1¢,000 7~ EXISTING PARKING SPACES IDENTIFIED ..S S 1: TES IN VICINITY' OF ACCr~ RELIABLE~'' UNRELIABLE*" TOTAL 60 log 169 46 363 409 0 80 80 79 216 295 0 219 219 185 987 1,172 In Vicinity means within 1,500 feet from the access site. Reliable car-trailer parking space is one that is publicly owned or guaranteed by 1 ong term written agreement. Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR-TRAILER PARKING BY ZONE ON-S ITE VS. 0FF-'S ZONE ON-SITE OFF-SI~ 1 36% 64% 2 11% 89% 3 0% 100% 4 6% 94% 5 0% 10O% 11% 89% Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR-TRAILER PARKING BY ZONE ON-STREET VS. OFF-STREET ZONE ON-STREET 0FF-STREET 1 64% 36~ 2 89% 11% 3 0% 100% ¢ 32% 68% 5 10~ 67% 33% off-street parking includes both on-site and other parking lots within 1,500 fee: from launch r:_mps. Source: See item 20 of Bibliography ~ -R~port of the Lake ~innetonka ZONE 2 3 T~LE 1 O[STP.[BUT[ON OF CAR-~A[LEP, PARKING SPACES AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES BY ZONE TASK F01~CE GOAL FOR RELIABLE~''' EXISTING PARKING SPACES pAP, Y, ING IN IN VT. CINITY' OF ACCESS S£TES ACRES OF '' VICINt. T'f' OF ........................... WATER ACCESS SITES RELIABLE#,' UNRELIABLE*' TOTAL 2,780 1 q. 9 60 109 2,880 144 46 363 409 3,1 O0 15 5 0 80 80 2.520 1 26 79 216 295 2,720 136 0 219 219 1¢,000 7~ 185 g87 1,172 In Vicinity means within 1,BO0 feet from the access site. Reliable car-trailer parking space is one that is publicly owned or guaranteed by long term written agreement. Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR-TP, A[LER PARKING BY ZONE ON-SITE VS. OFF-'SITE ZONE OH-S ITE OFF-S IT~ 1 36% 64% 2 11% 89% 3 0% 10O% ¢ 6% 94% 5 0% 100% 11% 89% Source: See item 20 of Bibliography TABLE :3 DISTRIBUTION OF CAR-iI~AILEi~ PARKING BY ZONE OH-STREET VS. OFF-STREET ZONE 0N-STRUT 0F 1 64% 36'. 2 89% 11% 3 4. 32% 68% 5 10~, 67% 33% off-street parking includes both on-site and other parking lots within 1,SO0 feet from launch r~ps. Source: See item 20 of Bibliography 'Report of the Lake Minnetonka LAKE HIIfl~ETONKA · LISTING OF POTENTIAL ACCESS SITES CONSIDERED IN ZONE $UHHER 1985 ~inn. Dept. of Natural Resources ~ 1. Site: Lost Lake Location: North shore of Cooks Bay in City of Hound ~ 2. Site: Hound Bay Park Location: Northeast shore of Cooks Bay in City of Hound ~ 3. Site: Highland Park ~ocation: In Hound on north shore of Prieetts Bay &. Site: Related% Bay Location: West side of Ralstedts Bay off of Halsted Road 5. Site: ~illia~s Property Location: West side of Halated's Bay off of Related Road 6. Site: Six Hile Creek Location: On vest side of lines Point Road off of Rlghway 7 on Six Hile Creek 13. Site: St. BoniVe ~cation: On north side of Six Hile Creek Just off of Highway 7 outside of St. Bonifacius Site: Eings Point Road ~ocation: On vest side of Related% Bay ad, scent to ~ings Point Road off of Righvay 7 Site: Carlson Property ~ocation: On Halsted's Bay off of Kings Point Road and Highway 7 Site: South Bay Drive ~ocation: On south shore of Halsted Bay Just east of Lotus Drive Site: County Road &6 Location: On southeast shore of Related% Bay off of County Road Site: Former Bachnan Greenhouses [~cation: On southeast side of West Upper Lake off of County Road ia and Shady Lane Site: Casamita Road Location: On south shore of West Upper Lake off of Righway 7 at the and of Casaeita Road la. Site: Bayviev ~ocation: On southwest shore of Smithtovn Bay on Bayview 15. Sit___~e: Smithtovn Bay Location: On southeast side of Smithtovn Bay off of Smithtovn Road 16. Sit~: Smithto~ Bay - ~erflov Parking ~ocation: ~ vest side of Smithto~ Road Just south of Smithto~ Terrace 17. Site: Smithto~ Bay - ~erflow Parking ~ocation: ~ Highway 7 and Iris, ~ust vest of Smithto~ Road 18. Sit~: Ho~ards Point Harina Location: East side of South Upper Lake off of Hove:ds Point Road 0 L~o Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 1986. Re: Letter from DNR dated December 23, 1985 relative to a public access to Lake Minnetonka on the north shore of Halsted Bay The following motion was made by Thomas Reese and seconded by Robert Byrnes: The preliminary response of the Mound Planning Commission is that the Commission does not support the dedication of the.Coddon Prop- erty to access use because this large property along with the King's Point access and otherunwaivingpotential dense use open land on the Bay, has the potential to result in excess activity in Halstead Bay with the resulting deteriorating of the bay's environment. A more detailed review of the site's potential as an access should be accomplished as part of the City's participation in the present access Task Force study. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor with the entire Planning Commission being present. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON LAKE MINNETONKA Wednesday, January 22, 1986 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Conference Room B AGENDA 1. Call to order 2. Approval of agenda 3. Minutes of Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka (MCTFLM) meeting, Dec. 16, 1985 (enclosed) 4. Report and comments, interim developments: Chair Scully Task Force Members Staff 5. Briefing, legislative authorities for fees 6. Discussion, MCTFLMwork program and schedule (enclosed) 7. Discussion, task force members, role in ensuring participation by all parties 8. Other Business 9. Adjourn Pat Scully Karen Shaffer Jack Mauritz Bob Nethercut Pat Scully, Chair METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota ~101 DATE: TO: FROM: January 17, 1986 Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka Staff, Mauritz, Nethercut, Lester SUBJECT: Staff Recommendation to Task Force: Work Process to~ Address Issues Jan. - April 1986 Attached are a draft work schedule and staff and task force work process which will meet the charge from the Executive Council. We have also attached a draft outline of a report to the Executive Council to show the products we believe can come from the process. A review of the schedule will show that is extremely tight. We'have been unable to find any other way to meet the goal of a significant report within the time constraints while still meeting the following criteria: - Adequate community input on the issues - Adequate time for task force discussion - Public meetings to consider the products - Council (and Committee) review MCTFLM/CHADM1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON LAKE MINNETONKA DRAFT TASK FORCE WORK SCHEDULE January 22 Task Force meeting on lake user charge issue and to develop set of issues the task force wants to address besides boat access/shore access. January 30 Ail municipal governmental units submit proposals on access potential and car-trailer parking spaces available in their respective communities to meet the goal of 700 reliable car-trailer parking spaces recommended by the 1983 task force. February 5 (tentative) Task force meeting(s) to work on issues from Jan. 22. February 12 (tentative) Task Force meeting(s) to work on issues from Jan. 22. February 15 Copies of the compiled local government materials plus task force papers on other issues to be printed by the Metropolitan Council and distributed to libraries and interested parties for public hearing purposes. Public meetings on community proposals and preliminary draft from task force. March 12 (tentative) Task Force meets to discuss and approve draft final report to the Governor. March 18 Metropolitan Systems Committee considers report. March 27 Metropolitan Council Considers report. April 1 'WJLZ49-CHADM1 Final report is forwarded to the Governor and members of the Executive Council. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON LAKE MINNETONKA 1.15.86 DRAFT REPORT OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTION A. Request from State Executive Council and a history of events leading to the action B. Task force and Metropolitan Council response C. Process used by task force to develop this report II. BACKGROUND A. Brief: earlier studies, issue statements and task forces/reports on Lake Minnetonka B. The 1983 Lake Minnetonka Task Force: findings and recommendations C. Progress/Events since 1983 III. ANALYSIS A. Primary Issue--lc~hiev~t~fa~e boat access/shore ~access. on Lake Minnetonka Data considered: - Plans sub~t%ed by each m~ioipality - S%aff analysis of sub~t%ed ma%erial - Task force diso~ions ~ Process: Task force will consider.how the recommendations on the issue from the 1983 task force on Lake Minnetonka for access and secured parking sites will be met in each zone and, if recommendations from a municipality and/or zone differ from the 1983 recommendations, why' that difference exists and what should be done about the difference. Outcomes: General--A statement of consistencies and noted inconsistencies of the present situation regarding the issue, an evaluation of the probability or feasibility of the 1983 recommendations being met in a reasonable time frame. Specific--Recommendations, with supporting discussion, to the Executive Council about the appropriate use of the King's Point Parcel. ~ ~F~~ B. Other Issues Non-local funding for the costs of public access to the lake including: development and maintenance of boat launch sites and shoreline use areas; law enforcement and public safety costs on shore and in the lake; local road improvements. Data to be considered: - Staff collected input from municipalities, LMCD and other agencies about current expenditure levels in the cost areas outlined. - Governmental and private estimates of future cost trends and needs. - Suggested funding sources, from 1983 task force and from all current participants. Process: Task force will consider data collected by staff and evaluate the adequacy of funding. It will also consider funding alternatives suggested by staff and task force members. Outcomes: A statement of the issue(s) involved with meeting the costs of providing increased public access, including a prel~m~uary estimate of the magnitude of costs, a description of the funding alternatives considered and an evaluation of each including equity, feasibility and other pertinent factors. 2. Status of research on Lake Minnetonka use. Data to be considered: - Staff s-mmaries of existing studies and data collection programs including the extent and topics addressed by existing-data. - Staff reports on the scope of data needed to support decisions related to lake use issues. - Task force member appraisals of existing data. - Public and concerned party input on the issue during hearings or task force deliberations. Process: The task force will be briefed by staff on the scope of existing data and appropriate data needs. With commentary ~from others, the task force will consider recommendations for additional research. Outcomes: A general evaluation of the status of data about use on Lake Minnetonka and recommendations for the additional data needed to support future decisions relating to lake use, water safety, access, surface use regulations and other related issues. A process which.coordinates the roles and responsibilities of each agency or governmental body. Data to be considered: - 1983 task force discussions and recommendations. - Input from all concerned parties, including but not limited to DNR, LMCD, municipalities. - Public input from hearings. - Council staff appraisal and commentary. Process: Beginning with a recapitulation of the 1983 task force discussion, the task force should: discuss the current process; identify and/or clarify basic issues; suggest alternatives which may offer potential solutions. Out come: Within the schedule constraints of this task force, staff believes that a clarification of issues and some consideration of alternatives may be the maximum which can be attained. A highly desirable goal would be a recommended process or alternative processes which detail a feasible route to the negotiated memorandum of understanding recommended in the 1983 task force report. IV. FINDINGS See III, outcomes A and B, above. V. RECOMMENDATIONS See III, outcomes A and B, above. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON LAKE MINNETONKA DRAFT WORK PROCESS January 22 Meeting, Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka (MCTFLM) Task force considers agenda items as follows: - Lake user charges or fees - Issues to be addressed - Work process and schedule, revisions Products - Discussion, decisions or recommendations on fees - Directive, issues to be addressed - Revised work process and schedule January 23 - Staff proceeds with data gathering and analysis consistent with issues list and schedule of January 22. - Task force members continue contacts in the Lake Minnetonka community, including encouraging activity in necessary local discussions and data input. ~ JanuaryS' - Staff receives local governmental proposals on access questions, response to earlier requests from task force. Copies are printed at Metropolitan Council and distributed to: - Task force members - Area libraries - Interested parties February 3 Distribution of copies completed February 5 (tentative) Task Force Meeting to consider issues from January 22 - Fees: further discussions - Boat access/shore access: - Review of input from communities - Staff analysis of input, especially consistency and/or differences with 1983 task force recommendations - Discussion - Status, research data and research programs: - Briefing; Council and other staff, extent and content of existing studies - Task force discussion, appraisal of existing data - Staff recommendations, future needs - Task force discussion and draft position statements on the issues - Organization issues (coordinated roles and responsibilities'of agencies on Lake Minnetonka) - Briefing, review of staff background and analysis paper - Task force discussions, issues - Review of staff generated alternatives list - Task force discussion of alternatives, solution/~esolution for further inquiry February %2 (tentative) Task Force Meeting to consider issues from January 22 - Boat access/shore access: further discussion (from Feb. 5) - Consider draft position statement - Organization issues: further discussion (from Feb. 5) - Consider draft position statement - Non-local funding issues: - Staff report, collected input from agencies and communities on their estimate of costs for non-local access, current and projected - Task force discussion - Staff report and evaluation of alternative funding sources - Task force discussion and draft position statement with issues and alternatives for future consideration - Review work process and schedule: analysis and necessary modification (if any) March B-7 Public Meetings: Community p~oposals and draft position statements from the Task Force~-~e ~c~'~:::~ 2~ March 12 (tentative) Task Force Meeting to consider draft final report March 18 Task Force Meeting With Metropolitan Systems Committee to explain final report March 27 Report to Metropolitan Council April I Report to Governor and Executive Council MCTFLM/CHADM1 - 7701 COUNTY ROAD 110 W · MtNNETRISTA, MINNESOTA 55364 · 446.1~ January 1S, 1986 Ms. Cindy Wheeler Regional Access Specialist ?.~innetrista Denartment of .Natural Resources 1200 Warner St. Paul, :..N SS106 Dear Ms. Wheeler: Thank you for your letter dated December 23, 198S. The City o~ Minnetrista will respond to the ~atters raised in your letter as part of the materials to be filed with the ~ietropolitan Council Lake Access Task Force on or about January 30, 1986. If you have any questions nrior to that time, please feel free to contact Bill ~urnblad,-City Planner. Sincerely ,. Charlotte Paterson City Administrato~ CP/gmo cc: Mayor Walton E. Clevenger r.William Lester' Jack Mauritz Mr. Lee Sheehy MAYOR Robert Ra~p COUNCIL Jan Haugen Ted Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagn( CITY OF ^OM,N,S*RA,OR Daniel J. Vogt SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 January 15, 1986 Mr. Patrick Scully, Chair Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Mn 55101 Dear Chairman Scully: The City of Shorewood has analyzed the lakeshore within its jurisdictlion on Lake Minnetonka for the purpose of locating water access sites. It was found that -._ no additional sites for water access onto Lake Minnetonka are available in · .._- Shorewood. It is apparent that only through the condemnation of property with ·..:-,.,~"": ..:."...(- ':. structures existing could sites be found. As you know, this would be extremely .. :.~-~ expensive and time consuming. .:~' "·As Department'of Natural Resources (DNR) ~taff has found through site research, · ::~'~:..'~-three (3) possible sites exist in Zone 3 of Shorewood. These sites are listed ' '' .aS'Timber Lane, Snug Harbor and Minnetonka Portable Dredging. As the site -. evaluation for these sites indicates, overall ranking is poor. Also, all three (3) sites would be high cost sites. Further, each site has various other aspects inherent to the site that receive a poor ranking. These aspects include: Timber Lane - Poor relationship to residential, residentially zoned, poor ';'l i" ' protection from wind and ice, and 'poor title or complex ownership.. .. · Snug Harbor - High site alteration, poor shore-fishing opportunities, poor title or complex ownership. Minnet°nka Portable Dred~in~ - A fair rating is given for a willing private property owner. However, this owner wants $1 million for the property. Also, poor protection from wind and ice and barriers to'limit large boats. The one site listed in Zone 5 also received a poor. ranking The site was listed as Howard's Point Marina. This, again, would be a very high cost site. Other aspects contributing to the poor rating include: Unwilling seller, relationship to residential properties, accessibility to highways, intensity of boating in the area and barriers to limit large boats. 733 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Mr, Patrick Scully January 15, 1986 ~ge two As to the issue of creating more car-trailer parking spaces, since Shorewood has no public access sites onto Lake Minnetonka, the creation of parking spaces for car-trailer parking within 1500 feet of existing public access sites is inappropriate. Finally, if a site for a public access onto Lake Minnetonka is located in Shorewood, it is my belief that the City will provide the DNR with any assistance available in order to develop such a site. If I can be of further assistance to the Task Force, let me know. ncere m ' ' CITY OF SHOREWOOD ..,7--.~..- DJV:ph"-. <~. .-: ..... . .'., ~72-. - ~. ' ' ~'~ . · JON J. JOHNSON MARK J. CONDON LEON R. ERSTAD CANDICE I~. H[KTN[R CHADWICK, JOHNSON & CONDON, P. A. January 16, 1986 Patrick Scully, Chairman Metropolitan Council Task Force on ~.:::- ... Lake Minnetonka '"'~;~'~"'~'~:'"Metropolitan Council Suite 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Scully: I have been apprised of the evaluation of various sites for potential access to Lake Minnetonka. I would like to take this opportunity to point out some hazardous situations that exist relative to sites 10, 11, and 12 on your listing of potential access sites considered in Zone 5. Specifically, these are the South Bay Drive location on the south shore of Halsted's Bay just east of Lotus Drive, the County Road 44 location on the southeast shore of ~alsted's Bay on County Road 44, and the former Bachman Greenhouses on the southeast side of West Upper Lake off County Road 44 and Shady Lane. My primary concern with respect to all of these sites is the extremely hazardous intersection at County Road 44 and Highway 7. In the normal scheme of things it could certainly be expected that that intersection would carry on the order of 75 to 85 percent of all the traffic utilizing the access sites. If yo'u are familiar' with the intersection, it is apparent that it is a relatively easy access from Highway 7 onto County Road 44, but an exact opposite situation obtains from County Road 44 to Highway 7. A vehicle attempting to go from County Road 44 onto ~ighway 7 has to approach the stop sign at that intersection at an angle and the driver must look back nearly over his right shoulder to obtain a view of the highway and the vehicles approaching from the right. Even then, chances of misjudgment are great. It is always difficult to look across passengers toward the right-hand side and the situation is aggravated by the fact that vehicles on Highway 7 approaching from the right go over a hill a short distance before this intersection. This causes shorter observation times and increased speeds. As such, Mr. Patrick Scully January 16, 1986 Page 2 there can be traffic approaching the intersection on Highway 7 which may go unobserved. This is further aggravated by the fact that a lot of the traffic is truck traffic and this traffic has the habit of speeding. , My personal experience is that this intersection is a hazardous~'' : intersection for our modern underpowered ve~icles when there is no boat in tow. The situation is much much worse when a vehicle has a boat in tow and must attempt to make it onto this road and build up sufficient speed before being hit in the rear,nd by another vehicle or worse Yeti one of the semis that frequent this portion of the roadway. (I might add that these semis generally make a turn to the south at County Road 13, about a mile to the east, and do not traverse the further length of ~ighway 7.) - With respect to the former Bachman Greenhouses site, another very hazardous intersection exists at the corner of County Road 44 and Shady Lane. All of the traffic going to the former Bachman Greenhouses site would have to traverse this intersection. The intersection has a similar problem in that there is a hill going down to the intersection and traffi~ can be approaching at a very rapid speed as it comes from the left. There is also a curve at this intersection and traffic coming from the right might not even be seen at the time a vehicle would be entering County Road 44. Again, this intersection is obviously a far more dangerous one if a vehicle has a boat in tOW. I urge you and other individuals considering the potential access sites to please make a full evaluation of these hazardous intersections. I would also appreciate the opportunity of confronting anyone who indicates to you that these are not hazardous intersections, and if someone does so I would appreciate it if I could receive notice of when this matter would be brought up at any public hearing. Sincerely~' _Wayne ~itboughwD~j. di~/7542a _ C.--- 3~ /// Thank you very much. January 24, 1986 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER LOST LAKE PROPERTY Shortly after I began work at Mound, Mr. Buzz Sycks contacted me regarding the status of the Lost Lake property. He is interested in purchasing the property, as you know, and developing it into a commercial area which would include a Perkins Restaurant and other business enterprises. I understand, also, that Balboa has contacted the City indicating an interest in purchasing the property and has proposed a plan for its development. As I understand it, the title to the property has been cleared and the site has been removed from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) Permanent List of Hazardous Waste Sites. Curt Pearson, City Attorney, in a letter dated December 19, 1985, to Fran Clark, Acting City Manager, a copy of which is attached hereto, indicates that a decision on the future of this property should be made. The Staff requests some direction in which to proceed on this matter. ES:fc in the admission or access to, or treatment or employr;~cnt m, its pro~rarns and aoti,,ities. ,A,. THOMAS WURST, CURTIS /o~. pL6, RSON, ,.JosL-.pH t:". HAMILTON, ~IAM~S D. LARSON, THOHAS I~. LIND£RWOOO, ROGER ,.,J. ~ELLOWS LAW OFFIC£$ WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD I100 FIR~;T ~ANK PLACE WEST lv~INNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 December 19, 1985 TELEPHONE (612') 338-42'00 Ms. Fran Clark Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Lost Lake Property Dear Fran: I received a copy of Buzz Sycks' letter of December 16, 1985 addressed to the Mayor and Council and to yourself as Acting City Manager. I believe that Mr. Sycks sets forth in writing essentially what I have told him over the tele- phone and I assume what you and Mark have told him. The City should at this point make a decision as to what it wants to do with that property. If it's going to be sold then the outlines of the areas to be sold should be deter- mined and what public purposes need to be protected should be protected in any negotiations. I would think also that if the Council determines to sell the property, they will want to assign that responsi- bility to the City Manager and/or the City Manager and the City Attorney, or some other person who can try to negotiate the best deal possible for the City amongst the two bidders that ~we currently have and maybe there~will be others who would be encouraged to bid if they knew the land was for sale. If you need any help'or assistance from me on this project, please advise; otherwise, I assume you will talking to'Ed about this as soon as he is on board. Ver~ truly yours. Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney, City of Mound CAP/ej CITY of MOUND January 24, 1986 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, ~.~INNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: MAYOR&CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPOSED PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY This item is back on the Agenda for your review and consideration. Mayor Polston and myself have met with Brad Lemberg and Bob Russek of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. (BRA), regarding the site plan development and referendum preparation for a new public works facility. Meetings have also been held with the Public Works staff, Finance Director, Miller/Schroeder and BRA on the site development and referendum preparation. We have also had a Public Works Building Study Committee meeting and reviewed input from the Committee on the proposed project. In order for us to proceed, we are requesting your discussion of this matter on January 28, 1986. The following is a tentative plan for proceeding on the project: DATE ITEM Monday 1-27-86 BRA and Staff review site plan with Planning Commission. Tuesday 1-28-86 BRA, Staff and Building Committee present site plan and supplemental information to City Council at its regular meeting. Included will be a sample brochure containing information identifying the need for the facility and answering questions about the project. Possible scenarios on bonding will also be presented. City Attorney directed to prepare referendum documents. Wednesday 1-29-86 OR Thursday 1-30-86 Building Committee meets to review site plan and prepare specific strategy for community group presentations and informational meetings. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on th,; b'isis c~f r acc, COlOr. national origin or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or 6m;-,Ioyrnent in. i',$ programs and acti,.~ties. Page 2 City Council Public Works Facility January 24, 1986 February, 1986 Schedule presentations with community organizations and all City employees informing them about the project and answering all questions. Mail out brochures to all residents. Tuesday, 3-4-86 First informational meeting at City Hall. Thursday, 3-20-86 Second informational meeting at City Hall. Tuesday, Election Day 4-8-86 The proposed building (not including outdoor storage, engineering, legal or bonding fees) is approximately $1.5 million. More accurate figures will be presented by BRA Tuesday evening. This cost has been arrived at by taking the total square footage (28,610) times $50.00 per square foot. The building wi.Il house all Public Works vehicles and equipment as well as space for administrative vehicles and a maintenance shop. This memo has only briefly described the proposed project. BRA will have the specifics at Tuesday's meeting. ES:fc McCOMBS KNUTSON ASSOCIATES INC. Oanuary 17, 1986 Mr. Edward Shukle, Or. City Hanager City of Mound 5341Haywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 SUBOECT: Lynwood Boulevard Project & M.S.A. Fund Balance F~<A File #7193 Dear Ed: Enclosed is a summary of the estimatea costs required for the construction of Lynwood Boulevard. Some of the costs not eligible from H.S.A. funds such as part of the storm sewer and utility service extensions, coula be assessed back to the benefiting properties. Also included on the enclosed is a breakdown of the anticipated expenditures for 1986 to be paid from the M.S.A. construction fund. As you can see, there will be a aeficit if all the projects are undertaken this year. This problem can be overcome by either ~king ~or an advance from th~ 1~87 . allotment or not submitting for final payment on tne LynwOoO Boulevard project until 3anuary of 1~87. The state holds back approximately 10% of the project until it is completed and all the necessary paper work submitted anO approved. On a project the size of Lynwood Boulevard the retainage should be enough to cover the anticipated deficit. The estimated cost I have shown for the Bartlett Boulevard repairs is not a firm estimate Since I need to expand the area of repairs from our estimate of last year. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HcCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. $C:cah LYNWOOD BOULEVARD MSA 145-104-03 PROJECTED PROJECT COST 1-15-86 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST RIGHT-OF-WAY COST PARCEL A (ESTIMATED) PARCEL B (ESTIMATED) PARCEL D (ESTIMATED) PARCEL E (ACTUAL) TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS RELOCATION COST (BAKERY) ACQUISTION COSTS (APPRAISALS, LEGAL, ETC.) ESTIMATED ENGINEERING COST TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 3,250.00 $ 4,750.00 $ 9,218.00 $ 85,050.00 LESS MSA NON-ELIGIBLE ITEMS 45% OF ST. SEW. & CITY UTILITY SERVICES $(17,324.00) ACQUISTION COSTS $(20,000.00) TOTAL NON-ELIGIBLE ITEMS TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM MSA FUNDS LESS PORTION OF R/W COST PREVIOUSLY PAID FROM MSA FUNDS ON 9-26-85 ,,REMAINING ESTIMATED COST ELIGIBLE FOR~ REIMBURSEMENT FROM MSA CONSTRUCTION FUND $206,286.00 $102,268.00 $ 11,046.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 37~132.00 $376,732.00 $(37,324.00) $339,408.00 $ 91,291.20 $248,116.80 MSA CONSTRUCTION FUND STATUS BALANCE 1-2-86 1986 ALLOTMENT TOTAL WORKING BALANCE FOR 1986 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES FROM MSA CONSTRUCTION FUND 1. REIMBURSEMENT BLACK LAKE BRIDGE 2. MSA BOND PAYMENT (PRINCIPAL) 3. TUXEDO SAFETY I~°ROVEMENT * 4. LYNWOOD BOULEVARD * 5. BARTLETT BOULEVARD STREET REPAIRS * TOTAL PROJECTED EXPENDITURES BALANCE AVAILABLE PROJECTED EXPENDITURES DEFICIT BALANCE $180,635.29 $'1-5~298.00 $334,933.29 $ 7,839.54 $ 40,000.00 $ 18,255.00 $248,116.80 $362,611.34 $334,933.00 $362~611.00 ($ 27,678.00) INCLUDES ESTIMATED ENGINEERING COST REVISED 1-21-86 TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks FROM: Ann Higgins, Staff Associate GRAMM-RUDMAN DEFICIT REDUCTION PROCESS THREATENS FFY'86 FUNDS FOR CITIES Enactment of the Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (otherwise termed "Gramm-Rudman" by the media) establishes a process to accomplish federal deficit reduction by setting targets for reduced federal spending. Those defict reductions are to be achieved between now and FFY 1991. All city programs are covered by the act and therefore subject to immediate cuts regardless of the fact that cities have already adopted budgets for FY'86. Cities face serious and harmful impacts to'local programs and services as a result. Gramm-Rudmann effectively narrows the portion of the federal budget available for reductions to as little as 13 percent of all direct federal spending and tax expenditures. Tnat means that the small portion of federal spending must absorb cuts nearly equal to the current federal deficit. Those cuts would be made immediately, as of March 1, with a second series of reductions set for October 1, 1986, both dates within cities' current budget year. Unless Congress and the President can agree to some other way to reduce the growing federal deficit before February 1, the automatic sequestering process called for in Gramm-Rudman will take effect. (Sequestering refers to the automatic cuts in federal spending subject to provisions of Gramm-Rudman.) In order prevent further cuts in city programs~ city officials must immediately contact individual members of the Minnesota Coqgressional ~e~egationa during the current congressional recess. Tell them how these proposed cuts will affect your current budget and services and urge them to support a resolution of di-~approval to proposals to either defer CDBG spending or to further reduce GRS or other federal assistance to cities (see below). To accomplish targeted spending reductions, the President and the Congress must immediately reduce the current deficit ($220+ billion at last estimate) to no'more than $171.9 billion by March 1, 1986. In order to provide current federal budget savings needed to meet the initial deficit reduction, an accelerated timetable has been put into effect for FFY'86. When Congress reconvenes on January 21, following I 83 universiCv avenue east, sC. paul, mi,-,nesoca 551 ID1 (1~1 2) 227-5600 its holiday recess, information will already be known about the size of savings that must be achieved. For this year, the new budget reduction process has determined that the maximum deficit reduction required will be $20 billion. It is expected that the amount of immediate budget cuts for the remaining months of FFY'86 will total at least $11.7 billion (through September 30, 1986), to be split 50:50 between military and domestic spending. By January 21, the recommendations of the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Budget and Management, and the Government Accounting Office for cutting current fiscal year spending will be known. For cities, such recommendations are most likely to call for significant cuts in funds already committed and budgeted, including a 4.6 percent reduction in April and July, '86 GRS payments as well as potential loss of funds for rental rehabilitation~ new public housing construction; housing development grants (HODAGS); existing Section 8 housing and ~rehabilitation funds; an additional cut of 16 percent for CDBG grants (in addition to the 10 percent cut just enacted for FFY '86 funding) already committed for this year; and all public housing operating subsidies carried over from FFY'85. Fears are growing that current (FFY'86) CDBG grants will also be targeted for cuts in March, with an additional 5 percent cut as determined by Gramm-Rudman, plus an additional deferral (delay in spending) of $500 million for the current year. October '86 GRS payments, already scheduled to be reduced by 34 percent, will be further reduced by an additional 4 percent under Gramm-Rudman, for a total of 38 percent in cities' final FFY'86 payment. Domestic spending totaling at least $5.9 billion (half the $11.8 billion cited above) will have to be reduced to meet the targets set by Gramm-Rudman. It means that EPA municipal wastewater grants, highway and transit operating and capital assistance funds, UDAG grants will all be reduced by at least 4-5 percent from the amounts already'committed (and budgeted)'for this year, unless either the U.S. House or Senate passes a resolution of disapproval to reject any or all of these domestic spending cuts. Add to this the prospect of passage of federal tax reform legislation by late next summer, and one can begin to fully appreciate the very precarious state of local government financing for the coming year. Federal mandates continue to operate in the midst of the federal deficit crisis. Therefore, the costs to cities and states remain as the local fiscal capacity to assume these responsibiliti6s is further diminished. Remember, too, that the President will soon announce his FFY'87 federal budget proposals to Congress. In orcer to meet the targeted federal budget figures cited in Gramm-Rudman, the President must provide for a federal FFY'87 Budget calling for another major spending cut, this time - $ 48 billion, to take effect next October. It is already feared that targeted programs in FFY'87 will include reductions in the number of entitlement CDBG cities and termination of rental rehabilitation,UDAG grant and rehabilitation loan funding. If the currently proposed increases in military spending are included in the FFY'87 budget proposal along with no action to address fast- growing tax expenditures or non-need tested entitlements, outright elimination and extraordinary cuts in remaining domestic spending will be necessary. For further information contact Ann Higgins. January 10, 1986 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAY~VOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL /,' ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: MEMBERSHIP IN ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) In my review of the 1986 Budget flies, it was indicated that th~ City of Mound had not budgeted for membership in the AMM (see page 27 of the 1986 adopted Budget'). I am not sure Why this occurred. In any event, I would like to have you reconsider this budget item at this time. For your information, I have attached some background on the AMM and its purpose: 1. AMM Bulletin defining the AMM. 2. "AMM'Services Activities".' 3. "Attachment A - 1985-86 GOals, Work Program and Staff Priorities for the AMM". The AMM also compiles a salary survey on elected officials from metropolitan communities and has conducted municipal fee surveys on licenses and permits. These types of studies certainly assist our community in developing its poli.cies and guidelines on local 'government issues. I think that after you have reviewed the attached information on AMM, you will gain a better understanding of its purpose. In addition, I have been told by AMM's Executive Director that AMM assisted the City of Mound in having the Lost Lake Dump Site removed from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) list of possible hazardous waste disposal sites. The Executive Director of AMM had some meetings with MPCA officials and written correspondence with MPCA on this matter. This type of cooperation from AMM is an example of how valuable they can be to our City. This paragraph entitled: "Need for Support and Participation" on page 3 of Item #1 that is attached, explains quite well the importance of theAMM. I have underlined the final two sentences of this paragraph which I believe say it all. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. Page 2 Mayor & City Council AMM January 10, 1986 I should also point out that I attended AMMIs membership meeting on January 9. Policies on local government issues affecting metropolitan cities were adopted at this meeting and will be forwarded on to the State Legislature through AMM's lobbyists. (NOTE: Please see item G. under "Information/Miscellaneous" on the January 14, 1986, Agenda.) With regard to the actual dues for AMM, the dues are calculated on a percentage of dues paid to the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). The current rate is 46%. The City of Mound's dues for 1985-86 (June 1, 1985 through May 31, 1986) were $1,715. At the January 9, 1986, membership meeting, the AMM membership took action to change its fiscal year to January 1 - December 31 to coincide with a city's budget year, effective January 1, 1987. However, a dues payment for the last 7 months of 1986 will be required. That amount will be approximately $1,000 to $1,200. How do we fund our AMM membership for the final 7 months of 1986 when it has not been budgeted? I have been told that the amount budgeted for the Senior Citizen Coordinator, $8,995 (page 27 of the 1986 adopted Budget) will be funded through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)'funds. Therefore, I am recommending that the City of Mound continue its member- ship in AMM through the end of 1986 and in future years. I believe that our membership and participation is very important in this organization. ' ES:fc enc.. aeeociation of metropolitan munici'palitiee B.ULLET N WHAT IS THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM)? The AMM is a service and lobby organization for cities ~n .the Metropolitan Area. Membership is open to any city within~the.'.seven county metropolitan area which is a member of the League of Minnesota Cities. Current membership includes nearly half the eligible cities which contain approximately 85% of the metropolitan population. The Staff consists of an Executive Director; Director of Legislative Affairs, and Administrative Assistant/Secretary. ADMINISTRAtiVE STRUCTURE The AMM is governed by a Board of Directors of local officials from member citie's. It includes President, Vice-President, Past-President and 16 directors serving 2 year staggered terms. Board members are elected at the general membership Annual Meeting held in May. Each class of city must be represented on the Board and the distribution of directors is consistent geographically witL city membership. In matters of administration, organization, and general operations each member city has one vote. The Board of Directors meet monthly to guide the general organization operations and to direct staff. LEGISLATIVE P~LIC¥ AND CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT Perhaps the most important function is to'provide a forum for consensus building and to develop an understanding of other cikies' problems, concerns and points of view. The AMM is uniquely suited for this task since its membership includes the central cities as well as 'all types and sizes of suburban and free standing communities. Policy positions are developed by five standing committees based on input from member city representatives. These committees are Municipal Revenues, Metropolitan Agencies, General Legislation, Housing and Transportation. Any official from any member city may serve on a committee of their choice. Policy recommendations are transmitted annuaily from each committee to the Board of Directors .for review, modification and transmittal to the general membership. The general membership meets annually prior to each legislative session to debate, and adopt the official AMM policy. In matters of legislative policy each member city has one vote plus one vote fo' -1- 1Rq ,,niv~r~itv ~venue east. St. oaul. minnesota 551 O1 (612) 227-5600 each 50,000 population or major fraction thereof. To be adopted, Legislative Policy, requires a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members present and voting. RELATIONSHIP TO LMC AND METROPOLITAN AGENCIEs The AMM is affiliated with the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) but is not duplicative nor competitive with that organization. The AMM has a. separate and distinct mission and the primary area of difference is the AMM's involvement with the Metropolitan Council and its agencies. The LMC has no involvement with Metropolitan type issue, whereas the AMM monitors the council and its activities, alerts member cities of impending decisions or actions, and reacts as appropriate to protect the Metropolitan Cities best interests. The AMM is the only organization for cities constantly monitoring the Metropolitan Council and the other metropolitan agencies such as the RTB, MWCC, etc. The AMM has been very successful over the years in influencing Metropolitan Council policy decision making and the leaders of the Metropolitan Agencies look firstto the AMM to get the city input. REVENUE ISSUES The AMM, in addition to its 'metropolitan activities, is active in proposing and lobbying for legislation concerning city revenues. An AMM sponsored bill to increase the levy limit base to compensate for reduction in Federal Revenue Sharing was passed as was an AMM supported provision to require fiscal impact notes to be attached to legislative bills mandating increased local costs. A legislative commission was estblished to study .local government finance including local government aid, agricultural aid, homestead credit, local government accountability, and property tax simplification. As part of the AMM continuous monitoring of an response to legislative 'and Metropolitan Council initiatives which create expensive mandates or affect local government financing, the AMM will be actively involved in the proceedings of the legislative commission activities. SUPPORT SERVICES/COMMUNICATIONS The AMM, in addition to its representational (lobbying) efforts also provides a number of support services to its member cities. The .. annual Metropolitan Area Salary Survey, which is used extensively by most cities, would not be produced if it were not for the AMM. The AMM also publishes an annual survey of elected officials salaries and publishes a biennial survey of municipal fees and license costs. The AMM also provides research information to member cities and .publishes newsletters, bulletins, legislative summaries, etc. to help member ci.ty officials keep abreast of State and Metropolitan issues, laws, plans and concerns. The AMM also sponsors or co-sponsors educational seminars and conferences as needed on topics -2- of major interest and importance. Past AMM sponsored seminars included LEVY LIMITS, HOUSING, SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT, DEVELOPMEN? AND REDEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES, ETC. NEED FOR SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION There are many critical issues facing cities in the metropolitan area in the near future. Some of these include coping with the reduction of Federal pass through funds, developing a new local government aid formula since the current formula was adopted for only one year, implementation of solid waste reduction and separation initiatives, property tax' and classification system reform, light rail transit, highway jurisdiction and funding, as well as the ongoing issues of levy limits, surface water management, housing, etc. ~.he AMM is not the total answer to all city needs and _problems but there is a need for a strong metropol"itan city organization to work through these issues and represent the cities in the halls of the Capitol and the Metropoil~'~n Council. -l'ne AMM can continue to be effect~v~ only through the Dartictp~at.'i.o~...and s~upport of most of the cities in the metropolitan area. DUES AMM dues are calculated as a percentage of dues paid to the LMC. The current rate is 46%. FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE AMM OFFICE (227-5600) -3- AMM SERVICES ACTIVITIES 1. Legislative Lobbying The AMM's major function is lobbying, partly on statewide issues of great interest tO metropolitan area cities and partly on metropolitan area only issues. Two persons coordinate efforts and lobby on the approximately 100 policy positions adopted each biennium of which two-thirds are successfully passed or defended. 2. Metropolitan Council Lobbying. The second major function is to monitor the activities of the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Agencies, and the various advisory committees to these agencies. Activities include direct lobbying per adopted policy, participation representing the 'city' viewpoint, and alerting member cities of impending policy or operating decisions of these agencies which may have significant impact. 3. Appointments to Metropolitan Advisory Committees The AMM Board of Directors appoints 10 elected officials to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and 8 appointed officials to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which advises the TAB. The Board also appoints or recommends member officials for var~o~3s' other metropolitan agencies advisory committee and task forces such as Cable TV, MWCC Study, 208 and Agregate Resource Study. 4. Newsletters, Bulletins~ and Summaries The AMM publishes annually at least two newsletters of general interest, a summary of major legislation passed, an annual report containing a brief status of all legislative policy, and several Bulletins containing 'alerts' on pending legislative or metropolitan issues and/or updates on development of major issues. 5. General Member Services. The AMM annually updates and publishes a Metropolitan Area Salary Survey of Elected Officials, biannually updates and publishes a Survey' on Municipai Fees, and facilitates discussion between individual cities and state or metropolitan agencies when requested. 6. Research and Educational Seminars. AMM staff does provide a minimal research capability in response to member officials questions. Although this is not a large formalized activity, it does require a certain amount of time. Also, one or two educational seminars are annually sponsored on various topics of interest such as Levy Limits, Housing, Surface Water Management, MWCC, etc. 7. Internal Coordination and Services. The AMM coordinates, administrates, and is the major financial supporter of the annual Metropolitan Area Salary Survey (Known as the Stanton survey). The AMM provides secretarial and administrative support to the Metropolitan Area Managers Association (MAMA). The AMM annually contributes to the coordinated labor relations effort in the Metropolitan.Area. ATTACHMEMT A 1985-86 GOALS, WORK PROGRAM AND STAFF PRIORITIES FOR TH~ ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS The goals They are: of the Association are embodied in the By-Laws· To effectively express in a united voice policies concerning the structure, powers and other matters relating to municipal government for the municipalities in the metropolitan area· To serve as a forum through which all municipalities or groups of municipalites may develop and propose policies and positions on matters of concern to the metropolitan municipalities knd develop strategies for advocating those policies and positions· To serve as a forum for the interchange of ideas and information among municipalities in the metropoliian area, and to foster inter-municipal cooperation· To develop and provide, either alone or in concert with the League of Minnesota Cities, or other organizations or agencies, programs of technical assistance to member municipalities· To foster, generate, and promote information and data concerning the programs and issues affecting municipal government in the metropolitan area, to the state legislature, in particular, and to the public at large· To encourage the improvement of municipal government in the metropolitan area by holding conferences and by fostering pertinent research projects. Ge To work closely with the League of Minnesota Cities in the interest of members of the Association. To strive to make the metropolitan area and its component municipalities more efficient and progressive in the continuing task of making the quality of life as complete and satisfying and enriching as possible for all citizens. -1- II. WORK PROGRAM AND ACTIVITIES TO IMPLEMENT GOALS AS STATED IN BY-LAWS IN SERVING ITS MEMBERS IN THE MOST EFFICIENT EFFECTIVE MANNER POSSIBLE AND TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS EMBODIED IN THE BY-LAWS, THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD CONSIDER AND IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM PRIORITIES FOR 1985-86. A. Representation of AMM policy before the State Legislature Major activities to implement this priority include: 1. Municipai Revenue Committee will: ae Review'existing revenue and tax policies in light of action taken in the 1985 session and determine which policies should be retained and/or modified. be Determine., if any, additional revenue policies needed for the 1986 session: and tax 1. Fiscal Disparities· 2. Property tax modifications. 3. Local Government Aid. 2. Metropolitan Agencies Committee will: ae Review existing metropolitan policies in light of action taken in 1985 and determine which policies should be retained or modified. Develop additional policies 1986 legislative session. needed, for the 3. Housing Committee will: a® Review existing housing action taken in 1985. policies in light of Develop additional housing policies for the legislative session as needed. 1986 -2- Transportation Committee will: Review existing action taken in which policies modified. legislative policy in light of the 1985 session and determine should be retained and/or Monitor the progress and recommendations of State Highway Use and Jurisdiction studies if continued by the legislature. De%elop additional transportation policies for the 1986 legislative session as needed. 5. General Legislative Committee will: Review existing legislative policy not covered in 1, 2, 3, or 4, above, in light of action taken in the 1985 session and determine which policies should be retained or modified· b. Develop additional policies for the 1986 legislative session as needed. 6. Board of Directors will: a. Appoint members to legislative policy committees· b. Adopt legislative priorities for the 1986 legislative session. Ce Sponsor/co-sponsor educational event(s) for legislators to apprise them of the cities priority legislative program. 7. Staff will: a® Provide supPort as necessary for AMM standing committees to perform their assigned tasks· Maintain liaison with legislators and legislative committees during the interim. Coordinate and communicate with appropriate LMC personnel on legislative items of mutual interest. de Lobby during the 1986 session for the implementation of the AMM policies as prioritized by the Board. -3- Be Keep the Board of Directors and member cities informed as to legislative activities and legislation concerning the Metropolit~n Council and Commissions. Monitor and keep the Board appraised of the progress of the State Highway Use and Jurisdiction studies or activity. Effective Representation of the Metropolitan Council Azencies .. Municipal Interests Before and. other Metropolitan Major steps to Implement this priority include: 1. Metropolitan Agencies Committee will: ae Analyze and react as necessary to revisions to existing MetropolStan Development Guide Chapters. (The Development Framework Chapter is currently being reviewed and will be revised). Analyze and react as necessary to proBosed new chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Ce ee Analyze and react as necessary to issues of metropolitan significance. Review and assess the Metropolitan Council's 1986 Work Program and Budget. Monitor the implementation of the MW¢C Independent Management Study recommendations. Housing Committee will: Provide input to Metropolitan Council and staff with respect to metropolitan housing issues. 3. Transportation Committee will: Analyze and react as appropriate to amendments to the Transportation Policy Guide Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Provide input to the Metropolitan Council, Council Staff, Metropolitan Transit Board, and the Transportation Advisory Board with respect to ongoing transportation issues and concerns. Board of Director will: Assess and take action as reports/recommendations received committees. appropriate to from standing Make recommendations to the Metropolitan Council concerning appointments to key Metropolitan Council Advisory Committees (TAB, TAC, etc.). 5. Staff will: a® Provide support as necessary to AMM standing or special committees, enabling them to perform their assigned tasks, and advise Board in 4b. above. be Maintain liaison with the Metropolitan Council members and Council committees and staff· C® Monitor and assist the Transportation Advisory Board and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Represent the AMM on the MWCC Task Force.which will study the user rate structure· Represent the AMM on the Metropolitan Council's Advisory Task Force which is studying the solid waste collection system. Keep the Board of Directors and member cities informed as to significant activities, projects and programs of the Metropolitan Council and other Metropolitan Agencies. Provide Services Which are Unique Member Municipalities and Meaningful to Provide administrative and the Metropolitan Area Salary ~985). financial support for Survey· (June - July Provide financial support for the coordinated labor relation's effort in the metropolitan area. Provide administrative and secretarial support the Metropolitan Area Management Association· for -5- De Prepare and publish Survey· (July 1985) Prepare and publish survey. (June 1985). the Elected Official Salary the local license and fee Communicate timely, indepth information on subjects of interest to members via: a. Newsletters. b. Bulletins. c. Seminars and/or Conferences 1. 2. use Improve the Association's General Affordable Housing. Court rulings with respect to land cases. 3. Levy Limit/LOA/Property tax change~ if significant. and Strengthen Effectiveness and relations with member cities 1. Apprise members of opportunities to serve on various advisory committees that work with the Metropolitan Council: a. TAB b. TAC Ce Other special committees and Task Forces 2. Expand and increase quality and quantity of written communications to member cities with respect to AMY activities, programs and accomplishments· 3. Work toward goal of getting at least 2 officials from each city involved in AMY activities. 4. Develop informational packet/materials for new city officils. 5. Investigate possibility of having AMY participate in some way in the LMC's Annual Conference for newly elected officials. -6- 6. Establish program for meeting with new Managers/ Administrators of member cities if such persons are not from the Metropolitan Area. III. Develop Outreach Pro~ram to non-member cities Expand program of direct communications to city officials (selected bulletins, seminars)· non-member newsletters, Create a "high powered team" to make calls on cities with an interest in membership or metropolitan issues. Develop priority list of non-member cities that may be "targets" for membership. Update and revise the membership slide presentation which can be hsed for non-membership presentations. -7- ~teve Smith 2710 Clare Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 January 20$ 1986 Fran Clark City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Fran: Agenda Item: "Resolution to Provide for a Free Flow of Information to the Public and for a More Open City Government." Please add the above item to the next Council agenda verbatim. The Council shall request the area newspapers print, as a public service, the individual votes of the Council members. (The Laker has already agreed to do so). Certainly it need not be votes on approval of minutes or adjournment or the like. Rather on: Publio Hearing items Zoning Ordinances Oonditional Use Permits Spending Resolutions (Budgets). Sincerely yours, ~teve Smith R.L. Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. January 24, 1986 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: Again, welcome aboard~ I am happy to say that I have received the majority of the renewal quotes on Mound's insurance policies in time to review them with you before they expire. February 1 is the renewal date of all of the City's Property and Casualty policies, so we don't have much time. I am sure you are well aware of what has been happening to the municipality insurance marketplace so I won't belabor the issue. In summary, there is very little availability of Liability insurances for municipalities. When it is available, it is both expensive and restrictive. Pricing on standard coverages has reached a level that approximates rates from five years ago. Some coverages, like the "Umbrella Liability" and "Dram Shop" Liability are almost impossible to find at any price. It is one of these "impossible" coverages that is creating a dilemma for myself and the City of Mound this year. Please understand that I will be able to find an insurance company to write the City's Umbrella Liability, but I fear what it will cost. As of today, I do not have a renewal figure ready for you on this Umbrella. But, I am sure to have some figures ready by the January 28 council meeting. Enclosed with this letter you will find a Summary of Coverages outlining the basic policies and coverages that the City is currently carrying. On the final page you will see the very limited comparison sheet that shows the pricing of the insurances from last year against the omtioms available in 1986. I apologize for my inability to show you a spread sheet comparing the prices of half a dozen insurers that would be willing to write the City's insurance, as I have in the past. But, in 1986, there just are not many more markets. · Under the circumstances, the League is the best game in town for Mound, both for price and for~coverage. It is the League that will he offering us a quote on the Umbrella Liability. City of Mound January 24, 1986 Page 2 The four malpractice type policies (liquor legal, E.M.T., public officials and police professional) will continue to be written by "Surplus Lines" companies that specialize in these coverages and are separate from the League. All of these insurance companies continue to carry at least an "A" rating by Best's Guide, which is the minimum rating that we'll accept. i would like to guide you through the Summary of.Coverages tO point out the changes that are happening to this year's coverages, most of which are out of our control. Would you please turn to it. Section I The deductibles have raised from Property been to $2,500. $1,000. by both Home and the League. The $2,474,296. represents a 5% increase over the last two year's values to keep abreast of in- flation. Section II - Business Interruption - T~e $75,000. represents a $10,000. in- crease in values to keep up with the increased earnings activity at the liquor store. /Section III - Crime - A deductible has been added for the first.time. The Loss Inside coverage at city hall was lowered to $3,000. from $19,000. to reflect that food stamps are no longer retained at city hall.. The League left out the $100,000. coverage for Employee Dishonesty from its quote. An additional charge will have to be made when they add it. j Section IV - Comprehensive General Liability - MAJOR PROBLEM[ Up until this year, the City has maintained a Combined Single Limit of Liability on its primary policy of $500,000. This year Home's maximum offer is $200,000. each person for Bodily Injury., $600,000. each accident for Bodily Injury, and $200,000. each accident for Property Damage.($200,000./ $600,000./$200,000.). This is an impossible amount because no Umbrella Liability insuror will write an Umbrella over the City's insurance un- less it carries a minimum of $500,000./$500,000./$500,000. or in most cases $1,000,000./$1,000,000./$1,000,000, Next problem; ~ has an adequate Limit of Liability with its $600,000. CSL, but the League is a "Trust," not an insurance company. So now, no Umbrella i~suror will write an Umbrella policy over a Trust, excep-~the League. And She League will write its own Umbrella over its own coverages ~and not over our surplus lines coverages as we have had done in ~_~ast. Next, for the first time a deductible has been added to Property Damage claims. Also, the E.M.T. coverage has its first de- ductible, and the Umbrella will not cover over it. No company will write higher limits than $500,000. · " ection V - Police Professional - Has a $2,500. deductible for the first time. The issue has to be addressed now by the City to see if and how much of the deductible will be reimbursed to the officers. The Umbrella will no longer cover over this coverage. ~5p0,~00. CSL limit is costing $2~848..per year. A $1,000,000. CSL limit is av~il- ~ through another company for approximately $10,000. per year. City of Mound January 24, 1986 Page 3 ~ection VI - Public Officials E&O - This is the third year of the only policy available anymore with a three-year guaranteed rate. The cost will skyrocket in 1987. The Umbrella will'no longer cover over it. 7Section VII - Dram Shop - The City is being rewarded for its not having liquor related claims right here in this ceverage. Premium is en- viably low. Umbrella will no longer cover over this, nor will any insuror write limits higher than $500,000. CSL. Section VIII - Automobiles - The Comprehensive (fire, theft, wind, glass breakage) deductible is increased to $250. from $0, and the Collision deductible is up to $500. on all units now. JSection IX - Inland Marine - No comments. Section X - Umbrella Liability - No pricing available yet. When.available, this coverage will not cover over any non-League policies. Section XI - Workers' Compensation - The payrolls have been adjusted ac- cording to the 1986 proposed budget. From these budgeted payrolls, I have subtracted the State allowed 10% reduction for vacation, sick and holiday pay. In summary, my recommendations are these: 1. To place the City's standard coverages with the League, including the Workers' Compensation, effective its renewal date of February 1, 1986. 2. To accept the Surplus Lines companies, coverages and 9remiums as I have outlined them. 3. Not to accept the $1,000,000. Liability quote on the Police Profes- sional from Mmrkel. ,4. To discuss the $2,500. deductible on the Police Professional Liability. 5.,To allow me to pursue getting the ouote on the Umbrella Liability with _~he understanding that the Umbrell~ coverage is not bound until dis- cussed and accepted by the city council. I will be meeting with you to review all of this broad subject matter and an- swer any questions you have. Thank you for your continued patronage. ~espectfully, EES/ph Enclosure CITY OF MOUND Sb-M)t~RY OF 1986 INSURANCE COVERAGES COVERAGES PROPERTY Building & Contents - Blanket 1. Perils Insured Asainst a. "All Risk", Subject to Company Forms b. Replacement Cost c. Betterments & Improvements d. 90% Co-Insurance e. Agreed Amount Endorsement f. $2,500.00 Deductible, Per Occurrence Be Contents at 2324 Wilshire Boulevard 1. Perils Insured Against a. "All Risk", Subject to Company Forms b. ACV c. Monthly Reporting Form d. 100% Co-Insurance e. $2,500.00 Deductible, Per Occurrence $2,474,296. 180,000. II. BUSINESS,INTERRUPTION Loss of Earnings 1. At location 2324 Wilshire Boulevard 2. 25% Monthly Limitation 3. "All Risk", Subject to Company Forms 4. No Deductible $ 75,000. III. CRIS~ A. Insures money against actual disappearance, destruction, or wrongful abstraction $250.00 Deductible 1. Location - 5341 Maywood Road a. Loss Inside Premises b. Loss Outside Premises c. After Business Hours Location - 2324 Wilshire Boulevard a. Loss Inside Premises b. Loss Outside Premises c. After Business Hours 3. Depositors Forgery 3,000. 3,000. 2,000. $ 10,000. $ 10,000. $ 2,000. $ 20,000. COVERAGES (Con't~ III. CRIME (Con't) B. $250.00 Deductible (Con't) 4. Employee Dishonesty & Faithful Performance Bond: City Clerk Finance Director Employees $ 20,000. $ 20,000. $100,000. IV. CO}~REHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY Limits of Liability 1. Bodily Injury & Property Damage 2. $1,000.00 Deductible Applies to all Property Damage Bm Premises Medical Payment 1. Each Person 2. Each Accident C. Manufacturers/Contractors 1. Additional Insured/Burlington Northern D. Premises/Operations E. Contractual Liability Coverage- Blanket F. Personal Injury & Advertising Injury Liability Coverage G. Host Liquor Liability H. Fire & Explosion Legal Liability Coverage - Real Property I. Products & Completed Operations Je Extended Broadening Endorsement 1. Broad Form Property Damage Liability 2. Incidental Medical Malpractice Li- ability Coverage 3. Non-Owned WatercraftLiability Cover- age (Under 25' in Length) 4. Limited Worldwide Liability Coverage 5. Additional Persons Insured 6. Extended Bodily Injury. Coverage 7. Automatic Coverage - Newly Acquired Organizations (180 Days) $600,000. $ 1,000. $ 1,000. Included Included Included Included $ 50,000. Included Included COVERAGES (Con' IV. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY (eon't) Extended Broadening Endorsement (Con't) 8. Alienated Premises Coverage 9. Explosion, Collapse & Underground (X, C & U) Property Damage Liability Coverage K. Emergency Medical Technicians 1. $250.00 Deductible $ 500,000. POLICE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY A. Limits of Liability 1. Personal Injury, Bodily Injury, Property Damage, & Punitive Damages 2. $2,500.00 Deductible $ 500,O00./Person $ 500,000./Occurrence VI. PUBLIC OFFICIALS ERRORS & OMISSIONS A. Limit of Liability 1. $1,000.00 Deductible $2,000,000. VII. LIQUOR LEGAL LIABILITY (Dram Shop) Limit of Liability 1. Bodily Injury 2. Property Damage 3. Loss of Means of Support $ 500,000. $ 500,000. $ 500,000. VIII. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY & PHYSICAL DAMAGE Liability 1. Limits of Liability b. Personal Injury Protection c. Uninsured & Underinsured Motorists d. Hired Automobiles e. Non-Owned Automobiles $ 600,000. $ 20,000./10,000. $ 600,000. COVERAGES (Con~ t) VIII. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY & PHYSICAL DAMAGE Physical Damage 1. Comprehensive - See Schedule 2. Collision - See Schedule C. Schedule of Vehicles Street Department 1973 Chevrolet, 2-1/2 ton Dump Truck, S#0589 1974 Vac-All, S#1843 1975 Chevrolet Dump Truck, S#0160 1976 Ford 3/4 ton Pickup w/Plow, S#TBD 1978 Chevrolet Pumper Truck, S#0638 1978 AMC Concord, S#4079 1981 Ford 2-1/2 ton Truck w/Plow & Wing, S#1058 1979 Ditchwitch Trailer, S#1134 1983 Ford LBO00, S#7082 1985 Ford Dump Truck, w/Plow, Wing & Sander, S# Park Department 1970 Chevrolet 3/4 ton Pickup, S#7412 1975 Snowco 2-Wheel Trailer, S#TBD 1978 Chevrolet Dump Truck, S#3751 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Pickup, S#5280 1984 Snowco Trailer Model 20-006, S#TBD $25O. $50O. Deduct. Stated Deduct. Comp. Amount Coil. X X X $ 60,000. X $120,000. No Collision $ 60,000. X $ 16,000~ X 7,000. X 50,000. X 4,500. X 57,880. X 59,515. X $ 40,000. No Collision X $ 9,000. X No Coverage for Comp. or Coll. X $ 2O,OOO. X X S 8,000. X X $ 2,500. X COVERAGES (Con' t) viii. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY & PHYSICAL DAMAGE (Con't) Schedule of Vehicle~ (Con't) 3. Water Department 1978 Chevrolet Van, S#2792 X 1982 Chevrolet 3/4 Ton Diesel Pickup w/Plow, S#3789 X 1985 Chevrolet Diesel Pickup, S# X 4. Sewer Department 1970 Tank Truck, S#1887 X 1970 Ford w/Rodding Machine 1/2 Ton, S#0841 X 1979 Ford Truck w/Flusher Unit, S#3317 X I980 Chevrolet 3/4 ton Pickup w/Topper, S#8466 X 5. Police Department 1954 Dodge 3/4 ton Van, S#1138 X 1978 Chevrolet 1/2 ton Pickup w/Camper, S#6509 X 1979 Chevrolet Impala, S#8399 X 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier, S#0358 X 1983 Ford LTD, S#4017 X 1983 Ford LTD, S#4018 X 1983 Ford LTD, S#5308 X 1985 Chevrolet Celebrity, S# X 1985 Chevrolet Celebrity, S# X Administrative 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier, S#6539 X Fire Department 1954 Dodge 3/4 ton Van, S#1456 None 1957 International #4 Pumper Fire Truck, S#0769 X 1966 Chevrolet Suburban Carry-All Rescue Truck, S#5528 (Exc. of Equip.) -X $250. $500. Deduct. Stated Deduct. Com~. Amount Coll. $ 8,000. X 17,000. X 14,000. X $ 25,000. No Collision $ 20,000. X $ 16,000. X $ 9,000. X $ 5,000. X $ 5,300. X $ 3,000. X $ 8,000. X $ 8,600. X $ 9,600. X $ 10,634. X $ 11,000. X $ 11,000. X $ 8,000. X None $ 15,000. None $ 6,000. None VIII. COVERAGES (eon't) AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY & PHYSICAL DAMAGE (Con't) Schedule of Vehicles (Con't) 7. Fire Departmmnt (Con't) 1969 Mack #11 Pumper Fire Truck, S#1139 X 1973 Mac #12 Pumper Fire Truck, S#1508 X 1974 Chevrolet Rescue Van #14, S#6332 (Exc. of Equip.) X 1976 Ford Tanker, S#1709 X 1981 Sutphen Model T5-100 & Fire Truck, S#0589 X 1984 Ford Pumper Truck, s#i441 X 8. Inspection Department 1982 Chevrolet Cavalier S#661-X X $250. Deduct. Com~. Stated Amount $130,000. $140,000. $ 15,0~0. $ 6O,OOO. $350,000. $150,000. $ 8,000~ $500. Deduct. Coll. X X X X X X X IX. INLAND M~RINE Type of Equipment 1. Contractor's Equipment 2. Radio Equipment B. Perils Insured Against 1. "Ail Risk", Per Company Forms 2. $1,000.00 Deductible C. Schedule of Equipment 1. Street Department 1970 Cat Grader 120, S#SN14K1983 1970 Pelican-Elgin Sweeper 2 Air Compressors & 2 Hammers 1 High Pressure Steam Cleaner 1981 Elgin Street Sweeper 4 Truck Wing Blades @ $2,000./each 1 Transit - Sears 1 Street Sign Making Unit 1 Trackless MT Diesel Snow Blower 1 Roller - Raygo 2-36 $784,470. $135,106. Amount of Insurance $120,000. $ 70,000. $ 36,000. $ 4,000. $ 70,000. $ 8,000. $ 400. $ 1,500. $ 40,000. $ 23,000. COVE~AOES (Co.~t) IX. INLAND MARINE (Con't) C. Schedule of Equipment (Con't) 1. Street Department (Con't) 1 1979 Ditch Witch R-5 Trailer, S#1134 1 1984 Cat Loader, S# 1 1974 Jet Vac-All 1 Oiler, S# TOTAL 2. Fire Department 8000 Feet of 2-1/2" Hose @ $1.80 6000 Feet of 1-1/2" Hose @ $1.40 3200 Feet of 4" Hose 2 Smoke Extractors @ $50./each 26 MSN Air Packs @ $350./each Resuscitators (Globe) @ $500./each Robert Shaw Resuscitator 1964 Lund Boat, S#8843 7-1/2 HP Sears Motor, S#5B211896 1968 Balco Interceptor Trailer TOTAL 3. Park Department Sign Router 1 Howard Turf-Blazer 60" Rotary Mower 1974 Brush Chipper - Asplund 2 Hand Mowers 1974 Ford Tractor 1979 Mars Broom 1974 Hay Mower 1974 Push Blade 1974 Pole Auger 1 Rear Mount Grader Blade for Ford Tractor 1 Loader Bucket for Ford Tractor Hydraulic 1 10 HP Johnson Outboard Motor w/Tank Amount of Insurance $ 4,500. $ 70,000: $120,000. $ 10,000. $577,400. 16,000. 9,000. 19,200. 1,000. 21,000. 1,000. 450. 1,200. 1,000. 400. $ 70,250. $ 3,000. 5,500. 5,200. 55O. 15,000. 1,200. 4,500. 300. 500. $ 400. $ 5,000. 4oo. IX. COVERAGES (Con't) INLAND MARINE (Con' t) C. Schedule of Equipment (Con't) 3. Park Department (Con't) 1 Howard Turf Blazer 72" Diesel !~wer 3 Hand Held Radios & 2 !~unted Vertically 1 AC Snowblower 1 John Deere Weed Whip 500 Feet, 1-1/2" Diameter Hose @ $1.40/foot TOTAL Amount of Insurance $ 8,686. 950. 350. 250. $ 700. $ 52,400. 4. Water Department 300 GPM Homelite Pump 1 Electric Gate Valve Operator $ FA-22 Heliflux Wand Magnetic Locator $ 3500 Watt Generator $ 2500 Watt Portable C~nerator $ 1 Water Tapping Machine $ 1 Hach Chemical Test Kit 1 Water Test Incubator - Precision Scientific 1 ~tro Tec Pi~e Locator 2 GE Radios 1 Metro Tec Leak Locator TOTAL 5. Sewer Department 1 Homelite Blower (Air) 1 WZ Gazz Hell Flex ~gnetic Locator 1 1976 3et Machine TOTAL 6. Police Department 6 Resuscitators @ $500./each 5 Justom Signals KR 10 Moving Radars @ $2,500./each 2 Portable Breath Testers @ $1,200./each $ 1,200. 1,200. 750. 1,500. 1,000. 1,500. $ ~00. $ 300. $ 1,700. $ 1,900. $ 2~500. $ 14,450. $ 400 · $ 750. $ 23~000. $ 24,150. $ 3,000. $ 10,000. $ 2,400. COVERAGES (Con't). IX. INLAND MARINE (Con't) C. Schedule of Equipment (Con't) 6. Police Department (Con't) Nikon FE 35mm SLR & Equipment 3 Resusci Anni (2 owned + 1 non-owned @ $1,200./each) 2 Resusci Baby (2 owned.@ $300./each) 1 Western Field 12 Ga. Shotgun @ $280. 4 Remington 870 12 Ga. Shotguns @ $280./each 1980 Yamaha ~ped, S#3L5-210561 1980 Yamaha Moped, S#3L5-210568 1 S&W Model 3000 12 Ga. Shotgun TOTAL 7. Shop Department 1 Automatic Garage Hoist Coats 10-10 Tire Changer Smith Gas Torch & Welder Welder Busy Bee 180 Amp ARC Craftsman C.R. Floor Model Drill Press Parts Washer Pressure Regular for Torches 300 lb. Compressor 2 Air Wrenches Portable Grease Gun 4 Ton Floor Jack 5 12-Ton Floor Jacks @ $50./each 1 Specialty Equipment High Pressure Car Wash, S#MPM 48-S34S 1 DZDP 1 Tire Balancer TOTAL 8. Fire DEpartment 41 Plectron Tone Activated Radio Monitors @ $198./each 38 Motorola Pagers w/Chargers @ $350./each Amount of Insurance 3,500. 2,400. 600. 280. 1,120. 300. 300. 270. 24,170. 5,000. 750. 350. 350. 45O. 500. 15o. 2,500. 2no. 150. 1,000. 250. $ 4,000. $ 6~000. $ 21,650. fl 8,118. $ 13,118. IX. COVERAGES (Con' INLAND MARINE (Con't) C. Schedule of Equipment (Con't) 8. Fire Department (Con't) 10. Amount of Insurance 8 E.F. Johnson Model 558 Mobile Units @ $1,000./each 1 E.F. Johnson Repeater Base Station 1 Johnson Base Station & 3 Mobile City Band Radios 1 Antenna @ Fire Station 150' Cable 1 Power Pack Converter & Antenna 9 Portable Fire Radios TOTAL Police Department 8 G.E. VHF Police M~biles @ 81,500./ each (Bolted in squads) 5 Mobile Teleprinters @ $1,500./each 8,000. 2,500. 4,375. 650. 633. 150. 10~600. 78,325. 12,000. 9,000. 5 G.E. UHF Police Mobiles @ $1,500./ each 6 Portable CB's @ $200./each 6 Portables @ $1,500./each 3 Nutone Pagers @ $250./each 5 Johnson Mobile Units @ $714./each (Bolted in squads) 7,500. 1,200. 9,000. 750. 3,370. 9 Light Bars & Sirens @ $1,500./each $ 13~500. TOTAL $ 56,320. City Manager Department 1 Portable 545 Radio $ 460. X. UMBRELLA LIABILITY (Not Available as of 1/23/86) COVERAGES (Con' t ) XI. WORKERS ' COMPENSATION me Employer's Liability 1. Based on Payrolls & Population a. Street & Road Construction b. Waterworks Electric Power Company & Steam Heating/Sewage Plant/ Fireman (Not Volunteer) c. Firemen (Volunteer) d. Policemen e. Store Risks Retail f. Clerical Office/Building Operations/Restaurants & Bars/ g. Parks h. Street & Sewer Cleaning, Snow Removal i. Municipal Employees J. City Shop & Yard ~100,000. $134,100. $ 76,5p0. 9,280 population $321,300. $ 67,500. $199,800. $ 37,800. $ 48,365. $ 32,400. $ 24,300. 1 2 3 26 27 29 CITY of MOUND January 24, 1986 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (§12) 472'1155 TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RISK MANAGEMENT Attached is a letter from Bill Husbands,· Husbands Independent Risk Management, regarding the services he has provided to the City of Mound the past several years. I asked him to prepare this letter for your information as well as mine. He has apparently assisted the City in reducing its Worker's Compensation'premium and its experience modification factor. He has also been able to analyze our insurance coverages and has provided advice on where to add or delete coverages. My opinion on this subject is that we, as.a City, with our own personnel, can institute safety and loss prevention programs that would keep our experience modification factor where it currently is. For example, a safety coordinator or director, on a part-time basis, could be coordinating safety and loss prevention programs utilizing the insurance company which provides the City's insurance coverage. Furthermore, the service that Mr. Husbands provides in analyzing coverages is not as critical as it was in the past. In other words, there is only one entity providing insurance (League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust) on our baslc coverages. We don't have the luxury of several bidders in today's marketplace. There is only "one game in town". We should also be able to call upon our local agen~ who will represent the LMC's program, for his assistance in selecting coverages, if there are any choices. I am not trying to take anything away from Bill Husbands. I am only · ' suggesting that since the municipal insurance market has taken on a much different picture, that we conserve some monies in this area by not renewing Mr. Husbands' contract for risk management services. Should the situation change in the future and we feel there is a need again for risk management services, Mr. Husbands or some other risk management firm could be consulted at that time. ES:fc An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis o'l'race, color, national origin, or handicappeO status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in. its programs and activities. HUSBAN'D S January 17, 1986 Mr. Ed Shukly City Manager CITY OF MOUND 5741Maywood Road Mound, HN 55364 RE: Risk Hanagement Services Dear Mr. Shukly: In accordance, with our conversation, I. wtll outline for you some of the services I have performed over the last several years for the City of Mound. The basic reason the City retained my services was an attempt to address the worker's compensation situation. At that time, there were.several injuries and several serious injuries and the City was experiencing a worker's compensation mod of 1.19. While it is convenient to say the situation could have been a lot worse had the City chosen not to manage their worker's compensation area, I can point to you that since my retention, the experience modifier has moved from 1.19 to .98. This means that on a manual premium of $50,011, you would have paid $59,513 at the 1.19 modifier but will be paying $49,011 or a savings of $10,502. This is a savings that can be enjoyed each and every year. In addition to working with the City on the worker's compensation area, I have also worked in assisting them with liability problems. This is resulted from many situations, but primarily in identifying problem areas and in working with the insurance company to have them handle several matters in an appropriate fashion. There are many areas in Which I have functioned on a day to day basis in assisting the City from advice on health coverages and other insurance coverages to analyzation for self insurance potential, loss prevention, safety, premium allocations, audit verifications, etc. I feel the most important area is in the worker's compensation and particularly the medical management program and the ability the City has with my services to pay the small claims directly without the necessity of allowing the insurance company to pay for those claims and adversely affect your experience modifier. -' Page 2 Mr. Ed Shukly City Manager CITY OF MOUND With these thoughts in mind, it is my intention to once again charge $4800 for the upcoming year, February 1, 1986 to February I~ 1987 for those services. This is a recognition that while prices have gone up dramatically, hopefully the amount of time required of me can come down and therefore the cost to the City can be kept at a minimum. If you have any questions, please advise. Regards, WEH/cp WHEREAS, the City of Mound is pleased and honored to have been selected as the site of the 3rd Annual Shoot Out Basketball Tournament, which will be held February 8 and 9, 1986; and WHEREAS, this tournament i.s sponsored by the Mound Bucket Brigade in association with-Westonka Community Services and the Mound High School Basketball program; and WHEREAS, the City r'ecognizes the significant influence for, good achieved by the organizations mentioned above who channel the energies and enthusiasm of so many of our young people into healthy activities, teaching sportsmanship and the competitive will to win, and furthering physical fitness and well-being through wholesome association with others in organizaed sports. NOW, THEREFORE, I do hereby proclaim the week of February 3, 1986, as MOUND WESTONKA BASKETBALL APPRECIATION WEEK in the City of Mound, extending greetings to all participants, and best wishes for a successful and enjoyable tournament. Robert D. Polston, Mayor City of Mound Adopted by the City Council January 28, 1986 ' ........ tl i league of minnesota oities January 23, 1986 TO: League Board of Directors and Mayors, Managers, and Cle~,rk~ FROM: Diane Loeffler ~~ Legislative Representative RE: Governor's Budget Proposal Revised revenue and expenditure forecasts for the state were released today along with Governor Perpich's recommended budget revisions. T~e latest forecasts for the biennium indicate a $720~ million shortfall. Governor Perpich has recommended that $380 million be cut from the appropriations approved last spring. Unfortunately cities are heavily impacted by those cuts. The General Approach The Governor nas recommended retention of $100 mill~on of the budget reserve in case their estimates are again proven too optimistic. The remainder of thc budget shortfall is dealt with through expenditure cuts. No state tax increases are proposed. Most budget items are cut 3.5% for the biennium. However, because we are already more .than i]alf through the first year of the biennium, the practical reality is that it is a 7.0% cut 'in the last year of the biennium for most programs. Education is cut only 2.5% on a biennial basis. 19~6 Local Government Aid Cities will lose approximately 8.1% of their 1986 LGA payments. Because cities have already received their local government aid from the first year of the biennium, all cuts must be taken from the calendar year 1986 LGA payments (state fiscal year '.87). The cut' represents loss of 3.5% of the biennial total for LGA plus an additional cut of $4.2 million which represents a 3.5% cut of miscellaneous credits and expenditures (pension aid, wetlands credit, enterprise zone cre~its, etc.). This 8.1% cut in LGA means that overall funding to cities will be less than it was in 1985. The administration proposes that all cities have their previously certified 1986 LGA reduced oy 8.1%. The result of this is that grandfathered cities will I ~3 university avenoe east. st. paul, rni,',nesoCa 551 01 (612) 227-5800 receive cuts from their 1985 level of 8.1% and that only those cities who were certified to receive close to the maximum increase of 12% in 1986 will realize any real growth. Future LGA The 1986 Legislature must set LGA levels for 1987 so that they can be certified prior to cities setting their levies in the fall. The Governor has recommended only a 3% increaze for 1987 over the reduced base. Homestead Credit The Governor has recommended that homestead credit payments to local governments in 1986 be reduced by 8.78%. This represents a biennial reduction of 3.5% applied in one year plus a 3.5% biennial reduction in the circuit breaker property tax refund program. This reduction would be implemented by each jurisdiction's scheduled payment being reduced by 8.78%. In order to make state costs more controllable, it is being recommended that in 1987 (state fiscal year '88) the total homestead credit appropriation be capped at the 1986 level prior to the reductions. Payment Schedule In order to improve the state's cash flow and help eliminate the need for .the state to do short term borrowing, a revised LGA and homestead credit payment schedule has been proposed. Cities now receive these payments in six equal payments each month from July to December. It is proposed that, beginning in 1986, cities receive payment for these programs in July and December. Because the first.payment would be equal to three months of payment under the current system, interest earnings on the larger first payment would theoretically balance out any borrowing costs incurred waiting for the second payment. It is important to note that the administration has agreed to an appeals procedure for cities experiencing cash flow problems. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Transfer Almost $40.million in savings is realized by the Governor recommending that no motor vehicle excise tax transfer be made from the general fund to the transportation funds. This will result in the following program reductions: F.Y. 1986 'F.Y. 1987 TAF $13,165,100 13,399,Q00 Tk. Hwy 24,486,800 24,922,100 CSAH 11,453,600 11,657,100 MSAH 3,554,700 3,617,700 Almost $13 million from the general fund would be provided-each year for the Transit Assistance Fund. BILLS JANUAEY 28, 1~86 Batch 854125 Batch 864012 Batch 86401 3 Check register 1/22/86 Check register 1/23/86 Check register 1/23/86 Total Bills 1 3,381.62 14,014.21 5h,417.64 81)813.47 U ! I I ,.~ Y. U tJ bJ U bJ i.i i.i Idbl~hl ,8 I--I--III-- .J .J .J .J P,I 0 iF) I I I") I I P') P,, 0 0 pi,F) I I oo I ! O0 oo I I Z~ ;CZ O0 UU I N. pi) I oo~0~ t · ir. O0 W I £JUOUIJU d' I I 0 hJ .J 0 (J IJ i~Jin o o I I I U N U 0 3r W hi m, U J 0 '0 ,0 I ! I ! I I ~"l ~J C~J I I I I I I I I bJ (! 0 X ~0 o U Ii. I.I i.I ~J U (i) 0 0 t~ 0 0 U U I t~ U I I I U I 0 I Id · J h -r U 0 --I O0 bJ W (Nd 4t W C3 Z LU 0 U LU I I I I ~J~, I I O0 W U bJ i..I-- s'" ,s"' o O0 I'M O0 I I ,,4'4' I I ILl t,J O0 .J_J I I I O0,,D I I I I I I ~J 00000~00 bJ h Iol ..J 0 LI. I tU I I I I I I ~('~N 0 CI 0 I 0 I I I I I 000~3 I I I I I I I I 0 I&] Ld bJ W bJ I.I bi I-I bi --I .J --I ,.J .J .J --I -I .J UULJU(.~CJC) IUWWW O0 W~ W 0 i & 4 N 0ooo I ,11 Il. Il. IL -r :.3 g January 22, 1986 TO: FROM: CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER The County has completed their data for 1986 for Mound and it looks like a total mill rate increase from 102.977 to 114.327. A total of 11.350 mills (11.022%). The mills breakout accordingly: City of Mound School Dist. ~277 Vocational School Misc. Levies Watershed Dist. Hennepin County TOTAL Assessed Value Contribution to Fiscal Disp. Received from Fiscal Disp. Tax Increment Value TOTAL 1 985 Decrease M~LLS ~.FJiC3~LTAfi~ 198~ ~ 19.614 '17.16% 17.234 +2.380 57.523 50.31% 49.749 +7.774 1.535 1.34% ' 1.490 + .045 5.878 5.14% 5.181 + .697 · 089 .08% .061 + .028 114.327 100.00% 102.977 +11.350 FINAL ASSESSED VALUES 1986 58,956,289 60,261,092 ( 7'94.031) (1,175,174) 6,422,649 -0- $64,584,907 65:057; 912 5,973,902 $ 473,005 -1,908 $65,057,912' 64:110,402 Increase $ 947,510 3o5- One mill equals a total of one tenth of one percent of the total assessed value or a total of $64,584.91. Mound has a total mill rate of 114.327 in 1986. To arrive at the total gross property taxes paid (before subtracting Homestead Credit allowances), multiply the mill rate times the value of one mill. 11 4.327 X 64,584.91 $7,383,799.01 In 1985, the total was $6,699,468.30, thus a total tax increase of $684,330.71 or 9.3%. 1986's $7,383,799.01 is distributed among the various taxing bodies as follows: CITY OF MOUND SCHOOL DIST. #277 VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS MISC. LEVIES WATERSHED DISTRICT HENNEPIN COUNTY TOTAL $1,267,059.91 3,714,789.28 98 , 942.91 379,527.27 5,907.04 1:917:572.60_ $7,383,799.01 1985 $1,121 ,490.99 3,236,513.14 96,472.34 + 336,983.26 + 4,019.68 $1:903:988.89 $6,699,468.30 +$145,568.92 + 478,276.14 2,470.57 42,544.01 + 1 , 887.36 ~-$ 1~..58~,71 $684,330.71 The following is a comparision of the other cities in Ind. School Dist. #277: 1986 1986 1985 City Mill Mill % ~ Rate Rate ]~ ~/~ SPRING PARK 21.596 116.309 105.631 10.678 10.109% SHOREWOOD 23.640 117.853 107.867 9.986 9.258% MINNETRISTA 16.498 108.286 98.169 10.117 10.306% ORONO 10.834 105.547 95.521 10.026 10.496% INDEPENDENCE 22.691 114.479 102.168 12.311 12.050% MOUND 19.614 114.327 102.977 11 .350 11 .022% MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 13, 1986 · Present.were: Chair Elizabeth.Jensen; C°mmissi°ners Robert Byrnes, William Meyer, Geoff Michael; Thomas Reese, Kenneth Smith, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representati. ve Steve Smith; City Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were the roi'lowing'interested persons: Mr. & Mrs. Charlie Jones, Steven Coddon~ Dick Halvarson,"Phi-1Hasch, Cherryl Lebra, Rick Lebra, Kim Yilek, Todd Yilek, Bonnie Lanns,..Audrey Froemlng and Dorothy L..Davis. Chair Elizabeth Jensen opened the meetingat 7:30 P.M. and welcomed those present. After that, Building Official Jan Bertrand introduced the'new City'Manager, Ed Shukle. Election of Officers fOr' 1986~ Welland.moved a recommendation that the elected officers for 1986 remain the same as they are, with Elizabeth Jensen as Chair and Thomas Reese as Vice Chair. Byrnes' seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor. Minutes. · The minutes of .the-Plannlng .Commission meeting of December 9,.1985 were presented for consideration. Welland asked.that, 'on last page of minutes, "surge" be corrected to read "urge". Also on same.page',' Reese stated they talked about "General Obligation BOnd". Reese moved and.Welland seconded'a motion to.approve the minutes as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Board of Appeals. Case No. 85-441 public Hearing on Condltional Use Permit re: 4850 Edgewater Drive Lots. 19, 20,'21 & 22, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32 Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood Charlie Jones was present. Planner Mark Koeg'ler~'stated there has been some confusion on this item; it was'not intended to be a public hearing thls eveni, ng. The intent, when he and the Building Official met with Mr. Jones, was to discuss Jones' recent acquislt~on of former Blue Lagoon Marina property and some of the things he had in mind'he'd like to do with that facility. The major item in Scheduling on this agenda'was to get some discussion and direction from the Commission on'how you'd like staff to proceed on the conditional use permit we were somewhat, in the .process of trying to draft. The appropriate course of action is to let .Mr. Jones'address the CommisSiOn and give you some background on what he~s doi.ng and what hA'd like to do. Mr. Jones stated he has purchased the.Blue LagOon Marina. He woul~ like to continue the. preVious uses on the property such' as:. boat rentals, gasoline sales, boat ser- vicing, winter boat storage and.directional sign at County Road 15 (on Railroad property). He stated he.has an illegal rental unit on the property that he needs.t° deal with following City notification to disconti.nue its use. He commented he'd still like to pursue burying a 10,000 gallon gas tank'and putting a gas dispenser out on the dock and eliminate the above ground tank which is unsightly. He said the gas tank burial plan has been approved by the .State Fire Marshal and that' the L.M.C.D. has n° problem with the gas tank as he has it proposed. He wOuld be wanting to con- struct a 25 foot extension onto the dock so he wouldn't disturb the neighbors as much; also the addition of a larger tank would somewhat benefit the neighbors, as there would be fewer fuel tankers driving up to the property to fill his tank. He has no intehtion of continuing anything that would be noisy or disruptive to the neighborhood. Essentially, he'd like to continue use of the property as it has been Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1~86 - Page 2 operated by Mr. Martin with one addition, the ability to service gas customers.' He has a preliminary agreement.to'lease the property to Paul Fahlin who is vacating Paul's Landing on.County. Road 15. He's always kept'his property in good shape, picked up, landscaped with flowers, etc. and kept customersquiet. Jones stated his involvement will be very'l'imited;, but thinks Fahlin would get along very well with the neighbors,. After a lengthy discussion on the uses, issues, the non-conformities of the site, etc., it was suggested that.possibly there.would be some trade offs that could be made and still.-be, within the ordinance; the Commission might be willing to make some trade offs for some uses the neighborhood doesn't want. All fOur of the lots are included in Jones' request. 'Jones mentioned the.way he understands it, you go for all you can get and take what you get. He.wants the bigger tank;~would be satisfied with a 5,000 gallon.tank; wants to sell gas, but will not promote its sale like Gayle!s Marina; wants to have it available for those that need it. It was suggested-the applicant, sit down.with~the neighbors and work out (some give and some take) somethlng and bring it back to.the Commission. Commission thought as long as "trade offs" are in the permitted conditional use categories, there should be no Problem. Question was asked about interpretations of-the code; Koegler stated'the Commission would have 'to do the interpretation. The Chair stated that the intent of Commission is not' to make things difficult for one to. be in business; but to try to get things worked-out'for both applicant and neighbors. Koegler stated that Jones Would.be asked to fill out a new applicatjon'specifying' what he woul.d like to do' (no fee would be involved because this. is part of.original application).; and then if applicant would meet with .the neighbors prior to sitting down with the staff, it would be very helpful. The following' persons had.comments on their.concerns about the use: Todd Yilek~, 4861 Edgewater Drive; Phil. Hasch,' 4810 Northern Road; Cherryl Libra, 4855 Edgewater Drive. At the conclusion, the Commission advi.sed all persons to work together so that acceptable conditions can b'e worked out for a Conditional Use Permit. The Chair advised there will be another.public hearing on this request and they will all be notified of the hearing. Case No. 86-501 .Subdivision of Laqd - 6639 Bartlett Boulevard Lots 1, 2 and 3, Halsted Heights Steven Coddon was present. City Planner Mark Koegler commented on Mr. Coddon's plans for the mobile home park; Coddon's original approach was to relocate some mobile homes down below on property by the lake. After obtaining staff Input on that, he proposed an alternative: Sub- dividing the piece into three lots; one containing the existing mobile home park on the upper area and then two new .single family R-1 lots on the lower section of the property. One of the R-1 lots would have 10,000 square feet and the other that actually borders on the lake would have 16,426 square feet. Mr. Coddon has. stated it is his intent to see that "stick buiit~' single family homes be placed on each of the two new lots. In order to retain density at the same rate, and in exchange for Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 - Page 3 creating the two new lots, he would remove one mobile home jn the upper portion and an existing single famlly home was recently removed, Koegler stated staff feels the request,'if approved, would not compromise the status of this non-conforming use nor set a precedent for future actions. Mobile home park w111 continue.to be a non- conforming use. He Is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the 5 conditions In hls report. Koegler. also.noted that Mr. Coddon has sent a letter to the DNR about sel.ling them the ]ower sectlon of this property and property he owns in Minnetrista for'the purpose of constructing a new boat access. The Commission discussed the subdivision. '-Mr, Coddon stated his'first preference on use of the land Is:to sell property to the DNR for boat access.. He feels the prop- erty is not being'.utillzed properly. His thought was to sell off the subdivided lots help amortize.overall property. The problem with the staff recommendation Is the proposed. SO foot road width and .cul-de-sac will be taking uP more space than he anticipated and may make the second lot almost useless. The recommenda'tlon is different than he discussed with the staff," He is not certain if' dlvlsl'on Is Practi- cal. 'The DNR purchase of land may not be a reallty or may be a long ways off. Weiland moved and Thalseconded a'mo.tlon to table subdivision request at .this time. The vote was unanimously In favor, The Commission asked .that'Houndand Hi.nnetrlsta keep in contact, on this proposal. Hr. Coddon stated his .intention is to improve the park, take the garage down and have dumpsters.' He wlll.try to remove, any encroachment from County Road 1lO'right- of-way. Case No. 86-502 .Front Yard Setback Variance - 2501 Emerald Drive Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 6,'Shlrley Hllls'Unlt B Richard Halvarson was present. The Building OffiCial explained that this property fronts on three platted streets; the platted Emerald Drlve Is a bikeway and Ruby and Glendale are Improved' streets. Ruby'Lane (being the narrowest width) Is really the front yard. All three streets require a-30 foot setback; however, the Zon.ing. Ordinance allows, on 'lots with a width of 80 feet or less.to go to.a 20 foot setback (Glendale). Applicant is re- questing to construct a 16.foot by 28--foot. tuckunder garage addition to the.west of his existlng, tuckunder garage and.to replace his existing 9,8 foot by 11,9 foot porch with a'1.6 foot' by 11.9 foot faml.ly room. 'The.garage w°uldnot visually ob- struct the required 30 foot setback to the.west; however, the' family room addition requires an 8 foot vat.lance to the. west· (Ruby Lane) and the garage would require - a 2 foot setback varl.ance to the north'property line (Glendale Drive). The Staff does recommend approval. Hr. Halvarson explained that he has been ~rying to see where he.might put.a blg double garage'and did n°t wish to put it toward Emerald because of the 28 Maple trees. Also the family has q cars and'he wants to keep the parking as condensed as possible. Meyer moved and Welland secOnded a motion recommending a~proval of the staff recommendation. The vote was unanimously in favor. This item wlll be on the Councll agenda on January 28, 1986. Planning Co r ission Minutes January 13, l~8G - Page 4 DISCUSSION Letter from DNR dated December'23, 1~85 relative to a public access to Lake Minnetonka on the north shore.Of Halsted Bay City Planner Mark Koegler commented that this letter from the DNR was on the Council Agenda-for January 14, 1986 meeting and the DNR has asked for a response by January 24, 1986. He'also commented the'.sale.of land to the DNR does ~ot preclude it coming back to the Commission for subdivision. He stated.they are the body charged with land use aspects in'the community. If 'there are specific points You would recommend be included in the Council response, those would be particularly appropriate to note this evening.' The Commission.had questions and comments.such as: What could be done with the rest of the trailer park? Can DNR take any R-I land and turn it into any other use? Don't know why they're fishing,so hard---spent $!60,000'to buy King's Point to park 28 trailers for boats and haven't developed.it.yet! It was thought they turned ~ their backs on' the Lost Lake area because there was not enough money to develop it.. Coddon stated' DNR's goal is to have two points accessible to Highway 7 for fishing boats and small.vehicles...He thought they would have appraiser come ~ut and, if the site is approved, they would set a fair market value. He mentioned he'd aCcept the fair market.value. He commented he has 3.acres that he pays .speCial assessments and taxes on and.because it is.a non-conforming use, he can't seem to Use it without some kind of battle with everyone involved. The Commissl. on mentioned .that Halsted was 'the last unspoiled bay on the lake (there are lotus on this lake, etc.)..More accesses would put more people on'the lake from 6 P.M. Friday untll Sunday evening. Koegler stated the DNR takes communltyIs input into account; they have criteria they consider and this site has not been analyzed yet. .- Jensen questioned what happens to'the surrounding area and the City of Mound if this site is 'developed? Would.the impact on. community be negatlve or positive? It was thought that users would come right from Highway 7 and the City of Mound would not experience any business-growth. Byrnes commented.on the wooded area that would have to be torn,out to provide for a parking area for the trailers. Meyer was concerned that run off of a paved parking 'lot would be like a huge funnel. Coddon stated parking area is almost totally flat--he felt there would be no run,off. The Commis- sion discussed that it was about a 16 foot drop. The Chair summarized the Commission's concerns: 1) What happens to the natural resources? 2). If there is an intent to benefit the businesses, there are no busi- nesses in this area and downtown Mound will not experienc~ any business growth if users come in on County Road 44 from Highway 7. 3) What about area of new' homes-- would that be addressed? Coddon thought they would leave a row of trees and put up some screening. After further discussion, Reese moved and Byrnes seconded the following mOtion: The preliminary response of the Mound Planning Commission is that the Commission does not support the dedication of the Coddon Property to access use because this large property along with the King's Point access and other remaining potentially Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1986 - Page 5 dense use open land on the Bay, has the potential to result in excess activity in Halsted Bay with'the resulting deterioration of the bay's environment. A more detailed review of.the site's potential as an access should be accomplished as part of the City's participation in the present access Task Force study. The Vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. The Building Official gave a brief report on the other agenda items: Lake Langdon Water Ski School public hearing has been set for January 28, 1986. The Handout re: Hazardous Waste is informational. It is possible City staff would be able to identify places for disposal of hazardous Waste in the future, coordinated with the Recycling Program. Summary of Planning and Zoning Commission Board of Appeals. Adjournment Byrnes moved and Reese seconded a mo,tion to adjourn the meeting at 10:.15 P.M. All were in favor, so meeting was adjourned. Elizabeth Jensen, Chair .. Attest: URBAN NENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND DIRECTIONS Hennepin County has been an entitlement recipient of Community Develop- ment Block Grant funds from the effective date of the program estab- lished in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Hennepin became an entitlement recipient pursuant to the provision for Urban Counties in the Act. In order to qualify as an Urban County~ Hennepin had to demonstrate that it possessed sufficient housing and community development authority to be an effective participant in the program. This was accomplished through the execution of a joint powers agreement with other units of local government within the County. Early in 1975~ a Joint Cooperation Agreement was draftedj approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and executed with twenty-two municipalities whose aggregate population exceeded the qualifying threshold of 200~000 people. This initiated the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for the first program year beginning with Fiscal Year 1975 and provided the basis for participation in the program every year since. As shown in Figure 1.j the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program began in 1975 with a total of 23 participants (Hennepin and 22 municipalities) receiving an entitlement of $738~000. Currently there are 44 partici- pants with a total population of 502~000 who shared $3jlOljO00 in FY 1985 (Program Year XI). Figure 2. shows that the preponderance of activities programmed for Year XI are under $10~000 each. This con- figuration is typical of the total number of activities undertaken annually and their individual budgets. Program dollars peaked in FY 1980 at $4~379~000 when Urban Hennepin County consisted of 42 participants. In total~ the Urban Hennepin County program has been allocated $34~975~000 from regular CDBG appro- priations plus $1~051~000 in a'special appropriation from the Jobs Bill of 1983. Table 1. lists the 'total number of participants in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program by yearj the total amount received and the allocation provided to each participant for use in the development of the Urban Hennepin County program. Opportunity was provided through the Act for communities to join the Urban County program each year through 1977. Beginning in 1978 partici- pation was on a three year basisj locking communities in or out for that period. Currently~ all eligible communities participate in the program except Long Lakej who dropped out in 1981 to accept a one-time discre- tionary CDBG from HUD. Minneapolis and Bloomington do not participate because they are entitlements onto themselves by virtue of their status as metropolitan cities (cities with over 50~000 inhabitants and located in a SMSA). il2_. Through 1985; $31;538;344 has been spent; representing 88 percent of total dollars allocated. Figure 3. summarizes the type of activities funded with the CDBG through calendar 1985~ including funds from the special appropriation to the program from the Jobs Bill of 1983~ Initially; the CDBG was viewed as a community development "revenue · sharing" measure and used as a public facility/improvement program targeted to low and moderate income neighborhoods. It began as a means to implement a national change in urban policy which in the mid 70's moved away from an array of categorical grant programs sought on a competitive basis to block grants made directly.to qualifying units of local government to use as they believed would best meet their needs. The list of eligible activities was extensive and their selection guided by a rather broad range of national and locally established objectives. Since its enactment in 1974; the Housing and Community Development Act has been amended four times: 1977~ 1981; 1983 and 1984. With each of the first three amendments to the Act; the Community Development Block Grant program was reauthorized for three year periods. With each authorization of.the CDBG have come changes in program emphasis. The 1977 amendmentsshifted the direction to activities which benefitted low and moderate income persons; and made it increasingly difficult to undertake projects within developing communities; or projects aimed at addressing the commercial revitalization needs of older communities. It was during this period that housing rehabilitation grants and the acquisition of land for assisted housing development became program activities; and the regulations governing the use of CDBG funds for public (human) services began to be relaxed. It was the 1977 amendments that also required a three year commitment on the part of all participants. The eligibility of split places; those communities located in two or more counties; was expanded which provided for inclusion of all of Chanhassen; Hanover; Rockford and St. Anthony as eligible program areas. In additionj it became necessary to establish a formal citizen participation plan. In 1982; HUD began using 1980 Census data in determining the entitlement allocation of funds to jurisdictions. This was the principal reason for a 14% decrease in the Hennepin COunty entitlement. In 1983; through the Urban Rural Recovery Act; the 1974 Act was again amended. The CDBG program regulations resulting from these amendments expanded the eligibility of such program activities as public services and economic development. This expansion of program eligibility was due partly to offset Federal budget reductions in other domestic programsj although another reduction in the CDBG appropriation was made; con- tinuing a trend begun in 1981. The 1984 amendments continued the funding flexibility for public services; further limited the eligibility of activities designed to prevent or eliminate slums and blight; required that all economic development activities result in the generation of jobs for low and moderate income persons~ and increased pressure on the program through further funding reductions. Allocations from the 1986 appropriation to the CDBG Program have yet to be made~ although a substantial reduction will occur due to the following factors: (1) ten percent reduction in the Federal appropriation; (2) several new Urban Counties (including Ramsey).have been designated; (3) the Gramm-Rudman Bill will probably impact the CDBG appropriation by about five percent; and (4) a Presidential deferral of funds earmarked for the program as a technique to reduce the 1986 deficit without making a like reduction in Defense spending is expected to amount to $500;000~000; resulting in another reduction in the program of 16 percent. In total; a 33% decrease is projected in the 1986 Urban Hennepin County allocation over 1985 ($2;078;000 compared to $3;101;000). Our best current information suggests that the Administration's intent is to extend the program through 1991 at approximately the 1986 funding level. The program must be reauthorized in 1987~ however~ and several program changes are being discussed which could have major additional consequences for Urban Hennepin County. These potential changes include (1) a restructuring of the allocation formula to target recipients in greatest need; and (2) splitting the funding set aside for entitlements and small cities discretionary recipients (States) 65-35 rather than the current 70-30. Both of these program changes~ if enacted~ would further reduce the Urban Hennepin County entitlement. Introduction of the needs formula would be hard-hitting for urban counties and under the worse scenario could result in Hennepin's allocation being reduced to zero. Figure 1 shows the "worst case" (and most probable) funding projection for 1986 and the probable range for 1987 and beyond. Table 2 shows how the projected 1986 entitlement would be distributed among participating communities pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement and how these amounts would compare with 1985 allocations. Reductions~of this magnitude suggest that a restructuring of the Hennepin'planning allocation to each cooperating unit for individual use may be appropriate. In essence; with drastically reduced funding and a rather large number of low budget activities~ it is increasingly difficult to program dollars in an effective manner and is no less demanding in an administrative sense. Although the present Joint Cooperation Agreement with each cooperating unit assures a proportionate allocation to use in program development~ it may well be possible to effect a distribution system and/or, program development process to better meet the challenges being faced. There are a variety of program development alternatives which have potential for achieving the necessary consensus among participating communities. Some of these include: - Using the existing formula with no changes. - Using the existing formula with the understanding that the Citizens Advisory Committee may recommend that some activities not be funded based upon their small grant amount~ individual projects or types of project. - Voluntary agreement among some cooperating units that their planning allocations be pooled to allow for a limited discretionary account competitive process. Only those cities releasing their planning allocation would compete for the available pool of funds. Approval of requests for funding would follow the established process for funding activities from the discretionary account. A minimum project budget threshold would be established. - All participant communities voluntarily forgo their Year XII planning allocation in favor of a total discretionary program. funding recommendation would be the responsibility of the CAC (perhaps with greater municipal participation in the program development process). The There are undoubtedly other possible approaches that should also be considered by Urban Hennepin County participants in an effort to derive maximum benefit from declining CDBG revenuesj ensure their equitable distribution and minimize the costs of administration. mlg OPD 1'15-86 4 s~u~d .~ .~:;a ~ d ~o ,~qmnN >- F-- Z 0 t~ i. jd s,~eLLOQ .~o SUO.LLL.LIA I00i- 9~-I00 7G- bo 70 -75 ¢=,G-70 Go-6.B uL 7 I Z I I I I II 9 Number of Activities 127 Figure 2. Number of Activities by Budget Year XI Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR ACTIVITY URBAN H£NNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM 2,- c 0 Table 2. ected Efltitleeent and Allocation to eratin§ Units~ i986 n HennePin County COD8 Prograe Unit '85 Allot Less 332 BROOKLYN CENTER 240240 160961 BROOKLYN PARK 354365 237425 CHAflPLIN 38177 25579 CHANHASSEN 38532 25816 CORCORAN 37689 25252 CRYSTAL 140736 94293 DAYTON 30020 20113 DEEPHAVEN 19019 12743 EDEN PRAIRIE 72349 48474 EDIflA 167005 111893 EXCELSIOR 16664 11165 GOLDEN VALLEY 85379 57204 6REENFZELO 9314 6240 6REENNODD S747 2510 HANOVER 6375 4271 HASSAN 14257 9552 HOPKINS 113293 75906 INDEPENDENCE 17856 11964 LDRETTO 1934 1296 [ SROVE 99961 66974 PLAIN 6092 5499 INE LAKE 1825 1223 HEDINA 16150 10621 NINNETONKA 146713 96298 flINNETONKA BEACH 1017 681 fllNNETRISTA 23851 15980 HOUND 76581 51309 NEN HOPE 136577 91507 ORONO 27894 18689 OSSEO 22286 14932 PLYHOUTH 148055 99197 RICHFIELD 206839 136582 ROBBINSDALE 77917 52204 ROCKFORD 22826 15293 ROGERS 8083 5416 SHORENOOD 23380 15665 SPRING PARK 11430 7656 ST. ANTHONY 34061 2282i BT, DONIFACIU8 8397 5626 ST. LOUIS PARK 251661 168613 TONKA BAY 6200 4154 MAYZATA 20087 13458 #ODDLAND 4066 2724 SUBTOTAL ~EPIN COUNTY 2790900 310100 1869903 207767 TOTAL 3101000 2077670 L KE MINNETONKA 402 EAST LAKE STREET BOARD MEMBERS Roborl Tipton Brown, Chairman Gleenwood Robe~l P, Rnscop, Vice Chairman Shorewood JoEIlen Hurt, Secrelary Orono Jon Elnrfi, l?easurer Mound Edward G. Bauman 3bnka Bay Dot,aid E. Boynton Minrrelonka Beach Frank do Uonchaux Uinnel~isla Rich;ltd J. G~rwood Doephnven Audwoy OisvoId Way;,ala Flon Kraemer Spring Park Roberl K. Pillsbury Minnelonka Robert E. Slocum Woodland Richard J. Soderberg Vicloria Carl H. Weisser Excelsior CONSERVATION WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TO: DATE: SUBJ: Member Municipalities January 21, 1986 Model Agreement for Access 'Reliable Parking DISTRICT TELEPHONE 6121473-7033 FRANI~ MIXA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Please find enclosed a copy of the off-site parking agree- ment recently adopted between the LMCD 'and the City of Minnetrista as a model for your use and guidance in providing a reliable parking agreement for your municipality. Model exhibits'A and B describe and map the location of the declared parking locations. We are also including the parking standards developed in conjunction with the DNR for your use. Your commitment to provide such reliable parking will help us reach our goal of 700 reliable car-trailer parking spaces needed to meet the recommendations of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force. Thank 'you for your cooperaton. We will be happy to be of any further assistance possible. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Robert Rascop Chairman eac c/enc 'Kathleen Wallace Arne Stefferud c LMCD Board Members LAKE ACCESS PARKING AGREEMENT MODEL 12-11-85 This Agreement is made by and between the Lake Minnetonka Con- servation District (hereina'£ter abbreviated "l, biCD"), a Public Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and the City of Minnetrista (hereinafter "City"), a Municipal Corpora- tion organized and existing under the laws 'of the State of Minnesota. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the LMCD and the City are jointly concerned with providing adequate, safe and sufficient public boating access to Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, the LMCD and the City recognize that a certain level of regulation is necessary to promote the most.general and efficient use of public access points, and to protect the health, safety, welfare and property rights of persons owning. land adjacent to or near by such public access points~ NOW, TttEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, it is agreed by the LMCD and the Cit. y as follows: 1. LAKE ACCESS for purposes of this agreement means general public accessibility to a trailerable boat launching ramp on Lake Minnetonka including avail- ability of parking spaces for vehicles with trailers. 2. PUBLIC LAKE ACCESS WITHIN MINNETRISTA. The LMCD and the City hereby recognize the City's launching facility on the northwest shore of Halsted Bay along the southeast side of Halsted Drive, known as the Halsted Bay Landing and also known as.the Williams Access (hereinafter referred to as "Halsted Bay Landing"), as an important public access point w~th- in the City of Minnetrista. Additional local lake access points or firelanes may, if physically suit- able, be used for walking access, swimming beaches and/or hand-carried boat launching as regulated by the City, but because of their limitations and immediate iml)act on neighboring properties will not be advertised, promoted or developed for general public lake access. 3. ON-STREET PARKING· The LMCD and the City rec'ognize that users of the llalsted Bay Landings currently use on-street parking spaces and that such on- street parking has the potential of extending up. to 1500 feet from the Halsted Bay Landing. This on-street parking has not been clearly delineated Page 2 Lake Access Parking Agreement and does not presently have conditions or restrictions placed on it. The LMCD and the City agree that safe and convenient on-street parking is a reasonable and effective means of providing parking, and that con- tinued availability of on-street parking is necessary to provide for the Halsted Bay Landing. 4. INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE ON-STREET PARKING. The City hereby identifies and the LMCD hereby recognizes the existence and availability of those on-street vehicle- With-trailer parking spaces for public'users of the Halsted Bay Landing along the north side of Halsted Drive,extending west from the landing, as located and listed on attached Exhibit A, and as generally shown on attached map Exhibit B. All spaces identified are certified by th~ City as being traffic-safe for use in parallel parking on the shoulder of a pubIic street without trespassing on private property and without interference with private driveways, mailboxes or street intersections. 5. SPECIAL SIGNAGE FOR ON-STREET PARKING. The LMCD and City agree to place and maintain special information signs along the areas identified and designated for on-street lake access parking. The signs will be a uniform design as may be used for the same purpose in other cities, and will clearly advise the public that on-street vehicle-with-trailer parallel parking is permitted in the designated areas. Said signs will be provided by the LMCD and will be installed, main- tained, and if necessary, replaced by the City. Where necessary, the City will also place other informational signs to designate limits of the allowable parking areas and/or hazardous areas where parking is not allowed. 6. CITY ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING REGULATIONS. This agree- ment shall not preclude the City from enforcing the State of Minnesota Uniform Traffic Code and other local or state laws, ordinances or regulations regarding traffic safety on public streets including trailers that are parked or operated in an unsafe or hazardous" manner and vehicles parked within driving lanes, block- ing driveways or intersections, or parked in an area specifically marked "no parking" which may be issued citations and/or which may be impounded by City police officers. When overnight parking prohibitions are in effect, on-street parking within the specifically Page 3 Lake Access Parking Agreement identified areas shall be allowed between the hours of S:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Designation of an area for vehicle-with-trailer lake access parking is not exclusive and shall not preclude parking of vehicles without trailers or any parking by abutting landowners or the public at large. 7. GUARANTEE OF PARKING AVAILABILITY. The City hereby guarantees to the LMCD that the areas identified in this agreement for on-street lake access parking will continue to be available without restriction, altera- tion, or amendment, and that the City will not insti- tute any special fee, permit or time restrictions for parking by the general public within the areas so designated. However, should a change in traffic patterns, street or driveways alignment or other situations arise in the future which causes any park- ing area designated herein to be lost or to become hazardous, the City reserves the right to restrict or eliminate such spaces, provided that every good- faith effort will be expended by the City at that time to replace any such lost space with new allowable on-street parking spaces within the same walking dis- tance of the landing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the LMCD and City have caused this agreement to be duly executed this 22nd day of February , 1985. LAKE MI NNETOI~KA CONSERVATI ON DISTRICT: Its ~hairman of fhe Board l-t§ Ekechti~e' ~[ir~ctor CITY OF MI2~NETRISTA: Its Matyo~r -~ a n d ~~~d~_.2 Its Clerk/Administrator EXHIBIT A HALSTED BAY LANDING (Halsted's Drive West) LOCATION: 2400 FEET SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 110 WEST MINNETRISTA 10'X$0' Spaces Vehicle ~ Trailer 10'X40' Spaces Vehicle ~ Trailer Within 500' B 10 Within 1000' 18 22 Within 1500' 28 55 10'X25' Spaces Auto Only 36 56 .AND AVE. o · ' 'AVE. ................... "":""f" i "'""' ,.-:- .......... -:"'-"-"'"":.'":'[: : ..... · :'~ : ' ' ' :' :...:--',,,:,,, ~:'~:~i-~: · "' "" i~. ~' :~: ' :~: :~:-q .co .~ :~; :- .~-., :r,, :., :~!.,... ,., . · o :-"'--' U, : : : ' ' : '...'.- ~ ~ .... ; ' :'.'.5'/-'.'.': :' - .... .'" ;' t :.t' q,'-' · , ............. ;-. ............ eD-,- oo¢o . . , . : . . , . t- ~;"Jl~/:.~; : : : : ; : : : : : ; :. :': ;;: : : ~ . ;%- : : .... , : . : · ~ , : .',., . . '..'~ .o'. :" ;. ' ~-, / . .-'"/'"'t----4.~ ; ; . ; : · ' : ~,,,.."..~.~;',.,,:'~.~, icj ~ : : : ; , I ; ; ~ : , , ' | . i~/.--,.-v:~-/: '-. ;-J .' , , .' . / .' i : : .~4~. _. : , ,..I...:...L ........... ;---:---! ,_ .t...l_. ..-...a ........................... . . ~x/E. NOTE; ALL OF BI.K.8 AND LOTS 8-~1 ItLK i,"MINNETONKA CENTRE" V/~CATED AND NOW DISCRIIIED AS PARCEL I000 OWNED ~¥ K.V KNUTSON t~ CONTAINING 6.~ AC. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PARKING STANDARDS LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES. The Lake Minnetonka Task Force agreed to a goal of 700 long-term reliable spaces for car-trailer parking in the vicinity of present and future access sites at Lake Minnetonka. The Task Force further recommended'that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District establish an acceptable set of standards for identifying and counting of these spaces and monitor progress toward the goal on a continuing basis. The following set of standards has been adopted by the LMCD and the Minne- sota Department of Natural Resources for application to Lake M£nnetonka~ 1. Ail spaces must be within 1,500 feet of a public access point. 2. All off-site locations' should be provided with a'long-term agreement, five year minimum, on file with the LHCD. The location of off-site spaces, either off-street or on-street, must be identified by clear, permanent-type signage at the access point. All off-street spaces must be layed out on a plan on file with the LMCD. The plan shall clearly indicate each car-trailer space and adequate in- gress, egress and maneuvering space. . All spaces must be available on an unrestricted, first-come-first-served basis, as a minimum from 5 p.m. on Friday until midnight Sunday, and on holidays, from April 15 to October 15. 6. All on-street spaces should meet the following additional standards~ 6.1 Minimum length of 50 feet per space. 6.2 Adequate shoulder width to preclude door opening into a traffic lane and to provide a safe route to the access point. 6.3 Regularly-spaced permanent signage stating "transient car-trailer parking only." 6-25-85 LAKE 402 EAST LAKE STREET BOARD MEMBERS Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman C~reenwood Robert P. Rascop, Vice Chairman Shorewood JoEIlen Hurt, Secretary Orono Jon Elar~, Treasurer Mound Edward G. Bauman Tonka Bay Donald E. Boynton ainnetonka Beach Frank de aonchaux Uinnetrista Richard J. Garwood Deephaven Audrey Gisvold Wayzata Eon Kraemer Spring Park Robert K. Pillsbury Uinnetonka Robert E. Slocum Woodland Richard J. Soderberg Victoria Carl H. Weisser Excelsior MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRI'CT WAYZATA, M IN N ESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 6121473.7033 FRANK MIXA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO: DA~E: SUBJ: Member Municipalities January 21, 1986 Prosecution of LMCD Violations on the Lake The District has been studying its options in the handling of prosecutions of Water Patrol citations issued under the LMCD Code on the Lake. After a review of a report from the Hennepin 'County Municipal Court of a fine study and disposition of tickets issued by the Water patrol on the Lake for 1984, summary sheet attached, and an estimate of the costs.which would have been incurred by the District prosecuting these cases, the District has come to the conclusion that it would be beneficial for all concerned if the District handled such cases directly through its own prosecution system. It is believed that a more centralized system would provide the District more and timely information about the effectiveness of its regulatory program on the Lake, as well as providing background for any needed changes in rules and regulations. It would also result in stream- lining of the procedures involved, and improve enforcement coordination with the Sheriff's Water patrol. The Water Patrol concurs in this conclusion. Unless some of the villages wish to discuss the program further, the program will become effective in 1986. If your municipality wishes a meeting on the subject, please give us a call at 473-7033 and a meeting will be scheduled with LMCD Board members early in January. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Robert Rascop Chairman att: summary sheet, letter re costs c: LMCD Board Members Sheriff's Water Patrol ADIVilHISTRATIVE OFFICF.8 Frank Mixa Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District'. ~02 Lake Street Wayzata, MN ii J5391 Dear Mr. Mixa: Earlier this year you requested that we make a computer search of citations issued by the Water Patrol under the Lake Minnetonka Conservation Ordinance durln§ l~8t{. Attached is a computer report which we hope meets your needs. The data was taken from the disposition iile and a separate report was created with line and court totals ior each community. Below Is a summary oi the community tdtals which were taken from the attached reports.. Court Community Fines Cost Revenue Paid Community Less costs Wayzata $ 890 $ 2~ $ 866 Minnetonka 680 22 6.58 Deephaven 12~ t~ 121. Excelsior 500 26 ~7~ Greenwood 330 29 301 Minnetonka Beach 260 26 23~ Minnetrista 50 ~ ' ~6 Mound 60ti 28 -576 Orono 903 88 815 Shorewood 30 2 28 Sprin§ Park 700 30 670 Tonka Bay 28J) 9 276 Woodland 30 I 29 $ -5,387 293 .5,09t{ In addition to the violations written under LMCO Ordinances by the Water Patrol a sl§nificant number o! citations were written under the state statute. During 198~ the total revenues collected from violations written under the state statute by the Water Patrol was $2,713 with the revenues bain§ divided between the State and County, LcFt. vcre Lcflcr l~ctmcdy Drawz · 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone {612) 333-0543 Telecopier i612) 333-0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler J. Dennis O'Brien John E, Drawz David J. Kennedy John B, Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L, LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Jeffrey J, Strand John G. Kressel Dayle Nolan Michael A. Nash Brian F. Rice Lorraine S, Clugg Jame_~J. Thomson, Jr, JarlS1. Strommen MaiNl~FNielsen Terry L. Hall Ronald H. Batty William P. Jordan Susan Dickel Minsberg Kurt J. Erickson William R. Skallerud Thomas R. Gait Rodney D. Anderson Gary R. Bryant-Wolf October 17, 1985 Mr. Frank Mixa Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: LMCD Prosecution Dear Frank: Recently you asked our office for an estimate as to what fees might be incurred by the LMCD for us handling all of their prosecution matters. You also enclosed a summary of court dispositions for citations issued by the Water Patrol during 1984. Based on a review of that disposition summary and our own experience relating to the handling of prosecu- tion matters, we would estimate that we would be able to provide prosecution services for the LMCD (assuming a similar case load as 1984) for $2,665.00; This would include attendance at arraignments for the District, atten- dance at pretrials and the handling of court trials. This would also include the preparation'of formal complaints for those citations which are issued to which the defendant does not respond. Of course, should the prosecution load for the district increase substantially our estimate would change as well. Should you have any questions concerning any of these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information. Yours very truly, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:np OOT 8 11995 L..~'.'.C.!.7. '[draft] ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PUBLIC NUISANCES ON WATERCRAFT The Board of Directors of the Lake MinnetOnka Conservation District ordains that the LMCD Code of Ordinances be and hereby is amended by adding new Section 4.121 as follows:' Section 4.121. PUBLIC NUISANCES ON WATERCRAFT. Subd. 1. Public Nuisances Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit or engage in any conduct which constitutes a public nuisance on the Lake or to allow or permit any person to commit or engage in any conduct which constitutes a public nuisance on any watercraft owned or operated by said person while the watercraft is on the Lake. Subd. 2. Public Nuisances Defined. For the purposes of this section, public nuisances shall include the following: a) fighting or brawling; b) using offensive, obscene or abusive language; c) engaging in loud, noisy or boisterous conduct; d) engaging in lewd Or lascivious conduct offensive to public decency or indecent exposure; e) using lights in a manner which annoys, frightens or endangers others; f) violating curfew; and g) engaging in any other conduct which unreasonably disturbs the peace, quiet or repose of others. Subd. 3. Loud Noise Defined. For the purpose of this section, loud, noisy or boisterous conduct shall, at a minimum, include any noise or sound, however produced, which exceeds the levels established by the Minnesota pollution control agency when measured from any property abutting the Lake. In addition, any noise or sound which unreasonably annoys others shall consti- tute a violation of this section. Subd. 4. Curfew. Except when accompanied by a parent or guardian, no minor under the age of 15 shall. be on any'watercraft on the Lake between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the following day and no minor between the ages' of 15 and 17 shall be on anY water- craft on the Lake between the hours 12:00 mldnigh% and 6:00 a.m. the following day. This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ordinance. Adopted by the Lake Minnesota Conservation District Board of Directors this __ day of , 1986. Chairman ATTEST: Executive Director Date of Publication: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 291-6359 55101 REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATE: January 9, 1986 TO: Environmental Resources Committee SUBJECT: Draft Market Identification and Expansion Report BACKGROUND At its meeting on Jan. 7, 1986, the Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee considered the above mentioned report. ISSUES AND CONCERNS A concern was raised about the recyclability of plastics. Staff replied that local markets for plastics are very limited, plus the variety of resins in plastic containers and contamination problems affect the ability to reuse plastic. Staff will monitor developments in the plastics induatry, labeling of plastics by type which is being considered in the state of New Jersey, and other developments that may increase the ability to reuse plastic. A concern was raised about how the recommendations for collection and the suggestions for grant and loan funding priorities relate to the Council's abatement goals. Staff replied that the recommendations and priorities in the report are based to some extent on the goals for abatement but also consider the stability and growth potential of existing local markets. The report will be presented to a wide variety of groups throughout the month of January and will be revised based on comment received at these meetings. The Environmental Resources Committee will act on the final Market Identification and Expansion Report in February. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Lukermann, Chair SV005a-PHENV2 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-291-6359 DATE: TO: FROM: January 2, 1986 Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Comzzittee Solid Waste Division (Susan Von Mosoh) SUBJECT: Draft Market Identification and Expansion Report Attached for your information and review is the Draft Market Identification and Expansion Report. The report identifies existing local markets and examines market conditions for selected reyclable materials, it contains general market condition recommendations that provide direction to the Council's market expansion efforts in 1986, it sets priorities for collection of recyclable materials, and it discusses eligible activities and suggests priorities for the Market Expansion Grant and Loan Program. The report will be presented to a wide variety of groups throughout the month of January. In February, town meetings will be held to obtain public reaction and input to the report as well as to the proposed priorities for the Council's grant and loan programs. The report will be revised based on comments received at the public meetings. The advisory commitee and the Environmental Resources Committee will consider the final Market Identification and Expansion Report in March. SVOOSa-PHENV2 SOLID WASTE MARKET IDENTIFICATION AND EXPANSION REPORT DRAFT Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 612-291-6359/TDD 291-0904 January 2, 1986 Publication No. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................ ~ ............... . .......................... CHAPTER 1: IDENTIFICATION OF LOCAL MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS .... Wastepaper ............... Cellulose Insulation ............................................... Animal Beddin6 ..................................................... Al,~num Scrap and Used Beverage Containers .......................... Ferrous Metals ....................................................... Glass ............. · ...................... · ................ · ........ .. Plastics ............................................................. Textiles ............................................................. Tires ................................................................ Waste Motor Oil ...................................................... Yard Waste ........................................................... CHAPTER 2; GENERAL MARKET EXPANSION RECOMMENDATIONS .................... CHAPTER 3: MATERIAL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... Priorities for Collection .............. , ............................. Implementation Strategies ............................................ CHAPTER 4: MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS... Background ........................................................... Eligible Applicants .................................................. Suggested Priorities for Funding ..................................... Eligible Activities .................................................. APPENDICES 1 2 5 5 6 6 ? ? $ 8 10 ~6 18 18 18 18 19 -- INTRODUCTION The 1980 Waste Management Act increased the Metropolitan Council's responsibil- ity for solid waste management in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The act directed the Council to prepare a long-range plan for managing the region's solid waste. The plan was to contain elements on the reduction of waste, the recovery of materials and energy, and minimizing the use of land disposal. The 1984 Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Act added a surcharge to landfill disposal fees. A portion of that charge is directed into a fund for projects to reduce, recover or process wastes that would otherwide be landfilled. Language adopted in the 1985 amendments to the act states that after Jan. 1, 1990, no waste disposal facilities in the metropolitan area may accept unprocessed mixed municipal solid waste. The Metropolitan council's Solid Waste Manasement Development Guide/Policy Plan incorporates the philosophy and directives contained in the amended Waste Management Act. It contains a regional strategy for solid waste management to achieve the 1990 goal, including time schedules for increasing waste reduction, source separation, centralized materials recovery and decreasing the need for landfills. Market identification and expansion, along with subregional service areas, appropriate waste collection services and public education, is identified as an important component of the regional solid waste management strategy. The Council's Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan contains a specific directive.for implementation of a market development program. Policy 8 states: A region-wide, centrally coordinated resource recovery market develoP- ment program should be established by 1988. The plan designates the Metropolitan Council as the coordinating agency for implementation of the market development program. In fulfilling this directive, the Council established a Solid Waste Market Expansion Group consist-' ing of staff representatives from various state agencies and the private sector. Members of the group include: Cathy Berg-Moeger, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Frank Ongaro and Nick Riley, State Planning Agency; Linda Cox, Waste Management Board; Brian Zucker, Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic.Development; Connie Robinson, Minnesota Department of Administration; Bernie Beermann, Beermann Services; Gary Botzek, former executive director of Business and Industry Recycling Program; and Tom Couling, Dan Xrivit, Carl Michaud, John Rafferty, Romi Slowiak and Susan Von Mosch, Metropolitan Council. This document is the Council's Market Identification and Expansion Report. It was prepared by the Solid Waste Market Expansion Group. The report identifies existing local markets and examines market conditions for selected recyclable materials; it contains general market expansion recommendations that provide direction to the Council's market expansion efforts in 1986; it sets priorities for the collection of recyclable materials; and it defines the priorities and eligible activities for the Metropolitan Council's Market Expansion Grant and Loan Program. Technical appendices containing detailed information on national market trends, existing local market conditions and potential new applications for specific recyclable materials are attached to the report. 332 CHAPTER 1 .' IDENTIFICATION OF LOCAL MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALR In May 1985, the Council established a Solid Waste Market Expansion Group to conduct the first phase of the market development work--research on the market profiles for selected recyclable materials. The group e~m~ned the status and quality of the markets for wastepaper, including three specific uses for old newspaper--news-to-news mills, animal bedding and cellulose insulation; glass; ferrous metals; aluminum and other nonferrous metals; plastic; textiles; tires; waste motor oil; and yard waste. These materials were selected based on their composition in the waste stream or on their status as a "problem" material, for instance the improper disposal of waste motor oil threatens to contaminate groundwater. The list of recyclable materials examined was not all inclusive. Research on additional recyclable materials and alternative markets have been identified as a priority for the Council's market identification and expansion efforts in 1986. The market profiles examined national market trends and existing market condi- tions in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, determined the amount of current and future recyclable material supplies, determined the demand and uses of recycled materials by area businesses and industries, and examined potential new markets for recycled goods. Research for the material profiles concentrated on existing secondary data sources and interviews with local business .representatives: end users for the recyclable materials, brokers, processors and collectors. These business representatives reviewed and verified the pertinent material profiles. The following summaries of the technical appendices identify Twin Cities Metro- politan Area markets and briefly discuss the local market conditions for each of the recycled materials. Appendix contains a list of actual end markets in the region. WASTEPAPER Tom Couling Metropolitan Council 291-6621 The Paper Stock Institute of America recognizes 45 grades of wastepaper. Generally, these grades fall into the broad categories of pulp substitutes, high grades, old corrugated containers, old newspapers and mix. In the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the flow of wastepaper from collection to consuming industry is facilitated by a network of independent collectors and brokers. This network sets collection priorities based on national as well as local market trends. Pioneer Industry, the area's largest collector, markets all grades of wastepaper. The smaller collectors focus on the more lucrative high grades. Much of the wastepaper recovered locally is marketed within a five-state region with orientation toward Wisconsin. Although some wastepaper recovered locally has reached overseas markets, access is greatly restricted by our geographic location far from major coastal ports. Waldorf Corp., the region's major paper mill, produces paperboard and corrugated medium from 100 percent wastepaper and is a major influence on the local wastepaper ~rket. Waldorf recycles all grades of wastepaper; however, collection is geared toward old corrugated containers. Waldorf acts as its own broker and has established a stable supply network within the five-state area. Presently, Waldorf satisfies 65 percent of its corrugated and 100 percent of its old newspaper consumption from the Metropolitan Area. 2 Locally as well as nationally, wastepaper markets tend to be volatile and' cyclical following a pattern of sharply rising prices one year followed by two or three years of sharply falling prices. Prices peaked in 1980 and declined sharply in 1981 and ~982. Similarly, in 1983-~98~, prices rose sharply but declined in mid-198~. Current prices are extremely depressed. Increased col- lection, the current trade imbalance fueled by the strong dollar, overcapacity in virgin pulp and some major recycled paper products have combined to accelerate this trend. Much uncertainty exists in wastepaper markets for the near future. Entry of collection centers and recycling programs has increased supply faster than demand. Demand for wastepaper is predicted to continue growing ~but at a slower rate than in the previous decade. The recycled paperboard sector of the industry has been a mainstay of demand. However, future growth seems limited. Thus, increased recycling must rely on expanding use in other finished grades, potential new uses and exports. Local market conditions by grade are as follows: Pulp Substitutes--A high-quality grade originating from preconsumer sources such as trimmings from envelope manufacturers. Historically, pulp substitutes have experienced strong recovery rates and demand. This grade competes di- rectly with virgin pulp and is severely impacted by the drop in virgin pulp price. Prices dropped 50 percent over the past year. . High Qrade--Typically is recovered from commercial sources such as printing waste and source-separated office ledger. Markets for high grade are among the most stable of the wastepaper grades. The price has fallen, though not as dramatically as other grades. As cf July 1985, the price for white ledger, a subgrade, was down ~3 percent from a year ago. Old Corrugated Containers--Originates primarily from commercial/industrial sources. Waldorf, the one strong local market, experienced a soft demand for finished products in late 198~ when inventories at the commercial consumer level increased and the demand for corrugated declined. The price has declined 58 percent over the past year. Waldorf Corp. predicts the price will begin to rebound early in Old Newspapers--Experience roller coaster fluctuations in demand. Old news is gathered from residential sources, therefore, collection does not always reflect demand. Locally, few markets exist. Waldorf consumes old newspaper but only accounts for about 21 percent of the total generated yearly. Poineer markets a large volume of old news outside Minnesota. Over the past six months demand has fallen off drastically; the price is down 42 percent. Mix--Consists of mixed wastepaper ranging from high grade to magazines. Markets are limited to construction grades of finished paper, a slow growth sector of the paper industry. Local markets appear to be saturated. As of July, the price had eroded to the point where mix was being given away to avoid landfill costs. It appears current demand for mix would not be adequate' to absorb substantial increases in supply. NEWS-TO-NEWS MILLS Kathy Berg-Moeger Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 296-7324 News-to-news mills recyle old newspapers into newsprint. Minnesota has no mtlls that produce either virgin or recycled newsprint. Minnesota's newsprint is currently ?urchased from Canada. Only 10 news-to-news mills exist in the U.S. The mills are located near major metropolitan areas such as Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta and Tucson. Two conditions determine the location and construction of news-to-news mills: the market for the recycled newsprint and the availability of old news waste- paper, including competition for the material. The newspapers inMinnesota do not generate a large demand for newsprint. It appears that the demand for re-~ cycled newsprint in the five-state region is not adequate to support a profit- able mill. Demand for the finished product is crucial to the success of the mill. In Minnesota, two primary users of old newpapers are the paperboard and cellulose insulation industries. The recovery rates for these industries reduces the amount of paper potentially available to a news-to-news facility. However, the five-state region, including Winnepeg, Canada, could potentially recover enough old news to support a news-to-news mill. CELLULOSE INSULATION Romi Slowiak Metropolitan Council Cellulose insulation is manufactured from old newspapers and various flame- retardant and corrosion-inhibiting chemicals. The demand for cellulose insula- tion peaked during the winter of 1977-1978. Since then, national production has fallen. Cellulose insulation is used primarily to retrofit existing houses; therefore, demand is projected to decline. Potential for market saturation exists. Currently, three cellulose insulation firms operate in Minnesota, down from 11 in 1981. Two of_ these firms are located in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Although several firms have merged or closed, the remaining businesses appear stable and anticipate production to increase in the next five years. Only one of the existing cellulose insulation manufacturers currently recovers old newspaper from the Twin Cities Region--an average of approximately 412 tons per month. Demand for old news fluctuates seasonally with peaks in the s,~mer and fall. Prices range from $10 to $20 per ton. ANIMAL BEDDING Romi Slowiak Metropolitan Council Animal bedding, made from old newspapers, has been tested successfully for absorbency, toxicity, flammability, aesthetics and decomposition. Its price-- from $3§ to $50 per ton--is competitive and it is effective as a composting agent. The potential for growth appears to be unlimited, especially in an agricultural state such as Minnesota. The major obstacle to market development and expansion for animal bedding is the lack of product awareness--its existence and its specific advantages over traditional bedding materials. Currently, the only manufacturer of animal bedding in Minnesota is located in Rochester and produces 115 tons of animal bedding per month. Another bedding manufacturer is located in Wisconsin. ALUMINIM SCRAP AND USED BEVERAGE CONTAINERS Llnda Cox Waste Management Board 536-0816 i/-m!num and bimetal used beverage containers (UBC) made up the largest portion of nonferrous scrap going into landfills. Other nonferrous 'scrap continues to be recycled into alloys or new ingot, with fairly established markets. Two al,,m~_num scrap end markets are located in the Metropolitan Area (industries using aluminum alloys).. However, both of these companies smelt relatively small volumes of scrap. The primary end markets are located in Indiana, Tennessee, F~tch~Ean, Ohio, Missouri were the demand for either new ingot or raw scrap is greatest. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has a network of aluminum scrap collectors and brokers. In addition, the area's major recycler/processor is an authorized contracted processor chosen by the primary industry to serve as the main supplier from this region. Scrap dealers and recyclers often go through the authorized contract processor who bales materials, arranges truck and rail shipments to primar~es in Warick, Ind., or Alcoa, Tenn.; or they go through a foreign broker for exports to Japan, West Germany, Brazil and Argentina. Some have arrangements to ship processed UBC directly to breweries, such as Anheuser- Busch or Olympia. UBC is generally processed for shipment to primary industries that regenerate cans into new can sheet. UBC and al,~tnum scrap supplies are good. Prices for recovered al,-,tnumare low but the long-term forecast is positive. The most apparent impediments to increased al,~m!num scrap and UBC recycling are= current supply glut worldwide; high transportation costs to end markets; increasing environmental regulations on material handling and processing; ever-changing quality standards for scrap set by primary industries; and the loss of some markets due to recycling business closings or end market industries relocating out of state. FERROUS METALS Brian Zucker Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development 297-2334 Minnesota and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, like the nation, generate more ferrous scrap than is consumed locally. This is because of the area's compara- tively high concentration of metal-cons,ming industries and relatively low concentration of ferrous metal-producing industries which render scrap back to steel. North Star Steel, a minimill, is the area's primary end market for ferrous scrap. In addition, an independent network of scrap dealers collect and market both prompt scrap--ferrous metal generated by industry--and obsolete scrap-. automobile hulks and machinery. The principal markets for Minnesota ferrous scrap include: Chicago, Indiana and Nebraska via rail; minimtlls along the Mississippi River via barge; and foreign markets in Japan, Korea, Mexico and Spain via the port in New Orleans. Th~ delivered price for scrap is highly sensitive to transportation costs and highly vulnerable to fluctuations in the general business cycle. This factor ultimately places the Twig Cities at a comparative advantage for distribution by barge. Scrap barges originating on the northern Mississippi can run profitably by dropping off and picking up scrap along the river's 2,000-mile stretch. Profits from this market will continue to decline, however, because of increasing transportation costs. The dominant share of all ferrous scrap produced in Minnesota is prompt and obsolete scrap with a very small proportion originating from residential sources, such as the tin can. In general, local scrap dealers and processors contend that collection and preparation of scrap from municipal solid waste exceed potential economic returns. There does not appear to be a reliable market for the tin can and other low-bulk, residentally generated ferrous scrap in the Metropolitan Area. GLASS Susan Von Mosch Metropolitan Council 291-6389 Currently, the only end user for recycled glass in Minnesota is Anchor Glass Container in Shakopee. In December 1984, Brockway Glass in Rosemount. closed. The closing of Brockway Glass actually helped strengthen Anchor Glass' market position for'glass containers in this region. Anchor's market consists of a 400-mile radius around the Twin Cities; 95 percent of Anchor's products are shipped within this zone. Anchor Glass accepts only recycled glass containers. Prices for cullet have remained stable over the past several years at $40 per ton. In 1984, the plant u~od 18,000 tons of post-consumer culler, consisting of 10 percent of the batch. (Ten percent in-house scrap was also used.) The amount of post- consumer culler could be tripled to approximately 54,000 t~ns annually without capital investments or modification to the plant or the process. Up to 50 percent culler could be used per batch with investment in additional equip- ment. Anchor's national corporate goal for 198§ is to use 30 percent post- consumer culler in all plants. The recovery of all potential culler in the Metropolitan Area will not saturate the market. There appears to be potential for significant growth in the recycling and use of glass in the Twin Cities. PLASTICS. John Rafferty Metropolitan Council 291-6459 Currently, there is a very small local market for used plastics. A few local brokers are collecting used plastic, but the amount reused is minimal. The price of raw material is low enough that it does not pay to process the post~ consumer plastics. Transportation costs and contamination are also factors, m~king it difficult for companies to recycle used material. The cost of equipment to clean the plastic and remove the contaminants is so expensive that most companies cannot afford it. There is the option of banning some plastic packaging, but that is not likely to be a viable solution either. The most profitable means of recycling plastic is to recycle in-house scrap within the industry. Many manufacturers are doing this; however, there are others that are still landfilling their scrap. These companies need to be made aware of opportunities to recycle plastic scrap. The. most effio/ent use of plastic scrap is considered to be combustion accord- in~ to industr~ representatives contacted. Recovery f~om the post-consumer waste stream must overcome si~ficant msmket, institutional, technical, trans- portation and specification barriers to compete successfully with vir~n prod- ucts~ The potential to sisnifioantly increase plastics recovery at this time appea~s to be m~n/mal. The t~echnolo~J necessarT for the recovery of plastics needs to mature prior to the development of a successful recycling pro,am. TEXTILES Cam1 Michaud' Metropolitan Council 291-6579 The textile recycling is an international industry. There are three distinct m~-kets for recycled textiles: reused clothing, rags and recycled fiber. Major products made from recycled textiles are wiping cloths; soundproof materials in automobiles; stuffing for furniture, mattresses and toys; carpet backing; lining for ironing board covers; and similar products. Two major end users for recycled textiles operate in the Twin Cities: Minnea- polis Ragstock Company, Inc., and Brotex Inc. Ragstock operates a chain of secondhand clothing stores, sells clothes and textiles on the foreign market, and produces wiping clothes. Brotex sells wiping cloths and produces felt for the automotive industry. Brotex is estimated to be the third or fourth largest manufacturer of shoddy for ~he automotive industry. An estimated 85 percent of all textiles are recycled. Estimates provided by Brotex and Ragstockindicate they reclaimed over 25,000 tons of textiles combined. Other textile recycling companies in Minnesota include Fabricraft, Cokato; Land-O-Nod, Minneapolis; Miller Waste Mills, Winona; and St. Peter Woolen Mills, St. Peter. Nonprofit, charitable organizations play a key role in textile recycling because textiles are collected primarily by groups such as Goodwill Industries, Salvation Army, Disabled Veterans, American Council for the Blind, St. Vincent dePaul and other church organizations. The demand for recycled textiles is stable, although the price paid for tex- tiles is less than what was paid several years ago (decline from 8 cents per pound several years ago to 1 to 2 cents per pound currently). The supply of textiles for the reuse or recycled fiber markets exceeds demand. Most textile materials, whether they consist of natural or synthetic fibers, are reused or recycled. TIRES Susan Von Mosch Metropolitan Council 291-6389 The only current end market is lo~ated in Tomahawk, Wis., where an Owens- Illinois paper plant uses chipped rubber as a fuel. Waste tires from the. .An°ka County stockpile are being chipped and sold to ~he Owens-Illinois plant. The supplier and the end market have developed an arrangement involving the back- hauling of paper products from Tomahawk to the Twin Cities. This arrangement reduces the transportation costs of the waste tire supplier. ~. 7 The Mimiesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) recently completed a study on the generation rates~ collection, reuse and marketing of waste tires. In addition~ the Minnesota Waste Management Board and the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development have funded development of a crumb rubber processing plant in Bovey, Minn. Products from this plant will be used for application in the automotive industry. The Metropolitan Council's market identification and expansion efforts in the area of waste tires will be coordinated with MPCA. WASTE MOTOR OIL Nick Riley State Planning Agency 297-4736 The current collection system for waste oil in Minnesota accounts for approxi- mately 10 million gallons per year. It is assumed that approximately 6 million gallons go uncollected and are disposed of in ways that are hazardous to the environment. The oil that is collected basically goes to two end m~rkets--a small acid treatment plant located in the Metropolitan Area which uses approxi- mately 1.6 million gallons per year, and hot mix asphalt plants and small furnaces which use the oil as fuel. The acid treatment re-refineries similar to the processor in Minnesota have severe sludge disposal problems. New technology involving hydro-treating the oil has eliminated most of the problems associated with the older clay- polish/acid treatment facilities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to designate waste motor oil a hazardous waste in 1986. There are no major oil re-refiners in the five-state market area, and the closest re-refiners are located in Indiana and Illinois. Re-refining currently utilizes 20 percent of the national market for waste oil that has been col- lected. Re-refining waste oil is considered by most experts as the best end use for waste oil. It is the least polluting alternative and also recycles a valuable commodity. YARD WASTE Dan Xrivit Minnesota Waste Management Board 536-0816 Composting is the process of controlled degradation of organic matter producing a humus-like substance that can be used as a soil amendment. There are 10 yard waste composting programs in the Twin Cities. County or local governments administer the compost drop-off sites; two programs offer residential pickup. Compost is usually distributed free of charge to residents. Most programs have been successful in distributing current supplies. Potential commercial m~kets doexist, but have not been extensively developed. A number of studies have been conducted in the Twin Cities ex-m~utng the feasibility of composting aS a waste management strategy. General con~ensus is that the primary markets for..compost will come from the commercial sector including nurseries and landscapers. Other markets will likely include golf courses, parks and highway construction. Although farmers are not considered primary markets, there is potential for the agricultural sector to use significant volumes of compost if it contains high enough nitrogen levels. A 1983 survey indicated, that between 47,000 and 58,000 cubic yards of compost- like amendment are used annually in the region. Minnesota has taken a lead in development of compost markets with the Governor's Executive Order on Compost and the University ofMinnesota research project on compost and co-compost. CHAPTER 2: GENERAL MARKET EXPANSION RECOMMENDATIONS The Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Act defines market development as "the location and facilitation of economic markets for materials, substances, energy, or other products contained within or derived from waste." Markets can include industries~ businesses, government agencies, groups of people or individuals. It is important that enough markets, or consumers~ exist to purchase and reuse the materials generated from the solid waste recovery programs. These materials include the traditional source-separated recyclables such as glass, wastepaper, compost and al,,mtnum, as well as material generated from central processing facilities such as mixed-colored glass, ferrous metals and other residuals. The preliminary focus of the Council's market identifi- cation and expansion efforts is on the traditional source-separated materials. Analysis of the market potential for materials from centralized processing facilities has been identified as an issue for future research. In the past, the success of source separation and recycling programs has depended largely on income derived from the sale of recovered materials. In recent years, the markets for recovered materials have been quite volatile. Cyclical market conditions have affected the ability of recycling contractors and curbside recycling programs to provide services, and the decisions of business and industry to recover or dispose of materials. It is obvious that identifying and expanding markets for recyclable materials is of crucial importance to the successful implementation of the source separation and recycling strategies for solid waste management. The Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan directs the Council to coordinate market expansion activities in the region. Implementation of this charge depends on two factors: the cooperation and involvement of representa- tives from the business community and from various government agencies, and the availablity of data on the nature of local end markets and on the collection and reuse of recyclable materials. Participation of businesses and industries that use or ~ould use recyclable materials is essential to the market expansion efforts. The Council will establish a Solid Waste Market Expansion Committee to coordinate regional market expansion activities and to serve as a forum for business community participation. The committee will provide input on market expansion efforts, do basic research, identify market opportunities and constraints, and monitor market expansion progress in the region. The committee will be composed of members from groups representing interests such as business, recyclers, end markets and consumers. The committee at its own discretion may appoint ad hoc studygroups to provide~more in-depth examination of selected market identifica- tion and expansion topics. In addition, the Council will continue to coordinate interagencymarket expan- sion activities in the.region. The sharing of interagency resources and exper- tise is fundamental to the success of market expansion efforts in the Metro- politan Area. Formation of the staff market expansion group in May represents the beginning of this interagency coordination process. Similar activities will continue through regular contacts with agency representatives and through the proposed committee and ad hoc study groups. The development of several data base management systems'is necessary for the implementation of a regional market expansion program. The Council can promote the recovery and marketing of recyclable materials by identifying local end markets (both existing and potential) and by providing information on price structures and materials specifications. Contacts with end users, as well as' secondary sources such a trade Journals and other periodicals, will provide current market information and price trends for recyclable materials. The Council will also analyze data on the region's waste composition, supply and recovery rates. The majority of this data will be used internally to facilitate the development of pro,rams to meet the Council's landfill abatement goals. Information on materials collected will help the Council facilitate the m--ketin~ of these materials and will enable the Council to direct the funds for market expansion into areas with the greatest potential impact. This research effort will be coordinated with data generated as part of the county plannin~ process and the Landfill Abatement Tonnage Grant Program. (See Appendix for a more detailed discussion of the regton"s waste composition and supply. ) ~ENEP~L MARKET EXPANSION ~ECOMMENDATIONS The following market expansion recommendations provide direction to the Metropolitan Council in the areas of coordinating regional markettn~ efforts, data manasment and promotion of recycling awareness. These recommendations constitute a portion of the 1986 market expansion work plan. .. The Metropolitan Council will continue to initiate, maintain and foster work/n~ relationsh~ps with representatives from businesses and industries involved in the collection, processin6 and/or reuse of recyclable materials in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Hetropolitan Council will establish a Solid Waste ~arket Expansion Committee to coordinate market expansion efforts in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The committee's primary function 'will be to study, 'promote and expand existinE and/or new markets for recycled materials. The com~tttee, at its own discretion and on an as-needed basis, may appoint ad hoc study Er.ups to conduct in-depth analysis of specific market identification and expansion topics. The Metropolitan Council will continue to coordinate interagency efforts for regional market expansion. This involves workin~ with the Minnesota Department of A~m~nistratton, Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development, Minnesota Pollution Control Administration, Minnesota Waste Management Board, Minnesota Department of Revenue and State Planning, as well as the Twin Cities Area regional comm~ssions for parks, airports, waste control and' transportation..Topics examined could include procure- ment practices and procedures, interpretation of national environmental re~ulations, enforcement of state reEulations and economic development activities and assistance. The Metropolitan Council will continue its market identification and expansion efforts by analyzing the following issues durin~ 1986. Research the use of intermediate processing facilities as a tool for stabilizin~ the supply of recyclables to existing markets with growth potential and as a tool for promoting cooperative marketing. The study will include analysis of appropriate sizing and capacity, capital and operating costs and project financing. Conduct market research on additional recyclable materials and alternative markets with priority on a feasibility analysi~ for locattn6 a detinning operation in Minnesota. l'l Ce de Ex-m~ne state transportation regulatior~ to determine if freight-rate preference is given to virgin and/or secondary materials. Evaluate the possibility of legislative action to correct potential disparities. Investigate local opportunities to encourage and promote backhauling. Ex-m~ne the use of tax credits and/or tax incentives to encourage manufacturers to use secondary or recyclable materials when possible. e. Identify markets for recyclables from resource recovery facilities. The Metropolitan Council will establish and maintain a solid waste data management function including the following: Development and publication of a directory of Twin Cities Area end markets for recyclable materials including data on material specifica- tions and, when possible, generalized price information. The audience for the business recycling directory would be recycling contractors, coordinators of municipal and county programs, businesses and indust- ries interested in recycling and exploring markets for commercial waste, such as office paper, or industrial waste such as in-house generated plastic or ferrous scrap. be Development of a data base on regional and national market conditions for recyclable materials including general price trends, finished product demand and growth potential. Ce Development of a data base on solid waste generation, composition and recovery rates for both residential and commercial/industrial generators. Research will be coordinated with the county planning process, abatement tonnage grant program and contacts with regional end markets. The Metropolitan Council will promote and attempt to increase business and industry's use of products containing recycled materials, such as paperboard in packaging. This effort will include promoting the use of the recycling emblem on packaging. The Metropolitan Council will develop a consumer education program, as part of the public education program, to increase awareness and the use of recyclable products, or products made from recycled materials..This program will include promotion of procurement of products made with recycled materials by hospitals, schools and other public institutions. CHAPTER 3: MATERIAL SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND Generally, market conditions for recyclable materials tend to be volatile and cyclical. Currently, the prices for most materials are the lowest of the past decade. A variety of factors contribute to these unstable price conditions including strength of the U.S. dollar, declines in industrial production, low prices for virgin materials, supply gluts of some virgin materials, and high transportation costs. Obviously, many of these factors are tied to the performance of the nation's economy and the recent recessionary climate. Consequently, action at a state or local level will have little impact on certain market conditions for recyclable materials. TYPF~ OF MARKET CONDITIONS The local market conditions for recyclable materials discussed in this report can vary depending on the material. Basically, recyclable materials fall into one of three different types of market conditions. First, the local markets for some materials, such as wastepaper, alnm~numand ferrous metals, are strongly affected by national trends. These materials are considered national commodities; the demand and prices are closely tied to national market trends. For example, the market for al,~nim is dominated by five multinational 6orportations and the major end markets are located in Indiana, Tennessee and other eastern states. The local price for aluminum is tied to the price set by the major end markets. Local market expansion activities are unlikely to significantly affect the demand or the price for al,,m~num at the end markets. In contrast, the market conditions for glass and old corrugated containers are affected by national trends. However, these materials also have strong local markets, each with one major end user in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. These materials are recovered and processed locally. A large portion of the finished product is marketed outside Minnesota. Finally, some materials such as waste motor oil and the markets for cellulose insulation are local markets. Prices for the recyclable or secondary materials are set locally based on demand for the material. Collection, processing and reuse occurs within the area and are less affected by national economic trends. Federal government policy does affect the market conditions of some materials. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will soon designate waste motor oil a hazardous waste, thus affecting its collection and reuse. CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIES As a result of the divergent nature of the markets, some recyclable materials have more stable local markets in terms of both price and demand than other materials. The following collection priorities are based on three criteria: 1) the stability of the local market, including potential for growth; 2)'the impact removal of the material from the waste stream has on the Council's landfill abatement goals; and 3) the potential environmental hazard caused by the landfilling or improper disposal of the material. Several caveats need to be considered prior to discussing the priorities for collection. First, the following priorities are dynamic and subject to re- evaluation based on future changes in the solid waste management system, technological advances, and public or private efforts to improve existing or new markets. Second, nearly all recyclable materials have some local market. For the purposes of colleo~ion, ~he questions are how well developed is the market and how soon is it likely to become saturated. Given these considera- tions, some materials currently have very limited local markets. Publicly sponsored recycling programs .and recycling contractors should be aware of the market limitations for ~hese materials prior to setting collection policies. PRIORITIES FOR COLLECTION Table 1 contains the priorities for collection of recyclable materials including designation of primary collector and generation source of the material. The recommendations following the table provide further explanation of the priorities. The priorities are directed to a specific segment of the solid waste/recycling network for both collection and generation. In some cases, the existing collection network may adequately recovery materiAl from · large generators, while not collecting small generators because of economic constraints. This is the case with old corrugated containers and high-grade office paper. Therefore, the priority is for the small collector (often private) to focus on the small commercial generator. Table ! PRXORXTXE3 ~OR COM~C~Gll OF RECTCLABLE MATE~TUA Priorit~ ~aterials Collected. b~ Collected ~tgh-~made Pape~ Cor~ugeted Boxes Old Newspaper Aluminum Ferrous Metals Vaste Motor Oil 'Tarot Waste Textiles Small, private paper eolXectors/p~oeeasora Small salvage collect- o~s; nonprofit Recycling pro,rarest curbmide pickup; profi~ crgemizatinas. Redemption centersl recycling programs. Scrap industry; Recycling programst curbstde pickup, drop-off cen~ers. Recycling pro,rams.' curb-side pick-~p, drop-off centers. Count7 and municipal compost programs. Charity; nonprofit organtzattoos · ~ of~Ace amd ~ulti- temant buildings malls/strip develop- lents; small sto~es; m~ltt- t~--t buildings. Residential source oepa~atton. Residential source separation. Industrial sources. Residential source separation. Residential source eeparatio~. Residential. Residential. Coweme~ts ~ting collection focuses on large generator. Zxisttng collection focuses on large genera~ Recycli~g programs should comside~ economic eclXe~cion and processing. Collect clean, uncontaminated old newspapers. / Majority of ferrous is industrial scrap. ~nall portion from residential sources. No apparent reliable market for tin cans. Focus on "do-it-7ourself~ otl changer. Mater'.als with LLmited Markets Plastic, mixed wastepaper, tin cans. 12.30.85 BJ3053-1~E~V2 14 High-grade paper is the most lucrative post-consumer wastepaper grade; it has a strong, stable market. The region's major end market and the major paper broker/processor rely heavily on this grade and compete for large- volume generators--printing operations and large office buildings. Many small commercial generators--small office and/or multitenant buildings-- are not part of the collection network. The region's network of smaller, private paper brokers can collect from small commercial generators. The priority for collection of high-grade wastepaper is directed toward the network of.smaller collector/processors to service the smaller .commercial/office generators. Old corrugated containers (OCC) have a strong local market. The major end market has established a supply network within the five-state area. OCC is imported because local recovery does not meet demand. The existing recov- ery network collects from large commercial/industrial generators. The focus is on increased collection from the small commercial generator such as small shopping malls, commercial strip developments and small stores. A network of salvagers collects from small generators; however, existin~ capacity is limited. Residential curbside recycling programs should carefully evaluate the economics of corrugated collection and processing prior to deciding to collect this material.-- Old newspaper is the traditional staple of recycling programs--curbside pickup, drop-off centers and charity, nonprofit organizations. The local market is weak and there is a potential danger of market saturation in the long run. The priority for old newspaper focuses on improving the quality and, thus, the marketability of recovered newspaper. Recycling programs should collect only clean, uncontaminated materials. Aluminum recycling, primarily recovery of used beverage containers from residential sources, gained public support in the ~970s. Public acceptance of aluminum recycling is still widespread and strong, although prices have declined. The recovery structure (redemption centers, curbside programs and drop-off centers) is in place and functioning despite weak markets. Existing collectors should continue to collect aluminum. Ferrous metals are recovered predominantly from industrial generators. An independent network of scrap dealers collect and market ferrous scrap. Households generate a very small proportion of ferrous scrap. Scrap dealers contend that collection and preparation of scrap from residential sources is not economical. There does not appear to be a reliable market for the tin can and other low-bulk, residentially generated ferrous scrap. Recycling programs should consider the limited market potential for tin can prior to making collection decisions. Glass containers generated by households and some commercial establishments have a very strong, stable market in the Twin Cities. Recycling programs, both curbside and drop-off centers, and redemption centers should continue to collect and market glass. Some recycling programs, especially those in the eastern part of the region, should work together to cooperatively market the material, thus reducing transportation costs. Textiles have always had a high recovery rate. 'The priority for collection focuses on acknowledging the success of the existing collection network of charity, nonprofit organization and the area's two major end markets, and on encouraging households to continue recycling textiles. 8~ Waste motor oil is'primarily collected from large commercial/industrial generators by private companies and end users. Collection problems exist with residential generators who change their own oil and are unaware of proper disposal methods 6r lack disposal containers. Recycling programs-- curbside pickup and drop-off centers--should continue to collect waste motor oil. Yard waste is a major component of the waste stream destined for landfills. Current county and municipal yard waste composting program- should continue to encourage recovery of yard waste, and consider developing residential collection programs and.increasing capacity of existing programs. 10. Plastic~ mixed wastepaper and tin cans are materials with very limited local markets. Recycling programs should be aware of market limitations and should consider the economics of collection and processing these materials prior to making collection decisions. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The Metropolitan Council will work with the business community and other public agencies to develop the following strategies, listed by order of importance, for implementing the collection priorities. Facilitate interaction between the major glass market, county and municipal recycling programs, and other interested parties to investigate a~d possibly develop innovative transportation solutions for the marketing of glass. 2. Work to increase the collection of high-grade office paper by: Publishing a directory of paper collectors providing office paper collection programs to both large and small office buildings. (See recommendation no. 1 under General Market Expansion Section.) be Promoting increased awareness of the need for recycling and waste reduction by commerial/industrial entities. Develop a program of contacting corporate leaders to promote office paper recycling. This strategy will be coordinated with the Council's public education .program and the Business Outreach Division. Working with paper collectors/brokers and building management associa- tions and companies to develop and approach for office paper recy- cling in multitenant office buildings, where few successful programs currently exist. Increase the recovery of old corrugated containers (OCt) from small commercial generaters by: a. Educating small generators about opportunities to recycle CCC. be Working with the area's major market for OCt to coordinate the activity of the cardboard salvagers and collectors with the recovery activity of the small commercial generators. Ce Investigating other options for the economic recovery of OCC from commercial/industrial sources. Specific collection alternatives could include OCC redemption centers or drop-off centers. Increase public education and information activities on the following: a.~ The proper disposal of waste motor oil; Oppo~unities for waste reduction through the collection of yard waste and the operation of public composting programs; c. Existence of established recovery network for textiles and household goods; and d. Possibilities for industrial generators of.plastic to recycle in-house scrap either internally or by selling it to other users. CHAPTER 4: MARKET EXPANSION GRANT AND LOAN RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND Amendments to the Waste Management Act in 1984 created the Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Fund. The fund is administered bF the Metropolitan Council and consists of revenue from the metropolitan solid waste landfill surcharge of 25 cents per cubic yard of solid waste accepted at mixed municipal solid waste disposal facilities. The Abatement Fund is to be used for planning and to develop or expand programs that divert solid waste from landfills in the Metropolitan Area. Programs funded include a household rebate program to reimburse cities and towns for recycling expenses, a tonnage rebate program for cities and towns, grant and loan programs in the areas of resource recovery, public education and market identification and expansion. The Solid Waste Market Expansion Grant and Loan Program will provide funding for markets or market-related activities to identify and help develop expanded and more stable local markets for reusable and recyclable materials in the Metropolitan Area. The legislation restricts the amount of money for market identification and expansion activities to up to 10 percent of the money in the Abatement Fund. Funds awarded by the Council for market expansion will be coordinated with other funding sources, particularly Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development and the Minnesota Waste Management Board programs. Table 2 illustrates eligible applicants and activities for existing state programs available for the development of recyclable material markets. Appendix C contains brief descriptions of the program- listed in Table 2. The proposed priorities, criteria and structure for the Council's market expansion, resource recovery and public education funding programs will'be developed in January 1988. The following sections discuss eligible applicants, eligible activities and suggested priorities for funding for the market expansion program. The eligible activities and priorities are based on the market expansion group's research. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS The Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Act describes eligible applicants as "any per~on." Both public and private entities are eligible for funding. SUGGESTED PRIORITIES FOR FUNDING Draft priorities for the Market Expansion Grant and Loan Program will be developed in January 1986. The following suggested priorities are put forth to stimulate discussion. First priority for funding decisions made under the market expansion grant and loan program is for projects that stabilize existing markets. This may involve investment in collection or processing systems to guarantee an adequate supply or improved quality of recyclable materials to the end user. Within the existing end market structure, emphasis will be placed on markets that show evidence of long-range growth potential and that have the greatest impact on net abatement of waste from the regions landfills. The second priority for funding is the expansion of existing markets. The third priority is development of new markets. ELIGIBLE ACTMTIES According to the legislation~ grants and loans are available for "market development for reusable and recyclable waste materials." Market development activities could include investment, promotion, collection or processing activities that lead to either the increased supply of recyclable materials to end users or the increased demand of recyclable materials by end users. Specific types and some examples of eligible market expansion activities include: 1. Investment in land buildings, equipment and other capital costs; 2. Research and development of innovative~Collection and processing strategies, such as projects that focus on the collection and cooperative marketing of glass as a means of reducing high transportation costs; 3. Improvement of processing systems to make materials easier to recycle, such as investment in a glass betterment system or an intermediate processing facility; Provide assistance to manufacturers interested in increasing their use of recyclable materials. Research on the development of new markets--research and development projects and feasibility analysis studies; 6. Identification and development of expanded new or existing local markets, such as animal bedding and other alternative uses for old ncL-spapers. 7. Development of ways to use materials that have not been reused in the past, such as plastics. "'Or.. 2O Other programs In general, all programs will be cut~3.5% on a biennial basis. No specific information is available ye~ on how these cuts would be implementem in individual grant programs. While the Finance Department has asked state agencies to not seek to alleviate the cuts in their agencies through new or increased fees, it is to be expected that these will emerge as policy options. Clearly cities have been asked to absorb a major share of the budget problem. As you are aware, it is very difficult to respond effectively to major cuts in a year already budgeted for. Cities are already having difficulties due to the major cutbacks in Federal Revenue Sharing and other federal programs, declining taxbases, costs such as insurance rising faster than inflation, and implementation of comparable worth studies. It is important that city officials communicate these problems to their legislators and the Governor. The League Board of Directors will be meeting next week to consider appropriate policy and lobbying steps. We will continue to keep you informed as new information becomes available. Additional information and analysis will be available-~ at the Legislative Conference on February 5th. Time has been scheduled in the afternoon for you to visit with your legislators. Please plan on attending and meeting with your.~legislators on the budget and other pressing concerns. 3600 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Telephone: (612) 471-0171 Reply to: Wayzata LAW OFFICES OF ATTORNEY AT LAW 234 North River Street P.O. Box 70 Delano, Minnesota 55328 Telephone: 1-g72-3918 January 27, 1986 City of Mound Attention: City Manager, Mayor and Members of the City Council 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Town Square Project Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned represents Mueller Pharmacy, a business owned and operated by Mr. Greg Carlson. Mr. Carlson has requested that I bring to your attention the evolution of the Town Square Project and its impact upon Mr. Carlson's business. Mr. Carlson and others were approached by the project originators and were asked to come forward during the initial City Council Meetings to lend support to the project. This they did understanding that their businesses and the public would benefit from the growth of this project. Now, however, they discover that although promises were made to them that their businesses would find. space in the new project, Mr. Carlson has received nothing but avoidance and non-response to his requests for rental space. This avoidance does not come as a result of a fully rented building, .but apparently the private decisions of those now in control of the project. Mr. Carlson considers this "publi~" endeavor to be quickly shedding its public benefits. Apparently the project developers who have earlier assured my client and others "that there are (rental) spaces available", now refuse to respond to local businesses. (See Minutes of Mound HRA .Meeting held July ~11, 1985). City of Mound Page 2 January 27, 1986 Mr. Carlson requests the City Council and City Attorney investigate who is making or refusing to make the decision of guaranteeing rental space to those very businesses being displaced by the project, and why. Mr. Carlson and I are at a complete loss to explain this conduct and the havoc it has caused to Mr. Carlson and his business planning. We look forward to an inquiry and response to our concerns at your earliest possible opportunity. Yours very truly, James B. Dickinson JBD/lb cc: Mr. Greg Carlson · Mueller Pharmacy