The URL can be used to link to this page

1984-11-13 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2. 3. 4. 5. Approve Minutes of September 26, 1984, Special Meeting pg. 3070-3075 Approve Minutes of September 27, 1984, Special Meeting pg. 3076-3078 Approve Minutes of October 9, 1984, Regular Meeting Pg. 3079-3091 Approve Minutes of October 23, 1984, Regular Meeting Pg. 3092-3099 PUBLIC HEARING- AppIication for Conditional Use Permit H.E.I., Inc. (former Ms. Dee's BuiIding) 2378 Wilshire Blvd. , PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional USe Permit for Multiple Dwelling & Marina, 2670 Commerce Blvd. (Surfside) ~UBLIC HEARING: Proposed Vacation of Kildare Road (East of West lot Line of Lot 39, Block 11 Seton extending South) ' Update on Lynwood Blvd. M.S.A. Road Project Request for Street Light on County Road 15 near Wilshire 10. Appointment of Mr. Ken Smith to Planning Commission 11. Review of Proposed Lease for Mound Liquor Store 12. Request to sell two City lots on Commerce Blvd by the Trading Post · 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Street Light Request for Cumberland Road Update on Lost Lake Environmental Study (Discussion) Comparable Worth Study Update (Discussion) Update on Tank Restoration Contract (water tower in The Highlands S~lect Auditor for 1984 Financial Report Pg. 3100-3118 Pg. 3119-3151 Pg. 3152-3162 Pg. 3263-3168 Pg. 3169-3170 Pg. 3171 Pg. 3172-3179 Pg. 3180-3183 Pg. 3184-3186 Pg. 3187-3190 Pg. 3191 Pg. 3192 Pg. 3193-3194 Page 3068 19. Review of Ouotations for Water Dept. Truck Payment of Bills (to be handed out at meeting) INFORMATION/MISC£LLANEOUS A. Letter from Arch Diocese of St. Paul B. Correspondence from Citizens Regarding Continental Phone Case C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes D. Liquor Store 3rd Ouarter Financial Report E. Letter from Dept. of Transportation F. Information on Ten Largest City Taxpayers G. News Item from the Tribune H. Letter to Police Chief Regarding Explorers I. Minutes of Ind. School Dist. #277 J. 1983 Lake Use Study - L.M.C.D. K. Metro Council 1985 Legislative Program L. Metro Council Review, October 12, 1984 M. Metro Council Review, October 26, 1984 N. Incentive Taxation Newsletter O. Planning Assistance News - State Planning P. Twin Cities Labor Market Information Pg. 3195-3198 Pg. 3199 Pg.'3200-3206 Pg. 3207-3210 Pg. 3211-3214 Pg. 3215 Pg. 3216 Pg. 3217-3218 Pg. 3219 Pg. 3220-3222 Pg. 3223-3224 Pg. 3225-3236 Pg. 3237-3238 P~ 3239-3240 Pg. 3241-3244 Pg. 3245-3246 ?g. 3247-3254 Page 306 9 200 September 26, 1984 SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of the Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session (Special Budget Meeting), on September 26, 1984, at 7:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, and Russ Peterson. Councilmember Paulsen arrived late at 7:25 P.M. Also present were: City Manager Jori Elam, City Clerk Fran Clark, Finance Director Sharon Legg, Police Chief Lenny Harrell, Public Works Superintendent Geno Hoff, Sewer & Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, Park Director Chris Bollis, Fire Chief Bob Cheney, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand,- and the following interested citizens: Bev Prouty, Jane Skinner, Joyce Nelson, Gregg Murray, Bill Holm, Frank Ahrens, Mr. & Mrs. Herbert Wolner, Buzz Sycks, Steve Smith. The Mayor opened the meeting and explained that he will not allow this to become a political debate. It is a budget hearing t.o allow the City Council to review the proposed 1985 Budget. The City Manager explained that the..highlights of this proposed Budget include projected revenues for the General Fund of $1,706,011 and expenses, of $1,661,349, leaving a balance of $44,662. He then went over some of the expected revenues the City will receive in 1985. That is an increase over. last year of 5.07%. The expenses are up approximately 5.377%. He explained that the expenditure level that is being proposed is different than the property tax level that is being proposed. In looking at the levy for 1985, there is only an increase of 4.3% over 1984. If you look at the tax levies over the past four years there is a total increase of $94,772 or 9.04% which averages out to 2.26% per year. The 4.3% increase is about a point less than the expeditures because of the increase in State Aid and other revenues that the City generates as a part of regular business. The Council then started at the beginning of the Budget and went over'each department. CITY COUNCIL The City Manager went over some of the specific line items in the City Council Budget and explained what they include. The Mayor asked if there was anyone who had a question or comment on the proposed Council Budget for 1985. No one responded. 201 ' September 26, 1984 The Mayor stated he would like to see the Senior Citizen Counseling Program included in the proposed 1985 Budget. He stated he feels it is a worthwhile program. He asked the City Manager how many cases this program handled. The City Manager stated approximately 35 or 36. Councilmember Jessen stated that she felt the costs where quite high for the number of cases they handle. She would like to see this program coordinated with at the Senior Center. The City Manager explained that the new expenditure in this Budget is the Senior Citizen Coordinator (Kathy Bailey) which is her 1/2 of her salary and next year we will be taking on the other 1/2 of her salary. The City Manager explained that the LMCD may be reducing their dues about $4,000 because they will be assessing Commons Docks at the rate of $10.00 per dock. They did not previously assess municipalites for their docks only marinas, etc. He will know about this better later this month or next month. If this is done the City could pass this' $10.00 fee on to the dock holders of Commons Docks and could still fund the Senior Citizen Counseling Program. He will keep the Council informed on this.. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on the City Manager/City Clerk's Budget. Councilmember Peterson asked for a clarification on the salaries as to what the proposed percentage increase is for both the City Manager and the City Clerk. The Manager replied 4.0% for himself and 5.5% for the City Clerk. ELECTIONS/VOTER REGISTRATION The City Manager went over the proposed Budget with the Council. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. There were none. ASSESSING The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. There were none. FINANCE The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. There were none. Finance Director Sharon Legg was present and went over some of the items with the Council. 202 September 26, 1984 LEGAL The City Manager went over the proposed Budget with the Council stating that these fees are in line with what other cities are paying. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. There were none. POLICE Police Chief Lenny Harrell was present and presented his proposed Budget. There were several questions from the Council on specific line items such as 4381 Auto Equip. Repair and 4500 Capital Outlay. The Police Chief explained that the Auto Equip. Repair is for normal maintenance on the squad cars and the Capital Outlay included-1 new radar unit and 1 new squad car. He is looking into smaller police cars when we replace a car for economy. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on the proposed Budget. Steve Smith asked why there were no salary sheets with the breakdown for each employee in this years budget. The City Manager replied that some employees were upset that these figures were in last years budget and because the Council is only approving the overall budgets now and salaries are not set until December. PLANNING & INSPECTION Building Inspector Jan Bertrand was present and went over her proposed Budget with the Council. She explained that the the City is trying to have this department be self-supporting with the fees charged. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. Bev Prouty asked if the Dock Inspector's salary was in the Planning & Inspection Budget. The City Manager answered no, it is in the Park Dept. Budget. Frank Ahrens stated that his is concerned about the General Fund and as a taxpayer wants to see the Council hold the line on expenditures. He stated he would like to see the contract with Hennepin County for assessing services terminated and that he is sure the City could hire someone for less than $37,000. 203' September 26, 1984 CIVIL DEFENSE Police Chief Harrell explained that this proposed budget is for the Police Reserve unit operating supplies. The Unit itself is self-supporting. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. There were none. STREET DEPARTMENT Street Superintendent Geno Hoff was present and explained his proposed Budget, noting that the salaries were increasing 5.5% under the present three year union contract that was negotiated last year. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. There were none. SHOP & STORE Mr. Hoff explained that this is the City mechanic's catagory and he explained the proposed Budget. ~ The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. There were none. CITY PROPERTY ~ BUILDINGS The City Manager explained that this is a catch-all catagory which covers expenses such as electric, garbage, gas, etc. and some maintenance on City Hall. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. Frank Ahrens asked how much land in Mound is tax forfeit. The City Manager stated that it has been a priority project since he has been here to get the tax forfeit lots back on the tax roles. Park Director Chris Bollis was present and explained his proposed Budget. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on the proposed Budget. Bev Prouty asked is the City is using fertilizer in the parks around the lake. Chris Bollis answered yes, because in high use areas such as parks you have to fertilize to keep the grass. 30?3 204 September 26, lg84 Couneilmember Charon asked wha% was being done to combat the weeds in the swimming beach areas. Chris Bollis stated that he does not like to use chemicals in the lake and therefore has had some weed harvesting done. FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief Bob Cheney was present and explained his proposed budget. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. Frank Ahrens asked if the City writes new contracts every year with the contracting cities. The City Manager stated that the costs change but the contract is an ongoing thing unless either party cancels it. Frank Ahrens asked if this type of contract has been looked into for the Police Dept. Mayor Polston stated that if any other cities were interested in contracting with Mound for police protection the City would pursue it but that the City would n~t go out and actively promote it. Councilmember Paulsen stated that he felt if other cities wanted Mound's Police protection, their citizens should go and suggest it to the other City Councils. The City Manager state~ that he has talked to the Mayor of Shorewood and they really feel that with the mutual aid pact they have the best of two worlds. When they get a cali and are not close they call Mound to respond at no cost to them. The City Manager also stated that at Mr. Murray's suggestion that Mound contract with Orono for Police protection, the City did go over the Orono formula and talk with the Orono Police Chief who stated that they could not service Mound for any less than Mound's Police Budget. Frank Ahrens asked Fire Chief Bob Cheney if the Fire Department had ever considered what it would cost to have only Mound and not contract with other cities. The Fire Chief stated that with all the contracting cities paying their fair share of the costs, the result is better equipment, better response time and a Class 5 fire rating for insurance purposes which costs less money for each citizen. Herbert Wolner asked what cities are contracting with Mound for fire protection. The Fire Chief answered, Mound, part of Minnetrista, Spring Park, part of Shorewood, Minnetonka Beach and part of Orono. 205 September 26, 1984 The Council decided to adjourn this meeting and continue with the Special Funds tomorrow evening. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. until tomorrow evening at 7:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk o7g' 206 September 27, 1984 BUDGET HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session (Special Budget Meeting), on September 27, 1984, at 7:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Clerk Fran Clark, Finance Director Sharon Legg, Police Chief Lenny Harrell, Sewer and Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, Public Works Superinten- dent Geno Hoff, Park Director Chris Bollis, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Building .Inspector Jan Bertrand, Public Works Secretary Joyce Nelson, Assistant Fire Chief Don Brice, amd tje following interested citizens: Bev Prouty, Steve Smith, Herb Wolner and Frank Ahrens. The Mayor reconvened the meeting from September 26, 1984. ~e then asked if there were any questions or o~mments on the General Fund Budgets. The City Manager stated that the levy will increase by 4.397% before homestead. He noted that because there is sufficient funds to pay the interest on many of the bonds, that the City only needed to levy for the interest on 2 bond issues. He then went over the individual levys with the Council on Form 280 which is submitted for the levy. The Mayor stated that the Council must adopt a levy and send it to the County for next year's property tax collection. He then asked if there were any questions or comments on the levy. Councilmember Jessen stated that she would like to reduce the proposed levy by $22,000. She suggested that $12,000 come out of the reserves and $10,000 from across the board budget cuts. Thus reducing the increase in the levy from .345~ to .172%. The remainder of the Council agreed. Jessen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-153 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LEVY OF $925,920 FOR 1985 The Council agreed that this could be done without hurting or impairing the system and that it would show good faith. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 207 ' September 27, 1984 The Council then moved on to the the Special Funds. LIQUOR FUN~ Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm presented his proposed Budget to the Council. Councilmember Paulsen suggested that Joel start an agressive marketing program. Joel agreed that he would work on this. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. WATER FUND Utility Superintendent Greg Skinner presented the proposed Budget to the Council. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. SEWER FUND Greg Skinner presented the proposed Budget to the Council. The Mayor. asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. CEMETERY FUN~ Park Superintendent Chris Bollis presented the proposed Budget to the Council. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. IMPROVEMENT & CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND City Manager Jon Elam went over the proposed budget with the Council. Councilmember Peterson stated he would like to see that the City plans on replenishing this fund. Sharon Legg stated that she plans to start depreciating items and that depreciation could be used to replenish the fund. MUNICIPAL BUILDING ~ CONSTRUCTION FUND The City Manager stated there are no anticipated expenditures from this fund. 208 September 27, 1984 PENSION FUND The City Manager presented the proposed Budget for this fund. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget. REVENUE SHARING FUND The City Manager presented the proposed Budget for this fund. The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments on this proposed Budget or any of the others that were presented this evening. There were none. The Council discussed approving this Budget this evening or waiting until the amendments were made and presented at the next meeting. It was decided to wait and approve the budget at the October 9, 1984, Regular Meeting. The Mayor and the Council thanked all the department heads for their time and presentations. Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 8:30 P. M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk 209 October 9. 1984 REGULAR MEETING OF TH E CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on October 9, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, and the following interested citizens: Steve Smith, Frank Weiland, Larry Connolly, Marcia Jerdee, Wilson. Montgomery, Michael Macklin, Julius Webster, James Jagodzinski, Kathy Kluth, Jackie Meyer. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the September 6, 1984, Special Meeting were presented for consideration. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the September 6',.'1984, Special Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried The Minutes of the September lB, 1984, Special Meeting were presented for consideration. Peterson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the September 13, 1984, Special Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The'Minutes of the September 18, 1985, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the September 18, 1984, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Minutes of the September 25, 1984, Regular Meeting were pressented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the September 25, 1984, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 210 October 9, 1984 PUBLIC HEARING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRINT SHOP AT 24~4 COMMERCE BLVD, JIM JAGODZINSKI The City Manager introduced Mr. Jagodzinski and his architect. The architect explained that since the structure is framed in they would like to construct a connecting bridge between the the house and the framed in building. Each building would be 2 storys. They can provide 2 parking stalls in front for limited time parking and 9 in the rear. Their plan for the buildings would be stucco on the lower floors and wood or simulated wood for the upper floors with shingles on the roof. Square footage would be approximately the following: 1st floor of present house - 940 square feet; 2nd floor of present house - 1125 square feet including the bridge: 1st floor of other building - 1160 square feet: 2nd floor of other building - 1250 square feet. They are working with the Building Inspector to bring the house up to code. Mayor Polston asked if the conditional use permit applied for is the only one they would need. Mr. Jagodzinski stated that i-f they needed another they would come back fer approval. Councilmember Peterson asked where the print shop would be located. The architect answered in the rear half of the framed in building. . The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was any one present who wished to speak in favor of or against the' granting of approval. There were no comments. The Mayor then closed the public hearing. Mayor Polston asked the Building Inspector if everything was in order. The Building Inspector answered yes. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-153A RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR J.J. PRINTING, 2q3q COMMERCE BLVD. - PID ~23-117-2q 11 0001 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING; TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE WETLANDS MAP AND PRO- VISION OF WEDLANDS ORDINANCE~ SECTIONS, 2~,1110 THROUGH 23.1130 Councilmember Jessen complimented the Planning Commission on their recommendation for this amendment to the Wetlands Ordinance ,3ogo 211 October 9, 1984 and Wetlands Map. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor or against thie ordinance amendment. There was no response. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following: ORDINANCE ~q69 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 23.1110 AND 23.1130 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO WETLANDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak regarding any of the proposed assessments on the Agenda, Items A-K. The City Manager presented a letter from Mr. Julius Webster regarding a delinquent utility bill assessment on PID #18-117-23 31 0005. Mr. Webster state.d that he feels there is a mistake in his b-illing and would like the opportunity to go over the billing and usage. The City Council decided to take this particular proposed assessment off of the list of delinquent utility assessments and have the Finance Director sit down with Mr. Webster and work on the dispute. Mr. Julius Webster agreed with this. The Mayor closed the public hearing. A. UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-154 RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,150.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 85 INTEREST - LEVY ~9618 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-155 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $350.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 85 INTEREST - LEVY #9619 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Charon moved and Jeseen seconded the following resolution: 3o81 212 October 9, 1984 RESOLUTION #84-156 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $185.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8$ INTEREST - LEVY #9q21 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. E. UNPAID DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution deleting PID #18-117-23 31 0005: RESOLUTION ~8q-160 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,365.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% .INTEREST - LEVY ~9q23 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. B. UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL CHARGES Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the-following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-157 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF &385.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER I YEAR AT INTEREST - LEVY ~9q19 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. C. UNPAID WEED & GRASS CUTTING CHARGES Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-158 RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID WEED & GRASS CUTTING ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $190.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER I YEAR AT 85 INTEREST - LEVY ~9q22 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. D. UNPAID SIDEWALK REPAIR CHARGES Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #8q-159 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UNPAID SIDEWALK REPAIR ASSESSMENT ROLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,988.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 5 YEARS AT 85 INTEREST - LEVY #9q30 213 October 9, 1984 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT - 78 STREETS Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-161 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY $9424 - $1,170.90 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. G. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT - 79 STREET~ Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-162 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION O.F ABSTRACT; & DIREC~-ING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY ~9425 - $4,606.39 " The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. H. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT - 80 STREET~ Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-163 RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTAL FORMALITIES: THE COUNTY $3,656.30. LEVYING DEFERRED & ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO AUDITOR - LEVY ~9426 - The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. I. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT - SEWER 3180 Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #84-164 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY 9427 - $200.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 21'4 0¢t0ber R, 19§4 J. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT - SEWER 3388 Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-165 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSHENT$ UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY ~9428 - $556.26 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. K. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT - WATER 3397 Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-166 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY 9429 - $194.80 The vote was unanimously in favor. Mo~ion carried. ~ASE G.M.G. ENTERPRISES, INC., 510 WAYZATA BLVD., (~846 IDLEWOOD ROAD), LOT 2, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, LOT SIZE VARIANCE The City Manager explained that the~applicant is ~equesting to remodel/renovate the existing structure and to add a 7.8 foOt by 21.67 foot addition to the north of the structure. Staff recommended approval of the variance as requested to do structural alterations and add an addition to the structure to bring the floor area up to the 852 square feet, plus recognizing the existing undersized 7500 square foot lot to afford the owner reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. The owner has stated he will bring the structure up to code by January 1, 1985. Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-167 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT SIZE AND STRUCTURE SIZE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 323-117-24 42 0012 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DISCUSSION ON AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY APART- MENTS WITHIN THE R-] DISTRICT 215 October 9, 1984 The City Manager explained that this item came up at the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Norwood has an accessory apartment in his home. Mr. Norwood had purchased the house with the intent of renting the downstairs to help subsiduze the payments which is what the previous owners had done. The Planning Commission sent this item to the City Council for further discussion and asked for direction from the Council on whether there should be an amendment to the present Zoning Ordinance to allow this. Councilmember Peterson thanked the Staff for the complete background material that was supplied. The Council discussed the pros and cons of this type of zoning and decided it did not want to change the Zoning Ordinance and create spot zoning. Mayor Polston moved to table this item. of a second. The motion died for lack Peterson moved and Charon seconded a motion to decline to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory apartments in the R-1 District. The vote was unanimously in favor. MotiQn carried. PROPOSAL FOR COMMUNITY RECYCLING PROGRAM The City Manager introduced three of the members of the Recycling Committee, Kathy Kluth, Marcia Jerde and Jackie Meyer. Jackie explained that there were six people on the task force who worked to educate themselves on recycling, and studying other· communities who presently have recycling programs. They studied the 2 ideas of 1) having a drop off site or 2) having curbside pickup. Because drop off sites don't seem to work that well they have decided to recommend curbside pickup. They presented a Budget to the Council with a total of $1,500.00. The program would begin in the Spring of 1985. The City Manager explained that we could fund this initially thru Hennepin County or we could add a surcharge of approximately $.25 a quarter to the water and sewer bills. The goal would be to make the program self-Sufficient. The Staff is recommending that the Council accept the proposal, officially appoint the current committee and direct the Staff to start the framework for getting the program going by the Spring 1985. A target date of April 20, 1985, is suggested. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-168 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE RECYCLING COMMITTEE, APPOINT THE CURRENT MEMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE AND DIRECT THE STAFF TO START THE FRAMEWORK FOR GETTING 3o 5 216 October g, 1~8q THE PROGRAM GOING BY THE SPRING OF 1985 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council thanked the Committee for their work. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. BINGO PERMIT Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of a Bingo Permit to the Mound Fire Department Auxiliary, and waive the fee, for November 13, 198a. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COUNTY ROAD 12~ ~ TUXEDO BLVD, INTERSECTION REPORT The City Manager asked the Council to refer to the Police Chief's drawing of the intersection with the proposed improvements o-f stop signs, a new median, and repainting or-yellow lines. Councilmember Charon and Mayor Polston agreed that putting in stop signs gives people a false sense of security. The Council thought the painting of double lines on Wilshire at Tuxedo might help. The City Manager reported that after meeting with the CoUnty, they are happy the way it presently stands. Councilmember Charon stated she has concerns about the shoulder of Tuxedo Blvd. where it meets with Wilshire because there is a lack of space for walkers now and with snow piled up it would be impossible. The Council asked the City Manager to write a letter to the County expressing their concern about the intersection and asking that they do anything they can to improve it. PAYMENT BOX FOR COLLECTION OF UTILITY BILLS The City Manager explained that he has been approached by the American Payment Centers to rent a box from them Commerce Blvd. next to Snyder Drug for the collection of utility bills. They would charge the City $16.67 per month for the rent. He explained that currently the bank does accept the collection of utility bills and charges us $.10 per bill. He asked if the Council would be interested in renting a box for $16.67 per month. 217 OCtober 9, 1984 The Council felt that it would be a waste of money since the bank is so close and can collect. No action was taken. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR_ MULTIPLE DWELLING AND MARINA AT 2~70 COMMERCE BLVD, PID ~2~-117- 24 14 0009 Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set November 13, 1984, as date for public hearing on a Conditional Use Permit to allow multiple dwelling and marina at 2670 Commerce Blvd., PID ~23-117-24 14 0009. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF RESOLUTION ~8~-141~ KEVIN HETCHLER~ 4913 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #84-169 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENTION OF RESOLUTION ~81-141 FOR ONE YEAR, UNTIL SEPTEMBER 21, 1985 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. FINAL PLAT LOST LAKE ADDITION The City. Manager explained that the developers of Lost Lake Addition are now ready, for final plat approval by the City Council. The Planning Commission has recommended approval. The Mayor asked if all the criteria has been met. Inspector answered yes. The Building' The Council asked that all items be attached to the approval resolution as exhibits. The Staff agreed. Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-170 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOST LAKE ADDITION The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET BID OPENING DATES; 1984-85 CBD SNOW REMOVAL ~ FALL CLEAN-UP Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set October 22, 1984, at 10:00 A.M. for the bid opening for the 1984-85 CBD Snow Removal and the Fall Clean-Up. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3oe7 21 '8 October 9, 1984 ~EOUEST FROM DOW-SAT CABLE T,V, TO ADD SPECTRUM SPORTS AS A PAY SERVICE The City Manager reported that Dow-Sat has asked for permission to add Spectrum Sports to Mound's Cable System channel lineup. This request is in accordance with our Cable Franchise. The would be $10.00 per month, the same as other pay channel rates. Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION {8q-171 RESOLUTION TO ALLOW DOW-SAT OF MINNESOTA TO ADD SPECTRUM SPORTS TO THE CABLE SYSTEM CHANNEL LINEUP The vote was unanimously in favor. QUOTES FOR TREE MOVING Motion carried. The City Manger explained that we have received a donation of 100 trees for the City Parks and that the only stipulation is that we pay for the moving of these trees. The City received 2 quotations for the moving of the trees as follows: Swenson Nursery $45.00 per tree Western Tree Service $55;'00 per tree The Staff recommends accepting the Swenson Nursery quote. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion tO approve the quotation of Swenson Nursery in the amount of $45.00 per tree ' for the moving of 100 trees. The vote was unanimousIy in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the payment of bills as listed on the pre-list in the amount of $99,793.66, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REAPPOINTMENT OF ELDO SCHMIDT TO THE HRA - 5 YEAR TERM Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-172 RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING ELDO SCHMIDT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A TERM OF 5 YEARS (AUGUST 29, 198~ - AUGUST 29, 1989) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 219 October 9, 1984 REVENUE SHARING HANDICAPPED GRIEVANCE PROCEDUR~ The City Manager explained that this Grievance Procedure needs to be adopted as part of the requirements of the Revenue~haring Act as amended. It gives the procedures which must be. followed if a handicapped person wanted to file a grievance with the City. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-173 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A REVENUE SHARING GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE The vote was unanimously in favor. 'Motion carried. ADOPTING THE 198~ GENERAL FUND & THE TAX LEVY The City Manager explained that the Council had asked to have this brought back to them for approval after the cuts were made in the tax levy and the General Fund. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-17q RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,651,3q9 AND SETTING THE LEVY A $1,120,916 The vote Was unanimously .in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-175 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1985 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOU~ A. Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 1984. B. Metro Council Review - September 14, 1984. Copy of Letter from Mrs. Gall DuPuis regarding Continental Telephone refund. D. News clippings on various cities budgets and levies. E. "Minnesota" - Publication from the Division of Economic Development. F. A copy of a letter from the Police Chief regarding a stop sign request. 22'0 October R, 1R84 G. Letter from the MWCC regarding a management study. H. "Chamber Waves" Newsletter for October. I. Article "Planning Commissioners Speak Out". J. Ehlers & Associates Newsletter for October. K. Approval Letter for the State regarding the Lynwood Blvd. Realignment Project. L. October calendar for the Humphrey. Institute. M. Floodplain Management Newsletter from the DNR. N. Article on IRB Allocation in Minnesota. Charon moved and peterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk BILLS ...... OCTOBER 9, 1984 Al'lstar Electric 888.50 Earl F. Andersen 95.83 Acro-MN 86.66 Badger Meter 420.14 Holly Bostrom 254.00 Bury & Carlson 318.OO Bradley Exterm 19.00 Bowman Distrib 174.64 City Club Distrib 2,981.95 Copy Duplicating 15.OO Coca Cola Bottling 148.O3 Davies Water 37.87 Dependable Services 33.00 Duane's 66 84.00 Display Sales 5,145.00 Don's Sod Serv 118.80 Day Distrib 3,386.90 East Side Beverage 2,651.42 Glenwood Inglewood 43.50 Grlggs Beer 105.45 Eugene Hickok & Assoc 132.OO Johnson Welding 735.00 Kool Kube Ice 124.80 Kennedy Brush 414.42 Kendall Plastics 251.28 Glen Litfin Trucking 225.00 Lowell's 148.57 MacQueen Equip 305.63 Marina Auto Supply 475.80 Mound Super Valu 66.28 Meyer's Mound Serv 110.OO Metro Fone Communications 23.60 Martins Navarre 66 20.00 Maple Plain Diesel 1,912.49 Navarre Hdwe 193.19 Michael Polley 9.92 Popham Haik 1,271.40 Precision Striping 1,552.80 Pepsi Cola/7 Up 285.45 Pogreba Distrib 3,919.70 Bob Ryan Ford 11.O6 Rustique Decorating 70.47 Real One Acquisition 708.05 Royal Crown Beverage 31.10 Scanner World, USA 41.99 Snap on Tools--Chase 196.00 Don Streicher Guns 34.95 SOS Printing 104.20 Sutphen Corp 419.80 Twin City Home Juice 10.74 Thrifty Snyder 36.36 Thurk Bros. Chev 1,187.64 Title Insurance 380.00 Tri State Drilling 978.18 Thorpe Distrib 3,730.52 Village Chev 8.89 Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton 1,450.OO Widmer Bros. 1,O74.16 Ziegler, Inc. 45.76 Zack's Inc 38.80 Vernon Anderson 850.00 Gayle Burns 40.83 Commiss of Revenue 6,O39.O6 Robert Cheney 1.,430.00 Sheryl Cicchese 50.00 .Bill.Clark Oil 210.57 Bill Clark Oil 878.29 First Line Tours 540.00 Griggs, Cooper 2,191.O9 Robert Johnson 640.00 Johnson Bros. Liq 2,789.46 Peter Johnson 455.11 Wm Koenig 486.10 Dr. Lauer 1.16 Metro Waste Control 29,986.80 City of Mound 43.63 Natl League of Cities 20.00 Merry Peterson ~5.OO Ed Phi~tips 1,639.55 Quality Wine 2,772.68 · 'Del Rudolph 296.25 Del Rudolph 24.86 Mrs. Schmidt 40.00 John Taffe 400.00 'R.L. Youngdahl 3,261.OO Bryan Rock Products 74.39 Ben Franklin 80.50 Louisville Landfill 21.OO Minnegasco 183.71 Wm Mueller & Sons 1,O81.O2 Northern States Power 3,497.91 October 23, 198~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on October 23, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney ~s~'~, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Jerry Longpre, Robert Triplett, Vern Genslinger and Bruce M. Polaczyk (representatives fr6m Hennepin County Department of Transportation), Jody Kruse. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. PUBLIC HEARING; DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS FOR OCTOBER The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak with regard to a delinquent utility bill. No one responded. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-176 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,857.86 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUT-OFF WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE AccOUNTS .... The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CaSE MOUND DRY GOODS, dba LONGPRE'S, 2900 COMMERCE BLVD, SIGN PERMIT Jerry Longpre presented drawings of the proposed awning on which his store name would be printed. He further explained that Jody Kruse of 2 plus 2 which is located in the same building, but down the street would also be putting up an awning that would be different in color but the same design and printing for her shop. The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission has recommended approval even though according to the sign ordinance nothing should ~ project over the right-of-way more than 18 inches. The Planning Commission felt that the principal use of the sign is an awning and thus recommended approval. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-177 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE 222 October 23, 198~ SIGN PERMIT AS REQUESTED BY MOUND DRY GOODS, dba LONGPRE'S AT 2300 COMMERCE BLVD. The vot~ was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~8q.366: ROBERT TRIPLETT, ~?I, WILSHIRE BLVD,, LOTS $ & ~, BLOCK 10, AVALON, 2,7 FOOT ~ 12 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE The City Manager explained that Mr. Triplett is requesting variances to construct an attached 24 foot by 24 foot garage to his existing dwelling. The variances required are a 12 foot frbnt yard variance (front yard setback of 30 feet) and a side yard variance of 2.7 feet (sideyards of 10 feet and 8 feet are required for lots of record with a lot width of 80 to 100 feet). The Staff recommendation is to approve the 12 foot front yard variance due to the shape of the lot and preserving of the sparse forestation on the property. The Staff however, did not recommend approval of the 2.7 foot side yard setback as a hardship, but recommended that the applicant reduce the size of the garage to 22 feet x 24 feet, which would only require a .7 foot side yard variance. The Planning Commission approve the variances as per the Staff's recommendations. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-178 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES FOR LOTS 3 AND ~, BLOCK 10, AVALON, PID ~19-117-23 31 0025 (~371 WILSHIRE BLVD.) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Mayor asked that the Council check into the vacating of old Wilshire Blvd. in front of the applicants house. When the new road was constructed it was realigned and this property should have been vacated at that time. If it had been done the applicant would no longer need the front yard variance. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to have the Staff cheek into the possible vacation of the old road in from of ~571 Wllshire Blvd. by checking with all the utilities and the engineers to see if it is needed for anything. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 223 October 23, 1984 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PLANS FOR COUNTY ROAD 15 IMPROVEMENT Mr. Vern Genslinger and Mr. Bruce Polaczyk from the Hennepin County Department of Transportation were present and went over the plan in detail with the Council. The Council thanked Hennepin County for their cooperation. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8q-179 RESOLUTION APPROVING HENNEPIN COUNTY'S PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR CSAH NO. 15 Th~ vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Paulsen stated that though he favors a wider road if the County Engineers recommend a 40' road and think it will be safe and an improvement then he will go along with it. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF KILDARE ROAD EAST OF THE WEST LOT LINE OF LOT $9~ BLOCK 11~ SETON Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set November 13, 198q, as date for a public hearing on the proposed vacation of Kildare Road east of the'west lot line of Lot 39, Block 11, Seton. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. LIQUOR INSURANCE REQUIREMENT FOR USE OF THE DEPOT The City Manager explained that the Staff is running into a problem when renting the Depot for occassions where the renters want to serve liquor. This happens 10-20 times per year. The problem is that the City requires that the renter provide insurance coverage which holds the City free from liability (Host Liquor). Since we are dealing with many different insurance agents, some are requiring people to pay approximately $300 for a policy which the renters feel is exorbitent. The options are: 1. Not to allow iiquor at the Depot. 2. Buy a policy that covers this use and pro-rate its cost over the 10-20 users that need it each year. 3. Require each applicant to provide the coverage themselves, but since "Certificates of Insurance" do not add Mound to their coverage, it is useless. A "Binder" would bind the party and incorporate protection for the City, but agents do not like to bind their companies. The Council discussed the problems. Mayor Polston suggested that the City should have a real complete policy on this if we are to do this. The Council directed the City Manager to check into the 224 October 23, 1984 cost of an insurance policy to cover this and then the Council will decide whether to allow liquor at The Depot and take a formal action. The City Attorney pointed out that $600,000 is now required. COMMENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the cftizens present. There were none. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW WHOLESALE ~ ASSEMBLY AT 2575 WILSHIRE BLVD. - H.E.I., INCh Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to set November 13, 198~, as the date for a public hearing to consider the proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow wholesale and assembly at 2378 Wilshire Blvd., H.E.I., Inc. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SECTION $2,08 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING. TO HOURS OF SALE The City Clerk explained that the Council has amended all but one of the ordinances relating to liquor and the hours of sale on election days. We have amended others to be governed by what the state law provides. The non-intoxicating and intoxicating malt liquor ordinance, Section 32.08 of the City Code now needs to be amended. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following ordinance amendment: ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 32.08 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOURS OF SALE The.vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE NOVEMBER 198~ GENERAL ELECTION Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~8~-180 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE NOVEMBER 6, 198~, GENERAL ELECTION The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILL~ The bills were presented for consideration. 225 October 23, 1984 Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the payment off bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount Of $99,539.36, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BIDS; 198~-85 CBD SNOW REMOVAL ~ FALL CLEAN-UP BIDs The City Manager reported that we received two bids for each of the above. They were as follows: 1984-1985 CBD SNOW REMOVAL 1. ILLIES & SONS - A. Front End Loaders (2 or 2 1/2 yd. buckets) Be Ce Trucks: Single Axle, 6 yd. box Tandem Axle, 12 yd. box Other Equipment to be Used: 1. Plow Trucks 2. Bob Cats 3. Road Grader $42.00/hour $30.00/hour $38.00/hour $33.00/hour $35.00/hour $38.00/hour Widmer Bros., Inc. A. Front End Loaders Be Trucks: 12 yd. Dump Truck Other Equipment to be Used: 1. Snow Plow 2. Blade 3. Sand & Salt $62.00/hour & $40.00/hour $40.00/hour $40.00/hour $50r00/hour $32.00/yard The Staff is recommending Illies& Sons be awarded the bid on the basis that it is low bid overall. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-181 RESOLUTION TO AWARD ILLIES & SONS THE BID FOR THE 1984-85 SNOW REMOVAL The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carmied. FALL CLEAN-UP BIDS 1. Illies& Sons (all dumping charges included $4,250.00 2. Westonka Sanitation (all dumping charges inleuded $4,380.00 Councilmember Peterson stated that he has spoken with Mr. Zuccaro of Westonka Sanitation and he believes that the reason he cannot compete with Illies on this bid is because Mr. Illies of taking all the leaves and maybe some of the other refuse to his farm in 226 October 23, 1984 Minnetrista and dumping there at no charge whereas, Mr. Zuccaro must take all his refuse to a approved landfill. The City Attorney suggested that if the Council wished to be sure that the refuse was being taken~to an approved landfill, they should specify that in the bid specifications. The Council asked that in the future this be added to the specs. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-182 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE BID OF ILLIES & SONS FOR THE 1984 FA~LL CLEAN__UP IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,250.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REPORT REGARDING LOST LAKE HAZARDOUS WASTE STUDY The City Manager submitted a letter from Braun Engineering and a map of the site. He explained that we are working with the PCA and now have a plan for digging up 3 areas of the site to determine if there are an hazardous wastes in those areas. If there are none, the PCA will remove the site from the hazardous waste list. He will keep the Council informed as the study progresses. INFORMAT'~ON/MISCELLANEOUS A. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting October 8, 1984 Notice of Open House at Westonka Elderly & Handicapped' Building, October 24, 1984, from 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. C. AMM Bulliten on activities of importance. D. Letter from Dow-Sat of Minnesota regarding the amount of money · .the City will be receiving from the revenues. The City Manager reported that KTCA has taken the local weather channel off the system. This consisted of a camera that showed a constant picture of radar weather for the Twin City Area. Dow-Sat would like the City to write a letter asking that this service be continued. Councilmember Peterson agreed and stated he has had several calls regarding this service being retained for the system, because we are on the edge of the Cities and alot of time the weather has already passed us before we get any notification on the radio or T.V. of an approaching storm. The Council discussed this and they all agreed it is a needed service. 22? October 22, 1984 Charon moved and Peter$on seconded a motion directing the City Hanager to write a letter to the proper authorities a~king that this service be continued on our Cable System. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. E® Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Agenda for October 18, 1984. Letter from Jim Larson regarding the City Hall roof and the City's legal action against Sander & Co. G. Metro Council Review - September 28, 1984.. H~- Notice of the Sewer Service Area Advisory Board Meeting to be held October 17, 1984. I. American Legion Post #398 Gambling Report for September. J. New article regarding workers salaries. Memo from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding 1984 Legislative Issues of Importance to Cities. L. Ind. School District #277 Minutes September 10, 1984. M. Directory of Local Government Officials. SET DATE FOR ELECTION CANVASSING MEETING Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion t'o set November- 7, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. for the City Election Canvassing Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk BILLS OCTOBER 23, 19~4 American Water Works Assn 49.00 Air Comm 390.00 AutoCon Industries 619.70 Acro-MN 60.67 Areawide Locksmith 606.05 Blackowiak S Son 71.50 Holly Bostrom 168.OO Burlington Northern 533.33 Donald Bryce 100.00 Butch's Bar Supply 137.25 Baldwin Supply 114.96 B & M Proclean 50.00 Bowman Distribution 203.92 Braun Environmental 1,097.00 Bachman Printing 286.70 Bill Clark Oil 16.20 · Coast to Coast ._ . 136.03 Continental Telephone !,170.21 City Wide Services 5.50 Robert Cheney 367.00 Chemlawn 2,056.00 Dictaphone 578.56 Fire Control ExtinguiSher 20.00 Farmers Steel Co. 48.63 A1 Gerald Welding 1,340.OO Eugene Hickok & Assoc 1,101.O3 Happy's Potato Chips 48.76 Hecksel Machine Shop 376'.00 J B Distributing 175.80 J J Printing 20.00 J & R Refrigeration 116.80 Thomas Jacobs 42.50 Kromer Co. 95.45 Koehnens Standard 17.67 LOGIS 1,811.11 The Laker 104.95 League of MN Cities 3,484.00 'Lehn Electric 184.75 Lake Upholstery 55.00 City of Minnetrista 41.OO McCombs-Knutson 322.00 Minnegasco 3.00 Minnesota Fire, Inc. 199.53 Mound Fire Dept 3,328.55 Mound Medical Clinic 34.75 Mtka Refrigeration 65.00 Munitech, Inc. 7.50 Metro Fone Communications 21.51 Medical Oxygen & Equip 10.00 Mpls Oxygen Co. 21.O0 NSP NW Bell Telephone Optim Construction Popham Haik PDQ Food Stores Pitney Bowes Credit Brad Roy Radio Shack Spring Park Car Wash Don Streicher Guns Sterne Electric SOS Printing State Bank of Mound Uni tog Water Products Widmer Br6s. Westonka Community Serv. Xerox Lutz Tree Serv Jim Thompson Badger Meter Donald Bryce Gayle Burns Robert Cheney Direct Prop. Taxation Jon Elam Emery's Tree Serv Grlggs Cooper Shirley Groth Johnson Bros. Liq Robert E Johnson Knox Lumber Evert Lehtola Mutual Benefit Life MN Documents Mound Postmaster Doug Novy Const Quality Wine Ed Phillips Deloris Schwalbe~ Howard Simar State Treas Swenson Nursery John Taffe TOTAL BILLS 4,837.88 248.46 7,137.OO 175.80 1,252.36 26.00 18.37 15.83 60.75 49.39 196.23 51.65 17.30 277.17 532.36 5,837.20 · 4,453.19 2,025.85 7,360.00 1,167.05 100.O0 350.00 15.OO 350.00 27,163.63 25.10 239.20 2,605,23 57,28 3,115.96 706.0o 96.12 ..... 3o. o 577.37 10.85 6OO.OO 595.OO 2,389.24 1,172.42 48.53 313.75 451.67 490.80 382.50 99,539.36 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW WHOLESALE AND ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS AT 2378 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD - HEI INC. (Formerly Ms. Dee Inc.) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, November 13, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., the City Council will hold a public hearing at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, on the application for a Conditional Use Permit for Wholesale and Assembly Operations at 2378 Wilshire Boulevard legally described as follows: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F PID Numbers 13-117-24 34 0023/0024/0025/0026/0027/0028/0029/0030. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553.1950 TO: Planning C~mission and Staff FR~M: Mark Koegler, City Planner October 16, 1984 SUBJ~2T: Conditional Use Permit - Assembly Operation CASE NO: 84-367 APPLICANT: HEI, Inc. LOCATIC~: · 2378 Wilshire Boulevard (Ms. Dee Building) EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-l) ~SIVE PI,~N: Cc~mercial BACKGROO1Nq): In 1979, the City Council approved Resolution 79-327 which permitted Ms. Dee, a jewelry manufacturer, to construct a 9,900 square foot building at 2378 Wilshire Boulevard. At the time., it was agreed that a 26-car parking lot was adequate for the building due to the low employee requirements of the business. Ms. Dee ceased operation and structure has remained vacant for scm~ time. HEI is proposing to acquire the building and establish a research, assembly and storage facility. HEI produces optical readers, optical switches, light pens and integrated hybrid circuits (see enclosed material). COMMENTS: Section 23.625.3 of the B-1 provisions allows wholesale and assembly operations as a conditional use. The HEI proposal calls for initial occupancy of approximately one-half of the 9,900 square foot building with the vacant area used for future expansion. Research functions will occupy approximately 1,000 square feet, assembly will occupy 2,000 square feet and 2,000 square feet will be allocated to storage. It is estimated that employment in t~e initial stage of occupancy will range frcm 10 to 16 people. Upon ccmplete use of the building, HEI anticipates approximately 40 employees. Planning Cu~ission and Staff Page Two October 16, 1984 The only major issue presented by this proposal is parking. The 26 available surface lot stalls will be adequate to handle employee and visitor parking demand at the present time. Upon full occupancy, however, the lot will not have enough capacity. There are a number of possible solutions to this situation including construction of another parking facility on a detached parcel or use of existin~ public parkir~ in the No Frills Center. Previous City Council action Specifically excluded on-street parking frcm calculations of available spaces. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for HEI, Inc., contingent upon the stipulation that as the business continues to expand and grow, the company shall be responsible for the provision of off-street parking for (~ployee and visitor use. L:; 0 F MOUND CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of Property Case Fee Pa i d~=2.~'.2 2. Legal Description of Property: Date Filed Addition Shirley Hills, Unit F 0wner's Name. HEI ~ inc. 2378 Wilshire Blvd. Lot 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, &10 Block 2 PID No. 13-117-24 34 0023/0024/0025/ · 0026/0027/0028/0029/0030 Day Phone No. 443-2500 Address 1495 Steiger Lake Lanet Victoria, MN 55386 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Robert L. Geib Day Phone No. 472-3190 Address 7011 Halstead Drive, Mound, MN Type of Request: ( ) Variance (X) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) AmEndment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning' District Existing Use(s) of Property ]~9ht Nas an application ever been made for zoning,'variance, or conditional use permit'or other zoning procedure for this property? ve~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken an8 provide Resolution No.(s) Cop~es of previous ~solutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be require~.~,_~/,~~by law. Signature of Applicanti/~//~~/~'/~~~ Date -'Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date Procedure for Conditional ~se Permit (2) case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utillties, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction. F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City ~taff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill Request for a Conditional Use A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule provldlng reasonable guarantees for the completlon of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Conditional Use (Specify): research anrt rl~Tmlngmmnt-; light electronic assembly and storage 2~ Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound Ce De Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ Density (for residential developments only): 1. Number of structures: 2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. Number of type: Efficiency. ' 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3. Lot area per dwelling unit: ' 4. Total lot area: IV. Effects of the Proposed Use me List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. 7 HEI inc. VICTORIA. MINNESOTA 55386, U.S.A. · PHONE (612) 443-2500'· TWX 910-578-3961 -HEI"INTRO~DUCES'NEW FAMILY OF OPTICAL DOCUMENT READERS For Immediate Release MINNEAPOLIS, August 6 -- HEI inc. today introduced a new family of technologically advanced optical document readers. HEI management contends these revolutionary units are superior to anything currently on the market for optically scanning documents such as lottery tickets and marked or punched cards and then transferring that data to a computer. REI's new optical readers .include micro processor-based models that easily can be interfaced with small or large computers. They also can more rapidly read any color or black-and-white marking on cards and other documents 3-1/4 and 4-1/4 inches wide. Some models are easily programmable on even a personal computer, for example, and can be automatically ad3usted to determine what is and isn't a valid mark. In addition to being 50 percent smaller and capable of reading data more than twice as fast, HEI's new optical document readers contain inter-changeable, replaceable assemblies and only four moving parts. Robert L. Geib, HEI president, said these features will provide customers with easier assembly, less maintenance and expedited repair service. Geib said HEI's new opto-electronic readers, which include models that are built into OEM systems or stand alone with a personal computer, can replace any existing card reader on the market. He added that these patented new products will enable HEI to gain a greater share of existing markets -- primarily data collection for legalized gaming and educational testing and attendance -- plus enter major new areas such as'psychological testing and inventory control. Optical card and document readers , constitute the company s largest product group, contributing sales of more than $4 million in 1983. "We have been working on this new technology for several years," Geib said. "There's absolutely nothing close to these new products on the market. Customers who earlier saw prototypes of our advanced card reader with its simplified design were very enthusiastic. We bel%eve these products will be very well received in the marketplace. This is the first in a series of new products to be introduced by HEI." HEI's new optical document readers will sell for $380 and up, depending on customized options. Geib said shipments of these products will commence in the last quarter of calendar 1984 HEI, a suburban M~nneapolis company traded on the NOTC market, also designs, manufactures and markets optical switches and assemblies, light pens and integrated hybrid circuits· For More Information, Contact: To Our Stockholders: Fg~ wthisca11983 was a ar of continued for HEI. Sales rose 22.3 percent to more than $8.5 million, com- pared to $6.9 million the prior year. Earnings for the fiscal year ended August 31 rose 14.2 percent, fa'om $617,575 to $705,269. Earnings per shrove, adjusted for a 20 percent s.*ock dividend, increased 11.1 percent from $.45 in 1982 to $.50 thi.s past year. Our earnings substz'.~Sal inxesh-nents in people and equipment, especially in the engineer- hxg, quality control and hybrid integrated Omit areas. These inves{ments were necessary to continue our solid growth and also to diversify so we are better protected from economic and market fluctuations. While these invest- ments created additional overhead and somewhat weakened year-to-year earnings comparisons, they already are contribut- ing to our growth. Our backlog, which was $4.2 million at fiscal year end, rose to a record $5.9 mil- lion by October 1 as we set a monthly record for new orders during September. The greater diversi- fication we are seeking through these major investments was evident even in fiscal 1983 as all four product groups regi- stered sales increases of at least 16 pea-cent over 1982. Sales of optical card readers -- used primarily in legalized gaming and educational testing and a~endance -- rose 21.2 percent to more than $4 million. These optical card readers continue to be our leading product, represent- ing 47 percent of our 1983 sales. More and more cities; states and nations are author- izing gaming to raise tax revenues that are being stretched tightly because of federal cutbacks and grow- ing social concerns. In fact, some gaming officials pre- dict that every one of our 50 states will have some sort Optical switches and assemblies rallied in 1983 with sales of $2.1 million, up 16.7 percent over 1982, for two reasons: · Improving economic conditions; and · Our ability to suc- cessfully compete in the custom, value-added markets such as data processing, medical in- stmmentation and co:n- puter peripherals which need sophisticated rather than standard switches and assemblies. Light pens, which are being used extensively by insurance and lending institution employees to select and analyze data, generated sales of almost $1.4 million in 1983. That was a 16.7-percent increase over 1982. With approxi- mately 35,000 light pens in the field, I-lEI is a major manufacturer in the busi- ness graphics light pen market. We also intro- duced light pens for use with IBM, Apple and Zenith personal compu- ters this past year. Sales of hybrid inte- grated drcuits increased to approximately $300,000 as we began more aggres- sively marketing this tech- nology. This segment of our business includes communications, indus- h-ial, automotive and com- puter companies, and w/Il become increasingly impor- tant to our growth plans. TodaM we are playing an even greater role in tl-.e high-technology explosion -- raging from our involve- ment with the personal com- puter proliferation to dec- tronic circuit minm' turization. conlSnue, and even acceler- ate, our emphasis on new and improved technology, we have established new product planning as the respons~ility of Gerald Jablinski, a vice president and one of HEI's founders. ~s fo~ht and lxod- uct knowledge wi]! be ext~mely valuable in th~ ~creasin§ly Lmportant area. He also. will continue to oversee Our qualify assurance programs. ?o support our new product pla_m~n§ and an- tidpated growth, we have made substantial ~- ments in new equipment and people ~or manu~ac- tm~§ en~neefi~§ and development engineefin§. Our large~ invest- ment, however; was in the hybrid integrated circuit area where we spent approximately $500,000 man~acturing equipment and facilities. This expansion gives us a 10-fold increase in our ability to prodace complex hybrid integrated circuits and has helped us enter a major national market. We also continued to invest in our commitment to our strong list of cus- tomers, many of whom are ~ortune ~ companies. When component parts became difficult to obtain in the fourth quarter because suppliers had significantly lowered their inventories during the recession and could not meet our needs, we ob- tained them at higher costs and worked overtime to meet delivery dates. But going that extra mile for our major clients was an investment in our future. Such commitment has convinced our customers of HEI's dependability- even when times get rough and supplies tight. While these major im~slments in people, equipment and customers may hinder profit maxgins in the first part of fiscal 1984, we remain staunchly committed to managing this company for the long term. As we enter our 16th year, we view HEI as an emerging electronics com- pany positioned for sub- Although severely tested during the recent reces- sion, we remained finan- dally strong and became more diversified. HEI's management is insistent that we out- perform the rest of our industry and the general economy as business improves. We intend to do just that, whether it is through new products, ex- panding mart..-.~, improved quali~ acquisitions or joint ventures. The board, manage- ment and employees of HEI appreciate the strong support and confidence we have received from our stockholders and the finan- tinue to stdve for improved operating results to further substantiate that your faith in I-lEI has been well placed. Robert L. Geib President I-lEI Products and Markets HEI' s versatile optical card readers are being used with per- sonal computers in schools for rapid test-scoring and attendance functions. These tasks pn~ously were done by large main frame systems. HE/also offers softu~re packages for these applications. HEI's four major prod- uct groups enjoyed grow- ing"niche" markets and had strong customer acceptance in 1983. The company's solid sales growth in recent years is due partly to im- proved quality, more diver- sifted products, innovative engineering and prompt customer service. The company's custom-designed devices generally are sold to major manufacturers and become important components in, or accessories to, sophisti- cated electronic equipment. HEI's product groups con- sist of: Optical card read- ers, optical switches and assemblies, light pens and hybrid integrated ch'ctfits. Optical Card Readers New legalized gaming systems throughout the nation have made optical card readers HEI's leading product. Used primarily in lotteries, HEI optical card readers scan marked or punched cards and tickets and then transfer that data to a computer. There are now 17 states plus the District of Columbia which operate lotteries, up from only eight states 10 years ago. Gross U.S. lottery reve- nues are expected to ex- ceed $4 billion in 1983. Gaming offidals predict that at least 10 additional states will add lotteries in the next decade to raise revenues to offset federal cutbacks and ever tighten- ing budgets. Some predict that all 50 states will have lotteries within the next 10 years. In addition to govern- ments consid--'ring legal- ized betting for the first time, there are two other major markets for this prod- uct in the gaming industry: · Gaming operations converting from manual or keyboard data entry to faster computerized record- keeping systems; and · A growing replace- ment market. HEI optical card readers, which had 1983 sales exceeding $4 million, also are being used for on- track horse race betting in South Africa. HEI has played an important role in the advancement of gaming's improved record keeping by supplying its reliable optical card readers to Control Data Corporation's 'Iicketron Division, the rec- ognized "on-line" industry leader. The company's card readers offer several sigrti- ficant advantages in this growing gaming business, includh~g the capability to: · Accurately read crumpled cards and tickets; "Markets for many of our high-quality optoelectronic products are expanding rapidly with today's tech- nology explosion. In some cases, that growth has come from applications that cus- tomers never considered when a product was first introduced." --Roger Young, vice president of marketing and sales · Decipher various ink colors or pencil marks; · Allow gaming organ- izations to place more bets in.a short period of time; · Reduce computer operator time and errors; · Offer immediate can- cellation and verification. While there is sub- stantial growth in optical card readers for legalized gaming, there also are other significant potential markets. One is education where schools are begin- ning to use HEI attendance and test-scoring software with the company's card readers. There are more than 100,000 primary and secondary schools in the United States alone. Many of these insti~tions are converting to micro and personal computers along with olMical card readers and various software [o rapidly perform several ad- minislzative tasks. Of the leading companies pursu- ing ~ marke[, HEI is the only firm which offers software for attendance and test scoring that is compah~le with personal computers. Optical card readers play an important role in data entry for legalized gaming. Above, HEI' s card readers are tested on Con- trol Dala's Ticketron Division assembly line. These optoelec- tronic devices quickly scan cards and tickets marked in various ink colors or pencil and then transfer that data to a major computer system. Optical switches and assemblies play important roles in various sophisticated equipnlent used today. Above, HEI optical switches control the speed of a computer's hard dise drive . data is not scrambled transmission. Another promising new market for optical card readers is in corporate personnel departments where HEI products have helped simplify training and employee evaluation. HEI continues to explore adc"'~ional uses for its optical card readers, espedally with the grow- lng use of personal computers. Optical Switches and Assemblies While portions of the elec- tronics industry have con- centrated on less expen- sive, standard switches and assemblies, HEI has focused on the custom end of the market. The com- pany has been able to compete more effectively in this area by offering superior engineering, rapid turnaround as well as excellent quality and service to major OEM customers. Typical applications that require more sophis- ticated switches and assemblies include paper feeding for high-speed line printers and fluid detec- tion in blood analyzers. As another example, HEI optical switches sup- plied to a large computer manufacturer control the speed of a hard disc drive, making sure data is not garbled in transmission. Optical switches and assemblies represented about 25 percent of HEI's sales, or $2.1 million, in 1983 -- a 17-percent in- crease owr the previous year. Light Pens HEI introduced several new light pen products during the year, including models for narrow field of view, color applications and for use with 1BM, Apple and Zenith personal computers. These new products contributed to ght pen sales of almost 1.4 million, an increase of about 17 percent: As our sodety becomes even more computerized, HEI light pens will con- tinue to gain popularity. In the last few years, their use "There is no more complex problem or rewarding goal than to be known as a com- pany of excellence. Nothing exceeds our commitment to q~ality:' --Robert Pitel, vice president of operations 311o HEI' s "user friendly" light pens enaHe people to operate compu- ter terminals faster and more accurately by eliminating many keyboard operations. Below, the company's light pens are used at Lee Data Corporation for rapid data retrieval. "There are still far more uses for HEI's basic optoelec- tronic technology in today's marketplace. We intend to aggressively develop new products to meet the needs of today's rapidly changing technology:' --Gerald lablinski, vice president of new product planning and quality assurance has grown substantially in the medical market. For example, doctors now use the product to circle tumors on an x-ray for computer analysis. Other medical personnel are using light pens for quicker data selection from computer terminals. What once seemed like a limited market continues to ex- rapidly select, analyze and process significant amounts of data. Some use light pens to operate computer ter- minals more quickly and pand significantly, efficiently than through ? .~;.: Business graphics is traditional keyboard · :':::~' -, another large market for instructions. This latter HEI light pens as insur- application is important ance and lending institu- because more and more tion employees are using these products to more Sophisticated new equipment and "clean room' fadlities have created tremendous improvment in HEI' s hybrid integrated dr- cuit manufacturing capabilities. The company's new wafer saw (upper left) allows predsion cut- ting of ceramic ntaterials. Bottom, a new laser trimmer tests and trims miniaturized integrated circuits more than 50 times fasler and 5 to 10 times more precise than older equipment. At right, a surface profile meas- uring system on a floating table fastidiously measures the thick- ness of resistors on a hybrid integrated circuit used in all le El products as well as other ctron ic devices. people are being asked to use a computer. Rather than spend the time and money to train various · workers to use terminals, companies are instMling "user friendly" light ens that allow people to ~4y. pass the key.board and operate the computer simply by pointing at data selections on the screen. HEI continues as the indust-ry's leading man- ufacturer for business graphics with approx- imately 35,000 light pens now in use. ~ybrid Integrated Ctrcuits A 1983 investment of approximately $500,000 for hybrid integrated circuit production provides HEI with state-of-the-art equip- ment and facilities. This new equipment and "dean room" facility enable the company to in- crease productivity lO-fold while substantially improv- ink quality. Rather than b~ limlted to smaller orders of hybrid circuits, I-lEI now can compete in the telecommunications industry, for instance, where orders of 10,000 to 100,000 hybrid drcuits are common. HEI's new laser trimmer, for example, can trim and test 56 elec- trical resistors in 23 seconds within one-half of a per- cent tolerance. Our older equipment took 30 seconds per resistor and was 5 to 10 times less precise. Hybrid integrated circuitry also allows engineers to consolidate electronic or ek. cx"ro- mechanical elements in one small device rather than using larger printed circuit boards that take up far more room, sometimes cost more and often aren't as reliable. This hybrid cir- cuit miniaturization can reduce the size previously required for a printed cir- cuit board 3 to 20 times, facilitating manufacturing as well as service work. We enthusiastically are pursuing this custom integrated hybrid market which industry analysts say is growing 13 percent annually and could reach $12 bill/on by 1990. The "niche" market we are entering is estimated at $200 million to $400 million in annual sales. Robert Pitel, vice president of operations, and President Robert Gei[ right, examine some technical production work ,b~_'ng perfvrmed in the company s suburban Minneapolis manu- facturing facilities. .:] I I.'l, ................ ;, 0 ,/ RESOLUTION 79-327 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A C0~IERCIAL USE IN BLOCK 2 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "F" Ms Dee Inc., located at ~8 Wilshire Boulevard, is planning on constructing a new building with dimensions of 90 x 110 for a total of 9,900 square feet, and WHEREAS, the provision of Section 23.30 Subd 1 Subsection (e) of the City Code requires 3 square feet of parking for each 1 square foot of store floor area and this would require 165 parking spaces, and WHEREAS, the owner of the property contends that their intent is 'to use the property as a distribution center and assembling area for costume jewelry and they do not require the large number of parking spaces required by Section 23.30 Subd 1 Subsection (e) and that they would like to build the building and provide a reasonable amount of parking and open space and green area which will be more aesthestically attractive to the community, and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned that the property will be used for Commercial uses which require more parking than is proposed or is in effect able to be provided on the property and therefore the Council does not desire to grant a variance which provides less than the number of spaces required unless the owner agrees that all future uses will be submitted to this Council.for review and/or the owner will conform to all existing parking requirements then required by the Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: The request to construct a building of approximately 9,900 square feet is granted subject to the following conditions: (a) The owner will provide 26 parking spaces and a green landscaped area as set forth'in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of this permit. (b) The uses permitted in the building shall be limited to assembling and distributing costume jewelry and necessary office and shipping space. Any and all other uses in this structure or any expansion of the existing uses shall require.an amendment to this permit. (c) The owner must agree that any other uses proposed for this building will be brought before this Council for review of the parking requirements and if the use requires, in the City Council's opinion, more than 26 spaces, the owner shall then provide the required number of spaces. If' the property cannot provide the parking deemed necessary the.owner agrees that the use will not be permitted in the building. No parking areas on public streets shall be counted in meeting the require- ment of the Zoning Ordinance. (d) This variance'covers the entire property and incorporates conditions existing in current outstanding Special Use Permits and in all City ordinances and is a variance only as to parking spaces. (e) All ~hanges in use are to be referred to the ' Planning Commission for recommendation and all Public Hearings required by the Ordinance shall be held. 2. None of the uses on this property shall have any outside storage or display areas. This Variance shall not become effective until the current owner has signed a copy of this resolution agreeing to be bound by the conditions contained in paragraph 1 and 2 and he further agrees ~o provide any new owner with a copy of this resolution and agrees to inform any new purchaser of the special conditions which restrict the uses of this property. Agreed to by petitioner, Ms. Dee, Inc. 2361 Wilshire Blvd., Mound, MN 55364 dated Witness dated Witness dated Adopted by Council this 14th day of _6~gust .., 1979 OA~B ~ON $'~ ~Z SS"qBd),O ~ 9~ o z PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 84-367 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEI, INC., 2378 WILSHIRE BLVD., PID#13-117-24 34 OO23/ 0024/0025/0026/0027/0028/0029/0030 WHEREAS, HEI, Inc. has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a research, assembly and storage facility to occupy approximately one-half of the 9,900 square foot building with the vacant area to be u~ed for future expansion; and WHEREAS, the research functions will occupy approximately 1,000 sq. ft., assembly will occupy 2,000 sq.~ft, and 2,000 sq. ft. will be allocated to storage; and WHEREAS, the 26 surface parking lot stalls will be adequate to handle employee and visitor parking demand at the present time as previously approved under Resolution 79-327 for the former building owner; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does recommend approval of the conditional use permit upon staff recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Mn. does approve the Conditional Use Permit,as requested, by HEI, Inc. to operate a wholesale and assembly operation as provided under the B-1 zoning district provisions upon the stipulation that as the business continues to expand and grow, the company shall be responsible for the provision of off-street parking for employee and ~isitor .use at Lots3 through 10, Block 2, Shirley Hills, Unit F, 2378 Wilshire Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, i984 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. 84-367 Conditional Use Permit for Wholesale and Assembly Operations at 2378 Wilshire Boulevard - Lots 3 thru 10, Incl., Block 2, Shirley Mills Un;t F Robert L. Ge~b, President oF HEI, Inc., was present. The Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his.report. In 1979, the'City Council approved · a resolution ~or parking at Ms. Dees which at that time was a jewelry manufacturer. The structure consisted ofabout 9900.square feet total. At the time of the resolu- tion approval,, it. was agreed that 26 car parking lot was.adequate to handle the needs of the jewelry business; apparently wholesaling did not generate a lot of traffic. Ms. Dees ceased operation ann HEI is considering acqui'ring tha building and utilizing the space for research, assembly and some storage. There is nforma- tion on HEI's products and operation i.n the packet. The proposal calls for the firm to initially occupy less 'than half the building and of that total, about 1,000 square feet would be research facilities; assembly would be about 2,000 square feet and. the other 2,000 square feet woul'd be devoted to storage. Plan is to grow into the additional space as their needs.demand. Initially they are looking at employing about 10.to.16 people depending on the scope of the operation and ultimately they will lookat about 40 empl.oyees. The only major issue here is one of parking. Koegler doesn't know of any noise problems or odor problems, etc. that the facility is going to cause for the surrounding area. Parking will not ,e a problem'either with 26 spaces available for the 10 to 16 persons employee · The Planner's recommendation is that as business grows and they get closer to that 40 employee count and need more parking, the Company be responsible for acquiring off-street parking for employee and visitor use. Discussed parking and whether or not there was public parking in the shopping center; also it was suggested that they might acqui're some of Tonka's parking. Reese moved a motion for approval of the conditional use permit with the provisions Staff recommends. Mr. Geib briefly reviewed his operations stating that most of the sub-assembly work will be done in their other plants; they plan to do final assembly here and develop and research their products at this location. The motion was seconded by Charon. Motion carried. The vote was unanimously in-~favor of approval. The City Council will be asked to hold the public hearing on November 13, 1984. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING AND MARINA AT 2670 COMMERCE BOULEVARD - PID #23-117-24 14 0009 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, November 13, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hold a hearing on the application for a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Dwelling and Marina at 2670 Commerce Boulevard (Property presently known as Surfside Restaurant) and legally described as follows: Unplatted Section 23 Township 117 Range 24 - Commencing at a point in the Easterly line of Lake Avenue in the plat of Mound Bay Park distant 200 feet South along same from South line of Chapman Place thence East 135 feet parallel with said Chapman Place thence South parallel with East line of Lake Avenue to Lake Shore thence West along Lake Shore to East line of Lake Avenue thence Northerly to beginning. PID #23-117-24 14 0009 All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk ;~Oq&3 ' CITY: 0 MOUND ~ AI~LICATI~I',I TO ~L~I~ r-~.(pllease.~'~pe'~h~i..followin9 information) ~.;,~ ~ , ~ . : : .: ' Street Address of Property Case No. Fee Paid ~00, Date Filed ~ ~ 7'~:~t 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot ~-~ ~k~'~l? ~ I Block Addition PID No. '7_3 - 3. Owner's Name ~;~ ~l~4~JA~ ~~~ Day Phone No._~O Address ~o~ ~ ~h~ ~, ~ ~ ~, 4, Applicant (if other than owner): Name o~l-5%gL~{~ I~CS[~'~1) Day Phone No. Address ~c~C~ Type of Request: ( ) Variance ~)~) Conditional Use Permit (~;~) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit (~)*Other Present Zoning District ~ Existing Use(s) of Property o Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be requir~eed b~v~aw. ' ~ ~, ~ ~ignature of Applicant i ~-~-~1~ i'~ ~!',,~'~ Date~-'~-~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date 1 Action: Resolution No. Da !:/P2 .'.i ..' ' ' ° " " ''. I. ;" "J.::'"'*~ ' · ' .~...; ..'--":. ' :, , ... .... of Lot ] 'Plat of ~ . What uart of Subdivision 2 · .,. . ,.,,.: . ~'. Subdivisions Two (2), Three (3)..and Fou.r...(_; of Lot 1, Section 23, Township ].17 North., Kange 24 West described as follows:'. Com~encing'~t"a. point in the Easterly line of Lake Avenue as shown'in the plat of Mound Bay Park, at,a . point'206 feet Southerly along · said line.':frb~..".~.' ' its inter'section with'the'Southerly line 'of " Chapma.n Avenue, also ·known a.s Chapman .'Place'; .... the. nee Easterly paralle.1..with .the.Southerly ..: line .of Chapman Avenue a distance of 135'...:feet; .. thence. Southerly'paral'lel with the..EaS.ter.ly ' · line of. L.~ke Ayehue to the Lake Shore; {'~Hence .? .... '. Westerly. along said 'Lake 'Shore..l'ine to .its' .. .. · . 'intersection with the. Easterly..line'..o.f .Lake .... .: " ' ' ' e .:extended"; thence Northerly 'along. the..:- :'.:..~..'. · ' . Avenu .. . . ·....:'. "',?;....., · . Easterlv line of Lake Avenue, and the.~as.ter_,l.y..~.~:;.. .. · - ' ' ' ' ~ d "to the oint,';o~ · ::.' ::~'..::' ::.' · line of Lake Avenue exten~e .. . '.'.'P..v'.~',,~'." ..'"' ": '" ~-- ~~-',,','~,-,,',. and . " :""';"~"'"'. "" ""'?:" ~ . ~e~....~:.~, , . , · ' , ,' "..,."." '..., .:,' ' .,. PrOcedure for Conditional Use Permit (2) Case #_ ~-~.~r- D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction. F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill Request for a Conditional Use A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Conditional Use (Specify): ~L-~'I~ ~'~t,~l-J-~/.~ ~ 2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound C. Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ ~-\~1~-~ D. Density (for residential developments only): 1. Number of structures: 2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. Number of type: Efficiency 2 Bedroom ~- 3. Lot area per dwelling unit: 4. Total lot area: I Bed room 3 Bed room I'Z¥; 1 IV. Effects of the Proposed Use Ao List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No (X) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: ?lZ .s T clvlt 9'0 C. Do the existing structures comply with all area hei~h~ and bulk regu_~lations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (X) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: ' D, Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable.use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (XX~ Too narrow ( ) Topography ()Soil Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after.the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (X~) If yes, explain: G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar the property described in this petition? Yes .~/~j~ No ( ) only to If no, how many other properties are similarly affecteo~. ' H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.~ Z~t_...~I I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of' this ordinance? BUILDING AREAS CHAPMAN PLACE COOKS BAY - LAKE MINNETONKA MOUND, MINNESOTA UNIT TYPE AREA (APPROX.) lllE ll2A ll3A ll4A ll5G 116 ll7C ll8A ll9A 120A 12lA 122F 2 Bedroom 1,271 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 2 Bedroom 1,127 S.F. Commons - 2 Bedroom + Den 1,288 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 3 Bedroom 1,390 S.F. 211E 212A 21 3A 21 4A 215A 21 6C 217C 21 8A 21 9A 220A 221A 222F 2 Bedroom 1,271 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 2 Bedroom + Den 1,288 S.F. 2 Bedroom + Den 1 ,288 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 1 Bedroom 911 S.F. 3 Bedroom 1,390 S.F. 311E 31 2B 313B 314B 315B 316D 317D 318B 31 9B 32OB 321B 322F Bedroom Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz BR/Den/Mezz BR/Den/Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom + Mezz Bedroom TOTAL NET AREA: Ground Level First Level Second Level Third Level Mezzanines (Parking) TOTAL GROSS AREA: 1 ,271 S F. 1,191 S F 1 ,1 91 S F 1 ,1 91 S F 1 ,1 91 S F 1 ,560 S F 1 ,560 S F 1 ,1 91 S F 1 ,1 91 S F 1 ,1 91 S F 1 ,1 91 S F 1 ,390 S F 39,287 S.F. 23,490 S.F. 15,919 S.F. 15,919 S.F. 15,919 S.F. 2,794 S.F. 74,041 S.F. ER INCORPORATEO 4969 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY * MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55422 TELEPHONE (612) 541-9912 October lO, 1984 Planning Commission and Staff City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: Chapman Place Dear Commissioners and Staff: Pursuant to your comments and concerns expressed at our September 8th hearing, we have attemped to improve our proposal by reducing the project size to it's lowest feasible density and by reducing the variences necessary. We have determined that we can reduce the number of condominium units from 34 to 29 and we have eliminated the need for most variences, (See Sht. S2 and Ex- hi bi t A) We respectfully request that you consider the legislative intent concerning the interior parking requirements. We are unaware of any standard or code anywhere for 12'x22' spaces for interior multi-car garages. Enclosed herewith (Exhibit B) is a copy of the engineering standards for multi-car parking. It would app- ear that the authors of Mound's interior parking size requirement had in mind private garages.and that this varience is only a technical one. ExCluding the interior parking varience we have reduced the number of vaiences from 15 to 3. Of those three note that the rear yard set-back varience has been reduced from 29 feet to 15 feet. More important, as the site plan shows, only a small part of the building away from the lake requires the varience. Looking out towards the lake the building is set back 47 feet (13' more that required) and 37'-41' more thatl is required for a house. As to the front yard set-back, the council resolution that assessed the total cost of the public parking adjacent to the property acknowledged that that area was not really a street and was primarily ancillary to the property. As to the question of the lot area to dwelling unit ratio, we respectfully request that you consider the adjacent ancillary open areas and the improved waterfront recreation facilities available to the residences. Chapman Place continued. Beyond the technical considerations we hope that you wi.ll concur that Chapman Place is a attractive and desireable project for Mound and that you will recommend it to the council. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Thomas W. Prokasky, President cc: J. Elam, R.M. Koegler Encl: Sht. Sl, Exhibit A & B ~mission and Staff September ~8, ~9~4 page 6 Building Height Lot Si ze SetbacKs: Front Rear ~- Stde- North ~ Si de - South Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot Usage ~ Principal Structure ~([ Paving and Decks ~Sr6en Area ~ Commercial 5uilOing ~A~.~ar~ing and Terraces ParKing ,~equiremenr. s ~kTotal Stalls ~-andicapped Stalls -)-,:ndoor Stall Size · ~3utdoor Stall Size ~k(~Handicapped Size T. 7. Driveway & Aisle Width Parking Setbacks ~i~ht-of-way Adjacent Lots Require~ 35' 22,000 Sq. Ft. 51' 34' 34' 34' 3,000 Sq. Ft. 30% Max. 30% Mi n. N.A. ~Of, Max. 2 12' x 22' !0' x 20' 12' x 20' 25' 20' 10' 10' Proposed. 3¢' 44,115 Sq. Ft. 73' 51' 5 .~% >33.7% 30.2% (v) 9' x 15' 15 ~ 9' x 18' 1 @ 9' x 18' Parking Drive 20' Parking Aisle 24~ Underground Drive 22' Underground Aisle 22' -0' f58 ' -.0~ f ~ ,")., ....... ,. , ' ..... :_-_l_- :j-_-=~._d == -= ~: ~ -~, = = :.- =--'----4 ~= - -_-_-_- = ~6' '~0 ' ...... 'l ...... i m--~-L.¢° I-- ~'1, ,, t q.. I , - 'C; ONE ROW . TWO ROWS ] ro~ I '1unll lEI ~. unlt.lEI _/ __j L ...... Al A ; A Al /P, ' /X I /'/2- .: · E = U it Parking Depth (clear span ccnstruct, lonl. Angle-park- lng not feasible i~doors; should be used only ~here space ' ' t b o . . ot perm, t an ~n egral num er of 90 un,t Parking I I 22'-0w ; 18'-0" OoubTe de~t-~ par~lnglbetter *here~ attendant~ do parkln~. I I I ] rD-4 76'-O" I I ~ rows 9q'""O" THREE AND FOUR ROWS Larger cars may pro- trude into aisle; will door ~ERAGE made for columns on thls ;~;e. RECOu~[NOEO STALL & AISLE DIWENSIONS Oi rection No. of Area A of 8 C O E stalls in >er parking len;*.h X s~.ft. x 90° back-la :8"-0" 18'- O" 22~0'' ~8'-O" S 2~2 60° back-;~ a'~- ia'-i0' iT'-q- ~0" x-n ' 9.25- o ~ drlve-ln 8'~" 17'- 2" 12'~" q7~" X-17 266 ~90° back-la 8'~' 18'-0" 22~" ~8~0, X 2~7 8.~ 60° back-in 8'~' 18'-10' lB'-~" 96~0. X-Il 270 9.8 o ~9 dr;ve-;n 8'~" 17'- 2' 12'~" ~7~0,, X-17 282 ~2 ANGLE-PARKING* Us~ 8'-O" for attendant parking; 8'-6" for customer park;ag. ,/,,/.preferred--- ~ PITCH OF RAMPS' ~ ' 6,~~ ~-,.. //~/~,.-0,, ~loor min. min. 20'~" 9LE~IN~ ~MP ~ FLOO~ GRADES· CURVED ~P* ~T~AIGHT ~XMp* ELEVATOR SHAFT DATA FOR COHHERCIAL GARAGES 'Data fr~ "The Traffic Design of Parking Garages" by. E. E. ~;cker~ publlsheff b~ the Eno Founda:ion. When clear span {see table aba~e~ is not a~a~lable~ use 2~"~" bet*cea column faces. Clear ceiling height 1"~". Floor-to-floor height 8~" to ~0~". Super el~,atlon of curved ramps O.Z to O. Z5 foot per foot. *' Provide e,tra width for walks along slde of parking, bay to compensate for bumper overhang. I,, '' ' AIIoe 8'-0' mln., 8'.-6" pref.j 9'"'0" for end cars. - .~Trl-r~-r ~tl I I i I I Curb I ;ne TYPICAL PARKING BAY. 90° PARKING EACH SIDE Usually allow -I- % -~ I I elevator to !CO to l~O cars. Allow 1 minute for delivery. Curb ~,,o. ,'-0- min. gl|LLl t~ = ........... , ---~---~ :,,,;,~, , , ~ I I I I I .' ' ~ ~ ~ I , I i I , I ~c Curb ~, , ' ' ' ,' Curb llne TYPICAL Z -LANE DRIVE.PARALLEL TYPICAL PARKING BAY. o PARKING [ACH 90 PA~KING ~E SIDE OFF-RTRFFT OVERALL (Al TURNING RADIUS TO CLEAR 800¥ OF CAR SO THAT IT WILL NOT HIT THE STONE WALL (HI HEIGH1 OVERALL WIDTH HINIMUM WIDTH OF ROAO '~OR TURNING CAR [dj TIRES CENTER ~0 CENTER TIRES CENTER TO CENTER ~=.~E uODEL YEAR A 8 C D E F G H J K 40 !953 I?' 2" lO' 2" 2' 9" 6' 4" 9' 5' ~" '4' Il" I9' 50 & 70 1993! 17' u" 10' 2" 2' 8" 6' 8" 9' 5' 2" 9' ~" !9' 9" 2D ~0 & 70 1953; 17' ~,, lO, 5,, 2, S,, 6, 8,, 5, 5' 3,, 9, 3" 20' 9. ~0. SPECIAL ~0 195~ 17' 3" !0' 2" 2' !1" 6' 5" ~' !1" 5' 1" ~' !1" 20' i0" .~UICK CS~,TU~Y ~0 195~ 17' )" i0' 2" 2' 11" 6' 9" ~' 11" 9' !" ~' 1!" 29' LO" CENTURY 60 199a 17' ~" 10' 2" 2' ll" 6' 9" ~' 11" 9' O" ~' 1!" 20' 1D" SUPSR ~0 199~ lS' I" !0' 7" 2' 10" 6' 8" ~' ~" 9' ~" 9' ~" 21' 6" SUFEa 90 199~ ~8' i" 10' 7" 2' l~"' 6' S" ~' ~" ~' ~" 9' 3" 21' 6" ...... om''u''Tc~ ~R lO 19~ 18' -1" !0' 7" 2' 10"1 6' 8" ~' i1" 9' ~" 9' 3" 21' 6" ROA~wXSTER 70 !99~ 1S' 1" 10' 7" 2' 10": 6' 8" ~' ~" 9' 1" 5' J" 21' 6" 20 62)7 62)70 6267 1999 18' 9" 10' 6" 2' 9" 6' 8" ~' ii" 5' 1" 9' )" 21' ;" 20 62675 1959 !8' 9" lO' 6" 2' 9" 6' 8" ~' 11" ~' lO" 9' )" 21' 7" 20 6219 1959 18' 10' 6" 2' ~" 6' 8" ~' ~" 9' )" 9' 3" 21' 7" ~019 1993 18' 9" 10' 10" 2' ~" 6' 8" ~' ~" 9' )" 5' )" 22' 1" 79 1999 !9' 9" 12' )" 2' '4" 6' 8" ~' ii" 9' a" 5' ~" 2~' 1" C~D)LLAC 6297 6237D 199a 18' 7" 10' 9" 2' ~" 6' S" 9' 9' 9' )" 29' 8" 20 6267 62675 195~ 18' 7" 10' 9" 2' 7" 6' S" 9' 9' 1" 9' )" 29' 8" 20 6219 199q 18' 10' 9" 2' ~" 6' 8" 9' 9' 2" 9' )" 29' 8" 6019 195~ 18' ~" ~1' l" 2' ~" 6' 8" 9' 5' 2" 9' )" 2~"~" ~D 1502 2102 2~02 190~ 192~ 2L2a 1999 16' ~" 9' ;" 6' ~" ~' 9" ~.9' 9" ~' 11" 19' 20 1908 1999 16' ." 9' 2" 6' ~" ~' 9" 9' 8" ~' 11" 19' 20 1903 210~ 2~0} 199~ 16' q" 9' 7" 6' 3" a' 9" 9' 9" ~' 11" 19' C.EYROLET 1909 2109 2119 199~ 16' 6" 9' 7" 6' ~" ~' 9" 5' 9" ~' 11" 19' qO 1902 1912 2102 21~ 2~02 199~ 16' 9" 9' 7" 6' ~" ~' 9" 9' 9" q' ll" ~9' 20 2q3a 2~5~ 195' 16' 5"~ 9' 7" 6' 3" ~' 9" 5' a" q' ~" 19' ~15~, 199~ !6' 9" 9' 7' 6' J" ~' 9" 9' 8" .' 11" 19' 1503 210~ 2~03 195~ 16' 9" 9' 7" 6' ~" ~' 9" 5' 9" 4' 11" 1509 2109 2~19 1954 16' 7" 9' 7" 6' 3" a' 9" 5' 9" ~' !1" 19' · l;)~r~n~;c~$ ;dent;:al for t.c & :oar :ioof mcdel$ ~JOTE': D;~er.$;ons s,hc*n are to nearest inch above actual s~:e. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 M)nheapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Cc~mission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: October 16, 1984 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Multiple Dwelling and Marina CASE NO: 84-355 APPLICANT: Omni Shelter, Inc., - ~s W. Prokasky LOCATI~: 2670 Ccnmnerce Boulevard (Surfside) EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-i) (I3MP~SIVE ~: C~',~rcial BACKGROUND: This report serves as an update to the staff report of September 18, 1984, ar~ specifically focuses on the revised site plans submitted for Chapman Place dated October 5, 1984. The followir~ topics were addressed in the previous staff report. BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS The applicant has modified the building shape and location which impacts setbacks. According to the new plan, the front yard setback is 4 feet resulting in a 47-foot variance and the rear setback is 19 feet requiring a 15-foot variance. Ccmpared to the original site plan, the front yard variance has increased .5 feet and the rear yard variance has decreased 14.5 feet. DENSITY The total number of units has been reduced from 34 to 29 resulting in an average of 1,521 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit ccmpared to the 3,000 square feet required by the ordinance. The revised site plan represents a gross density of 28.6 units per acre. 13o Plannirg C~n~ission and Staff Page Two October 16, 1984 LOT USAGE The marina and residential condominiums remain as two separate uses on the revised site plan. As mentioned in the earlier report, it may be possible to implement legal procedures to permit the existence of two uses on one parcel, however, staff continues to question their ccmpatibility. The landscaped area, which constitutes the only onsite open space in the project, will not be a private space as it is in virtually all condominium projects. The possibility of the rental of docks to non-condominium owners will require access ts this area by the general public. The revised site plan depicts 28.47 percent of the site as the principal use, landscaping and decks total 36.4 percent and the parking and terraces cover 30.2 percent of the property. All of these fall within ordinance guidelines. PARKING ANDDRIVEWAYS The revised Chapman Place site plan contains 28 units which requires a total of 73 parking stalls. Twenty exterior spaces are contained in a surface lot on the north side of the building. All spaces in within this lot conform to ordinance standards. Within the parking garage, the plan depicts an additional 58 spaces which are 9 feet by 18 feet with an aisle width of 22 feet. At the previous meeting, Mr. Prokasky argued that the ordinance standard of 12 feet by 22 feet for indoor spaces was excessive. He further speculated that the intent of the ordinance was to regulate residential garages rather than individual stalls within parking structures. Since I was not involved in the preparation of the parking standards, I will not attempt to second guess the authors intent. I do, however, agree with Mr. Prokasky~ that the required stall dimension of 12 feet by 22 feet is too large. In order to arrive at a more reasonable interior parking stall standard, I consulted two sources: Architectural Graphics Standards, Sixth Edition (1970) and Parking Garage Planning and Operation published by the Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc., in 1978. Architectural Graphics Standards reccn~ends an interior space dimension of 9 feet by 19 feet and an isle width of 25 feet. The second publication states that stall sizes of 9 feet by 18 feet are most oa~,~on, however, 18.5 to 19-foot stall lengths are more desirable. It further suggests that in 90 degree parking, a 26-foot aisle dimension is desirable. Based upon this information, interior parking falling within a range of 9 by 18 feet to 9 by 19 feet with 25-foot aisle widths seems appropriate. Comments on dockage, grading, drainage, utilities, landscaping, lighting, platting, gasoline storage and trash stora~e that were offered in the original report are still valid. Planning Cut,~-Lission and Staff Pa e Three October 16, 1984 RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant has revised the Chapman Place site plan by removin~ 5 units and adjusting the configuration of the exterior parking lot. These modifications have r~=duced the scale of the project and eased, the impact on the abuttin~ single-family residence. Additionally, the revision has removed 9 of the original 15 variances that were requested. Three of ~the remaining 6 variances are concerned with parking dimensions. Major issues that need to be addressed by the Planning Commission remain essentially unchanged: Is the combination of the residential condcminium structure and marina a ccmpatible land use situation? Is it appropriate for the Surfside site? Is the density of the project (1,521 square feet of lot area per dwelling) consistent with City policy? If the answer to both of these questions is yes, staff rec(m~uends approval of Chapman Place contingent upon the, following conditions: The grading plan should establish the garage floor elevation at or above the City's minimum requirement of 933.5 feet. e A condominium plat consistent with all applicable ordinances and requirements must be filed prior to the transfer of ownership of individual units. e The final grading, drainage and utility plans should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. e A site plan containing all grading and drainage information should be suhuitted and approved by the Watershed District. Be Ail comments, agreements and similar legal devices separating the residential use frcm the commercial marina should be reviewed and approved bythe City Attorney. e Final lighting plans and landscaping plans should be su~uitted to the staff for review and approval. If the Planning Cc~mission approves Chapman Place as proposed, it is suggested that the multiple family dwelling standards be reviewed and possibly modified to reflect a maximum density consistent with this proposal, Lake Winds and the senior housing project. September 5, 1978 Councilman Withhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION 78-427 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS IN SECTION 23 TOWNSHIP 117 RANG~ 24, PLAT 61223 PARCEL O510, AT 2670 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, ALSO KNOWN AS SURFSIDE WHEREAS, the City Council on August 22, 1978, held a Public Hearing pursuant to Section 23.06 Paragraph 3, of the Mound Code of Ordinance, to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for Parcel 0510 of Plat'61223, Sec. 23 Tl17 R24 at 2670 Commerce Boulevard, also known as Surfside for construction of a restaurant with seven apartments above, .and WHEREAS, ali persons wishing to be heard were heaed and the hearing was con- tinued until September 5, 1978, and WHEREAS, Commerce Boulevard is a public dedicated street lying to the west of subject property and basically serves only the Surfside, although it is used by the public to provide access to the public park lying west of Commerce Boulevard, and said street is not improved to City standards, and WHEREAS, the City has a public parking lot which is frequently used by persons patronizing the Surfslde Restaurant because the Su~fside is short of parking. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Conditional Use Permit is hereby granted with the following conditions and variances: A Surety Bond o'r Letter of Credit in the amount of $35,200.00 be pos.te~ to assure the blacktopping of the parking lot, landscaping of the grounds and to cover all other on-site improvements approved as part of this permit. An Escrow Account be established and $2,000.00 shall be deposited with the City to cover extra City costs of legal,engineering and administra- tion; said sum shall'be deposited with the City treasurer prior to' issuance of any building permit. Surfside, Inc. shall acknowledge and agree with the City that this per- mit is subject to the following conditions: They will construct a sprinkling system in the attic of the new structure; said system to be subject to the approval of the Fire Chief. be All the special assessments for paving Commerce Boulevard abutting their property and the adjacent 62 feet of the east side of the park which is to be completed as a City Parking Lot adjacent to 4qla September 5, 1978 Se e e Commerce Boulevard shall be placed as a llen against their property at 2670 Commerce Boulevard as this is the only pri- Vate property benefitted by these ~mprovements. Surfside shall obtain all necessary permits from the L.M.C.D., D.N.R. and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and any other Governmental Agency with authority over this lakeshore. Seating capacity of the new restaurant shall be limited to 201 seats. The following variances have been requested and are approved by the Council with a :finding that this parcel is unique and there are special circumstances which'would create a severe hardship if the variances are not approved. Heighth 6' 11"- the height of 41 feet 11 inches is hereby allowed, the property is low and this will not result in a site problem to abutting property. Parking variance of 15.5 parking spaces; said variance can be approved because of the municipal parking lot adjacent to the site. C. The following.side yard and 1.ake front variances: West side yard variance - 36 feet 8 inches from the building and 20 feet for parking adjacent to a public right-of-way. East side yard variance - 30 feet 8 inches plus 7 feet for parking next to adjacent lot. Lake front variance - 14 feet for main structure and 36 feet for a deck abutting Lake Minnetonka. This permit is granted based upon the following plans and exhibits which are incorporated as a part of this permit. a. Site plan dated July 10, 1978 and marked exhibit A1 as amended by site plan dated August 25, 1978 and marked Exhibit A1 Exp. be Floor plans consisting of 4 pages dated June 2, 1978 - June 2, 1978 - July 20, 1978 and July 20, 1978 marked as exhibits B1 - B2 - B3 and B4. Ce de Exterior Lighting and Sewer and Water Service Plan dated July'20, 1978 and marked exhibit C. Landscape Plan by Donald K. Rippel RLA, dated July 13, 1978 and marked exhibit D - this plan is amended to add landscap- lng as shown on exhibit A1 Exp. 443b September 5, 1978 Petltioneer shall apply for a permit to dredge the area of Lake Minnetonka lying ~outh of the terminus of Commerce Boulevard and. agrees to dredge said area subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was 'duly seconded by Councilmember Swe~son, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; ,Fenstad, Lovaasen, Swenson and Withhart; the following voted against the same; none, with Polston. being absent; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. --~-~.~'~.// / ~ Mayor -' At'test-: ~ity Clerk $135' $050 Harbor tane Suite 104 Minoeapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: September 18, 1984 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Muliple Dwelling and Marina CASE NUMBER: 84-355 APPLICANT: Omni Shelter, Inc., Thomas W. Prokrasky LOCATION: 2670 Commerce Boulevard (Surfside) STING ZONING - Central Business (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted its sketch plan review of the subject proposal on August 13, 1984. The conditional use permit request is based upon the same site plan that was presented during the sketch plan stage. PROPOSAL: Omni Shelter, Inc. is proposing to remove the existing Surfside Restaurant and construct a 35-unit condominium on the site. The building will consist of three floors with a ground level parking garage. Additional surface parking is located along the north side of the building. Plans call for a 17 foot x 17 foot appendage on the south, side of the building which will house a marina operation. At the present time, the Surfside Restaurant maintains 51 docks on Lake Minnetonka. Under Omni Shelter's proposal, these docks will be upgraded and leased to condominium owners and the general public with a portion of the dock space allocated for transient slips. According to information presented at the sketch.plan session, Butch Essig will operate the docks under his jurisdiction. Docks will be available to condominium owners at a discounted rate with all remaining docks available for lease to the general public. Mr. Essig will continue to Planning Commission and Staff September 18, 1984 page 2 sell gas from the present .location. The retention of the docks as a for profit enterprise by a party not connected with the condominiums establishes two separate uses under this proposal. The condominium building has been designed to maximize views to Lake Minnetonka. Along the east and west sides of the structure, the. roof of the parking garage forms terraces which serve as entry points for ground level units. Planters are located near unit entrances. The 35 Units contain 23 with 1 bedroom, 9 two-bedroom units, and 3 with three bedrooms. A common entrance exists on the north side of the structure. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The Chapman Place site consists of 44,115 square feet of land or approximately 1.01 acres. Lake Minnetonka lies along the southern end of the site, and an R-1 zoned city parking lot and park abuts the west side of the property. A business in the B-1 zone lies to the north and a single family residence occurs approximately 15 feet from the eastern property line in an R-1 zone. (See enclosed map}. The site is predominantly flat with the exception of the extreme eastern side which slopes up to the existing residence. There is very little existing tree cover on the site. COMMENTS: Section 23.625.3 of the Mound Zoning Code identifies multiple dwelling str. uctures as conditional uses in the B-1 zone. Marinas are no' specifically identified as either being permitted or conditional uses. Presumably, since the marina portion of this proposal will not change substantially from the existing configuration, it can be considered as a grandfathered commercial use, subject to permit modification by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Multiple dwellings in the B-1 zone are required to conform to the stan- dards identified in Section 23.620.7 of the zoning ordinance. These standards identify appropriate height, lot dimension, lot area, parking, open space, and general requirements for such uses. In analyzing this proposal, it is suggested that the Planning Commission review the following topics: BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS The height of the proposed condominium structure is 34 feet which is within the 35 foot maximum height identified in the ordinance. The ordinance requires a front yard setback of 1-1/2 times the building height which equals 51 feet. As currently proposed, the front yard setback is 4.5 feet. Side an,q, rear yard setbacks are required .to be the same as the building height or 34 feet. According to the site plan, the rear setback.is 4.5 feet and the side yard setbacks are 73 feet and 51 feet. The front and rear setbacks will require substantial variances of 46.5 feet and 29.5 feet respectively. Planning Commission and Staff September 18, 1984 page 3 Setbacks are identified in the zoning ordinance to establish reasonable distances between uses. One could reasonably argue that setbacks along the west side of the building are less critical since the struc- ture is adjacent to a public street/boat access and a substantial city park. The exterior wall of the closest unit lies approximately 36 feet from the traveled portion of the street and 12 feet from identified parking areas. The east setback is more critical, however, since the 'proposed structure abuts an existing house in an R-1 zone. DENSITY Density is the direct result of the number of proposed units and avail- able lot area. The zoning ordinance establishes 22,000 square feet as the minimum size for a multi-family lot. Chapman Place contains 44,115 square feet which is well abo. ve the minimum standard. Density is established by application of the lot area/dwelling unit standards. According to the ordinance, the minimum lot area average/ dwelling is 3,000 square feet which establishes the maximum allowable density. Chapman Place contains an average of 1,260 square feet/dwelling unit. These figures translate into a maximum allowable gross density of 14.5 units/acre under the zoning ordinance compared to the subject pro- po~al which contains 34.6 units/acre. OT USAGE Zoning ordinance relates to lot usage in several ways. First, it es- tablishes that a lot can only contain one principal use. Chapman Place contains two separate identified uses, a residential condominium struc- ture and a commercial marina. It may be possible to implement legal procedures to permit the existence of two uses, however, their compat- ibility is a legitimate issue. The marina, the marina building, and gasoline storage tank all occur within the only open space area avail- able to condomium owners. Under standard practice, such areas are specifically identified for owner usage only. Chapman Place, however, will have to permit general public access into this area in order to utilize docks. Another relationship between lot usage and the zoning ordinance is es- tablished by the inclusion of usage, maximum and minimum standards. According to the ordinance, a maximum of 30% of the existing lot can be used for the principal structure, a minimum of 30% shall be in green area and a maximum of 40% may be used for parking, driveways, garages, etc. The principal structure of Chapman Place occupies 35.4% of the lot area which will require a variance. Paving and decks and the green area account for 33.7% of the site, the commercial building occupies .7% of the site, and parking and terrace areas occupy 30.2% of the site. 138 Planning Commission and Staff September 18, 1984 page 4 PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS The zoning ordinance requires 2.5 parking spaces/unit of which, one must be indoors. Chapman Place contains 70 enclosed spaces and 23 outdoor stalls for a total of 93 which exceeds the ordinance require- ment of 88. Stall sizes as indicated on the plan, however, do not conform to the standards identified in the ordinance. Indoor stalls are required to have a minimum dimension of 12 x 22 feet. The pro- posal identifies 9 x 18 foot stalls. Outdoor spaces are required to De 10 x 20 feet. The proposal contains 18 that are 9 x 18 feet and four which are 9 x 14. The zoning ordinance and building code require two handicap stalls with 12 foot x 20 foot dimensions. Chapman Place contains one handicap stall measuring 9 feet x 18 feet. As proposed, variances will be required for indoor stall size, outdoor stall size, the number of handicap spaces and the handicap stall size. It is possible that Mound's parking standards are somewhat excessive and that smaller outside stall sizes are reasonable. The inclusion of a specified percentage of compact stalls is also an increasingly common feature in many municipal zoning ordinances. Section 23.620.7 (4d) of the ordinance requires 25 foot driveway and aisle widths. The driveway entrance to the surface lot is 20 feet in width and the parking aisle is 24 feet wide. The driveway entrance to the enclosed parking scales at 22 feet as does the interior aisle width. All four of these dimensions will require variances from the 25 foot standard width. A parking setback of 20 feet is required along the right-of-way of abutting the western property line of the site. Plans for Chapman Place call for a .9 foot setback necessitating an 11 foot variance. Parking must be set back 10 feet from adjacent lots. Five foot setbacks are provided along the east and north sides requiring variances. DOCKAGE Dockage is primarily an issue for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The Mound zoning ordinance contains standards for docks serving commercial property, one of which states that residential property in which dockage is located and the commercial served shal'l be in common ownership. The docks in the Chapman Place proposal are being considered as a grandfathered use and as such, are not specif- ically subject to this condition. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITI.~S This office has not received utility plans for Chapman Place. Pre- liminary grading plans depicted a garage floor elevation 6 inches below the required minimum of 933.5. All grading, drainage and utility plans should be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to his recommendations. Planning Commission and Staff September lB, 19B4 page 5 LANDSCAPING A complete landscaping plan was submitted for Chapman Place. In general the plan contains a variety of trees and shrub materials which should enhance the appearance of the project. A line of alpine cur- rant along the north property line meets the ordinance requirements for screening the parking area. The ordinance also requires buffer 'screening along the entire property line abutting R-1 property. Place- ment of a screen of plant materials along the building seems ridiculous since the three-story structure is located 4.5 feet from the property line at the northeast corner. The plant list calls for installation of purpleleaf wintercreeper in planter areas. This species will not survive Minnesota winters with- out shade and dependable snow. cover. Installation of this material will constitute an ongoing maintenance problem for the condominium associa- tion, therefore, the developer should consider a substitute plant mat- erial. LIGHTING The Chapman Place site plan does not specify locations of outdoor light- rig. Prior to the issuance of the conditional use permit for the pro- osed project, the applicant should submit a lighting plan for staff review nd approval. Overhead lighting should be designed so that it does not create a nuisance for the abutting residential property. PLATTING A condominium plat which will require city approval will be necessary in order to effectuate a sale of any proposed units. Such a plat will have to meet all of the requirements of Chapter 22 of the City Code. Addi- tionally, all applicable articles of incorporation, association bylaws or other covenants will have to be approved by the City Council. .GASOLINE STORAGE .A buried gasoline storage tank is proposed in the southwest corner of the site. This tank which will serve the commercial dock, will require a vent pipe which will arise approximately 12 feet above the ground sur- face. Installation of the tank should meet all minimum building code standards. TRASH STORAGE Plans call for a fully enclosed structure to house trash dumpsters. This will alleviate all possible visual and odor problems. )SITE SUMMARY The following chart contains a summary of the ordinance requirements and proposed details for Chapman Place. Planning Commission and Staff September 18, 1984 page 6 0 ® ® Bui 1 ding Height Lot Si ze Setbacks: Front Rear Side - North Side - South Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot Usage Principal Structure Paving and Decks Green Area Commercial Building Parking and Terraces Parking Requirements Total Stalls Handi capped Stal 1 s Indoor Stall Size Outdoor Stall Size Handicapped Si ze Driveway & Ai sl e Wi dth Parking Setbacks Right-of-way Adjacent Lots Required 35' 22,000 Sq. Ft. 51' 34' ~m 34' 34' 3,000 Sq. Ft. Proposed 34' 44,115 Sq. Ft. 4.5' 4.5' 73' 51' 1,260 Sq. Ft. 30% Max. 30% Mi n. N.A. 40% Max. 35.4% 6.4% 27.3% .7% 30.2% >33.7% 88 2 12' x 22' 10' x 20' 12' x 20' 25' 93 1 9' x 18' 18 @ 9' x 18' 4 @ 9' x 14' 1 @ 9' x 18' Parking Drive 20' Parking Aisle 24' Underground Drive 22' Underground Aisle 22" 20' 10' 10' ! 46.5'V 29.5'V (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) ll'V 9'V 5'V Planning Commission and Staff September 18, 1984 page 7 RECOMMENDATIONS: Multiple family usage of the Surfside site is appro- priate given its proximity to Mound's downtown area, access to Lake Minnetonka and access to the adjacent city park. The major issue of the Chapman Place proposal is one of scale· Specifically, the Planning Commission needs to address whether the site plan and density of the structure is appropriate for the site. 'Approval of Chapman Place will require the issuance of 15 variances. Admittedly, many of these variances are minor, such as parking stall size, however, many are also substantial, particularly those relating to setbacks and density. Variances are granted only on the basis of hardship as defined by Section 23.506.1 of the zoning ordinance. To imply that all 15 of these variances meet these conditions seems to severly impair the intent of the multiple dwelling standards. If the Planning Commission feels tha~ Chapman Place is an acceptable develop- ment and that a conditional use permit should be issued, it follows that the city should consider easing its multi-family standards partic- ularly regarding setbacks, density and principal use lot coverage. If the Planning Commission feels that the multi-family zoning provi- sions are reasonable, staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit for Chapman Place. Should the Planning Commission find Chapman Place acceptable, the fol- lowing conditions are suggested: The grading plan' should be modified to establish the garage floor elevation at/or above the city's minimum requirem6nt of 933.5 feet. A condominium plat consistent with all applicable ordinances and requirements must be filed prior to the transfer of ownership of individual units. The final grading, drainage and utility plans should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A site plan containing all grading and drainage information should be submitted and approved by the Watershed District. All covenants, agreements, and similar legal devices separating the residential use from the commercial marina should be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Lighting plans should be submitted to the staff for review and approval. ~ 1 M,~) L''~ I A IV G D O AI R.1 :e R~ t/'dATE 5 H ED CREEK DISTRICT LAKE MINNETONKA P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF MANAGERS: David H Coch~an, Pres. · Albeit L, Lehman · Jolm E. Thomas M~chael R Canolf · Camille D Andre · James B McWethy · James R Spensley ............................... . ...................... ,,,,,,.,.,.,....,,~.~ MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT NOTICE OF PERMIT APPLICATION STATUS Permit Application No: 84-171 Date: October 19, 1984 Appl i cant: Thorp Finance .Corp. 400 South Co. Road 18, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Location: City of Mound, Sec. 23AD, 2670 Conmerce Blvd. Purpose: Grading and Drainage Plan for a 29-unit condominium At the regularly scheduled October 18, 1984 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed. Action was taken allowing District staff to issue your permit only after receipt and staff approval of a site plan showing no fill will be placed below the flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka. Please be advised that the project is not authorized until the above has been submitted and you have been notified of permit issuance. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473-4224. EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District J m~Mahad~ CC: Board G .~_~omber bt MINUTES OF.THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SePtember 24, 1984 Present were: Chairman Frank-Weiland; Commissioners Liz Jensen, William Meyer, Geoff Michael and Thomas Reese; City Manager Jun Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler and Secre- tary Ma. rjorie .StUtsman. Absent and excused were: Council Representative Pinky Charon and Commissioner Robert Byrnes. Also absent was Commissioner Michael Vargo. Also present were the following interested persons:. Amy.Reese, Duane Norberg, Steven Hesse, Butch Essig, Tom Prokasky, Mr. & Mr$~,.H, S. smith, Mr, & Mrs, Robert McClellan, Bi'l] Simonet, Jr.,.Terry Sjncheff, John Thoreson, Mr. & Mrs. Kev!n Norwood Pat Rose Ci Steve Chas~, Earl Norwood and Connie Meyer. ' ' The Chairman opened~the meeting and welcomed those in attendance. MINUTES · The minutes of the Plann'ing Commission meeting of September 10, 1984 were presented for consideration. Reese'moved and Jensen seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the September 10, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as'presented. The vote was un- animouslY in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 84-355 Conditi.onal Use Permit for. Multiple Dwelling and Marina at 2670 Commerce Boulevard - Metes and Bounds~DescFiption, PID #23-117-24 14 0009 Thomas W. Prokasky of Omni-Shelter, Inc. and Butch Essig of Surfside, Inc. were present. The Planner, Mark Koegler, explained that the Commission had conducted a sketch plan review on the 13th of August. Es.s'entiaily the proposal i.s. back with the same site plan and Prokasky has added 'some additional information.. Plans call for the removal' of the Surfside restauralnt'and construction of a 35 unit condo- 'minium on the.grounds. They would have.basically a ground level parking garage and surface parking lot located on the north side of the building. In addition to the residential portion, they would' have'an 17 X 17 foot appendage on the south side of the bu!lding which i.s to.be used to house a marina'operation. You wi. Il recal..1 we discussed the dockage issue, back on the 13th of August and it was stated the intent is to provide docks avai. lable on a lease basis to condominium owners based on priority; there Would be a portion of the docks available to these owners at a discounted rate. and the.balance would be available for lease to the general public. Mr. Esslg will actually operate the docks which would be a separate entity from the residential structure itself; also he would continue to operate the gasoline pump as he does right now. Essentially we catagorize this as being two separate uses;-.commerclal marina and residential structure under this. proposal. The Surfside land area is about 44,115 square feet which is just a little over an acre; it is surrounded on two s~des by R-1 zones - on the parking lot or park's.~\ side and residential property abuts the other.side of the property; Lake Minne-(~ ~ . - tonka is on one side and the B-1 Zone on the other - the tile business and Bob's Bait Store. Multiple dwelling in B-1 Zone falls under that provision; the marina portion is not specifically committed to the use, however in this case, it will be considered as a grandfathered commercial use because it was an established use ~' at the time of the ordinance adoption. It will be subject to any modification the L.M.C.D. might suggest. The Planner then reviewed the following topics and the variances required: Build- ing height and setbacks, density, lot usage, parking and driveways, dockage, grading, Planning Commlssion Minutes September 24, 1~84 - Page drainage.and utilities, landscaping, lighting, platting, gasoline storage and trash storage. He had prepared a site summary which highlights the ordinance requirements and glves'k~nd of a run down at a glance of the major components of the proposal. The Staff feels that multiple fami.ly usage of the slte is ~ery appropriate given it's access to the downtown area for shopping, access to the lake and City park and so forth. For this particular proposal, it is an issue:of scale, one of density or. number of units ~propriate for that sized ~arcel. Approximately 15 variances would be required;"some of which are minor, but those relating to serb.acks and density, are substantial. He suggested six conditions if the Commission finds the chapman Place proposal acceptable. The Cba!rman had several questions.relative to lot area per dwelling unit and percentage of area footprint the building occupies, fire protection--getting equipment around the building. T~m Prokasky, President of 0mni-Shelter,.Inc. and architect on the project, addressed various items. .He reviewed the.basic site/landscape plan and a draw~.ng done by the City Engineer when the Commerce Boulevard extension was 'paved and layed out. Prokasky. explained the background of it was that they had a proposal for the Surfside. site.at that time and one of the tradeoffs was, because they were short a little bit of. parking for a 200 seat restaurant and 7 condominiums and. a set of garages, the City Council came up with a resolution that they.would count some of thepa-rking of the parking'lot, 'if the owners of the site would.,.agree to accept'the entire cost of putting in the boat'.ramp, paving, curb~.ng and the whole business (that cost amounted to about $45,000.). That particular proposal for the site didn't go ahead, but he thought the Com- mission should understand about the site a~ea and that the whole area should be considered. He'stated he felt the parking on the site was very strong now and mostly underneath the Build.lng. (2 cars per unit). So far as the front and back setback variances, they are really required because of'the hardship of the narrowness of this site;' there is.no reasonable configuration that could go in there. Their plan is so each unit can see the lake and they do.step back and they kept the face. of the building very minimal on the lakeside. He sug- gested that what:is the front, setback reall.y is not a street setback at all. The park~.ng and boulevard tree areas were planned to go with this site. This parking does exist for general purposes and there is green space, plantings and boulevard areas that have been established in front of site. Feels the street is really up here (north) and that .this setback variance is a reasonable one and doesn't impact on neighbors as there is no neighbors until across from the park. The other, point he talked about was that there are no setbacks in the B-1 except to the residential side. A three story building could be built r~ght up to the line all the way through~* He stated they aren't interested in t'hat, but'when'you consider, th.is in perspective, they feel they are well land- scaped and stepped back; the setback goes back to 40+ feet as you go to the front of the building so that from behind or the side, the lake can be seen. Prokasky went over the following technical points: Showed where gas storage w~ll be; f~iler stack is simply a pipe and ~ill be run behind some Norway pines so not obvious. Lightl.ng will be developed; not have lighting of a commercial structure~ Lower level elevation - will lower a little, just a matter of 12 inches, not a problem. Parking and driveways - certainly will get that 2nd handicapped stall in; just was thinking of count; have a stronger parking count than is required; could pull back and meet the setbacks on parking and increase Stall size as requ'ired. Thinks Mound's standards are a little strong in the * from the multi-family guidelines ** to the west. Planning Commission Minutes September 24~ 1984 - Page parking. A cadillac seville is only 17 feet 6 inches long---the size of cars has been reduced so dramatically. He stated we.can work out technical things;. the only Point s'ignificant to the proposal is the interior garage. Code says stalls must· be 12 feet by 22 feet. Thinks this size is for single family garages; .~as never run into spacing like that. 'Prokasky asked that the COmmission con- suit.with a traffic engineer'and reconsider that particular point; feels that 'a variance is appropriate. As far. as density for number of dwelling'units, he'd like to make the pOint that this !s'a small commercial Site with a $40,000+ assessment; feels when you'add up the numbers, have to·get a'certain number of units on site and would like to · have. Commission. consider uniqueness of situation. Density really goes with this site. Downtown, they have 200.units.per acre and it works/is appropriate. He feels that .the docks and boats out here are a major recreational· facility; there is the park open to .the south. The ratio, of children in townhouses and condo- miniums tends to be·about zero--tend.to have younger empty-nester'couples. They feel:that'.this density in dwelling units is appropriate to this site. The only other point is the question on·mixed 'use. Stated perhaps he misrepresented how docks were to be operated. The~ have 27 slipsthat are rig.bt now available for overnight parking and 24 more transient. We have 35 units. We really are not even covering our people with a slip a.unit. The long and short of it is that we are. not in the marina business. The present L.M.C.D. permit happens to be a marina type permit and there of course is th~,gas pump out.there. The L.M.C.D. feels quite strongly that there be publ-ic facilities for the general boating public on the lake. .Only gas.pump on the upper take. Need someone to watch, do maintenance~on"the docks, sel.1 pubUc cotter pin or a life jacket. Really have·no 'docks to rent out; Condominium Association will own.whole thing. Intend to leave marina in place/grandfathered in. A comment was "if a slip is left, wEy not rent. it out?".' Don't see conflict of use; not running any kind of busi- ness, but doing a little public service. The Chairman opened up the meeting for questions. Robert McClellan asked what is.considered front and real street, frontage? how high does grade have to be raised up? Bill Smith had question about recreational value. Robert McClellan announced he was revoking an agreement made in 1974 to allow· docks in front of the McClellan residence. Also stated he objects to the vari- ances requested in the'proposal before'the Commission tonight. Duane Norberg questioned garage size and H. A. Smith asked how new roof compared with height of present roof. Surfside has a very high roof; may be higher than 35 feet. Meyer asked where McClellan'.s house is in relation to the units. McClel.lan!s house is.about 12 feet off of property line. Meyer's concern is that he'll be looking at 9 patios on 3'levels. The·City Manager stated.that two variances will be most· difficult; the ones re- lating lotlarea to.dwelling unit and the principal structure percentage of lot's usage. P~okasky stated he needs this much density to make the project economi- cally fl.y; Economics not a permitted reason. In granting variances, they try to keep them within 10~ or reasonable levels thereof. Here we are talking about 45% of requirement. There·have been some precedents set.that should be taken into consideration. The Seahorse is about 2600 square feet per unit; Lakewinds is about 1600 square feet per unit and the recently approved Senior Housing has 42 units with 1056 square feet per unit. In trying to figure out what he needed Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1984 - Page 4 ' to do to meet that requirement, he'would need to buy McClellan .property, Bob's Bait as well as Culture Marble to come up to the 105,OOO square feet for 35 units· 'Clearly that would raise.the cost'on the project. Elam also stated he'd be very surprised if the Watershed is going to approve a variance of 4.5 feet from the lake, (from the West setback'and 51 feet on South). Reese'questioned if people that buy condo get slip? Prokasky sta'ted they would 'be guaranteed a slip, but do have,Day a maintenance and management fee. Reese asked .if.slips-not.taken by residents, would they be rented out and. what about boat storage. Slips would be rented, but there would be no.boat storage on site. Reese asked about'general storage· There will be storage rooms; storaoe will not be a.llowed in garage area. Reese also.expressed concern about maklng~sland of Bob Bait and Marble; too much on too little ground· Thinks there should be a total site plan. Prokasky stated he doesn't believe it reasonable to hold up consideration for the addition'of land - talking about $550,'000 additional dollars. .He read Reso!ution 78-427 which stated that the Council accepted in concept the fact that the street -- should be c6nsidered with the land because it was so integal to any function happening there. Discussed transient dockage (being eliminated), grandfathering of docks and gas pump (27 slips grandfathered in) and whether Commercial use is not an issue? Elam stated that Seahorse have their docks and Lakewinds have their docks; privatedocks with public gas. P~okasky stated that concept is that use is accessory use to the residents; not two uses. Small enough-~to be accessory use to serve residents'and anyone else. Planner stated covenants, etc~have to be submitted to.the City Attorney before approval. Could set up management of the docks. Chairman and other members of Commission were .concerned about the number of units; the density and whether they could come down any on the number of units? Also discussed what Watershed District criteria was on dockage, feet from the lake, etc.? Reese stated that he had very strong objections to granting the setback variances, the lot area to dwelling unit variance and the principal structure variance and his objections would go so far as to recommend cutting the units in half or more, therefore Reese moved that' we deny the request'i~nd'my basis is the requested front and rear side setback variances, lot area to duelling unit and principal structure density.are too great. The motion was seconded by Jensen. It was discussed thatlmUltiple family dwellings are appropriate for this site, but the variances are just_too'mUch. P.rokasky would like to work with you; asked if Commission~could give gotdahde:'.on what would be reasonable, an alternative. The voteon the motion was ail' in favor of the denial. Motion carried. The public hearing on this proposal will be set by the City Council for November 13th. Planning Commission' Minutes October 22, 1984 - Page 3 CASE NO. 84-355 CASE.NO. 84-355 Conditional Use Permit - Multiple Dwelling and Marina at 2670 Com- merce Boulevard - Metes & Bounds Description - PID #23-117-24 14 0009 Thomas W. Prokasky of Omni Shelter, Inc. and Mr. & Mrs. Butch Essig were present. The Planner explained that this item..was before the Commission on September 24th and since that 'time, Mr. Prokasky has modified his plan and is. back with a building shape that is a little different and location is somewhat different as it impacts the setbacks. The front yard setback is now 4 feet (was 4½ feet) resulting in a 47 foot variance still on the front which is the parking lot side; the rear setback is now 19'feet requiring a 15 foot' variance (decrease of )4.5 feet) which abuts the single famil.y residence. Regarding density, the total un, it count has been reduced from 34 to 29 units which provides an average of about 1521 square feet of lot area per-dwelling unit (3,000 square-feet is ordinance requirement). That brings the gross density down to about 28½ units per acre. The lot usage was an issue pre- vlously; the revisions made have literally brought the structure into conformance with the zoning ordinance in regard to the lot usage. The 28 units require a total of 73 parking stall's. There are 20 exterior spaces on the north side of building which conform to ordinance size requirements of City Code as well as setback pro- visions. The 58 spaces on the interior of'the structure are presumably 9 feet by 18 feet with a 22 foot aisle (previous proposal). There was quite a discussion last time about the interior dimensions. In reviewing, the Planner said he would agree with Mr. Prokasky that the City's Ordinance is overly restrictive as compared to interior parking. He tried to get a bit of a handle on what is reasonable and consulted a couple of Sources that do parking ramps for a living and basically con- cluded that. anywhere in the range from 9 feet by 18 feet to 9 feet by 19 feet is reasonable for'stall size with about a 25 foot.wide aisle. He commented that essentially the modifications the applicant has made have reduced the scale of the project and presumably it has somewhat reduced the. impact on the abutting single family residence. Particularly noteworthy in the changes made is that the-variance count has been significantly reduced from 15 to 6 and of these, 3 deal with parking. The three outstanding variances that remain, pertain to front setback, the rear set- back and the total density of 1521 square feet per dwelling unit. He noted the 2 issues that need to be addressed and are not significantly different than they were are: )) Is the combination of the residential condominium structure and marina a compatible land use? and 2) Is the density of the.project consistent with what the City wants to do as expressed in'the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and what actions have been taken in the past. If answer is yes, then Staff would recommend approval contingent on the conditions listed in his report. Mr. Prokasky pointed out some things concerning the site; .they have modified the position of the building on the site and have arrived at a figure for the footprint of the building that roughly works out to be 20% or smaller, etc. Prokasky com- pared possible uses of the site stating that withcut variance at all, the site could have a 45 foot high commercial building or a single family 2½ story residence. They believe the physical impact of the proposed-use of the site is reasonable and has the potential of'being the most desirable use on this site. The.B-1 zoning would allow commercial activities of far greater density just as it stands. The Commission discussed the revisions and the proposal at great length and asked many questions relative to the project, such as distance from the lake, what about parking for the marina, what the interior parking dimensions do to the layout, if permanent docks were being proposed and if the water would be kept open all year, how many docks would that property warrant without the marina connection, whether Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1984 - Page 4 CASE NO. 84-355 structure wasn't really coming to wlthln 4 feet of neighbor's property on the east where the parking ramp was buried, whether there would be a conflict of parking between residents of the condominiums and the public parking area, the overall height of existing building, fire accessibility, trash containment, green area, how does the density compare with other condominiums on the lake, how do we d~vlde up the mass oF that structure, what impact will there be on public services, the community and the roads, how. do you waterproof roof over the garage area,' would.people complain of noise from the City park and are there-any plans for a restaurant on first floor? Michael moved and Charon seconded a motion that the .request be approved con- tingent on the Staff's recommendation of conditions. ~ Commissioner Reese stated that he opposed the request for the following reasons: 1. He believes the entire basement is structure,and has never seen a poured roof that didn't leak. 2. Parking is substantial issue. 3. There is a question of fire access 4. Permanent docks with open water are hazardous. 5. Request for relief is 1OO% economics. 6. If proposal granted, we're sending wrong message to other developers. 7. Gross deficiency in density - it is way too great (the Seniors building was a different situation and Lakewinds already existed) 8. Proposal is minimum; not a square footage allowance for commercial; it is. the wrong thing for Mound to do. Commissioner Vargo concurred with the above and thought there should be more provision for green space and that the density was inappropriate. Charon moved an amendment that no variance be granted on the East side toward the neighbor's residence. Prokasky stated that would affect 6 units. Motion was withdrawn The vote on the motion was: Charon and Michael in favor; Byrnes, Jensen, Meyer, Reese, Vargo and Weiland against the motion. Motion was defeated. The public hearing by the City Council will be held on November 13, 1984. Interview with candidate'for Planning Commission Membership Kenneth R. Smith of 2927 Cambridge Lane was present. In response to the questions of the Commission, he told them that he is an insurance salesman and can see no conflict so he'd not be able to attend the meetings on a regular basis. He is interested in the quality of the City and wants to see the City grow. Byrnes moved and Jensen seconded a motion recommending to the City Council that Kenneth Smith be appointed for Planning Commission membership to replace George Kinser. The vote was unanimously in favor. It was decided to discuss satellite dishes and Commission work rules at the November meeting. ADJOURNMENT Byrnes moved and Michael seconded, a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 P.M. All in favor, so meeting was aSjourned. C CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF KILDARE ROAD EAST OF THE WEST LOT LINE OF LOT 39, BLOCK 11, SETON EXTENDED SOUTH TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound will meet at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, at 7:30 P.M. on the 13th day of November, 1984, to consider the vacation of a portion of street described as "Kildare Road East of the West Lot line of Lot 39, Block ll, Seton, extended South". Road abuts the properties with addresses of 4610 Kildare Road and 4619 Kildare Road (PID Numbers 19-117-23 21 0028/0033 and 19-117-23 24 0035). Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk I': t~:" .......... · .....5 ~ i! C'; ,~ 0 ~/~'{. ] I APPLICATION FOR STREET VACATION CASE .0. ~; : SEP 1219~ ~ ~1 CITY Of MOUND FEE SlSO.O0 i...::Ap~A~~k~ ~. ~:OLr/.~HN O, 0(1~16 DATE FILED LEGAL DESCRIP~ON OF PROPERTY OWNED BY APPLICANT: PID ~ iq'-IIq-%3-Zl-~zg LOT ~ /I BLOCK Il SUBDIVIS ION ~0~ / STREET TO BE VACATED ~1~~ ~~ ~.~ ~ T~ ~.~ ~ '~1~ OF LoT Sq E<T~/~>~-~ REASON FOR REQUEST A~lJTrl SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT / TEL. NO. Applicant's Interest in Property ~0~ L, ~L-~ O(~ldff~ O~ q~to ~tc~e~, . Residents and owners of property ~tt;n§ the street to be vacated: (Please attach list. Certifled mailing list can be obtained from Hennepin County by calling 348-3271) A~-q. .... :r, ,.'. Recommended by Utilities: NSP ~,- ; Hinnegasco~ ; Con~{~nenta] Telephone ~&~ Recommended by City: Public ~orks~,M Fire Chief ~ ; ~ngineer.~.,,.~,, Police Chief ~.-~-. ; Cable Systems ; Other Departments,~A .~,.._....(,~ , Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action Resolution No. Date , ,, COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 '(612) 559-3700 September 13, 1984 Oan Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Hound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Proposed Street Vacation Kildare Lane - Black Lake Lane to Lake #2113 Dear Jan: As requested we have reviewed the proposed vacation of Kildare Lane from Black Lake Lane east to the southerly extension of the easterly line of 8lock ll, Seton. This section of Kildare is approximately 140 feet long of which 40 feet is a paved street with concrete curb and gutter and an additional 50 feet is paved only. This area which is improved also has sanitary sewer and watermain located within the right-of-way. This leaves only approximately 50 feet of the east end which is unimproved. This street also serves as a walking access to Black Lake. For the reasons stated above we would recommend that this request for vacation be denied. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. 3oh~nCameron~~~-~~ $C:j ,3'44'9 I $~9~ ,,m -2 I '~' h- ,.,-9 0 t CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MIr,4f'qESOTA 553~4 (612) 472-1155 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: September 27, 1984 Jan Bertrand ~ Chris Bollis Proposed street vacation - Kildare Lane After examining the request for vacation I would re- commend that it be denied. The reason for denial is the Park Commissions policy of retaining for public use all of the accesses to commons land. Attached is a survey done by the City in 1977, which shows the commons in relation to Kildare Lane CB:bam 3 LS/B-I1U RK3/4 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE HEDGE AND TREES ON LINE I . ~ e ~ /--POWER POLE 0.~ NORTH OF IRON 40.00 PLAT " CONCRETI HOUSE £'d, C) ! , /-- HEDGE ~-, ~_. ,~1.~ CONCRETE WALL ON LINE L.O '1' HEDGE ON LINE7 - - - 65.0e - - -40.1:3 (MEAS.)' '' 40.00 PLAT KILDARE 9Z'.88-(MEAS:: LANE I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lots 6 and 39, Block ll, S[TON, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County. Hinnesota, a,d nf .th~. lncdtion of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this 10th day of July. 1978. Harold C. Peterson, R.L.S. Minnesota Registration No. 12294 CASE NO. [84-347) FCONCRETE WALL / O' - 27.80- PLAT" WATER'S EDGE Scale: 1 inch · 30 Feet 0 Denotes iron t~nu~nt ]sraelson & Associates, Inc... Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors glO0 West Bloomington Freeway Bloomington, ~ 55431 3 157 MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 27, 1984 Present were: Chairman Frank Weiland; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, Liz Jensen, William Meyer, Geoff Michael and Thomas Reese; City Manager Jon Elam; Building OffiCial Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioners George Kinser and Michael Vargo were absent. Also present were Gordon L. Wolf and Steve Ziebarth. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1984 were presented for considerati~on. Reese moved and Meyer seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August 13, 1984 meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS L,~Case No. 84-347 17.5 Foot Front Yard Variance for 4610 Kildare Road Lots 6 and 39, Block 11, Seton Gordon L. Wolf was present. The Chairman explained that this case is a continuation from the August 13th meeting. Mr. Wolf was to bring in some information. The Building Official stated she would like to bring up one item - Section 23.404 has 8 items concerning the Non-Conforming Uses; Item 2 really talks about "restoring of a structure to safe condition .......... providing further that the necessary repairs shall not consti- tute more than 50% of the fair market value of such structure". She did talk to the Assessment Department of Hennepin County and they are, by State Law, supposed to assess at 100% of value. Structure is valued at $51OO. Tax information was included in packets so. Commissioners could look at it. The two lots are two separate parcels and should be combined. The Chairman questioned whether or not there are 2 sewer and water units on these lots and asked that' this be checked on. Discussed that livability could be preserved, but not increase the bulk. The applicant stated he has plans for a house on that lot; but not for the remodel- ing. Wolf wants to bring structure up-to-code. Reese commented that the Commission had requested a hand drawn plan. The City Manager stated he has a survey with the house platted out and he has drawn on the proposed deck--it shows the setbacks that you would need and that's about all that most people submit for a variance. Reese thought applicant would be putting more money into the structure than the value of $5iOO. The applicant apologized for not having a drawing and stated the structure will meet the codes and will not be an eyesore. Byrnes asked if we were going to landlock the house on Lot 5. The Building Official stated there is a private ease- ment to get to Lot 5. Byrnes asked if applicant could make repairs without putting the deck on. Wolf responded that he'd have to do something about the front door as it is 7 or 8 feet up in the air. The Chairman asked about frost footings. The Building Official stated the foundation wall itself is in pretty tough shape; she would guess it's from the structure being unheated; there are partial frost footings, but no floor in the basement. The request was discussed at length and also what Kildare Road was used for. Later in the meeting, the applicant asked if part of Kildare Road could be vacated? Byrnes stated Commission would just be shooting in the dark without schematic/ plan and he moved to deny the variance requested and to waive the fee if appli- cant submits plans in a month or two. Reese seconded the motion. Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 1984 - Page 2 The City Manager stated that the Commission is asking for something different from this fellow than you are asking from any other person that I can recall that submitted a variance request. He's submitted everything he's required to by the City--the survey, the house is located there, etc. Reese stated that Jon is asking the Commission to vote mindlessly. We do not want him to improve a structure that we would not approve. Why'should we encourage him to improve that? Why-not tell him to develop the lot like his brother from Tennessee is probably telling him to do now. The structure is not worthy of reconstruction. Michael asked the Building Official if variance .were granted, what next step would be? The Building Official explained.the requirements of the building code; she can accept repairs if it makes it less hazardous without bringing it up to code. If repairs are going to be more than 50%, room they might add has to comply. City has no housing code. Meyer asked applicant to give an estimate of repairs. Wolf stated it would be about $5,000. Any repairs would have to meet code. The vote on the motion was Michael opposed; Charon abstained; all others voted in favor of denying. Motion carried. Michael opposed because he feels we are only looking at a request for a 17½ foot front yard variance and a deck and if the deck is put on, it's got to pass a code and that's all we're being requested to look at. Charon abstained because she has not been present to look at this request. This will be considered by the City Council on September 18th. Case No. 84-348 Sign Variance Permit for 2316 Commerce Boulevard Steve Ziebarth of Prowood Plus was present. At the August 13, 1984 Planning Commission meeting,.the Commission approved a 34 square foot sign for the front of the building at 2316 Commerce Boulevard. Mr. Ziebarth asked what would be necessary to put the same sign on the back of the building. The City Manager thought the Commission could amend their motion and the Counci'l could act on the whole thing at the meeting on August 14th. Reese moved and Michael seconded a motion to amend the previous decision on signage for Dr. Jeffrey Soule for adding same sized sign on back of building at 2316 Commerce Boulevard. All in favor except Jensen who abstained. Public Hearing Dates to be Set 1. Site at 1861 Commerce Boulevard - The City Manager stated that he thought we had said that this.wetlands was not a wetlands. The Building Official stated we are recommending that it be deleted from.the Wetlands; but it hasn't been done yet. The City Manager stated we should have had an Ordinance change on the agenda; not a wetlands permit application. Thinks that is separate issue and an improper agenda item. Chairman stated Commission will drop this issue until City comes up with what they want to do. Planner to be requested to put together a change to the ordinance. 2. Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing for Printing Shop at 2434 Commerce Boulevard Reese moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to set September 10, 1984 for'the public hearing for conditional use permit for printing shop. The vote was unanimously in favor. 3tSff .. 8 RE' LANE 7 /.4 ~2 3 3 4 /..'7 Skorp ond Lind Rose Hill ~' BLAGK LAKE aD RD 3O Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1984 Case No. 84-365 Vacation of K~ldare Road East of the West lot line of Lot 39 of Block 11, Seton, extended South ~ordon L. Wolf was present. Mr. Wolf stated that he and~John Curtis, the owner of.property to South of Kildare, were requesting the street vacation. Mr. Wolf would like to make Lot 6 larger; half of the vacated street (15 feet) would give him a wider lot and make for better placement of a house. Wolf commented that he.has never seen anyone use this access. There is poison ivy, a very steep grade and junk. The City Manager stated the street has been extended to at least the end of Lot 39 and that City would have to retai, n an utility easement as it has sewer and water in it. Also it might be used as access at sometime in the future. He commented that the City has encouraged people to use access on Carlow and most do, but it is a ways' there; it might make sense to develop this access at some future time. Wolf stated he and Curtis have talked of landscaping the street. He wants to put up a bigger home and is concerned about little cabins. Meyer thinks issue here is that Wolf's lot is only 38 feet wide and,he does not really have room to put house on; the street vacation would gi~e him a side yard so he could build a house. The Chairman stated it would not bother him for Wolf to use that portion of street without a vacation; Jensen seemed to agree as long as he's going to invest.in landscaping. ~Meyer asked if they were saying they would give him a variance of zero so he could build right on the lot line. Wolf originally came in for a variance to upgrade House or build a new house. The City Manager told Wolf that at this point, he had the best of both worlds; you can use that almost as a private street; park your cars and don't have to pay taxes on it. Unusual kind of request. Charon commented her constituents historically don't want to relinquish lake accesses; she would never vote to vacate access to Commons. Reese moved and .Meyer seconded.a mot~ion to approve the street vacation ~with the City retaining the easement for utilities. The vote was Jensen, Meyer and Reese in .favor and Charon, Byrnes and Weiland voted against. The vote was tied three to three. Weiland stated he voted against the.motion to keepopen for future development of the access. Reese stated he voted'in favor because this doesn't pass the test. of. reasonableness--we need to get quality people with quality homes in Mound. At the October 23, 1984 meeting, the City Council will be asked to set the public hearing on November 13, 1984. November 8, 1984 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO; CITY COUNCIL FROM; CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a document that outlines the guidelines that need to be followed to begin the process of acquiring property for the Lynwood Blvd. road improvement. What I need is a resolution adopting them as the procedures we will follow and authorization to begin the land appraisal process. JE:fc - I - GUI DEL I NES FOR RI ~T-OF-WAY AC()U I S IT I Or, I AND RELOCAT ION ASS I STANCE UNDF. R THE UN I FOPJ4 ACT OF i 970 The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 - P.L. 91-646 applies to the Acquisition and Relocatlon on any project where there is to be Federal participation In any phase of the project (l.e. where there Is Federal partlclpation In construction, but not In rlght-of-way). Also, Chapter 604 of Laws of Minnesota, 1973 provides ~hat all acqulrlng agencies shall comply with all of l~ne provisions of P.L. 91-646 regardless of whether or not there ls any Federal flnanclal participation In any phase of the project. If there Is to be Federal participation In right-of-way, Volume 7 of the Federal Aid Highway Program Manual (80 Series of FHWA PPH's) must be met. These requirements apply to long-term easements as well as to fee acquisitions; however, they do not apply to acqulsltlons of temporary easements. TITLE II -- UNIFORi4 RELOCATION 'ASSISTANCE If there is no relocation of people or moving of personal property, Tltle II does not apply. If there is relocation or moving of personal proper-fy, It must be done In accordance with Volume 7, Chapter 5 of the Federal Aid Highway Program Manual (PPH's 81-1 to 1.4). Counties and cities should seek assistance from the State District R/W Englneer if they have relocation or moving of persopal property on a project. TITLE !11 -- UNIFO~4 REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICY Appraisal Properties must be appraised prior to the start of negotiations. The appraisal or valuation can be made by fee appraisers, or other quallfled Individuals or officials. The appraisal format ls up to the County (City), however, the valuation asslgned must represent fair market value. Current sales are usually the best means of establishing this value. Form MHD 30777(7-73) is recommended for usage. 2. Appraisers must offer the property owner the opportunity to accompany them during their lnspectlcn of the property. If the owners are nonresldents, a letter advlslng them of plans to Inspect the property should be sent In adequate time so the owners can be present at the appraisers' viewing. 3. Appraisals must disregard any Increases or decreases In the before value of the property caused by the proposed highway Improvement. 4. It ls necessary that all propertles be appdalsed and the owner offered the appraised amount. However, If the owner so chooses, he can donate the land for right-of-way and in thls case an appraisal Is not required. Yet, the requisite of Informing the owner as to his right to recelve just compensation for the acqulsltlon still exists. If the land Is donated, the file must be documented to show the above was accomplished. In cases where a property owner goes to a City or County and In order to get a zoning change, building permit, plat approval, etc., is required to dedicate land for future street/hlghway purposes, and the dedlcatlon Is conslstant with a comprehenslve zoning or land use plan, then the appraisal and offer are not required. In cases where the City or County, however, takes the initiative and goes to the property owner In order to obtaln R/W for a speclflc highway project, then the appraisal and offer must be made. 9-a -2- B. Ne~otiations__ I. Offers must be made promptly. The law requires the owner opportunity, (Property owner has the opportunlty to accompany appraiser) the appraisal, and the offer, and In that order. In order to meet the Intent of the law, the following procedure could be utilized on simple widening Jobs; however, it ls not recommended where more ~om~lrcated app#aisals are required. a) The appraiser (qualified lndivldual or official) f~rst contacts the owner and asks him If he would Ilke to view the taking. b) After viewing the taking with the owner and Ilstenlng to any comments he may have concerning the taking or damages to the remainder, or after he Indicates he ls not Interested In viewing the taking, the appraiser should formally complete the appraisal by doing any necessary calculations, dating It and signing It (i~HD. 30777). It is acceptable to fill In acreages, proposed values per acre, amounts allowed for trees, fence, etc. on the appraisal form prior to contacting the owner. The appraiser, -- however, must give consideration to any comments the owner makes and must not formally complete the appraisal until after the ';owner opportunlty.'~ c) Make the offlclal offer. 2. The full appraised amount must be offered the owner. 3. Owners must be glven a written statement of and a~summary of the basis for the amount offered. The offer letter provlded by the State contains the required Informatlon. 4. ~he acquiring authority must offer to acquire uneconomlc remnants. 5. If there are buildings, structures, or other Improvements normally consldered real estate, whlch are owned by tenants, they must be valued and acquired. Condemnation I. Condemnatlon must not be advanced or delayed In order to coerce the owner Into agreeing to the price offered. 2. Owners must not be forced to Institute legal proceedings. 3. Owners litigation expenses must be reimbursed If a) it was ruled the County (City) can't acquire,' b) the case was dismissed, or c) owner brought successful mandamus action. Possession I. In order to Issue a R/W Certificate No. I, all property must be acquired and all owners pald. To be "acquired", all easements and/or deeds must be accepted or executed by the County (City) as well as by the property owner. 2. "M.S. 117.042 EMINENT ~IN: POSSESSION. When ever the petltloner shall requlre title and possesslon of all or part of the owner's property prior to the filing of an award by the court appointed commlssloners, the petltloner shall, at least 90 days prior to the date on which possession is to be taken, notify the owner of the Intent to possess by notlce served by registered mall and before taking title and possession shall pay to the owner or deposit with the court an amount equal to petltloner's approved~appralsal of value. If It Is deemed necessary to deposit the above amount with the court the petltloner may apply to thO"court for an order transferring title and possession of the property or properties Involved from the owner to the petltloner. In all other cases, -3- petitioner has the right to the title and possession after the filin§ of the award by the court appointed commissioners as follows: (a) If appeal Is waved by the par-Ties, upon payment of the award; (b) If appeal Is not waved by the parties, upon payment or deposit of three-fourths of the award. Nothing in this section shall limit rights granted In section 117.155." Occupants of improved residential, buslness and farm p~opertles must be given a 90 day notice prior to requiring them to vacate. If the property/ Is rented by the County (City) to the owner or a tenant, the rent must not exceed comparable rents in the area. Owners must be reimbursed expenses incidental to selllng their property to the County (City). Examples are as follows: a) Fee for obtaining a mortgage release. b) Penalty for prepaylng a mortgage. c) Prepaid taxes. A recent Attorney General's oplnlon states that taxes payable In a given year are associated with the previous year. Therefore, taxes payable In a given year (1974 taxes payable in 1975), which an owner must pay off in transferring title to the County (City), need not be reimbursed, if vesting of title or possession, whichever Is earlier, however, occurs between October 16 - December 31 of a given year (1975), and If the seller is required to pay all taxes payable in the following year, (1975 taxes payable in 1976), the County (City) should reimburse taxes applicable to the period from title vesting or possession to the end of the year. This would provide up to 2 I/2 months (maximum) rel~ursement of taxes. McCOMBS-KNUTSONASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS [] LAND SURVEYORS B PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 October 30, 1984 Oon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: Mound, Minnesota Lynwood Boulevard MSA 145-104-02 #7193 Dear Oon: As you are aware the state has approved our right-of-way plans for the above project. We can now have the properties appraised and start the negotiations for acquisition. We would recommend that the final construction plans be started at this time also. This is necessary because of the procedure involved to obtain final approval of the plans, schedule a bid letting and commence construction during the summer of 1985. We would prefer to have the survey crew do the required field work before the snow comes and then finish the plans over the winter months. Enclosed is a reduced copy of the right-of-way plan as approved by the State of Minnesota. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Oo~hnCameron~ OC:j ;I BELMONT LANE November 8, 1984 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER RE: STREET LIGHT Dave Klein of Video One has requested a street light be installed next to his driveway entrance from County Road 15. This is a blind spot which would be dealt with in the in the street light program with the improvement of County Road 15, but that will not happen until 1986-88 and he is requesting the light now. Perhaps we should approve this light as we have various neighborhood lights, realizing the costs for a relatively short term. At least it would light up the driveway entrance. JE:fc !'oZZ 0^-18 SS3~tXO ~ Note: The following list is items covered in previous interviews with candidates: - Length of time livl~g In Hound - Background Interests. I.e. Professlonal'or job related - Involvements in the Community I.e. Clubs, etc. - An explanatlon'of why you want to serve on the Planning Commission - Any areas where you might see a conflict A. THoMAs WURST, P.A. ,JosEPH E. HAMIL?ON, ~. A. JAMES D. /ARSON, P.A. THOMAS F~. UNDERWOOD, F~OGER ~1. ~ELLOw$ LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD JlOO FII~$T BANK I~LACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA ~5402 November 5, 1984 Mr. Mark A. Saliterman, C.P.A. Ridgedale Professional Center 14001 Ridgedale Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55343 Re: Mound Liquor Store Dear Mr. Saliterman: Jon Elam, the City Manager at Mound, sent me a copy of a lease form which you used with a company called Captain Billy's, Inc. I coum~enced a review of that lease form.and had a substantial number of questions and comments. In discussing it further with ¥~. Elam, we thought that what we should do would be to try to utilize the same lease arrangements that the City has had with the prior owner. Mr. Elam also was desirous of having a two-year lease with a price change effective August 1, 1984, and a second change effective August 1, 1985. I tried to call your office but your secretary informed me you would not be in. I indicated to her that we would send you a lease in the mail for your review. I am hopeful that you can see your way clear to utilize the lease form which is enclosed, which is the same lease form that the City has used with the prior owner and contains the same conditions. It does provide for increased rentals. I believe this lease form is considerably simpler and will save both you and the City substantial time and expense in the preparation of the lease. The Captain Billy's form would require a substantial number of modifications and/or discussions on various points contained therein, and when I started to list all of these for Mr. Elam, he was hopeful that you would acquiesce in continuing our present document. Please review, and you can call either Mr. Elam or me with any comments or suggestions. If the lease form is in order, I can then send the original to Mr. Elam for Council approval and for his signature along with the ~yor. ?//~y truly~rs , ~tls A! ~earson, City Attorney City of Mound CAP:Ih Enclosure cc: Mr. Jon Elam 172. by andbetween Real One Acquisitions, a Minnesota Limited Partnership hereinafter designated and referred to as lessor, and the City of Mound, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation hereinafter designated and referred to as tenant, .. W~TS£SS£XH: TH^z said lessor in consideration of the rents and covenants hereinafter mentioned, to be paid and performed by said tenant, does hereby demise, lease and let unto the said tenant, and the said tenant does hereby hi.re and Mound- take from the said lessor, the follm~jng described premises situate in the City of ............................................................................ County of Hennep zn State Mznne s o t a ..................................................................................... of ................................................................................................ to-wit: That portion of the building owned by Lessor in Block One (1) Shirley Hills, Unit F, presently occupied by Lessee, including the liquor store area and the back storage area, together with the use of the hall for ingress and egress purposes et Occul~ucy. To HAVZ ANn To HO~ the above premises just as they are, without any liability or obligation on the part of said lessor of making any alterations, improvements or repairs of any kind on or about said premises or the building or buil~l- ings of which they are a part, or the equipment, fixtures, plumbing, appliances, or machinery in, upon or serving same, or the streets, alleys, areas, area-ways or passages adjoining or appurtenant thereto, for the term of two years · , from and after the ....... ~-..S..!; ................. day of.......A.~.g.~.~. ...................... 19 _~.~.., to the ....... .1...S...t. .................. day of.......A...u..g..~..s..,t. ............................ 19 ...86, both dates inclusive, for the following purposes and for no other purposes, to-wit: Operation of a municipal liquor store 1984, to August 1, 1985, foot from August 1, 1985, And the said tenant agrees to and with said lessor to pay the lessor as rent for the above mentioned premises the sum o, .................................................................... ........................... Oo,lars (, ............................... onfbly paymentsof Four Dollars and .~0) per square foot from August 1, . and Five Dollars and ~ ($5.~0) per square to August 1, 1986, ~Vl~SvT'~ 3t73 Maintain Surrender ia Good Order. Ice and Snow· Utilities. ............................................................ Dollars ($ ............................. ), payable in advance on the first day of each and every month for and during the full term of this lease, at the office of ........ .L....e..0...s...o...r. ................................................................................................ The said tenant also covenants and agrees with the lessor SIs~. as follows: That the tenant will keep at his own expense said demised premises and the equipment, plumbing, .drains, fixtures, appliances and machinery in, upon, serwng or appurtenant to said demised premises, in good repair and in good sanitary condition during said term, and that he will replace at his own expense promptly any and all glass broken in or about said premises with glass of the same quality; that he will make no alterations in or additions to said of premises, without first obtaining thc ]essor's written con- Premises. sent, and that he wilt not use or permit anything upon said premises that will increase the rate of insurance thereon, or anything that may be dangerous to life or limb, and that he will not in any manner deface or injure said demised prem- ises, or any part thereof, or overload the floors, or do or permit anything to be done upon said premises or in the of passageways, alleys, areas, area-ways, sidewalks or streets adjacent thereto, that will amount to or create a nuisance; and that he will not use said premises or permit the same or any part thereof to be used for lodging or sleeping pur- poses, or for any purpose contrary to thc laws, ordinances or regulations of the United States of America or the State of.......~.~nesoCa.. ................................. or the City of Moun~d. .................. or of any rules or regulat oas of the City of ..................................................................... or of any boards or officers of said city; and the tenant agrees Sub- teulns. to return said premises peaceably and promptly to the lessor at the end of the term of this lease, or at any previous termi- nation thereof, in as good condition as the same are now in or may hereafter be put in, loss by fire and ordinary wear ex- cepted. And the tenant further covenants and agrees to keep the sidewalks bordering on said demised premises (where the leased space borders upon a sidewalk or passageway) and the roof of said demised premises at all times free from ice and snow and other obstructions, and to neither waste nor misuse water, electricity, gas, steam, or any other utilities or agencies which are or may be furnished by the lessor, and to promptly pay all rates, costs and charges for the same, except as to such of the same, if any, as the lessor has specifically agreed herein to turnish free of charge. Lessee shall not erect or permit to be erected on said premises, any signs on the exterior of the premise, s or build- ings without the written consent of lessor endorsed hereon nor place or permit to be placed in any portion of any of the demised premises any weight or weights in excess of the reasonable or safe carrying capacity of the structure. The tenant acknowledges the receipt o[ the demised prem- ises and the same to be in good and sanitary condition, and in good repair, and the taking possession of the demised premises by the tenant shall be conclusive evidence that the demised premises, and the equipment, plumbing, drains, fix- tures, appliances and machinery therein, were at the time of so taking possession thereof in good, clean, sanitary and tenantable condition, and in all respects satisfactory and · acceptable to the tenant, and in the condition in which they were represented to the tenant to be and agreed to be put in by the lessor; and the tenant hereby releases the lessor from any and all claims arising from any defect in the condi- tion of said demised premises, or the equipment, fixtures or appliances in or serving said premises, and the building or buildings of which they are a part, and the streets, alleys, areas, area-ways, passages or sidewalks adjoining or appurtenant thereto. The tenant agrees that he will not sublet the demised premises, or any part thereof, and will not assign this lease or any interest therein, nor permit such lease to become transferred by operation of law or otherwise, and that uo act or acts will be done or suffered whereby the same may be or become sublet or assigmed in whole or in part, unless the written consent of thc lessor endorsed thereon shall be first obtained in each and every case of underlettlng or assign- ment, as they shall from time to time occur or be desired, and that nothing whatever shall be held to be a waiver of or supersede the necessity of such endorsement. Any assignment, sale in bankruptcy or insolvency of the lessee may, at the option of the lessor, be considered an assignment within the meaning of this lease and as a breach of the covenants hereof. ']'he tenant further agrees that the lessor seal] not he liable for any damage either to person or persons or prop- erty or the loss of p~'opcrty sustained by the tenant, or by an~, 0thor ptn0n 0r pera0ns due t0 the demised premises or the buildings of which the demised premises are ~ p~ or the equipment, ~xtures, appliances or ma~ne~ in or upon wthC~ same, or the ha s,. passages, areas, area-ways and side- a&s or streets adjoining ot appurtenant to the same be~n~ or becoming ou of repair or defective, or duc to thc happen- agency in or connected with the demised premises or the building of which it is a part, or oc~sioned by any ~uis~ce made or suffered thereon or therein. The tenant assumes a liab~ity and obli~tion on account of ~11 damages on account of the matter~ and things above referred to, and a~rees to ~ave the lessor harmless thereon and the'~rrom, and to indemn~y the lessor on account there- of. Thi~ ;rovision sh~ll apply especially, but not exclusively, to damage ~used by water, snow, rain, hail, backln~ up of water mains or sewers, frost, steam, sewage, iliumlnating gas, sewer gas, or odors, electricity and electric current, and by the bursting, stoppage or leaking o~ pipes or radiators, .plumbing, sinks and txtures in or about the demised prem- ises or the building o{ which the demised premises are pa~ In ~se of such damage the lessor may at his option repair such d~mage, and if such damage has occurred in the demised premises or on account of the defects in the demised premises a~alnst which the tenant has agreed to make repairs, the tenant shall thereupon reimburse the lessor for the costs oI repairing such damage, and if the tenant fails to perform any o~ the covenants ot agreements herein pro- ~ded to bt kept or perfo~ed by the tenant, the lessor may pe~o~ the same and charge thc tenant wi~h the expense such perIormance, and the tenant agrees promptly on demand to repay to the lessor the cost of such perio~ance by the lessor. The ten~nt further covenants and agrees that the se~ice of notice by any o~cer of the City o[ ........ ~9.M~.~. ................... ............................................ upon either party to this le~se to clean said premises, or to do any other act in connection therewith, shah be conclusive evideoce as between the panics hereto o~ the breach by the tenant of ~e covenant with respect to the noa-pedo~ance o[ which by the tenant such aogce has been se~ed. Any notice from the lessor to the tenant, relating to the demised premise~ or the occupancy thereof, shall be deemed duly se~ed ~ left at the demised premises addressed to the tenanL , The tenant further covenants and agrees at its own ~pe~se ~o o~s~rve aM keep all regulations and requirements of the c~ty of ............. ~.~.~. ................................................. or other pub- tic authorities in force at ~he t~e of ~he ta~ing possession by ~he tenant of the ~emise~ premises or which m~y thereafter be ~ade recycling the condition and conduct of sa~d de- ~ised premises, any p~ thereof, an~ the sidewalks n~j~cent thereto, including all building, fire, sanita~, polke or other re~lations. The tenant ~urther agrees'that if the demised premises, or any pm thereof, or any pa~ of the improvements of which they ~o~ a pa~ shall be ~en for any s~reet or other pub- lac use, or shall during the continuance of this lease be de- stroyed by the action of the public authorities, then this lease and the term demised shall thereupon resinate. ]~ is f~tRer speed between the lessor and the tenant that ff during the term cf this l~se the demised premises or the improvements thereon shall be injured or destroyed by fire or ere dements, or through any other cause, so as to render the demised premises unfit for occupancy, or ma~es it impos- sible to ~nduct the business of the ~enant thereon, or to such an extent that they ~nnot be repaired w~th reasonable dili- gence within thirty (30) days from the happening of such inju~, then the lessor may resinate this lease and 'the term herein demised from the date of such damage or destruction, and the tenant shall ~mediately surrender the demised premises and all interest therein to the lessor, and the ten- ant shall Par rent only to the time of such surrender; and use of any such dest~ction or inju~ the lessor may re-enter and repossess ~e demised premises discharged of this lease, and may dispossess all parties then in pogsesslon ~creof. But if the demised premises on be restored within s~ty days days from the happening of the inju~ thereto, and the lessor within fi~teen (15) days from the occurrence of such inju~ elects in wrifin~ to so repa~ or restore said premises within sixty (~) days ~rom the ~ppenlng of the inju~ thereto, then this le~e shall not end or terminate on account of such injury by fire or othe~ise, but the rent shall not ~n or acc~e aher the in]u~ and during the process of repairs, and up to the time when the repairs s~ll be completed, except only that the tenant shall cluing such time pay a pro rata po~on of such rent appo~oned to the portion of the mlse~ premises whkh are ~ condition for occupancy which may be actually occupied during such rep~irlng period. IL ~owever, the demised premises shall be so slightly lured by any cause aforesaid, as not to be rendered unfit for occupancy, then the lessor shall repair the same with reason- able promptness, and in ~hat use the rent shall not cease or bt abated during such repairing period. All improvements or betterments placed by the tenant on the demised premises sM]l, however, in any event, be repaired and replaced by the tenant at his own expense aM not at the expense of the lessor. The lessor agrees and cov~ants that the tenant, on paying the rent and performing the covenants a[ore~a~d, shall and may pcaceabIy and ~u[etly have, hold and enjoy the said de- ~.-L~ .... :~ - ~ t~ ~erm aforesaid, except as in t~s lease · The lessor agrees that it the premises hereby leased shall at the time hereinbefore stipulated for the beginning of the term of this lease, be in thc possession and occupancy of any person not lawfully entitled to said possession and occupant),, the lessor shall use due diligence to obtain possession there- of for the lessee, but it is expressly understood and agreed that the lessor, using due diligence as a[oresaid shall not in any way be liable for any failure to obtain the possession of the premises for the lessee and that this lease shall not be affected in any wa)' by an)' such failure to obtain possession except that the rentals hereunder shall be abated until pos- session shall be secured by the lessor for the lessee and writ- ten notice to that effect given by the lessor to the lessee. It is understood and agreed with respect to all alterations .As~iast and repairs, improvements or alterations to said demised premises, or any part thereof, which shall only be with the written consent of the lessor, that tenant shall and will in each instance save said lessor and said premises,forever harmless and free from all costs, damages, loss and liability of every kind and character which may be claimed, asserted or cF, creed, including liability to adjacent owners based upon the acts of negligence of said tenants or their agents, con- tractors or employees, or upon the negligence of any other person or persons in or about said premises or upon the fail- ure of any or either of them to observe and comply with the requirement of thc law or with the regulations of the authori- ties in the said city of ........ ~.o...u:..'~..d. ................................................... and will preserve and hold the lessor and said premises for- ever free and clear from liens for labor and material fur- nished. And the tenant agrees that it will from time to time before making an), such repairs, improvements or alterations furnish the lessor with a bond in an amount and with sureties satisfactory to the lessor conditioned for the performance by the tenant of the matters and things in this paragraph required to be done by the tenant. It is further agreed between the lessor and tenant this lease is made upon the condition that if the tenant shall neglect or fail to keep, observe and perform any of the cove- nants and agreements contained in this lease, which are to be kept, observed or performed by the tenant, or if the lease- hold interest of the tenant shall be taken on execution or other process of law, or if the tenant shall petition to be or be declared bankrupt or insolvent according to law, or if the tenant shall vacate said premises or abandon the same during the term of this lease, then and in any of said cases the lessor may immediately or at any time thereafter, and with- out further notice or demand, enter into and upon said premises, or any part thereof, in the name of the whole, and take absolute possession of the same full)' and absolutely, without such re-entry working a forfeiture of' the rents to be paid and the covenants to be performed by the lessee for the full term of this lease, and may at the lessor's election lease or sublet said premises, or any part thereof, on such terms and conditions and for such rents and for such time as the lessor may elect, and after crediting the rent actually collected by the lessor from such reletting on the rentals stipulated to be paid under this lease by the tenant from time to time, collect from the tenant any balance remaining due from time to time on the rent reserved under this lease, charging to the tenant such reasonable expenses as the lessor may expend in putting the premises in tenantable condition. Or the lessor may at his election and upon written notice to the tenant declare this lease forfeited and void, and may thereupon re-enter and take full and absolute possession of said premises as the owner thereof, and free from any right or claim of the tenant, or any person or persons claiming through or under the tenant; and such election and re-entrr last mentioned shall be and constitute an absolute bar to any right to enter by the tenant upon the payment of all arrear- ages of rent and costs after a dispossession under any suit or process for breach of any of the covenants of this lease, and the commencement by the lessor of any action to recover possession of said premises aforesaid shall 'be deemed a suffi- cient notice of election of said lessor to treat this lease as void and terminated, without the written notice above speci- fied, unless the lessor shall in writing, before beginning such proceeding, notify the tenant that after obtaining such pos- session thc lessor will continue to look to the tenant for the performance of this lease and will submit the premises on the tenant's account, in the manner as above provided. The tenant further agrees that all goods, chattels, fixtures and personal property belonging to said tenant, wh ch are Per~l or may be put into said demised premises, shall at all times be bound with a Ilea in favor of said lessor, to be chargeable for all rents hereunder and the fulfillment of the other covenants and agreements herein contained, and that in case of default by the tenant the lessor may without notice remove the same or any part of thc same, in such manner as the lessor may choose, and the lessor shall have the right to sell all or any part of the same at public or private sale, without giving any notice to the tenant of such sale, and to apply the pro. ceeds of such sale first to the payment of the costs and ex- peases of conducting said sale and caring for and storing such property, and to apply the balance, if ,~ny, to the amount then duc from the tenant to the lessor. Ad--ce ~:~is also agreed between ~lessor and tenant thee ia? .... th.e.,!a ,~x~a!d by the lessor ~pon the prol~:~"~which the .wit.bin le?s~remises are a *art, shall/in, ny )'ear or >'ears dung the ,~,~ ~ea. ~.i~eased over Unter Ban~n'uP~cr. The amount to he added to the rent thu~ provided on ac- counl of increase of taxes in an)' year or years shall be added at the time of rent payment on or next 'alter the date when penalty or loss of thc customary .discount begins to accrue for .non-payment of such taxes. If 'the year's taxes are payable m two or more installments, then the amounts to be so added shall be apportioned and paid in the aame way. it is further agreed between the parties to this lease: unable to continue to operate will consent to a sublease or lot maintenance shall include lighting, landscape and grass coating. and assessments covers Parcel Hills Unit F, Mound, Minn. (1) If the City of Mound by law is a municipal liquor store, the lessor a new lease to a responsible tenant. (2) The proportionate share of parking cleaning, snow removal,'line painting, areas, replacement of paving and seal (3) The proportionate share of taxes 1630 in Plat 62060, Block !, Shirley (4) At the time of the lease termination, the lessee shall not be required to restore any portion of the premises altered or changed pursuant to the consent of the parties. (5) Any renewal of this lease shall reflec 50% of all increases in the consumer price index from the date hereof. Lessee, upon leaving the premises hereby leased, shall at his own expense remove all ashes, dirt, rubbish and refuse, gatn'. and upon iessee's failure so to do, lessor may immediately without further notice to lessee do the same at lessce's ex- pense, which the lessee shall immediately pay upon receipt of a bill for same from lessor. ~:otle~ The tenant [urthcr agrees to give thc lessor written notice al Yau..~. thirty (30) days before the expiration of this lease of his ~isbt, o[ intention to vacate at the end of this lease otherwise the l~.or lessor will have the option of continuing this lease for one to year from and after thc expiration of this lease without notice TermiBsle. tO the tenant. If, however, the lessor does not elect to so continue this lease and thc tenant remains in said prem- ises after the expiration of the term of this lease, such re- maining in possession shall not, except at the option of the lessor, extend the term of this lease, and the tenant shall Off,ers. promptly vacate said premises; and ii for any reason the ten- ant does not promptly vacate the premises at the end of the term, the tenant agrees to pay the lessor, tar such time as elapses between the end of the term of this lease and the time when the tenant actually vacates the premises, a pro mca rental equal to one and one-half (1~4) times the rent provided to be paid during the term of the lease. The tenant agrees that no assent, express or implied, by the lessor to any breach of any of the tenant's covenants or agreements shall be deemed or taken to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of such covenant. The lessor shall at all times have the right to enter upon said premises to inspect their condition, and at his election to make reasonable and necessary repairs thereon for the protection and preservation thereof, but notl~ing herein shall be construed to require the lessor to m~ke such repairs, and the lessor sh~ll not be liable to thc tenant, or any other per- son or persons, for failure or delay in making said repairs, or for damage or injury to person or property caused in or by the making of such repairs, or the doing of such work. The lessor shall have the right during thc last 30 days of the term of this lease to place and maintain on the demised premises and in the windows thereof the usual notice of "To Let" or "To Rent," and to show said premises to pro- spective tenants. Each of the covenants, provisions, terms and agreements of this lease shall inure to the benefit of and shall be obliga- tory upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, suc- cessors and assigns of the lessor and tenant respectively. respect to any representation, ,warranty or covenant herein contained, and shall not in any event be held liable to lessor or to lessee for the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of any of the terms or conditions of this lease or for any action or proceed- ings that may be taken by either against the other. There are no understandings or agreements outside of this lease. IN T£STII~Oh'Y WI~EREOF the lessor and tenant have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first written. We, the tenant, hereby acknowledge that at the time of making and delivery of this lease and mortgage lien, the Lessor delivered' t'o us a full, true and complete copy of same. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of: Real One Acquisitions As to Lessor. As to Tenant. .l}.y.. .................................................................................. .13.3. ............................................................ ~.:L.~;3.....q.f....~.o...u...n...d.. ................................................ By .................... rm'yo~ .................................................... B.y. .............. H~'~'~'6~ ............................................... STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF...._H NNE .IN .......................... J' ' O. thi~ ............... auy nt ............................................... ~....~../% bef&,c ,,nc u Notory.fubllc withi. ~qd for said County, person, ally Robert Fo~ston aha ~t~t~e~r~d ......... Jon..Elam ................................................................ they are th/~ ~ and ~ ~h~ ~'~a{io~ ~mtd the ]ortooin9 instrument, and t~t the teal a~xed to smd instruct is iht corporate leal off $ald eorporation, and that laid instrumen~ li~ned and sealed in behalt off aaid ~r~ration by~ut~oritv o] itt ~ooert ~oiston ~City...Counci~ ~ ..and. Jan_Elam acknowltdped ~aid instrument to be the free act and deed of ~ald eorpo- ration. COUNTY HENNEPIN STATE OF ............. O. thi~ ......................... day of: ...................... i: ...................... ~8.!~ .... belor, ~e, u ........................................................... '_ ......................................... within and for said County, personally appeure~t. ..................................... foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the some as ]rte act and deed. · November 19..~..4... $t7i nhenlnre,made in duplicate this .................................. day ot .................................................. by andbctween Real One Acquisitions, a Minnesota Limited Partnership hereinafter designated and referred to as lessor, and the City of Mound, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation hereinafter designated and referred to as tenant, ..Wx'r~:£ssE'rH: Tw^-c said lessor in consideration of the rents and covenants hereinafter mentioned, to be paid and performed by said tenant, does hereby demise, lease and let unto the said tenant, and the said tenant does hereby hice and Mound take from the said lessor, the follo~jn§ described premises situate in the City of ............................................................................ County of Hennep ~xx State Mznnes o t a ....................................................................................... of ................................................................................................ to-wit: That portion of the building owned by Lessor in Block One (1) Shirley Hills, Unit F, presently occupied by Lessee, including the liquor store area and the back storage area, together with the use of the hall for ingress and egress p~rposes Term. Utilities. To HAVE ANn To How the above premises just as they are, without any liability or obligation on the part of said lessor of making any alterations, improvements or repairs of any kind on or about said premises or the building or build- ings of which they are a part, or the equipment, fixtures, plumbing, appliances, or machinery in, upon or serving same, or the streets, alleys, areas, area-ways or passages adjoining or appurtenant thereto, for the term of two years :., from and after the ....... ~-.~- ................. day of......~g..u..~.l~. ...................... 19..~.~.., to -' ist - of August me .................................. cay ..................................................... 19 _.86, both dates inclusive, for the following purposes and for no other purposes, to-wit: Operation of a municipal liquor store And the said tenant aErees to and with said lessor to pay the lessor as rent for the above mentioned premises the sum of ...................................................................................................................................... Dollars ($ ............................... ) in monthly paymentsof Four Dollars and Ten Cents (84.10) per square foot from August 1, 1984, to August 1, 1985, and Five Dollars and Ten Cents ($5.10) per square fo'or from August 1, 1985, to August 1, 1986, ............................................................ Dollars ($ .............................. ), payable in advance on the first day of each and every month for amd during the full term of this lease, at the office of ........ ..L...e...s..s. 9~ ................................................................................................ The said tenant also covenants and agrees with the lessor as follows: That the tenant will keep at his own expense said demised premises and the equipment, plumbing, drains, fixtures, appliances and machinery in, upon, serving or appurtenant to said demised premises, in good repair and in good sanitary condition during said term, and that he will replace at his own expense promptly any and all glass broken in or about said premises with glass of the same quality; that he will make no alterations in or additions to said prentises, without first obtaining the Icssor's written con- sent, and that he will not use or permit anything upon said premises that will increase thc rate of insurance thereon, or anything that may be dangerous to life or limb, and that he will not in any manner deface or injure said demised prem- ises, or any part thereof, or overload the floors, or do or permit anything to be done upon said premises or in the passageways, alleys, areas, area-ways, sidewalks or streets adjacent thereto, that will amount to or create a nuisance; and that he will not use said premises or permit the same or any part thereof to be used for lodging or sleeping pur- poses, or for any purpose contrary to the laws, ordinances or regulations of the United States of America or thc State of..., ginne~.0...t...a- .......................... or the City of Mound ... . .......... or of any rules or regulations of thc City of ..................................................................... or of an)' boards or ot~cers of said city; and the tenant agrees to return said premises peaceably and promptly to the lessor at the end of the term of this lease, or at any previous termi- nation thereof, in as good condition as the same are now in or may hereafter be put in, loss by fire and ordinary wear ex- cepted. And the tenant further covenants and agrees to keep the sidewalks bordering on said demised premises (where thc leased space borders upon a sidewalk or passageway) and the roof of said demised premises at all times free from ice and snow and other obstructions, and to neither waste nor misuse wa er, electricity gas, steam, or any other utilities or agencies which are or may be furnished by the lessor, and to promptly pay a!l rates, costs and charges for the same, except as to such of the same, if any. as the lessor has specificaHy agreed herein to furnish free ol charge· Condition of Premises. Lessee shall not erect or permit to be erected on said premises, any signs on the exterior of the premis~ls or build- ings without the written consent of lessor endorsed hereon nor place or permit to be placed in any portion of any of the demised premises any weight or weights in excess of the reasonable or safe carrying capacity of the structure. The tenant acknowledges the receipt of the demised prem- ises and the same to be in good and sanitary condition, and in good repair, and the taking possession of the demised premises by the tenant shall be conclusive evidence that the demised premises, and the equipment, plumbing, drains, fix- tures, appliances and machinery therein, were at the time of so taking possession thereof in good, clean, sanitary and Retea,e tenantable condition, and in all respects satisfactory and ot ,acceptable to the tenant, and in the condition in which they I~,,or. were represented to the tenant to be and agreed to be put in by the lessor; and the tenant hereby releases the lessor from any and all claims arising from any defect in the condi- tion of said demised premises, or the equipment, fixtures or appliances in or sewing said premises, and the building or buildings of which they are a part, and the streets, alleys, areas, area-ways, passages or sidewalks adjoining or appurtenant thereto. The tenant agrees that he will not sublet the demised sub- premises, or any part thereof, and will not assign this le~e Icu~s. or any interest therein, nor permit such lease to become transferred by operatlou of law or otherwise, and that no act or acts will be done or suffered whereby the same may be or become sublet or assigned in whole or in part, unless the written consent of the lessor endorsed thereon shall be first obtained in each and every case of underletting or assign- ment, as they shall from time to time occur or be desired, and that nothing whatever shall be held to be a waiver of or supersede the necessity of such endorsement. Any assignment, sale in bankruptcy or insolvency of the lessee may, at the option of the lessor, be considered an assignment within the meaning of this lease and as a breach of the covenants hereof. Il .',' .~ by and between . ' ' ~ ..... hereinafter designated and referred to ~ lessor, and ii' . hcrclnaftcr dcslgnatcd and referred to as tc~t, WZTNSSS~H: T~AT said lessor in considc~fion of ~e rents and covcnan~ hcrclnaftcr mcntloncd, to be paid and k pc~ormcd by said tenant, d~es hereby dcmlsc, lease and let unto thc said ten,t, and thc said tenant does hereby hirc and %. . .. take from the said lessor, the following described premises situate in the Ci~ o~ .......... l:~uad .................................................... ' i. to-wit: ,3t77 To HAv£ ANn To Ho~ the above premises just as they are, without any liabilit7 or obligation on the part: of said lessor of making any alterations, improvements or repairs of any kind on or about said premises or the building or' buil~l- ings of which they are a part, or thc equipment, fixtures, plumbing, appliances, or machinery in, upon or serving sa'me, or the streets, alleys, ~as;'area.ways or passages adjoining or appurtenant thereto, for the term of ..~?r... w£~ts ri~h~ ~ r~r,~.a~, au providod Mr~Ln .... ..... fromand alt~r the .............. · ~, ~,~ ............ day .... ' ~ " ' 19[14....., both dates inclusive, for thc following purposes and for no other purposes, to-wit; O~er~t~on gf'a Liquor ~~'~ o~,~.x~ sum ofAnd~;l.~the ~an$mdS~d te~t a~e~ 'to md ~th. said' lessor to ~y ~e lessor as rentDollarsfOr ~e above mentioned premis~ ~e I ~:'' , ~ ..... ' ........ ~aty-~.~ ........................ -- ........ ($.~7.~.~ ............... )~n monthly J .. ~. ~~ for tl~ ~r~ 1979-1930, 198~1931 and 19G1-1902, plu. ' , ~:." . 1ff;% Df rural ~$ ond uauasouelxta and [mrkin~ l~t ~intens~cm~ ~.'..' · . o~d flor fha y~r~ 1902-193~ ~l~ m~n~hly $~ml~ ~ [ncrel~gd. ·. ~..; ?%. "' the 1')0~19~ ~rioO ~sod mx ~h~ pri~r year c~st o~ livin~ index. ~'" ...................................... : .................... ~J~[$.r{~2~.~ ................ ), pa~ble in advance on the firit day ~f ~ch and evc~ mon~ for and during the full term of this lease, at the office of,:.),RllAf4: ................................ ~ ....................................................................... The said tenant also covenants and agrees with the lessor Sls~. Lessee shall not erect or permit to be erected on said as follows: That the tenant will keep at his own expense premises, any signs on the exterior of the premises or build- said demised premises and the equipment, plumbing, drains, Ings without the written consent of lessor endorsed hereon fixtures, appliances and machinery in, upon, serving' or ' nor place or permit to be placed in any portion of any of the appurtenant to said demised premises, in good repair and in ' demised premises any .weight or weights in excess of the good sanitary condition during said term, and that he will reasonable or safe carrying capacity of the str~ctur¢, replace at his own expense promptly ear and all glass broken ' ' ' in or about said premises with glass of the same quality; '~,adltla, The tenant acknowledges thc receipt of thc demised pram. hat he will make no alterations n or additions, to said Pismire.of ' lies and the same to be in good and sanitary condition, and premises, without first obtaining the 'lessors written con- tn good repair, and the taking possession of the demised sent, and that he will not use or pcrmit anything upon said premises that will increase the rate of insurance thereon, or anything that may be dangerous to life or limb and that hc will not in any manner deface or injure said demised prem- ises, or any part thereof, or overload thc §nors or do or permit anything to be done upon said premises or in thc passageways, alleys, areas, area-ways, sidewalks or streets adjacent thereto, that will amount to or create · nuisances;' and that he .will not use said premises or permit the same or any part thereof to be used for lodging' or sleeping pur- poses, or for any purpose contrary to the laws, ordinances or regulations of the United States of America or thc State of .............. I.:tIlliRAr'l'lt .............................. : or th~ City of .......................... i',{-c.U.;'t.1. ........................................ or of any miss or regulations of the City of......,l~oll~ .............................................. l~~-''~s or of any boards or o~ccrs of said city; and thc tenant agrees to return said premises peaceably and promptly to the lessor' at the end al the term of this lease, or at any previous termi- nation thereof, in as good condition as the same are now in or . may hereafter be put in, loss by fire and ordinary wear CA- '. '.. ccptcd. And the tenant further covenants and agrees to keep thc sidewalks bordering on said demised premises (where tile leased space borders upon a sidewalk or passageway) and the roof of said demised premises at all times free from ice and snow and other obstructions, and to neither waste nor misuse water, electricity, gas, steam, or any other utilities or agencies whkh are or may be furnished by the lessor, and lhakr~}icr. tc ~rcmptl¥ ~n., n: rs!es, costs and charges for the same, premises by thc tenant shall be conclusive evidence that the demised premistsj,~nd the equipment, plumb ne, drains, fix- tures, appliances' and machinery therein, were at the t me of ' so taking possession thereof in good clean, sanitary and It,~. tenantable condition and in ;,Il respects satisfactory and l.~,,or. ,acccptab c to thc tenant, and in the condition in which they were represented to thc tenant to be and agreed to be put in by the Icslor; and thc tenant hereby releases the lessor [rom any and ail claims arising from any defect in thc condl. finn of said demised premises, or thc equipment, fixtures or appliances in or serving said premises, and the building or buildings of which they are · part, and the streets, alleys areas, area-ways, passages or sidewalks adjoining or appurtenant thereto. The tenant aD-cci that hc will not sublet thc demised premises, or any part thereof, and w[ll not assign this hast or any interest 'therein, nor permit such lease to become transferred by operation of law or otherwise, and that no act or acts will be done or suffered whereby the same may be or become sublet or assigned in whole or in part, unless the written consent of the lessor endorsed thereon shall be first obtained in each and every case of underlettlng or assign. meat, as they shall from time to time occur or be desired, and that nothing whatever shall be held to be a waiver of or supersede thc necessity of such endorscmenL Any assignment, sale {n bankruptcy or insolvency o{ the lessee 'may, at the option of the ',essay, be conslder~d an assl;'nment wi:hln Ihe .... · . =d eny or the loss o; property sustalnen oy the tenant, or Dy term of this lease, be l.n th,= ~.~o=~.fs,on anc~ occup~a_c.Y._.an.l.Y · [...~...:.,. ... · - T~at. any other person or persons duc to the demised premises or person not lawfully ent~tie.o to salo pos.se~,sson anu u.,.,..~..x, :; ':".:" 'v : .. . t.he buildings of which the demised prom scs ire a pm, or .:' ' th= lessor shall us= due d)hgcnct t,o obta,ln I~os$,tmO~n.t~nrCtr;~ ,' .,....... ,..' t [ "' .~ · the cqulpment, £xtures, appliances or roach nery in or upon of for the lessee, but it ss expressly unoersto.o{1 an,a, att c. '--.....] the same, or the halls, passages areas, area-ways and side- that the lessor, using due diligence as af.oresasd shill .not so. . . N walks or streets adjoining or appurtenant to the' same' hdng any way be liable for any failure to obtain the possession ot ; ~ , lng of any accident, or due to any act or neglect of the t I affected in any way by any such failure to obtain possession ' tenant, or any tenant or occupant ofsald'buildlng, or of'any except that the rentals hereunder shall be abated until pos-. ' .'.;" pipes, or by the use or misuse of any instrumentality or' ten notice to that effect given by the lessor to the lessee. :. · · .. agency in or connected with the demised ,premises:or 'the ,c.', · q~,,~ · building of ~,'hich it is a part, or'occasioned by any hulas, ncc ,.. ~,~. an[i' ~s nndtrstood and ag'teed wtth respect to all alterations ·.' ~ repairs, improvements or alterations to said demised made or suffered thereon or therein. · · ' " premises, or any part thereof, which shall only be with the l~V The tenant assumes all liab ty and obligation on account . written consent of the lessor, that tenant sMll and will in L~ of all da. meats on account of the matters and things above each instance save said lessor and said prcmiscs forever and reIcrrcd to, and agrees to save the lessor harmless thereon ~ . . harmless and free from all costs, damages, loss and liability · ~oan~ and therefrom, and to indcmnl~y the lessor on account there. ' , oI eve~ kind and cl:aracter which may be claimed, asserted of. This provision shall apply especially, but not exclusively, or charged, including liability to adjacent owners based upon to damage caused b7 water, snow, rain, hail, backing up of the acts of negligence of said tenants or their agents, con- water mains or sewers, frost,, steam,, sewage, illuminating tractors or employees, or upon thc negligence of any other ~s, sewer ~ls, or odors, electricity and electric current, and - , person or·persons in or about said premises or upon thc fail- :' by the bursting, stoppage or leaking of'pipes 'or radiators, ' :' ' ure of any or either of.them to observe and comply with the plumbin~ sinks and fixtures in or ~bout the dcm seal remS" requirement of iht law or with the regulatio~ of the authori- ises or the building of which the dtmlsed premises ~re a ..... part, In case of such damage thelhssor, msy.,l 'hls"option .'~' · ties in the s~ld city of./ ............... I...~.Q.~.(.~.. .............................. I. repair such damage and if such damage has occurred in z's/es.'*; and will present ~nd hbld the lessor and said premises for- thc demised premises or on account of ~he d'iltcts in the ever free and cttar from li~ns for labor and material fur. ~ -' demised premises against which the tenant has agreed in nished. And the tenant agrees that it will from time to time I make repairs, the tenant shall thereupon rdmburse th~ lessor before making any such repairs, improvements or alteratlon~ · ' for the costs of repairing such damage, and if the Itnanl tails furnish the lessor with a bond in an amount and with suretiel Io perform any of the covenants or agreements herein pro- satisfacto~ to the lessor conditioned for the performance vided lo be kept or performed by the tenant, the I~ssor may by the tenant of the matters and things in this paragraph ptdom the same and charge the tenant with the expense of required to be done by the ttnanL such ptr/omance, and iht tenant agrees promptly on demand to repay to the lessor the cost of such ptriormance by ~he It is further agreed between the lessor and tenant this lessor. .. · ltas~ is m~de upon the condhion that if the lenant ~a The tenant further covenants and a~eti that the semite ' - neglect or fail to keep, observe and perform any of Iht cove- ~ ' nones and agreements contained in this lease, which art lo ~ of notice by any o~cer of the Ci~ of..~M~..~.~J$.~.~ ......... .. be kept, obse~ed or performed by the tenant, or if the lease- hold interest ol the tenant shall be taken on ~xecution or ................................. upon elther, p~y. to4hi~ lesse to clean~ . .'1 "other process of law~ or if the tenafit shall petition to be or said premiles or to do any other set n connection therewith, be declared b~nkrupt or insolwnt accordln~ to law, or if the sMll be conclusive evidence ss between the parti~s hereto of s" ' ten~nt shall vlclle liid premises or abandon the sam~ during Iht breach by the tenant o[ Iht covenant whh respite to the ~al the term ol thll lease, then sod In any of sstd c~ses the ' non-pedomanet of which by the tenant such notice has been., 'lessor m~y Immediately or at any time thereafter, ~nd with- st~ed. ~, out further notice or .demand, enter into and upon said Any notice from the lessor to the ieh~nt, relatln~ to the . .,. premises, or any part .thertol, in the name of the whole, and demised premises or the occupancy thereof, shall be deemed ' lake absolute possession of the same fully and absolutely, duly st~td if left at the demised premises addressed to the ' without.such re-tnt~ working a forfeiture of the rents to ttnanL ... . .' . be paid and the covenants to be performed by the lesse~ for · the .full term of this lease, and may at the lesso~s electloa ~l~ The tenant further covenants and a~tts it its own expense lease or'sublet said premises, or any part thereof on such ~i[ to obse~e and keep'all regul~ions'-nd 'rtquirimehta' of the .... terms and conditions and for such rents and for such lime as ~,~o.~ elt~ n~ ~'/~1//~ ~. ~*~ ...~ . ' ~ thc lessor may e eeC, and. after crediting the rent acius y , · .', '"v'"7 ............ :""1 .......T'":'"'""7': ....... . $ubludol collected by the lessor Irom such relettmg on the rentals I c auihonhts m torte at the t~me ol the ta~ ng possession ny - ' stipulated to' be paid 'under this leas~ b~ the tenant [rom the ttnant'o[ the demised premises or which may thereafter bt made r~rdin~ the condition and conduct o[ said de- : ..... time to time, collect 'from the tenant any balance remaining due from time to time on the rent rescued under thi~ lease, miscd premises, any pm thereof, ~nd thc sidewalks adjacent. ; charging to thc t~nant such reasonable expenses as the [~ssor. thereto, including ~1 building, fire, sanilarx, poller or other,. ~ may expend in putting the prtmists in tenantable condition regulations. " ' ' Or th~ lessor may at his election and upon writltn notice to ' ' ' ' "'" ' '' g~a~ thc tenant declare this lease Ior[cited and void, and may T~ Th* tenant Iu~htr agrees that it the demised premhts, or for any p~t thereof, or any part ol thc improvements of which ~a~ thereupon· re-enter and tak~ full and absolute possession of ~bUeU~ the~ form a part, shall be taken for any street or other pub- Usair · said premises as the owner thereof, and free from an~ right · llc use, or shall durin~ the continuance of this lease be de- Bsaim~. or claim of ihe tenant, or ~ny person or persons claiming stroytd by the action of the public authorities, then this through or under the tenant; and such election and lease ~nd the tern demised shall thereupon lerminate, last mentioned shall be and constitute an absolute bar to any right to enter by the tenant upon the payment of all arrear- ~ It is further agreed between the lessor and the tenant that ages o[ rent and costs after a dispossession under any suit ~ if during the term o[this lease the demised premises or the or process for breach of any of the covenants of Ibis improvemenls thereon shall be injured or destroyed by fire . and the commencement by the lessor of an~ action to recover . or iht elements, or through any other cause, so as to render possession of ·said premises aforesaid shill bt deemed a surfS- the demised premises unfit for occupancy, or makes it impos- ,. clent notice of election ol said lessor to treat this lease as sible to conduct the business of the tenant thereon, or to such ,"void and terminated, without the written notice above speci. an extent that thtr cannot be repaired with reasonable dill- fled, unless the lessor shall in writing, before beginning such genc* within thirt7 (30) days from the happenin~ of such proceeding, notify the tenant that alter obtaining such pos- inju~, then the lessor may terminate this lease and the term session the lessor will continue to look to the tenant lot the herein demised from the date of such damage or destruction, performance ot this lease and will submit the premises oa and the tenant shall immediately surrender the demised the tenant's account, in the manner as above provide~ premises and all intertst therein Io the lessor, and the ten. ant shall pa7 rent only to the time of such ·surrender; and in ~m The tenant further agrees that all goods, chattels, fixtures case of any such destruction or inju~ the lessor may re-enter P~re~: and personal property belonging to said tenant, which art and repossess the demised premises discharged of this least, ~roam~. or may be put into said demised premises, shall It all times bt and may dispossess all parties then in pofsession thereof. But bound with a lien in lavor of said lessor, to be chargeable for if iht demised premises can be restored within s~ty days (60) all rents hereunder ~nd the fulfillment of the other covenants days (rom lh~ happening oI the injury thereto, ~nd the lesso[ · and ~greements herein contained, ~nd that in cast o~ default ~ within fifteen (1~) days from the occurrence of such inju~~ by the tenant the lessor may without nollce remove lhe et elects in writing Io so repair or restore said premises within or any part of the same, in such manner as iht lessor may ~m sixty (60) days from the happening of the injury thereto, ~t~ 'choose, and the lessor shall have the right to /ell all or Fu~ then this lease sMII not end or t~rminate on account of such inju~ by fire or othe~ise, but the rent shall not run or 'part of the same at public or private s~le, without giving accrue alter the inju~ and durin~ the process of repairs, and any notlce to the tenant of such sale, and to apply the pro. up to the time when the repairs shall be completed,, except tetris of such sale first to the payment of the costs and ~- only that the tenant shall during such time pay a pro rata pensts of conducting said sale and ~rin~ for and portion of such rent apportioned to the portion of the de- such property, and to apply the balance, if ~n~, to th~ mlsed premises which are in condition for occupanc~ or Ihen due from the ten~nt to the lessor. which ma~ be actuall~ occupied during such repairing period. If, however, 1he demised premises shall be so slightly in- Ad~ jured by any cause aforesaid, as not to be r~ndered unfit for I~T~,~ the t~es paid b~ th~or upon the property of whi~M occupancy, then th~ lessor shall repair the same with re~son- · within leased premises arc. art, shall in any y~ able promplness and in lhat cas~ the rent shall not ceas~ during the term of Ibis le~~~ and above . or be abaled during such repalrln~ period. All improvements . ' orb ct term tnt, placed by th ctcnar, t on the dcm is ed premises the sum ol .............. ~'-~"D'°ll~'~ ' shall, however, in any event, be rcpa,r:~ and replaced by the tenant at his own exptns~ and not a~ th~ expense of th~ lessor, The lessor agrees and covenants that t~e tenant, on paying ~ ........ '~e covenants aforcsald, shail and {$ ......................... ',,..~~ ~n the t~ant ]~i[btl e( · N'. .. count of incrttst ut ~xt~ L~ a.y year or yea:s shah be added ~t thc time of rent p~yment on or next ~fter thc date when ' ' non-paymen~ o[ such taxe~. H the yc~r's'~axcs ~rc pebble : ~ in ~wo or ~otelnstallmcn~s, ~en theamoun~s to be so a~cd .. .~ " shall be apponionc~ ~n~ paid in the ~ame way. lutthcr between ~e to thls (I) Zt t~e CLt?..'o~' ~ound ~. la~ ti uno~Ze: dI .... " (4) At the t~e of the;le~se altered or chang'ed pursuant'to tho et,~e~u: a~'t~ paralac, .: ..... ~ Of ~all .~tc=eaae~ ~R'~he Co~mume'r price index ,fram t}~ ~atm harao~. Lessee, upon leaving'the premhes hereby leased, shill at fishier his own expense remove all ~shes, dirt,.rubbish and ferule, Eats. and upon less~t's failure so to do, lessor may immediately wlthout further notice to lessee do the s~me tt lessee's ex- pense, which the lessee shall immediately pay upon receipt of "" ' "': I bile for s~me from lessor. The tenant further agrtei.te give the lessor ~rhttn notice ' . " thirty (~0) days before the. explr~tion of this ltas~ of his intention to vacate at the end of this"ltast otherwise lt~ior will Mvt the option 0{ continuing thh least for one year from ~nd after the txpirttion of this least without notice , ... to the' tenure. 1~, however, the lessor does not elect to so continue this least and the tenant remains in said prim. isis after Iht expiration of the' term of this least, such re- maining in possession ihall not, except ~t the option of the Htlraand OIkerL hssor, extend thc term at this lease, ahd thc tenant shall · promptly vacate said prcmists; and il ~or any reason the ten- ant does not promptly 'vacate the premises at thc end oi ~he Icftu, thc tenant agtcts to pay thc {cssor, tot such time as elapses between thc cad ol thc tc~ o{ this {case and thc time when thc tenant actua{iy vacalcs thc premises, a pro rata rents{ equal to one and one-haH (1~) timc~ the rent provided Ia.be paid. during thc term of thc {c~$t. ·" " or to lessee tar thc [ulfi{imcnt or non-iulfi{iment al any at she · :'": Thc t~ant agrees'th'at no'assent, express or implied, by ' . · terms or condi6ons o{ this lease or'Sot any action or proceed. thc lessor :o any breach.of any o/ the tenant's covtnanU or' '. ~ ~ ''{ngs Ihal may be taken by tither against the other, agreemenls shall be dccmcd or taken ia bc~ waiver o[ ~nr Theri are no undersmndings or 'agreements ouisi~e iuccetding breach of'such'covenant: . :'.'. · ' . ~ · ' .~ {tale.. '.. .: . - ]~ TZSTI~ONY W~ERzO~:thc' lessor and icnant ~vc her~unto~et their hands and s~ls thc day and year first We, ~e tenant, thereby acknowledge that at thc time of making and .dciive~ oi t~is l~sc a.nd mo,gage.li~, thc ~ssor dcllvcrcd to us a full, true and complete C0Py'Oi ~amc. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence o[: ,.: ~, , ...... ~. s. c...~n~.~ p~t~g,4~.LL~ ..................................... ·.2 ,/'? to or. .X · STATE 0F ................................................................... / ' COUNTY OF ......................................... : ..................... ~' Oa ~Ab ........................... ~ay ~] .............. ~ ................................. ]P .......... , to mt p~to~lly kno~, who, b6.9 by mt duly ~,o~, did ]ay thty art the Vitt.P~tid~t and Stcrtlary ot Iht Corpora6on named tht [ortgoing fn~tr.mtnt, and that tht ttal a~xtd to J6d fn*tru~t i: t~t corporolt $tol al ~ald corporation, and that ~old bulrument :~gned and ~taltd in bthall o/;aid corporation by aulhorit~ OI itl Board Thc lessor iha{{ at all times have the right .to enter upon laid premises to inspect.their condition,.and at his cltction to make reasonable and necessary repairs thereon for thc protection and preservation thereof, but nothing herein shall be construed to require thuiessor to make such repairs, and ' the lessor shall not be liable to the tenant, or any other per- son or persons for failure or delay in making said repairs, or for damage or injury to person or ptoperty'caused in or " by the making of such repairs, or the doing al such work. The lessor shall have the right during the {asr 30 days of thc term of this lease to place and maintain on the demised p, remises and in the windows thereof the usual notice of To Let" or '.'To Rent," and to show li}~ pramiles to pro- sportive itnaniL Each'of the covenant~, provisions, tt~l and agreements of this least shall inure to the benefit al and shall b~ oblige. tory upon thc respective heirs, extculors, administrators, sue-. ctssors and assigns al the I~ssor and tenant rcsptciivdy. acting as agent only, assumes no obligation whatsoever in respect to any reprtscntation, warranty or cownant herein contained, and shall not in any event bt held liable to lessor Witnessed; .... ................. · ............ ...'. .................................................................................... ........... . ~.. ........................... [s~c] · COUNTY OF .............................................................. l STATE OF ................................................................... .~s~. On thi: ............................ doy o/ ................................................ ]p .......... , btJort mt, O ................................................ w~thln and lot said County, ptr:onally opptortd .................... ~.~ .............. }'~ ~, know. to br th, ),.on d,.,/t,,d in o~/who ,x,cut,d th'; v!acknowled;rd ...................................... said i.;trument°"d ~a;dto br ........................ tAt,frte oc i.lond ....................................... drtd o/sm'd carpo- . ; /ottO;ob,; in~trumrnto o.d ock.owlrd~ed thol he' t~reuttd the rolion, sornt os .......... , ......................... Jrtt atl ond dtrd. o_ I I I McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS i~ PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 ' (612) 559-3700 October 17, 1984 Mr. Oon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound Lots 34 and 35, Auditior's Subdivision No. 167 and City Alley File #2113, General Dear Son: As requested, we have reviewed the proposal by a private party to purchase the above City owned lots and also the application for street vacation. I am writing this recommendation under the assumption that this party is the same one requesting the vacation of the alley directly north and adjacent to Lot 34. This same party apparently owns Lot 14, Guilford's Re-Arrangement of Lots in Mound Bay Rark, which is adjacent to the alley on the north side. It is our understanding that the City well on these properties has been abandoned and the line to the main in the street has been disconnected. We do not object to either the selling of these two lots or the vacation of the alley except that we would suggest the City retain an access to Lake Langdon from Commerce. The most logical way to accomplish this would be to re- tain all or part of Lot 35 for this purpose. This would leave Lot 34, the vacated alley, and Lot 14 as a combined building site. If the City does not want to retain an access to the lake, then all the City owned property could be released. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3C:sj cc: Jan Bertrand November 13, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-187 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF A STREET LIGHT AT VIDEO ONE DRIVENA~ ENTRANCE ON COUNT~ ROAD 15 WHEREAS, the City received a request to have a street light installed at the Video One driveway entrance on County Road 15; and WHEREAS, the request was researched by the Staff and was found to be a legitimate request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize Northern States Power to install a street light at the driveway entrance to Video One on County Road 15. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. 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 November 13, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-190 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF THREE (3) STREET LIGHTS ON CUMBERLAND ROAD WHEREAS, the City received a request to have 3 (three Streer lights installed on Cumberland Road; and WHEREAS, the request was researched by Patrolman John Ewald and the Staff and was found to be a legitimate request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize Northern States Power to install 3 (three) street lights on Cumberland Road (one at each end and one in the center). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember 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 INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO:. From: Subject: Chief Harrell '~ Officer Ewald/~· Street lights~on Cumberland Road I have followed up as you had requested and I have contacted not only the people on the petitio.n, but several who were not, who live on Cumberland Road or face Cumberland Road. My findings are attached. I have checked the area several times over the last few days after dark and because of it being an extremely long block, practically three normal city blocks long, the only way to light up the area sufficiently would be to place more than one street light in order to benefit everybody who is concerned. I believe it would take at least two, one located within the last 150 feet on the east end of Cumberland Road and one within 100 feet on the west end of Cumberland Road. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know. JNEIII/kee RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED THE PETITION FOR A STREET LIGHT ON CUMBERLAND ROAD Address Name Comments 4605 Cumberland Road 4647 Cumberland Road 4655 Cumberland Road 4663 Cumberland Road 4715 Cumberland Road 4764 Cumberland Road 4779 Manchester Road Parise family Latsis sisters Bastren family Miller family Thomas family Nelson family Heitz family Two children, ages 9 and 4. They would like to see a street light put up on one of the hills near the dips in the road. No children. Actual location doesn't matter just as long as it benefits everyone. Three children, ages 11, 5 and 4. Would like a street light put up anywhere at the top of the hill where it would benefit both sides of the street. No children. They would like tn see a street light at the east end of Cumberland Road. Two children, ages 5 and 3. They would like to have a street light anywhere on Cumberland Road. Three children, ages 10, 9 and 3. They would be grateful' to have a street light anywhere in the area. Three children, ages 5, 3 and 6 months. Would like' to see a street light near the intersection of Drury and Cumberland, $185 RESIDENTS WHO WERE NOT ON THE PETITION Address Name Comments 4600 Cumberland Road 4615 Cumberland Road 4623 Cumberland Road 4733 Cumberland Road 3000 Drury. Paul Glynn Rolland Krause Mitchell family David Eisenlord No children. Would like to see a street light anywhere in the area. No children. Would like to see a street light anywhere in the area. Two children, Ages 8 and 2. A street li'ght anywhere would help. No Children. He is in Yugoslavia for three weekg, but his house- sitter and relatives state that it is extremely dark in the area and said that he has mentioned that he would like a street light put up. Three children, ages 17, 16 and 15. The family liges on the corner of Drury and Cumberland Road and would like to see a street light on the corner. E84-040 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Proposed Trolley Boat Housing Site CITY OF MOUND November 7, 1984 JiB? Jnty Rd. 18, P.O. Box 35108, Mpls., MN 55435-0108 -- 612 / 941-5600 November 7, 1984 Services Since 1957 C.G. Kruse P.E., President J.S. Braun P.E,, Vice President R.V. Blomquist, Ph.D., Vice P~esident/ Manager Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: E84-040 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Proposed Trolley Boat Housing Site Dear Mr. Elam: This letter is to report on the results obtained from the addi- tional tasks reqUested by the MPCA at a meeting held at Mound City Hall on October 17, 1984. At that time, MPCA requested 1) installation of a monitoring well (MW-4) on the south side of Shoreline Boulevard, 2) sample all four monitoring wells and analyze for v61atile organic hydrocarbons, and 3) conduct test trenching in the areas where high magnetometer .readings_.were_. obtained. Monitor well ~4 was installed on October 23 in the area just south of Shoreline Boulevard and west of the Metro gas station. Groundwater samples were collected on October 26, and split with MPCA personnel. The results of our analysis on those samples are attached. The penetration test boring for MW ~4 encountered loose silty sand fill from the surface to the 9-foot depth. Beneath the fill, soft organic soils were encountered to approximately the 14-foot depth. Then, a fine-grained waterbea~ing silt layer was sampled. The silt extended to approximately the 18-foot depth, where sandy silty clay was then encountered to the termination depth of the boring. The clay appeared to be till, although it may be a glaciofluvial or alluvial deposit; sampling at greater depths would be required to more definitely define, the geologic origin. The results of the chemical analysis of the groundwater from the monitoring wells indicates the presence of halogenated hydrocar- I 1 E84-040 city of Mound -2- November 7, 1984 bons, especially 1,2-Dichloroethylene in MW-3 north of Shoreline Boulevard, MW-4, installed south of the road, did not show the presence of this compound. Wells 1, 2, and 4, located south of the road, did show the presence of some non-halogenated hydrocar- bons, especially benzene, toluene, and xylene. These compounds are usually associated with gasoline or other petroleum products. The high concentrations of benzene in MW-4 may be due to the abandoned gas station located just to the east. MW-4 is approxi- mately 30 feet from a buried gas tank. On October 29, the test trenching occurred in areas where high magnetometer readings had been observed. The~e areas were staked b~ the technician who obtained the magnetometer readings. Three test pits were dug with a link-belt backhoe. The pits were dug to a depth of about 15 feet, at which time peat was encountered. Previous soil borings, taken on this site had indicated that the landfill material was'located above the peat in this area. At all of the pits, obvious landfill debris, including tree parts, cans, bottles, wire, tires and particle board, were encountered. When the pits were open, the groundwater quickly filled in the pits to a depth of about 10 feet. Water samples were collected from the groundwater which filled the pit. These samples were taken back to our laboratory and, .after being requested by the MPCA, these samples were analyzed for"volatile organic hydrocar- bons. The results of those analyses are attached. .The results of the chemical analysis of the groundwater collected from the three test pits showed the presence of low levels of non-halogenated hydrocarbons. These results are consistent with the low levels found in the monitoring wells sough of th~'roadl- These results could result from general disposal of gas and oil products along with the demolition debris. During the trenching operation, our technician utilized an orga- nic vapor analyzer to monitor volatile organic levels in the air. We were not able to detect any volatile organic hydrocarbons in the area above background levels. Upon completion of the trenching operation, the pits were backfilled to the natural cover. The results of the trenching operations indicate that there are no containerized wastes in the areas where high magnetometer readings were obtained. This information, coupled with the results of the chemical analysis of groundwater from the pits as well as from the monitoring wells suggest that there are no hazardous substances associated with this landfill and that the construction of a housing project on this site can'proceed. Based on these results, I think it is appropriate to request the MPCA to write a letter indicating that they are no longer E84-040 City of Mound -3- November 7, 1984 interested in pursuing evaluations of this site and that construction activities for a housing project can proceed. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. If you should have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, BRA~ENVIRONM~NTAL L~J~O~TORI_~ES, INC. Roger~. Blomquist, Ph.D. ~' Vice President RVB:gec Attachments cc: Dave Richfield MPCA 1935 West Co.Rd. B2 Roseville, MN ~55113 October 25, 1984 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER One of the key issues (problems) that we will face in 1985 is bringing the City into compliane with M.S. 471.999, the Comparable Worth Act. Although lately we have been criticized for our salaries, the facts are that I have tried to slowly but surely bring our clerical salaries more closely inline with the salaries of the lowest levels of Public Works, etc. Clearly, we have some weaknesses. The City Clerk, with all her staff responsibilities makes 15% less than a water meter reader. The Building Inspector makes less than any other department head by $2,000, without overtime provisions, etc. I would estimate that to bring the City into full compliance will cost about $10,000 to $15,000. Not a serious total but an amount large enough to be misunderstood by the community. We have two routes to go with this issue. The first would be to select a consultant (typical proposal enclosed) and begin a study just of Mound. Cost $6,000. The second would be to join in with a larger city study (R.F.P. enclosed). The advantage with this is cost, ($1,000 to $2,000). The disadvantage is its more limited applicability to Mound, i.e. they are going to focus in on 25 typical positions. Mound, the way we are presently organized, is very untypical, thus the study will have to be carefully monitored. Another option would be evaluate and participate in the multi-city effort to learn all the ins and outs, but apply them to a Mound only study. I will plan on attending the November 6th session (Election Day) and we can discuss this on the 13th. JE:fc 545 Indian Mound Wayzata. Minnesota 55391 (612) 475-4224 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED November 1, 1984 Mr. Ralph Ruiz, President Allied Painting & Renovating 13721 South 34th Street Afton, Minnesota 55001 Re: Performance Bond Default; Mound Minnesota Tank Restoration Project Gentlemen: This letter will serve as notice that you are in default of your performance bond dated June 11, 1984. Allied Painting and Renovating, Inc. has failed to complete the above referenced work by the November 1st, 1984 completion date. Please contact and advise me by November 9th, 1984 as to how you intend to complete this project and cover additional costs incurred by the City of Mound due to project incompletion. Thank you. Sincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES n Co Lichter, P.E. mel / cc: C'~oon Elam, City Manager Larry Holden, United Fire & Casualty CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 DATE: October 24, 1984 TO: Jon Elam FROM: Sharon Legg RE: Audit of 1984 Books Attached is a quote from Abdo, Abdo & Eick for the audit of year ended 1984 and also an audit of Revenue Sharing funds. We are required to have a Revenue Sharing audit every three years making 1984 the year. I am recommending that we again hire them at a fee not to exceed $7325. which includes $225. for the Revenue Sharing audit. The fee has only gone up $100. since the; first year they did the audit. 3 1'/3 ABD0, ABD0 & EICK CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 3500 WEST 801h STREET, SUITE 440 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55431 TELEPHONE (612) 835-9090 October 16, 1984 OFFICES IN: MANKATO OWATONNA BLOOMINGTON Ms. Sharon Legg, Finance Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sharon: The year has gone by quickly and it's time to begin our year-end planning already. I am writing to provide you a fee estimate for the year-end audit. The fee estimate includes the time plus all related expenses. It is all inclusive. Our fees for the 1984 audit are estimated but will not exceed $ 7100. It is assumed that you and your staff will provide assistance to us as you have in the past. The Federal Revenue Sharing Audit will also be completed this year. It will include the testing of the financial and compliance aspects of the program in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We estimate the additional fee for this will be $ 225. This amount is also all inclusive. Sharon, if you need any other information please contact me. I am anticipating a smooth audit from start to finish and I'm sure you are also. Sincerely, ABDO, ABDO & EICK Certified Public Accountants · Groen, CPA $ I?? October 30, 1984 The City of Mound will be receiving bids for a 1985 3/4 ton Cab & Chassis until November 12, 1984, 12:00 Noon. On the bid sheet you will notice a price for a pickup box, we need to know the price of this. Could you please mail your quotes to: City of Mound Att: Greg Skinner 5341Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364 Respectfully, Water & Sewer Supt. GS/jcn September 27, 1984 Truck & Bus Group GMC Truck & Coach Operation General Motors Corporation 3001 Broadway, N.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 5,5413 (612} 378-3400 Mr. Greg Skinner City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Skinner: I am pleased to submit the fol]owing specifications Fo~ you~ .pprova!, 1985 GMC TC30903- Tires: LT235/85R-16 10 Ply Highway front and rear Engine: 6.2 liter diesel Transmission: automatic Rear suspension: 3750 springs- Paint: any standard color Single wheels Intermittent wipers Spare tire Gadges Tinted glass Cargo lamp Stainless steel below-eye mirrors Stabilizer bar Dome lamp Rust proof Net Sale Price: Option: Pickup box add $10,939.57 373.68 Mr Skinner, thank you f.~r-~your consideration. t_,%,T,.r_ITEN CHEVROLET CO. --TRUCKVILLE, U.S.A. 6701 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN GENTER, MINN. 55428 PHONE: ($12) $$1-g220 FACTORY LIST PRICE: . F~eral Exci~ Tax (Factor. D&H). $. Freight $ Dealer D&H $. O~ION NO. Transmission(If Stan~rd) ~'~~ $ Front Axle $. $ $ $ $, LIST PRICE COMPLETF LESS FLEET DISCOUNT SUB TOTAl LESS TRADE IN NO. TOTAL NET BID Bid or Inquiry No McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, iNC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ LAND SURVEYORS !] PLANNERS Novembe~ 13, 1984 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road 'Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject; Mound, Minnesota Port Harrison Townhouses #7305 Dear 3on: I apologize for not writing this report to you at an earlier date. Upon returning from vacation October 2, 1984, I found a revised site plan in my mail for the above project. These revisions were to cover changes suggested in our letter dated August 10, 1984 and approved by the City Council at their regular meeting on September 25, 1984. After reviewing this revised site plan I informed Mr, Seneca Seaman by telephone of the following inadequacies: 1) The connections to the existing sanltary sewer and watermain in ~. Commerce would have to be made at the stubs provided. These are located at the right-of-way line approximately in the Center of the lot. 2) 4) The easement for utilities as shown along the north side of the property is inadequate. An easement width of 20 foot minimum is required unless some provisions are made to run the sanitary sewer and watermain with less than the required 10 foot separation. If this is accomplished the easement width could be set at 15 foot wide. The sanitary sewer and watermain located in the aforementioned easement are noted as by others. We assumed thls to mean by the City of Mound. This was not the intention referred to in our letter dated 8/10/84. The developer of Port Harrison Townhouses should be required, at his expense, to extend the sanitary sewer and watermain to the east line of his property. Construction plans including specifications will need to be submitted to the City for this sanitary sewer and watermain extension. printed on recycled paper Jon Elam November 13, 1~84 Page Two As.of this date, we have not heard from the developer, nor have we received any revised plans. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. oc:j cc: Jan Bertrand printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager /~'1~:~ Jan Bertrand, Building Official November 13, 1984 Port Harrison Townhomes Conditional Use Case No. 84-351 Mr. James Norby was in our office this morning to discuss revising his site plan for the Port Harrison 4 Unit Town- house Conditional Use Permit. The developer woul. d like to convey a 15 foot utility easement to the north of the prop- erty instead of a 20 foot easement. The building would need to be placed two (2) feet further south on the property to miss the stairway footing area. The building line would then be placed 23 feet 6 inches from the north property line and · 20 feet to the south property line. The majority of the building area will need to have soil preparation work done on it. The developer would like to do the work before building permits are obtained. I discussed the matter with John Cameron; we feel the developer should obtain a grading permit from the City, place a bond in the amount of 125% of the project cost to assure completion of the grading work, and submit construction plans to be approved by the City Engineer. We will need the City Council to approve the revisions as soon as possible. JB/ms Io / / 'CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA Specifications for a 1985 3/4 tOn Cab & Chassis only ENGINE - 6.2 liter diesel TRANSMISSION - Automatic TIRES - 10 ply Highway front & rear with spare REAR SUSPENSION - 3750 Springs '~ 7~.F //~ MIRRORS - Stainless steel below eye level INSTRUMENT PANEL - Full gauges WIPERS - intermittent wipers STEERING ~as~' B RAKE____~S ~~~ MISCELLANEOUS ~tabil dome lamp, tinted glass, rustproofing, cargo lamp, COLOR - White OPTION - Pickup box OPTION NET SALE PRICE PICKUP BOX ~ Company-~ ~-~--~_~-' Name & Title -' ARCHDIOCESE OF SAINT PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS Community Development Corporation 328 West Sixth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 612-291-1750 October 24, 1984 Mayor Robert D. Polston and City Council Members City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The residents and Board of Directors of Westonka Estates wish to extend their gratitude to you, for without your support Westonka Estates could not exist. In particular we wish to thank Jon Elam and the staff of the City. We wish also to note that the Board of Directors of Westonka Estates is now made up of a majority of residents. Again, thank you for your help, as your participation made this housing for lower-income Senior Citizens and handicapped persons possible. Sincerely, Howard Hodges President Westonka Elderly and Handicapped Housing Corporation /dj recipient agency of the Annual Catholic Appeal BILLS ..... NOVEMBER 13, ~9B4 Air Comm Acro-MN Ben Franklin Blackowiak & Son Holly Bostrom Bury & Carlson Donald Bryce Babler Autobody Bryan Rock Products Butch's Bar Supply Braun Environmental Lab Janet Bertrand Cargill Salt Coca Cola Bottling Gary Cayo City Club Distrib City Wide Services Clean Step Rental Rugs Copy Duplicating Prod Robert Cheney Dependable Services Duanes 66 Day Distributing Donahue Doors Dictaphone Dons Sod Service East Side Beverage Jon Elam Feed-Rite Controls Floyd Security Fire Control Extinguisher Fox Valley Systems Griggs Beer W W Grainger General Communications Glenwood Inglewood Henn Co. Treas Eugene Hickok & Assoc Happy's Potato Chips Highsmith Henn Coop Seed Exchange Henn Co. Sheriff Dept Human Resource Consultant Internatl City Mgmt Assn Island Park Skelly Johnson Welding Jude Candy Kool Kube Ice K Mechanical & Excav Lowells LOGIS The Laker Louisville Landfill Commissioner of Revenue Bill Clark Oil Economics Press 214.00 70.25 5.86 56.00 344.00 1,987.50 100.00 375.00 4oo.78 ]06.75 2,915.85 10.0o 493.61 202.75 lO.0O 3,353.30 5.5o 33.74 15.00 367.00 33.oo 78.oo 3,894.14 588.7O 111.75 59.40 3,127.81 36.97 23.54 441.50 218.90 89.43 993.O5 205.25 109.37 89 25 553 OO 132.OO 162 14 109 48 16 00 581 4O 8o,0o 28O.OO 10.00 45.OO 142.46 185.OO 1,O20.00 128.71 3,028.12 574.46 45.00 4,799.5O 2,032.09 13.75 Lakeland Envelopes Lakeland Ford Truck Lake Mtka Garage Door MacQueen Equip Marina Auto Supply Mi nnegasco Mound Fi re Dept Wm Mueller & Sons MN Dept Public Safety Metro Fone Communications Meister Publishing Navarre Hdwe Newman Signs N .S .P. No Star Waterworks Neitge Construction N.C.E. Pi tney Bowes Pepsi Cola Bottling Pam O i 1 I nc Pogreba Distributing Bob Ryan Ford Royal Crown Beverage Reo Raj Kennels Rex Distributing Radio Shack Tom Rockvam Spr!ng Park Car Wash Don Streicher Guns Sterne Electric SOS Printing Suburban Ti re St Boni Oil Co. Sal i terman LTD Tri State Pump Thorpe Distributing Timber Products The Brass Bell Unitog Rental Van Doren Hazard Stallings Van Waters & Rogers Von Klug & Assoc Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton Westonka Sewer & Water Westonka Sanitation Warner Hdwe Wallin Heating R L Youngdahl Ziegler Inc P.E.R.A. State Treas Wendy Anderson Gayle Burns Election Judges Firstline Tours Griggs, Cooper 372.33 35.32 180.10 63.45 509.53 612.47 4,411.10 1,632.O6 4O.OO 35.40 37.00 335.65 260.28 3,800.13 1,281.87 235.OO 109.29 59.25 378.60 272.75 3,581.15 32.72 67.20 423.0O 327.40 49.95 154.00 75.OO 11.35 441.O4 25.70 453.45 196.55 4,200.86 87.64 4,596.57 76.50 49.95 276.07 1,478.75 483.08 675.00 7,467.43 1,703.55 190.OO 64.95 27.5O 2,353.00 495.29 2,548.47 1,517.05 5.OO 15.O0 2,808.56 10.00 3,753.77 (cont) ~'° B. ILLS NOVEMBER 13, 1984 (cont) Hartford Insurance 50.00 HRA-Mound 5,106.26 Hartford Insurance 83.37 House of Moy 48.99 Johnson Bros. Liquor 4,646.34 Richard Johnson 7.92 R.E. Johnson 552.00 R.E. Johnson 3,448.00 Wm Kalal 80.00 Bruce Kenady 100.OO L.M.C.D. 4,232.50 Mound.Postmaster 183.24 MN Public Empl Labor Rel Assn 55.00 Mound Fire Relief Assn 31,249.OO Metro Waste ContrOl 29,986.80 Metro Waste Control 841.50 Natl Fire Protection Assn 41.85 Ed Phillips & Sons 2,716.51 Quality Wine 2,803.78 Rita Peterson 5.00 P.D.Q. Food Stores 1,470.71 Michael Reese 152.86 Root-O-Mat i c 122.50 Geo Stevens-Mound SV 750.00 Marlene Sinner 145.25 Share 291.00 Brad Sohns 45.39 Taxpayers Voice Mound 40.00 Lores Tr~sk 40.00 John Taffe 320.00 John Taffe 212.50 Water Engr & Mgmt 38.00 Webco Tank 1,OO0.00 Mike Zens 35.40 TOTAL BILLS 181,4OO.81 1.1,,I October 3, 1984 Ms. A. D. Ziebell 1724 Sumach Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Ziebell: Governor Perpich has asked the Public Utilities Commission to respond to your recent letter in which you discuss the refund plan following Continental Telephone Company's recently concluded general rate case. Enclosed please find a portion of the Commission's Order which ordered the refund process to be implemented by Continental. At the moment, the matter is before the State Court of Appeals as a result of an appeal by the City of Mound, Minnesota. While it would be speculative at this time to predict the ultimate refund found to be appropriate, at the moment t~e Commission Order is legal and binding on the company. Thank you for bringing this matter to the Governor's attention. Sincerely, Executive Secretary RDY/RM/dc american center building, kellogg and robert sts. saint paul, mn 5 510~ ;,~:~ BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COt[MISSION Leo G. Adams Harry Seymour Crump Ro§er L. Hanson Terry Hoffman Cynthia A. Kitlinski Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner In the Matter of the Petition of Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota, Inc., for Authority to Chan§e its Schedule of Telephone Rates for Customers Within the State of Minnesota. DOCKET NO. P-407/GR-83-294 ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING STAY OF REFUND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 27, 1983, Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota, Inc., (Continental or the Company), filed a petition for increased intrastate telephone rates pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 237.075 (1982) with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the Commission). Continental requested an increase of $7,212,120, or approximately 16.96% in its §ross annual revenues. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 237.075, subd. 3 (1982), the Commission by Order dated July 7, 1983, authorized and set the Company's interim rates at a level sufficient to collect $4,785,629 in additional annual revenues, subject to refund, pendin§ a final Order by the Commission. The increase was to be recovered by an across-the-board increase to local service revenues. The interim rates became effective for service rendered on and after July 26, 1983. On March 23, 1984, the Commission issued its Findin§s of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Order. That Order authprized and set the Company's final rates at a level sufficient to collect $4,057,147 in additional annual revenues. Orderin§ para§raphs 4 and 7 of the March 23, 1984 Order provided as follows: 4. Within 30 days of the service date of this Order, the Company shall file with the Commission for its review and approval, and serve upon all parties of record, a proposal to refund all monies collected in excess of the increased revenues authorized in para§raph 1 above. The refund proposal shall include proposed customer notices explainin§ the refund and final prospective r~tes. 7. Any party wishin§ to submit comments on the filin§s from paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 above shall submit such comments to the Commission and all parties of record, in writing, within 10 days of service by the Company. BF letter dated May 23, 1984, Continental submitted its refund proposal to the Commission. Continental also served its refund proposal on all parties. Continental's refund proposal contained two options, Option A and Option B. Option A would return the excess interim revenues to only those customer classes where the final approved rates are lower than the interim ra s. Option B would return the excess ntertm revenues to all customer classes. Both options used a refund allocation method that returned the excessive revenues in proportion to the collections under interim rates. By letter dated June 1,' 1984, the Residentlal Utilltles Division of the Atto=ney General's Off~ce (RUD-AG) objected to Option A of the CompaHY~s proposal ~s be~n§ contrary to the Co~$5ion's ~pproved m~thod of d~str~but~n~ refunds. Also by lethe= dated June 1, 1984, the Hinnesot~ Dep~rtment of Public Service (the Department) ~nd~cated that Option 8 w~s the appropriate m~nner of d~str~butln~ refunds to Continental's customers. No comments were received from the C~t~ of Mound re~ardin§ the Company's refund proposal. On June ~, 1984, the Commission ~ssued an Order approvln§ Option B of the Company's refund propos~l. On June 15, 1984, the City of Mound f~led its Petition for Hecons~deration of the June ~, 1984 Order. Ihe petition requested that the Commission correct an ~lle§ed defect in the interim rates and return the balance of any excess interim revenues to only those customer classes where the final approved rates are lower th&n the interim r~tes under Option A of the Company's proposal. By letter dated June 21, 1984, the Department urged the Commission to continue with Option B as the most equitable plan under the circumstances of this case. By letter dated June 22, 1984, the RUD-AG indicated that the CommissiOn recently considered and rejected ~r~uments similar to those raised by the City of Mound in Peoples Natur~l Gas CompanY, Docket No. G-011/GR-83-188, Order After Reconsideration at 5-6 (April 26, 1984). The RUD-AG ar§ued that the Commission should conclude in this case, as it did in PeoDle~, that the directives of M[n~. Stat. ~ 237,075 and the interests of ~ublic policy outwei§h the equity ar§ument ma~e'by the City of Hound. On June 26, 1984, the Commission met and denied the June 15, 1984 Petition for Reconsideration. On July 3, 1984, the City of Mound appealed from the June 5, 1984 Order to Minnesota Court of Appeals. Also on July 3, 1984, the City of Hound submitted a Petition For A Limited Stay Of Refundin§ to the Commission. The City of Hound ~r§ued that if the June 5, 1984 Order continued in effect unabated ~nd the City of Mound prevailed in its appeal that Continental would be required to refund additional money to customer classes where the final approved rates are lower than interim rates but may not be able to recoup such sums from customer classes where the final approved rates are hi§her th~n interim rates. The City of Hound also argued that if such recoupment were m~de that it would be costl~ and burdensome to Continental. Finally, the City of Mound ar§ued that a ~tay of the June 5, 1984 Order was necessary to avoid the needless incurrence of expenses by Continental and its ratepayers, ~nd to avoid unfairness to Continental and customer classes where final approved rates are lower %hah interim rates. On July 16, 1984, Continental filed its Concurrence To Petition Of The ~ity Of Mound For A Limited Sta~. FINDINGS OF FACT~ AND CONCLUSION9 OF The City of Mound alle§es that interim rates in this proceedin§ were not applied in a consistent manner in the Company's metropolitan area and outstate exchan§es. While this issue is untimely raised, the Commission re~ects this ar§ument on its merits. Interim rates were apRlied in a uniform and consistent manner. The interim revenue increase was §enerated in part by increasin§ the local exchan§e line access rate component by approximately 29% for customers in the Company's metropolitan exchan§es and in its outstate exchan§es. Customers in the metropolitan and outstate exchan§es were treated ~n & consistent manner in that neither the explicit Extended Area Service (EAS) rates paid by customers in the outstate exchan§es nor those applicable to customers in the metropolitan exchan§es were increased. Findin§s of the Commission in its final order that an implicit EAS component should be reco§nized in the metropolitan exchan§e rates cannot be applied back to interim rates since the issue was not known at the time of the interim rate order and was only developed throush the contested hearings on this filin§. Therefore, the Commission concludes that metropolitan exchanges and outstate exchan§es were not treated differently under interim rates. Minn. Stat. S 237.075, subd. 5, states in relevant part that: "Rate desi§n chan§es shall be prospective from the effective date of the new rate schedules approved by the Commission." The refund method advocated by the City of Mound would place the rate desi§n determinations into effect durin§ the interim rate period and thus would be inconsistent with the statute. The Commission finds that the approved refund methodolo§y will return the excess interim revenues to the same customers in the same manner the revenues were collected. Outstate exchan§e customers will not be unjustly enriched by the approved procedure because their refunds, like refunds for customers in the metropolitan exchanges, will be based on an equal percenta~ of interim revenues paid. Since only the local service exchan§e access component for both metropolitan and out'tare exchan§es was ~increased, outstate exchan§e customers will not receive a refund of any portion of the EAS rates they paid durin§ the interim period. The Commission concludes, as it did in Peoples, G-Oll/GR-83-188, that the directives of the §overnin§ state and the interests of public policy outweigh the ar§uments made by the City of Mound. A refund methodolo§y which would make a refund on the basis of the difference between interim and final rates also presents other problems. In this case, certain final rates are hi~her than the interim rates for those services. If refunds are based on the difference between interim and final rates, the Company would have to surchar§e customers now final rates that are hi§her than interim rate leYels in order to have suff[cient amount in order to make refunds to customers now payin§ final rates that are lower than the interim rates. Such refunds would be further complicated because the Company provides numerous services to its customers ~ncludin~ local e%ch~n§e service, EAS, service connection, lon§ distance service, public and semi-public coin telephone service, telephone sets, auxiliary equipment, pa§in§ systems, private line services, touch-tone service, and custom call[n§ service. The City of Mound's proposal addresses only one of many possible rate char§es. §rantin§ the motion for & stay of the refund would prevent the timely return of excess interim Tevenues to the Company's customers. Fo= these re.sons, the Con[ss{on concludes that the Petition For St,y Of Refund should be den[ed. ORDER. 1. The ?etition For Reconsideration filed by the City of Mound on June 15, 1984 is'hereby den[ed. 2. The Petition Of The City Of Hound For A Limited Stay Of Refunding, filed July 5, 1984, is hereby denied. 3. This Order shall become effect{ye immediately. BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Randall D. Youn§~/ Executive Secretary SERVICE DATE: 1984 (SEAL) - 4 - HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, 111 ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE O~ TIlE ST. PAUL 55155 October 9, 1984 ADDRESS REPLY TO: 102 CAPITOL BUILDING ST. PAUL, MN TELEPHONE: (612) 296-6196 Ardell Ziebell 1724 Sumach Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Ms. Ziebell: I have reviewed your letter regarding the manner in which your refund from Continental Telephone Company was calculated. Under State law, a telephone company is allowed to put a portion of its requested rate increase into effect on a temporary basis while its requested rate increase is being considered by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. This temporary, or interim, increase is applied on an equal percentage basis to all customers. As a result of the efforts of my office and other participants in the rate case, the Commission reduced Contin- ental's rate request by approximately $3.2 million., and authorized a rate increase which was $728,482 below the interim rates. The Commission takes the position that Minn. Stat. ~ 237.075, subd. (3) and (5) (1982) requires that the $728,482, plus interest, be refunded on an equal percentage basis, which is the same manner in which it was collected. The validity of the Commission's interpretation and application of Minn. Stat. § 237.075, subd. (3) and (5) (1982) has been questioned. As a result, this issue is currently before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. It is anticipated that the Court will render its decision by the en~ of this year. If the Court determines that the Commission erred, it can order the Commission to have the refunds recalculated in a manner more favorable to you and similarly situated Mound residents. Finally, I share your concern over the impact high telephone bills have on senior citizens living on fixed incomes. I will continue in my efforts toward keeping telephone rates affordable for all citizens. 3~. O ~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ardell Ziebell Page Two October 9, 1984 Thank you for sharing your concern with me and taking the time to become involved. Best regards, ~~~ ~. ~.....~.~~ HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, III ~% Attorney General ~~ HHH:bd MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 22, 1984 Present were: Chairman Frank Weiland; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, Liz Jensen, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese and Michael Vargo; Council Representative Pinky. Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were the following interested persons: Robert Geib, President of HEI Inc.; Jerry Longpre of Mound Dry Goods Company; Butch and Sherri Essig, Thomas Pro- kasky', Ken Smith and Kathy Kluth. The Chairman welcomed the persons present. MINUTES The ~inutes of the October 8, 1984~Planning-Commlsslon meeting were presented for consideration. Relative to the third line of 2nd paragraph of page 3, Reese didn't think be had said that. He commented that'we have quality people; we need quality homes. Delete" to get quality people with~'. Charon moved and Meyer seconded a motion to approve the'minutes of the October 8, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Chairman stated that we would skip around a bit on the agenda as tee first case will take mOre time than the second and third cases, so we'll take those first. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. 84-367 Conditional Use Permit for'WholeSale and Assembly Operations at 2378 Wilshire Boulevard - Lots 3 thru 10, Incl., Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F Robert L. Geib, President of HE!, Inc., was present. The Planner, Mark Koegier, reviewed his .report. In 1979, the City Council approved a resolution for parking at Ms. Dees which at that time was a jewelry manbT~¢ture~'. The structure consisted of.about.99OO.square feet total. At the time of the resolu- tion aPproval, it was agreed that 26 car parking lot' was adequate to handle the needs of the jewelry business; apparently wholesaling did not generate a lot of traffic. Ms. Dees ceased operation and HEI is considering acquiring the building and utilizing the space for research, assembly and some storage. There is informa- tion on HEI's products and operation i.n the packet. The proposal calls for the firm to-initially occupy, less than half the building and of that total, about I,OOO square feet would be research facilities; assembly would be about 2,000 square feet and. the other 2,000 square feet woul'd be devoted to storage. Plan is to grow into the addJtional space as their needs demand. Initially they are looking at employing about 10 to.16 people depending on the scope of the operation and ultimately they will look.at about 40 employees. The only major issue here is one of parking. Koegler doesn'.t know of any noise problems or odor problems, etc. that the facility is goi. ng to cause for the surrounding area. Parking will not be a problem either with 26 spaces available for the 10 to. 16 persons employee count. The Planner's recommendation is that as business grows and they get closer to that 40 employee count and need more parking, the Company be responsible for acquiring off-street parking for employee and visitor use. Discussed parking and whether or not there was public parking in the shopping center; also it was suggested that they might acqui're some of Tonka's parking. Planning Commission Minutes October ZZ, 1~§4 - ?age ~ Reese moved a motion for approval of the conditional use permit with the provisions Staff recommends. Mr. Gelb briefly reviewed his operations stating that most of the sub-assembly work will be done in their other plants; they plan to do final assembly here and develop and research their products at this location. The motion was seconded by Charon. The vote was unanimously in favor of approval. Motion.carried. The City Council will be asked to hold the public hearing on November 13, 1984. CASE-NO. 84-368 Sign Permit for Mound Dry Goods/Longpre's, 2300 Commerce Boulevard Metes & Bounds Description - PID #13=117-24 33 0016 Jerry LongPre was present. The Planner explained that Longpre has a request in that falls under a sign vari- ance. What they are requesting to do is to construct an "L" shaped canopy that would be about 42 feet in length. An additional canopy 4 feet wide over the side door would be installed and the "L" one would go around the two sides and front portion of the building. The awning would have a 2 foot 6 inch projection from the wall out over the right-of-way. The right-of-way line is literally right on the building line. On the awning itself, they propose to put-the name of the establishment in 15 inch high lettering that would run about 60 inches in length. The Planner. stated that's where we get into the signage issue. In the Building Official's report, you will note that the signage area she computed falls well within the provisions in the draft ordinance. The proposed draft allows signs to project over the public right-of-way not more than 18 inches. The reqUested awning would project over the right-of-way 2 feet 6 inches. The Staff feels that-this ~s primarily an awning with the sign attached and does recommend approval. Mr. Longpre stated that he had the awning sign designed.by professionals; sign will be navy blue and of a new fabrication (Sunbrella) which outlasts canvas; looks like canvas and is not plastic. Byrnes moved the recommendations of the Staff to approve the sign permit as requested. The City Manager stated that there is a second application that is an extension of these awnings that goes down the road for the new store, Two Plus Two. They are going to do same awning and somehow we miscued here--they.turned in an app for our Downtown Improvement Program, but didn't turn in app for the sign permit. He stated that it would seem to him they would probably want to do all of these awnings at the same time, so he asked if the Commission would incorporate approval of this. It was discussed that awning would be identical with !5 inch lettering except they'll use their logo for "Two Plus Two". City Manager stated application and fees would be collected, but it seems too bad to delay installation of this.a month. Byrnes amended his motion to further recommend approving the signage all the way down including "Two Plus Two" The motion was seconded by Meyer. The vote was unanimously in favor of approving signage for Mound Dry Goods/Longpre's and for Two Plus Two. Motion carried. This will be considered by the City Council on October 23, 1984. Planning Commission' Minutes October 22, 1984 - Page 3 CASE NO. 84-355 Conditional Use Permit - Multiple Dwelling and Marina at 2670 Com- merce Boulevard - Metes & Bounds Description - PID #23-117-24 14 0009 Thomas W. Prokasky of Omni Shelter, Inc. and Mr. & Mrs. Butch Essig were present. The Planner explained that this item.was before the Commission'.on September 24th and since that time, Mr. Prokasky has modified his plan and is back with a building shape that is a little different and location is somewhat' different as it impacts the setbacks. The front yard setback is now 4 feet (was 4½ feet) resulting in a 47 foot variance still on the front which is the parking lot side; the rear setback is now 19 feet requiring a 15 foot' vari. ance (decrease of 14.5 feet) which abuts the single famil.y residence. Regarding density, the total un, it count has been reduced from 34 to 29 units which provides an average of about 1521 square feet of lot area per-dwelling unit (3,000 square ..feet is ordinance requirement). That brings the gross density down to about 28½ units per acre. The lot usage was an issue pre- vlously; the revisions made have literally brought the structure into conformance with the zoning ordinance in .regard to the lot usage. The 28 units require a total of 73 parking stalls. There are 20 exterior spaces on the north side of building which conform to ordinance size requirements of City Code as well as setback pro- visions. The 58 spaces on the interior of'the structure are presumably 9 feet by 18 feet with a 22 foot aisle (previous proposal). There was quite a discussion last time about the interior dimensions. In reviewing, the Planner said he would agree with Mr. Prokasky that the City's Ordinance is overly restrictive as compared to interior parking. He tried to get a bit of a~handle on what is reasonable and consulted a cQuple of sOurces that do parking ramps for a living and basically con- cluded that anywhere in the range from 9 feet by 18 feet to 9 feet by 19 feet is reasonable for stall size with about a 25 foot.wide aisle. He commented that essentially the modifications the applicant has made have reduced the scale of the project and presumably it has somewhat reduced the impact on the abutting single family residence. Particularly noteworthy in the changes made ~s that tl~e-¥arlamce count has been si.gnificantly reduced from 15 to 6 and of these, 3 deal with parking. The three outstanding variances that remain, pertain to front setback, the rear set- back and the total density of 1521 square feet per dwelling unit. He noted the 2 issues that need to be addressed and are not significantly different than they were are: 1) Is the combination of the residential condominium structure and marina a compatible land use? and 2) Is the density of the project consistent with what the City wants to do as expressed in'the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and what actions have been taken in the past. If answer is yes, then Staff would recommend approval contingent on the conditions listed in his report. Mr. Prokasky pointed out some things concerning the site; .they have modified the position of the building on the site and have arrived at a figure for the footprint of the building that roughly works out to be 20% or smaller, etc. Prokasky com- pared possible uses of the site stating that withcut variance at all, the site could have a 45 foot high commercial building or a single family 2½ story residence. They believe the physical impact of the proposed use of the site is reasonable and has the potential of'being the most desirable use on this site. The B-! zoning would allow commercial activities of far greater density just as it stands. The Commission discussed the revisions and the proposal at great length and asked many questions relative to the project, such as distance from the lake, what about parking for the marina, what the interior parking dimensions do to the layout, if permanent docks were being proposed and if the water would be kept open all year, how many docks would that property warrant without the marina connection, whether Planning. Commission Minutes October 22, 1984 - Page 4 structure wasnmt really coming to wlth~n 4 feet o~ neighbor's property on the east where the parking ramp was buried, whether.there would be a conflict of parking between residents of the condominiums and the public parking area, the overall height of existing building, fire accessibility, trash containment,. green area, how does the density compare with other condominiums on the lake, how do we divide up the mass of that structure, what impact will there be on public services, the community and the roads, how do you waterproof roof.over the garage area,' would.people complain of noise from the City park and are there'~ny plans for a restaurant on. first floor? Michael moved and Charon seconded a motion that the ,request be approved con- tingent on the Staff's recommendation of conditions. commissioner Reese stated that he opposed the request for the following reasons: 1. He believes the entire basement is.structure,and has never seen a Poured roof that didn't leak.· 2. Parking is substantial issue. 3. There is a question of fire access; 4. Permanent docks with open water are hazardous. 5. Request for relief is 100% economics. 6. If proposal granted, we're sending wrong message to other developers. 7. Gross deficiency in densitY - it is way too great (the seniors building was a different situation and Lakewinds already existed) 8. Proposal is minimum; not a squarefootage allowance for commercial; it is,~he Wrong thing for MoUnd to .do. Commissioner Vargo concurred with the above and thought there should be more provision for gr. een space and that the density was inappropriate. Charon moved an amendment that no variance· be granted on the East side toward the neighbor's residence. Prokasky stated that would affect .6 units. Motion was withdrawn; The vote on the motion was: Charon and Michael~ in favor; Byrnes, Jensen, Meyer, Reese, Vargo and Weiland against the motion. Motion was defeated. The public hearing by the City Council will be held on November 13, ]984. Interview with candidate'for Planning Commission Membership Kenneth R. Smith of 2927 Cambridge Lane was present. In response to the questions of the Commission, he told them that he is an insurance salesman and can see no conflict so he'd not be able to. attend the meetings on .a regular basis. He is interested in the quality of the City and wants to see the City grow. Byrnes moved and Jensen seconded a motion recommending to the City Council that Kenneth Smith be appointed for Planning Commission membership to replace George Kinser. The vote was unanimously in favor. It was decided to discuss satellite dishes and Commission work rules at the November meeting. ADJOURNMENT Byrnes moved and Michael seconded, a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 P.M. All in favor, so meeting was aajourned. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 DATE: October 23, 1984 TO: don Elam FROM: Sharon Legg Attached is the third quarter financial statement for the Liquor Store. Again, this is only an estimate since we do not take inventory at this time. This year this is probably more of an estimate than last year, too. This is because Joel has changed the pricing scheme so basing cost of goods sold on the fir~ half of the year when Nels was running things may not have much reflection on this quarter. It should be interesting to see the effects of changing the pricing structure at year end. CITY OF MOUND, ~INNESOTA LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET 'Sept 30~' 1984~~ 1983':'and 1982 m ·ASSETS Current Assets ~ash Petty Cash Due from other funds Inventory *Prepaid expenses (insurance) Property and equipment Less: accumulated depreciation Total Assets · .' ~984 $ '75,089 925 76,558 148,572 59,224 (51,245) 7,979 156,551 1983 ]22,049 925 100,723 223,697 58,363 (49,CO~) 9,358 233,055 1982 $ 190,518 925 3,880 98,156 '579 $ 29'4,0'5'8 57,509 (47,87?,) $ 9,630 $ 303,688 LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS Liabilities Accrued benefits Accounts Payable TOtal Liabilities $ 1,338 4,799 6,137 150,414 156,551 Retained Earnings Total Liabilities and Retained Earnings 7,351 4,795 12,146 220,909 233,055 10.,288 14,233 289,455 303,688 RI2. CITY OF MOUND MINNESOTA [IQUOR FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSE AND RETAINED EARNINGS 'PERIOD ENDED SEPT 30, 1984, 1983 AND 1982 Percent Percent ' .1984 of sales .1983 of sales Percent 982 of sa les ;ales' Eiquor Wine Beer Miscellaneous Discount on sales Total Sales ~ost of goods sold Gross profit Dperating Expenses Operating income 172,969 $ 32.75 $ 173,972 $ 34.01 73,616 13.94 71,925 14.06 246,585 $ 46.69 $ 245,897 '$ 48.07 270,470 51.21 254,626 49.78 14,327 2.71 11,666 2.28 (3~2.29) (.61) (674) (.13) 528,153 $ 100.00 $ 511,515 $ 100.00 75.51' 391~974 76.63* $ 24.49 $ 119,541 $ 23.37 $ 19.14 $ 90,714 $ 17.73 $ 5.35 $ 28~827 $ 5.64 398,808 129,345 lOl,O8O 28,265 Other Revenue (Expense) Commissions $ 293 Check processing fee 107 Cash over (short) 43 Refunds (920) Write off NSF checks Total Other Net income before transfer 215 160 4O (1863) (477) $ (.09) $ (1448) 27,788 $ 5.26 $ 27,379 263,864 $ 49.68 253,828 47.79 13,415 2.53 531,107 $ 100.00 399,764 75.27* 131,343 $ 24.73 95,326 $ 17.95 36,017 $ 6.78 $ 236 79 (72) (473) $ (.28) $ (23o) $ (.04) $ 5.36 $ 35,787 $ 6.74 Retained Earnings- B~glnning of Period $ 122,626 $ 193,530 $ 253,668 Retained Earnings- End of Period $ 150,414 $ 220,909 $ 289,455 Percentage based on first half of the year costs of goods sold. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA LIQUOR FuND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF OPERATING EXPENSES PERIOD ENDING SEPT 30, 1984, 1983 and 1982 Period Period 1984 Ended Ended Budge~, S~pt 30, 1984 Sept 30, 1983 Operating Exoenses Salaries Office Supplies Copy Machine General operating supplies Professional Services Audit and financial Postage Telephone Use of Personal auto Printing Publications Workers compensatiOn General liability insurance Utilities Equipment repair lding repair d and landscape Jilding rent Central equipment rent Licenses and taxes Other contractual Janitorial Depreciation Write-off NSF checks Miscellaneous Total operating expenses $ 94,607 $ 72,083 $ 61,799 426 244 71 6OO 59 45 2,600 1,500 1,298 0 63 600 2,000 1,218 1,167 150 55 6 1,450 1,162 700 120 152 68 300 350 268 0 59 75 1,135 887 207 17,000 5,816 5,643 6,670 4,441 4,699 500 623 383 1,pO0 - 120 100 5O 25 11,350 7,152 7,465 3,800 2,437 2,529 60 59 54 400 221 280 1,6o0 1,o14 1,186 1,50o 1,o78 366 300 - - 65O 357 1,66o $ 148,318 $ 101,080 $ 90,714 Period Ended Sept 30, 1982 61,582 61 310 1,672 1,605 115 795 74 322 513 8,711 4,869 739 57 10 7,671 2,242 54 1,275 2,274 374 $ 95,326 - .IHEiNNEPINL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-3381 October 22, 19 8~ Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: SpeeQ Limit on CSAH 125 at Black Lake Bridge Dear Mr. Elam: I have had conversation with representatives of the Minnesota Department of Transportation concerning the speed limit on CSAH 125 in the vicinity of Black LaKe Bridge. The current speed limit on CSAH 125 between' CSAH 15 and Tuxedo Blvd. is 30 MPH. It was generally agreed that the 30 MPH speed limit is appropriate on this se~nent of roadway except for the vertical curve over the bridge. As you are probably aware this vertical curve was designed for a 25 MPH stopping sight distance and a variance to that affect was obtained from the State Aid Department. Since this is the only point on the roadway where 30 MPH is inappropriate, it was decided that the best solution would be to install warning signs with advisory speeds to alert the motorists to the condition. "Limited Sight Distance" warning signs with 25 MPH advisory speed plaques have been ordered installed for both directions of traffic in advance of the bridge. Yours truly, Dennis L. Hansen, P. E. County Traffic Engineer DLH:de cc: Herb Klossner Vern Genzlinger Gary Rylander HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal oppodunity employer I I I I I I I I I I I '"-.,I ",.J "-.,I '"-...I ~ *"'..J '-.,J '"-,J '-.,I ".,J I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~J3 ~ '~J F,) ~ -L'- 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) C) CD 0 C~ CD CD CiD CD CD CD .~- ~ ~ ~0 .~J O~ 0 ~ 0 O0 0 ~ '~J ~J3 ~JD J:' O~ 0 0 0 ~J1 0 10 o 10 o ~ o o o ~- o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82,17 ,3~18 careers 5300 Gl enwood ^ve. Mpls., MN 55422-5192 (612) 545-4550 October 25, 1984 Len Harrell Mound Police Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Chief Harrell: Law Enforcement Exploring is really growing. Departments such as yours are giving students a great opportunity to see what po. lice departments can do. We are proud of what our Explorers have achieved. The Minnetonka Explorers took the national first place prize for domestic intervention, while the Mound Explorers placed 4th in traffic stops. Besides these team efforts, several Explorers rank nationally in pistol competition, physical agility, and written This is due to your support of Exploring. We at Viking Council wish to thank' you for that support. It is impacting many lives. Have a good day: Sincerely, Candace J. Bouvin Exploring Executive P.S. Enclosed please find ~n article from the Minnesota Sheriff. It has nice Explorer coverage. Area Area No. Lake Minnetonka 1-42 Halsteds Bay 1 Priests Bay 2 Cooks Bay 3 West Upper Lake 4 South Upper Lake 5 Smi thtown Bay 6 Phelps Bay 7 East Upper Lake 8 Carmans Bay . 9 Old Channel Bay 10 Spring Park Bay 11 Black Lake 12 Emerald Lake 13 Seton Lake 14 Harrisons Bay 15 Jennings Bay 16 West Arm 17 Forest Lake 18 Coffee Cove 19 West Crystal Bay 20 East Crystal Bay 21 North Arm 22 Stubbs Bay 23 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1983 LAKE USE STUDY Boats Boats Boats Stored Stored in Use per per per 20 Acre Mile Acres Water Shore Water .46 52 2.29 .21 16 .55 .56 39 .97 .60 94 1.75 .18 35 1.1~ .29 31 3.66 .53 48 1.45 .43 40 1.62 .15 34 3.07, .58 44 1.70 .46 38 .94 .51 73 1.34 1.33. 32 2.1!. 2.23 29 1.54. 1.43 29 9.55 1.95 120 1.67 .84 70 1.2~,, .32 43 1.60, ~ 51 3.4_.__1_1 1.54 49 ~}.6~ .38 50 .98 .22 25 1.85 .56 38 1.44_ .33 26 1.23 Launching Facilities: No. Slips or Boats C.D, Acres Water: Miles Shore 112 75 69 156 190 109 92 93 226 75 82 145 2~4 1--3 20 61 83 132 46 3_/2 130 116 68 78 Critical 'or Potenti al ly Cri ti cal. Condition PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC C C C C PC PC C C PC PC PC Area Area No. Maxwell Bay 24 1.04 Lafayette Bay 25 .62 Smiths Bay 26 .26 Tanager Lake 27 1~29 Browns Bay 28 .28 Wayzata Bay 29 .48 Grays Bay 30 1.21 L~i~ Lake 31 5.06 Roblnsons Bay 32 .89 Bay St. Louis . 33 2.15 Carsons Bay 34 1.4~9 St. Albans Bay 35 1.77 * Excelsior Bay 36 3.7~ Gideons Bay 37 .94 Echo Bay 38 .67 Big Island Passage 39 .06 Veterans Bay 40 .26 I Lower Lake South 41 .31 Lower Lake North 42 .08 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1983 LAKE USE STUDY (Continued) Boats Boats Boats Stored Stored in Use Launching per per per 20 Facilities: Acre Mile Acres No. Slips Water Shore Water or Boats 85 6.20 74 1.98 36 .68 60 2.35 56 .34 69 1.77 68 1.67 78 2.32 23 1,96 72 0 64 3.45 98 2.48 283 8.44 71 1.58 20 0 2 21.67 19 15.37 68 1.92 29 3.35 C.P. Critical Acres or Water: Potentially Miles Critical Shore Condition 81 C 119 PC 140 _ 46 C 199 _ 141 PC 56 C 15 C 26 C 33 C 43 C 56 C 75 C 75 PC 30 PC 45 C 75 PC 222 PC 380 PC Base Numbers: 1 * Boat Count Figures Are Suspect 100 1 1+ Under 60 = Crowded; 60 - 100 = Potentially Crowded M -I,r'op__oli-I- m ~.~r Suite 300, Metro Square Budding, St Paul, Minnesota 55101 612 291 6359 POSITION PAPER FOR LEGISLATION ON COMBINED STORM AND SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW Proposed Legislation The Council and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will ask the 1985 session of the Minnesota State Legislature to establish a state construction grants program to provide financing for accelerating the separation of sewers in Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul that convey both stormwater and sewage. The program would provide funding to meet state and federal permit compliance schedules for sewer separation in the Metropolitan Area. Funding alternatives under review include state or regional bonding and both grant and loan programs. Under one approach, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will also be requesting funding for outstate communities to meet federal Clean Water Act requirements. An annual appropriation in the $40 to $50 million range would be requested. Of this amount, 2/Sths, or from $16 to $20 million, would be available to the Twin Cities Area for sewer separation, with 3/Sths allocated to the rest of the state to meet mandated federal water quality deadlines. The Metropolitan Area portion, plus a share of the state's federal construction grant allotment dedicated to sewer separation, would be matched dollar-per-dollar by the three cities with local funds over a five-year period. Total estimated cost for the sewer separation program, not counting regional facilities, is $214 million. Why Action Is Needed Now When it rains, millions of gallons of stormwater, combined with untreated sewage and other wastes, pour out of 87 bypass pipes directly into .the Mississippi River. Normally, the pipes convey the wastewater to the Metropolitan Waste Con trol Commission's Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul for treatment. However, the interceptor sewers leading to the plant are not large enough to handle heavy rain flow, so automatic bypass gates in the sewer system are opened to divert the wastewater into the river. During a year with average rainfall and snowmelt, an estimated 4.6 billion gallons of mixed sewage and-storm- water pour into the river. It occurs, on the average, every three days during warm weather. Heavy rains also cause local street flooding and sewer backups in homes in some areas served by combined sewers. The federal Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage into any of the nation's waters. Rather, all sewage must receive treatment so that about 90 percent of the pollutants are removed prior to discharge into a water body. The combined sewer overflow discharges require a state permit acceptable to the federal government that includes a mandatory plan and program to end the discharge. The discharges can be eliminated by completing a storm and sanitary sewer separation program initiated by the cities many years ago, or by collecting, storing and treating all the combined stormwater and sewage. The Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant currently treats 73 billion gallons of wastewater annually. It now meets state and federal standards. This was not always the case. It took ten years, and $400 million of state, federal and regional funds, to upgrade the plant to the point where its treated discharges have only a minimal impact on the Mississippi River. Priority was given to the plant during the last decade because its discharge was 16 times greater than was the total discharge from the 87 combined sewer overflow pipes on the Mississippi River. Figure 1 THE PROBLEM OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW Combined Sewer Overflow Sewage Stormwater gallons annuall' With the Metro Plant up to standards, the next key step in cleaning up the Mississippi River is to figure out the best way to keep raw sewage from entering the river. Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul began to separate their sewers long before the major upgrading of the Metro Plant began. Their pipes are very old, and were built by the cities at a time when the prevailing way to "treat" wastewater was merely to dump it into rivers and lakes. Minneapolis has separated all but 13 percent and St. Paul 40 percent. As of 1982, Minneapolis had spent $85 million, and St. Paul $68 million, on separation. South St. Paul has separated 65 percent of its pipes at a $3 million cost to the city. At current spending rates, it would take 20 to 45 years to complete the separation. A five-year completion schedule financed solely by the three cities could bankrupt them. The Twin Cities and state have made ambitious, expensive and salutory efforts to maintain the quality of Minnesota's /aters. Combined sewer overflows are an anachronism the face of this tradition. Without state financial assistance to accelerate the solution, the Twin Cities Area could be subject to enforcement action by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The enforcement agencies could levy fines and mandate solutions that would remove choices and options the Metropolitan Area might wish to pursue to solve the problem. One such option could be constructing new filtering equip- ment at the plant that could cost in the neighborhood of $1 $0 million. In addition, storage, chambers to hold the overflow would need to be built. The benefits from convey- ing all stormwater in the combined pipes to the Metro Plant for treatment would be very minimal. The raw sewage, on the other hand, is not only unsightly, but contains large amounts of disease-carrying bacteria and viruses. Separatin§ the pipes that carry both sewage and stormwa'ter will remove these pollutants from the Mississippi River. The agencies could impose a ban on hookups to the central sewer system until the problem is rectified. The effect of such an action could be to halt construction of buildings of all types-new homes, new industry or new commercial developments affecting 66 cities and townships and about 80 percent of the Twin Cities Area's population. The action would hit the Twin Cities suburbs particularly hard. It O would bring downtown and neighborhood commercial and esidential development to a halt. A court could impose a solution. This situation could occur after the permit is issued and if the three cities, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission or the Metropolitan Council do not meet the permit schedules for ending the raw sewage discharge into the Mississippi River. Recently, the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area was taken to court over the quality of the area's discharges into Lake Michigan. Under a Figure 2 PROPOSED FUNDING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM / Sewer ~,~_'~,,~"~' State and ' _. ,L' Regional t s t St. Paul Grantsor court-imposed plan, Milwaukee must spend a huge amount of money, $1.6 billion, to expand its wastewater storage and treatment facilities. The state of Wisconsin went to court recently asking for court review of the permits issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency which govern resolution of the Twin Cities combined sewer overflow problem. Benefits Separating the combined sewer pipes to end the practice of dumping raw sewage in the Mississippi River will help ameliorate a public health threat posed by the bacteria and viruses that now enter the river via overflow outlets. What groups of people will benefit? Everyone along and down- stream of the current outfalls: river users of all types, the three directly affected cities, the public and states down- stream from the Twin Cities. Minnesota as a whole will benefit. Its greatest river will be cleaner and more esthetic. Solving the combined sewer overflow problem removes a threat of state or federal sanctions or court-dictated answers that might be doubly expensive or impact the natural suburban growth and development of the Twin Cities Area. Figure 3 SEWER SEPARATION: COSTS THROUGH 1982 AND PROJECTED COSTS, BY CITY Percent Separated 2O Minneapolis St. Paul ] Needed to complete progTam South St. Paul What Needs to Be Done Combined sewer overflow in the Metropolitan Area and inadequate wastewater treatment are two important water quality problems remaining in the state. There has not been enough federal and state funding to solve those problems on an accelerated timetable. 1. The 1985 legislature needs to fund adequately the independent state construction grants program that was established by the 1984 legislature and authorize financing for completing the separation program on an accelerated schedule. 2. The Congress needs to pass a new Clean Water Act that provides an appropriate federal share of the cost of further water quality, improvements. These actions will, in turn, provide the necessary financin§ so the sewer separation program can be carried out rapidly and outstate communities can get on with improving their water quality. 3. Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul need to complete their planning for sewer separations, which is currently under way. 4. The Metropolitan Council needs to amend its Water Resources Management Development Guide to include the separation projects. The changes are scheduled for early 1985. The Council also needs to give an earlier-than-planned go-ahead to three regional sewer interceptor projects that are planned as part of the sewer separation solution. Estimated cost of the regional interceptors is about $20 million. These proposals represent the Metropofitan Council's position as of the pubfication date shown be/ow. They may change between now and the 1985 session of the Minnesota Legis/ature. If you have questions or comments about the proposa/s, p/ease ca//the Council's Communications Department at 291-6464. Nov. 1, 1984 Publication No. 13-84-152 Suite 300, Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -- 612 291.6359 POSITION PAPER FOR LEGISLATION ON REGIONAL PARKS The Metropolitan Council, in its role as planner of the Twin Cities Area regional park system, is asking the Minnesota Legislature for help in two key areas: - Bonding funds for the continued acquisition and development of regional parks, and - Supplemental state funding for the operation and maintenance of regional parks. Funds for Acquiring and Developing Parkland Proposed Legislation The Metropolitan Council is asking the legislature to appropriate state bond funds to continue its capital grant program to acquire and develop regional parks. As of October 1984, the Council, assisted by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, was reviewing specific project needs of the area's 10 regional park "implement- ing agencies" (six counties, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District, and the cities of Bloomington, St. Paul and the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board). The Council is expected to make a bonding request of approximately $22 million for fiscal year 1987. Why Action Is Needed Now Since 1977, the legislature has appropriated state bond funds for regional parks, most recently in 1983 when it appropriated $17.3 million. As scheduled for sale by the state Department of Finance, those bonds will fund grants for fiscal years 1985 and 1986. The 1985 legislature will be asked to provide funds for the second year of the biennium, fiscal year 1987. Funding levels have clearly fallen since 1981 -a direct result of the state's tightened fiscal condition (see Figure 1 ). Reductions have come from lower legislative appropriations and from bond sale schedules stretched out by the state Department of Finance. As a result, the Council's grant fund is now operating at a minimal level, with funds being received quarterly from the state for grants to be awarded in the subsequent quarter. The grant fund will have essentially no uncommitted funds left at the end of fiscal year 1986. New funds for fiscal year 1987 are clearly required. Benefits Projects in the grant program for fiscal year 1987 emphasize completing or nearly completing development of needed facilities or solving acute problems. Some examples are: -- Long Lake-Rush Lake Regional Park, a close-in regional park in New Brighton, needs $1.2 million to complete its development. The park will serve heavily populated portions of Ramsey and Anoka Counties and Minneapolis. Como Park, in St. Paul, needs $4.3 million for roads, parking, a picnic pavilion and a relocated amusement park. Como draws over 1 million visitors each year. It has had no significant park facility redevelopment in over 50 years. Lake E/mo Park Reserve, in Washington County, needs $1.1 million for family camping, trails and a visitor contact center. The park reserve provides high-priority facilities in a badly underserved part of the region. Spring Lake Park Reserve and Lebanon Hi//s Regiona/ Park, in Dakota County, need $500,000 for camping and picnic facilities, thereby completing first-phase develop- ment of priority facilities in the fastest-growing part of the region. Medicine Lake Regional Park, in Hennepin County, needs $1.8 million to complete its development. This park offers the best potential for relieving use pressure at the Minneapois Chain of Lakes, the system's most heavily used park. Also needed is $557,000 to pay off long-standing assessments against acquired land parcels. An amount of $2.4 million is needed to match federal Great River Road funds for acquisition and development of parks and parkway facilities along the west bank of the Mississippi River adjacent to downtown Minneapolis. Figure 1 FUNDING FOR ACQUIRING AND DEVELOPING REGIONAL PARKS, 1975-1986 Millions of Dollars 22.5 ~5.o I I 12.s ~ II - 10.0 7.5 5.0 11 , 1975 '77 '79 '81 '83 '85 '87' Fiscal Year *Tentative request This project is a key portion of Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park and overall redevelopment of the Minneapolis riverfront. An additional $1.5 million is needed for park development on Boom and Nicollet Islands. - Lake George Regional Park, ~n Anoka County, needs $350,000 for roadwork, parking, lake access and sanitary facilities to relieve an acute crowding problem. - Como Conservatory, in St. Paul, needs $2.8 million to continue the renovation of this heavily used historical facility. - Bryant Lake Regional Park, in Hennepin County, needs $710,000 for improvements to a beach, access road, parking and sanitation facilities in a location serving south Minneapolis and heavily populated suburban areas. Financing Debt services required to be paid on the expected $22 million bond request is as follows: - Fiscal year 1987:$3.6 million - Fiscal year 1988:$2.7 million - Fiscal year 1989:$2.6 million These figures assume an interest of 8.1 percent, to be paid over 20 years. The bond sale would be in August 1986. Funds for Operating and Maintaining Regional Parks Proposed Legislation The Metropolitan Council seeks legislation to authorize and fund a grant program to help regional park implementing agencies pay up to half their annual costs to operate and maintain regional parks. To provide this supplemental funding, the following amounts will be needed: - Fiscal year 1986:$9.2 million - Fiscal year 1987:$9.8 million - Fiscal year 1988:$10.4 million - Fiscal year 1989:$11.2 million The preferred source of funding is a stable, state-wide source, such as a dedicated tax on soft drink and candy sales. Initial distribution of funds to implementing agencies would be determined by the following formula: - Local effort to support region.al operation and maintenance (30 percent) - Total number of users in an agency's regional parks (30 percent) - The share of the region's park acreage for which the agency is responsible (weighted for land-use intensity) (25 percent) - Council discretion for starting new projects or remedy- ing inequities created by the formula (15 percent) This formula is the result of compromise among implement- ing agencies about which factors to include and the relative importance of each. The Council recommends, however, that no formula be written into the legislation so as to permit adjustment by the Council as experience may recommend. The program should be administered by the Council on a block-grant basis, subject to a post-grant audit by the Council. Why Action Is Needed Now Since 1974, acquisition and development of the regional park system has been funded by grants of regional and state funds from the Council to the 10 regional park implement- ing agencies. These agencies have had the sole responsibility of funding operation and maintenance costs of these parks. Also since 1974, two major changes have occurred: 1) pressure on local governmental finances, particularly on the property tax, has increased tremendously; and 2) the regional park system has progressed from primarily an "acquisition mode" to an increased "development and operation mode," with the attendant increased costs. In 1983, the system-wide operation and maintenance .cost was about $15.7 million. Of that amount, 86 percent came from property taxes. System-wide costs are projected to jump to $22.4 million in 1988 (see Figure 2). Figure 2 COSTS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING REGIONAL PARKS, 1980-1988 Millions of Dollars $25 20 ,...,. ~' ~ '"' ~ 15 ~'~" ~ - ' 10 I t I t 1980 1982 1984' 1986 1988 *Years 1984-1988 show projected costs in 1983 dollars. Some of the agencies With developing parks can no longer cover all the increased costs at the local level. In a few cases, acquisition and development of the system has been held up by an agency until some regional funding is provided for operating costs. Other agencies, whose portion of the system is already developed, believe they have been carrying the full cost too long already. They seek needed relief. The present structure has led to significant differ- ences between levels of benefits and levels of payment for regional park operations throughout the metropolitan area. Developments planned for the system will help reduce those differences, but the uneven distribution of natural resources, facilities and population means that differences will always exist. The Council seeks to make those differences as small as possible. Supplemental operations and maintenance funding is needed to reduce undesirable differences throughout the system. Benefits The proposed supplemental operations and maintenance funding would benefit park users, taxpayers and the implementing agencies. From the user's perspective, the funding would help complete the regional park system and produce better maintained parks. The taxpayer would benefit from the reduced pressure on local property tax. The funding would also reduce some of the undesirable differences in costs born by taxpayers around the area for regional park services. The implementing agencies would also benefit. Fiscal pressures in recent years have forced some agencies'to reduce service below desirable levels. For some agencies, the funding would provide welcome help in carrying the increasing cost burden of operating a new park. For other agencies, it would offer some relief from the overburden of paying the entire cost for heavily used regional parks. Financing The Council recommends funding from a stable source of state-wide revenue. Funding stability is critical to park implementing agencies in making decisions about hiring staff or contracting for services. Drastic variations from year to year make efficient operations difficult or impossible. Relative stability may be provided in more than one way. One way is to have a dedicated source of funds. The Council recognizes, however, that this would run counter to legislative policy of some years' standing. If dedication is not obtained, funds should come by biennial appropriation to the Council. This would parallel current practice of funding the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for state park operations and would be similar to the process of granting acquisition and development funds to the Council. R~.~.ardless of the funding approach, the program should be subject to Council oversight with Council reports provided to the appropriate legislative committees and/or the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. The use of state funds for this supplemental operation and maintenance funding of regional parks is appropriate for the same reasons that it is appropriate to use state funds to acquire and develop regional parks. Regional parks provide the same function oriented toward natural resources in the metropolitan area as state parks do outside the area. Furthermore, many state parks function as regional parks, primarily serving residents of the region of the state in which they are located. Just as state-wide tax dollars support operation of these parks, it is appropriate that they support a portion of operational costs in the regional park system. These proposals represent the Metropofitan Council's position as of the publication date shown below. They may change between now and the 1985 session of the Minnesota Legislature. If you have questions or comments about the proposals, please call the Council's Communications Department at 291-6464. Nov. 1,1984 Publication No. 11-84-153 Metrop_olit m C© mcil ~' 5u~te' 300, Metro Square Budding,' ' St. Paul, M~nneso~' 55101 -- 612 291 -6359 POSITION PAPER FOR LEGISLATION ON METROPOLITAN COUNCIL/ METROPOLITAN COMMISSION RELATIONSHIPS Proposed Legislation The Metropolitan Council proposes legislation: - authorizing the Council to appoint the chairs of the Regional Transit Board (RTB) and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC); - requiring the Council to report to the legislature annually on the performance of the RTB and MWCC in three areas-service delivery, finances and management; - requiring the RTB and MWCC to provide the Council with information it will use in its annual report to the legislature and for other oversight activities; and - requiring the Council to prepare guidelines on administrative practices and procedures of the RTB and MWCC. The legislation proposed does not change the Council's relationship with the Metropolitan Airports Commission or the Parks and Open Space Commission. Under the 1984 legislation creating the RTB, the Metropolitan Transit Commission reports to the RTB rather than to the Council; the RTB, in turn, reports to the Council on the MTC and other regional transit providers. Why Action Is Needed Now The legislative proposal will strengthen the Council's role in overseeing and reporting on regional agency activities. The result will be better management of the regional sewer and transit systems, and improved accountability of the metropolitan commissions. In 1982, only $25 million of $137 million in regional taxes and user fees spent by the commissions was reviewed by an outside body representing the residents of the region. The remainder was spent with no direct oversight. In the past two years, seven studies of the Council by outside bodies and one done by the Council itself all concluded that metropolitan agencies need to be more accountable to the public and the legislature. They also concluded the Council should be the lead agency in providing direction and oversight for metropolitan agency activities. The Council and the legislature need tO establish a closer working relationship. On the Council's part, this requires a stronger reporting role and more initiative in making proposals to the legislature. On the legislature's part, it requires reestablishing some form of committee or subcommittee on metropolitan affairs, an action the Council supports. The proposed legislation is consistent with the recommendations adopted by the Council in its Regional Service and Finance Study, but it accelerates the legislative timetable contained in that report. Benefits Authorizing the Council to appoint commission chairs would enable the Council to influence commission activities without becoming directly involved in operating decisions. Such authority is a logical outgrowth of the Council's exist- ing responsibilities. The Council already appoints the other members of the metropolitan commissions. The intention was to make the commissions more responsive and accountable to the Council's directives, plans and policies. It is reasonable for the chairs of the commissions, as chief policymakers, to be appointed by the Council to ensure even greater responsiveness and accountability. Strengthening of the Council's coordinative and overview role is another benefit. Requiring the RTB and the MWCC to submit comparable and releva.nt information to the Council can improve their accountability. It also provides an opportunity for the Council and the legislature to reassess the regional agencies based on their performance since the 1974 Metropolitan Reorganization Act. At the same time, the commissions' ability to meet expected regional needs during the next five to 10 years can be evaluated. Improving reporting to the legislature on the activities of the metropolitan commissions also would focus accountability for their activities on one body-the Metropolitan Council. The legislature would no longer have to seek information on regional activities and performances from several agencies; instead, the Council would serve as the source. By having the Council provide a comprehensive analysis of each agencies' activities, spending and needs, more informed decisions can be made about any one regional element in light of its impact on others. As priorities in public spending become more difficult to set, this will be an increasingly valuable function. What Needs to Be Done Council Appointment of Commission Chairs The Council would not only appoint the RTB and MWCC chairs; it would also determine: 1 ) whether the chairs will be full or part time and 2) their salaries within a range set by statute. Currently, the chairs share oversight of commission staff other commission members, but because the chairs d commission members are accountable to different appointing authorities, they do not always act together in overseeing internal management. Vesting appointment authority in the Council would make it clear the agencies are accountable to the Council. -The Council would also be able to respond to exceptional problems of expanded workloads at the RTB and MWCC. Annual Report of the Council to the Legislature In its report to the legislature on commission performance, the Council will evaluate whether regional services are being provided to geographic areas and population groups consistent with the Council's regional plans for the systems. Examples of systems performance criteria for sewers are NPDES permit standards; the number of gallons of wastewater treated; and the cost per gallon treated. For transit, examples are passengers per bus-mile; peak vehicle requirements (measuring the maximum number of vehicles on the street at the same time to determine the fleet size and §arage capacity required); and farebox/operating cost ratio. In the financial performance area, the Council will report to the legislature on the proposed expenditures and revenues for metropolitan sewers and transit. With regionally raised revenues, the issue of who pays and what share of services receive will be ~xamined. The stability of nonregional revenue sources also will be evaluated. Examples of financial performance criteria are total dollars spent by each commission; percent increase and percent share of capital, operating and maintenance budgets for each commission; and regionally raised revenues by type and geographic area for each commission. Reporting Responsibilities of the RTB and MWCC More systematic and descriptive reporting on system performance, financial plans and commission management will be required from the RTB and the MWCC if the Council is to oversee the regional systems and effectively report on the commissions to 'the legislature. (Most of the additional legislative authority is required for the MWCC; :he RTB legislation already requires sach reporting.) In the systems performance area, development programs already are required of the RTB and the MWCC. These programs outline how the commissions propose to implement the Council's policy plans over a five-year, or longer, period. Annual capital and operating program budgets should also identify what services are being provided, what populations or geographic areas are receiving the services, and why the commission chose to provide service in the manner and level proposed in the budget. The commission must also provide performance criteria, outlined in the preceding section, to measure the results of its expenditures in meeting Council policy plan objectives The RTB legislation requires that the RTB prepare an annual financial plan as a supplement to its annual budget projecting expenditures and revenues for three years beyond the budget year. Both the total revenues needed and the sources of revenue must be included in the plan. The financial plan that will also be required of the MWCC will be a way of assessing whether revenues will be adequate to support planned expenditures. The plan also will aid assessment of the financial impact proposed expenditures will have on revenues raised regionally-primarily property taxes and user fees-and on state appropriations. The RTB and MWCC also woul~l submit an an'6dal manage- ment report to the Council that summarizes changes made to personnel codes, codes of ethics and contract procedures Figure 1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S RELATIONSHIP WITH METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONS Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission -Council appoints all members, approves capital budget and 5-yr. capital program. I Regional Transit Board -Council appoints all members except chair (appointed by governor), approves financial and transit service plans. Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Waste Control Commission -Council appoints all members except chair (appointed by governor), approves capital budget and 5-yr. capital p,ogram. i Metropolitan Airports Commission -Governor appoints chair; cities name others. --Council approves projects of S5 mil- lion or more at Minneapolis-St. Paul International, S2 million at other airports. -Council approves airport master plans. I Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission - Governor appoints chair; Minneapolis names others. -Council approves operating budget, establishes require- ment for liquor/ lodging tax to support stadium debt. (see next section). The MWCC report would indicate its response to comments from the State Auditor's office. The RTB would report on actions it has taken about recommendations made by its independent auditors. Guidelines for Commission' Administrative Procedures Another way the Council can oversee management performance at the RTB and MWCC is through Council development of guidelines directing the administrative practices and procedures adopted by the commissions. The three areas to be covered by the guidelines are: 1) the personnel code, including provisions dealing with nepotism and equal opportunity; 2) the code of ethics, incorporating disclosure requirements; and 3) contract procedures. In drafting and applying these guidelines, the Council would draw on the expertise of state agencies, particularly in the area of contract procedures. The Council would consult with the State Auditor's office about accounting and auditing practices. As independent special districts, the metropolitan commissions have adopted widely divergent practices in these administrative areas and some are not consistent with practices required of state agencies. Preparing and imple- menting the guidelines can help ensure the metropolitan commissions conform with the intent of state administrative provisions but retain the flexibility to meet their specialized needs. Management performance criteria could include the response of the commissions to recommendations by the State Auditor or independent auditors, and the percent increase in labor and fringe benefits of each commission relative to other regional and state agencies. Financing No legislative appropriation is needed to implement this proposal. The Council and the metropolitan commissions will absorb the implementation costs in their budgets. At the outset, existing work projects and priorities will be shifted in order to conduct the work. Staff appropriately trained to analyze and prepare information and reports are already part of existing Council and commission staffs. Depending on the type, extent and level of detail of the information the legislature wants, some additional staff may be needed by the various agencies over time. These proposa/s represent the Metropofit. on Council's position as of the pub/ication date shown be/ow. They may change between now and the 1985 session of the Minnesota Legislature. If .vou have questions or comments about the proposa/s, p/ease ca//the Council's Communications Department at 291-6464. Nov. 1, 1984 Publication No. 02-84-1 $4 Suite 300, Metro Square Building, St Paul, Minnesota 55101 -- 612 291-6359 POSITION PAPER FOR LEGISLATION ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT The goal of the Metropolitan Council's regional plan for waste management is to eliminate the use of landfills for most solid waste produced in the Twin Cities Region. To achieve that goal, the region needs to develop programs in a timely and dependable way to reduce the amount of waste generated and recover useful materials and energy. Many tools are already in place to support such programs, but additional ones are needed. To provide these tools, the Council recommends a three- part legislative program that includes: 1 ) eliminating the land disposal of unprocessed municipal waste by 1990, 2) requiring by 1988 the separation of yard waste and recyclable materials at the source, and 3) increasing financial support for waste recovery and reduction programs. Eliminating Land Disposal of Unprocessed Municipal Waste by 1990 Proposed Legislation The Council proposes legislation that will restrict the use of landfills in the region only to residual materials remaining after incineration, recycling or other waste-reuse methods. Disposing of "unprocessed" municipal waste in landfills would not be allowed after 1990. Unprocessed municipal waste includes materials that could be recycled but have not been removed, and wastes that have not been stabilized by incineration or other processing methods (see Figure 1). The legislation would restrict the Council to approving landfill permits and the counties to licensing landfills only for processed waste. Why Action is Needed Now The Council has authority now to approve applications submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for permits to develop and operate waste disposal facilities, including landfills. The Council also has authority to issue certificates of need for new landfills if it determines there are not reasonable alternatives to land disposal. However, legislation prohibiting the land disposal of unprocessed municipal waste in the seven-county area would provide state policy direction for the Council, local government and private industry to accomplish the objective. It would make clear to all groups involved- public and private-that the region must take a new direction in dealing with solid waste. Figure 2 shows where the waste goes now. Benefits Prohibition of land disposal of unprocessed waste offers many benefits. They include: - conserving remaining landfill capacity; - significantly reducing the number of new landfills needed in the region; - lessening the environmental risk from wastes that are landfilled; - lessening the objectionable characteristics of landfills, thereby resolving conflicts with neighboring properties; and - providing possible economic benefits. Waste processing can reduce the volume of waste requiring land disposal, thereby reducing the landfill capacity needed in the region to a fraction of that required for landfilling mixed municipal waste. If the region continues to rely on landfills for such waste, nearly all 1 8 sites identified by the region's counties would be needed. On the other hand, the region may need only two or three landfills if alternatives are used. The homogeneous, stabilized character of processed waste lowers the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The organic content in the waste is minimized, virtually eliminating the potential for generating methane gas and dramatically narrowing the range of potential contaminants Figure 1 WHAT IS MUNICIPAL WASTE? Waste (grass, branches, leave} Rubber ~ Cloth ~ Wood /~ 11% Figure 2 WHERE DOES MUNICIPAL WASTE GO NOW? would go to landfills. Figure 3 shows how municipal waste would be dealt with in the future. Requiring the Separation of Yard Waste and Recyclable Materials at the Source by 1988 Proposed Legislation The Council proposes legislation requiring cities, townships and counties to adopt ordinances by 1988 that make sure yard wastes (like leaves and grass clippings) and recyclable materials (like glass bottles and newspapers) are not mixed with other solid wastes. Why Action Is Needed Now The proposal is needed to support the goal of diverting all unprocessed municipal waste from landfills by 1990. It will also assure local governments and the private sector that these materials will be available-an assurance that is needed before dependable reuse programs can be developed. that could seep into groundwater. This will make it easier to monitor and maintain an environmentally acceptable facility. Nuisance impacts-odor, noise, dust, litter and traffic- will be less. This benefit, coupled with a lower level of environmental risk, may lessen the potential for decrease in the market values of adjacent properties. Economic gains may accrue through development of industry to process and utilize waste materials. Use of solid waste as fuel can play a limited role in reducing reliance on fuels imported into the region. The physical stability of processed wastes may make new landfills more amenable to productive uses after they are closed. What Needs to Be Done The regional plan now being developed by the Council will set goals for waste reduction and processing, and a time- table for achieving them. It will also identify how much landfill capacity will be needed for residual materials and establish a schedule for developing land disposal facilities. The Council is drafting that plan now. Master plans developed by the counties will identify steps to achieve the goals in the Council's regional plan. Cities, townships and counties will need to develop programs to reduce waste, recover usable materials and process the remainder for energy or other products. Planning and developing large-scale projects, like waste-burning plants, will be done under the counties' direction. Programs such as recycling and composting of leaves, grass clippings or other yard wastes will involve cities and townships as well as the counties. After ] 990, only residuals from waste utilization processes, like ash, or some special wastes, like demolition debris, Benefits Glass, newsprint and metals can be recovered and reused. Composting yard waste creates a desirable product for landscaping, gardening and agriculture. Source separation captures a cleaner, higher-quality product and lowers costs of processing the remaining waste material. These materials represent a sizeable portion of the total waste stream-yard waste alone can be 60 percent .o.f a household's waste in summer, perhaps as much as 18 percent over'~' year's ti~e. By recovering these materials less landfill space is used; existing landfill space will last longer; fewer new landfills will be needed. Figure 3 HOW COULD MUNICIPAL WASTE BE MANAGED IN THE FUTURE? What Needs to Be Done Counties, cities and townships would need to pass ordinances: - requiring homeowners, businesses and others to separate recyclable materials from other wastes; and - prohibiting disposal of yard wastes with mixed municipal waste. The requirement will create a modest burden for home- owners and businesses. It means that all wastes could not be placed i~ the same bag or can for collection. Under the legislation, however, neither the state nor the Metropolitan Council would specify how the requirement would be met-for example, how many bins would be needed for recycling. This approach would permit local governments to tailor the requirement in a way that's responsive to local concerns and keep any burden to a minimum. How would the prohibition be enforced? Surveys show that the interest in recycling is strong, and similar programs around the country show a high compliance rate. Many people will cooperate voluntarily because it is the law. Many will do so because it is simple and convenient. Such a requirement will also raise people's awareness of recycling's benefits. Local governments will need to develop programs providing alternative disposal methods for recyclables and yard wastes. But it leaves the decision on the kind of program-public, private or combined effort-where it belongs, with local government. Increasing Funding for Waste Recovery Efforts Proposed Legislation Two legislative proposals would provide additional funding for waste recovery efforts. The first would broaden the Council's existing authority that permits it to sell $15 million in bonds for new landfills. This proposal would allow funds to be used by local units of government for projects that reduce the amount of waste generated or recover useful materials and energy from waste. The second proposal is a request to increase, by appropriation, the amount of monies available initially to the Council to assist programs for reuse and recovery of materials, public education, technical assistance, and market development. Why Action Is Needed Now Major changes to the solid waste system will not occur without resources to plan for and provide them. Some resources are already available. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, state Waste Management Board, Department of Economic Development, the Council, counties and some cities can provide information or funding for project and program development. The Council has created an assistance team that can provide information and help to local §overn- meats and the private sector in developing alternatives. But additional funding is needed. If waste recovery pro§rams were eligible for funding under the Council's bonding authority, it would make needed funding available to the governmental units charged with implementing such programs. No increase in bonding authority would be needed. Instead, a larger share of the existing $15 million authorization will be available because fewer landfills will be needed than originally thou§ht. An annual appropriation would also provide needed support to waste recovery programs. The 1984 amendments to the Waste Management Act created a surcharge on solid waste going to landfills. A portion of this fee will be administered by the Council to fund such programs, but revenues will accrue slowly. Estimates indicate the fund will total slightly over $1 million annually. However, a substantial portion of this money will not be available until 1986. Lack of adequate funding could contribute to counterproductive competition between county, municipal and private efforts. The Council will request that a some- what more sizeable fund be appropriated in 1985 that will be repaid in future years through the surcharge revenues. What Needs to Be Done Funds raised through the waste surcharge would be directed at supporting Iow-technology projects, like those for recycling and composting. Funds obtained through the sale of bonds would be available to counties and other local units of government to fund capital costs of such Iow- technology projects and small-scale, high-technology facilities, like small waste-burning plants, The counties would continue to be responsible for funding large-scale, high-technology projects, like large waste-burnin§ plants, through their own bonding authority and waste disposal fees they establish for users of such facilities. Benefits These proposals would provide needed funding for efforts that will help reduce the region's reliance on landfills-- efforts that could falter without such support. They will provide an incentive for counties, cities and townships to develop effective waste recovery programs by easing the costs borne by local governmental units at the crucial, beginning sta§e of developing these programs. These proposals represent the Metropofitan Council's position as of the publication date shown be/ow. They may change between now and the 1985 session of the Minnesota Legislature. If you have questions or comments about the proposals, p/ease ca//the Council's Communications Department at 291-6464. Nov. 1,1984 Publication No. 12-84-151 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101 General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359 ( va. JC.N CITY CF NOUN.g A Metropolitan Council ~ulletln tot Lommum~ Leaaers For ~ore infor~tion on ite~ in this pubfic~tion, c~ll the Co~unic~tion~ Dep~rt~ent ~t 2~1-6464. Oct. 12,1984 COUNCIL ACTIONS (Oct. 1-12) Stadium Tax-The Metropolitan Council eliminated the 1985 Minneapolis liquor tax used to fund construction of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. Lifting the 2 percent sales tax on liquor, hotel and motel sales will result in savings of $2.2 million for Minneapolis consumers. The tax was dropped due to the sale of the Bloomington stadium site and the sub- sequent transfer of $11 million to service the Metrodome debt. The need to reinstate the tax will be evaluated every year. . Sewage Treatment-The Council sold $26 million in general obligation sewer bonds to a financial syndicate headed by Harris Trust and Savings Bank to finance improvements in the regional sewer system planned for 1985. The average interest rate will be 8.94 percent. The funds will be used to improve the interceptors, or large sewage pipes, to Little Canada, Shoreview, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Medina and Mendota. The bond issue will also provide more capacity and better facilities at the Metro sewage treatment plant in St. Paul. The Council also said plans by the Metropolitan Waste con. trol Commission (MWCC) to phase out the Maple Plain sewage treatment plant and pump the sewage to the Long Lake pump station are consistent with Council policies. The plans include building a 12-inch diameter, 5-mile sewer "force main," which pumps sewage uphill. The Council said no sewer service from the force main is to be provided to the surrounding rural area. The Council also approved a MWCC 1984 capital budget amendment of $420,000 to build a sewer interceptor for the city of Ramsey. Parks-The Council approved a $2 million development grant amendment with St. Paul to continue renovation of Como Regional Park. The funding begins phase two of a planned five-phase renovation program at Como. The money will be used for rebuilding the Lakeside Pavilion and for road and trail work to separate hikers and bikers from vehicle traffic around the south end of Como Lake. The Council also made the following amendments in development grant contracts with: - Carver County for Lake Minnewashta Regional Park: $200,000 for trails, expanded roads, picnic shelters, landscap- ing and water and sanitary facilities; and - Anoka County: $676,000 to complete development of the county's segment of Rice Creek West Regional Trail, a hiking and biking trail from the Mississippi River to the Ramsey County line. The Council approved an acquisition grant request from Hennepin County Park Reserve District for $115,000 to purchase a developed three-acre parcel within the boundaries of Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve. The Council also approved the district's request for $400,000 in develop- ment grant funds for picnic a,'ea redevelopment in the park reserve. Housing--The Council said that a Blaine application for federal mortgage insurance for the proposed Hidden Oaks East single-family housing development is consistent with Council housing guidelines and other policies. The site is 110 lots, located north of Edgewood Rd. and east of Hamline Av. The Council urged that consideration be given in design and con- struction to reduce noise imPacts and that potential buyers be notified of the exposure to overflying aircraft. The Council said a Ham Lake comprehensive plan amend- ment is not consistent with Council guidelines for rural devel- opment. The amendment includes a proposed expansion to the Flamingo Terrace mobile home park, which has a density of three to four housing units per acre. The guidelines say the average rural density should not exceed one housing unit per 2.5-acre lot. Computer Equipment--The Council approved a plan to update its office computer systems. Total Council computer system expenditures are expected to be $4 million over the next six years. PUBLICHEARINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS Aging--The Metropolitan Council's Advisory Committee r Aging will hold a public hearing to review the area's designat~ community "focal points" providing services to elderly people. The hearing will be held at 9 a.m., Friday, Oct. 26, in the Council Chambers. For more information, call Sherri Buss, Aging Program, at 291-6496'.~ ... Sewers-The Metropolitan Council will hold a public hear- ing Nov. 15 at 2 p.m. in the Council Chambers to consider proposed amendments to Part 1 of its Metropolitan Develop- ment Guide chapter on water resources management. The changes would: 1) phase out the Savage sewage treatment plant; 2) include the Middle Belt Line sewer interceptor project in the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's development program; and 3) incorporate into the guide several system im- provement studies already approved in the commission's 1985 capital improvement budget. If you have any questions, call Ray Leek, Planning Assist- ance, at 2914567, or Barb Senness, Environmental Planning, at 291~3419. REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD REDUCES TRANSIT PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION The Regional Transit Board (RTB) voted to reduce property taxes for transit services in 42 Twin Cities suburban communities next year. The communities are part of a transit taxing district established by the Minnesota Legislature. Normally, a two mill property tax is levied uniformly throughout the district. The RTB, however, decided to reduce the levies in communities based on the amount of Metropolitan Transit Commission service they receive. The district includes Minneapolis, St. Paul and the close in suburbs. The levy will provide $47 million to operate transit and paratransit services. In addition, the RTB receives state and federal funds, plus farebox revenues, to support regional transit services. PREPARING FOR COMING ENERGY PROBLEMS The Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic }evelopment has issued a draft report, "Ten Years After the Crisis: Lessons for the Coming Decade." The report says underlying conditions that led to a decade of energy price shocks and economic upheaval have not substantially changed. Public comment will be included in the final draft, which will be available by the end of the year. Copies of the draft are available at public, university and college libraries, or through the agency's Energy Information Center at 291-5175. Tony Perpich, state deputy commissioner for energy, invites written comments to his attention, 900 American Center Bldg., · 150 E. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55101. TWO SPOTS OPEN ON NEW AGGREGATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Metropolitan Council is seeking applicants for two citizen members of its new Aggregate Advisory Committee, which will study aggregate, or gravel, resources in the Twin Cities Area. The deadline for applying is Oct. 19. The committee is scheduled to report to the legislature by Dec. 31, 1985, identifying the amount and distribution of the area's aggregate resources and recommending measures to secure its long-term availability and methods to protect it. Council Member Dottle Rietow, St. Louis Park, has been named to chair the committee. For applications and more information, call Sand/ Lindstrom at 291-6390. NEED RECYCLING INFORMATION? CALL HOTLINE Information on drop-off sites for recyclable materials in Twin Cities Area is available from the Metropolitan Council's Recycling Hotline, 291-6464. Services that pick up materials directly from homes and businesses are springing up throughout the region. More than a hundred drop-off centers accept various recyclables and serve neighborhoods that do not have curbs/de pickup. Newspapers, bottles, cans, household goods, and other materials can be turned in for recycling-sometimes for cash. The hotline has details on the locations of dropoff sites and which recyclables each site accepts, how to prepare materials and what may be redeemed for cash. The hotline is open 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. NEW PUBLICATIONS Citizen's Gu/de to the Metropolitan Council. Oct. 1984. Summarizes role of the Council, describes its major accomplish- ments and relationship to the regional commissions, and explains major issues facing the region in the 1980s. No. 08- 84~381; 4 pp.; no charge. Quarterly Economic indicators, Second Quarter 1984. The Twin Cities economy continued to show improvement, marked by a dramatic decline in the inflation rate, record-high employment levels and a sharp drop in the unemployment rate. No. 01~4.145; 15 pp.; $1. Housing Preferences in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Sept. 1984. The report, which summarizes results of survey taken late last year, says the single-family home remains the preferred form of housing among Twin C/t/ans. Of those polled, 81 percent said they wanted to live in such housing if income and housing cost were not a factor, while 71 percent actually lived in such housing. No. 01-84-149; 59 pp.; $2.50. Telecommunications and Economic Development. July 1984. Report is a transcript of a forum held last March to discuss the economic, social and other issues affecting the growth of telecommunications technology in the region. Topics include planned and existing technology, its effect on business, government, institutions and the public, and related public policy issues. No. 43-84-108; 93 pp.; $3.50. Spreading Sewage Sludge on Farmland: Que~ion$ and Answer=. Sept. 1984. Answers commonly asked questions about risks and benefits of using sludge on agricultural land. Sludge is the solid material remaining after sewage treatment. No. 13-84-129; 4 pp.; no charge. COMING MEETINGS (Oct. 23-Nov. 2) (Meetings are tentative. To verify, call 291-6464.) Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Com- mittee, Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Environmental Resources Committee, Wednesday, Oct. 24, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, Thursday, Oct. 25, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council, Thursday, Oct. 25, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Monday, Oct. 29, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday, Oct. 29, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Governor's Meeting on Light-Rail Transit, including Regional Transit Board and Metropolitan Council, Monday, Oct. 29, 7 p.m., Minnesota Club. University Av./Southwest Corridor Study Steering Com- mittee, Tuesday, Oct. 30, 11 a.m., Conference Room E. Environmental Resources Committee, tentatively Wednesday, Oct. 31,4 p.m., Conference Room E. Long-Term Care Task Force, Thursday, Nov. 1,8 a.m., Conference Rooms B and C. Metropolitan Community and Development Committee, Thursday, Nov. 1,1:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Management Committee, Thursday, Nov. 1, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission COmmittee of the Whole meeting, Thursday, Nov. 1,6~ p.m., Conference Room C. Chair Sandra Gardebring to speak to the Minneapolis Jaycees 31st anniversary of the Dr. Robert Green Award, Friday, Nov. 2, 6:30 p.m., Normandy Inn. 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101 General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359 ~,~~~ ~ R. J ~] N E L ~ ,'4 ~ 53~1 ~YNgag ELVD "~'" ~OUND MN 5535q A Metropolkan Council Bulletin for CommuniW Leaders ~or ~or~ J. for~o~Jon off Jt~i Jfl ~Ji public~rlo., c~ll ~h~ Coamunic~rioni D~porta~nr ~ 2~ 1-~4~4. Oct. 26, 1984 RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (Oct. 15-26) Water Quality-The Metropolitan Council al~proved a re- quest from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) for $5 million to improve the chlorination-de- chlorination facilities at the big Metro sewage treatment plant in St. Paul. The facilities disinfect the effluent with chlorine, then reduce the chlorine to acceptable levels before discharge into the Mississippi River. Originally scheduled' for 1985, funding was moved to 1984 to comply with federal permit regulations. Solid Waste-The Council approved an application from the Louisville sanitary landfill near Chaska to expand into a 13- acre site to the south of the landfill. The council approval was under the condition that the applicant install a new monitoring well and submit a study to the Council on corrective steps to be taken if water pollution occurs. The Council released for public review and comment the final Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) on a proposed expansion to the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill, Eden Prairie. Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Browning- Ferris, Inc., has proposed to expand the landfill by.5,644 acre-feet. The ElS contains comments from a public meeting held in May. To obtain a copy at cost, pub. no. 12q~4-118, or to submit comments on the draft, call the Communications Department at 291q~464. Housing--The Council approved the addition of 61 cer- tificates for rent assistance under the federal Section 8 housing assistance payments program. This increases the Council's Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority's (Metro H RA) number of households receiving rent assistance to 3,223. The increase of $305,244 brings the annual federal subsidy to $9.9 million. The Metro HRA's waiting list is more than 2,800 households. Parks-The Council authorized: - A development grant amendment with Anoka County, for a system-wide maintenance facility in Bunker Hills Regional Park, for $36,874. - An acquisition grant amendment with Hennepin County Park Reserve District to purchase a land parcel for Lake Rebecca Park Reserve, at $32,000. - An acquisition grant amendment with Hennepin County Park Reserve District to purchase a residential parcel located in Eagle Lake Regional Park, at S57,100. - A change in the boundary at Lake Minnewashta Regional Park that makes Hwy. 41 the east boundary of the park. The Council authorized Carver County to sell the land east of Hwy. 41, Nh/ch it acquired with regional funds during the original purchase of the park, and return the funds to the Council. Local Governments--The Council voted to end its planning assistance grant program for local governments Dec. 31, 1984. The Council plans to notify the 59 local governments who are still eligible for part of S116,934 in grants. Funds left un- claimed at the end of the year will be transferred to the Council's planning assistance loan fund. Computer Systems-The Council approved a consultant contract with Albers and Assoc., Inc., for an amount not to exceed $70,000 to upgrade the computer systems for the Council's finance department and its Metropolitan Housing Redevelopment Authority Section 6 program. PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS Sewers-The Metropolitan Council will hold a public hearing Nov. 15 at 2 p.m. in the Council Chambers to con- sider proposed amendments to Part 1 of its Metropolitan Development Guide chapter on water resources management. The changes would: I) phase out the Savage sewage treat- ment plant; 2) include the Middle Belt I, ine sewer interceptor proiect in the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's development program; and 3) incorporate into the guide several system improvement studies already approved in the commission's 1985 capital improvement budget. If You have any questions, call Ray Leek, Planning Assist- ance, at 291-6567, or Barb Senness, Environmental Planning, at 291-6419. Housing--The 'Metropolitan Council will hold a public hearing Nov. 29 at 2 p.m. in the Council Chambers on revisions to the housing chapter of the Metropolitan Deve/opmen¢ Guide. Amendn3ents include revision to the housing policy plan, housing review guidelin'~s~ a propo{'ed community index and housing legislative recommendations. To speak at the hearing, contact Lucy Thompson, Planning Assistance, at :291-6521. If you have any questions on the revisions, call Guy Paterson, Housing Department, at 291-6527. For a free copy of the proposed revisions, call the Communications Department at 291-6464. NEW APPOINTMENTS A new Metropolitan Council member, Leon F. Cook, Minneapolis, has been appointed by Gov. Rudy Perpich to replace Alton J. Gasper from Council District 5. Cook is president of the Corporation for Indian Development in Minneapolis. He has'been assigned to the Council's Manage- ment Committee and to the Metropolitan and Community Development Commi~ee. The Metropolitan Council appointed John Doyle, Minneapolis, to the Dist. E Regional Transit Board seat. He is the assistant director and officer of social policy programs for Norwest Bank in Minneapolis. The Council made the following appointments to its new Aggregrate Resources Advisory Commit"tee: Dottle Rietow, chair, Metropolitan Council representative; representing industry are Gary Sauer, Osseo, Peter Dunning, St. Paul and Harvey Becken, St. Paul; representing counties are William Koniarski, $co~ County, Steve Loading, Dakota County and Sally Evert, Washington Counw; representing citizens are Raymond Heinonen, Brooklyn Park and Charles Brady, Bloomington; representing the Minnesota Department of Transportation is Richard H. Sullivan; representing aggregrate 3.2.3 ? producers are John Gretz, Apple Valley and Rick Lewis, Cottage Grove; representing users are Jan Haugen, Shorewood and Bill Bernhardt, Minneapolis; and representing the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is Kathleen Wallace, St. Paul. POSITION PAPERS EXPLAIN COUNCIL'S PROPOSALS FOR LEGISLATION The Metropolitan Council has targeted four areas for action by the 1985 legislature-solid waste management, the problem of sewage overflow from combined sanitary and storm sewers, regional parks funding and the Council's authoriW over two regional agencies. Position papers ex- plaining the proposals are available at no charge by calling 291 ~464 (solid waste, no. 12~4-151; combined sewer over- flow, no. 13-84-152; regional parks, no. 11-84-153: and Council/commission relationships, no. 02-84-154). One preposal calls for prohibiting the dumping of un- processed waste in landfills by 1990, separating recyclables (like glass and newspapers) and yard waste (like leaves) from other wastes by 1988, and providing additional funds to programs that reduce waste and recover useful materials. Another calls for providing additional state funds to speed up programs currently under way to separate sanitary and storm sewers in Minneapolis, St. Paul and South St. Paul. In parks, the Council proposes that the legislature appropriate state bond funds to continue a program for ac- quiring and developing regional parks. It also asks for supple- mental state funds to pay for operating and maintaining regional parks. The Council also recommends that it be given authoriw to appoint the chairs of the Regional Transit Board and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and report to the legislature annually on their performance. Related recommendations would also strengthen the Council's over- sight of the agencies. TWO OPENINGS ANNOUNCED ON ARTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Metropolitan Council is now taking applications from ars audience members and arts administrators interested in serving on the Council's Arts Advisory Committee. The Council is seeking one candidate to represent professional arts administrators. The second candidate should be actively interested in the arts and must live in Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley or Robbinsdale. Appointees will volunteer their time and serve a term of less than a year, but be eligible for reappointment for a three-year term. The 25-member committee reviews applications for arts grants, helps the Council develop an arts plan for the Twin Cities Area and helps organize the Minnesota Jam to Preserve the Arts, an annual arts fund raiser. Applications are due Nov. 16. For more information or application forms, call Sandi Lind. strom at 291-8390. NEW PUBLICATIONS Physician Care and You. Oct. 1984. Brochure says what you should consider before you choose a doctor, such as the doctor's specialW, hospital affiliation, fees charged, whether the doctor practices alone or in a groutS. No. 18-84-100; no charge. HoAoizal Care and You. Sept. 1984, Brochure lists questions you s>,ould ask your doctor before you go to the hospital. Also ex:Hains factors to consider in selecting a hosl31tal. No. 1S-~4-122: no charge. Regional Se~;ce and Finance Study, Phase 2. Oc~. 1984. Contains recommendations the Council adopted earlier this year on providing and financing and regional services. The study examined the regional systems for transit, airports, sewers, pares and solid waste disposal, as well as broader issues involving The financing and accountability of the regional commissions providing such services. No. 25q~4-026; 122 pp.; COMING MEETINGS (Nov. 5 - 16) (Meetings are tentative. To verify, call 291-E464.) Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday, Nov. 5, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Regional Transit Board, Monday, Nov. 5, 4:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Technical Advisory Committee (transportation), Wednesday, Nov. 7, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. Chair Gardebring meets with the St. Paul Club, Wednesday, Nov. 7, noon, Minnesota Club, 317 Washington St., St. Paul. Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management, Advisory Committee, Wednesday, Nov. 7, 1:30 p.m., Conference Rooms B and C. Environmental Resources Committee, wednesday, N.ov. 7, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Meeting on Combined Sewer Overflow (Chair Gardebring, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Council Members), Wednesday, Nov. 7, 4 p.m., Radisson Plaza, Town Square. Chair's Advisory Committee, Wednesday, Nov. 7, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Chair Gardebring meets with major regional corporations, Thursday, Nov. 8, 7:30 a.m., AMFAC Hotel, 30 S. 7th St., Minneapolis. Metropolitan Community and Development Committee, Thursday, Nov. 8, 1:30 p.m.; Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council, Thursday, Nov. 8, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Air Quality Committee, Tuesday, Nov. 13, 10 a.m., Conference Room B. Metropolitan Waste Management Committee, Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Tuesday, Nov. 13, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Chair Gardebring meets with small business organizations, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 7:30 a.m., St. Paul Hotel, 350 Market St. Environmental Resources Committee, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 4 p.m., Conference Room A. Metropolitan Health Planning Board, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Transportation Advisory Board, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Metro Subcabinet of the Governor's cabinet, Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2:30 p.m., Conference Room D. Long.Term Care Task Force, Thursday, Nov. 15, 8 a.m., Council Chambers. Management Committee, Thursday, Nov. 15, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council Committee of the Whole (Development Framework), Thursday, Nov. 15, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Aging Advisory Commit-tee, Friday, Nov. 16, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. October 1984 New Two- ate s h i n gto n , Pa. Washington, Pennsylvania (pop. 19,000) becomes the state's sixth city to adopt a two-rate property tax. Effective January 1985, Washington's tax rate on land will be 6.056% (60.56 mills) while its tax rate on buildings will be 1.68% (16.8 mills). The city is nestled in the rolling hills some 30 miles southwest of Pittsburgh. It is a county seat, the home of Washington and Jefferson College, and relies heavily on smokestack industries - glass, steel, electronics, coal- and consequently is suffering from high unemployment. City officials were faced with a serious problem in July. It had b~come increasingly evident that assessments in the city were becoming increasingly un-uniform and consequently unfair. No one remembers when the last general re-assessment was made - probably 40-50 years ago. The city was in danger of being sued and having to re-assess under court order; that had happened to the county just a few years ago. Contrary to usual Pennsylvania practice, Washington had been doing its own assessing and had not been using county assessments. Re-assessment posed a real problem to city officials, however. It would considerably increase the assess- ment and therefore the taxes of practically all homeowners since their property values had increased much faster over the years than commercial and industrial property values. A re-assessment would thus result in a significant transfer of taxes from commercial-industrial to residential taxpayers. To be sure, homeowners have been getting an unearned break over all these past years, but that would only serve to make more difficult the transition to the new assessment roll. A study by the Pennsylvania Economy League, a non-profit good-government research organization, urged the city to adopt county assessments, pointing out that city assessed values on homes were 12.4% of true market value while commercial property had a 30.5% ratio. Vacant lots were assessed at 27.7%. Your editor brought to the attention of city officials that if the city were to introduce a two-rate t~ at the same time it introduced a re-assessment, then the property tax increase for homeowners would moderated. If the shift were large enough, homeow~ could even save tax money. A random survey of homeowners showed that 81% of them would pay with a two-rate tax than with a one-rate tax raising same revenue for the 'city. The City Council deliberated, and then acted. On i 21, the Council unanimously took these three acti, (1) It switched assessments from city to county ~ (the latter at 25% of market value). The county roll only a few years old. (2) It adopted a two-rate property tax 6.0~ (60.56 mills) on land coupled with 1.68% (16.8 mills buildings, instead of raising the same revenue by ta: both land and .buildings at 2.580/0 (25.8 mills). (3) It increased total property taX-reVenue ~y 1985 over 1984, in order to account for incre~ inflation-caused costs. Moving to 6.056%/1.68% was too mild a chang counter completely the up-tax on homeow; occasioned by the much-needed re-assessment slight tax increase, but it did moderate it. And the Council has only to lower the building tax rate and ~ the land tax rate even further in ensuing years in o to provide even more property tax relief homeowners. The Real Benefits Of course, the best reason to move taxes off buik and onto land is to encourage new construction re-employment. The tax on buildings is a significant obst to u renewal by private enterprise. For example, a 2°a rate on the current market value of a buildir equivalent to a 20% tax rate on its capital ~ (assuming a 10% interest rate). 20%! If an proposed a 20% excise tax on new construction, would be h~oted down by any city council yet many of those same councils blindly levy a 20/~ property tax rate which has exactly the same effect. Not so the Washln~on City Council, however. ]~y taxing buildings at 1.68% rather than 2.58%, $40,111 pleat will be transferred off the backs of building o~ll~rs in the city and onto the back of landowners. True, often it's the same backs since the land- owners generally own the buildings on their sites, but at least they'll know that any improvement they add will be taxed less because of the two-rate approach, and even more important they'll feel a greater impulse to use their sites more effectively - i.e., more in accord with the market~ demand for them. That's because they'll be paying a~ higher tax on their sites whether they use them properly or not, so they'll do better financially if they'll use them properly. This will be particularly so for vacant lots (which constitute 11% of the city's total assessed land value, to the surprise of most city officials when they found out about it - most people are surprised how much of their city is vacant, let alone underused). So buildings will be down-taxed $40,111 and land up-taxed by $40,111 as the result of the two-rate tax - it should be enough of a carrot (building down-tax) and stick (land up-tax) incentive to boost much-needed new construction in Washington. And the boost will be even greater if in ensuing years the City Council widens the rates even further. No Written Guarantee was offered the City Council new construction, would spurt after the two-rate oes into effect, but it was re-assuring to the council members that such a construction spurt had indeed occurred after the other five two-rate cities had adopted their two-rates - see the October-November 1982, October 1983 and November 1983 issues of Incentive Taxation (available upon request). Readers of this publication Will remember that studies of these 'cities were independently prepared by Fortune East Liverpool Magazine researchers and their conclusions verified ours- see the August 8, 1983 issue of that publication. The Politics of It The Washington council members were at first hesitant to adopt 6.056%/1.68%; they feared that the general public, not knowing anything about the two-rate approach, might oppose it. They feared that at least a segment of the public, especially those paying more, might oppose it vigorously. But in fact, the public reaction was near-zero. Unfortunately, at this stage of affairs the public isn't interested in tax-rates, only in the ultimate property tax bill. The reaction to 'the re-assessment was minimal also; most homeowners realized that they had been getting a free ride all these years. PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION Our city has taken advantage of a law which allows us to tax building assessments at a lower rate than land assessments. A number of other Pennsylvania cities are now doing this. The advan- tages are: (1) Property taxes for most homeowners are less this way. (2) Owners improving their properties will be taxed less with the usual one-rate tax. than (3) The city can do all this at no extra cost. We expect that this simple change will encourage new construction and re-employment in our city and we can very much use both. Washington city officials are thinking of inserting the above slip, measuring one-third of an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper, into each envelope containing the property tax bill when the latter is sent to each property taxpayer in Washington, Pa. The purpose is to acquaint the taxpayers with the advantages of taxing buildings less than land. City officials in the other five two-rate cities will be urged to do likewise. New Two-Rate City - Washington, Pa. (continued) Conclusion It is possible to take a despairing view of the whole land ta.'.~ situation. So much effort was put into this 6.056%/1.68% shift and only $40,111 was transferred off the building owners and only $40,111 was transferred onto landowners. And Washington is only one city among thousands. At this rate it will take centuries before an appreciable portion of the land rent is taken by government in taxation with a similar tax portion removed from labor and capital. And yet, despair is not in order. If only a little new construction and re-employment in Washington at- tributable to the mild-new two-rate tax occurs, then the improvement in human welfare will have justified the efforts expended. If only a few Washingtonians find new jobs, the council members can find satisfaction in that. And if in ensuing years, they reduce the building tax rate still further and raise the land tax rate still more, then even more good could be expected.'And if the news of these economic benefits gets out to the urban tax experts across the land and they begin pushing the reform, a Bandwagon will start moving, faster and faster. Public opinion will then get ignited. All this seems so far away at this point, so chimerical, yet reforms come slowly. They build and build and tken suddenly explode across the national conscious- ness. We can expect this to happen with land value taxation, and in this movement, little Washington, Pa. can play its important part. It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness. The longest journey begins with but a single step. The members of the Washington City Council are: Mayor L. Anthony Spossey, Susanne E. Gomez, Bob Sabot, Jack Manning and Howard D. Wasler. This bulletin is published by the Center for the Study of Economics, 580 N. 6th St., Indiana, PA 15701, (412) 465-7119. Editor: Steven B. Cord. Inquiries invited. Subscrtp- ~ion rate $8/yr. · If Washington, Pa. were to use a one-rate property tax, then 75%of its property tax would fall upon buildings, 25% on land. With the two-rate approach, only 52% of the tax falls on buildings. We trust that in ensuing years, the tax will increasingly by-pass what individuals have created out of their own efforts and initiative and instead tax what society and government create (land values) by providing roads, police, sewers, and nearness to jobs and shopping. · Washington, Pa. figures in history because in 1794 it was the scene of the Whiskey Rebellion. The farmers there congregated to fight the new federal excise tax on whiskey. Their efforts were futile because they suggested no legitimate alternative source of revenue. The wiser efforts of their descendants will be more fruitful. · Know anyone who's thinking of locating a new factory or office somewhere? Tell them to inquire at Washington, Pa., where building taxes and land prices are low and there is an ample supply of labor. Call City Hall at 412-222-1320. · A California legislative analyst, Mr. Harem by name, estimates that over 50% of the value of taxable property in his state is absentee-owned (quoted from CSDI speech by economist Mason Gaffney, 8/24/78). Significance: most of the land value tax would be paid by non-residents. What other tax can make that statement? · Good. news from New York State: a bill authorizing an official detailed study of the land value tax concept has just passed the New York State Legislature. If the studies conclude that land value taxation has worked well, then we presume it will lead to passage of a local option two-rate law similar to what Pennsylvania has. · A victory has been won by IT reader and activist Mal McCarthy in the Canadian Province of Ontario: property owners can now make repairs and improvements up to a value of $5,000 without increase in assessment. Formerly the limit was $2,500. · The New York Times has recently printed its sixth (or maybe seventh) recent editorial urging the adoption of a two-rate or graded tax on property: "A graded tax scheme, would encourage building and bring the risk of overloading some high-value sites with bulky buildings. But the solution for that is zoning. With a wiser tax policy and intelligent zoning, some of the thorniest political problems in urban development would disappear." · A recent New York Times Magazine article bewails the Puerto Rican brain drain. It seems that many college graduates in Puerto Rico leave the island for jobs on the mainland. Some officials "cite the Commonwealth's tax rates for middle-and upper-income far~,ilies, which are higher than either the Federal levies or those of any state." Taxes count. The wrong tax hurts. Albert Hydeman, Jr. (former Secretary, Pa. Dept. of ~munity Affairs): "Is there a sensible alternative to property tax? Such an alternative would have to do following things: Realign the tax burden from those least able to pay to those most able to pay, simplify and reduce the cost of community growth and development. "I think there is such an alternative. It's known as the land value tax. We are now taxing improvements - bhild- ings - at the same rate we tax land. I think that's a mistake. "We're discouraging people from fixing up their prop- erttes. There should be a lower property tax on improve- ~nents - or none at all." State Representative Calvin Skinner, Jr. (Illinois): "Why not change the state con~itution to allow home rule city (mainly, those over 25.000 peoplo) tO change the real estate tax structure by designating areas where rehabilitation or growth is desired'! l,et the city council mandate shifting the tax burd~,n from land and buildings to land alone. "How about the homeowner? The more valuabh~ the home.., the better off he or she will be. poorer the home, the greater the incentive to mak, improvements." (item sent to us by IT reader Sam Venturella) Ex-Governox' John A. Burns (Hawaii) reported in a June 16, 1967 letter to IT reader Michelle Greenhill that after land assessments were significantly increased to approximate market value, there was a rash o! re- development. Much vacant land was replaced for new home building - this in a state where there was a great shortage of residential building sites. "Substantial increases in offerings of fee simple rest- dential lands of Oahu in the past three years is abundant proof of the wisdom of this policy" (the up-assessment of land values). Jumping the assessment on land values is another way to tax land values more heavily. Professor Jay W. Forrester (IV%.I.T., author of';'r0rban Dynamics): "The tax-on improvements rather than on favors old buildings whose aging is an intimate, part urban decline process." Rev. Matthew Fox (professor at Mundelen College. Chicago, and author of the book "Economics and Com- passion"). "A land tax would tax all land but not ira- provements on the land and in this way would encourage initiative and jobs, rather than discourage them. It would run the land speculator and the absentee land- lord out of town. "A land tax would encourage farmers who actually farm instead of those who speculate and it would increase productivity, ingenuity and the creation of Jobs. It would also lessen bureaucratic interference since basically it is simplifying the law code." (Editor's Note: These endorsements are numbered consecutively from one issue to the next, starting from the first issue. We have hundreds more in our files. still to appear.) THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1984 Fibrillations You have correctly stated in your Feb. 21 editorial. "Salvador's Fibrillating Heart,' "that "... if you accept the prin- ciple of land reform, the design is criti- cal.'' But the design manufactured in Wash- ington for El Salvador's land problem Is grossly in error, for it is the usual one of expropriating and distributing laud. This has been shown almost invariably to cause as many. if not more. problems than it sol vas. · What should be done is to leave the land titles in the hands o! those currently hold- ing them but to institute a tax on the value of the land sufficiently high to obtain the full economic rent of the land. This elimi- nates the inevitable controversies over whose land and how much land shall be expropriated, and to whom and bow much of the land shall be ~,lven to the land- This tax forces the landowners to utilize the land they possess profitably so as to pay the economic rent. I! they cannot, they must sell all or part of their land to those who can pay the tax and make a profit. Thus, the marketplace is the lnstrument bywhich (reprinted from the letters-to-the-editor column) the land is distributed, and it goes to those who can use tt most efficiently. At the same time, large estates can continue to exist as long as they are able to pay the economic rent. This will be very high, forcing the land- owners to maximize economies of scale and to employ large numbers of___wo~.k- Center for the Study of Economics 580 N. Sixth St. Indiana, Pa. 15701 Address Correction Requested ers. Two things are accomplished. Production remains as high, or higher than before the high land value tax, whereas breaking estates up into small farms invariably reduces production. Also, the need for many workers helps to solve the unemployment problem, which is endemic in most agricultural societies. OSCAR B. JOHANNSEN Roselle Park, N.J. U. S. POSTAGE PAID Permit No. §8 Fall 1984 Prepared by Planning Assistance URBAN DESIGN PLANNERS' FORUM A SUCCESS The September 28 Planners' Forum-"Urban Design in the Twin Cities: Three Case Studias"--was well attended and very interesting. Co-sponsored by the Metropolitan Council and Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation, the purpose of the forum was to help planners appreciate the design aspects of urban planning and tb look beyond ordinances, economics and politics to design. Approximately 50 local planners, architects, developers and Metropolitan Council staff attended. Three speakers discussed three major projects in downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, and a~so addressed general design issues/concerns that were dealt with in the course of project planning and design. We[ming Lu, executive director of Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation in St. Paul, spoke on Galtier Plaza, a private mixed-use development currently under construct[on in downtown St. Paul. Fred Clarke, Partner, Cesar Pelli & Associates, spoke on the Norwest Center proposed for downtown Minneapolis, which will be the tallest building in downtown. Jay Johnson, vice president, Miller, Hanson, Westerbeck, Bell Architects, I nc., spoke on R iverplace, a mixed-use development along the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. The program also included a walking tour of Riverplace. Several design issues were mentioned by all three speakers: Use and intensity of the development Public amenities Street activity Pedestrian access :.,. Building mass View maximization BulJd[ng/project identity Building profile, skyline impacts Compatibility of design with adjacent structures In particular, three question~ are posed which must he'kept in mind in understanding the relationship between planning, city image and design. 1. What makes a project become a "place," an important part of the city fabric? is it design, money, developer foresight? 2. In view of the free market system where development is done for profit, what ' encourages or allows projects to be urban design experiments? 3. From a design standpoint, what is the relationship of a city to its past? Based on interest expressed by those attending the Sept. 28 forum, there will be future Planners' Forums on other design issues. One issue that has been suggested is suburban design. There will be a Planners' Forum on Nov. 16, 1984, which will be a roundtable discussion on dealing with digitizing data. It will be geared to letting municipalities know what data services are currently available, help identify their own data needs, and to identify what additional digitized data services are needed. SUPREME COURT EXTENDS LOCAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE SIGNS IN PUBLIC PLACES A ciW's effort to control "visual blight" by prohibiting signs on public properW does not violate the constitution's guarantee of free speech, the Supreme Court recently ruled. In upholding a Los Angeles ordinance, the court determined that the city's ban on posting signs on utility poles and in other public places was "narrowly tailored" in terms of the extent to which it imposed a constraint on free speech. Because the law applied to all types of signs, without "even a hint of bias or censorship," the court found nothing in it that would be discriminatory against any particular individuals or interest group, and because it did not prevent individuals from speaking or handing out leaflets in public places or from posting signs on private property with an owner's consent, the court determined that "ample alternative modes of communication" still existed to assure free speech in the community. The case, City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (No. 82-975), was decided by a 6-3 margin with Justice John Paul Stevens delivering the majority's opinion. Stevens concluded that "The visual assault on the citizens of Los Angeles presented by an accumulation of slgns posted on public property.., constitutes a significant substantive evil within the city's power to prohibit." The dec[sion, though limited to signs in public places, moved the court into a controversial area of public policy and regulation. Because it directly involved political signs that were removed in accordance with the ordinance, the case dealt with an aspectof free speech considered of paramount importance in terms of first amendment protections. While acknowledging the strongly established principle of free access to a public forum, Stevens declared that "utility poles have not been re~:ognized as a forum for communications." The decision marks something of a breakthrough in the efforts bv local governments to establish restraints or regulations on posters in public places. While signs and billboards on private property clearly were not addressed by the court in reviewing the Los Angeles ordinance, the decision did establish some basis for allowing the application of local policy on public property, For more information about the significance of the decision, contact: Randy Arndt National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 626-3158 INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS The Impact of the New Regulations A Planners' Forum sponsored by the Metropolitan Council's Planning Assistance Department Wednesday, November 7, 1984 9-11:30 a.m. Nicollet Island Inn 95 Merriam St. (Just off Hennepin Av. on Nicollet island) Minneapolis, Minnesota Program 9:00 Opening Remarks 9:15 Issuing lRBs under Minnesota Statutes What's the Future for I RBs Questions 10:15 Coffee Break 10:30 Issuing lRBs through the competitive state pool- procedures and timeframes Questions James Holmes, Holmes & Graven Richard Nadeau, Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development Registration Space for this FREE Planners' Forum is limited ! Please call 291-6415 to reserve a seat, Reservations will be taken on a first-come, first-served basis, so please call and register early. Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 N~. JON ELA~ HA~AGER CITY OF ~OUND 5~1 MAYWOOE 5LV~ T-WIN LABOI CITIES MARKET INFORMATION LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS Vol. 8 No. 10 OCTOBER 1984 The August unemployment rate in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area was 4.5 per- cent compared to 5.0 percent in July. The change of -0.5 of a percentage point compares favorably to the 14-year average change of -0.2 of a percentage point. Returns to work fro~l a temporary layoff in a transportation equipment manufacturing firm and from the labor dispute involving nurses and hospitals played a big part in the improvement over July. Tne taole on page 3 shows the characteristics of people claiming unemployment insurance and 9ives us the best insight into trends in local unemployment by industry ano occupation. It shows significant declines in the number of claimants in both the service industry (health services) and structural workers (transportation equipment assemolers). National economic indicators suggest some moderation in the growth of a robust economy. At tnis point we anticipate that labor market conditions in the Twin Cities area will remain positive for the balance of 1984 and that the unemployment rate will drop slight- ly in September and October before experiencing a seasonal upswing in November. LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES (not seasonally adjusted) AREA CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT UNE~°LOYHENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AUG.. JULY. AUG.. AUG.. JULY. AUG.. AUG.. JULY. AUG.. AUG.. JULY. AUG.. 1984~ 1984K 1983~ 1984~ 1984K 1983~ 1984r 1984~ 1983~ 1984r 1984~ 1983~ Minneapolis- 1,228.2 1,231.6 1,182.9 1,173.0 1,169.6 1,109.7 55.2 62.0 73.2 4.5 5.0 6.2 St. Paul SMSA* ~unty: Amok& 116,248 116,877 112,622 111,043 110,722 105,054 5,205 6,155 7,568 4.5 5.3 6.7 Carver 21,771 21,748 20,929 20,988 20,928 19,856 783 820 1,073 3.6 3.B 5.1 Chisago 15,292 15,224 14,666 14,570 14,528 13,784 722 696 882 4.7 4.6 6.0 Dakota 114,916 115,099 110,608 109,974 109,656 104,042 4,942 5,443 6,566 4.3 4.7 5.9 Hennepin 558,960 561,140 538,213 533,357 531,816 504,590 25,603 29,324 33,623 4.6 5.2 6.2 Ramsey 273,477 273,901 263,078 260,491 259,738 246,441 12,986 14,163 16,637 4.7 5.2 6.3 Scott 25,848 25,899 24,738 24,806 24,734 23,468 1,042 1,165 1,270 4.0 4.5 5.1 Washington 66,984 67,008 64,310 64,344 64,158 60,873 2,640 2,850 3,437 3.9 4.3 5.3 Wright 34,700 34,702 33,720 33,405 33,309 31,605 1,295 1,393 2,115 3.7 4.0 6.3 BloomtngtOfl 48,538 48,699 46,699 46,361 46,227 43,861 2,177 2,472 2,838 4.5 S.l 6.1 Minneapolis 221,118 222,215 213,113 210,163 209,555 198,827 10,955 12,660 14,286 5.0 S.7 6.7 St. Paul 161,538 161,894 154,837 153,099 152,657 144,842 8,439 9,237 9,995 5.2 5.7 6.5 Minnesota* 2,261.1 2,284.3 2,199.9 2,133.3 2,147.1 2,045.0 127.7 137.2 154.8 5.6 6.0 7.0 United States* 115,076 116,198 113,578 106,694 107,484 103,167 8,382 8,714 10,411 7.3 7.5 9.2 P - Preliminary ~,~ i,-.-t R · Revised From time to time we will include a brief article about the data included in each month's bulletin. Probably the most popular indicator of labor market conditions is the unemployment rate. National unemployment rates are released on the first Friday of the month following tne reference month. For example, the U.S. unemployment rate for August was released oSeptemoer 7th. The figure for the Nation and the 10 largest States is estimated ectly from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a survey of about 60,000 households conducted each month by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPS samole is not sufficiently reliable to be used monthly to estimate the unemployment rate for Minnesota. However, monthly CPS estimates for the State are used in an adjustment factor referred to below. Tne Bureau of Labor Statistics has developed a methodology for estimating total employment qno unemployment for states and substate areas not directly using the CPS sample. This building-blOCK methodology relies on data from employer surveys, the Unemployment Insurance re~orting system, and formulas based on seasonal and historic relationships of new entrants and reentrants to the labor force. Because of the nature of the methodology, unemployment rates for the State and its subareas come out two or three weeks after the release of National data. The following steps go into the estimation of the local labor force s~atistics: Employment - total· employment of residents of the area is based on data from the survey of establishments which produces the nonagri- cultural wage and salary employment figures such as those on page five. This place-of-work estimate is adjusted to a place of residence by accounting for multiple-jobholding and incommuting. Estimates of self-employed and unpaid-family workers are added to the payroll figures to obtain an estimate of total employment. Unemployment - the estimated number of unemployed workers is comprised of-(1) those who were previously employed in industries covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) including claimants, exhaustees, and disqualified persons; (2) those previously employed in industries not covered by UI; (3) those who were entering the civilian labor force for the first time or reentering after a period of separa~i'on. Correction factors for employment and unemployment - a ratio of the CPS to the building block-based estimates for the six-month period ending in the current month is applied to the estimates of Minnesota employment and unemployment. Substate adjustment for additivity - independent building-block esti- mates for the Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA and the remaining counties in the State are made. These estimates are adjusted proportionally so that the employment and unemployment estimates for substate areas add up to the CPS adjusted State total in step 3. The Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA is disaggregated into nine counties plus the three major cities. Data on UI claimants and population ratios are used to estimate unemployment and employment in the SMSA. We ho~e that this explanation of the methodology explains where the data comes from ane wny there is a delay between the release of National unemployment rates and local rates. There is also a time delay between when the local data is officially released ane the time this bulletin is printed. For those readers who want to have monthly labor ~rce data as soon as it is released rather than waiting for this bulletin to be delivered, are initiating a new service. A copy of the labor force table on page one will be ~aailee to you on the day the data is released. If you wish to be on this mailing list, ~lease call (61Z) 296-8724. REGIONAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS The upOated economic indicators reflect a mixture of trends, Among the positive inc~icators are sharp declines in both UI initial claims anO regular claimants. Initial UI claims reflect recent layoffs while regular claimant counts cover those workers unemployed over a longer time period up to 26 weeks. Residential construction activity remains strong whi?e inflation is in check. Several of the indicators this month meri~ some special attention because of their continuing negative trend. Re~ail sales were lower in July than DOtH a month ago and year ago. This was the second consecutive monthly de- cline in retail sales. The Help Wanted in~ex dropped sharply in August both locally and nationally. It was the second consecutive decline for this InOex.' Average weekly hours for manu- facturing production workers declined for tne third consecutive month. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IHSURED UtJEMPLOYED (Regular Beneflts Program) HINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL St(SA Week Endtng 8/12/84 Percent Change Industry and From: Percent Percent 1/ Occupational Month Year of Long-Term~ Percent Attachment Number Ago Ago Total Unamployed Women Total, All Industries 11,409 -20.5 -28.7 100.0 22.4 46.6 Construction 668 -19.2 -48.8 5.9 14.2 12.3 Manufacturing 2,871 -16.7 -24.6 25.2 24.2 36.0 Durable Goods 1,852 -16.6 -29.8 16.2 25.1 35.4 Hondurable Goods 1,019 -17.0 -12.9 8.9 22.7 37.1 Trans., Comm., and Public Utilities 593 :8.6 -39.9 5.2 27.3 28.3 Wholesale Trade 986 1.1 -30.4 8.6 26.1 38.8 Retail Trade 1,5Z7 -6.8 -40.81 13.4 26.7 45.1 Fin., Ins., and Real Estate 677 -2.3 -7.6' 5.9 27.3 60.7 Services 3,637 -35.7 -20.81 31.9 18.6 63.2 Public Ac)min. 272 4.6 -19.3) 2.4 24.6 66.9 All Other 63 12,5 -16,0 0.6 17.5 27.0 Inf. Not Available 115 - - Total, All Occupations 11.409 -20.5 -28.7. 100.0 22.4 46.6 Prof., Tach., Mgr. 3,298 -26.9 -20.9 28.9 20.2 52.1 Clerical 2,115 -24.5 -27.8 18.5 26.1 80.5 Sales 656 -6.4 -25.0 5.7 29.4 32.2 Service 1,173 -22.1 -23.6 ' 10.3 22.9 50.9 Farm., For., Fish. 46 2.2 -23.3, 0.4 26.1 19.6 Processing 235 -13.0 29.8 2.1 22.1 26.4 Machine Trades 83U -7.8 -26.1 7.3 21.8 18.7 Benchwork 912 -10.9 -24.6 B.O 25.8 54.7 Structural Work 861 -36.4 -50.3 7.5 18.4 4.6 Miscellaneous. 1,266 -16.5 -41.1 11.1 18.9 24.4 Inf. Not Available 17 - - NOTE: Percentages may not total to lO0.O due to independent rounding. l_/ Long-Term unemployed refers to unemployment insurance claimants whose current spell of unemployment has lasted lB weeks or longer. Economic Indicators Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area Initial UI Claimsl/*_ Aug UI Claimants-Regularl_/* Aug Avg Wkly Hours in Mfgl_/* Aug Help Wanted Index2__/* Aug Mortgage Rate3/_ Aug Residential Bldg Permits4/* July Retail Sales (Millions)5_~* July Consumer Price Index6__/ Aug US Employment Cost Index6_/ June Latest Month Current Previous Percent Change Available Period Period Year Ago Year Ago 1,592 2,086 2,155 -26.1 12,635 15,419 17,736 -28.8 40.0 40.8 40.0 0.0 66 78 45 46.7 12.05 12.99 12.39 -2.7 1,595 1,571 1,172 36.1 1,154 1,292 1,156 -0.2 324.8 324.1 316.2 2.7 120.8 119.8 114.5 5.5 Sources: l/ MDES, 2_/ The Conference Board, 3_/ Minneapolis Star & Tribune via Data R-esources, Inc., 4_/ MetropOlitan Council, 5_/ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, and 6/ Bureau of Labor Statistics. * Denotes seasonally-adjusted data. J EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS CONDITIONS Developments from Last Month le number of wa§e and salary jobs in the Twin Cities area increased by an above average ount De,ween July and Au§ust. However, about half of the increase was due to workers returning to work from a temporary layoff for model changeover in the transportation equipment manufacturing industry and hospital workers returning to work following a labor-management dispute settled in early July. Taking these atypical employment changes into accoun~ total payroll employment grew by the average rate between the months. Manufacturing employment in August surpassed the previous high level reached in August 1979. However, beyond the improvement in transportation equipment and continued growth in nonelectrical machinery manufacturing, there was generally limited growth 'in the sector. T~e length of the average workweek for production workers in manufacturing, on a seasonally adjusted basis, dropped again in August. This was the third time in the past four months that hours have decreased. Among the industry groups which registered growth above and beyond the usual seasonal changes were construction, trade, services, and government. Developments from a Year Ago The number of jobs in the Twin Cities area has increased more rapidly over the past year than most people anticipated. Local employment in each major industry division, except communication and public utilities, has grown more rapidly than the national average. A nationwide labor-management dispute in the communications industry last year oistorts year-to-year comparisons. The construction industry has continued to add workers at the fastest rate over the past year. As most commuters can verify, road nstruction activity is particularly heavy this season. The expansion'of the manufacturing ctor has been particularly strong, accounting for 24.4 percent of the new jobs. The manufacturing sector has grown faster locally than nationally over the past year,.a 7.~ percent increase compared to 6.1 percent. The nondurable goods manufacturing indus- tries, particularly paper, printing, and plastics, have grown significantly faster than their national counterparts. Establishments in the trade sector have added I$,800 w6'rkers to accont for 23.2 percent of the increase in the total number of jobs, while the service sector has accounted for 21.2 percent. In the past, the health services industry has been a fast growing field. This is changing somewhat as hospital employment has actually droppeQ below the level of a year ago both nationally and locally. Other health services continue to expand at about a 5.3 percent clip nationally and 4.9 percent locally. Future OUtlook In the remaining months of 1984, the job outlook is forecast to be quite good. In addition to the seasonal employment increases which typically take place between the third and fourth quarters, there are expected to be additional jobs created due to increased economic activity. The strongest seasonal changes in employment will occur in government and ~rade, which aed workers as schools resume and holiday shopping increases, and in construc- tion firms which trim payrolls because of colder weather. Manufacturing and service ~ndustries are expected to continue to expand, although recent trends seem to indicate that the pace of new hiring may be moderating. In summary, while job conditions remain positive heading into the fourth quarter, one can anticipate a gradual slowdown in the ~emand for labor as we hea~ into 1985. EMPLOYMENT, HOURS ~ND EARNINGS in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area PERCENT PRODUCTION WORKERS' HOURS & EARNINGS]-/ EMPLOYMENT CHANGE Average Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekly INDUSTRY ' (000) FROM Earnings Earnings Hours AUG. Month Year Month Year AUG. Year AUG. Year AUG. Year 19_.__84 _~o ___Ago Ago Ago 1984 Ago 1984 Aqo 1984 Aqo lOlAL NONAGRICUL1URAL 1145.2 1134.3 1076.9 1.0 6.3 XX XX XX XX XX XX MA~uFACIURING 254.3 250.8 237.7 1.4 7.0 411.43 405.01 10.2~ 10.10 40.1 40.1 Durable Goods 162.9 160.2 1Sl.1 1.7 7.8 419.22 413.88 10.20 10.07 41.1 41.1 Lumber & Furniture 7.7 7.6 6.8 0.7 12.0 446.08 463.32 10.88 10.80 41.0 42.9 Ston~, C)ay& Glass 4.1 4.0 3.5 0.6 14.2 424.39 376.66 10.69 10.18 39.7 37.0 Primary Metals 4.6 4.6 4.3 1.3 7.8 352.08 359.90 B.78 B.61 40.1 41.B fabricated Metals 26.8 26.8 26.4 -0.1 1.4 491.84 463.97 11.60 11.18 42.4 41.5 Non-Electrical Machinery 68.5 67.4 61.9 1.5 10.6 418.91 401.40 10.07' 10.01 41.6 40.1 Office & Computing Equipment 36.0 35.6 32.2 1.0 11.7 XX XX XX XX XX XX Electrical Mdcf, i,ery 19.6 19.3 17.3 1.2 13.0 347.33 380.72 8.64 9.13 40.2 41.7 lra,~portatiu, £quilm~nt 4.2 2.7 3.6 53.9 18.0 466.62 553.83 12.70 12.53 42.7 44.2 Scientific h~stru,~nts 23.7 23.8 22.7 -0.3 4.4 409.85 416.66 10.07 10.04 40.7 41.5 M~sce)laneous 3.8 3.9 4.5 -2.1 -14.7 333.87 317.12 9.30 7.29 35.9 43.5 ;iondurable Goods 91.4 90.6 86.6 1.0 5.5 398.86 388.36 10.36 10.14 38.5 38.3 FuoO& Kindred Products 18.3 17.9 18.B 2.6 -2.6 370.40 1359.68 9.33 9.27 39.7 38.8 Textiles & Apparel 2.5 2.4 2.~ 1.7 -0.9 226.95 221.31 6.02 5.66 37.7 39.1 Paper & Allied Products 25.9 25.8 24.4 0.6 6.3 450.43 442.05 10.88 10.50 41.4 42.1 Printing & Publlslnng 26.8 '26.6 24.6 0.7 9.1 390.98 374.34 11.30 11.01 34.6 34.0 Chemical & Petroleum Products 8.7 B.7 8.1 -0.3 7.2 464.86 465.31 11.95 11.81 38.9 39.4 Rubber, Plastic, and L~ather 9.2 9.2 8.2 0.7 11.8 355.11 351.88 8.90 9.26 39.9 38.0 NO~MA~UFACIURI~G 890.9 883.6 839.1 0.8 6.2 XX XX XX XX XX XX CO~STkUCTION 48.7 46.7 41.7 4.2 16.7 596.34 621.13 15.86 16.26 37.6 38.2 Building Construction 12.7 12.6 11.4 0.9 11.4 580.07 587.18 15.51 15.70 37.4 37.4 Higr, w~y & Heavy Construction 7.2 7.1 6.0 1.8 21.2 599.42 613.76 13.94 14.34 43.0 42.8 Special Trades Contracti~g 28.7 27.0 24.3 6.5 18.0 602.42 639.95 16.55 17.02 36.4 37.6 TRANSPORTATION 44.1 44.2 39.8 -0.3 10.8 "XX XX XX XX XX XX ~allroods 6.3 6.3 6.6 0.0 -5.5 XX XX XX XX XX XX Trucking & Warehousing 15.8 15.B 14.6 0.4 g.O 427.85 450.89 12.33 12.49 34.7 36.1 PUBLIC UTILITIES & COMM. 21.2 21.1 16.2 0.5 30.9 508.37 507.42 12.87 12.56 39.5 4D.4 TRADE 280.0 277.4 264.2 1.0 6.0 243.94 238.86 7.92 7.73 30.8 30.9 Retail lr~d~ 207.0 204.9 192.4 1.0 7.6 196.08 190.85 6.88 6.72 28.$ 28.4 G~,eral M~rchandise Stor~s 34.7 34.3 30.9 1.0 12.4 181.72 1183.61 6.16 6.10 29.5 30.1 [uod Stor,,s 26.0 26.0 25.0 -0.1 3.9 253.98 241.54 8.41 8.16 30.2" 29.6 k~ting & brinking Places 67.7 66.7 63.6 1.5 6.3 88.41 86.76 4.23 4.36 20.9 19.9 Specialty Merchandise~/ 78.7 77.9 72.9 1.0 8.0 276.93 267.86 8.11 7.70 34.2 34.8 Wt,oles~le Trade 73.0 72.4 71.8 0.8 1.6 403.58 390.48 10.51 10.09 38.4 38.7 FINANCE, 'INS. & REAL ESTATE 79.2 79.1 76.3 0.1 3.8 309.75 305.70 8.26 8.24 37.5 37.1 Finance 33.2 33.2 32.9 -0.1 0.8 314.87 325.13 8.51 8.74 37.0 37.2 I,surance 31.4 31.4 29.5 0.1 0.8 361.54 344.57 8.67 8.55 41.7 40.3 Real E~tate 14.6 14.5 13.9 0.5 5.3 196.00 184.82 6.49 6.12 30.2 30.2 SERVICE & MISCELLANEOUS 274.2 269.1 259.8 1.9 5.5 XX XX XX XX XX XX Lodging & Recreation 27.8 27.3 25.6 1.8 8.6 160.36 142.90 6.45 5.61 24.9 25.5 Personal Services 11.3 11.2 10.8 0.9 4.7 XX XX XX XX XX XX Business Services 63.1 62.6 55.2 0.8 14.3 XX XX XX XX XX XX Repair Services 13.2 13.3 12.7 -0.4 4.4 262.75 262.80 7.14 6.67 36.8 39.4 Health Services 72.5 68.8 73.4 5.4 -1.3 248.53 219.40 8.34 7.78 29.8 28.2 Hospitals 26.9 23.6 30.0 14.3 .10.2 279.05 266.80 9.24 9.20 30.2 29.0 Nursir~g Homes 20.2 20.2 19.9 0.3 1.5 194.45 183.31 7.02 6.69 27.7 27.4 Other Hu~I th 25.3 25.0 23.5 1.1 7.8 XX XX XX XX XX XX Legal Services 8.8 8.8 8.2 0.9 7.3 426.89 358.16 11.76 9.68 36.3 37.0 Private Education 13.2 13.1 13.4 o.g -1.9 Ot~er Services3_/ 58.9 58.7 55.7 0.4 5.7 GOVERNMENT 143.4 146.0 141.0 -1.8 1.7 Federal 18.3 18.3 17.7 0.3 3.7 State 42.1 42.1 41.4 0.1 1.6 Local 83.1 85.7 82.0 -3.1 1.3 · * Less than .05 ~/ Average earnings data are on a "gross" basis and are derived from reports of payroll for full- and part-tin~ production ur nunsup~rvisory workers. The payroll is reported before deductions of any kind. Bonuses, retro- active pay, tips, payment in kind, and "fringe benefits" are excluded. ~/ IncIuOeS Building Materials, Automotive, Apparel, Home Furnishings, Drug, Mail Order and Miscellaneous ketdii~ng ~/ lncluOe~ Social Services, Membership Organizations, and Miscellaneous Services such as Engineering and At couh t I n~. Source: Current Employn,,*nt Statistics Program (Figures rounded to nearest hundred). QUARTERLY FOCUS The impact of International Trade on Twin cities Employment continueo strength of the dollar against foreign currencies keeps imported goods )er than their American counterparts and U.S. exports more expensive than their competition. As a result, employment levels remain lower than they otherwise would De. Is the Twin-Cities area especially susceptible to such conditions or relatively immune to the consequences of flexible exchange rates? It is evident that over the years countries have become more dependent on each other for goods and services. The value of exports and imports combined now constitute 17 percent of national economic output, considerably more than the 7 percent level of 1960. ~anufactureo-gooOs make up the bulk of international transactions, though exports of agricultural con~odities and imports of energy and materials also play a significant role. Employment in the production of exports has increased to 12.8 percent of all manufacturing worKers nationwide and a comparable 12.4 percent in Minnesota, which ranks ZJro among states. Minnesota ranks an even higher 5th in agricultural exports, with 17 percent of all state farmers producing for international markets. Despite having Z.U percent of total employment, the state's share of all national exports stood at only 1.5 percent in 1980. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area we find an economic mix of industries neavily connected with the global marketplace that differs from the national pattern. Nevertheless, the overall proportion of employment in such industries locally is nearly identical to the U.S. figure. Table i outlines these shares in four groups. Export-based inoustries are those having more than fifteen percent of their employment devoted to production for overseas destinations. Import-sensitive ones have had high import penetra- tion in the aftermath of tarrif reductions. The third group meets both criteria. Included re are industries made up of disparate subgroups, such as transportation equipment port-~ased aircraft and import-sensitive autos) and electrical machinery which currently faces stiff global competition. Finally,- we list four supporting sectors which have a rule in the distribution, storage, brokerage and financing of. both commodities and manufactured products. '- - Table 1 Mpls-St. Paul SMSA Employment Shares in Select Industries 1983 Annual Averages Percent of Total Nonagricultural Employment United States Export-based 2.70 2.02 Tobacco 0.O0 0.07 Chemicals 0.59 1.18 Instruments 2.11 0.77 Import-sensitive 0.74 3.93 Iextiles 0.06 0.83 Apparel 0.16 1.30 Leather 0.05 0.24 Miscellaneous Mfg. 0.39 0.43 Minin~ 0.08 1.14 Import-Export related 7.91 7.53 ..... Primary Metals 0.39 0.93 Non-electrical Machinery 5.63 2.33 Electrical Machinery 1.58 2.28 Transportation Equip. 0.30 1.99 Support Services 18.31 15.90 Iransportation 3.76 3.04 Wholesale Trade 6.55 5.83 Finance 3.00 3.03 Business Services 4.99 4.00 Total Intl. Trade 29.65 29.38 Sources: Current Employment Statistics Program; Bureau of Labor Statistics. Tne value of tne dollar as measured against a trade weighted average of foreign currencies reacned an all-time low in July, 1980. Since that date its value has increased tremendously. A oirect result of this movement is the sharp rise in imports and concurrrent fall in exports. Net exports of goods and services similarly peaked in mid-1980 and has since Oec~inec~. The current margin of imports over exports is the largest in the post World War Ii era. Despite these recent trends local employment in related manufacturing industries has in fact risen over the same time period as Table 2 points out. Substantial job 'losses die occur in the import-sensitive areas of textiles, apparel, and miscellaneous manufacturing (toys, games, sporting goods and jewelry), but these~industries and leather products were already small components of the local economy. Their losses were more than offset by increased employment in chemicals, non-electrical and electrical machinery firms. However, employment gains and declines in these sets of industries may be due t.o factors above ana beyond exchange rate-induced demand. Production costs, new markets anb quality of merchandise all affect relative prices and hence employment levels. More than eliminating joOs, the strong dollar has hampered .their expansion. If the industries connected with international trade had experienced the same 4.0 percent growth as other manufacturers, 2,300 more jobs would have been added. This appears to be a primary impact on local employment as wage gains between types of manufacturers did not vary much. In national data, relative wage declines are common in industries subject to foreign competition, but this results from firms relocating their domestic operations to low wage regions rather than actual wage cuts. However, wage concessions are becoming a ~llore common feature, of labor negotiations. Perhaps lower wages will begin to show up in local data in lieu of or in addition to employment losses, particularly in those industries faced with import competition. The export-Oased and support services are more prevalent in the Twin Cities region than tne Unitea States. This is particularly true of instruments, business services, wholesale trade and transportation. The last two can be partially linked to the metro area's role as a distribution center for agricultural activity of a vast hinterland. Local employment related to the export of farm commodities shows up in these economic sectors rather than agriculture, per se, where a proportionally small share of people are employed. Non-electrical machinery is the only other industry with a relat!.vely larger share of total payroll employment here than nationwide. All of the import-sensitive 'industries make up a smaller share of employment locally than nationally. The concentration of export manufacturers and support services is counteracted by the paucity of employment in import-sensitive industries. Therefore the effects of a strong dollar should have the same impact here as the nation in general. The area appears no more or less susceptible to consequences of this condition. Table 2 Employment and Earnings in Select Industries Mpls-St. Paul SMSA Employment Hourly Wages-Production Workers Percent Percent Industr~ Jul~ 1980 Jul~ 19B4 Change Jul~ 1980 Jul~ 1984 Change Export-based Chemicals 5,193 6,797 30.9 8.76 11.39 30.0 Instruments 24,180 23,988 -0.8 8.14 9.65 18.6 Import-sensitive Textiles 1,349 704 -47.8 6.36 7.45 17.1 Apparel 2,686 1,742 -35.1 4.78 5.90 23.4 Miscellaneous 6,255 3,896 -37.7 6.03 9.37 55.4 Export & Import related Primary Metals 4,974 4,611 -7.3 7.96 8.80 10.6 Machinery 63,733 67,373 5.7 8.09 10.20 26.1 Electrical Machinery 16,902 19,182 13.5 7.35 8.60 17.0 Transportation Equip. 2,399 2,193 -8.6 9.28 10.94 17.9 Intl. Trade Industries 127,671 130,486 2.2 7.79 9.62 23.5 Other Mfg. Industries 115,499 120,077 4.0 8.43 10.72 27.2 Source: Current Employment Statistics Program. THE JOB MARKET Tnis quarter's compilation of frequently listed jobs reveals the continuance of economic growtn. In virtually all occupations the number of openings exceeds the year ago level, Dy nuge margins. A rough observation is that overall openings have doubled over past 12 months. Gains have taken place in all occupational groups, the only notable declines being systems analyst and computer programmer. The trade sector is the primary er,~ployer for over half of the listings including three of the seven new ones this quarter: telepnone interviewer, dishwasher and apparel salesperson. This is not surprising given she surge in retail sales over the past year. Manufacturing, another fast growing industry group, also accounts for a wealth of new.openings particularly for mechanical engineers, general laDorers, assemblers and electronics assemblers. These local labor market condi- .tions are consistent with U.S. trends where actual numbers of people employed by occupation are available. Nationally, the gains in employment over the past year have been greater for certain groups. Management and sales occupations have shown the most pronounced increase with skilled trades, operators and handlers also exceeding the average growth rate of 4.1 percent. Professional - technical and clerical job growth lags behind. The preponderance of low-skilled jobs in the table continues as many require neither a high school diploma nor related work background, particularly in the sales, service and blue-collar areas. In addition, the average required experience levels are decreasing in some occupations. A shorter work record is requi.red by employers for potential retail ~and~ers, general secretaries, data entry operators, telephone solicitors and general retail clerks than in the June 1984 compilation. Furthermore, the'occupations dropping off the list call for a higher skill level than the new additions. Those no longer in the sop five for their group are electrical engineer, clerk-typist, insurance agent, security guard, trailer-truck driver and auto mechanic. It appears at the present time ~nat in all five occupational categories less skilled individuals are increasingly being ugnt to fill a variety of positions. This is a common feature of a growing economy wnicn worker, s can more easily leave the less desirable jobs. Their replacement plus ne growth generated Dy increased sales and production presents a multitude of employment opportunities for those with little education or work experience. Frequently Listed Jobs and Employer Requirements Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA Number of Openings Ave. Years Required Sept. 1984 Sept. 1983 Education Experience · Managerial Retailing Manager 28 2 12 0-1 Mechanical Engineer 17 6 16 3 Systems Analyst 15 17 16 3 Restaurant Manager 14 6 12 0-1 Computer Programer 14 19 16 2 Clerical ~l Secretary 84 58 12 1 Receptionist 66 29 12 0-1 General Office Clerk 62 20 12 0-I Data Entry Operator 60 15 12 0-1 Telephone Interviewer 55 0 12 0 Sales ~hier 183 234 under 12 0 Telephone Solicitor 172 102 under 12 0 General Retail Clerk 126 48 under 12 0 Delivery Person 85 22 under 12 0 Apparel Salesperson 38 21 12 0 Service ~Counter Worker 1052 524 under 12 0 Cook 394 89 under 12 0-1 Janitor/Cleaner 294 99 under 12 0 Waiter/Waitress 257 180 under 12 0-1 Dishwasher 208 86 under 12 0 Blue Collar General Laborer 214 12 under 12 0 Assembler 169 63 12 0-1 Bus Driver ]11 8 under 12 0 Electronics Assembler 104 11 12 0-! Material Handler 99 66 under 12 0 Source: Job Bank, Tuesday week of September 12; Minnesota Department of Economic Security. GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE TItE STRATEGIC STRETCH: An Opportunity for Your Jurisdiction Strategic Planning is the latest buzzword in public organizations. Some see it as a panacea. Others believe they've already done it. Most have heard the term used so many different ways, they are confused about what it means. Dayton Hudson Foundation has made available through Government Training Service an opportunity for 10 metropolitan jurisdictions to STRETCH these dollars by participating in a 6-month strategic Planning Project. The Project is designed to STRETCH you to your next stage of growth as an organization -- whether you are just beginning in the consensus building process or you are old pr.os at strategic planning. We invite you to a meeting to learn more about.this opportunity: Tuesday, November 20th 9 - 11:30 a.m. Metro Council We encourage you to bring other people from your jurisdiction with special emphasis on policy makers. Please call Linda at GTS,'222-7409, to reserve space. Suite 202, Minnesota Building · 46 East Fourth Street · St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 · 612/222-7409 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: Jon Elam and Members of the Council Jim Larson November 12, 1984 Re: Continental Telephone The Court of Appeals has decided in our favor on our appeal from the Public Utilities Commission refusal to refund to us the amounts we felt were due the Metro customers. You may recall that we argued that Contel incorrectly raised our EAS rates $2.35 per month. We also argued that only the customers whose interim rates were above final rates should get a refund. The Commission ordered refunds to all customers, even those whose interim rates were below final rates. The following table shows the old rates, the interim rates and the final rates: Old Interim Final Metro 21.90 28.30' 24.45 Non-Metro (Large) 13.80 17.85 16.35 Non-Metro (Small) 12.55 16.25 16.35 The Commission ordered equal pereentage refunds to all classes, even the non-Metro (Small) whose final rates were above interim rates. The effect of the Court of Appeals decision is to refund to the Metro class the full amount of the difference between interim and final rates, or a full $3.85 per month per customer, for the 11 month period of interim rates. Of course, Mound customers have received some refunds already. The new refunds will be in an amount equal to the difference between what they have received, and the full $3.85 per month that they should have received. Of course the PUC may petition the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court may or may not grant a review. Under M.S. 480A.10, the Supreme Court may grant a review if a question of first impression is involved (this may be such a situation), or if the Court of Appeals has issued a decision in conflict with prior decisions of the Suvreme C'~ourt. I have no opinion as to whether the PUC will seek review by the Supreme Court, and if so, whether the court will grant review. The PUC has 30 days to file an appeal. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS ~CX-84-1035 %C7-84-1168 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Popovich, Chief Judge In the Matter of the Petition of Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota, Inc., for Authority to Change its Schedule of Telephone Rates for Customers within the State of Minnesota. Hubert H. Humphrey, III Attorney General State of Minnesota Thomas M. O'Hern, Jr. Special Assistant Attorney General 340 Bremer Tower St. Paul, MN 55101 (Attorneys for Intervenor- Appellant, Attorney'General, Residential Utilities Div.) Karl W. Sonneman Special Assistant Attorney General 780 American Center Bldg. 160 East Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55101 (Attorneys for .Respondent Minnesota Public Utilities Commission) James D. Larson. Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton, Larson & Underwood 1100 First Bank Place West · Minneapolis, MN 55402 (Attorneys for Intervenor- Appellant City of Mound) Rebecca Palmer Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand 1800 Midwest Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55402 (Attorneys for Intervenor- Respondent Continental Telephone Co.) Susan Rester Special Assistant Attorney General 1100 Bremer Tower St. Paul, MN 55101 (Attorneys for Intervenor- Respondent Department of Public Service) Endorsed Filed November 13, 1984 Wayne Tschimperle, Clerk Minnesota Appellate Courts S YL LAB US 1. When one party has petitioned for a writ of certi- orari under the Administrative Procedures Act, a respondent may raise additional issues in a notice of review pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 106. 2. Where there is insufficient evidence to. determine whether Continental" Telephone Company was earning a double return on its cash unreserved· account, the Public Utilities CommissiOn's conclusion that the account should be included in cash working capital without a corresponding addition of interest -'earned on those funds to its revenues is not supported by substantial evidence and will be remanded for additional evidence. 3. The Public Utilities Commission decision to include bonded revenue in Continental Telephone Company ' s cash working capital and its determination regarding a reasonable return on equitY is supported by substantial evidence. 4. Because the Public Utilities Commission erred in setting interim rates for one class of Continental Telephone -2- Company's customers, it is reversible error to return excess revenues collected to all rate payers on an equal percentage basis. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part. Heard, considered and decided by Popovich, Chief Judge, Parker, Judge, and Randall, Judge. 0 P I N I O N POPOVICH, Chief Judge This is an appeal from an order issued by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on March 23, 1984' author- izing Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota· (Continen- tal) to increase its rate for telephone service in Minnesota. The Residential utilities Division of the Attorney General's Office (Attorney General), Department of Public Service (DPS), and' City of Mound (Mound) intervened as parties to the proceeding. On June 5, 1984% the PUC approved a refund plan to return the excess revenues collected during the interim rate period to Continental's CUstomers. The Attorney General appealed,~...from that part of the PUC's order 'setting final rates which allowed Continental to earn a ·return on the cash unreserved account in the cash working capital portion of the rate base. Continental filed a notice of review in the Attorney General's appeal seeking review of the inclusion of .bonded revenues in cash working capital and the rate of·return allowed on common equity. The -3- DPS filed a statement of the case addressing the issues raised by Continental. Mound filed a separate appeal challenging interim rates and the refund order. By .order dated July 12, 1984, this court consolidated the appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. FACTS Continental, a wholly owned subsidiary of Continental TelCom, Inc., Minnesota, serving 88,260 .customers in 113 exchanges scattered throughout the state. It serves primarily rural, outstate exchanges,' but also offers service to ~four metro- politan area exchanges,· including the city of Mound. · On May 27, 1983, Continental filed a petition before the PUC pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 237.075 (1982) requesting authority to increase rates for telephone service in Minnesota by $7,212,120~. The PUC accepted the filing and suspended rates on June .30, 1983. On July 7, 1983, the PUC authorized a~option of an interim rate increase of $4,785.,629. The Attorney General, DPS, and Mound petitioned to intervene in the contested case proceeding, and all were made parties on August 1, 1983. Following public hearings and the issuance of the hearing examiner's -report, the PUC granted Continental a $4,057,147 rate increase on March 23, 1984. -4- Subsequently, the Attorney General petitioned the PUC to reconsider its decision regarding the treatment of the cash unreserved account. Continental filed a conditional p~tition for reconsideration requesting the Puc to consider Continental's petition regarding bonded revenues and return on equity if it granted the Attorney General's petition. On May 14, 1984, the PUC denied both petitions for reconsider- ation. On June 5, 1984, the PUC approved a refund plan to return the excess revenues collected' during'the interim rate Period to Continental's customers. Mound petitioned, the PUC 'to reconsider its 'refund .decision. The PUC denied the Petition on August 1, 1984. Upon Petition of the .Attorney General, this court issued a writ of certiorari on June 12, 1984. On June 27, 1984, Continental filed a notice of review pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 106 seeking review of portions of the final order concerning bonded revenues and return on equity. In response to Continental's action, the DPS intervened. Mound petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari regarding the refund plan on July 3, 1984. ISSUES 1. Has Continental's failure to file a Petition for writ of certiorari deprived this court of jurisdiction to consider its appeal? 2. Is the PUC's conclusion that the cash unreserved account should be included in cash working capital without a -5- corresponding addition of earned interest to Continental's revenues supported by substantial evidence? 3. Is the PUC's conclusion that bonded revenue was to be included in the computation of cash working capital supported by substantial evidence? 4. Is the PUC's conclusion that 14.53% is a reasonable return on equity for evidence? Continental supported by substantial 5. Did the PUC err in calculating interim rates for the metro class of Continental's customers? 6. Did the PUC err in adopting a refund plan that returns excess revenues collected during the interim rate period to all rate payers on an equal percentage basis? ANALYS IS 1. Scope of review. Appellate review of administrative agency 'decisions is governed by Minn. Stat. ~ 14.69 (1982), which provides: In a judicial review under sections 14.63 to 14.68, the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceed- ings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are: (a) In violation of visions; or constitutional pro- (b) In excess of fhe Statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure; or (d) Affected by other error of law; or -6- (e) Unsupported by substantial evidence in of the en%ire record as submitted; or (f) Arbitrary or capricious. Accompanying the statutory standards is a presumption agency decisions are correct, "out of deference to '.y s~ill and technical expertise * *' *." ~ Co. v. Minnesota Department of Natural' Resources, 300 d 769, 777 (Minn. 1980) (citing Reserve Mining Co. v. 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn. 1977)); see also Minnesota Light Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, [.W.2d 324, 329 (Minn. 1983). The substantial evidence test is used to review factual ~ngs of an agency. PeopleS'Natural Gas Co. v. 'Minnesota ~, 342 N.W.2d 348, 351 (Minn. Ct. 1983), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. April 24, 1984). ~antial evidence is defined as: ~1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a con- clusion; 2) more than a scintilla of evidence; 3) more than 'some evidence'; 4) more than 'any evidence'; and 5) evidence considered in its entirety. There are correlative rules or principles that must be recognized by a review- ing court, such as: 1) unless manifestly unjust, inferences must be accepted even though it may appear that contrary.inferences would be better supported; 2) a substantial judicial deference to the fact-finding processes of the administrative agency; and 3) the burden is upon the appellant to establish that the findings of the agency are not supported by the evidence in the record, considered in its entirety. ve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d at 825. -7- ~% s~ara~e basis for rejecting an agency's decision is bitl-~ryt or capricious standard. ~D~, 342 N.W.2d at Where an agency's decision represents its judgment, and :s will, the agency has not acted arbitrarily. Id. at Dee ~ Markwardt v. State' Water Resources Board, 254 371, 374 (~4inn. 1977). Furthermore, an agency's on is 'not arbitrary' or capricious if more than one ,n exists on the matter. See Village of Goodview v. Area Industrial Development Association, 289 Minn. 81, 184 N.W.2d 662, 664 (1971). 2. Gontinental's failure to file a writ of certiorari. The Attorney General petitioned for writ of certiorari ne 12, 1984. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 106, filed a notice of review raising two additional The PUC and the DPS argue that under Minn. Stat. 4 (Supp. 1983), filing a timely petition for writ of' ~rari is the only way to obtain review. Since Continen- .d not do so, they contend this court does not have iction to consider these additional issues. Minn. Stat. § 14.64 (Supp. 1983) states: Proceedings for review under sections 14.63 to 14.68 shall be instituted by serving a petition for a writ of certiorari * '* * and the matter shall proceed in the manner provided by the rules of civil appellate procedure. .~mphasis added)'. -8- ~rties participating in proceedings under the Minne- ~mi~tratlve Procedure Act are permitted to raise ~al issues under Rule 106. Once a party institutes [ngs for review under Minn. Stat. § 14.64, the rules appellate procedure apply, including Rule 106. isin~ additional issues by notice of review was under the old statutory practice. See ]~ Co. v. Minnesota Public Service CommissiOn, 302 , 9 (Minn. 1980); Northwestern Bell Telephone Go.' v. 116 N.W.2d 841, 845 (Minn. 1974) (in both cases the :a Supreme Court considered issues raised by notice of Nothing in the new rules of civil appellate pro- enies cross appeal by notice of review. ~is [terpretation serves the interests of simplicity [cial economy since the necessity for parties filing defensive appeals is thereby avoided. We hold since ~rney General filed a petition for writ of certiorari nn. Stat. § 14.64, Continental, as a responding party raised additional issues by filing a notice of Cash Unreserved Acc0u~t. making its final rate determination, th'e PUC Continental's rate base using the thirteen month balance sheet method. The balance sheet approach current assets and current liabilities adjusted only cu~l~ing aberra.tions and liabilities owed to tnves- sh~orking capital is included in Continental's rate -9- base in order to allow a return on investor supplied funds used to carry on the day-to-day activities of the business. The cash unreserved account is included on Continen- tal's balance sheet among current assets and represents current funds available for use on demand. The account contained approximately $5.2 million at the time of the hearing, but the record only contains information for this account for the first one-half of the test year. The average monthly balance of the cash unreserved account for the period January 1983 through June 1983' was $7,054,715. The interest earned on the cash unreserved account was $345,309.61 for the same period. The interest earned on this account is recorded on Continental's income statement as "Other Miscellaneous Income," which is being recorded below-the-line for the bene- fit of shareholders (that is, it is being excluded from Continental's operating income statement). The PUC included the cash unreserved account in the company's cash working capital portiOn of rate base without including interest income attributable to these funds in the company's revenues. It found that: IT]he cash unreserved account is a current asset properly included in determining cash working capital under the balance sheet method. How- ever, without sufficient information about this account, it cannot properly be determined if the company is earning a double return on this account and the dollar amount of the alleged double return. Because of the lack of substan- tiating evidence on this issue, the Commission will allow the inclusion of the cash unreserved account in determining the test year cash working capital, without making an adjustment as urged by the RUD [Attorney General] for a double return. -10- Final Order at 7. The Attorney General argues, since the cash unreserved account is included in rate base working capital, the inter- est revenues should also be included to prevent Continental from earning a double return on the account. Be claims there is sufficient evidence in the record to ascertain the amount of income Continental is earning on this account. The Attorney General cites nine facts to establish Continental is earning a double return on its cash unreserved account. The record, however, shows only interest received for one-half of the test year. The PUC argues that without being able to determine the amount of interest revenues for the whole year, it had no evidence to support including a sum in the company's revenues attributable to the interest from the cash unreserved account. There is also little evidence of how the interest income should be treated for ratemaking purposes. The PUC chose not to decide this issue because the record was inade- quate to resolve the question. The financial adjustment urged by the Attorney General requires a factual determination which must be supported by substantial evidence. ~ibbing Taconite Co., 302 N.W.2d at 9. We agree the record does .not contain sufficient evidence for the PUC to make the suggested adjustment to cash working capital. The PUC, however, cannot ignore facts suggesting a double return on the cash unreserved account and avoid deciding the proper ratemaking treatment to be given the -11- interest income. Therefore, we remand the matter to the PUC for proceedings to obtain evidence to support a reasoned decision. 4. Bonded Revenue. Bonded revenues are collected under bond from interim rates and included as current liabilities on Continental's .balance sheet. Since the test period under review covers period when revenues were subject to refund under the company's previous rate case, the revenues collected under bond appear as a current' liability.. During the current .matter, the company again collected interim rates subject to refund at the time of the PUC's final decision. The PUC found bonded revenues should be included among the liability accounts used to determine cash working capital .under the balance sheet method, concluding: Because bonded revenues and interim rates serve a similar purpose, and because there is no valid accounting distinction between bonded revenues with the last rate case and the interim rates under bond in this case, the Commission finds that the bonded revenue account included in the cash working capital balance sheet is a recur- ring item properly included as a liability account for cash working capital purposes, .and that revenues under bond are ratepayer funds until the Commission's final determination in a rate case. Final Order at 10. Continental contends this finding is incorrect because bonded revenue is a nonrecurring item and because a substan- rial portion belongs to investors. -12- Continental filed rate cases in 1979, 1981, 1983, and may do so in the future. In each case, it records the contingent interim revenue increase to the bonded revenue account. The presence of the bonded revenues'from the last Continental rate case on the books examined for this matter is indicative of the regularity of Continental's rate case filings. The record supports the PUC's conclusion and determination on this issue. 5. Rate of return on common equity. The PUC heard testimony from three expert witnesses regarding the rate of return on common equity: Mr~ Morris for Continental who recommended a return of '16.75%; Dr. Thompson for the DPS who recommended as an upper limit a return of 14.75%; and Mr. Schmidt for the Attorney General who recommended a return of 14.10%. The PUC calculated the return on equity by the "discounted cash flow (DCF) method," which involves summing the dividend yield of a company's stock with the expected dividend growth rate for that stock. The PUC applied the DCF analysis to data from Continental Telcom, Inc; and a group of · risk comparable companies to determine the dividend yield component.of the DCF formula, giving equal weight to each and arrived at a figure of 8.85%. There is no dispute about this figure. In determining the growth rate, the PUC adopted the hearing examiner's method which involved averaging' the mid- points of the ranges of growth, rate estimates made by Dr'. '13- Thompson for Continental Telecom, Inc. and a comparable group. The PUC. used this method because it gives equal weight to the data of both groups and is consistent with the approach used to determine an appropriate dividend yield. Using this method, the PUC arrived at a growth rate' of 5.6-8%. Summing the dividend yield of 8.85% and the expected growth rate of 5.68% yields a 14.53% return on common equity. Continental disputes the growth rate used to determine the rate of return allowed. The traditional substantial evidence standard is diffi- cult to apply to a determination of growth rate because this decision is highly judgmental. See Minnesota Power & Ligh~ Company, 342 N.W.2d at 330. The reviewing court must "determine whether the agency has adequately explained how it derived its conclusion and whether that conclusion is reason- able on the basis of the record." Id. ~ere, the PUC explained in detail how it arrived at the growth rate and its conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Continental's main concern is that the PUC adopted the hearing examiner's recommended growth rate. The hearing examiner used the lowest estimates in setting the rate of return because evidence indicated quality of service problems. The PUC stated it did not consider the quality of service factor in determining the appropriate growth rate, but arrived at the same figure proposed by the hearing -14- examiner. We believe the assigned growth rate is adequately supported by the record, independent of quality of service factors. 6. Calculation of interim rates for metr° customers. Before the filing, Continental had three customer groups: metro, non-metro (large), and non-metro (small). Continental charged its non-metro customers a basic service rate plus an "extended area service" (EAS) component. Metro exchange, customers were charged only a basic service rate, but an EAS component was implicit in this rate. Continen- tal's filing stated an increase in EAS rates would not be proposed. The PUC set interim rates for Continental on July 7, 1983. Those rates were to produce an interim revenue in- crease of $4,785,629 and 'collected using an across-the-board increase to existing basic service rates. The difference between the contents of .the rates was not known to the PUC at the time the interim rate order was issued but .did become apparent during the hearings. The interim rates increased metro and non-metro line access rates by 29.3%. The increase was applied to the total metro rate (basic service and EAS) but only to the basic service portion of the non-metro rate. Thus, metro customers paid a higher interim rate than non-metro customers. -15- In its final order, the PUC directed Continental to apply the permanent rate increase only to the basic service portion of the metro rate, which corresponded to the increase applied to the basic service rates in the non-metro ex- changes. The final rates ordered were below interim rates. The differences between rates paid before and after the final rate increase by the three customer groups are as follows: Metro Non-Metro (large) Non-Metro (small) 21.90 28.30 24.45 13.80 17.85 16.35 12.55 16.25 16.36 The metro figures include $8.10 per month for EAS. Non-metro customers paid a separate EAS charge which would be added .to the amount shown. continental was 'required to file a refund plan and submitted a two option plan. Option A proposed a return of the excess interim revenues only to those groups of customers whose final rates were lower than the interim rates. Option B proposed a return of the excess interim revenues to all customers equally. The Attorney General and the DPS sup- ported Option B; Mound did not comment. On June 5, 1984, the PUC issued a refund order based upon Option B. Mound then petitioned the PUC for reconsideration on grounds an equal percentage refund was unfair to. metro customers. Mound appealed the denial of their petition. -16- ~} Timeliness of Mound's ~ppe~lo The PUC contends Mound did not raise the issue earlier when it could have and its attempt to raise it by reconsider- ation of the refund plan is untimely. The discrepancy between the metro and non-metro interim rates became apparent during the contested case hearings. Mound claims the issue was previously raised in briefs and oral argument. Mound believed the PUC recognized the error and intended to address it in the refund order. When it became apparent metro customers would not be reimbursed for the amount charged to the EAS component of their total rate, Mound made a timely request for reconsideration of the refunding order. (b) Error in setting the interim rates. Mound contends the .PUC erred in setting the interim rates'because, contrary to its own previous practice, it did not raise all customer groups' rates by the same percentage. In its Statement of Policy on Interim Rates issued April 14, .1982, the PUC stated: The Commission~ interprets that * * * interim rates should consist of the existing rate schedule with an interim rate adjustment equal to the overall requested interim increase per- centage. This procedure' will assure that consumption decisions will be made on the same · basis as under existing rates and will allow refunds, if necessary, to be made across the board to all customers such that the final rates are prospective only. The PUC contends it did not mistakenly increase the .interim EAS rates for metro exchanges since there were no -17- recognized EAS charges in the rate design for the metro exchanges when ~the interim rates were ordered. It claims to have purposefully applied the across-the-board interim ~'l'hcreaSe to the basic service rate and did not decide · restructure the rate design to recognize an ~ EAS component in the metro exchange rates until after the hearings. The PUC contends it complied with Minn. Stat. § 237.075, subd. 3 (Supp. 1983) and maintained the existing rate design during the interim period. We agree with Mound that the increase to metro EAS rates during the interim period was not a rate design change, but an error which violated the PUC's policy of 'applying the interim rate to all customers equally. · 7. The Refund Plan. Minn. Stat. § 237.075, subd. 3 (Supp. 1983) provides: If, at the time of its final determination, the commission finds that the interim rates.are in excess of the rates in the final determina- tion, the commission shall order the company to refund the excess amount collected under the interim rate schedule * * *. The PUC refund plan would refund excess interim rates to all customers equally including the non-metro (small) group whose interim rates were a dime below final rates. This would reduce the amount available for refunding to the two rate groups whose ir~ertm rates ~ere above final rates. -18- The legislature granted the PUC broad discretion in determining the details of refund plans. See Minn. Stat. § 237.075, subd. 3 (Supp. 1983). The PUC argues it reason- ably exercised its discretion by adopting a policy of across-the-board refunds that is fair and reasonable in virtually all cases. The PUC also claims to have followed the directive of Minn. Stat. § 237.075, subd. 5 (1982), which provides: Rate design changes shall be prospective from the effective -date of the new rate schedules approved by the commission. Finally, the PUC contends its across-the-board refund plan complies with the legislature's intention to provide a simple system for refunding excess revenues collected during the interim period and avoids the controversy and dissatis- faction of.complex refund designs. The PUC policy of granting equal percentage interim rate increases and refunds to all may be simple, but ignores that interim rates were unfair to metro customers. The PUC does have broad discretion, but is also required to achieve a fair and reasonable result. See Minn. Stat. § 237.06 (1982). The PUC cannot arbitrarily 'disregard the reasonable- ness of the interim rates. The interim rates were in effect for eleven months. Continental has a history of filing for rate increases every other year. If this pattern continues, Continental rat,payers will be paying interim rates almost half of the time. If there is no PUC requirement to set -19- these interim rates at a fair and reasonable level, the potential exists for customers to pay unequal rates at least half of the time. The PUC claims its refund method plae~ a ~ignificant burden on Continental. The burden, however, appears to be overstated.. Continental itself submitted a proposed refund plan that would be more.equitable. Each metro customer paid $2.35 per month more than he or she should have during the interim rate period. Overcharges can simply be returned to them through bill credits. Continental has kept records enabling it to make these refunds. Other parties are not involved, and customers will not be burdened. We hold that each metro class customer should receive $25.85,. which accounts for the $2.35 per month EAS overcharge for eleven months. The remaining $1.50 per month overpaid by metro and non-metro (large) customers should be refunded to them, and non-metro (small) customers should not receive any refund because they were not overcharged. DECISION This court has jurisdiction to hear the additional issues raised by Continental in its notice of review. The PUC's decision regarding the cash unreserved account was not supported by substantial evidence. We remand to the PUC for appropriate proceedings to determine if Continental is earning a double return on the account and the treatment to be applied to the interest income. -20- The PUC's decision to include bonded revenue in cash working capital and its conclusion that 14.53% is a reason- able return on equity was supported by substantial evidence and is affirmed. The PUC erred in calculating interim rates and in its decision to return excess revenues to all ratepayers on an equal basis is reversed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. A. thOmAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. JOSEPH Eo HAMILTON, P. A. JAMES D. LARSON, P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. ROGER J. FEllOWS law OFFICES WURST, PEarson, HAMILTON, larsoN & UNDERWOOD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55~02 November 8, 1984 TELEPHONE {61~) Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Liquor Store Lease Dear Jon: On November 5, 1984, I sent a new draft of a proposed lease to Mr. Saliterman and copied you on that lease. I spoke with Mr. Saliterman on November 7th and his only comments were as follows: Since I had crossed out the first paragraph on the advance taxes, he felt that the top paragraph on page 3 should also be stricken and I agreed and that has been done. He also asked that I strike paragraph 5 on page 3 since it does not appear to have any relevance to this lease and we are establishing a set price over the next two years. I agreed with that also. He indicated that he was not signing off on the lease at this time because he had sent it to his lawyer and he may want to add a paragraph which would indicate that they have the right to subordinate the lease to a mortgage. He indicated that he intends to be doing some work on the shopping center and will have to obtain a mortgage and at that time will have to subordinate the leases to the mortgagee. I told him that certainly did not present a problem for the City and we would be happy to make such changes. I will not be at the meeting on Tuesday evening and Jim Larson will be in attendance. I wanted to send to you the original of the lease corrected through my conversations with Mr. Saliterman on November 7th. You can then make approximately three copies of that document and have it signed by yourself and Mr. Polston and approved by the Council. We can then get it over to Mr. Saliterman for his execution and at the return of one signed copy for the City's file. If it is necessary to make any changes in this document I would hope to be in contact with Mr. Saliterman by Tuesday, November 13th, and I can call those changes in to you or give them to Jim so he will be prepared to handle them at the meeting. Very trul.y yours, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney CAP:rad Enclosure , November 19 84 nhentnre,made in duplicate this .................................. day ol .................................................. . ........ by and between Real One Acquisitions, a Minnesota Limited Partnership Ps~, o~ hereinafter designated and referred to as lessor, and the City of Mound, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation hereinaf%er designated and re[erred to ms tenant, .\VtzN£SSETH: TH^T said lessor in consideration of the rents and covenants hereinafter mentioned, to be pald and performed by said tenant, does hereby demise, lease and let unto the said tenant, and the said tenant does hereby hire and take from the said lessor, the fotlox,jng described premises situate in the City of ............ !:!~).~! .............................................. Count), of Hennep ~ State Mznnesota ................................................................................... of ............................................................................................. to-wit: That portion of the building owned by Lessor in Block One (1) Shirley Hills, Unit F, presently occupied by Lessee, including the liquor store area and the back storage area, together with the use of the hall for ingress and egress purposes Tcmm. To H^vE AND TO HOLt) the above premises just as they are, without any liability or obligation on the part of said lessor of making any alterations, improvements or repairs of any kind on or about said premises or the building or buil~i- ings of which they are a part, or the equipment, fixtures, plumbing, appliances, or machinery in, upon or serving same, or the streets, alleys, areas, area-ways or passages adjoining or appurtenant thereto, for the term of two years ,from and after the .... 3~!; ................. day of.......A..~g.u:~.t. ...................... 19 ..8.~.., to the ........ !.~.~ .................. day of.......A..~..s.~ ............................ 19.8 6, both dates inclusive, for the following purposes and for no other purposes, to-wit: Operation of a municipal liquor store o~¢~o~¢r. And the said tenant agrees to and with said lessor to pay the lessor as rent for the above mentioned premises the sum of ................................................................................................................................... Dollars ($ .............................. ) in monthly paymentso[ Four Dollars and Ten Cents ($4.50) per square foot from August 1, 1984, to August 1, 1985, and Five Dollars and Ten Cents ($5.50) per square foot from August 1, 1985, to August 1, 1986, C to Maintain Surrender Premiss in Good Order. .......................................................... Dollars ($ ............................ ), payable in advance on the first day of each and every month for and during the full term of this lease, at the office of ........ ~..S.~PT~ .................................... i ........................................................... The said tenant also covenants and agrees with thc lessor as follows: That the tenant will keep at his own expense said demised premises and the equlpm, ent, plumbing, drains, fixtures, appliances and machinery tn, upon, serving or appurtenant to said demised premises, in good repair and in good sanitary condition during said term, and that he will replace at his own expense promptly any and all glass broken in or about said premises whh glass of the same quality; Coaditioa that he witl make no alterations in or additions to said premises. premises, without first obtaining the lessor's written con- sent, and that he will not use or permit anything upon said premises that will increase the rate of insurance thereon, or anything that may be dangerous to life or limb, and that he will not in any manner deface or injure said demised prem- ises, or any part thereof, or overload the floors, or do or Release permit anything to be done upon said premises or in the of passageways, alleys, areas, area-ways, sidewalks or streets Lessor. adjacent thereto, that will amount to or create a nuisance; and that he will not use said premises or permit the same or an)' part thereof to be used for lodging or sleeping pur- poses, or for any purpose contrary to the laws, ordinances or regulations of the United States of America or the State of....~:I'~'~.~.~.OE..a. .................................. or the City of ~ound ............... or of any rules or regulations of tbe City of .................................................................... , or of at y boards or officers of sald~city; and the tenant agrees Sub. to return said premises peaceably and promptly to the essor leuLnS. at the end of the term oi this lease, or at any previous termi- nation thereof, in as good condition as the same are now in or may hereafter be put in, loss by fire and ordinary wear ex- cepted. And the tenant further covenants and agrees to keep the sldewatks bordering on said demised premises (where the leased space borders upon a sidewalk or passageway) and the roof of said demised premises at all times free from ice and snow and other obstructions, and to neither waste nor misuse water, electricity, gas, steam, or any other utilities or agencies which arc or may be furnished by the lessor, and B~krumer. to promptly pa3' ali rates, costs and charges for the same, excerpt as to such of the same, if any, as the lessor has specifically agreed berein to iurnish free of charge. Lessee shall not erect or permit to be erected on said premises, any signs on the exterior of the premises or build- ings without the written consent of lessor endorsed hereon nor place or permit to be placed in any portion of any of the demised premises any we{ght or weights in excess of the reasonable or safe carrying capacity of the structure. The tenant acknowledges the receipt of the demised prem- ises and the same to be in good and sanitary condition, and in good repair, and the taking possession of the demised premises by the tenant shall be conclusive evidence that the demised premises, and the equipment, plumbing, drains, fix- tures, appliances and machinery therein, were at the time of so taking possession thereof in good, clean, sanitary and tenantable condition, and in all respects satisfactory and ,acceptable to the tenant, and in the condition in which they were represented to the tenant to be and agreed to be put in by the lessor; and the tenant hereby releases the lessor from any and all claims arising from any defect in the condi- tion of said demised premises, or the equipment, fixtures or appliances in or serving said premises, and the building or buildings of which they are a part, and thc streets, alleys, areas, area-ways, passages or sldewa!ks adjoining or appurtenant thereto. The tenant agrees that he will not sublet the demised prentises, or any part thereof, and will not assign this lease or any interest therein, nor permit such lease to become transferred by operation of law or otherwise, and that no act or acts will be done or suffered whereby the same may be or become sublet or assigned in whole or in part, unless the written consent of the lessor endorsed thereon shall be first obtained in each and every case of underletfing or assign- moot, as they shall from time to time occur or be desired, and that nothing whatever shall be held to be a waiver o{ or supersede the necessity of such endorsement. Any assignment, sale in bankruptcy or insolvency of the lessee may, at the option of the lessor, be considered an assignment within the meaning of this lease and as a breach oi the covenants hereof. lessor /.I.bilit7 The tenant further agrees that the lessor shall not be liable for any damage, either to person or persons or prop. erty or the loss of property sustained by thc tenant, or by any other person or persons due to the demised premises or the buildings of which the demised premises are a part, or the equipment, fixtures, appliances or machinery in or upon the same, ot the hahs passages, areas, area-ways and side- walks or streets adjoining or appurtenant to the same be ng or becoming out of repair or defective, or due to the happen- ing of any accident, or due to an), act or neglect of the tenant,-or any tenant or occupant of said building, or of any other person, persons or corporations, or by the bursting of pipes, OS by the use ot misuse of any instrumentality or agency in ot counected with the demised premises or the buildlng o~ which it ~s a part, or occasioned by any nu{sancc A~nst made or suffered thereon or therein. The tenant assumes all liabil~ty and obli~tion on account of all damages on account of the matters and things above referred to, and agrees to save the lessor harmless thereon and therefrom, and to indemnify the lessor on account there- of. This provision shall apply especially, bet not exclusively, to damage caused by water, snow, rain, hail, backing up o~ water mains or sewers, frost, steam, sewage, illuminating gas, sewer gas, or odors, electricity and electric current, and by lhe bursting, stoppage or leaking of pipes or radiators, plumbing, sinks and fixtures in or about the demised prem- ises or the building o[ which the demised premises are a parL In case of such damage the lessor may at his option repair such damage, and if such damage has occurred in the demised premises or on account of the defects in demised premises against which the tenant has agreed to make rcpalrs, the tenant shall thereupon reimburse the lessor for the costs of repairing such damage, and if the tenant fails ~o perform any of the covenants or uEreements herein pro- vided to be kept or performed by the tenant, the lessor may perform the same and charge thc tenant with the expense of such performance, and the tenant agrees promptly on demand to repay to the lessor the cost of such performance by the lessor. Thc tenant further covenants and agrees that the se~ice of notice by any o~cer of the City of ........ ~.~ ..................... ............................................ upon either party to this lease to clean said premises, or to do any other act in connection thercwkb, shall be conclusive evidence as between the parties hereto of the breach by the tenant of the covenant with respect to the non-perlo~ance of which by the tenant such notice has been Any notice from the lessor to the tenant, relating to the demised premises or the occupancy thereof, shall be deemed duly sewed if left at the demised premises addressed to the tenant. The lenant further covenants and agrees at its own expense to observe and keep all regulations and requirements of the The lessor agrees that if the premises hereby leased shall at the time hereinbefore stipulated for the beginning o{ Iht term of this lease, be in the possession and occupancy of any person not lawfully entitled to said possesslon and occupancy, the lessor shall usc duc diligence to obtain possession there- 0[ for the lessee, but it is expressly understood and agreed that the lessor, using due diligence as aforesaid shall not in any way be liable for any failure to obtain the possession of the premises {or the lessee and that this lease shall not be affected in any way by any such failure to obtain possession except that the rentals hereunder shall be abated until pos- session shall be secured by the lessor for the lessee and writ- ten notice to that effect given by the lessor to the lessee. It is understood and agreed with respect to all alterations and repairs, improvements or alterations to said demised premises, or any part thereof, which shall only be with the written consent of the lessor, that tenant shall and will in each instance save said lessor and said premises forever harmless and ieee {rom ali costs, damages, loss and liability o[ every kind and character which may be claimed, asserted or cMrged, including liability to adjacent owners based upon the acts o[ ne~ligence o{ sald tenants or their agents, con- tractors or employees or upon the negligence o[ any mher person or persons in or about said premises or upon the fail- ure of any or either of them to observe and comply with the requirement o{ the law or with the regulations o{ the authori- ties in the sa d cty ol ........ .~9.~9.~ ................................................... and will preserve and hold the lessor and sa d premises for- ever free ~nd clear trom liens for labor and material tur- nished. And the tenant agrees that it will [rom time to time before making any such repairs, improvements or alterations furnish the lessor with · bond in an amount and with sureties satlsfnctory to the essor conditioned for the performance by the tenant o[ the matters and things in th s paragraph required to be done by the tenant. It is turther agreed between the lessor and tenant this lease is made upon the condition that ff. the ten~nt shall neglect or fail to keep, observe and periqrm'any of the cove- nants and agreements contained in this lease, which are to be kept, observed or performed by the tenant, or ii the lease- hold interest of the tenant shall be taken on execution or other process o[ law, or if the tenant shall petition to be or be declared bankrupt or insolveut according to law, or ii the tenant shall vacate said premises or abandon the same during the term of this lease, then and in any oi said cases the lessor may immediately or at any time thorns{tee, and with- out further notice or demand, enter into and upon said premises, or any part thereof, in the name of the whole, and take absolute possession of the same fully and absolutely, without such re-entry working a forieiture oi the rents to be paid and the covenants to be performed by the lessee [or the {ull term o[ this lease, and may at the lessor's election lease or sublet said premises, or any part thereof, on such terms and conditions an~ {or such rents and for such time as ~tth City Reknflati°ns' C ty.of ........ .,'~...Q..l,!...l!...,d.. .................................................. or other pub- the lessor may elect, and after crediting the rent actually lie authorities in force at the time of the taking possess on by SubleaninL collected by the lessor from such reletting on the rentals stipulated to be paid under this lease by the tenant from the tenant of the demised premises or which may thereafter time to time, collect from the tenant any balance remaining be made regarding the condition and conduct of said de- due from time to time on the rent reserved under this lease, raised premises, any part thereof, and the sidewalks adjacent charging to the tenant such reasonable expenses as the lessor thereto, including ali building, fire, sanitary, police or other may expend in putting the premises in tenantable condition. regulations. Or the lessor may at his election and upon written notice to TaklnS Thc tenant further agrees that if the demised premises, or TermlmUlon the tenant declare this lease forfeited and void, and may of thereupon re-enter and take full and absolute possession of for any part thereof, or any part of the improvements of which Lease lhablieL1~e' they form a part, shall be taken for any street or other pub- Under said premises as thc owner thereof, and free from any right lie use, or shall during the continuance of this lease be de- Bankruptcy. or claim of the tenant, or any person or persons claiming stroyed by thc action of the public authorities, then this through or under the tenant; and such election and re-curry last mentioned shall be and constitute an absolute bar to any by Irire. lease and the term demised shall thereupon terminate. It is further agreed between the lessor and the tenant that if during the term of this lease the demised premises or the improvements thereon shall be injured or destroyed by fire or the elements, or through any other cause, so as to render the demised premises unfit for occupancy, or makes it impos- sible to conduct the business of the tenant thereon, or to such an extent that they cannot be repaired with reasonable dili- gence within thirty (30) days from the happening of such injury, then the lessor may terminate this lease and the term herein demised from the date of such damage or destruction, and the tenant shall immediately surrender the demised premises and all interest therein to the lessor, and the ten- ant shall pay rent only to the time o! such surrender; and in Flxt~rt~ case of any such destruction or injury the lessor may re-enter u:d Personal and repossess the demised premises discharged of this lease, ?ropcrty, and may dispossess all parties then in pos'session thereof. But if the demised premises can be restored within sixty days (60) days from the happening of the injury thereto, and the lessor within fifteen (IS) days from the occurrence of such injury elects in writing to so repair or restore said premises within sixty (60) days from the happening of the injury thereto, then this lease shall not end or terminate on account of such injury by fire or otherwise, but the rent shall not run or accrue alter the injury and during the process of repairs, and up to the time when the repairs shall be completed, except only that the tenant shall during such time pay a pro rata portion of such rent apportioned to the portion of the de- mised premises which are in condition for occupancy or wh ch may be actually occupied during such repairing period. If, however, the demised premises shall be so slightly in- Ad.~mce jured by any cause aforesad, as not to be rendered unfit for InTax.. occupancy, then the lessor shall repair the same with reason- able promptness, and in that ease the rent shall not cease or be abated during such repairing period. All improvements or betterments P aced by the tenant on the demised premises shall however, in any event, be repaired and replaced by the tenant at his own expense and not at the expense of the lessor. The lessor agrees and covenants that the tenant, on paying ---e.nb v md nuiet y have nol,:l .~ Y . . ' raised premises lot tt~e term aforesa:d, except as m this lease otherwise provided. right to enter by the tenant upon the pay.moue of all arrear- ages of rent and costs after a dispossesston under any suit or process for breach of any of the covenants of this lease, and the commencement by the lessor of any action to recover possession of said premises aforesaid shall be deemed a suffi- cient notice of election of said lessor to treat this lease as void and terminated, without the written notice above speci- fied, unless the lessor shall in writing, before beginning such proceeding, notify the tenant that after obtaining such pos- session the lessor will continue to look to the tenant for the performance oi this lease and will submit the premises on the tenant's account, in the manner as above provided. The tenant further agrees that all goods, chattels, fixtures and personal property belonging to said tenant which are or may be put into said demised prem ses, shall at all times be bound with a lien in favor of said lessor, to be chargeable for all rents hereunder and the fulfillment of the other covenants and agreements herein contained, and that in case of default by the tenant the lessor may without notice remove the same or any part of the same, in such manner as the lessor ma)' choose, and the lessor shall have the right to sell all or any part of the same at public or private sale, without giving any notice to the tenant of such sale, and to apply the pro- ceeds of such sale first to the payment of the costs and ex- penses of conducting said sale and caring for and storing such property, and to apply the balance, if any, to the amount then due from the tenant to the lessor. "I~s also agreed between ilessor and tenant the ta.'X'~paid by the lessor t}pon the prope~..~T which the ~vit.hin le.as'~remlses are a ~art, shall/.in'"iny year or years ($ .................. ~' '~;U pay as part of t~~n,i~e.s, !or year nbefore nan:cc!, qual to such increase. I the lessee altered or : 'i.-< ............. ,: .........:: to the r~s provided on ac- count 'oP?~r~ase 9f,,taxes,qn~D.~a?/or years shall2~ added at the tjm~ 9~y~3~ o/next after fl e/date when penah~or Dss~e/en~iscount beginsSbaccrue for non-paym~fit~Hsuch tax~.~.~'s ta~are payable in two or more in$ialhnent$ ~hen the am~ be so added s m be app0rtlo~ed and paid in the same ~[ay. ]t is further agreed between the parties to this lease: (1) ~ the C1ty of Hound by Law 1s unabZe ~o contlnue' to operate a muulc~pa~ ~1quos store, the ~essor wL~1 consen< to a sublease os a new lease Eo a responsibZe <chant. (2) The proportLonate shaze of paskLug ~ot'maLntenauce sha~l 1nc~ude cZeau~ug, snow removal, Tine paLusLng, ~Lgh~ng, ~andscape and grass areas, repZacemenE of pavLng and seat coaELng. (3) The ~ropost~onate share of t~es and assessments covers Parce~ ~630 Ln P~a~ 62060, Block ~, ShLsley HilTs Unit F, Mound, MLnn. (6) At the tlme of ~he Tease ~eminatLon, sha~ not be required to resEore any port~ou o5 the premLses changed pussuau~ Eo ~he consent of the pestles. Lessee, upon leaving the premises hereby leased, shall at Ri~htot his own expense remove all ashes, dirt, rubbish and refuse, Entrr. and upon lessee's failure so to do, lessor may immediately without further notice to lessee do the.same at lessee's ex- pense, which tile lessee shall immediately pay upon receipt of a bill for same from lessor. The tenant further agrees to give the lessor written notice thirty (30) days before the expiration of this lease of his intention to vacate at the end of this lease otherwise the lessor will have the option of continuing this lease for one year from and after the expiration of this lease without notice to the tenant. If, however, tile lessor does not elect to so continue this lease and the tenant remains in said prem- ises after the expiration of the term of this lease, such re- maining in possession shall not, except at the option of tile }~elr~atld lessor, extend the term of this lease, and the tenant shall Other~. promptly vacate said premises; and if for any reason the ten- ant does not promptly vacate the premises at the end of the term, the tenant agrees to pay the lessor, for such time as elapses between the end of the term of this lease and the time when the tenant actually vacates the premises, a pro rata rental equal to one and one-half (1¼) times the rent provided to be paid during the term of the lease. The tenant agrees that no assent, express or implied, by the lessor to any breach of any of the tenant's covenants or agreements shall be deemed or taken to he a waiver of any succeeding breach of such covenant. The lessor shall at ail times have the right to enter upon said premises to inspect their condition, and at his election to make reasonable and necessary repairs thereon for the protection and preservation thereof, but nothing herein shall be construed to require the lessor to mare such repairs, and tile lessor shall not be liable to the tenant, or any other per- son or persons, for failure or delay in making said repairs, or for damage or injury to person or property caused in or by the making of such repairs, or the doing of such work. The lessor shall have the right during the last 304.ays oi the term of this lease to place and maintain on the demised premises and in the windows thereof the usus! notice at "To Let" or "To Rent," and to show said premises tn pro- spective tenants. Each of the covenants, provisions, terms and agreements of this lease shall inure to the benefit of and shall be obliga- tory upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, suc- cessors and assigns of tile lessor and tenant respectively. ;'~ii;;~'";7';'~g;;'?"g;ii37 respect to any representation, warranty or covenant herein contained, and shall not in ally event be held liable to lessor or to lessee for the fulfillment or non-fulfillment oi any of the terms or conditions of this lease or for any action or proceed- ings that may be taken by either against tile other. There are no understandings or agreements outside of this lease. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the lessor and tenant have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and ),ear first written. Vqe, the tenant, hereby acknowledge that at the time of making and delivery of this lease and mortgage lien, the Lessor de!ivered to us a fifll, true and complete copy of same. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of: Real One Acquisitions As to Lessor. As to Tenant. ~.Y ................................................................................. !3Y. ............................................................................ [sE^~] .C..~..t;.y.....o...f.....~9.u...n..d.. ................................................. By .................... ~Ia'yor ..................................................... [s~.] B.y .............. Mb.'ffb.'~iiY' .......................................... [s~^~] ST^T~ Ol=. .. M!~RqE. SOTA ...................... COU.~TY 01~...HENNEPIN On this ........... day of ......................................... ~9....8.~, beige ~e, a Notary fubllc ~dt/:in a,~d tar ~aid County, personMly Nooert Pozston ano a~?eared ....... Jon. El~ ............................................................... to me pers~u'n, who, ~'~ ~I~ ~, did say that they are th,~-~and ~hb ~'~atlon na mad in is the corporate seal of said corporal;on, and that said instrument w~ dgned m~d scaled in behal] al said ~r~4,radon t.y~ut~ority o/its ~ ~ooerr ro~suon ~C~W... Cou~c~ ,~;a ...and aon.EZam .................. a~'kaowledRed s~fd instrument to be the ]ree act and deed oJ said corpo- COUNTY OS ........EEN~E.~.-5~ .... STATE OF ...... N%NNESOTA On thlt ................ day o! 1984..., belore me, a ............... . ................................... within and for said County, personally appeared .................. to me known to bt the person described in and who executed the ]oregolng instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as ]rte act and deed. Assignment For value received, the und. ersigned. , Tenant, hereby sells, assigns,, transfers, and. sets over. unto all his right, titlfi and inteiest tb 'the withifi I~ase '~ihcl premises therein dcs~.fib~d; It being' Understood, however, that this transfer in no way releases s~.id te'nant from hig liability for: the performance of all the terms, covenants and payment of rental under said lease. " For value received, ........................................................ hereby assumes ali the obligations under the terms of the within lease and agrees to perform all of the terms, covenants and conditions and pay the rent as therein stipulated, pursuant to the above agreement. The within landlord hereby consents to the above assigmnent. Dated this .................................. day of ............................................. , A. D. 19 ........ November 8, 1984 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Attached is a letter requesting that the City sell two very small lots located on the west side of Commerce Blvd. just north of the Log Cabin. Each lot is just 20 feet wide by 53.5 feet deep. Together they total just 2,140 square feet. The owner of the property to the north of the alley would like to purchase these lots and has requested that the City vacate the 10 foot alley between our two lots and his lot. Our lots formerly were the site of a well house, but that well has gone bad and we approved closing it up in the 1985 Budget. The well house is an eyesore and removing it will beautify the area. I have circulated, through the City, a memo asking for reasons not to sell the lots and so far have come up with none. The only possible uses could be a public access (but it lacks parking and is in the middle of a heavily traveled road) or a lake overview where benches, etc., might be placed. The prosprective purchaser of the property sees its use as a site for a smaller commercial building and to achieve that goal will require the purchase of our lots for parking. After evaluating the site, I would urge selling these parcels at the proposed offer of $2.00 per square foot ($2,140), to be paid $1,020 upon sale and $1,020 within 12 months. This will provide us with the funds necessary to abandon the well, complete the necessary legal work and return the unusable lots to the tax roles. JE:fc