Loading...
1988-03-22 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA A G E 1~ D A MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1988 COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE WEST LAKE MINNETONKA CAMP FIRE NATIONS HONOR GUARD WILL BE PRESENT TO PERFORM THE OPENING FLAG CEREMONY AND RECEIVE THE PROCLAMATION FOR CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK. Pledge of Allegiance Proclamation - For Camp Fire Birthday Week, March 13-20, 1988 Proclamation - For the Week of the Young Child April 10-16, 1988 Pg. 664 Pg. 665 KATHY BILL OF LOLLIPOP DRAGON NURSERY SCHOOL WILL BE PRESENT WITH SEVERAL YOUNGSTERS TO PRESENT THE PROCLAMATION AND HAVE IT SIGNED BY THE MAYOR Approve Minutes of March 8, 1988, Regular Meeting, and the March 17, 1988, Special Meeting ResOlution Proclaiming April 10 through April 16 "Building Safety Week" PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills Pg. 666-672 Pg. 673 Pg. 674-675 PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendment to Economic Development, CDBG Year XIII Funds Request for Extension of Resolution #87-43, Proposed R.L.S. Preliminary Subdivision for William Niccum Pg. 676-685 Pg. 686-689 10. Grading Permit Application - Lots 1-6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A Pg. 690-691 11; 12. 13. Additional^Street Lights for County Road 15 Project Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Pg. 692-695 Set Date for Bid Opening for 1988 Sealcoat Program (SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 8, 1988) Pg. 696 14. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988 Pg. ~97-706 Page 661 1 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1988 COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE WEST L~KE MINNETONKA CAMP FIRE NATIONS HONOR GUARD WILL BE PRESENT TO PERFORM THE OPENING FLAG CEREMONY AND RECEIVE THE PROCLAMATION FOR CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK. 2. Pledge of Allegiance Proclamation - For Camp Fire Birthday Week, March 13-20, 1988 Pg. 664 Proclamation - For the Week of the Young Child April 10-16, 1988 Pg. 665 KATHY BILL OF LOLLIPOP DRAGON NURSERY SCHOOL WILL BE PRESENT WITH SEVERAL YOUNGSTERS TO PRESENT THE PROCLAMATION AND HAVE IT SIGNED BY THE MAYOR Approve Minutes of March 8, 1988, Regular Meeting, and the March 17, 1988, Special Meeting Pg. 666-672 Resolution Proclaiming April 10 through April 16 "Building Safety Week" Pg 673 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills Pg. 674-675 PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amendment to Economic Development, CDBG Year XIII Funds Pg. 676-685 Request for Extension of Resolution #87-43, Proposed R.L.S. Preliminary Subdivision for William Niccum Pg. 686-689 10. Grading Permit Application - Lots 1-6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A Pg. 690-691 Additional Street Lights for County Road 15 Project Pg. 692-695 12. Comments & Suggestions from citizens Present 13. Set Date for Bid Opening for 1988 Sea!coat Program (SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 8, 1988) Pg. 696 14. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988 Pg. 697-706 Page 661 15. 16. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $310,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1988 Approval of License Renewals: - Tree Removal: Aaspen Tree Service Robert R. Dahlke Lutz Tree Service, Inc. Sutherland's Nursery & Tree - Hawker/Food Vendor: Blue Bell Ice Cream Pg. 707-710 Pg. 711 17. Approval of Garden Leases - Herman Schrupp - Lot 22, Block 5 Dreamwood - Beverly & Leo Wallis - Lots 1,2,3 & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood Pg. 712 Pg. 713 18. Payment of Bills 19. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Pg. 714-729 ke Bo February 1988 Financial Report as Prepared by John Norman, Finance Director Pg. 730-731 Final Report and Recommendations on Mound Bay Park Boat Launch Parking Lot (Beachwood Road area). Formal Review of this report is scheduled as follows: - Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Monday, March 28, 1988, at 4:00 P.M. - Metropolitan Systems Committee, Tuesday, April 5, 1988, at 11:00 A.M. - Metropolitan Council, Thursday, April 14, 1988, at 4:00 P.M. I am sending copies to the Planning Commission, Park Commission and Senator Gen Olson. Pg. 732-757 A Profile of Poverty in Mound as prepared by Community Action for SubUrban Hennepin 1988 Pg. 758-787 Dm Article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, dated March 16, 1988, regarding mandatory recycling. As you know, we have a voluntary program now and we will probably have to expand the program further as time progresses. Pg. 788 ~REMINDER: Team Building/Goal Setting Session Saturday, March 26, 1988 8:00 A.M. to 12 Noon Lafayette Club City Council and City Manager Only Page 662 Ge REKINDER = REMINDER: City of Mound is requesting parking and property setback variances regarding the new Public Works Facility location. The issue will be before the Planning commission on March 28, 1988. The Council will review it on April 12, 1988. Special Council Meeting, Tuesday, March 29, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., City Hall, regarding Comparable Worth/Pay Classification Plan Implementation. Materials will be provided to you for your review at the Team Building/Goal Setting Session on March 26th. Page 663 March 22, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- PROCLAIMING M~RCH 13 TO MARCH 20 CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK WHEREAS, Camp Fire, Inc., the national youth organiza- tion, will be celebrating its 78th birthday on March 17, 1988; and WHEREAS, the Minneapolis Camp Fire Council in the State of Minnesota offer our young people the opportunity of informal educational programs which combine group activities with the development of individual talents, as well as offering flexible programming focused on encouraging life skills education for young people of all ages; and WHEREAS, as a community organization, Camp Fire is con= cerned with preserving the environment, adapting to social change, the application of democratic standards and stimulating and guiding young people; and WHEREAS, in Camp Fire, recognition of accomplishments is combined with the encouragement to use developing skills to serve others in the community; and WHEREAS, Camp Fire is commended for the opportunities its programs offer to young people in the State of Minnesota and throughout the nation and for the many services these young people perform for their communities as Camp Fire members. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Steve Smith, Mayor of the City of Mound, do hereby officially proclaim March 13 to March 20, 1988, to be CAMP FIRE BIRTHDAY WEEK in the City of Mound. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: city Clerk March 22, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF APRIL 10-16, 1988 AS THE WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS. we recognize the critical importance of the care and healthy development of young children from infancy through their early years in school; and WHEREAS, young children have a birthright to love, respect, security, health and protection; and WHEREAS, those who care for and teach young children-- parents, child care providers and early childhood education teachers--deserve recognition and support from our community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Steve Smith, Mayor of the City o~ Mound, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of April 10-16, 1988, to be THE WEEK OF THE YOUNG CHILD and urge all citizens to renew their efforts to support young children, the programs that serve them and the dedicated individuals who care for and teach them. " 27 M~rch 8 ~ MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 8, 1988 The city Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 8, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Don Abel, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were: city Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Offi- cial Jan Bertrand, Finance Director John Norman, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Police Chief Len Harrell Street Superinten- dent Geno Hoff, and the following interested citizens: Joyce Nelson, Jerry Long]pre, Bernice Putt, Howard and Delores Hodges, Susan Wilkens, Dotty O'Brien, Valerie Hessburg, Cathy Bailey, Nancy Lanz, Kim Yilek, Eva and Phil Hasch, Ron Johnson, Vern and Shirley Andersen, Esther Fenton, Emil and Cecelia Fischer, Emil~ Flaten, Louise Anderson, Kathleen and Jim Fox, Mark Anderson, Aaron Applequist, Mary Pacholke, Harlan Brue, Wayne Barkley, Wayne Storlien, Sharon Tauber, Charles and Laura Smith, Bryan Clem, Orval Fenstad, John Simons, Dudley Fitz, Eve Bedell, Bernie Lister, and Gary Paulsen. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. PROCLA!ZATION The Mayor presented a Proclamation for the annual sale of Buddy Poppies by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following: RESOLUTION #88-39 A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE ANNUAL SALE OF BUDDY POPPIES BY THE VETERANS OF FOR- EIGN WARS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~INUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Abel to approve the minutes of the February 20, 1988, Special Meeting and the February 24, 1988, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: YEAR XIV (1988) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRA/{ (CDBG) The city Manager explained that the following programs are being recommended for approval for ifunding from Year XIV CDBG funds. 1. Westonka Senior Center/Operation $ 14,783 2. Senior Citizen Counseling 4,457 28 March 8, 1988 4. 5. 6. Rehabilitation of Private Property Economic Development Fund Comprehensive Plan Follow-Up Westonka Intervention 14,349 15,000 7,500 5,700 TOTAL $ 61,789 Abel moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #88-40 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XIV URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL The Mayor opened the public hearing. There was no response. Mayor closed the public hearing. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion.carried. The COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Dotty O'Brien, representing the Westonka Senior Center, thanked the Council for their support in the Block Grant funding. Mr. Frank Buysse, Case %88-701, presented the City Council with ~ letter and requested that the denial of a parking lot setba¢ variance request be reconsidered. The city Attorney advised the Council not to comment on this item because it is scheduled to go to court on March 14, 1988. The Council took no action. REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION (RESOLUTION ~87-48), CASE $87-614 Mr. & Mrs. Hasch were presented requesting the extension. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #88-41 RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR RESOLUTION 987-48, ENTITLED "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 4810 NORTHERN ROAD Th~ vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BID AWARD: NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY The City Engineer explained that 13 bids were received ranging from $679,000 to $785,000. These were base bids. The Architect's estimate was $639,200. There were also 9 alternatives. Of the alternatives, they are recommending acceptance of #5, #7 and ~8 as follows, to P done as change orders: 29 March 8, 1988 #5 - is for bollards (guard posts) to protect the edges of the overhead door openings, which would add $3,300 to the base bid. #7 - is for a less expensive make of infrared heaters, which would be a deduct of $6,600 from the base'bid. The Mechani- cal Engineer will need to review and approve the substitu- tion of manufacture before they can definitely state that a full deduction of $6,600 can be realized. #8 - is for an interior roof drain system connected directly to the storm sewer in lieu of down spouts discharging directly onto the adjacent streets. There was an error by the con- tractor in bidding this item at $500. In reviewing, the bid should have been $5,000 which was still the lowest bid received for this alternate. If the 3 alternates were approved, $1,700 would be added to the base bid of $679,000 for a· total of $680,700. The cost of the project would be increased by approximately $42,000, for an estimated total cost of $984,000. He further stated that they have investigated the past performance of the low bidder, Loeffel-Engstrand, and have received favorable repOrts. The City Manager stated that the additional estimated $194,000 would be covered by the Capital Improvements Fund that was set up by the Council in January, 1988. There was considerable discussion regarding the estimated cost overrun of $194,000 and whether the additional amount should be submitted to the voters for a referendum vote. Abel moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #88-42 RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE BID CONTRACT FOR THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY TO LOEFFEL- ENGSTRAND COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $679,000 The following persons in the audience objected to proceeding with the project: Orr Fenstad, Eve Bedell, Brian Clem, Bernie Lister, Wayne Storlien, Ron Johnson, Kim Yilek, Phil Hasch, Mark Ander- son, . Mr. Storlien submitted a petition to the Council which read as follows: "As citizens of the City of Mound we wholeheartly object to any additional cost for the public works facility. We feel the referendum was a legal contract between the voters and city government." The following persons in the audience were in favor of moving ahead with the project: Sharon Tauber, Jerry Longpre, Mary Pacholke, Bernice Putt. 30 March 8, 1988 The following Councilmembers were in favor of proceeding with tP project and not delaying it any further: Abel, Jensen, Jesse.. and Johnson. Mayor Smith stated that he did not buy the argu- ments to proceed without a referendum vote and that he would vote no on the proposed resolution. The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Smith voting nay. Motion carried. DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS The following Department Heads presented their annual reports to the City Council: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager; Len Harrell, Police Chief; John Norman, Finance Director. REVIEW OF GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION The Council took no action,on the renewal of VFW Post %5113'w State Charitable Gambling License. PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Abel to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $145,691.76, when funds are available. A roll call vote was un- animously in favor. Motion carried. COMPARABLE WORTH/PAY RANGE UPDATE The City Manager reported that he is finishing up the work on com- parable worth and the pay ranges. He also indicated that he would be meeting with Department Heads on March llth regarding this issue. He would like to have the Council set up a special meeting to go over these items later in the month. The Council agreed to hold a special Council Meeting on Tuesday, March 29, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. INFOR/WATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for February, 1988. Be Copy of check in the amount of $1,000, dated February 23, 1988, payable to the City of Mound from NSP. Marlowe Peterson, NSP, learned that the City had hired a consultant to assist us with developing an economic development program and asked if NSP could contribute financially to assist us in our economic development activities. The City Attorney advised that this is proper and so we h~ve accepted this amount and placed it in the General Fund. It will be used as partial payment in our contract with Business Development Services (BDS), our consultant. Lake level, flow and precipitation summary for January 1988 published by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. D. REMINDER: 31 Team Building/Goal Setting Session Lafayette Club 8:00 A.M. to Noon Saturday, March 26, 1988 Council Only Letter from Steve Keefe, Chair, Metropolitan Council, responding to my letter of February 22, 1988, which summarized your action on the proposed boat launch/parking lot in the Beachwood Road area. I will provide copies of the draft report from the Metro Council to you when I receive it. MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 11:15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS MARCH 8, 1988 Batch 8023 Batch 8024 30,526.27 113,605.30 Glenwood Inglewood Clean Step Rug Rent Super Cycle Feb water Feb rug rent Feb recycling serv 74.75 55.44 1,430.00 TOTAL BILLS 145,691.76 March 17, 1988 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 17, 1988 The city Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Thursday, March 17, 1988, at 6:00 P.M. in the council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Don Abel, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the settlement of the lawsuit Allied Painting and Renovating, Inc. vs. the city of Mound. The City Attorney explained the background of this case dating back to 1983. The settlement proposed and recommended is as follows: That Hickok & Associates, Inc. (the city's water engineer) is to pay Allied Painting & Renovating, Inc. $8,500. That Hickok & Associates, InC. will pay engineering costs and statements of Twin City Testing costs in preparation for trial. The City of Mound will keep the retained $16,313.50 that was not paid to Allied Painting. The city will not be responsible for any costs or at- torney fees for Allied. The City will release Hickok & Associates, Inc. and Allied Painting from any further liability in this mat- ter. The City will release Allied Painting's bond and bond- ing company from further liability. The Council discussed the settlement. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to authorize the Mayor, city Manager and city Attorney to enter into a settlement agreement regarding the lawsuit of Allied Paint- ing & Renovating, Inc. vs. the city of Mound as per the above conditions. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mo- tion carried. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 6:40 P.M.~ The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager RESOLUTION ~. :--:8- RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 10 THROUGH APRIL 16 "BUILDING SAFETY WEEK" WHEREAS. the membership of the North Star Cha~t~r of the ]international Conference o~ Building OFficials is con~orise~ oF Building OfFicials ~ro~ the various cities and counties of the State of Minnesota~ and WHEREAS~ it is the responsibility of the Bui)ding O~ficials to ad~inister the State Construction Codes~ adopted by the cities and cou~n~ies concerned with providino a ~ini~u~ measure of protection for the health, safety and general welfar~ o~ the people a~forded by these Codes~ and WHEREAS~ the general public served by t~ese officials is often not clearly inFor~ed oF the activities necessary in ad~inistering the construction codes~ and WHEREAS~ the failure of the general public to recognize the purpose oF construction codes adopted and ad~inistered by these c'~.ties and counties often serves to i~pede the efforts of the Building Inspection Depart~ents~ and WHEREAS, public information about the activities of the Building Inspection Depart;~ents will serve not only to Facilitate the work of these inspectors~ but also assist the Building Official in assuring protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the general public~ and WHEREAS~ Rudy Perpich~ Governor o~ the State of Minnesota, has proclai~ed the week of April 10 through April 16~ 19B:B~ to be Building Safety Week. NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the week of April 10 through April .16~ 1'.:.~:_--~87 is proclaimed "Building Safety Week" in the City of Mound in recognition of the Building OFficials" dedication and contribution to the come, unities they serve. 3-22-88 Delinquent Water and Sewer 11 OOll 181 11 0160 931 11 O28O 3-32 11 0280 422 11 0430 O61 &1-1-"O672 211 11 0672 541 11 0850 421 ~850 662 11 1120 571 11 1180 O31 11 1390 032 11 1692 O61 11 1692 241 11 1750 181 11 1900 601 11 1990 241 11 2020 123 11 2020 212 L-1'1"2050 121 /~4~50 151 ~.~'~200 091 22 2320 242 ~-'Z~2'2320 301 22 2320 722 ~'Z'2380 392 22 2380 481 Jack Di~sing Merlin Wlytcke Wm. Bull James Mrnak Roberta Heuer Wayne Burkhalter S. Mierzejewski Terrance Hawley Danny Martin Steve Schmidt Greg Palm Carol Reckinger Bruce Jones Dan Nelson Barb Byington Lauren Hofteig M. Mittelsteadt D. Iverson Mike Jackson Ron Anderson Ron Anderson Roger Turner Ken Meyer Devin Dvorak Hud Anthony Brinatte Dan $olberg 22 2382 393 i F. Mittels~eadt 22 2382 722 22 2410 031 22 2440 151 [~396 841 22 2598 721 22 2620 151 u-r'f68o o64 22 2800 301 22 2800 601 Marta White Kris Kolling Ron Hayes Perry Ames Richard Olexa Gloria Werner Sandy Weldon Michael Sim~r Norman Maas Pd.$155.21 86.14 131.03 Pd. 150.80 165.97 132.33 Pd. 116.68 133 OO 120.44 106 07 Pd. 132 66 Pd. 121 02 * 164 81 Pd. 84.19 124.12 120.24 * 223.33 243.04 82 52 114.83 81 45 151 67 * 189 91 74 60 77 3O 186.71 85.38 * 183.62 173.48 Pd. 109.14 96.48 190.56 Pd. 161.O8 147.89 121.40 Pd. 86.82 Pd. 115.54 1769 Lafayette Ln. 1701 Bluebird Ln. 1616 Bluebird Ln. 1630 Finch Ln. 5022 Sparrow Rd. 1904 Shorewood Ln. 1942 Shorewood Ln. 4948 Three Pts. Blvd. 4973 Three Pts. Blvd. 2986 Highland Blvd. 2153 Langdon Ln. 6200 Short Rd. 5820 Lynwood Blvd. 5850 Lynwood Blvd. 5504 Spruce Rd. 2216 Noble Ln. 2149 Belmont Ln. 2134 Fern Ln. 2212 Fern Ln. 5513 Church Rd. 5517 Church Rd. 2155 Cardinal Ln. 2196 Fairview Ln. 2208 Fairview Ln. 2355 Fairview Ln.~,7' 4875 Edgewater Dr. 4882 Edgewater Dr. 5005 Edgewater Dr. 5047 Edgewater Dr. 2185 Pecan Ln. 5019 Rosedale Rd. 6070 Bartlett Blvd. 6609 Bartlett Blvd. 2880 Highland Blvd. 5872 Glenwood Rd. 5910 Idlewood Rd. 5964 Idlewood Rd. 22 2830 482 22 2860 661 22 3010 034 ~22 3040 151 22 3100 182 22 3100 661 22 3130 364 22 3160 091 22 3240 241 22 3370 242 22 3430 633 1.~3460 031 t~f~670 181 22 373O 331 22 3820 183 22 3880 183 22 3880 241 1~880 781 22 4O4O 334 May &Burman Tim Bell Jo Etta Roehl A1 Strand Tom Helget Peter Galvin Geo Hudinsky Julie Ceaser Russ Witham R. Hawks Jeff Hinton Judith Marshik Robert Brown Stann & Sorrens Colon Kelly Daryle Johnson Tim Lovett J.T.Evans R. Geise Don Hagen Pd. Pd. Pd. $ 93.56 106.03 110.77 90.39 124 60 133 23 71 O0 86 26 210 25 153 28 131 95 117 87 100.16 89.78 144.43 106.63 105.21 64.21 77.51 77.64 5967 Ridgewood Rd. ? 5915 Hawthorne Rd., 6056 Hawthorne Rd. 2901 Hazelwood Ln. 293~ Dickens Ln. 2605 Westedge Blvd. 2710 Westedge Blvd. 6323 Bayridge Rd. 2620 Halstead Ln. 2640 Setter Circle 5930 Beachwood Rd. 5975 Beachwood Rd. 5667 Bush Rd. 5273 Eden Rd. 5063 Woodridge Rd. 2352 Driftwood Ln. 2509 Avon Dr. 2529 Avon Dr. 5061 Avon Dr. 5043 Shoreline Blvd. $7096.22 $5628.01 11 0010 181 11 0160 931 11 0280 332 11 0280 422 11 0430 061 11 o672 211 11 0672 541 11 0850 421 11 0850 662 11 1120 571 11 1180 031 11 1390 032 11 1692 061 11 1692 241 11 1750 181 11 1900 601 11 1990 241 11 2020 123 11 2020 212 11 2050 121 11 2050 151 11 22OO 091 22 2320 242 22 2320 301 222320 722 22 2380 392 22 2380 481 22 2382 393 22 2382 722 22 2410 031 22 2440 151 22 2396 841 22 2598 721 22 2620 t51 22 2680 064 22 2800 301 22 2800 601 Delinquent Water and Sewer $115.21 86.14 131.o3 150.80 165.97 132.33 116.68 133.00 120.44 106.07 132.66 121.02 164.81 84.19 124.12 120.24 223.33 243.04 82.52 114.83 81.45 151.67 189.91 74.6O 77.3O 186.71 85.38 183.62 173.48 109.14 96.48 190.56 161.08 147.89 121.40 86.82 115.54 3-18-88 22 2830 482 22 2860 152 22 2860 661 22 3010 034 22 3040 151 22 3100 182 22 3100 661 22 3130 364 22 3160 091 22 3240 241 22 3370 242 22 3430 633 22 3460 031 22 3670 181 22 3730 331 22 3820 183 22 3880 183 22 3880 241 22 3880 781 22 4040 334 $ 93.56 106.03 110.77 90.39 124.60 133.23 71.oo 86.26 210.25 153.28 131.95 117.87 100.16 89.78 144.43 106.63 105.21 64.21 77.51 77.64 $7096.22 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MN. Notice is hereby given that Hennepin County and the City of Mound wilt hold a public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to economic development funded in Program Year Xlll under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended. A Citizen Participation Plan is available at City Hall to assist in your participation in the hearing. The hearing is to be held on Tuesday, March 22, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 5341 Maywood Road. This public hearing is being held pursuant to a joint cooperation agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Mound, M.S.471.59. Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk Publish in The Laker March 7, 1988 March 18, 1988 CITY of MOUND 5341 M~Y'¢,'OOD ROAD t,!OUND. Mi~4NESOTA 55354 (¢12..~72-I 155 TO: F ROM: RE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~'%, ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ' 3026 BRIGHTON BOULEVARD - AMENDMENT TO YEAR XIII CDBG PROGRAM Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector, notified me of a property located at 3026 Brighton Boulevard, which is in a very hazardous condition. Attached you will find a memo from Jan dated March 7, 1988, listing the deficiencies in the structure and property. Besides ail of the deficiencies of the structure, the property itself in unbuildable due to the size being only 4000 Square feet. The R-2 zoning district which this property is located in requires a minimum of 6000 square feet. Following her report to me, I checked with Hennepin County regarding the possibility of available CDBG funds to purchase this property from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We do have money under the Year XIII Economic. Development Program, which could be re-allocated for this purpose. The purchase price of the property is $15,000. The amount of money available in Year XIIi Economic Development is $15,000. In addition, Hennepin County has indicated that we can utilize additional monies from them to have the house demolished and the land restored. Following the demolition of the house and leveling of the property, the land would become available to the adjacent property owners on either side of the lot. One of the neighbors has preliminarily indicated an interest to the Building Inspector to purchase some of the additional property. Purchasing the property at 3026 Brighton Boulevard, we do eliminate any risk of a developer coming along to try to obtain variances to build a house on a property that is below the square footage standards for R-2 Zoning district. ~'n oqoa'. OpaO?.Un ty Employer that does not ¢:scrlminate on the basis cf race. co!ct, nationai or,sin, or ha,,u C~..:~ eo Status m the admission or access to, or treatment or emp':oyment ~n hs .?,ograms and ~ctt;dl:es Brighton Boulevard - Amendment to Year XIII CDBG Program March 17, 1988 Page 2 Since these CDBG funds have not been used, and we risk the chance of having to return the funds back to Hennepin County, it is my recommendation that we proceed and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the purchase agreement on this property in the amount of $15,000, utilizing Community Development Block Grant monies from Year XIII. If you have any questions, please ccntact me. ES:ls March 22, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION REALLOCATING YEAR XIII MOUND/URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS WHEREAS, pursuant to notice being given, a public hear- ing was held in accord with Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, on March 22, 1988, at 7:30 P.M. in the Mound City Council Chambers; and WHEREAS, this public hearing was held to obtain views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing, community and economic development and to provide the citizens with the op- portunity to comment on the City of Mound proposed reallocation of funds in the Year XIII Hennepin County Block Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the realloca- tion of the City of Mound's Year XIII Community Development Block Grant Funds as follows: YEAR XIII PROJECT BUDGETED Economic Development $15,000 PROJECT YEAR XIII TO BE REALLOCATED Scattered Site Acquisition $15,000 March 22, 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SALES AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF 3026 BRIGHTON BLVD. (LOT 5, BLOCK 14, ARDEN) WHEREAS, property described as 3026 Brighton Blvd. (Lot 5, Block 14, Arden) had been repossessed by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; and WHEREAS, following is a list of the deficiencies in the structure and the property: The lot size is 4,000 square feet in the R-2 Zoning District which requires 6,000 square feet. The yard grade is flat and does not provide proper site drainage of surface water. The storage shed is deteriorated with debris in the shed and behind the retaining wall such as, but not limited to, car bumper, car battery, shroud for automobile, miscellaneous parts. The crawl space under the house has been flooded in the past and presently has water under it from a hole in the bathroom ceiling. The structural support system is inadequate with the floor collapsing in the bathroom. 6. Ceiling material throughout the structure is falling. 7. The floor system is sagged in the building. The total support system is inadequate. The water was shut off and the heating plant was not operating at the time of~ inspection. The ceiling height in portions of the building does not meet the 7 foot 6 inch minimum code for new construc- tion (see bedroom photo). 10. 11. The entry stoop is cracked with the step risers im- proper height. The roof is sagged with the 2 by 4 - 2 feet on center over-spanned. 12. The roofing material is deteriorated and ceilings are showing signs of water damage. March 22, 1988 13. The windows are in poor condition with putty falling out and the sash not set in the jambs properly, storm windows missing, etc. 14. The electrical system is 100 ampere. However, the wiring within the dwelling is in hazardous condition; open junction boxes, light fixtures falling out of the canopies, inadequate outlets, etc. 15. The plumbing system is hazardous with illegal waste and venting, galvanized and plastic water piping does not meet code; the plumbing fixtures are falling through the bathroom floor. 16. The gas water heater and furnace vent stacks are in hazardous condition; they are too close to combustible material and rusted off at the draft hood. The gas piping to the cook stove does not meet code. WHEREAS, it will be a benefit to the surrounding neigh- borhood to remove all of the structures and debris from this site; and WHEREAS, this project does qualify for the CDBG program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a sales agreement with the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development for the purchase of 3026 Brighton Blvd. (Lot 5, Block 14, Arden) for $~{000 to be paid with CDBG Funds from Project entitled, Scattered Site Acquisi- tion. ~ March 22, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SALES AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF 3026 BRIGHTON BLVD. (LOT 5, BLOCK 14, ARDEN) WHEREAS, property described as 3026 Brighton Blvd. (Lot 5, Block 14, Arden) had been repossessed by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; and WHEREAS, following is a list of the deficiencies in the structure and the property: The lot size is 4,000 square feet in the R-2 Zoning District which requires 6,000 square feet. The yard grade is flat and does not provide proper site drainage of surface water. The storage shed is deteriorated with debris in the shed and behind the retaining wall such as, but not limited to, car bumper, car battery, shroud for automobile, miscellaneous parts. The crawl space under the house has been flooded in the past and presently has water under it from a hole in the bathroom ceiling. The structural support system is inadequate with the floor collapsing in the bathroom. 6. Ceiling material throughout the structure is falling. 7. The floor system is sagged in the building. The total support system is inadequate. The water was shut off and the heating plant was not operating at the time of my inspection. The ceiling height in portions of the building does not meet the 7 foot 6 inch minimum code for new construc- tion (see bedroom photo). 10. The entry stoop is cracked with the step risers im- proper height. 11. The roof is sagged with the 2 by 4 - 2 feet on center over-spanned. 12. The roofing material is deteriorated and ceilings are showing signs of water damage. 1 March 22, 1988 13. The windows are in poor condition with putty falling out and the sash not set in the jambs properly, storm windows missing, etc. 14. The electrical system is 100 ampere. However, the wiring within the dwelling is in hazardous condition; open junction boxes, light fixtures falling out of the canopies, inadequate outlets, etc. 15. The plumbing system is hazardous with illegal waste and venting, galvanized and plastic water piping does not meet code; the plumbing fixtures are falling through the bathroom floor. 16. The gas water heater and furnace vent stacks are in hazardous condition; they are too close to combustible material and rusted off at the draft hood. The gas piping to the cook stove does not meet code. W/{EREAS, it will be a benefit to the surrounding neigh- borhood to remove all of the structures and debris from this site; and program. WHEREAS, this project does qualify for the CDBG NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the Mayor and city Manager to enter into a sales agreement with the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development for the purchase of 3026 Brighton Blvd. (Lot 5, Block 14, Arden) for $15,000 to be paid with CDBG Funds from Project entitled, Scattered Site Acquisi- tion. 2 TO; Ed Shukle~. City Manager ,. ~_~ FROM~ Jan Bertrand~ Bui].ding OFFicial / SUBdECT: :BC)26 B~i~hton Boulevard Leoal DeScription: Lot 5, Bioc~ 14, Amden DATE: March 7~ 1'~88 ~.]ue to several complaints regarding the condition o~: the structure at 3026 Brighton Boulevard: I ma0e an inspection of the premises. The property has been repossessed by the Housing and Urban Development with Mona Backman in charge o~ disposition o~ the property~ Loan ~ 271-202510-203. I took photographs o~ t~e st~uctLtre a~ter obtaining a key ¢mom the p~operty manager, Dick Gowen, ]he ~:ollowing is a ].ist of the deficiencies in the structure and the property: The ].ot size is 4,000 square feet in the R-2 Zoning District which ~equires /_:,,00C~ square feet. ';'he yard grade is flat and does not provide proper site drainage of surface water. The storage shed is deteriorated with debris in the shed and behind the retaining wall such as, bu(t not limited to, car bumper~ car battery? shroud for automobile~ miscellaneous parts. The crawl space under the house has been flooded in the past and presently has water under it ~rom a hole in the bathroom ceiling. The structural support system is inadequate with the floor co]lapsing :i.n the bathroom. Ceiling material throughout the structure is falling. ]'he floor system is sagged in the building. system is inadequate. The total support The water was shut off and the heating plant was not operating at the time o~ my inspection. The ceiling height in-portions of the building does not meet the 7 foot 6 inch minimum code for new construction (see bedroom photo). ]'he entry stoop is cracked with the step risers improper height. The roof is sagged with the 2 by 4 - 2 Yeet on center ~ over- spanned. ]"he rooting material is deteriorated and ceilings are showing signs o~ water damage. /_ 1 Memorandum to: Ed Shukle, City Manager Date: March 7 Re: 3026 Brighton Boulevard The windows are in poor condition with putty falling out and the sash not set in the jambs properly, stor~, windows missing, etc. The electrical system is t00 ampere. However, the wiring within the dwelling is in hazardous condition~ open junction boxes, light fixtures falling out o~ the canopies~ inadequate outlets~ etc. The ploughing system is hazardous with illegal waste and venting~ galvanized and plastic Water piping does not meet code; t~e plombing fixtures are ~a]ling through the bathroom floor. The gas water heater and furnace vent stacks are in hazardous condition; they are too close to co~,bustible material and rusted off at the draft hood. The gas piping to the cook stove does not meet code. I have asked you to try and resolve the condemnation process for this st'ructure by allowing it to be purchased under the CBDG or similar ~unding. It is my understanding that it does qualify ~or this program. It will be a benefit to the surrounding neighbor- hood to remove all of the structures and debris ~rom this site. The Public Works, Greg Skinner, has told me it would cost his Department about $150.00 for time and material to cut the sewer and water; Don Bryce has been asked to determine if it is. possible to burn the buildings for training; last, but not least, Public Works would need to haul the debris away and level the site~ notify the Gas Company to disconnect the service, the elec- tric service has been cut. Please indicate with an X which funds you are applying for: A. Year XIII CDBG B. 1987 Discretionary Funds ~ Stat~: / Project number Project Eligibility: / citation Financial Manager GENERAL INFORMAS~ON i. ty: 2. Project Name: Mound Scattered site acquisition Ed Schukl e 3. ~nta~Person: 1. Fundir~ Source: CDBG 15,000 Other 2. Is this a multi-year project? (C~eck one) yes no a. If yes, please indicate CDBG Year Started , Project Number b. Total CDBG $ prog~ex~ed since start of project $ /. 3. Location: Census Tract/s 30?6 Brighten Boulevard City Wide Attach map. e Description: The project will acquire from HUD a vacant deteriorated house, which the City has determined to be a blighting influence on the surrounding neighborhood. Funds will be used to acquire and demolish the house. She resulting vacant lot is per the City's zoning ordinance is an undersized lot and unbuildable. The City will attempt to sell the vacant lot to abutting property owner(s). In compliance with the CDBG program requirements the city shall by resolution establish that the structure to be acquired is a blighting influence and specifically define those building conditions which support this determination. Identify which objective(s) of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project will address: Removal of slums and bliqht. Implementation Schedule: For CDBG funds identify the major tasks you or your designee will perform during each quarter of the 18-month implementation period. For discretionary funds use a 12-month implementation schedule. 3rd ~r~_r 1987 (July 1 to Se~ 30) 4th ~a~cer 1987 (October 1 to December 31) 1st ~rter 1988 (January 1 to March 31) 2nd ~a~c~_r 1988 3rd ~arter 1988 (April 1 to June 30) (July 1 to September 30) Purchase house, demolish it. 4th ~arter 1988 (~ 1 to Deoember 31) e Budget: Specify project costs for each component of the activity identified in No. 4 above. Acquisition $15,000 CDBG Total Project Budget Total CDBG Budget 3030 Harbor Lane North BIdg, 11, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN 55447-2175 612/553-1950 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Ed Shukle Mark Koegler ~"~ March 15; 1988 SUBJECT: Case #87-610 I have reviewed the letter dated March 11. 1988 from Mr. William Niccum regarding the request for an extension on the preliminary approval of a registered land survey (Resolution #87-43). Since the applicant is in the process of complying with all of the terms of the resolution, a one year extension is recommended. March !!, 1988 Minnetonka Portable Dredging Co. 500 West Lake Street Excelsior MN 55331 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 SUBJECT: Proposed R.L.S. Preliminary subdivision Dear Mr. Shukle: Case #87-610, Resolution #87-43 This letter is to request an extension of resolution #87-43, approving a preliminary registered land survey dated March 10, 1987. This resolution required (stipulation 7:) the discrepancy with the adjacent RLS shall be resolved. This proceeding is being finalized with final hearings scheduled for the next few weeks. Please place this extension request on your council agenda for action on March 22, 1988. Mr. Coddon, the original applicant, has sold the property to me, and I will be responsible for the final planning of the subdivision. Should there be any questions or problems, please feel free to contact me at your convenience at 474-9454 during the day or 472-3457 in the evening. Respectfully submitted, William Niccum LAW OFFICES KOENIG, ROBIN, JOHNSON & WOOD 730 EAST k~KE STREET WAYZATA, ~[Lk%R-ESOTA 55391 TELEPHO~"E (6L~) 475-1515 TELECOPIER (6~) 475~3H T C~tRIS STEWART CI~Ww~Oh' LI~DLEY STEPE~' ~ PALMER ~ARLM J. hqEDEP~UECK~ March 9, 1988 Ms. Jan Bertrand City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Resolution 87-43 Dear Ms. Bertrand: I represent William Niccum who now owns the property that Steve Coddon used to own, which is the subject of the above Resolution. Because of the transfer of ownership and some delays in the registration process, we are just now obtaining clear title for Mr. Niccum. Because of that, we would appreciate a short extension of the preliminary approval period. I will be having my final registration hearing in the next three weeks or so, and will be meeting with the surveyor within the next week to prepare a proposed final plat for your consideration. Your consideration of this matter will be sincerely appreciated. Please respond to me at your earliest convenience. Very ~u!y you~, JDM:mb March 10, 1987 'RESOLUTION #87-43 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY REGISTERED LAND SURVEY' FOR. A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION ALONG BARTLETT BLVD., PtD #13-117-24 44 OO01/OO02, P & Z CASE #87-610 W~EREAS, the City Council on March 10, 1987, held a public hearing. pursuant t~ the Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider approval of a registered land survey for the establishment of four residential lots oa property described as .PID numbers 13 117 24 44 0001 ar~ 13 117 24 44 0002; W~, said Registered Land Survey is consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan, ordimmnces of the City of MOur~ ar~ the Subdivisioa C~de. Prelimina_ry_._approval of Registered.Land._S_u_rye.y Case #87.-610 is granted 'upon compliance ~vith the follo~ving .requirements: Per Registered Land Survey on file at Mound City Ball dated January 12, 1987. 2. All lots shall meet minimum ar.~_ea, setback ar~ frontage requirements.~ Grading, draihage and utililty plans shall be prepared by the applicant ar~ approved by the city engineer. Park dedication fees in the amount of $300.00 per lot for each of the three newly created lots shall be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant shall submit plans to the watershed district for review. 6. All proposed docks shall be reviewed and approved by the LMCD. 7. The discrepancy with the adjacent RLS shall be resolved. If the legal description for the property extends to the centerline · of Bartlett Boulevard, the 33 feet used as right-Of-way for Bartlett ~oulevar~ shall be shown as a separate tract and deeded to the City. The applicant shall be responsible for furnishing water service to all four lots. 10. 11. At the time of final aPproval, three (3) deficient street unit ,charges in'the amount of $5,484.45 shall be paid. Drainage and utility easements shall be furnished to the City in accordance with the recommendations of the city engineer. March 22, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING UTILITIES AND STREET IMPROVEMENT - UNIMPROVED PORTION OF NORWOOD LANE WHEREAS, a report has been prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., the City Engineers, for the improvement of an unimproved portion of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Blvd. and Bartlett Blvd. by the addition of sanitary sewer, watermain and street; and WHEREAS, this report was received by the Council on March 22, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota: 1. The Council will consider the improvement an unimproved portion of Norwood Lane between Shoreline Blvd. and Bartlett Blvd. by the addition of sanitary sewer, watermain and street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of: Sewer and Watermain - $31,600 and Street Improvement - $11,200. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed im- provement on the 12th day of April, 1988, in the Coun- cil Chambers of the City Hall at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 P.M. and the city Clerk shall give mailed and pub- lished notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 1 COST ESTIMATE NORWOOD LANE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MOUND ~FRA #8614 UTILITIES SANITARY SEWER ITEM 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer Manholes 4" x 8" Wyes 4" Sewer Services Granular Foundation Material Insulation QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 260 L.F. ~ 25.00/LF 1 EA. ~ llO0.O0/EA 11 EA. ~ 60.O0/EA 220 L.F. ~ 8.00/LF 100 TON ~ 9.00/TN 520 S.F. ~ 1.O0/SF Contingencies Estimated Construction Cost - Sanitary Sewer WATERMAIN EXTENSION ITEM QUANTITY 6" DIP Watermain Fittings Hydrant 6"'Gate Valve ~l" Service Groups l" Copper Water Services Granular Foundation Material UNIT PRICE Contingencies 270 L.F. ~ 22.00/LF 200 LBS ~ 2.00/LB 1 EA. ~ iO00.O0/EA 2 EA. ~ 450.O0/EA ll EA. ® 70.O0/EA 250 L.F. ~ 7.00/LF 100 TON ® 9.00/TN Estimated Construction Cost - Watermain Total Estimated Constructin Cost - Utilities Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs Total Estimated Project Costs - Utilities STREET CONSTRUCTION ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Clearing and Grubbing Grading · Gravel Base - Storm Sewer - Concrete Curb and Gutter Bituminous Wear Bituminous Base - By Hardrives - By Hardrives By Hardrives By Hardrives 640 L.F. 80 TON 80 TON 6.00/LF 28.00/TN 25.00/TN Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Costs - Streets Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Adminstrative Costs Total Estimated Project Cost - Streets TOTAL = $ 6500.00 = 1100.00 = 660.00 = 1760.00 = 900.00 = 520.00 1160.00 $12,600.00 TOTAL = $ 5940.00 = 400. O0 = 1000.00 = 900. O0 = 770.00 = 1610.00 = 900.00 1180.00 $12,700.(~iJ $25,500. O0 TOTAL $ 0 0 0 0 $ 3840.00 2240.00 2000.00 $ ~20.00 9,000.00 2~200.00 $11,200.00 PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS NORWOOD LANE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MOUND MFRA #8614 Utility Improvements Street Improvements = $31~600.00 = $3,160.O0/Lnit 10 Units = $11~200.00 = $ 17.80/L.F. 629.3 L.F. Lot 12, Block Lot 13, Block Lot 14, Block Lot 15, Block Lot 16, Block Lot 17, Block Lot 1, Block Lot 2, 8lock Lot 2, Block Lot 4, Block Lot 5, Block Lot 6, Block Lot 7, Block UTILITIES $ 1580.00 1580.00 3160.00 3160.00 3160.00 3160.00 1580.00 1580.00 3160.00 3160.00 3160.00 3160.00 STREETS $ 1071.56 890.00 890.00 890.00 890.00 890.00 712.00 712.00 712.00 836.60 890.00 890.00 927.38 $11,201.54 TOTAL $ 2651.56 2470.00 4050.00 4050.00 4050.00 4050.00 2292.00 2292.00 3872.00 3996.60 4050.00 4050.00 V"! McCombs Frank Rods Associates, Inc. Twin Cities St. Cloud 15050 23rd Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55441 Telephone 612/476-6010 Engineers Planners Surveyors March 17, 1988 Ms. Jan Bertrand Planning and Zoning Department City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Grading Application Lots t - 6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A MFRA #8614 Dear Jan: As requested, we have reviewed the grading application submitted by Hall Leasing (Hardrives) and have the following comments and recommendations: General The area in question is a wooded parcel, adjacent to Shoreline Boulevard (County Road 15) and Norwood Lane, an unimproved platted right-of'way. A portion of the parcel is low, with a ditch running through it which carries water from a culvert under County Road 15 southerly to a City storm sewer at the end of the improved portion of Norwood Lane. This ditch would need to be replaced by a storm sewer system to allow for filling of the low area. The applicant has agreed to install this storm sewer at no expense to the City. The applicant has also agreed to grade and fill, including gravel base for a future road within the unimproved portion of Norwood Lane. Utilities - Sanitary Sewer and Watermain and Storm Sewer At the present time, there are no utilities in the Norwood Lane right-of- way. Ed Shukle and myself have met with the other adjacent property owners and discussed the possibility of extending sanitary sewer and watermain to serve their vacant property. We also discussed completing the street construction by installing concrete curb and gutter and bituminous paving. These three property owners have been invited to attend the Council meeting on the 22nd to voice there opinions on the possible improvements to Norwood Lane. We are in the process of reviewing Hennepin County's design of storm sewer in this area and what affects there would be by replacing the open ditch with a closed system. Formerly ;,?cCombs-Knutson Associa'es IRC Ms. 3an Bertrand Harch 17, 1988 Page Two Conclusions and Recommendations A grading permit could be issued to fill this area, including the Norwood Lane right-of-way, without extending sanitary sewer and watermain. It would be necessary to extend the City storm sewer. We would recommend the granting of a grading permit, contingent upon the following conditions: Soil borings be furnished and any unsuitable material be removed fr~m the proposed roadway and building pad areas, before filling commences. e All trees, brush and other vegetation be removed from the areas of proposed fill. All fill placed in the City right-of-way shall be of quality suitable for street construction and shall be compacted to meet the City's requirements. Storm sewer to be installed to connect the proposed storm sewer system in County Road 15 to the existing City system in Norwood Lane. Final plans to be determined by City Engineer and Hennepin County. Upon completion of grading, furnish and install Class 2 gravel base, in Norwood Lane, 30 feet wide at a minimum compacted thickness of 6 inches. Furnish performance bond in the $45,000.00 to cover grading, storm sewer and street construction. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron OC:jmj , cc: Edward O. Shukle, City Manager Mc-Combs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Twin Cities St Cloud 15050 23rd Ave N. Tel-3~,ore Plymoutr~. MN 612 476-6010 55447 March 17, 1988 Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Edward O. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: County Road No. 15 Additional Street Lights MFRA #8259 Dear Ed: Because of the very favorable bids received on the street lights for the downtown area of County Road 15, we would suggest that the City consider adding a minimum of 5 (five) lights in the area just west of Seton Bridge. Enclosed is a copy of a portion of Hennepin County's plan showing one suggested layout for five additional street lights. As you are aware, this is a commercial area which includes three intersecting streets, one of which, Bartlett Boulevard, has a very .high traffic count. The 1985 traffic count for Bartlett Boulevard was 3050 cars per day, and the 1987 count was 3400 cars per day. The City of Spring Park is considering the addition of street lights in their commercial area, which is just across the bridge. If the City should decide to add these street lights to the existing project, the cost would need to be assessed in the same manner as the present project, which would require additional public hearings. The estimated cost of adding five street lights would be $19,730.00. Enclosed is a breakdown of the estimated cost. The individual unit prices used in this cost estimate are the actual bid prices received by Hennepin County. The street light project already approved and bid was estimated to cost $127,353.00. It appears the final cost may be $20,000 to $25,000 less than this estimate, because of the good bids received by the County. If this is the case, then the proposed assessments could be reduced by as much as 18%, resulting in a charge of approximately $12.00 per foot for commercial property, instead of $14.50 as originally anticipated. There is approximately 450 L.F. of commercial property along the south side of County Road 15 in the area between Montclair Lane and Seton Bridge, which could be assessed. The north side is all railroad property, which would require a decision by the City as to whether an assessment could be levied against this property. The extra cost that would need to be paid by the City for these additional lights would be either 1/2 of the estimated cost ($9,865.00) or approximately 3/4 of the estimated cost ($14,800.00) if the railroad is not assessed. Formerly McCombs-Knutson Associates. Inc Mr. Edward O. Shukle, Sr. March 17, 1988 Page Two We believe this commercial area, with its busy intersecting street, should have street lights. The City will never have a better opportunity then they have at this time. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. OC:jmj Enclosures Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron March 22, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88- REsoLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING FOR STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT - PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD 15 WHEREAS, a report has been prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., the City Engineers, for the improvement of a portion of Shoreline Blvd. by the addition of street lights be- tween Montclair Place and the Seton Bridge; and WHEREAS, this report was received by the Council on March 22, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The Council will consider the improvement of Shoreline Blvd. by the addition of street lights between Montclair Place and the Seton Bridge in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $19,730.00. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed im- provement on the 12th day of April, 1988, in the Coun- cil Chambers of the City Hall at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 P.M. and the City Clerk shall give mailed and pub- lished notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA COST ESTIMATE ADDITIONAL STREET LIGHTS AT MONTCLAIR LANE AND BARTLETT BOULEVARD ITEM QUANITITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL Lighting Unit (Pole and Fixture) 5 EACH $ 1,207.00/EA Light Base 5 EACH 360.O0/EA 1-1/2" RSC 130 L.F. 4.40/LF 2" RSC 70 L.F. 5.40/LF 1-1/2" Non-Metallic 120 L.F. 3.20/LF U.G. Wire No. 6 8000 L.F. 0.77/LF Wire No. 12 800 L.F. 0.25/LF Service Panel t EACH 1620.O0/EA 6,035.00 1,800.00 572.00 378.00 384.00 6,160.00 200.00 1~620.00 Estimated Construction Cost Hennepin County Construction Engineering (10%) City Cost - Engineering, Legal, Fiscal, & Admin. (5%) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 17,149.00 1,721.00 860.00 $ 19,730.00 /o7.5' · ZZ'OZ-~.g 'J. 'O'a tl Advertisement For Bids Mound, Minnesota 1988 SEAL COAT PROGRAM FKA ~6173 Sealed bids will be received, publicly opened, and read aloud at the Mound City Hall at 10:00 AM., Friday, Aprll 8, 1988 for application of approximately 37,000 gallons of bituminous material and 1,850 tons of seal coat aggregate. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting Tuesday,- April 12, 1988 at 7:30 PM. All proposals shall be addressed to: Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 534! Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 And shall be securely sealed, shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "Proposal for 1988 Seal Coat Program, City of Mound" and shall be on the Proposal Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans, specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the offices of McCombs Frank Rods Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers and Surveyors, 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the office of the Engineer upon deposit of $20.00. The full amount of the deposit will be refunded to each bidder who has made a deposit and has filed a bid with the Owner upon return of the plans and specifications within ten (10) days after the bids are opened. Each bidder shall file with his bid a certified check, or bid bond in an amount not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City of Mound reserves the right to reject any or ail bios and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA By: Fran Clark, City Clerk EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL O? THE CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, March 22, 1988, commencing at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The following resolution was who moved its adoption: presented by Member RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF '$790,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING BONDS OF 1988 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. At a duly called special election conducted in and for the City on September 29, 1987, the voters of the City approved by a special election the City issuing general obligation bonds to acquire and equip a new public works building, and the electors authorized the issuance and sale of $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of the City for the purpose of providing funds to finance the improvements. 2. In order to provide financing for the Project, the City shall therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $776,175. In order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $13,825 as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.56. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $776,175 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on the Bonds. The Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $790,000 shall be issued and sold in accordance with the terms of the Official Notice of Sale which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit A and is incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the attached notice of sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit B to be published in the manner required by law. The City Council shall meet on Tuesday, April.28, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose'Of considering the bids on the Bonds and taking any other appropriate action. Member seconded the resolution, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Exhibit A NOTICE OF SALE $790,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BUILDING BONDS OF 1988 CITY OF MOUND HENNPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of the above bonds will be received until 11:00 a.m. at the City Hall in the City of Mound, Minnesota, on Tuesday, April 28, 1988, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated. The bids will be presented to and considered by the City Council at its regular meeting which commences at 7:30 p.m. on said date. The aforedescribed bonds are issued, on the following terms: PURPOSE AND SECURITY The purpose of the Building Bonds is to provide funds to acquire and equip a new public works building as authorized by the voters at a special election held on September 29, 1987. The Bonds will be general obligations of the issuer, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. DATE, TYPE AND DENOMINATION The Bonds will be dated, as originally issued, as of May 1, 1988; will be issued as negotiable investment securities in registered form as to both principal and interest; and will be issuable in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiples thereof. MATURITIES AND REDEMPTION The Bonds of this issue will mature on February 1 in the following years and amounts: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $35,000 1997 $55,000 1990 35,000 1998 55,000 1991 40,000 1999 60,000 1992 40,000 2000 65,000 1993 40,000 2001 70,000 1994 45,000 2002 75,000 1995 45,000 2003 80,000 1996 50,000 Ail Bonds maturing after February 1, 1995, are subject to being called for prior redemption at the option of the City on said date or any interest payment date thereafter, at pat and accrued interest. BOND ~.~GISTI~%/~w TRANSFER AGENT AND PAYING AGENT The City will appoint a Bond Registrar, Transfer Agent and Paying Agent (the Registrar). The Bond Register will be kept, principal and interest will be paid to the registered owner of each bond, and transfers of ownership will be effected by the Registrar. The City will pay the charges of the Registrar for such services. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar and appoint a successor. INTEREST PAYMENT DATES, RATES Interest will be payable each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1989, to the registered owners of the Bonds appearing of record in the Bond Register as of the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. All bonds of the same maturity must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be expressed in an integral multiple of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%, and no rate of interest nor the net effective rate of the issue may exceed the maximum legal rate determined pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55. DELIVERY Within 40 days after the sale, the City will deliver to the Bond Registrar.the printed bonds ready for completion and authentication. The original purchaser of the Bonds must notify the Bond Registrar, at least 5 business days before delivery of the Bonds, of the persons in whose names the Bonds will be initially registered and the authorized denominations of the Bonds to be originally issued. If notification is not received by that date, the Bonds will be registered in the name of the original purchaser and will be issued in denominations corresponding to the principal maturities of the Bonds. On the day of closing, the City will furnish to the purchaser the opinion of bond counsel hereinafter described, an arbitrage certification and a certificate verifying that no litigation in any manner questioning the validity of the Bonds is then pending or, to the best knowledge of officers of the City, threatened. Payment for the Bonds must be received by the City at its designated depositary on the date of closing in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. CUSIP NUMBERS The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. LEGAL OPINION An unqualified legal opinion on this issue will be furnished by Messrs. Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood, and Mertz of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City, and the City is obligated and required to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limitation as to rate or amount, except to the extent enforceability may be limited by State of Minnesota or United States laws relating to bankruptcy, reorganization, moratorium or creditors' rights generally. Interest on the Bonds is includible in book income and earnings and profits of corporations for the purpose of a corporate alternative minimum tax for taxable years beginning after Deccember 31, 1986. Interest on the Bonds is also includible in the computation of alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of the environmental tax imposed by Section 59A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on corporations for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986. The City will designate the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" pursuant to Section 265 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which would permit financial institutions to deduct interest expenses allocable to the Bonds to the extent permitted under prior law. TYPE OF BID - AMOUNT Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to 11:00 a.m. April 26, 1988. The City Council will meet at 11:00 a.m. on said date to consider the award and sale of the bonds. Each bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $7,900, payable to the City, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. Comparison of bids will be made on the basis of total interest cost, the bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $790,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. In the event that two or more bids state the lowest net interest cost, the sale of the Bonds will be awarded by lot. No oral bid and no bid of less than $776,175 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the Bonds will be considered, and the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informality in any bid. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Dated March 22, 1988. Francene C. Clark City Clerk Mound, Minnesota Exhibit B NO, ICg OF SALB $790,000 CENERAL OBLICA?ION BUILDING BONDS OF 1988 CIT~ OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTX, MINNESOTA These bonds will be offered on Tuesday, April 26, 1988. Bids will be received until 11:00 a.m. at the City Hall in the City of Mound, and the bids will be considered by the City Council at its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on said day. Dated May 1, 1988, the bonds will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1989 $35,000 1997 $55,000 1990 35,000 1998 55,000 1991 40,000 1999 60,000 1992 40,000 2000 65,000 1993 40,000 2001 70,000 1994 45,000 2002 75,000 1995 45,000 2003 80,000 1996 50,000 Ail Bonds maturing after February 1, 1995, are issued subject to being called for prior redemption by the City on said date or any interest payment date thereafter at par plus accrued interest. The City will appoint a Bond Registrar, Transfer Agent and Paying Agent. Interest will be payable on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1989, to the registered owners of the Bonds appearing of record in the bond register as of the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. No rate of interest nor the net effective rate of the issue may exceed the maximum legal rate determined pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55. An unqualified legal opinion will be furnished by Messrs. Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood, and Mertz of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of the Bonds is to finance acquisition and betterment-of a new public works building pursuant to authority granted by the electorate at a special election held on the issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds will be paid from an ad valorem tax levy against all property in the City, and the full faith and credit of the City is pledged for their payment. No bid of less than $776,175 will be considered. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Francene C. Clark City Clerk Mound, Minnesota Dated March 22, 1988. Further information may be obtained from and bids shall be delivered to: Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. Financial Advisors Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South P.O. Box 789 Minneapolis, MN 55440 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF MOUND I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on March 22, 1988, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as'the same relates to the issuance and s~le of $790,000 General Obligation Building Bonds of 1988 of the City. WITNESS My hand as such Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1988. (SEAL) Francene C. Clark City Clerk City of Mound, Minnesota EXTI~ACT OF I~INUTE$ OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0F MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City }{all in said City on Tuesday, March 22, 1988, commencing at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: * * * The following resolution was presented by Member who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $310,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1988 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: It is hereby determined: (a) That the following assessable public improve- ments (the "Improvements") have been made, duly ordered or contracts let for the construction thereof by the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429: Project Costs (b) Construction, Engineering, and Contingency Issuance and Registration Costs Capitalized Interest Subtotal Discount Allowance Total Bond Issue $270,812.50 11,500.00 22,262.50 304,575.00 5,425.00 $310,000.00 That it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City to issue $310,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1988 (the "Bonds"), to provide financing for the Improvements, which Bonds shall be fully registered. 2. In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the City shall issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $304,575; in order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $5,425. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $304,575 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued and sold in accordance with the terms of the Official Notice of Sale which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit A. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the attached notice of sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale.attached hereto as Exhibit B to be published in the manner required by law. Sealed bids shall be received until 11:00 a.m. on April 26, 1988. The City Council shall meet on Tuesday, April 26, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering the bids on the Bonds and taking any other appropriate action. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted Aye: and the following voted No: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Approved and signed this day of , 1988. Attest: Mayor City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF MOUND I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on March 22, 1988, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $310,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1988 of the City. WITNESS My hand as such Administrator-Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1988. (SEAL) City Clerk City of Mound Exhibit A NOTICE OF SALE $310,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1988 CITY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of the above bonds will be received until 11:00 a.m. at the City Hall in the City of Mound, Minnesota, on Tuesday, April 26, 1988, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated. The bids will be presented to and considered by the City Council at its regular meeting which commences at 7:30 p.m. on said date. The aforedescribed bonds are issued on the following terms: PURPOSE AND sECURITY The purpose of the Improvement Bonds is to provide funds for various public improvements and will be paid from special assessments and general funds of the City. The bonds will be general obligations of the issuer, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. DATE, TYPE AND DENOMINATION The Bonds will be dated, as originally issued, as of May 1, 1988; will be issued as negotiable investment securities in registered form as to both principal and interest; and will be issuable in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiples thereof. MATURITIES AND REDEMPTION The Bonds of this issue will mature on February 1 in the following years and amounts: Year Amount Year Amount 1990 $30,000 1995 $35,000 1991 35,000 1996 35,000 1992 35,000 1997 35,000 1993 35,000 1998 35,000 1994 35,000 Bonds maturing after February 1, 1993, will be subject to redemption and prepayment, at the option of the City and in whole or in part, in inverse order of maturities and by lot assigned in proportion to their principal amount, within any maturity, on February 1, 1993, and any interest payment date thereafter at a price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. 707 BOND REGISTRAR, TRANSFER AGENT AND PAYING AGENT The City will appoint a Bond Registrar, Transfer Agent and Paying Agent (the Registrar). The Bond Register will be kept, principal and interest will be paid to the registered owner of each bond, and transfers of ownership will be effected by the Registrar. The City will pay the charges of the Registrar for such services. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar and appoint a successor. INTEREST PAYMENT DATES, RATES Interest will be payable each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1989, ~o the registered owners of the Bonds appearing of record in the Bond Register as of the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. All bonds of the same maturity must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a sihgle, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be expressed in an integral multiple of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%, and no rate of interest nor the net effective rate of the issue may exceed the maximum legal rate determined pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55. DELIVERY Within 40 days after the sale, the City will deliver to the Bond Registrar the printed bonds ready for completion and authentication. The original purchaser of the Bonds must notify the Bond Registrar, at least 5 business days before delivery of the Bonds, of the persons in whose names the Bonds will be initially registered and the authorized denominations of the Bonds to be originally issued. If notification is not received by that date, the Bonds will be registered in the name of the original purchaser and will be issued in denominations corresponding to the principal maturities of the Bonds. On the day of closing, the City will furnish to the purchaser the opinion of bond counsel hereinafter described, an arbitrage certification and a certificate verifying that no litigation in any manner questioning the validity of the Bonds is then pending or, to the best knowledge of officers of the City, threatened. Payment for the Bonds must be received by the City at its designated depositary on the date of closing in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. CUSIP NUMBERS The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. LEC~,,L OPINION An unqualified legal opinion on this issue will be furnished by Messrs. Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood, and Mertz of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City, and the City is obligated and required to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limitation as to rate or amount, except to the extent enforceability may be limited by State of Minnesota or United States laws relating to bankruptcy, reorganization, moratorium or creditors' rights generally. Interest on the Bonds is includible in book income and ear~ings and profits of corportions for the purpose of a corporate alternative minimum tax for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986. Interest on the Bonds is also includible in the computation of alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of the environmental tax imposed by Section Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on corporations for taxable years 59A of the beginning after December 31, 1986. The City will designate the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" pursuant to Section 265 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which would permit financial institutions to deduct interest expenses allocable to the Bonds to the extent permitted under prior law. TYPE OF BID - AMOUNT sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to 11:00 a.m. April 26, 1988. The City Council will meet at 7:30 p.m. on said date to consider the award and sale of the bonds. Each bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $3,100, payable to the City Clerk to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. Comparison of bids will be made on the basis of total interest cost, the bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $310,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. In the event that two or more bids state the lowest net interest cost, the sale of the Bonds will be awarded by lot. No oral bid and no bid of less than $304,575 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the Bonds will be considered, and the City reserves the right to reject any and ~11 bids and to waive any informality in any bid. BY ORDER OF TRE CITY COUNCIL Francene C. Clark City Clerk Mound, Minnesota Exhibit B NOTICE OF SALE $310,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1988 ClT~ OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNT]f, MINNESOTA These bonds will be offered on Tuesday, April 26, 1988. Bids will be received until 11:00 a.m. at the City Hall in the City of Mound, and the bids will be considered by the City Council at 7:30 p.m. on said date. Dated May 1, 1988, the bonds will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1990 $30,000 1995 $35,000 1996 35,000 1991 35,000 1997 35,000 1992 35,000 1993 35,000 . 1998 35,000 1994 35,000 Bonds maturing after February 1, 1993, will be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City and in whole or in part, in inverse order of maturities and by lot assigned in proportion to their principal amount, within any maturity, on February 1, 1993, and any interest payment date thereafter at a price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. The City will appoint a Bond Registrar, Transfer Agent and Paying Agent. Interest will be payable on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 1989, to the registered owners of the Bonds appearing of record in the bond register as of the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. No rate of interest nor the net effective rate of the issue may exceed the maximum legal rate determined pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55. An unqualified legal opinion will. be furnished by Messrs. Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood, and Mertz, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of the Improvement Bonds is to finance various public improvements in the City. The various improvements will be paid from special assessments and general funds of the City. No bid of less than $304,575 will be considered. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Francene C. Clark City Clerk Mound, Minnesota Dated March 22, 1988. Further information may be obtained from and bids shall be delivered to: Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. Financial Advisors Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South P.O. Box 789 Minneapolis, MN 55440 (612) 831-1500 For March 22, 1988 Council Meeting March 16, 1988 LICENSE RENEWAL -- Expire 3-31-88. New License Period 4-1-88 to 3-31-89. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc., being turned in. Tree Removal Aaspen Tree Service Robert F. Dahlke Lutz Tree Service, Inc. Sutherland's Nursery & Tree Hawker/Food Vendor Blue Bell Ice Cream ~zi~nd~~ ..... the City of ~ounO~ a Kinnffsot~ ~r, ici~al corooratler, ~ng ~ ~, ~-~ ~ ~ Co~n~ of ................. ~ ........................... : ............. , ~ ~ of .... ~J~5~h9_~. ...................................... ~: Lot 22, Block 5, Dreamwood - PID ~13-117-24 12 0026, City of Mound, Hennepin County, M i nnesota ~ ~tt ~t t~ ~ol~, T~c. bow ~nt~Vr'~n,i~n2'°~sc'~L~s~''''''' ............ b'J"~ ................ 22nd ~ .~ March 19...~.~...., .................................................. ............................................................. ~ ~t ....................................................... ............................................... - ., ...... :~ r~or ~ ,~. a~ rent [or th~ ~bou~ ~n~o~d ~, r~' ~ ~ ..... d and x-~uaO ~ consideration ~ ~ ~r~ of..~P.~...~....E~.....L~.:..:..~....Eu.~...~.~ ....~z~ ................... ~ ............................................... it is specifically understood and agreed by and between the partles that the lessee shall only have a right to use a portion of the aforedescribed lands and that the oniy use that they mey pu~t this property to is to plant a garden. It is further understood and agreed that the lessor retains all rlghts to use and maintain the property and that the gardening shall not in any way interfere with the lessor's main purpose for thls land. The lessee further agrees that in addition to the .' aforementioned consideration, they will maintain the site~ mowing the grass, cutttng the weeds and keeping the property clear of litter d,zring the term of this lease. The only purpose for which the lessee may use this ground is to plant a vegetable garden'and there shall be no storage, parking or other use of this property by the lessee. ........................................................................................................................................... fo~' .~r~ t~ ~ L~sor ...... ~ ......~w~r~ ~ '~ sa, id ~s~ ....... on CiTY OF SOUND ............................................ Mayor .............. ..................................................................... '~ty Manager ................................................................. /£ ........................................................... $ P=~:ito~,%c~,~'~p~,Z,~,~......,~ni~,. Beverly' and Leo Wa ] ~ ................................................................................................................................ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~, ~......, . E~nnesota Lots 1, 2, 3, & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood, PID ~13-117-2& 12 0223 ~ ~nb~ ~nb t0 ~01~, P&e above rent~,d prernd.~.~ ~ ~ ~ Z~I..., ......... r.b.~[.r ................ ~[~,/o. an~ ~vtnE the/~[[ ~ o/ .......................... 9.D.e....Y.e.6.E ........................................................... /rom ........... 22~.~ .......................................... ~y o/ .............~.r..cb, ........................... , 7~...~..., ........................................................................... d~ t~ ~ L~..5.. a[r~ ...... ~ a~ w~k ~ ~a~ L~ov ...... ~ ~y ~ reef/or ~ above ~ It i.s specitically understood and agreed by and between the parties that the lessees shall only have a right to'use the aforedescribed lands and that the only use that they may put this property to is to plant a garden. The ~essees further agree that they will ma~ntaln the site, mowing the grass, cutting the weeds and keeping .the site clear of ~itter during the term of this }ease. The only purpose for which the lessees may use this ground is to plant a vegetable garden, which may not be used as a commercial garden plot, and there shall be no storage, parking or other use of this property by the lessees. ~ f~fi~ any o/ ~ ~u~n~s ~t~ ~t~, t~ a~ tn ~ ~ t~ ~ZZ ~ ~,f~/o, ~ ~a~ ~k r~tertn[ worktn~ a forf~tt~r~ o/~ r~s ~ b~ pai~ ~, ~r ~r~cr~ t~ ~ow rc~ ~r~m~ or anF part ~r~f, ~t ~v~ts aforcsa~, sI~ZZ a~ ~y ~y a~ ~&fZ~ ~ve, ~ a~ enjoy t~ ~a~ ~ premt~ above ~t~ C I TY OF HOUND ,.?igned, ,geccZe~ ar~ Detivered tn Pr~ence o/ ..................................................................................................... ~ayor ~"~'~'~~",q'~'~'~'6'~'F .................................................................... ( s 2.~ £ ) 'L'66'"~'I"I"~"6 ................................................................. ............................................................................................... Beverly ~,'a~lis March 22, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88 RESOLUTION SETTING DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED SALE OF DOWDEN COMMUNICATIONS OF MINNESOTA BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota determines that the proposed sale of Dowden Com- munications of Minnesota may adversely affect the subscribers of the city of Mound. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Staff is inv structed to notify Dowden and Triax (the purchaser) of a public hearing which will be held on April 12, 1988, in the City Council Chambers in the City of Mound, at 7:30 P.M., or as soon there- after as parties may reasonably be heard. Notice of such hearing to be published in the official newspaper. 1 BILLS ......... MARCH 22, 1988 BATCH 8031 Batch 8032 Contel March telephone TOTAL B LLS 103.,944.2~ 119,617.20 1,001.13 224,562.57 RACE AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY~MO~D ¥~DOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. IN'~ICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTI[~ PRE-PAID ACCOL~T NIJ,~ER AMOUNT CF,=, A0209 PRE-PAID 750.00 CONF AD¥-OH 3/26-30 3/15/8.-0~,~'=~'~ 750.00 ~NL-CD ~-4170-4110 1010 750.00 ALVIN OAITZ VE)SJDR TOTAL 750.00 A0240 F~E-PAID 20.00 REGI STR-SK INNER,KIVISTO 3/15/88 3/15/88 20.00 JRNL-CD 78-7800-4!10 I010 20.00 A..~F_RICAN WAT~WOF~KS ASSN V~OR TOTAL 20.00 B~49 PRE-PAID 1,E~1.11 LIQ 3/15/88 3/15/6~ 1,601.11 JRNL-CD PRE-PAID 3/15/$~ 3/159~ 912.64 LIQ 912.64 JR~-CD 71-71(~-'~510 1010 1601.11 71-7100-'~510 !010 9t2.~ BELLBOY CORFqDR~TION VENDOR TOTAL 2513.75 B0580 PRE-PAID 66~.87 DIESEL GASOLDE 3/15/88 3/15/88 669.87 JRNL-CD 01-12~-C~Q 1010 66~.87 BILL CLAF~ OIL COMPANY VE)~E~OR TOTAL 66P.87 PRE-PAID 3/!5/88 3/15/88 75.80 37.90 37.90 37.90 37.90 6.32 6.32 6.31 246.35 Mb~ICIPALS BANQUET MUNICIPALS BANQbc~ MUNICIPALS BANGUET ML~;ICIPALS BANQUET ML,'~I C i PALS B~N~UET MUNICIPALS BA)~UET MUNICIPALS BAnqUET ML~4ICIPALS BANQUET JRNL-CD 01-4090-4!20 01-4040-41~9 01.-41~0-4120 01-4140-4!20 71-7100-4120 01-42-00-41~ 73-7300-4110 78-7800-4120 1010 246.35 CITY OF BRDO~Q. YN PARK VE)E~)R TOTAL C0'940 PRE-PAID 3/15/~ 3/15/88 CL£~N STEP RD~TAL VENT~JR TOTAL 246.35 20.24 ~.20 55.44 ~,44 FEB RUG FEB RUG RENT 01-4320-4210 71-7100-4210 1010 ~.44 C~999 PRE-PAID 3115/88 3115/$8 3.80 1.80 3.60 6.30 i4.40 3.60 .90 7.20 5.40 .?0 47.70 MAR LIFE INS MAR LIFE INS MAR LIFE INS MAR LIFE INS MAR LIFE INS MAR LIFE INS ~R LIFE INS MAR LIFE I)~ M~qR LIFE I~tS MAR LIFE INS dBNL-CD 73-7300-1520 78-78~-!5~ 71-7100-!520 01-4280-15~ 01-4140-1520 01-4190-!520 01',~?0-152~ 01-40~0-151~ 01-4040-1520 01-4340-15C~ 1010 47.70 COMM?~CIAL LIFE INS CO VEst, OR TOTAL D1211 F~E-PAID 47,70 30,00 MICR~ILM RESOLUTIGNS 01-4020-4260 PA,~ 2 AP-C02-O! PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND V~'DOR, Ih¥OICE DUE. HOLD NO. I~OICE ~"£~ [~TE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESORIPTIB~ PF,~-F'Ail) ACCOUNT Nt~B~: AMOng 3/15/88 3/15/~S 30.00 J~-CD I010 ~).00 DEBRA lldO~ ~'FjN VE~ TOTAL 30.00 E142~ PRE-PAID 3115188 3/~518) 7~.20 LI@ 730.75 WI~ 8.87- DI~ ~1,~ ~)~-CD 71-7100-~!0 7!-71®-7520 71-71c~-9F~0 10!0 80! .(;8 PRE-PAID 3/15/88 3/I5/88 ~3.41 LIQ 173.84 WI~ 6.19- DI~ 391.~ JR,-CD 71-7100-9510 71-71~-:~20 71-71~-~) 1010 391.06 ~E-PA!D 3/15188 3/15/~B 3~.80 LIQ 374.~ WINE ~.75- DISC 729.60 J~4.-CD 71-7100-7510 71-7100-7520. 71-71~-~:~ 10!0 729. ED ~I~) IPS & ~S YENDOR TOTAL 1~1.74 E1430 PRE-PAID 21.~ MT~ EXP 3/15/~ 3/15/~ 21.~ ~E-CD 01-J~40-4t20 !010 21.46 EI~WA]:2 SHb),%E VF_NDC~B TOTAL 21.46 F1549 P~-PAID 3/15/88 3/15/88 !6.00 GASO~.I)~ 16.00 dFUtL-CD 78-78(~-~i0 1010 16.(Q FINA VB~I~3R TOTAL 16.00 Fl,~2 PRE-PAID ~,9'28.~ FlJF,~:HASE H~-LY~D 60-60(~0-~0 FIRST SE~RITY TI~ VE]qD~ TOTAL P~£-PAID 3115/88 3/15188 24.45 FF_]) ~TER CEX3L~ ~.60 FEB WATE}~ COOL~ 9.18 FEB ~T~ ~ER 3.76 ~ WA~ ~ 3.76 FEB WATF~ ~ 74,75 JRNL-CD 01-4140-4100 O1 01-4280-22()0 73-7300-~r, jO 78- 78(X',,)- .'.~00 1010 74.75 Cq_E]q~OD INGLE~OD TOTAL 74.75 G177! I PRE-PAID 3/15/88 3/t5/~ 173.~5 M~ HOSP PREM 173.95 dPJ&-CD 0!-4140-1510 1010 173.5 ~'OUP ~JLTH R_AN V~DOR TOTAL 173.95 01972 PRE-PAID 3/15/~ 3/151~ 8~. 7-/ LIQ ~.~ WI)E 18.42- DI~ 5.40 FRT 907.79 Jl~qL-CD 71-71C~q-'~iO 71-71(X}-9520 71-7100-,q~ 71-71~-96C~) 1010 907,79 P~C£ 3 ~-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF ~ INN'DICE DLE HI]U) NO. INVOICE )t'lBR ~TE I1ATE STATUS AM1]~T DESCRIPTION RE-PAID ACCOUNT Nb~E~F.R A~UNT PRE-PAID 3/15/~ PRE-PAID 3/15/88 3/15/88 112.23 WI~ 2.~- 2.25.., FRT 112.19 JF~NI.-CD 571.90 LIQ 381~69 WINE 1%07- DI~ 9,78 FRT 944,30 JP~IL-CD 71-7100-7520 71-7100-~550 71-7100-7600 1010 71-7100-~510 71-7100-75~ 71-7100-95~ 71-7100-960<) 1010 112.19 944.30 GRI~ COG%R & CC~IPAHY VEIE~OR TOTAL 19~.28 i2'~I, PRE-PAID 69.~ DEF C(]+tP-S~K. LE 3/SPR 01-4040-1400 3/15/~ 3/15/E8 69.4-0 ~[~-CD 1010 69.40 ICMA RETIREM~T COFU~ VEND~ TOTAL 69.;0 ~K25V1 F4~E-PAID 120.00 20 CONTACT H~]E3 01-4340-3100 3/15/6~ 3/15/88 120.00 JF4~-CD 1010 120.00 dOHN TAFFE VEhtDOR TOTAL 120.00 J2579 PRE-PAID 3/15/88 3/15/E8 613.53 LIQ 49.~ WINE 13.~- DI~ 649.54 JFoNL-CD 71-7100-7510 71-7100-S520 71-7100-9560 1010 649.54 F-i;:E-PAID 3/15/~ 3/15/~ 1,119.~ LIQ 5.39.74 WINE 28.~- OI~ 1,631,19 JFUqL-CD 71-7100-~10 71-7100-~ 71-7100-9560 1010 1631.19 PRE-PAID 3/15/~ 3115188 ~I.~ LIQ 717.96 WINE 24.2'3- DI~ 1,545.59 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9510 71-7100-~5~ 71-7100-7560 1010 1545.59 JC~SON B~S ~SALE LI* VENDOR TOTAL 3~6.32 PRE-PAID 3/15/88 3/15/88 3~7,02 198.51 78.40 673.93 MAR HOSP PREM MAR HOSP ~H MAR HOS'P PREH JBNL-CD 01-4040-1510 01-4340-1510 01-41~-1510 1010 673,~ CENTER HEALTH PLAN VENDOR TOTAl. 673.~ M~O0 ~-PAID 4,~;28.~ M~ FIRE PJE]_I~ FIE)~SION ~-9500-1400 3/15/88 3/15/~ 4,4~.~ JPJ~L-CD 1010 44? °2 MOb~; FI~E ~IEF ASSN VEND~ TOTAL ~28.92 FI~E-PAID 34.71 63.01 30.91 2.42 REFtEN ~STG ~ MACH ~ POSTG METER M~ICH REFtEN ~STG ~T~ )~CH 01-4070-3210 01-~-3210 01-404-0-~I0 01-4060-3210 P~SE 4 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE dOURNA.'- CITY OF MOUND Ih¥OICE DUE HOLD ND. IN~,~OICE ~q?~ DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRI?TI~N PRE-PAID MOL~ND POSTMASTER 3/15/88 3/15/~3 VF2;DOR TOTAL 111.21 REPLEN POSTG METER MACH 11. ?'9 REPLEN POSTG METER MACH 12.03 REPLEN POSTG ME-F~ H'~ 23.66 REFLEN F~]STG METER MASH 9.19 Ec~-%EN POSTG M~-TER MACH 70.55 '~REPLEN POSTG M~-TER M~q~d 40.54 REPLEN POSTG ~'TER ,~ACH 40.54 REFtEN F~STG METER MACH 95.57 F~%EN POSTG ~-TER M~]H 5.73 REPLEN F~STG METER HAm 39.43 REPLEN POSTD METER ~IACH 12.15 ~t,EN POSTG M~ER HAm 2,64 REPLEN P~TG ~ ,~ 6.27- REPLEN ~STG METER MACH 600.00 d~-t-CD OI 2~-4!70-~10 71-71¢~-~i0 01-4~0-2~10 81-4~0-~10 0! -4170-7210 78-7~)-~10 0!-41~-~!0 0! 01-41%~-S~10 0!-40~-E~10 01-4320-~i0 1010 600.00 ~£-PAID 3/15/88 3/15/~ 187.~5 MAR, L~ 85.60 MAR LTD 40.27 M~ LTD 15.84 MAR LTD 15.84 MAwR LTD 54,04 MAR LTD 15,84 MAR, LTl3 2%21 MAR LTD ~,78 MAR LTD 4,°,63 MAR LTD 527.60 JRNL-CD 01-414~3-15Z~ O1 01-4040-152~J 01-41~0-152'0 01-4340-15~ 01-4~¢0-1520 01-4270-!52~ 71-71CQ-!520 73-7300-15~ 78-7~.0-1520 1010 527.6" MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE VENDOR TOTAL 527,60 P3750 PRE-PAID 3/15/88 3/15/8~ 94.69 158.,~ 9%02 319.85 86.94 1,870.44 45.60 63,32 143.57 4~,51 2,950.47 PERA 3/5 PR PERA 3/5 PR PERA 3/5 PR PERA 3/5 PR PERA 3/5 PR PEF~ 3/5 PR PERA 3/5 PR PERA 3/5 PR PERA 3/5 PR PERA 3/5 PR 73-73~- 1440 78-7800-1440 71-7100-1440 01-42E.~}- 1440 01-41~)-1440 01-4140-1440 01-42~0-144.0 01-4040-1440 01-40~- !440 01-4340-1440 1010 29[~,47 PERA P4030 VB;DOR TOTAL PRE-PAID 3/15/88 3/15/88 2.'F~O, 47 4~.86 528.41 376,76 2?2.93 1,853. FJ 188.38 585.86 18,8.38 5,3?0.76 MAR HOSP PFCB~ MAR, HOSP PREM MAR HZ)SP PREM MAR HOSP PREM MAR HOSP PREM M~R HOSP FC~EM MAR HOSP PREM MAR HOSP PREM MAR HOSP PREH 73-7~)0,-!510 78-7~)0-!5!0 71-71C~-15!0 01-42~-1510 01-4170-1510 01-4140-!510 0I-4~-1510 0!-4090-1510 01-40~-15!0 1010 PAGE 5 ~-C02-01 VLN[O:~ Ih~ICE [~]E ~ ~. I~'OICE NK~:q~ ~T1E ~T1E STA~ PURCHASE CITY OF ~3UND ~'~]U,~ DESO~.IPTI~ JOURNAL ACCOU~ NU~'.~ PRE-PAID AMDL~;T ')lq PHYSICIANS OF ~ ~OR TOTAL Q4171 PFUE-PAID 3/15/~ 3/15/~ PRE-PAID 3/15/88 3i15/~S PPdE-PAID 5290.76 44.76 LIQ 490.10 WiN~ 5,81- DISC 529.05 J)~NL-CD 693.19 LIQ 1~.~ WINE 15.19- DiSC 810.~ JR~(L-CD 3/15/88 3/15/~ QUALITY WINE & ~IRtTS VB~[P~ TOTAL 1535.47 R42~0 PRE-PAID ~0.00 3/15/~ 3/15/~ ~0.00 RONALD MA~CF~ VElqDOR TOTAL 750.00 S4490 PRE-PAID 7%.46 3/15/~ 3/15/88 746.46 ST~NDA~3 SPRING CO VB~OOR TOTAL 746.46 S4500 PRE-PAID 167.32 STATE BAt~ ~ MOL~qD S4640 2~.14 174.97 ~,x3.40 1~.~ 80.58 234.52 2~.72 89.~8 85.73 30.52 6.91 3/15/~ 3/15/~ 1,911.42 v~ TDT~ PRE-PAID 3/15/~ 3/15/~ V~OR TOT~ P~-PAID 3/15/88 3/15/~ V~D~ TOTAL SUPER CYCLE W5700 hq]RST -F~EARSSN-LA~S~ 63.28- LtQ 260.70 WI~ 1.~- DI~ 1%.07 JPJ'~-CD 1911.42 1,430,~ 1,430. O0 1430. O0 I,~0,00 1 ,~0.~ 1~0.00 COhF ADV-OH ~' '; " o/~.6-~0 JRNL-CD INSTALL STEERING ARMS JRNL-CD FICA 3/5PR FICA 3/SPR FICA 3/SPR FICA FICA ~ ~I.~R FI~ 3/~R FICA 3/~R FICA 3/SPR FICA 3~PR FICA 315PR F !CA-~ED 3/5PR FI~-MED 3/SPR JRNL-CD FE]) ~CYClE SERV ~-CD MA~ RETAI)ER oF~L-CD 71-7100-~10 71-71(k~-~52Q 71-7100-9560 1010 71-7100-9510 71-7100-75~ 71-7100-~60 10!0 71-7100-9510 71-7100-~Q 71-7100-~560 1010 ~-4170-4110 1010 01-4280-S~i0 1010 73-7~Q-144O 78-7800-1440 71-7100-1440 01-425Q-144O 01-41~J-1440 01-4290-1440 01-4040-I440 01-40~0-1440 01-414O-144O 01-4340-i440 01-4140-!440 71-7100-!440 1010 01-4270-4200 i010 01-4110-31CQ 1010 810.~ 196.07 750.00 7%.46 1911,42 1430.~ 1~0,00 PAGE 6 AP-C02-O1 VEeR INVOICE DiE HOLD NO. INVOICE N~BR DATE ~TE STATUS TOTAL ALL VEN£~RS PURCHASE CITY OF MO~D AMO~ DESCRIPTION 103,944.24 JOURNAL PRE-PAID ACC'~J,~ NUMBER ~'~OUNT ~ 2 ?il&'-- 2 ,P P~F. 1 AP-C02-OI PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOt~O VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION FE?PAID ACCQUNT NUMBER AMObNT CH 3115188 3115/88 68.28 APR CONTRACT 20.45 APR CON~ACT 9.45 ~ CONTRACT 4.68 APR CONTRACT 24.30 APR CONTRACT 4.69 A.~R CONTRACT 14,8-5 APR CONTRACT 9.45 APR CONI'FUqCT 14.85 APR CDffTR~T 171.00 JPdqL-CD 01-42~-$~5<) 01-4340-~50 01-41S~)-37~ 01-42F'90-39~ 01-4!40-395~ 01-4040-~50 73-73~3-5.'950 78-7800-~0 ~-4170-oW50 1010 AiR COM,~ INC VENDOR TOTAL 171.CE) A0350 5.00 FLDWF_RS-THOMF~ON 35.00 JF~L-CD 01-2300-0M0 1010 ANTHONYS FLORAL VENDO~ TOTAL B0520 3/15/88 3/15/88 1,411.~ APR ;L.EASE 1,411.25 J~'t--CD 01-4320-3920 10!0 BALBOA MI)8~E~TA ~01000307 VENDOR TOTAL 1411.~ BC640 3/151~ 3/15/~ 27.50 FE~ OXYGEN 27.50 dF-OiL-CD 01-42~0-:50 1010 BATHt(E COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 27.50 3115/88 3115/88 32.50 F-~ GARBAGE 45.25 FEB GARBAGE 32.50 ~ GARBAGE 110.~ dR,-CD 01-4~0-3750 71-71(X)-3750 ~-4170-3750 1010 BbqO~DWiAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 110.25 B0671 3/15/88 3/15/88 40.56 BPJqKlE PARTS FOR #18 40.56 dRNL-CD ~-4170-~ 1010 ~YER I'R,~K PARTS VENIXIR TOTAL B0730 3/15/88 3/15/~ 488.48 CF~JSHF_D R[XCX 6,423.53 RIP RAP-COMMO('G 152.27 A/P RIP PAP 7,064.~ JPJI_-CD 73-73(X)-~40 81-4350-5300 01-20~-0000 1010 BRYAN .ROCK PROJECTS VENDOR TOTAL 7064.28 C~70 3/15/~9 3/15/88 1~3.80 PW BLDG BID AD 193.80 dRNL-CD 28-6000-3510 lOlO O'~IN PUBLISHING CO VENDOR. TOTAL 1~3.80 C~60 18.15 ~PPLIES 1.~ WI~EX 7.03 PIPE FITTI~S 57.59 TOOLS 01-4320-~'~X) 01-4280-~---~00 01 - 4 ~o0 - 23~X) 01-4140-2200 P A££ 2 ~-C02-01 PURCHASE dOURNAL CITY OF, MOU~'~ IIfVOICE DUE HOLD NO, INVOICE ~ [~TE DATE STATUS 3/15/88 3/15/83 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 43.~3 BULBS-KEYS 10,89 SACF(ETE 9.9? (~,OVES 4.96 ELLS 4.5.8 TAPE 100.~ SUF~LIES C~8,86 JPJiL-CD PRE-PAID AMOb%~T COAST TO COAST V~XLGOR TOTAL C0990 COM~-tFFOSEBV I CE INC 3/15/88 3/15/88 VENDOR TOTAL 907.00 LEASE 505.00 HD~ MAINT 28,89 LABELS 2,'8.00 A/P LP8 ~FTWARE 1,73.89 JRNL-CD 1738.89 0t-40~,~-50Cx} 01-40~5-:~00 01-40~5-21(YJ 01-2040-(,J00 1010 CiOIO 33.62 PAG~ REPAIR ~.62 Jt~,L-CD ~-4170-3200 I010 COM, MtNICATION AUDITOR V~OR TOTAL 3,3.62 CllO0 3/15/88 3/15/~ 18,~ FEB COPI~ ~INT 18.80 JRNL-CD 73-7300-?950 1010 COPY DLPLICATI~G ~ODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL 18.80 Dl179 3/15/~ 3/15/88 5.00 SCHOOL EXP 5.00 JR~&.-CD 01-4140-4110 1010 DAPJdELL htIGGETi' VENDOR TOTAL D1259 3/15/~ 3115/88 24)0.00 WEED CONTROL-BEACHS 200.00 iFiL-CD 01-4340-4200 1010 [~T OF NATLFXAL RESOURCES VENDOR TOTAL 200.00 3115/88 3t15/88 17.45 I.D. CHECK GUIDE 17.45 JRNL-CD 01-4140-4170 1010 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE CO~ VENDOR TOTAL 17.45 E1481 3/15/~ 3/15183 54.00 REPAIR ICS BOX 54.00 JRNL-CD 01-4140-3820 1010 E]qERGTENCY V~ICLE SE~¥ICE VqENDOR TOTAL 54.00 F1530 3/15/~ 3115/88 110.30 NOZZLES, TUBING 172.20 BOOSTER PUHP 282.5O dEist-CD 73-73C0-2300 73-7300-~300 1010 FEED RITE CONTRoLs VENZK]~ TOTAL F1540 3/15/8>3 3/15/88 108.92 ROLL FILES 108.92. JBN_-CD 01'4~0-~00 1010 PA~ 3 A~-C02-01 ~NDDR Ih~q]ICE DUE HOLD NO. IhYDICE NM'~qt DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITT DF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL ACC~U~]' PRE-PAID AMO3~T FIDF! !TY PRODUCTS Fl710 FRANCENE CLARK GFOA Gl800 VENDOR TOTAL 3/15/88 3/15/88 VENi~]R TOTAL 3/15/~ 3/15/88 VENDOR TOTAL 3/15/88 3/15/88 C~ARY'S DIESEL ~ICE CC4.GMAN & NX~xE VENDOR TOTAL 3/15/~ 3/15/88 VENDOR TOTAL 3/15/88 3/15/88 GENERAL REPAIR b'~'dS~VlCE VE),~JOR TOTAL H2080 3/15I~ 3/15/~:B HtECKSEL MA~INE ~OP VENDOR TOTAL H2100 3/15/~ 3/15/88 H~N CO ~I~ ~ ~LI~-PT VEhtD~R TOTAL ~120 3/15/88 3/15/88 HE)~ CD DF_PT OF Ft:~CT~ERTY T VENDOR TOTAL H2130 3115/88 3115/88 H~N ~ FIRF ~IEFS Ac~.~SN. ~t'lkq~R TOTAL ~140 3/15/$~J 3/15/88 ~ ~ ~E]R, IFFS DEPT VEND~ TPTAL 108.~ %00 OPTIC SCAN MTG 6.60 MTG EXP 15.60 dFC-CD 15,~0 75.OO 75.00 ~-CD 75.00 7'/.38 REPAIR LFNIT 18 77.~ J~I_-CD 7'] .38 4~.~8 FEB SE~ICE 4~5.78 ~_-CD 4~,~8 1,668.08 SEALS & ~EE~/ES 1 ,~8,03 dR)~_-CD 1~8.03 14.8000 14.80 JRNL-CD 14.80 75.00 BASIC PRINC-H~T 185.(70 ~ITING SKILLS-LIMJ]ND 275.00 MAJOR iNVESTIG-GRYiND ~.00 JRI~_-CD 10.78 P~TAL 10.78 dRNL-CD 10.78 10,00 88 DUES 10. O0 JPJqL-CD 10.00 37.12 ~ WOFU(-C~ FIRE 37.12 dPJqL-CD 37.12 01-4~-41~ 01-~40-4120 1010 01-40~Q-41~ m 1010 ~-4170-22.'(~ 1010 01-4~0-31~ 1010 78-7800-230O 1010 01-4~d0-2310 1010 01-4140-4110 01-4140-4110 01-4140-4110 1010 01-406~)-3210 1010 ,'~-4170-4130 1010 01-4140-3~50 1010 PAGE AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITT~MO~D I~OI~ OLE HOLD NO, INVOICE ~R ~ ~TE STA~$ AMOL~T DE~RIPTIDN PP£-PAID ACCOU)~T NU~ AMJ]UNT C',- ~160 3/15/88 3/15/8~ 3,$11.75 ~N Fq~IS~]NE]~. BOARD 3,$11.75 JRNL-CD 01-4110-4250 1010 HS~ CD TR~JL~I]~ VENDD~ TOTAL 311.75 I~40 3/15/88 3115/88 50.00 IACP 50.00 JR~_-CD 01-41~-41~ 1010 INI~EFUqATL ASSN CHIEFS POLl V~-NDOR TOTAL 50.00 I2355 3/15/88 3/15/~ ~.C~ 88 MEMB IAPMO 25.00 JRNL-CD 01-4190-4130 1010 INT~NA1]. ~.SN PL~tB & ~C~ V~DOR TOTAL 25.00 I2400 3/15/~ 3/15/~ 25.00 TOW C~qR 75.00 TOW CAR~ 1~,05 FdEPAIR CARS i"85. ~ d~_-CD 01-4190-8810 0!-41~-4240 01-4140-C~10 1010 ISLA)~] PA~ SKELLY VE){D~ TOT~ 285.05 JSO0 3/15/88 3/15/8.9 23.~ NO STAR MTG 23.80 JRNL-CD 01-41~0-4120 1010 'FENDOR TOTAL 23.80 L2~O 3/15/-~ 3/15/~ 204.82 FEB P~TS 204.~ JRNL-CD 01-4~t~-2310 1010 L~.L'S VEND~ TOTAL 204.82 LC~40 3/15/~$ 3/15/~ 1.5(}.00 ~IND STUM~ 150.00 JRltL-CD $1-4350-5110 1010 LUTZ ~ SE]~VICE VE}~DOR TOTAL 150.00 L2~49 3/15/~ 3/t5/8~ 1~.82 SIGNS 177.82 JR~E.-CD 01-4280-2360 1010 LY~ SIb'I~S, ~13010 INC VE]~JOR TOTAL 3/15/88 3/15/8~g 177.82 217.87 F~ SUPPLIES 4.59 ~ 6.~ VALVE ~.74 FEB S~]PPLIES 261.78 JRht_-CD 01-4~0-~10 01-42S~)-22t)0 78-7800-~00 22-4170-!"q)0 1010 )~:INA AUTO SUFI~LT VE)EQR TOTAL 261.78 3/15/~ 3/15/8.~ 135.00 APR CO~°tFFER SUPPORT 135.00 JPJtL-CD 01-4~- 5~,'~00 1010 MA,SYS CDRPDPJTION ~3080 VE)f!~3R TOTAL 135.00 51,604.00 E,~R-PW BLDG 2'8-60(X}-3100 PAO£ 5 AP-C02-OI PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY.MOUND I~OI~ DUE HOLD ~. I~I~ItMBR ~TE ~TE STATt~S AMOUNT [ESCRIPTION ~-PAID ACCO~ ~,"~]B~ AMOUNT C~J 3/15/88 3/15/88 HCC[~MBS FPg~NK ~ ~S~I* VE~SR TOTAl. 114.00 ~-~C'qEI. INIE P~TECTION 1,070.~ ~NGR-F'E~ ~3.00 BNOR-WATEF~IN 28.00 ENGR-CO 15 28.00 SAN SEWER-S~DN 56.00 ~G-D~K SI~ ~3~00 JFe~L-CD 81-4350-3100 01-41~9-3i00 73-7~K~-31(~D &S-6(~)0-3.', 00 78-78(~-3100 81-4~0-31c.~ 1010 M3150 3/15/6~ 3/15/~ 42.~ MAR PAGE]R, 42,~ JRt~-CD 01-4140-37~0 · 1010 Mi-TRO FONE COMMUNICATIONS VENDOR TOTAL 42.~ Mi N~EC. ASCO 3/15/88 3/15/~ VENSJC~q TOTAL 223.77 F~ ~S ~4.~ FEB GAS ~9.40 ~ ~ ~1.81 FEB ~S t,547.~ JPJ~L-CD 15~9.06 71-7100-37~ 01-4340-3720 ~-4170-37Z~) 01-4320-37~ 1010 3/15/88 3/15/~ M.N C[~NWAY FIRE & SAFETY v~oR TOTAL 147.65 ~dPPLIES t47.65 JRNL-CD 147.65 22-4170-22'70 1010 ~.A70 3115188 3115188 37.40 WATER AN~YSIS 37.40 JPJ~-CD 73-730<)-3100 1010 ~ VALL]EY TESTING ~JP~qTO kE~EE~R TOTAL 37.40 ~ICI-PALS 3/15/~ 3/15/88 ~NI}OR TOTAL 5.00 ~ MEMB-MUNiCIPALS 5.00 JIb'L-CD 01-4090-4130 1010 N2670 3/15/88 3/~5/~ 'N W BElL TE1.EB~(])E ~ ~ TOTAL 173.65 MiR DEDICATED LINE 173.&5 JRNL-CD 173.65 01-4090-~.770 1010 N3680 3/15/~ 3/15/~ 60.00 88 MEMB-NFPA 60.00 JR~4.-CD ~-4170-4130 1010 ~TL FiRE ~OTECTI~ A~N VENDOR TOTAL ~:710 NAVAPJ~.F ~RDWARE 3/15/88 3/15/&~ VENDOR TOTAL 12.58 FEB H~WE 31.22 COFFEE POT 19.14 SALT 21.55 GLOVES-VALVES 118.~ CBD-BL~._BS 203.29 JRNL-CD 203.29 O1 73-7300-~--?C,0 73-7300-2Cq)0 78-78C~-~300 40-6000-2C'~)0 1010 PAGE 6 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE [~JE HOLD NO. Ih~gOICE F~R DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITI OF MOUND AJ'K)UNrT DEEF_,RIPTIDN JOURNAL ACCOUNT NU~ER ~-PAID AMOUNT NC:300 3/15/88 3/15/88 NO~THEFU~ STATES POWEB CO VENDOR TOTAL 03870 3/15/88 3/15/88 OFFICE PRODUCTS-~N VENDO~ TOTAL P4049 Pi_b~'S, I~ P4109 3/15/~ 3/t5/~ ~'N~]R TOTAL. 3115188 3/15/88 PRO LA~NS Gil T~ I_A/(]E ~ VE)E)~ TOTAl. P4114 3/15/~ 3/15/88 ~Y~DLDGICAL A~IATES VENDOR TOTAL SHORELINE Fq_AZA S4402 SITZM~k;U( F_MEq~OIDERT S4430 3/15/88 3/15/88 VE]~D(1q; TOT~ 3115/88 3115188 VENZJOR TOTAL ~3.26 FEB KIFCTRICITY 115.43 FEB ELECTRICITY 399.69 FEB ELECTRICITY 359.97 FEB E1.EC~ICITY 175.63 FEB ELECTRICITY 2,244.3~ FEB ELECTRICITY 1,725.54 FEB ELECTRICITY 44.10 MAR CBD ELECTRICITY 4,850.25 MAR ELECTRICITY 10,278.26 JENL-CD 10238.26 1,885.00 160.00 2,045.00 2045.00 ~.00 30.00 30.00 840.84 62.79 ~03,63 903.63 200,00 1,9~.74 1,?':F3.74 19"")3.74 368.00 368.00 ~8,00 76.99 76.99 76.79 76.99 76.79 38.50 38.50 38.50 38.50 70.I~ LASER PRIN'I1ER ~INT~ SIt°PLIES dR)iL -CI), 2-3-4 EXT~INATI)'~] d~Ut_-CD LAWN SPRAY I~ LAWN SPRAYING JFUt_-CD DIMENS MGMT TRAINING JR~_-CD APR RENT JE14_-CD EMBROIDEBED PATCHES JRNL-CD FtIRC, HASE DRD~ P~ASE DRDE]E'S F~ OFEF_RS P~'CHAS~E ORDERS F. lJRCRASE ORD~$ ~SE DRDE]:~S PUS(]4qSE ~S Pt,~ DPJ~ ~E ~ AFU~EST INFO FORMS 01-4~Q-3710 01-4340-3710 01-43~-3710 71-7100-3710 ~L2-417o-371o 73-7300-3710 78-7800-3710 m0-6000-3710 01-4280-3710 10t0 01-4095-5000 01-4(775-2200 lOiO 71-7100-4200 I010 ~-8000-38(X) 01-4320-~00 1010 01-41~-4110 1010 71-7100-3920 1010 22-4170-~,~00 1010 01-4040-2100 01-40~-2100 01-4140-2100 01-4190-2100 01-4340-2100 01-4~,-'~80-2100 71-7100-2100 73-7300-2100 78-780(1-21~ 01-4140-2120 PAGE 7 ~-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY~MOU~ IN%~]I~ ~ H[~_D ~. INVOI~ ~ ~11~ DAllE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ~-PAID A~[~JNT ~ A~]L~T 3/15/88 3115188 609.90 JRNL-CD I010 PRIMING VENDOR TOTAL 609.90 S~40 3/15/88 3/15/88 101.50 7.00 3;50 I12.00 FEB CAR WASH FEB CAR WASH FEB CAR WASH ~_-CD 01-4140-7810 01-4280-310 01-4190-3810 1010 ~RI~ PAR~ ~R ~ VE~}~ TOTAL I I2.CK) 3/15/88 3/15/88 198.68 ~ PLATES 1~.68 JRNL-CD 81-4~0-~ 1010 ST PAUL STA~ ~mJS VENDOR TOTAL 198.68 S45~ 3115/88 3/15/6~ 152.29 152.28 222,66 527.23 FIX Sil~EE'T LIG~f~S FiX STREET bigHTS RE]~AIR PLUMP ~ 7 ~-CD 01-4280-42~ 40-6000-4~ 73-7300-2~ I010 ~tERNE ELECTRIC CO VENT~R TOTAL 527.~ 546O0 3/'15/88 3/15/88 165.40 191.15 FLASHLIGHTS MINI ~P ~-CD 73-7300-2~)0 ~-4170-2~/~0 1010 STP~E I CH~.R' S VENDOR TOTAL 191.15 S4640 3/15/~ 3/15/E8 ~0.00 BAL DUE-JAN SJERV 380.00 JRNL-CD 01-4270-4~ 1010 9.PER CYCU~ VENDOR TOTAL ~0.0<) T4730 ~.48 OPJ}-P~K A~IS 16.40 ~ ~ AD 15.90 ~G ~TI~S 17.03 CD~ NOTI~ 49.21 AD FOR BI~-PW Bi_~ 153.02 ~-~NL-CD 01-4340-~I0 01-4340-3410 01-4020-3~10 01-4020-3510 28-6000-510 1010 'TH,,'E LAK.,ER VE~OR TOT~ I~.02 T4790 3/15/88 3/15/8~ 45.24 AIR FILTERS 45.24 ~-CD 01-4140-3810 1010 THE~PJ<, BF,1]S [~E"~D;_E-~ VENDOR TOTAL 45.24 3/15/~ 3/15/~ 757.26 REPAIR PBMP 757.26 JiU4.-CD 78-7800-3-0¢~ 1010 llRI-STATE DRILLING VEIkq}OR TOTAL 757.26 T4750 3/15/88 3/15/88 13.62 DIVIDERS FD~ TRU(]( 13.62 JRhL-CD 01-4~-~i0 1010 ?~E 8 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURRAL CITY~ ~8 NO, INVOICE ,N~iBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT [ESCRIPTION F~-PAID ACCOUNT NU~ER AHOUNT TRUCK. UTILITIES VENDOR TOTAL 13,62 TSO00 3/15/88 3/15/~ ~6.55 ALLIED 656.55 JP~L-CD 73-730,0-31(')0 1010 TWIN CITY TESTINO VEN~JR TOTAL 656.55 L~070 3/15/88 3 / 15/$,":J 11.17 CD~ECTIDN TAPE 11.17 ~PS~ECTIDN T~E ~2.34 01-4280-2100 73-73~-2!¢X~ 10!0 UNITED BUSINESS MAC'HI~S VE}~DOR TOTAL 5100 3/15/88 3/15/88 47.06 FEB TOWELS 16.~ FEB R~S I14.00 FEB UNIFORMS 22.b-Y) FIE3 UNIFOR~ 10.40 FEB UNIFOF:~ 34.20 FEB UNiFDFJ'~S b-'7,~ FEB UNIFORMS 2.70 FEB UNIFOR~ 304.96 JR~_-CD 01-4290-~50 O1-4280-2200 01-4~80-~ 01-42S~2-224<) 0t-434-0-2240 73-73~-~4Yj 78-7800-2240 ~-4170-22~K) 1010 ~IT~ RE]iTAL SYSl-~ VE)~qOR TOTAL 304.96 i,~30 3/15/88 3/15/8~ 92.69 CARRYING CASE 92.69 JRNL-CD 78-7~0-5000 1010 ~TER Fi:E)DUCTS C2J'IP~Y VENE)OR TOTAL 92.69 ~..60 3115/88 3/15/~ 5.22 CUPS 5.~ CUPS 5,22 CUPS 5.22 CUPS 5.40 SLFrl~LIES 26.28 ~RI~_-CD Ol 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 01-42"~)-~)0 01-4220-2200 1010 WESTD(tCA FOOl, S VENDOR TOTAL 26,28 W ! T.~IE~ INC 3/15/88 3/15/~ VENDOR TOTAL 885.00 871.75 ~9.50 763.50 702.50 1,0~.~ 9,200.00 ~7.50 6,120.00 .20,798.03 ~798,03 LYNWOOD-APPLE WESTEDGE EAGLE HI GFE~ANT~ IDLEW-HAWTH FAIRV-REPLACE HYDRANT OREI)GE BLACK LAJ<E DF~EZGE S INCLA IR/1.AGO0~ A/P DR~ JENNIN~ JRNL-CI} 73-7300-3800 73-7300-~00 73-7300-~00 73-7300-~00 73-7300-2~00 73-7300-3800 81-4250-5300 81-43,50-5300 1010 3/15/88 3/15/~ 670.59 346.60 1,017.19 CONCRETE SN~ BU~SHOT JFUtl.-CD 01-42EQ-23~ 27-5800-~40 i010 PAGE 9 AP-C02-OI VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ND. INVDICE NMBR DATE DAlE STATUS ~ ML;Fll~ & SDNS W~700 TOTAL 3/15/~ 3/15/88 W~'ST- ~N-LAR, O~O(I X5'/50 XEF(OX COPd:'DRAT I ON YEN~ TOTAL 3/15/8) 3/15/8) VENDO(~ TOTAL TOTAL ~ VENI)DRS PURCHASE CITY DF MDL~iD AMOUNT 1017.19 2,301.00 2,301.0(} 2301,00 353.01 35x3.01 119,617.20 DEEU~RIPTI~ JAN P~SECLFF I~ JR~.-CD FEB ~INT-5600 JP, NLJCD JOURNAL ACCDU~ NUMBER 01-4110-31~ 1010 01-4~J}-3800 1010 ~£-PAID AMOUNT ,}--!,.;ER AL ...... : 0 :':: 9: C.; :> ,:, ~.., ! 0 <.,,:~-C:' C: :37 2:0 0 '? 0 :::' ,:;:' 0 2 7 2 9 C: 2 :;. 3 C) 2'.:P :---: F'EBF:UAi:.:Y ~,: ,.~-. )_"7. :,: ! i.'2 ;544 '-:.'.2!-. ',B 7':7,' z; C:, C, 1 · iC.!LiOR' FUND :--;EWER FUND Cf'FY iDF MOL!N], ', 'F:8:]-', BU£1GET E X PEND ] TL;R~'.--; FEBRUAF'Y i ] 6. 67% BL!F.}ET FEBRUARY YTD EXPENSE EXPENSE VAR iANC:E PER CENT E X F'E N DE13 GEHERAL ...... -' ^ r ,_,,~D TL, T~L 47765 2A%:::(')';' 1 ;::/=,:]-:24. t ~ 2 * ': '; Ar.,.;-;_, Fi r.e Service Fun ,_fi C,',rr, n,,:, n _~. D,-, ,- '~:. c. ~-~-,j r, ,-:_ :-~,au,:,r. Fur, d W~ter Fund '.=;e ~e r. Fur, d DATE: TO: F ROM: RE: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building~ St. Paul~ Mirmesota 55101 612-291-6359 March 8, 1988 Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission Jack Mauritz Mound's Bay Park Boat Launch, Final Report and Recommendations INTRODUCTION On Jan. 14, 1988, the Metropolitan Council accepted the attached Draft Feasibility Report for a parking lot near the Mound's Bay Park boat launch ramp in Mound. The report was distributed to concerned agencies, listed below, to receive their comment for incorporation into a final public report from the Council. The responding agencies are: · Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) · Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SHRPD) · Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) . Hennepin Co. Department of Transportation (H/DOT) · City of Mound This report summarizes received comment, identifies some issues discovered in the course of preparing a final report, analyzes alternatives open to the concerned agencies and makes a recommendation. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Council initiated action on the proposal to use funds allo- cated to Lake Minnetonka Regional Park for developing parking at the public access site (on Lake Minnetonka) in the City of Mound. Council involvement reflects two reasons for participation: 1) the $250,000 allocation is part of the funds the legislature provided for acquisition and development of the regional recreation open space system, making grants from those funds is a specific Council responsibility; 2) the Council is a member of the Metropolitan Water Access Committee, with DNR and DTED, and has endorsed goals and standards for public access to the lakes of the region, including Lake Minnetonka. For those~reasons, and because no other agency has moved on the issue, the Council has initiated this action. The draft report concluded it was possible to provide approximately 20 secured car-trailer parking spaces on a privately owned parcel on Beachwood Rd. near the ramp in Mound's Bay Park. Identified problems to be overcome included expensive engineering requirements to stabilize steep slopes and to deal with storm drainage through the parking lot, the fact that parking would be remote from the ramp, and the measures necessary to provide safe use in proximity to a ~2 heavily used public beach. In 1986, Mound, the logical operator of the pro- posed facility, did not support expansion at any existing boat access point or installing any new accesses within Mound. DISCUSSION Each agency's response has been incorporated in Appendix A. Responses in certain issue areas are summarized in Table 1. A quick scan of the table shows that all respondents except SHRPD, which did not comment on the topic, agree the project is possible. Three--kMCD, H/DOT and Mound--said the project should be done, though Mound's endorsement is not necessarily for the project envisioned in the dra~ report. In effect, Mound has indicated it wants to consider other options for providing access (see "Issues" for full discussion). The agencies that supported the project also a~eed that Mound was the appropriate manager. Two agency responses addressed the implications of this project for the planned Lake Minnetonka Regional Park in Zone 5. SHRPD stated its intent to assess the outcome of decisions abo~t this project on plans for the park in Minnetrista. DNR pointed out that this project did not satisfy the widely endorsed 1983 Lake Minnetonka Task Force recommendations for public access numbers and locations in Zone 5. As a consequence, it did not find this site to be a preferred location. DNR would rather finalize the provisions of the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park master plan and review all opportunities which might better meet the criteria for the zone before endorsing this project. In the same context, LMCD, in supporting the project, notes that it should be developed to meet both LMCD and DNR reliable~parking standards, a significant point in the issues discussion, below. ISSUES Issues to be resolved include: 1. What is the nature of the project being considered in Mound? Is it consistent with the legislation? 2. What effect will the added oar-trailer parking capacity have on matters in which the Council has expressed interest? Specifically; - The number of secured car-trailer parking spaces in Zone 5? - The planned regional park? Issue l: a) Nature of the project and b) its consistency with legislation. a. Nature of the Project The Mound City Council action of Feb. 20 was: ...go'on record of recommending developing 20 to 30 secured spaces for car-trailer use in the Mound portion of Zone 5, and request more time to study the Beachwood site and/or other sites in Mound. Discussion with Mound City Manager, Ed Shukle, confirmed that the intent of the city council is to look for possible places to provide 20-30 reliable car- trailer spaces at several sites in the city, not only at the Beachwood site. The city is not ready to identify alternates, though examples were brought up in its discussions. Unless the other sites considered also support Mound's Bay Park--the only free public ramp in Mound--selecting other sites could mean building ramps as well as parking spaces. The city ~ade clear that it means to consider smaller~ scattered sites which could provide a total of 20-30 car- trailer spaces, as well as considering the Beachwood sit~, where 20-30 could be provided in one place~ If some or all of the scattered sites are locations where secured car-trailer parking can be provided on the site of a ramp, it could be an improvement. From the city's view~ dispersing trailer parking and directing boat use away from the city beach may also be a benefit. There could be other advantages to users if the number of launch ramps were increased, even if the number of secured parking spaces at each are few. There could be an increase in unmarked car-trailer spaces near each new ramp~ if Mound decided not to post such space against car-trailer use. The spaces could not be considered as secured under the DNR standards~ which the Council also endorses~ but could still increase the actual public small craft access. The latter point could be good or bad, depending upon one's perception of how fully Lake Minnetonka boating capacity is used. Proposals for smaller and more dispersed ramps may meet with opposition in the neighborhoods where they are proposed~ an obvious drawback. Smaller~ dispersed sites, especially if the parking is remote from the launch ramp~ may be more difficult for the public from outside Mound to find and use~ perhaps requiring unusual or expensive public information effort and special signage. They may be a bit more expensive to care for and will be more difficult to patrol with appropriate frequency. Council staff inquired about conditions Mound might impose on use of the endorsed 20-30 spaces. City staff stated there was no intent to apply restrictions such as residence~ differential fees or hours~ ete.~ to any users. b. Le$islative Consistenc~ The language in the bill is as follows; ...of the $6 million, the sum of $250,000 may be used to develop parking and a pedestrian underpass to support the public access site in the city of Mound. The only recognized public access site in Mound is the ramp at Mound's Bay Park. Given the explicit legislative language, if Mound's exploration of alternative sites results in a proposal supporting other than the Mound's Bay Park ramp, Council legal staff believes legislative approval could be necessary before it can be funded. The approval, with a local decision not yet made, could not be obtained during the present session. Among the Council's concerns at that point would be that this not become an argument for furthsr delay in Lake Minnetonka Regional Park decisions. Issue 2. Effect on matters of Council interest. Secured Car-trailer Spaces In Zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka The 1983 Lake Minnetonka Task Force established that 136 secured car-trailer parking spaces was an adequate allocation for Zone 5. The distribution was endorsed by the 1985 Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka, the Metropolitan Council, DNR and LMCD, among others. The draft report contained some inaccurate numbers--the following are verifiable. Secured car-trailer spaces are signed or otherwise reserved for car-trailer parking and are within 1500 feet of the ramp they serve. Currently, the DNR King's Point Launch offers 32 secured, on-site parking spaces in the zone, and there are 28 spaces at roadside within 1500 feet of the Williams St. access in Minnetrista, on the north shore of Halsted's Bay. The latter are considered to be "secure" whether si~ned or not, since the city has stated its ~llingness to make them secure, although it may not have installed the signs. Four car-trailer spaces across the West Upper Lake, at the Phelps location, also serve Zone 5, but are not considered secured. Thus, a current total of "secured" car-trailer parking spaces is 60. If Mound provides 30 secured spaces, the maximum in its agreement, the required new spaces to meet the 136-space goal for Zone 5 becomes 46. By the agreement between the DNE and Minnetrista, if a regiona~ park is established in Minnetrista on Lake Minnetonka, King's Point will be closed and turned over to the city for other Dub!ic use. At that point, the secured sites in Zone 5 would be reduced by 3~, calling for 78 spaces to meet the goal, rather than 46. At this time, there are no active proposals to meet any part of the goal at other sites in the zone. Effect on Park Master Planning Some participants in the discussion believe the regional park must provide all spaces to meet the goal. Others have recognized that, desirable as it might be to meet the entire goal in one action, doing so might work against the park. They suggest it might be better if some of the goal was met at other sites not yet identified. The Council's position, consistent with its regional park policies, is that .the. decision on the number of car-trailer spaces in'a Lake Minneton'ka Regional Park master plan must be made on what the final parkland can effectively support. That is, how many spaces can be provided which will maximize the quality of experience to park users without de~edation of the resource. This report is not the appropriate place to determine that number-- the regional park master plan is. The Council-approved acquisition plan calls for 100 spaces. Detailed development planning may change the number. The Council has agreed to goals for spaces in each zone which will provide adequate public access to Lake Minnetonka. The goals should be the major guide for service in the zone, and the final number for the park should be consistent. Persons with high interest in the appropriate amount of public access to Lake MLnnetonka, plus others whose principal interest is in the appropriate size for the regional park, have promulgated the idea that not only must the regional park meet all the balance of c~--trailer space numbers recommended for this zone, but also thattthe number of needed spaces is the principal deter- minant for the size of the park. Neither assumption is warranted. It is true that the issue of boat access to the lake was the original cause of Council and task force involvement; it is equally true that all agencies concerned with regional recreation open space envisioned a full range of lake-related recre- ation service in this regional park. Master planning discussions for this park have made it clear that size of the park is driven by needed adequate space for the multiple functions it will serve, not solely or even predominantly by the amount of space it will provide for the single function of boating access. This raises a significant issue for Mound. State Sen. Gen Olson, who has acted as the contact with Mr. Blanch, the potential donor of the property on Beachwood Rd., states that his gift is dependent upon limiting the park in Minnetrista to the land east of relocated CSAH 44. His offer is withdrawn if parkland is acquired west of the corridor. Thus, if the currently approved master plan becomes the controlling document for the park~ Blanoh's oondition will not be met~ and his offer of land for access in Mound is likely to be withdrawn. SUP~W~RY/CONCLUSIONS A majority of the agencies queried about the possibility of providing an off-site car-trailer parking facility near the Mound's Bay Park ramp agreed that it was possible; a smaller majority agreed that it should be dcn¢. 2. No agency saw a need for a pedestrian underpass as part of the°facility. 3. Mound's acceptance of "developing 20-30 secured spaces," if implemented, will help to meet the goal of 136 spaces for Zone 5. 0 The distance between the parking area and the ramp, and the ramp's proximity to a sometimes bu~y swimming beach remain as problems if Mound decides to go ahead with the Beachwood Rd~ parking facility. At the sa~e time, the city and other observers are aware that the public is using the ramp and parking on Beachwood Rd. right now. This certainly indicates the problem is not insoluble. The legislation appears to provide funds for this access point; if Mound chooses to meet the need elsewhere, they will need to get a legislative change to use the money. ge If the legislature agrees with SHRPD and the Council/MPOSC in their endorsement of a regional park based on Alternative A and allows park acquisition to proceed without Minnetrista's consent, the entire discussion of this access may become moot in that Blanch will probably withdraw his offer. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Metropolitan Council should: 1. Recognize that Mound's action to secure 20-30 car-trailer spaces on Lake Minnetonka will help meet goals which the Council has endorsed for Zone 5. Advise Mound that if it chooses to provide the 20-30 spaces at other sites, they must be secured by DNR standards, as endorsed by the Council, to be eligible for funds from the regional allocation. Inform Mound, that in the Council's opinion, if the city proceeds with sites that do not support the existing public ramp in Mound, as does the Beachwood site, the $250,000 from the Lake Minnetonka allocation in the 1987 bonding bill may not be used to develop them without legislative approval. 03.09.88 EPO33P/PHENV1~5 c E E 0 C E 0 c '~ 0 F,,, 0 CITY of MOUND February 22, 1988 Steve Keefe Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Keefe: The City of Mound has reviewed the draft feasibility report for a proposed boat launch parking lot in the City of Mound. As I indicated to you in an earlier letter, the City of Mound intended to give you a response by March 1, 1988. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the City's position. Upon receipt of the report, it was submitted to the City Council at the January 26, 1988 Council meeting. They deferred discussing the matter until February 20, 1988. They also stated that they would like the Planning Commission and the Park Commission to review it and submit their input. Both advisory committees did so on February 8th and 11th, 1988, respectively. The recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Park Commission happened to be the same. It states: "The Planning Commission and Park Commission go on record o'f 'recommending developing 20 to 30 secured spaces for car-trailer use in the Mound portion of Zone 5, and request more time to study th,e Beachwood site and/or other sites in Mound." This recommendation was accepted by the City Council, at its special meeting of February 20, 1988. Thus, the City Council would like more time to study the matter, but goes on record as developing 20 to 30 secured spaces for car-trailer use in Mound. Mr. Steve Keefe February 22, 1988 Page 2 In your letter of January 20, 1988, you requested that the Metropolitan Council would be interested in the City's thoughts concerning who the appropriate agency would be to operate the parking lot. In the discussions with the advisory committees and City Council, it became apparent that the City of Mound would have to be the responsible agency for operating the facility. However, the initial cost, which we understand ~o be $250,000 for development, would come from the bonding bill passed by the legislature in 1987. I hope that this input will assist Metropolitan Council in its work with the legislature on this issue. If the City of Mound can be of any further assistance on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Edward ~. _ . City Manager CC: Senator Gen Olson Dirk deBri~s, Metropolitan Council Dist. 13 Jack Mauritz, Metropolitan Council ES:ls & ENNEPIN m~ January 27, 1988 Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 12015 County Roaa 9 PO Box '~1320 Ph, rnou?h MN 55'~ 1 TeieDnone (C 12 ) 559-900G Board of Commissioners Dovi~ Lat~,'oaho Cho~r C-oioem Vo,ev Shirley A. Bonine Judith S. Ro~fl L. Ellinglon Nicholas Mona H. M~e Nell We~r Vern J. Hortenburg S~lDeflntenaent & / to the Mr. Steve Keefe, Chair Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 OFFICE Dear Mr. Keefe: This letter is in follow up to your correspondence of January 20, 1988, pertaining to the draft feasibility report of a boat launch parking lot in Mound. This item was presJnted as an informational piece on January 7~ 1988 to the Hennepin Parks Board 6f Commissioners. No formal action was taken by the Hennepin Parks Board; however, the following may be understood from the discussion which occurred at this meeting (Minutes enclosed): Hennepin Parks would not consider ownership and/or operational responsibility for the boat launch parking lot facility. Hennepin Parks would not choose to comment as to the appropriateness of this facility, recognizing that this determination rests with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and other local agencies (Hennepin County, Lake Mtnnetonka cities) who currently overate launch sites. It is recognized that the decision regarding the parking lot in Mound could affect the design parameters and' requirements relating to the propose~ park on Lake Minnetonka. Once a decision is made regarding the boat launch parking lot, the implications for the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park proposal will be assessed and pursued accordingly by Hennepin Parks. If you have any questions on this reply or desire any further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me or Vern Hartenburg, Superintendent. Sincerely, Shirley A. Bonine, Chair Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners SAB:ghd Encl. Regular Board Meeting - 6 - January l, 198B plantings of tYees and prairie grasses are carrieU out. However, even in those areas, if adjacent to property owners, the Park District attempts to control thistles. Thistles can be controlled by mowing, but in many areas it is not possible to mow three or four times a month. JahnKe stated timing of spraying is very important. The Park District has an agreement with local weed inspectors that thistles will be controlled. Plantings take ten to twenty years to provide a canopy cover to reduce weeds. _~ In answer to Ellingson's query about other weeds, he was informe~ that the. Park District currently has funding to study control of purple loosestrife. Leafy spurge is another problem, found primarily south of Hayzata. Also, in areas where complaints are often received, Park District staff monitor weed conditions and spray as needed. Anderson askeU if the Park Dls.trict should be concerned about chemical ' !reatment of water. JahnKe explained that through the use of beach barrier curtains, copper sulfate is introduced in smaller areas to prevent swimmers' itch. Chemicals may be considered for control of purple loosestrife. NeeU cutters have been used in various park reserves. Ellingson stated that he would like to see the Park Reserve work towards non-use of chemicals. Bonine agreed with this position. 'Draft Fea~ibi'lity Re~ort. on Boat Launch Parking Lot at Mound The Board received from the Metropolitan Council a draft Feasibility Report on a boat launch parking lot across CSAH llO from the Mound's Bay Park access ramp. The 1987 State Bonding Bill allocated $6 million for the acquisition and betterment of land on Lake Minnetonka for a regional park. " . of the $6 million, the sum of $250,000 may be used to develop parking and a pedestrian underpass to support the public access site in the city of Mound." The Board discussed the appropriateness of responding to the Metropolitan Council feasibility report. It was the consensus of the Board that the Park District will follow this project, recognizing that improved car/trailer parking for public access to Lake Minnetonka is to be encouraged. Chanqe Order No. 2 to the Contract with Arnt Construction Company. Inc. for G~lf Course Modifications - Cleary Lake Regional Park The contract for this work was awarded in July of 1986. The original contract amount was SI41,100. Change Order No. 1 was approved at the same time the contract was awarded. It reduced the amount of the contract by $14,844 by eliminatt'ng the new irrigation pump, motor, starter and controls, the floor slab in the pumphouse building and some drainage work on the golf course. The purpose of Change Order No. 1 was to allow the project to be built within the original project budget. LAKE 402 EAST LAKE STREET MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 FRANK MIXA, EXECUTIVE D~RECTOR BOARO MEMBERS Robert Rascop, Chairman Shorewood JoEllen Hurr. Vice Chairman Orono Wally Clevenger, Secretary M~nnetr~sta Mark WestlunO. Treasurer Wayzata Marvin Bjorlin Tonka Bay Jan Boswmkel Mmnetonka Beach Richard J Garwood Deephaven Peter V!ctorla Ron IKraemer Sprln¢ Park Richa -d Ne' Greenwooo Robed K. Pillsbury Minnetonka Thomas W. Reese Mound Robert E Slocum Woodland Carl H. Weisser Excelsior February 16, 1988 ~EIROPOLiI~,N COUNCIL Steve Keefe, Chair Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, MN 55101 C,,U, AtRN~,AN'S OFFICE Dear Mr. Keefe: re: Draft Feasibility Report - Boat Launch Parking Lot in City of Mound Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the feasibility report for the boat launch parking lot in Mound. The District Board has had an opportunity to review the pro- posal and, by majority vote, has determined to support the project adding the following conditions: 1. The plan Should meet LMCD and DRN reliable parking standards. 2o The LMCD recognizes it has no direct authority in the matter. 3. Safety of the public beach should be considered. 4. Mound should be the agency responsible for the project. 5. Street crossing safety should be provided for. Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this pro- ject, which should be of benefit to the Lake, and for the extension so that we could respond. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Executive Director jm c: Senator Gen Olson Dirk deVries Jack Mauritz ? %Z. PHONE NO. STATE OF EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Region VZ ~eadc~3~te~s, 1200 ~r Ro~, St. ~1, b~ 55106 (612) 296-3572 FILE NO. Mr. Steven Keefe Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Pau/, Minnesota 55101 Febz,~r-f 3, 1988 Dear Mr. Keefe: Our department has revie~=d the "Draft Feasibility Report-Boat Launch Parking Lot Mound", and has the following co~ne~ts to offer. The department does agree with the fact that a parking lot could be established for car-trailer use, ho~=ver, substantial improvements wou/d be required on the site and it could be very expensive. It is also not consistent with the reconm~m~lations of the 1983 Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force. The 1983 Task' Force Report, on page 7, listed off-site parking as less preferable than on-site parking. At the present time, Hennepin Parks is pur~ on-site parking through the establishment of a Regional Park on Lake Minnetonka. The 1983 Task Force Report also recommended, on page 3, that additional public boat launch opportunities be provided on the south and west shores, because the majority of the existing publicly o~ned boat launch capacity is located on the north and east shore. The Regional Park proposal also satisfies this recommeDdatton, unlike the Mour~ Bay Park site. The Department of Natural Resources does not prefer this site as an alternative as long as the possibility exists to obtain a site that better meets the reo~~ criteria. Once scrae decisions are made rec3~rding the Regional Park issue, we ~a~uld be willing to reconsider our position on th_is site. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. If I can provide you with any a~Jtional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kathleen A. W~llace Pe~ional Administrator KAW/MR188/ J1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER HENNEPIN BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE A-2307 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0237 Phone (612) 348-4077 February B, 1988 Mr. Steve Keefe, Chair Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Chair Keefe: RE' Draft Feasibility Report - Boat Launch Parking Lot in Mound The Hennepin County Department of Transportation analyzed the proposed boat launch parking lot last fall and submitted that data with respect to engineering standards and safety directly to the Metropolitan Council in a letter dated October 26, 1987. I am in agreement with the content of that letter which documented that the proposed entrance meets all site distance criteria for passenger cars except for semi-trailers and other large slow-moving vehicles where the site distance to the right was slightly below minimums. The car trailer use proposed for the site should be nd safety problem as these vehicles typically have the ability to accelerate more quickly than the semi-trailer trucks. The need for a pedestrian underpass appears to be an expense that is not warranted. I would question the amount of use it would receive as past experience indicates pedestrians are reluctant to use undercrossings, and vandalism continues to be a problem for these types of structures. Therefore, I would recommend a painted pedestrian crossing on the north (left) side of the parking lot entrance as the best alternative for pedestrian safety and use. I do strongly support constructing the additional parking area which is really an addition to the existing Mounds Bay Park. From personal experience, I can attest to the shortage of parking in the vicinity of the boat ramp. Several times I have launched at this site and had to park on CSAH 110 one-half mile or more north of the boat launch ramp. This creates safety problems on the CSAH highway where parking also exists to serve the Mound business community. Vehicles try to back around residential street corners or make illegal turns and create a real hazard. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer I feel the additional parking is definitely needed and see it as essentially an extension of the existing parking for the Mounds Bay Park. Thus, the appropriate operating agency should be the City of Mound who presently has jurisdiction over Mound's Bay Park. With a little ingenuity, I think the parking lot could be designed to provide parking for cars only directly next to the CSAH llO right of way with the car trailers parked in back, and still provide at least 20 stalls for the car trailers. If I can provide additional input, please contact me. Si~cerely~ C~ern' T .' ~en~:~ing~ Associate ~ount~Administrator and County Engineer VTG:meh cc: Senator Gert Olson Dirk deVries Jack Mauritz DRAFT FEA~IBILiTY REPORT BOAT LAUNC~ PARKING LOT IN MOUND INTRODUCTION The 1987 State Bonding Bill allocated $6 million for the acquisition and betterment of land on Lake Minnetonka for a regional park. The bill also incorporated language as follows: ...of the $6 million the s,,m of $250,000 may be used to develop parking and a pedestrian underpass to support the public access site in the city of Mound. BACKGROUND The basic document for public agencies concerned about bhe adequacy of ~ublic access for boat launching has been the report of the 1983 Task Force for Lake Mlnnetonkm (SBTF), which established a desired number of boat spaces in each of five zones on the lake in terms of reliable parking spaces for boat-trailer- auto combinations using public ramps. In zone 5, the west/southwest end of the lake, the report recommended 136 such spaces and stated that there were no reliable spaces in the zone. At the time, there were existing ramps but none had publicly owned, leased, or otherwise protected parking spaces which were designated for car-trailers using the ramp. The 83TF report has since been endorsed by the Metro Water Access Task Force, composed of MnDNR, MnDTED and Metropolitan Council, by Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and by the 1985 Metropolitan_CDuncil Task Force on Lake Minnetonka (MCTFLM). - As of 1985, the ramp at Halstead Bay Rd. in zone 5, provided approximately 16 roadside spaces which could be considered reliable. Since that time, there have been no added reliable spaces at existing ramps in zone 5. The new DNR-owned facility at King's Point added a new ramp and 20 new reliable spaces in 1987. For purposes of this discussion, Council staff assumed that approximately 100 reliable spaces are still needed in zone 5. The MCTFLM in 1986 recommended that a regional park be established as part of the solution to the problems of public access to Lake Minnetonka. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SHRPD) proposed in 1987 that all or a major portion of the 100 reliable spaces called for in zone 5 could be located between two sites within a regional park on land located in Minnetrista.· During~negotiations about the park, State Sen. Gen Olson informed Hennepin Parks, the Council and MnDNR that an individual was willing to acquire a site in Mound, near Mound's Bay Park, and would donate the property for car trailer parking. Council staff assumed at the time that the offe~ was made to reduce the number of car-trailer spaces which would be provided in the new park, enabling a reduction in the size of the park as well. The offer was considered by Hennepin Parks, MnDNR and Council staff, but was not recommended to any parent body for endorsement. When the 1987 bonding bill passed the legislature, it allocated $6 mill~on co_ntained the $250,000 use ride~ outlined .-'.['- .'~ '. ...... r~ne~onka pa~k ~nd of the legal ~ ..... .~. ~___' __ ~ ~ une ln~roouctlon~ above. Beca se ~ng's Point access =.~ ~ ........... ~o~d affec~ the furze of the , .... u~a~ ~ne n~r or reliable ca- '--'~ .... , - . P~o~ded in the ~rk h~ not been ~esolved~ Co. oil staff h~ ~derta~n this feasibility analysis for consideration by the water Mo~d and othe~ concerned ~rties. DISCUSSION PHYSICAL LAYOUT The proposed parking area is approximately two acres in size and is located approximately 300 feet north and 8~0 feet west of the Mound's Bay Park access ramp, across CSAH 110. The site is basically an excavated parcel of land, some of it back-filled, with a sSeep slope along much of its west and north ~oun- daries up to higher adjacent private laad.' An estimate, provided by MnDNR (attached), states that the site is adequate for 20 car-trailer spaces. Council staff observation on-site indicates there will be necessary engineering provisions. They include structures for handling surface water runoff and retaining wall or landform for the steep slope along some of the 500 feet length and the .west end of the Parcel, both along private land. Entrance to the property is frc~ Beachwood Rd. along its northern boundary, and vehicle re-entry to CSAH 110 would be from Beachwood Rd., at the northeast corner of the oroperty. CSAH 110 forms the east boundary of the parcel, sloping from approximately 951 feet elevation to 943 feet elevation from south to north. Sight distance from the entrance (Beachwood Rd./CSAH 110) is reported by Henne~in County Dept. of Transportation at 360 feet to the south ("B" attached), on an exiting driver's right hand, and is unlimited to the north. Speed limit at the entrance intersection is 30 mph on CSAH 110. Across Beachwood Rd., to the north, a wetland, actually part of the shoreline of Langdon Lake, supports bog birch, cottonwood and box elder. Staff interprets the plant growth to indicate very wet organic soil lles nearly to .the road edge. The wetland is approximately five feet lower than Beachwood Rd., which appears to lie on fill. A sketch of the area, ("C") shows the relationship of the ramp and the rest of Mound's Bay Park, which lie across. CSAH 110, mostly to the north and east of the proposed parking site. Some distance estimates are on the sketch. PARKING LOT USE PATTERNS Boaters launching at Mound's Bay Park ramp enter the ramp approach from CSAH 110. After iaunching, they would drive back out to CSAH 110 and then to the lot (about 1,500 fee't). Boaters approaching from the west/south could look into the parking area as they passed to ensure that a space was open. Boaters from CSAH 110 to the east/north would not be able to see into the lot and might risk launching their boats only to encounter a filled Da/-king lot when they drove to it. . The launch ramp is not visible frc~ within the proposed parkin6 space. CSAH 110 stands several feet higher than the lot and approximately 10 feet higher than the lakeshore. By the most direct path, dia~onally across the park, it is about 700 feet from the northeast corner of the lot to the ramp. The ramp would be visible during most of the walk. There is no make-ready dock or area at the Mound's Bay Park ramp. Staff assumed that boats would be beached after launching, probably on the adjacent north end of the swimming beach since private docks are close on the other side. Space for a make-ready structure would need to come from the shore south of ramp, towards the park beac.h. Individuals without companions would be forced to leave their boat and its contents unattended for at least the time required to drive to the lot and walk back across CSAH 110. From that point, the beached boat would be in sight. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON CSAH 1 10 One of the particulars in the bill, quoted in the introduction, is provision of a pedestrian underpass. The Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation letter reports that a pedestrian underpass from the proposed lot to Mound's Bay is feasible. However, CSAH 110 traffic counts, even on the busiest days, did not approach the numbers that Mn/DOT normally uses to warrant a pedestrian crossing signal or a crossing device such as an underpass. During a visit on site, a painted pedestrian lane located far enough north of the Beachwood Rd./CSAH 110 intersection to provide better sight distance was suggested as adequate. In HCDOT experience, the public has been reluctant to use underpasses unless the crossing area is perceived as very dangerous, which was not likely to b~ the perception here. In other words, if an expensive underpass were provided, there's high probability that most pedestrians would still cross CSAH 110 at grade unless special enforcement measures were provided. Numbers of pedestrians making the crossing are few. If 50 launches and retrievals are assuaed, only 50 pedestrians will need to cross CSAH 110 per day. ' CAR TRAILER ENTRANCE AND EXITS ON CSAH 110 The road entrance to the Mound's Bay Park ramp has more than adequate~Sight distance available in both directions. Car-trailers waiting to turn left, i.e., facing oncoming CSAH 110 traffic from the south, could be a problem in that following traffic, from the north, may not have adequate space to pass on the right. The low ADT counts may render this a minor problem. At the Beachwood Rd./CSAH 1lO-intersection, for car-trailers leaving CSAH 110, problems are few. There is no barrier for those coming from the north and making right turns, and few will enter by left turns from the south since they will not have been to the ramp. Car-trailers lea~.ng the lot will have different experiences. From Beachwood Rd., sight distance to the driver's left (i.e., north) exceeds the minlm~. However, cars making the right turn enter an approximate seven percent ~-ade and could have unexpectedly poor acceleration. This is not anticipated to be a major problem~ most car-trailers leaving the lot will turn left to the ramp~ the opposite direction. Car-trailers turning left onto CSAH 110 from Beachwood Rd. will find adequate sight distances to the left and about 350 feet to the right (i.e., south). Traffic standard~ rate this distance adequate for p~ssenger vehicles, inadequate for larger~ slower moving vehicles. A car- trailer combination is intermediate in these classes. Staff rates sight distance tc the south as margln~l. Traffic coming from the right~ down the seven percent grade, may also be traveling somewhat faster than usual, and could require longer than usual stopping distances. LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AT MOUND'S BAY PARK RAMP AND BEACH If the 20 oar-trailer sites are filled on a busy lake use day~ and a typica~ park turnover of 2.5 per day assumed, there w~_l! be 50 launches and retriev~ls per day from this parking area. Current use data (1986 counts in Boating on Lake Mir~netonka, a report by Bicentric, Inc. to LMCD) for lake area 3, which this ramp enters~ shows a variation from 6 to 22 boats in the area at the time of the various counts. Average sun~zer count is 25~ taken from samples at typical peak use times. The addition of 20 boats to this area, given that most would not stay solely in lake area 3 during their visit, is not regarded as a significant .impact on boat numbers on the lake. Lake area 3 is p~rt of zone of the 83TF report, which is one of two rated more lightly used and recommended for expanded access. It is worth noting, however, that lake area 3 is one of the sm~ller areas, hence an average s,~mer count of 25 boats represents signif- icantly higher density than does the average st~mer count of 34 on adjacent area 4~ which has more than twice the surface of area 3. No stat~_stics were obtained on swimm~ng use at Mounds Bay Beach. Observations support the general opinion that it is bu~y. It is used at or nea~ capacity on most nice days during the season. TV? S~RY/CONCLUSiONS Input from the Hen_nepin County Dept. of Transportation indicates that the site meets safety criteria mar~.inally with respect to sight distance at the exit in the traffic conditiorm a car-trailer must enter. It also indlcate~ that neither the proposed number of pedestrians or the extent of auto traffic on CSAH 110 meet the criteria or "warrants" for a pedestrian crossing management structure or device. Input ~from MnDNR indicates the proposed parking area can provide 20 car-trailer parking spaces. Council staff found that substantial improvements would be required to stabilize the steep earth wall above the parking area and Council staff anticipates a need to deal with storm water draining tD. rough the site. Discussion in the 1983 Task Force Report for boat launch facilities makes it clear that off-site parking is not a preferred arrangement. Individuals, especially, would be forced to leave their boat and gear unsupervised to park their car. In this case, boats and gear would be left adjacent to a very busy recreation use area. DNR, while trying to meet reliable parking needs at ramps in zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka, is not enthusiastic about this site. The proximity of the ramp to the busy Mound's Bay ?~rk swi~ng be~ch has potential to create problems for the city. In the experience of Hennepin Parks planners, power boat launching, retrieving and traffic into the lake is not c~patible with swi-~ing and beach management safety. At Baker Park Reserve on Lake Independence, the launch was moved 400 feet from the beach after several years' experienos with a closer location. District planners seek 300-400 feet as a "rule of thumb" minimum in their current planning. Mound, the managing agency for the ramp, would need to review and devise mechanisms to mitigate potential conflicts. Mound has taken an earlier position on this subject ("D" attached). The legislation provides develo~ent funds but nothing for operation and. management of the ramp or parking area. The site is not in a regional recreation open space facility, and Hennepin Parks, the designated regional implementing agency in this area, has stated that it does not wish to operate freestanding facilities of this type. MnDNR prefers exploring on-site parking opportunities in'zone 5 before developing an off-site parking area. Nennepin County Public Works and Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation have not expressed interest in operating a facility of this type. The ramp is currently operated by the city of Mound, presumably a public boat- trailer parking area for ramp users could also be operated by the city. the city of Mound is I be an expensive facility and its remote location (from the ramp) is a drawback. Increasing ramp .use in proximity to the park SW~mmtng beach appears to be a negative factor in the proposal, as well. RECOmmENDATION That the Metropolitan Council: Accept this feasibility report for transmittal to interested agencies, including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the City of Mound. 2. Request comments from interested agencies. 3. Prepare a final report, incorporating the received comments, for the Minnesota State Legislature and other interested parties. 12.1~.87 EPO01A/PHOPNI~6 DEPARTMENT DATE TO FROM PHONE SUBJECT of Na~c, ra2 P, esou~ces November ~, 1987 STATE OF MINNESOTA © ice Memorand. um Jack Mauritz P~rks Plarm~r Metropolitan Council 296-3572 BAY PARK PUBLIC ~ - P;tRKING ~AR~ION I have reviewed the possible parkir~ exT~_nslcn site across fromM munds Bay Park alor~ with Beachhead Road. AfTer !ookir~3 it over, I have the following info~tion to offer. The site, although sign/flcant in size, Uresents a number of to ~'~t. Fi~= of all, ~ ~t '~r~t, ~ ~ st~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t si~ of ~ lo~. s=~ili~ti~ of ~ sl~ ~d ei~r ~ ~ ~i~, ~h ~ ~ of a ~i~ ~~ ~1, or ~d si~fl~tly size of ~ si~e. ~h ~a~l~ ~ ~t ~s si~e ~d ~te 3ob of s~iliz~ ~ st~. I= ~d ~ibty~~~e A few other is~:e~ to tak~ into ccr~ideratic~ inclen, the i~ of viewir~ site of one's belongir~3s ~uen going to park, ar~ the busy road that w~u/d hav~ to be ~ a m~P~r of t~ by people. If you need any ~tiona/ information please feel tree to give me a call. MR165/Jl cc: Delos Barber Kav. b_l een ~/lace HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Ay. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 October 26, 1987 Mr. Robert E. Nethercut Metropolitan Council Manager, Parks and Natural Resources 300 Metro Square Bldg. 7th & Robert St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Nethercut, As you requested, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation has analyzed the proposed parking lot at the southwest quadrant of CSAH 110 and Beachwood Road and a connecting peOestrtan underpass to Mound Bay Park, with respect to engineering standards and traffic safety. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT) Design Manual recommends a minimum vertical and horizontal dimension of eight feet for a pedestrian underpass. The minimum invert elevation of a pedestrian underpass at this location is 931 feet above sea level, based on the lO0 year floqd elevation of Lake Minnetonka. The roadway elevation of CSAH 110 adjacent to the property varies from approximately 943 feet above sea level to 951 feet above sea level. Consequently, the elevation differentia' between, t. he highway and Lake Minnetonka is sufficient to construct a pedestrian underpass. There are no rigi~ criteria ?or warranting pedestrian/vehicle grade separations. However, the MN/DOT Design Manual makes the following statements concerning pedestrian underpasses and overpasses: "Pedestrian underpasses should be provided where pedestrian volume and traffic volume warrant, and other conditions favor 'their use over pedestrian bridges. In general, pedestrians are very reluctant to use undercrossings because of the feeling of confinement and limited sight distance.' "Pedestrian overpasses should be considered where a combination of pedestrian volumes, traffic volumes, and safety hazards favor their use. No rigid threshold criteria are appropriate for warranting a pedestrian overpass. However, the following may serve as general guidance: HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opp<>rtunlty employer Mr. Robert'E. Nethercut Page 2 Freeways may divide areas where pedestrian crossings would otherwise be high. If highway crossings are spaced relatively far apart, a pedestrian overpass many De justified. Pedestrian overpasses may be warranted where the traffic and pedestrian volumes exceed the criteria presented in Section 4C-5 "Minimum Pedestrian Volume' of the MUTCD for warranting pedestrian-actuated or exclusive pedestrian phases for traffic signals. 3. Pedestrian overpasses may be waranted where a significant safety hazard exists." Section 4C-5 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) referenced above states' "The Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is-satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the following traffic volumes exist' On the major street, 600 or more vehicles per hour enter the intersection (total of both approaches): or where there is a raised median island 4 feet or more in width, 1,O00 or more vehicles per hour (total of both approaches) enter the intersection on the major street~ and During the same 8 hours as in paragraph (1) there are 150 or more pedestrians per hour on the highest volume crosswalk crossing the major street.' The 1986 annual average daily traffic (AADT) on this segment of CSAH ilo was 6,650 vehicles per day. Due to the high recreational use of CSAH 110 in this area, the Hennepin County DOT conducted a traff!c volume study on CSAH 1lO'at Beachwood Road during the Labor Day weekend to determine whether a holiday weekend results in significantly higher volume. A copy of the results are attached. The study was conducted from lO:iS a.m., Friday, September 4, I987 through 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, September 8, 1987. The volumes were 6,6?8, ?,645, 6,346 and 6,?20 for' September 4th, 5th, Sth and ?th respectively. Traffic volumes exceeded 600 vehicles per hour for only 4 hours during one day, falling considerably short of the minimum pedestrian volume criteria of t~e MUTCD. The site distance from the BeachwooU Road/CSAH 110 intersection appears to be inadequate to the south (to a driver's right). However, the'measured available site distance from this intersection to the driver's right is 350 feet and to the driver's left is unlimited. The recommended site distance for a 30 mph speed is 260 feet to the driver's right and 350 feet to the driver's left for passenger vehicles. The recommended site distance for semi-trailers Mr. RoDert £. Nethercut Page 3 and other large, slow moving vehicles is 400 feet to the driver's right and 500 feet to the driver's left. Consequently, the adquancy of the available site distance is questionable. . I nope these comments asstst you in evaluating this property. Ir you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning OWS/gk Attachment CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 553&~, (~12) 472-1155 January 30, 1986 Honorable Rudy Perpich Governor of Minnesota State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorable Arne H. Carlson State Auditor of Minnesota Suite 440, 555 Park Street St. Paul, MN 55103 Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey III Attorney General of Minnesota 1Ol State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorable Joan Anderson Growe Secretary of the State of Minnesota Room 180, State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Honorabie Robert Mattson State Treasurer of Minnesota 1208 Grand Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 Honorable Marlene Johnson Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota 122 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Review of Increased Public Access on Lake Minnetonka Dear Governor Perpich and Members of the Executive Council: This letter outlines the formal response to the Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka who, at your direction, are in the process of implementing the i983 Task Force recommendation of identifying 700 reliable car-trailer parking spaces serving public accesses on Lake Minnet~nka. The City of Mound has a long history of making Lake Minnetonka accessible to city residents and members of the general public. Small access sites are scattered around the City of Mound. These sites, although not appropriate for serving regional users, provide the means for limited n,,mhers of non-lake~hore neighborhood residents to gain access to the lake. Additionally, the City has established ownership of 4.5 lineal miles of park and cmn areas around The lake. During 1985, 400 docks were in place along these areas providing access to residents of the City who, in most cases, are non-lakeshore owners. The boat access at Mound B~y Park is used by both local residents and general public. The City has determined that further expansion of this facility is not possible due to adjacent land uses, limited land area and lack of suitable areas for parking. The Mound Bay Park access is located between a swimming beach and a multi-family residential structure.. In the summer months, ~his 2.5~acre park is intensively used. Due to this intensive usage and the limited size of the park, expansion of the facility w~uld increase the chances of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts to unacceptable levels. As a result, the City of Mound cannot support expansion of this facility. Parking in the vicinity of Mound Bay Park is also complicated by the existing development pattern. Virtually all on-street parking opportunities occur. along county roads which contain limited shoulder areas or presently have Page 2 D-2 Governor and ~mbers of Executive Council January 30, 1986 on-street parking which serves abutting businesses and residences. Due to this situation, expansion of on-street parking is viewed as being physically )mposs)b)e without costly modifications to the existing county road system. The 198) Task Force identified Lost Lake as a potential access site. At the present time, the City is conducting a detailed analysis of the Lost Lake site and its potentia) Eot future use. Preliminary results indicate that Lost Lake should be designated as unsuitable for construction of a )ake access due to severe enviornmenta) constraints, hlgh development costs and unacceptable local community impacts. Due to these factors, the City of Hound recommends that Lost Lake receive no further consideration at this time nor in the futur~. On December 23, 1985, the City received a letter from the Department cf Natural Resources requesting con,neat on the use of a 4 acre parcel on the north shore of Halsted Bay as an access site. This site 1)es within the Cities of Mound and MinnetrJsta. Mound's review of the use of this property as an access site has conc)u&ed that the property is unsuitable For such an activity. This conclusion is based on the ~act that entry to the site ~nvolves travel on a narrow residential street and const'ruction of parking associated with the access would require clear cutting up to 3 acres of existing tree cover. Add[tional)y, this parcel presently contains a mobile hmme park which is a non-conforming land use under the Mound Zoning Code. Acquisition of a portion of the site by the DNR for access purposes would not reduce 'the inten- sity of the adjacent non-conforming use but in actuality, would increase the density of the mobile home park due to the reduction in total land area. Such an occurrence ls contrary to the intent of the non-conforming use provisio- of the Mound Zoning Code. After thorough review of potential access sites within the City, the Mound City Council has concluded that the con~nunity is provlding as much access to Lake MinnetJnka as is physically and financially feasible. Therefore, the City of Mound does not recocrnend expansion of any existing access points nor does it recon~nend installation of any new accesses within the Mound Corporate Limits. As was stated in ~ be-cjlnntng of this letter, t.h~ City will coe..tlr~Je t~ support public access to Lake Minnetonka. In that regard, the Mayor and the City Co~u~cil of t,h~ City of .Mound cordially ex~end an i rrvltmtion to m~m~ers of the Executive Council to visit the cor~nunity and review the City's current efforts. We fee) that after such a review, the Executive Council will agree that the City is providing more than its fair share of access to Lake Minnetonka. ~d~e-ly' . ar~ 1. ~S..ukle, City Manager Mr. Joseph Alexander Co,.,-'nissioner, D~partment of Natural Resources Mr. Pat Scu)ly, Chair, Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka A Profile of Poverty in MOUND, MINNESOTA Mil ~ MASSAN I P~c~r~ by COMMUNITY ACT~ ~ SUBUI~BAN H]~NNF, PIN 1988 COMMDNIT! ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN (CASH) Eisenhower Community Center, Suite 343 19~1 Highway ? Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Telephone (612) 9~3-918! Staff: Bob Andre, Executive Director Roger Kemp, Program Coordinator Greta Ploetz, Systems Coordinator This Profile of Poverty has been prepared for CCt-?IUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN MONT(/iM~ERY INFORMATION CONSULTANTS ROSSF~R BUILDING SUITE 205 5~0 NORTH ROBERT STREET T. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 (612) 292-1~77 A PROFILE OF POVERTY: MOUND, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview Of Report .......................................... 3 Mound Highlights ............................................ 5 All Households - Poverty .................................... 6 All Households - Services & Assistance ...................... 8 Families With Children - Poverty ........................... 10 Families With Children - Services & Assistance ............. 12 Senior Households - Poverty ................................ !4 Senior Households - Services & Assistance .................. 16 Working Age/Childless Households - Poverty ................. 18 Working Age/Childless Households - Services & Assistance...2~ ~=dian Income ....... < ....................................... 22 Suburban Hennepin Needs Assessment ......................... 23 Low Income Guidelines ...................................... 28 OVERVIEW OF REPORT This report is one of a series of documents prepared by staff at Community Action for Suburban Hennepin to describe the nature and extent of poverty in suburban Hennepin County. Our purpose in gathering and reporting this information is to provide basic demographic data' to community organizations, agencies, and institutions interested in serving low-income residents. Information offered here may be useful to you in assessing needs, planning services, and seeking funding. Knowledge about a particular core, unity may not always be a sufficient base upon which to evaluate poverty-related issues. Information concerning neighboring communities as w~ll as the suburban area in general is often vital to understanding. Therefore, in each of the reports, we have included comparative information on the surrounding community and on the overall suburban area. (Continued On Next Page) A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 3 (Overvie~ Cunt inued) Because poverty is not a uniform, homogeneous phenomenon but is rather situation specific, we organized this report into sections according to three primary population groups: HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN * SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS * WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS Each of the sections follows a similar format. The three population groups provide the framework for presenting data. General and comparative infor~.ation related to a specific community is presented and then surmarized using graphs and tables. This is followed by information about services and assistance received by the target group. "Poverty" in this report refers to the income guidelines used by the Bureau of the Census and updated annually. These guide!i,%es are discussed in the section of this report beginning on page 28. Data sources for this report are the 1980 Census, Hennepin County Economic Assistance Department and West Hennepin Human Services planning Board - Energy Assistance program (covering all of Suburban HennePin County). F~X3ND, Minnesota is the target co,unity for this report. In addition to this focus, comparative information is' also presented for the two following larger areas: Lake Communities Deephaven, ExCelsior, Greenwood, Long Lake, Mound, Minnetonka Beach, Orono, Shorewood, spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata and woodland. Suburban Hennepin County Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Chanhassen, Corcoran, Crystal, Dayton, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Edina, Excelsior, Fort Shelling, Golden Valley, Greenfield, Greenwood, Hanover, Hassan, Hopkins, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Grove, Maple Plain, Medicine Lake, Medina, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, New Hope, Orono, Osseo, Plymouth, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rockford, Rogers, St. Anthony, St. Bonifacius, St. Louis Park, Sborewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, woodland. The report concludes with a summary of findings from the 1986 Suburban Hennepin County Low-Income Needs Assessr~=nt report conducted by ~o~unity Action for Suburban Hennepin. Data are presented in four areas: Reasons For Bei~nt Barriers, Use Of Services, and Counsel lng Need_s A PROFILE OF POVERTY F. ROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 4 MOUND HIGHLIGHTS Households in Povert~ * The percentage of Mound's households in poverty (7%) higher than in the Lake Communities (5%) and in Suburban Hennepin as a whole (~%). * The 1980 census identified 245 poverty households in Mound. In 1986 there were 180 households receiving public assistance. * The highest portion (45%) of poverty households in Mound are households with children. is Povert~ Families With Children The 1980 census identified 110 ~overty families with children eighteen years old or younger in Mound. In 1986 there were 96 families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children in Mound. Senior Households The 1980 census identified 42 senior poverty households. Eighty-six percent of these households are non-family - generally one person living alone. Forty-four (44) of these households received Energy Assistance in 1986. Working Age Households Without Children The 1980 census identified 93 poverty households headed by working age adults without children. Ninety-one percent (91%) of these are non-family households. In the total population there is a high proportion of households headed by working age adults without children (43%). Thirty-eight percent (38%) of all poverty households are of this kind. Median Income * In 1980 The Median income of Mound was 121% of the state median income. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN MOUND - ALL HOOSEHOLDS - POVERT! DATA General Information SEVEN PERCENT (7%) OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS WERE BELOW POVERTY IN 1950 (245 HOUSEHOLDS) 17% OF THE 'POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS ARE HEADED BY SENIORS (42 SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS) 45% OF THE POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS HAVE CHILDREN (119 HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN) 38% OF THE POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS ARE WORKING AGE WITHOUT CHILDREN (93 HOUSEHOLDS) Comparative Information The lakes counties & Suburban Hennepin have relatively fewer poverty households with children (27% and 39%) and more seniors in poverty (36% and 23%). Sum-ma Seniors represent 13% of the total population and 17% of the poverty population. Households With Children represent 44% of the total population and 45% of the poverty population. Working Age/Childless Households represent 43% of the total population and 38% of the poverty population) A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 6 POVERTY t-IOUSEI-IOLDE I~iOUND POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS - WITH CHILDREN - WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS - SENIORS MOU~D LAKES SUB-HENN 245 456 8,535 110 45% 124 27% 3,363 39% 93 38% 169 37% 3,241 38% 42 17% 163 36% 1,931 23% ALL HOUSEHOLDS - WITH CHILDREN - WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS - SENIORS PERCENT IN POVERTY MOUND LAKES SUB-HENN 3,388 10,~90 203,801 1,504 44% 3,870 38% 83,746 41% 1,455 43% 4,529 45% 93,328 46% 429 13% 1,691 17% 26,727 13% 7% 5% 4% ***HOUSEHOLDS = HOUSEHOLDERS = OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS ***HOUSEHOLD: The person or persons occupying a housing unit. ***POVERTY: POVERTY counts and HOUSEHOLD counts are from the 1980 Census. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 7 MOUND - ALL HOUSEHOLDS - SERVICES / ASSISTANCE DATA Information on the number of households that are receiving services and assistance allows us to compare these numbers with the census counts and to begin to ask questions concerning the number of needy households and whether services are reaching them. The number of households receiving services and assistance varies from program to program because of differences in eligibility standards, accessibility of the services and public acceptance. All of these factors must be considered when comparing the poverty counts from the 195~ census with the service and assistance data from 1986. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE In Mound there are 180 households receiving public assistance. These may be -Families with children who are receiving income assistance (AFDC) or who may be receiving only Medical Assistance coverage -Older or disabled persons receiving Minnesota Supplemental Aid. -Working age persons receiving General Assistance or. Medical Assistance FOOD STAMPS In Mound there are 113 households recei¥ing food stamps. These may be -Households receiving public assistance where the total income is low enough to qualify (households with earned income that are, for example, receiving AFDC to maintain MA eligibility, may have incomes too high to qualify). -Households of working or retired persons whose income is low. Foodstamps are less acceptable to some~persons and may be underutilized in Mound. ENERGY ASSISTANCE In Mound there are 204 households receiving Energy Ass~istance to help with heating costs. Energy Assistance is available to both single family homes and apartment dwellers who can identify their energy costs. The Energy Assistance Program is administered by local private agencies and is often more acceptable than publicly administered assistance programs. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 8 20O HOUSEHOLDS/OASES PU~C FOOD MOUND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOOD STAMPS ENERGY ASSISTANCE ~DIC/~ ASSISTANCE ONLY MOUND LAKES SUB-HENN 180 475 10,693 113 123 4,154 2~4 227 4,700 61 297 5,084 ***PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INCLUDES: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), General Assistance, Medical Assistance, General Assistance Medical Care, and Minnesota Supplemental Aid. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE is administered by Hennepin County. ***FOOD ~TAMPS: The FOOD STAMP program is administered by Hennepin County***ENERGY ASSISTANCE: Energy Assistance provides payment assistance for heating ~ills. ENERGY ASSISTANCE'isadministered by private agencies in Suburban Hennepin County. ***MEDICAL ASSISTANCE ONLY: Covers households receiving assistance with medical expenses, but no cash assistance. Administered by Hennepin County. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 9 MOUND - FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN - POYERT! DATA General Information SEVEN PERCENT (7%) OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN WERE IN POVERTY (110 POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN). 21% WERE MARRIED COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS (23 MARRIED COUPLE POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN) '79% WERE FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS (87 FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN) (Female headed households are generally more at risk to poverty because of the lower average income of women and the stresses of managing a household with children alone) 44% HAD CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF'SIX (48 POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN UNDER SIX YEARS OLD) (Households with children under six years have additional child care burdens that increase their risk to poverty) 56% DID NOT HAVE CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF SIX (62 POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO CHILDREN UNDER SIX) Comparative Information In comparison, the LAKES communities have a larger proportion (48% - 52%) of married couple versus single parent poverty households. For all of Suburban Hennepin, however, female headed households with children represent two thirds of the poverty households with children. A greater proportion of Mound families with children are in poverty (7%) relative to the LAKES communities (3%) or suburban Hennepin (4%). Summary: In the general population in Mound: · Families with children under six represent 43% of all families with children (44% of the poverty families with children). t Female headed families with children represent 15% of all families with children (79% of poverty families with children) Mound has the same proportion of female headed families With children (15%) as the LAKES (10%) and Suburban-Hennepin (12%) and the same distribution of families with children under 6. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR sUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE POVt RT'Y FAWILII:'S WI'I'FI CHILDR£N t~iOUND - ¢~LDREN ULCER ~ - NO CNILDf¢EN UNDER 6 - t,i,¢r~ED COUPLES POVERTY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN - MARRIED COUPLW$ - F]~tALE HEADED POVERTY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN - CHILDREN UNDER 6 - NO CHILDREN UNDER 6 ALL FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN - MARRIED COUPLES - FEMALE HEADED ALL FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN - CHILDREN UNDER 6 - NO CHILDREN UNDER 6 PERCENT IN POVERTY MOUND 110 23 21% 87 79% 110 48 44% 62 56% 1,504 1,277 85% 227 15% 1,504 647 43% 857 57% 7% 124 60 48% 64 52% 124 59 48% 65 52% 3,870 3,465 90% 405 10% 3,870 1,433 37% 2,437 63% 3% SUB-HENN 3,363 1,207 36% 2,156 64% 3,363 1,926 57% 1,437 43% 83,746 73,730 88% 10,016 12% 83,746 33,165 40% 50,581 60% 4% A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 11 MOUND - FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN - SERVICES / ASSISTANCE DATA Programs that are used primarily by Families with Children or that identify families with children are: * Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC): 96 cases in Mound. * Single Parent Families applying for Energy Assistance: 82 households in Mound These numbers are about the same as the 11~ poverty households with children identified by the census in 1980. The difference is related to higher income limits used for both programs and by the time difference (1980 - 1986) between the census count and the program date. There has been an increase in the percent of the population in poverty since 1980 (an approximate increase from 9.5% in 1980 to about 12% in 1984 in Minnesota) A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 12~ ~100 POVERTY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN D~..,LE PAI:~NT ~ DP OVE~ FANILIES NIOWND MOUND LAKES SUB-HENN AFDC 96 82 3,524 SINGLE PARENT EA 82 77 1,917 ***AFDC: Aid TO Families With Dependent Children. Administered by Hennepin County. ***SINGLE PARENT EA: Single Parent Households receiving Energy Assistance. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 13 2 7~ MOUND - SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS - POVERT! DATA General Information TEN PERCENT (10%) OF ALL SENIOR HEADED HOUSEHOLDS WERE IN POVERTY (42 SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY) 14% OF THE SENIOR POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS ARE FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS (6 POVERTY FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS). 86% OF THE SENIOR POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS ARE NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS (36 NON-FAMILY SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS). Comparative Information The percentage of senior households in poverty in Mound (1~%) is about the same as that of the LAKES communities and Suburban Hennepin (10%). Summary In the general population in Mound: * Family household~ are 49% of all senior households (14% of the poverty senior households) * Non-'family households are 51% of all senior households (86% of poverty senior households). This indicates the extent to which non-family households are more at risk to poverty than are family households. Definitions Family Household: Two or more persons related by blood or marriage. Non-family household: Persons living alone or with persons they are not related to - generally one person households, often older women) A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PACE POVERTY NOUSEt-IOLDS AgE 65+ ~OUND II[II ' FA~IL'f I- NON FAW~Y POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS AGE 65 - FAMILY - NON FAMILY MOUND 42 6 14% 36 86% 163 12 7% 151 93% SUB-HENN 1,931 370 19% 1,561 81% SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS - FAMILY ~ - NON FAMILY PERCENT IN POVERTY 429 212 49% 217 51% 10% 1,691 908 54% 783 46% 9% 26,727 15,167 57% 11,560 43% 10% A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 15 MODNP - SENIOR HODSEHOLDS - SERVICES / ASSISTANCE PATA Programs that are used primarily by Senior Households or that identify Senior Households are: ' Energy Assistance: 44 households in which the head of household was over age 60 applied for Energy Assistance in 1986. · Minnesota Supplemental Aid: by 3 cases received Supplemental Aid in 1986. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR sUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 16 10 POVERTY SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS ,~E ¢~;84. ENEP.~Y NSWPPLF.~L MOLINB AGE 60+ ENERGY ASSIST MN 'SUPPLEMENTAL AID MOUND LAKES SUB-HENN 44 56 969 3 57 831 AGE 60+ ENERGY ASSIST: Households served by ENERGY ASSISTANCE where the householder is age 60 or over. MN SUPPLEMENTAL AID: Supplements the incomes of persons receiving SSI (Supplemental Security Income) A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 17 MOUND - WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS - POVERT! DATA General information SIX PERCENT (6%) OF ALL WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS WERE BELOW POVERTY IN 1980 (93 HOUSEHOLDS). * 9% OF THE WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY WERE FAMILIES (8 HOUSEHOLDS) 91% OF THE WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY WERE NON-FAMILIES IN 1950 (85 HOUSEHOLDS). Although this group has a lower poverty rate than households with children and senior headed households it represents a large portion of all households (43% of all Mound households) and therefore even at the low pcverty rate there · are a substantial number of poverty households (93 households, 38% of all Mound poverty households). The term "Working Age" may be misleading because not all persons within this category are "employable" in the traditional sense. Many of the members of households in this group are. unemployable due to physical or mental disabilities and many are headed by persons age 55 or older who. may have retired or been laid off. Comparative Information In comparison, the LAKES communities and Suburban Hennepin * Have lower poverty rates for this group (3% and 4%) * Most (85%) of the Working Age/Childless households in those areas are non-family households. (91% in Mound) * This group represents about 38% of the poverty households both in Mound and in the larger areas. Summary * Although the incidence of poverty in this group is low, 6% in Mound, the group represents 43% of the general population. Poverty individuals in this group are at risk because they tend to be "invisible" and because they often are not well protected by the "safety-nets" of social programs. " A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 18 WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS MOUND ] - F~ILIE~; _ NOKL-F~,JILiE$ MOUt~D POVERTY HOUSEHOLDS 93 - FAMILIES B 9% - NON-FAk~ILIES B5 91% LAKES 169 24 14% 145 86% MOUND LAKES ALL HOUSEHOLDS 1,455 4,529 -FAMILIES 758 52% 2,626 58% - NON-FAMILIES 697 48% 1,903 42% PERCENT IN POVERTY SUB-HENN 3,241 552 17% 2,689 83% SUB-HENN 93,328 53,708 58% 39,62~ 42% 6% 4% 3% *~'FAMILY: Two or more related persons (birth, marriage, adoption) who live together as one household. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 19 MOUND-WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS - SERVICES/ASSISTANCE DATA Programs that are used primarily by Working Age/Childless Households or that identify Working Age/Childless Households are General Assistance (GA) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). · General Assistance is available only for a limited period to those who are considered employable. Longer periods are available for those classified as unemployable. There were eleven General Assistance cases in Mound in 1986. Persons with permanent disabilities are often eligible for SSI, a federally funded social security program. Case counts for this assistance were not available by , community. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 20 ~0 2O WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS GE~NERA[. WORKING AGE/CHILDLESS HOUSEHOLDS Assistance Data (1986) - Census (1980) MOUND GENERAL ASSISTANCE 11 LAKES SUB-HENN 22 741 ***GENERAL ASSISTANCE: Assistance to persons of working age who are ineligible for other programs (for example, as AFDC). Administered by Hennepin County. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN MEDIAN INCOME - SUBURBAN RENNEPI~ MOUND Lake Communities $21,548. Range: $15,870 - $42,128 The Mound median income in 1980 was 121% of the state median income. (Median Income represents the halfway point at which half of all households have lower incomes and half are higher than the median). Median Percent of Median Income State Median Income MI NNEAPOL I S $14,351 81% CORCORAN EXCELSIOR $15,870 89% GREENFIELD SPRING PARK $16,723 94% CHAMPL I N ROCKFORD $17,083 96% DAYTON HOPKI NS $17,318 98% I NDEPENT) .ENCE OSSDO $17,431 98% BLOOMJ NG~ HANOVER $17,679 100% HASSAN MINNESOTA >$17,761 100% TONq<A BAY ROGERS $19,265 108% SHOREWOOD ROBBI NSDALE $20,167 114% MAPLE GROVE RICHFIELD $20,424 115% PLYMOUTH LORETTO $20,833 117% MINNETRI STA ST. LOUIS PARK .$21,362 120% ST. ANTHONY ST, BONI FAcIus $21,394. 120% MEDINA MOL~N D ->$21,548 121% EDEN PRAIRIE LONG LAKE $22,151 125% GOLD5/~ VALLEY BROOKLYN PARK $22,160 125% E'DINA BROOKLYN CENTER $22,282 125% MI NNETONTQ% WAYZATA $22,368 126 % ORONO CRYSTAL $22,398 126% GREENWOOO MAPLE PLAIN $23,191 131% DEEPHAVEN MEDICINE LAKE $23,9~6 135% WOODLAND NEW HOPE $23,962 135% FORT SNELLING MI NNETON'KA BEACH S24,002 S24,1~7 $24,113 $24,544 $24,544 $26,083 $26,270 $26,638 $27 , 188 $27,755 $27 , 840 $28,144 $28,564 $28,883 · $29,958 $30 $30.2~1 $30.214 $30.736 $32,131 $32,627 $36,969 $37,313 S42,128 Percent .of State Median 135% 136% 136% 138%, 138% 147% 148% 150% 153% 156% 157% 158% 161% 163% 169% 170% 170% 170% 173% 181% 184% 208% 210% 237% These data give an indication of the relative income level of Suburban Hennepin Communities. They are 1979 incomes in 1979 dollars. These data are from the 1980 Census. By 1984 Household Income Est/mates based on state tax returns indicated a 30% to 40% increase in median household incc~-ae. These est/mates are not available for all Suburban Hennepin Contnunities and are not directly comparable to the Census Median Incomes. Changes in n~=dian income are very dependent upon the population mix. The older population had a relatively steady inco.me growth over the 1979 - 1984 period. Younger bsuseholds that were more dependent upon wage income did Dot dO well in the early '80s'and are now beginning to catch up. SUBURBAN HENNEPIN NEEDS ASSESSMENT 7?? A OV -RT ¢oMM .I , Ac oN SUbURbaN PAGE 22 In 1986, Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) conducted a survey of the needs of low income households using professionally conducted telephone interviews with 475 low-income households in suburban Hennepin County. Tbe households were randomly selected from throughout the suburbs. The data reported as percentages are accurate within approximately 5 percentage points as estimates of the true values that exist in suburban Hennepin as a whole. This survey used income guidelines at about 180% of the Federal Poverty Guideline. The discussion on pages 26 and 27 of this report considers the effect on the make-up of the low income population when income guidelines are changed from those used in the census. ' Responses are presented from three groups: * FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN * WORKING AGE HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT CHILDREN * SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS HEADED BY PERSONS AGE 65 OR OLDER The following topics were examined: * REASONS FOR BEING POOR * EMPLOYMENT BARRIERS * USE OF SERVICES * COUNSELING NEEDS In the following pages, a summary of several key findings from this assessment is presented. A complete report is available from Community Action for Suburban Hennepin. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REASONS FOR B~I~G POOR Families with children and working age households without children provided the data. For Families With Children the most cited factors contributing to poverty are divorce, job loss and the birth of a child. For Working Age Families Without Children the mos~ cited factors are job loss, divorce, death and injury/illness as essentially equal causes of poverty. Twenty-five percent (25%) of these households indicate that all members of the household are retired. REASONS FOR BEING POOR ~UIBURI~ HENNEPlN ~URVEY ~ r~ w/C~L A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 24 EMPLOYMENT BARRIERS The most cited employment barriers by both families with children and working age households without children are lack of training, physical disabilities and age discrimination. These reflect the changing nature of the labor market with the erosion of low skilled jobs and the presence of many older persons (who list themselves as retired) in the working age group. r¢ 40 5o zlO EMPLOYMENT BARRIERS SUBURB, A,.N HENNEPlN ~;UR"CEY ~FAt~ W/OLIT CHILD A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN OSE OF The most cited service used by all three groups is surplus commodities. This may be related to local accessibility and a less rigorous eligibility determination than is found in most formal assistance programs. Families with children also cited substantial usage of food shelyes and Energy Assistance with about one fifth also citing foodstamps, subsidized housing and Aid To Families With Dependent Children. In addition to surplus commodities about one seventh of the working age families without children also use Energy Assistance and one tenth cited food shelves and subsidized housing. About one fifth of the senior headed households indicated using Congregate Dining Programs and subsidized housing. ~- 40 USE OF. SERVICES guBuRIE~,N HENNEPlN SURVEY A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 26 COUNSELING NEEDS Only families with children gave a strong response when asked about counseling needs. About one fourth expressed a need for counseling related to stress and depression and one fifth a need for budgeting related counseling. About one fifth of the Working Age families expressed a need relating to stress an~ depression. The highest need expressed by seniors (7%) also related to stress and depression. T 2D COUNSELING NEEDS SUBURIBa~I HENNEPlN ?~URVEY ~;~ FAM ~/OUT I::HIL A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 27 LOW INCOME G~IDELINKS Classifications of households as "poverty" or "low income" or "eligible for assistance" are based on m~sures of incon~. The 1987 Federal Poverty Income Guidelines are: SIZE OF UNIT FEDERAL (PERSONS) GUIDELINES 1 $5,500. 2 $7,400. 3 $9,300. 4 $11,200. The federal guidelines ~ere develope~ in 1964 and are roughly three tir~s_ the income required to feed bousebolds of various sizes as adjusted each year by changes in the consun~r price index. Different programs and studies ~ different guidelines to define "low income". For example, it is core, on to encounter inco~'~e guidelines that are stated as "125% of Poverty" or "180% of Poverty". The use of such higher guidelines recognizes the very stringent nature of the 1~% poverty guideline. Higher guidelines also change the number and nature of the group that is being considered "low income". An exanple of this effect is what happens when a guideline of 125% of Poverty is used in Suburban Hennepin County: · The group considered "low Income" increases from 6,535 households to 12,644 households. * The group of households beaded by seniors increases by 96%. The group of households headed by persons under age 65 increases by 34%. The net effect is that as the income guideline is increased proportionately more seniors are included in the low income group. Social insurance and pension programs of the past forty years have insulated many seniors from the most dire consequences of poverty but they are still a significant part of the overall situation. A PROFILE OF POVERTY FROM COMMUNITY ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNEPIN PAGE 28 LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS CI,.-L,~.tCINC FROM 100% TO 12..5% GUIDELINES 12B~ t 2.5 ~-OE N gUS lO0 PERCENT INCREASE CUIDELINE C~OE IN HOUSEHOLDS 100% ->- 125~. 4O 4~.142~41 for Suburban Hennepin Eisenhowtr Center 1001 Highway 7 Hopkim, MN 55343 Phorte 612J933-9180 ennepin County manda es recycling By Jim Parsons SmffWriter The Hennepin Count)' commission- ers decided Tuesday to put some muscle into their off-repeated threats to make all communities in the coun- t3' develop effective garbage recycling programs. The commissioners set guidelines that virtually dictate that the 46 cities have a residential recvcling program that includes weekl~ or twice-a- month curbside pickup of cans, glass containers and newspapers. The board gave each community proximately a year -- by May 1, 1989 -- to have a household pro- gram that removes 10 percent of the waste by separating cans, boules and papers. ',~.i present, nearly half the Cities don't have curbside pickup although many of those cities expect to have pro- grams operating sometime this year. Only a handful of cities, including Minneapolis, have twice-a-month pickup and only Plymouth has a once-a-week program. Frequent pick- up is considered crucial to making recycling convenient for residents and, consequently, to get a high enough level of voluntary citizen par- ticipation to reach the 10 percent goal. If communities don't reach that goal, the commissioners said that the county wilt step in and run the curb- side program. And participation will be mandatory for residents. The resolution,, which passed by a 4 to 3 vote yesterday, did not spell out what a mandatory program would involve. But Commissioner Mark Andrew said that mandatory usually means that garbage haulers are not allowed to pigk up garbage from resi- dents who don't separate their recy- clables. "We hope it doesn't come to that," said Andrew, "but we have to send a message to these ~:ommunities. They've got to understand that we are serious." In addition to taking over a commu- nity's pickup service, the count)' would also make the cities pick up the full tab for that se~'ice. At pre- sent, the count>, pays from 50 percent to 80 percent of the r. ecycling costs. The resolution, which was wr/tten bv Andrew, also sets a new goal of rec.x;- cling 39 percent of a community's garbage by 1992. The cun-ent goal is 16 percent by 1990 and that goal remains. Both those goals involve recycling waste created by businesses and com- mercial operatlons, which .account for about half of the total waste. Man)' communities now get credit for recycling that is being done by private firms without any prodding from any government agency. But, to reach the 39 percent figure, most communities will have to develop a plan to significant!y increase that participation. The same is true for yard wastes. including leaves and gr-~ss clippingsl Some communities now pick up yard waste, but the 39 percent figure prob- ably 4411 make it necessa~' for eyeD' city to have such a program. Andrew was joined by Commission- ers.Jeff Spartz, John Derus and Sam Sivanich in approving the resolution. 7gg