The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-10-12CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REG~ MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1993 CITY COUNCIL CHAM~ERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1993, REGULAR MEETING. PG. 3463-3468 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//93-047: MARVIN NELSON, 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 32 0012. ~ MOVING BUILDING PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE. PG. 3469-3482 ~ ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS. PG. 3483 RESOLUTION DECLARING OCTOBER 27, 1993, AS "UNFUNDED MANDATE DAY" IN THE CITY OF MOUND. PG. 3484-3498 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. ~ POSSIBLE DISSOLUTION OF THE LMCD. PG. 3499-3503 SET BID OPENING FOR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING - SNOW REMOVAL - 1993-94. (SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1993, 11:00 A.M.) PG. 3504 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 3505-3523 10. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for September 1993. PG. 3524-3553 3461 Bo Do Go ~ Interviews for Park & Open Space vacancies are scheduled for Thursday, October 14, 1993, 7:00 P.M. Please plan on attending the interviews. Thank you letter written to 12 Housing Evaluators who attended the informational meeting on a proposed Truth in the Sale of Housing Ordinance with the Planning Commission on September 27, 1993. PG. 3554-3557 LMCD Mailings. PG. 3558-3608 Letter from a Watertown resident on the crosswalk issue at House of Moy. PG. 3609 Memo scheduling a meeting with Spring Park and Orono on traffic congestion problems at County Road 15 & 51, Spring Park. Meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 15, 1993, 10:30 A.M., Mound City Hall. PG. 3610 Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1993. PG. 3611-3616 REMINDER' C.O.W. meeting, Tuesday, october 19, 1993, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER' League of Minnesota Cities 1993 Regional Meeting, october 21, 1993, Brooklyn Center. If interested in attending, please let Fran know ASAP. PG. 3617-3618 REMINDER' West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, November 2, 1993 - Phyllis Jessen; December 7 - Ken Smith. 3462 Mound City Council Minutes September 28, 1993 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 28, 1993, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Liz Jensen, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Mayor Skip Johnson was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward I. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Ion Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Gordon Anderson, Jan Gordon, Dale Bakalyar, Dave Willette, Larry Pillar, and Ben Gaudette. The Acting Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the September 14, 1993, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 CASE//93-043: MICHELLE SEVERSON, APPLICANT FOR 4500 WILSHIRE BLVD., 4510 WILSHIRE BLVD., AND 2757 ANGLESSLY LANE., SUBDIVISION - LOT IJNE ADJUSTMENTS The Building Official explained that this ease was before the Council in 1989. It lagged for some time because there were title problems. The title problems have now been resolved. The Staff and Planning Commission recommended approval. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-126 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW THE REARRANGEMENT OF LOT LINES AT LOTS 6, 7, 8, & 1/2 OF VAC. LANE, BLOCK 4, AVALON (4510 WILSHIRE BLVD.), LOTS 4 & 5, BLOCK 6, AVALON (4500 WILSHIRE BLVD.), AND LOT 3 AND SEly 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 6, AVALON (2757 ANGLESSLY LANE) P & Z CASE//93-043 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CASE//93-045; DALE & KELLE BAKALYAR, ~091 TUXEDO BLVD,, LOTS 18. 19.20 & P/21, BLOCK 1, PEMBROKE, PID//19-117-23 34 0128, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION Mound City Council Minutes September 28, 1993 The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-127 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF CONFORMING ADDITIONS TO 3091 TUXEDO BLVD., PART OF LOTS 18, 19, 20 & 21, BLOCK 1, PEMBROKE, PID #19-117-23 34 0128, P & Z CASE g93-045 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE ~)3-047; WH.I.ETTE CONSTRUCTION, lNG,, 2561 WEXFORD LANE LOTS 4-13. BLOCK 7, SETON, PID //24-117-24 14 0001, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION The Building Official explained the request. The City Attorney pointed out that the proposed resolution should have a variance of 12' not 16' for the front east setback. The Council discussed the driveway setback to the OHW. #1 in the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved will now read as follows: The City does hereby approve a 12 foot front yard setback variance and a 2 foot lake shore setback variance to allow the construction of a 22' x 22' garage addition. A lake shore setback variance is also granted for the driveway. The driveway shall be located so that the impact of the encroachment is minimal and shall not exceed a 12 foot variance from the required 50 foot setback to the OHW. The site plan shall be reviewed and approved by City Staff. The Council agreed. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RKSOL~ION//93-128 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND LAKE SHORE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 4 THRU 13, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID #24-117-24 14 0001, P & Z CASE//93-046 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City 1.4 Council Minutes September 28, 1993 PROCLAMATION - ADULT LITERACY AWARENESS WEEK, WESTONKA ADULT BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAM - SEPTEMBER 27 - OCTOBER 3, 1993 The Mayor read the proclamation. Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following: RESOLUTION k'93-129 PROCLAMATION - ADULT LITERACY AWARENESS WEEK, WESTONKA ADULT BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAM - SEPTEMBER 27- OCTOBER 3, 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRFSENT There were none. 1.5 DISCUSSION: COMPOSITION PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP/ The City Manager explained that this is being brought up because the POSC did not have a quorum for their September meeting to interview prospective new members. There are currently 2 vacancies on the commission and there could be 2 more coming up shortly. The commission consists of 9 Council appointed members. The Council discussed reducing the number of members to 7 or leaving it as is. The Council asked that Peggy call all POSC members and remind them to be at the October meeting for the interviews. Councilmembers should also try to attend the interviews. No action was taken on the commission membership/composition at this time. RESOLUTIONS CANCELLING LEVIES 1.6 Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-130 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF 1984 IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,658.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: Mound City Council Minutes September 28, 1993 RESOLUTION g93-131 RESOLU'rION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,552.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-132 RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1978 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,183.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 APPROVAL OF 2 GAMES OF SKILL LICENSES - AMERICAN LEGION MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to authorize the issuance of 2 Games of Skill Licenses to the American Legion Post//398. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR JON SCHERVEN DOWNTOWN LOAN FROM 1984 Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-133 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR JON A SCHERVEN, 2271/2269 COMMERCE BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MOVING BUILDING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE MOVING OF A DETACHED GARAGE FROM 2010 SHOREWOOD LANE, TO 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set October 12, 1993, 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider a moving building permit to allow the moving of a detached garage from 2010 Shorewood Lane to 2025 Shorewood Lane. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council Minutes September 28, 1993 1.12 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-fist in the amount of $100,757.30, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. HOUSE OF MOY LAWSUIT The City Attorney advised that a lawsuit was delivered to his office late Friday afternoon that has three allegations as follows: Removal of the crosswalk is a nuisance. The City was negligent in making a decision to remove the crosswalk. By taking out the crosswalk, the City took away their business and the expectancy of them to have more business. Acting Mayor Jensen asked what the House of Moy wants. The City Attorney stated there is a Prayer for Relief. He further stated that the documents that were delivered to his office were either miscopied or they weren't served because there is one page missing. There is no page 5. The only Prayer for Relief that he has is the starting of page 1 which is asking the judge to declare that a public nuisance exists on Shoreline Drive, where the crosswalk and signs were removed. They are asking that the City pay them in excess of $50,000 for their loss of business. No action was taken. FLACK LAWSUIT The City Attorney advised that we have received an extension to answer the Flack Lawsuit. POPULATION SIGNS The City Manager advised that the person doing the signs had some problems, but he should be hearing from him by the end of the week on a projected date of installation. LETFER FROM THE "YES FOR Km$ COMNH~E" The Council stated they have received letters from the "Yes for Kids Committee" asking the Council to consider supporting their efforts on the School District referendum. The Council decided they would discuss this at the next COW meeting. Mound City Council Minutes INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS September 28, 1993 A. August 1993 Revenue & Expenditure Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. LMCD Mailings. C. REMINDER; Next C.O.W. meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 19, 1993. The City Manager handed out a memo that was sent to the Planning Commission after the last Council Meeting regarding the Park Dedication Fees. There will be a Special Recycling Day again on October 16, 1993, 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P.M. REMINDER - WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICF$ PLANNING BOARD The schedule for the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board for the remainder of the October 5 November 2 December 7 year is: Andrea Ahrens Phyllis Jessen Ken Smith Councilmember Jensen reviewed what happened at the meeting she attended on September 7th. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 8:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MOVING BUILDING PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE TO BE MOVED FROM: 2010 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 1, SHADYWOOD POINT, TO BE MOVED TO: 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS $ & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-040 WHEREAS, the applicant, Marvin Nelson, has requested approval of a moving building permit to move a detached garage from 2010 Shorewood Lane (across the street), to 2025 Shorewood Lane, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 300:25 regulates criteria for the relocation of structures in the City of Mound, and; WHEREAS, when a structure is moved or relocated within the City of Mound, it must conform to the requirements for a new structure under the provisions of the uniform Building Code, State of Minnesota, Section 104, except for the current energy code requirements, and; WHEREAS, 2025 Shorewood Lane is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, on July 13, 1993 the City Council approved Resolution ~93-93 granting a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to the principal structure to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a moving building permit to allow the moving of a 24' x 36' detached garage from: 2010 Shorewood Lane, Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Shadywood Point, PID #18-117-23 23 0002, to: 2025 Shorewood Lane, Lots 5 & 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point, PID #18-117-23 32 0012 Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case $93-047 2. Approval of conditions: ae be ce this Resolution is subject to the following The building be modified to be in conformance with the current building code as required by the Building official. The existing siding be replaced within ninety (90) days with a horizontal vinyl siding to be consistent with the general character and appearance of the principal dwelling. Removal of the existing shed. " "' I I CITY of MOUND 534" MAYWOOD ROAg MQUND M:NNESC:-A 55364 '667 ,6{2} .:'172-5600 FAX ~6!2, 4-2 3620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 93-040 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MOVING BUILDING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE MOVING OF A DETACHED GARAGE FROM 2010 SHOREWOOD LANE, TO 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 12, 1993 to consider a request by Marvin Nelson for a Moving Building Permit to move a detached garage, 24' x 36', from 2010 Shorewood Lane, to 2025 Shorewood Lane (across the street). City Code Section 300:25, Subd. 3, requires the City Council to determine if the structure will be of the same general character and appearance as other buildings or structures in the vicinity. All setback requirements are proposed to be conforming. The subject property, 2025 Shorewood Lane, is legally described as: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Fr~ncene C. Clark, Cfty C~erk Mailed to property owners within 350' by October 1, 1993. Published in "The Laker" September 27, 1993. printed on ecy¢led ¢op .,r 71 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI~qSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 city Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building officials report. The applicant is seeking an after-the-fact permit in order to allow the moving of a detached garage onto their property. Resolution #93-93 approved a variance allowing the construction of a new garage the same size and in the same location as the existing moved building. Staff has inspected the newly poured concrete slab and also the proposed garage. The slab is properly constructed and the garage can easily be modified to conform to the existing building code. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requirement for a Moving Building Permit to allow the after the fact moving of a garage with the following conditions: 1. The building be modified to be in conformance with the current building code as required by the Building official. 2. The existing siding be replaced within six (6) months with a horizontal vinyl siding to be consistent with the general character and appearance of the principal dwelling. The commission confirmed with Joyce Nelson that the shed is still there, however, it has been cleaned out and will be removed soon. The Commission discussed the possible need for a bond to ensure compliance to the conditions of approval. chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There being no comments, chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Moving Building Permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building be modified to be in conformance with the current building code as required by the Building Official. 2. The existing siding be replaced within ninety (90) days with a horizontal vinyl siding to be consistent with the general character and appearance of the principal dwelling. 3. The Resolution be filed at Hennepin county as required in Resolution $93-93, 4. Removal of the Existing shed as required in Resolution $93-93, $7. Motion carried unanimously This case will be heard by the City Council on October 12, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534.1 MAYWOOD ROAD E'~OUND MINNESOTA 55364. 1687 612 472 0600 FAX f6~2~ 472 0620 DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of September 14, 1993 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official~''? SUBJECT: Moving Building Permit APPLICANT: Marvin Nelson CASE NO. 93-047 LOCATION: 2025 Shorewood Lane, Lots 5 & 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point, PID #18- 117-23 32 0012 ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking an after-the-fact permit in order to allow the moving of a detached garage onto their property. Resolution #93-93 approves a variance allowing the construction of a new garage the same size and in the same location as the existing moved building. Staff has inspected the newly poured concrete slab and also the proposed garage. The slab is properly constructed and the garage can easily be modified to conform to the existing building code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requirement for a Moving Building Permit to allow the after the fact moving of a garage with the following conditions: The building be modified to be in conformance with the current building code as required by the Building Official. The existing siding be replaced within six (6) months with a horizontal vinyl siding to be consistent with the general character and appearance of the principal dwelling. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 28, 1993. printed on recycled paper 4/93 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PER1VHT / PLANNED DEVELOP~A Cit~ o~ )4ound 5341 Maywoo6 Roa6, Mound, !~I 55364 Planning l..ion Dat., q city unm Dat.: ia- Copy to City planner: ~lti ~py to city ~ngEneer~ ~py to P~lic Works~ [lille t[~ O[ print the following lnfo~ationl Appllcant'~ N~e (~f o~her than owner) Address Day Phone N~e of Surveyor= D~y Phone LEG~ DESCRIPTION OF SUBJE~ PROPERTY: lxie~ing Use of Pro~rty: Nme of Proceed Use as Lis~ed / EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USEs List impacts the proposed uae will have on property in the vicin£ty, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, end describe the steps taken to mitigate or ell~inate the impacts. If applicable, a develol~nent lchedule shall be attached to this application providing realonable guaranteel for the completion of thl propoled development. Eltimated DevelolTM Cost of the Project= $ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ONLY= Number of Structure.= ~J//~ Number of Dwelling Unite Per Structure: Lot Area P.r Dw. lling Unit. ~ ~ ft. Tot.1 Lot Are.= /~J//~'~ sq. ft. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~9 yes, ( } no. If ][es, list date(e) of application, action taken, resolution number(e) and provide .copies of resolutions. t I Big Date Prppe~y ovner'l signature Date CITY OF MOUND ]41Maywood Road !-llSS Permit must be posted with moving vehicle. PERMIT NO.: FEE: (House $50 /~___~rage APPLICATION FOR MOVING A BU!LDING (Please print or type the fol lowing Name of Applicant ~./qUj~d Applican¢'s Address nformat i on. Day Phone Address of Mover Present location o¢ building: ,_~_~ (~ner of Property: ~+¢~-0 ~ lq J~ J !1 Address c~ O/O 3 ~ 0 ~-~ (~k) 00i Block ~ddi~lon Proposed location of buildinG: ~ner of Property: Address ~OP~-- ~O~C ~~ & Block Iditton Ions of Building: Length To be mved (out of , tnto Proposed Route: Day Phone Lot PID Day Phone Lot Plat PID 5-- Width _~ ¢ Height .~o~~~(~ ) the City of Hound. Time of move: How I onq to be on Street: ~x C~~ Weight of vehicle: Weight of load: Total Weiqht: Type of method to secure load: IMPORTANT: 48 HOUR NOTICE PRIOR TO MOVING STRUCTURE TO POLICE DEPARTMENT, CALL 472-3711 BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 4:30 PM (AFTER HOURS 544-9511). UTILITIES WARNING NOTICE: 454-0002 DEPOSIT REQUIRED OF $ . (deposit will be returnea TO INSURE AGAINST DAMAGE TO STREETS iv no damage has occured). INSURANCE CERTIFICATE REQUIRED: Minimum amount of B.I. $200,000/ ~600,000, P'.D. $50,000, or Cash Bond $1,000 APPROVED BY: Bld_q Official Police Chief Public Works Dir. · ved: State L i cense Insurance Cert i f i cate Distribution: Bldg OFFicial- Police CheiF Public Works Mover RELEASE OF BOND APPROVED: Public WorKs Director, 472-i251 DaTe CITY OF MOUND INSPECT/I N NOTICE M T (W./ TH F ~ ~TING ~ PLUMBING ROUGH-IN ~ SITE INSPECTION ~ F~MING ~ PLUMBING FINAL ~ G~DIN~EXCAV. ~ INSU~ON ~ MECHANICAL ~ COMP~INT ~ WALL~ARD ~ FIREP~CE AT THROAT ~ FOLLOW-UP D PR~RE~ ~ FIREP~CE FINAL ~ ~ f"] WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED CI PHOTO TAKEN I-I CORRECT WORK & PROCEED 1-1 CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING [] CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN I-I STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR [] INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS Call for the next Ins_~ectlon 24 hours In .l~tvance., Inspector ~ ~6~,,,~. ~ ~' ''~" 472-0600 Yel~w Copy/Site No,c; ' ' / W'nite Copy/In~pector'~ Fie I" ='~0/ E~xistin9 Legal Description Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, "$HADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN. This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and visible "hard¢over.. It does not purport to show any othsr improvements . OP. DZNAN¢~ NO, 37-1~89 AN ORDINANCE AN~NDZNG SECTION 300:25, BUBD, 3 OF THE CITY CC)DB itELATING TO BUILDING MOVING The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section ]00:25, Subd. 3, of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Conformity of Buildino or Structure to Buildino Code Re~uirsd. Whether or not a permit is required, no building of structure shall be moved to a location within this City unless it conforms to the building, plumbing, heating, electrical and other construction regulations of this City relating to new structures. In addition to conformity with the applicable code or codes, as minimum requirements, all plumbing for such building or structure shall be by a licensed master plumber, and residential buildings shall have a 100 ampere electrical service. If construction, alterations, or repair work on such building or structure will be necessary to make it conform to such regulations, permits for such work shall be obtained before such building or structure is moved, which permits shall make provision for the doing of such work within 90 days after such building or structure is located in this City. Failure to make such building or structure conform to such construction .regulations within such 90 day period shall constitute a violation of this Section 300:25, and each day that such violation is continued after such 90 day period shall constitute a separate offense. No such permit shall be granted except upon order of the City Council after fave~eb}e recommendation upon the application by the City Planning Commission. The City Council ~r--et--~ts d{se~e~on?--reel~re shall hold a public hearing together with advertised notice of hearing reward-the befoF~ granting or dense} denvinq ef such permit. Notice of the oublic hearina shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten ¢10) days prior ~9 th hearina. Notice of the hearina sha~l also be mailed to owners of DroDert~ located within ~hree hundred fifty feet of the outer boundaries of the l~d ~O which buildina is DrODOsed tO be moved. The Drocessinq Of aDDlication shall be treated the same as an aoD~¢at~on a Conditional Use Permit under Section 23.505.3 of the Code and shall DaY the same fee as is resulted by the to process a Conditional Use Per~. No such building or structure shall be moved to a location within the City unless it will conform to the zoning regulations of the City, will conform to the front-yard and other setback and lot are requirements, and will be a building or structure of the same general character and appearance as other buildings or structures in the vicinity. The City Council shall determined whether or not such building or structure will be permitted at the proposed location. ATTEST: City Clerk ~dopted by the City Council December 12, 1989 Published in the Official Newspaper - The Laker, January 2, 1990 July 13, 1993 RESOLUTION #93-93 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 8HOREWOOD LANE v I&)T8 5 & 6t BLOCK 8t 8HADYWOOD POINT~ PID ~18-117-23 32 0012~ P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-035 WHEREAS, the owner, Marvin Nelson, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the prinicpal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling.is setback 3.7 feet from the south front property line resulting in a variance request of 26.3 feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both the south and east, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT REsOLVED~ by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing a nonconforming 3.7 foot front yard setback to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage at 2025 Shorewood Lane. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage. 210 211 July 13, 1993 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Se Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. This'variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hehnepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building pea-mit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Removal of existing shed. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk 211 Survey on tile? yos~.~ ,, Depth, v FROflTm II $ I If FRCXtTm II I l $lDt8 II $ i P~AJh I I I · .0' I#ltured rrm O.#o¥.t AC(~ S SORY IIU ~ I.D UIG YI15~ I0 .' "i CITY of MOUND ....... ,~ ,J~- ROAD i'~,©c~iD, !,' N,',,ESi,OTA 55364 !,587 612 ~72 2600 FAX ,612 al2 0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 8, 1993 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jon Sutherland, Building Official 1~~' Jim Fackler, Parks Director.~~ REQUEST FOR DIRECTION BY COUNCIL FOR PREPARATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC LAND PERMITS Recently, staff prepared 11 reports for public land permit renewals that were presented to the Parks and Open Space Commission and the City Council. The procedure used to arrive at the recommendation given in these reports was that as outlined in the Plan of Action and the Public Lands Procedure Manual which was approved by the City Council on April 27, 1993 by Resolution #93-52. After discussion by the Parks and Open Space Commission and the City Council, the resolutions that were ultimately passed deviated from the criteria in the Plan of Action and the Procedure Manual. Staff is requesting the City Council review both the Plan of Action and the Public Lands Procedure Manual to determine if changes need to be made to better clarify direction for staff to use in preparation of future recommendations for public land permits. DJ CC: Ed Shukle, City Manager Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector Peggy James, Secretary eprinted on recycled paper October 12,1993 RESOLUTION ~/93- RESOLUTION ON UNFUNDED MANDATES WHEREAS, unfunded mandates on local government have increased significantly in recent years; and WHEREAS, federal and state mandates do not consider local circumstances, costs, or capacity, and subject cities to civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance; and WHEREAS, federal and state mandates require compliance regardless of other pressing local needs and priorities affecting the health, welfare, and safety of citizens; and WHEREAS, federal and state burdens on local governments force cities to impose a combination of higher local taxes and fees on local taxpayers and/or reduce local services to citizens; and WHEREAS, federal and state mandates are often inflexible, one-s~ze-ms-a~ requirements with unrealistic time frames and overly specific and inflexible procedures where less costly alternatives may be just as effective; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impact of these laws and rules directly affect the citizens of our cities; and WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities, in collaboration with the National League of Cities seeks to help citizens understand and then help encourage lawmakers to reduce the burden and inflexibility of unfunded mandates, beginning with a National Unfunded Mandates Day on October 27, 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound, Minnesota, endorses the League's efforts and those of the National League of Cities and will fully inform our citizens about the impact of state and federal mandates on our local spending and taxes; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mound, Minnesota, endorses this year of mandate awareness, beginning on October 27 by informing and working with members of our Congressional delegation and our state legislators to educate them about the impact of federal and state mandates and the actions necessary to reduce these burdens on our citizens. PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- EX~STING HOHCONFOI~IING FRONT Y~RD SETBACK TO THE PR~C~GE D~ELLING TO ~ff~LO~ CONSTRUCTION OF ~ COI~FORM~NG DETACHED ~ LOT8 12~ 13~ ~ 14~ BLOCK 7~ ~T 4716 B~CHBIDE RO~, 23 0039, P&Z C~8E ~BER 93-052 s~OOD POI~, PID $18-117-23 WHEREAS, the applicant, Norman Hemerick, has applied for a variance to recognize an existina nonconforming front yard setback _ ewood L~ne from the principal dwelling to of 28 feet (+/) to ~hor .... ~-~ o~, 34' detached garage, and; allow construction oz a conIorm~,~ ~v x WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 single Family Residential zoning District which according to city code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both Shorewood Lane and Beachside Road, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHERE~S, the Planning commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval upon the following findings of fact: The proposal is conforming, the existing dwelling is in excellent condition, and it is not feasible for the existing dwelling to be moved to a conforming location at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby approve a variance recognizing an existing nonconforming front yard setback from the principal dwelling to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. 2. The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the zoning ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of section 350:420. · that the livability of the residential It is determined . _. =_ ,~ authorization of the 3. ' lm roveu ~ ~'*~ property will ~ =~ ...... -~ormin~ use of the property to following alteration uo u .u. ...... afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a conforming 26' x 34' detached garage. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case ~93-052 Se Se This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 7, Shadywood Point. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1993 CASE ~93-052; NORMAN HEMERICK, 4716 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOTS 12, 13, & 14, BLOCK 7, BHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~18-117-23 23 0039. VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 28 feet to Shorewood Lane; the required setback is 30 feet, resulting is a 2 foot variance. All other setback and hardcover are conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the proposal is conforming. The existing dwelling is in excellent condition and it is not feasible for it to be moved to a conforming location at this time. The Building Official added that he would also like the owner to update the survey to verify the measurement of the nonconforming setback. The applicant stated that all the property markers have been located except the two at the corner, these stakes cannot be located due to the street improvements done by the City. Motion made by Weiland to recommend approval of the variance to recognize a nonconforming front setback to allow construction of a conforming garage as the proposal is conforming, the existing dwelling is in excellent condition and it is not feasible for it to be moved to a conforming location at this time. Mueller seconded the motion. Hanus questioned if a variance can be granted if the exact measurement is unknown. Mueller commented that it does not matter because they are only recognizing and existing nonconforming setback to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The Building Official stated that he will need to verify the setback with the owner at the site. The requirement for a survey was discussed. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were Meyer, Mueller, Johnson, Weiland, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Jensen opposed. Jensen commented that she feels an updated survey is needed in order to establish the measurement for the variance. The owner noted that he originally requested to be heard by the City Council on the following night, October 12, however, he was not placed on that agenda. The Building official stated that he will check with the City Manager to see if this case can be added onto the October 12, 1993 City Council agenda. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1993 CASE ~93-052: NORMAN HEMERICKt 4716 BEACHSIDE ROADt LOTS 12, 13, & 14~ BLOCK 7~ SHADYWOOD POINT~ PID ~18-117-23 23 0039. VARIANCE FOR DETACHED GARAGE. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 28 feet to Shorewood Lane; the required setback is 30 feet, resulting is a 2 foot variance. All other setback and hardcover are conforming. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the proposal is conforming. The existing dwelling is in excellent condition and it is not feasible for it to be moved to a conforming location at this time. The Building Official added that he would also like the owner to update the survey to verify the measurement of the nonconforming setback. The applicant stated that all/the property markers, except the =wo a= the corner, are located, and _.~c. reason tP~:c_~%~c ~take~ a~e not '- c ................ '-~ ~.~d .... city Motion made by Weiland to reco--end approval of the variance to recognize a nonconformiBg front setback to allow construction of a confo~ing garage as the proposal confo~ing, the existing dwelling is in excellent conditio~ and it is not feasible for it to be moved to a confo~ing locatio~ at this time. Mueller seconded the motion. Hanus questioned if a variance can be granted if the exact measurement is unknown. Mueller commented that it does not matter because they are only recognizing and existing nonconforming setback to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The Building Official stated that he will need to verify the setback with the owner at the site. The requirement for a survey was discussed. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were Meyer, Mueller, Johnson, Weiland, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Jensen opposeS. Jensen commented that she feels an updated survey is needed in order to establish the measurement for the variance. The owner noted that he originally requested to be heard by the City Council on the following night, October 12, however, he was not placed on that agenda. The Building Official stated that he will check with the City Manager to see if this case can be added onto the October 12, 1993 City Council agenda. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of October 11, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request APPLICANT: Norman Hemerick CASE NO. 93-052 LOCATION: 4716 Beachside Road, Lots 12, 13, & 14, Block 7, Shadywood Point, PID #18-117-23 23 0039 ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a permit to construct a conforming 26' x 34' detached garage. This request results in a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback of 28 feet to Shorewood Lane; a 30 foot setback is required in the R-1 zone. All other setbacks and hardcover are conforming. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning commission recommend approval as the proposal is conforming. The existing dwelling is in excellent condition and it is not feasible for it to be moved to a conforming location at this time. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on October 26, 1993. This case printed on recycled paper 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364! Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 CITY OF Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: 9 '~ ~q5 Copy to City Planner: I~ Copy to Public Works: I~ Copy to City ~g~i~r: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property Owner's Name /~ .~ .... ,~/~,~__, ~ ~_ Day Phone Owner' s Address -~/'~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Slock Zoning District .~ ~ I Use of Property: Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~/) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc. ) . ?_ ~"y ,3a/ J .~ ~ 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. c{5-05Z Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( No (K). If nO, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason )'vari ~cea , for request, i.e. setback, lot area etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S~"W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE '~ ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~9, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow (~) shape Please describe: 1/1 I ,.'// ) topography ( ) soil ( ) existing ( ) other: specify 5 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~). If yes, explain 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner s 81gna ute Applicant's Signature' Date CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA ,.~/ ~ ~;~? EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 30% = SQ FT X 15% = HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: LENGTH WIDTH X = TOTAL HOUSE ******************* TOTAL GARAGE ****************** X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: .?~; X (if impervious /~ X surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: TOTAL DECK TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** x = TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * YES NO BY: DATE: CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY !)1 .MAlt.',; - (;ABRIEI. ' \x,i) SI'ltVEY()i.IS. I%('. m, i, & GENERAL ZONING hNFOI~IATION SIIEI:TF Required ~g Wldgh: ~0 Ifront~ge on in improved ~blic ~treet) ,.,.-. 140' - , SIDE: N S B W SIDEI N S E W LJM~SHOI~ ~ ACCESSORY BUILDING 4' Or 6' 4' QE 6' 4' 50' (~alured from EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED 8ETBACK8I ~RI14¢IPAL BUILDI14G FRONTi FRONTz SIDg: SIDEi N S E # LAF~S HOP~ I TNI BY t CO14FOPJ41 NG ? YES h¢CESSOR¥ BUILDING FRO14T~ N S W SIDE: N S W ~- . SIDE= N S E .., .,, LA~SHO~ WILL T14E PROPOSED I~tPROV~[TS CO14FORR? YESX NO 0 ...ii ........ I~ . I I,Ii i loci[~need~;.,federal's.~,: of LewLston'-- 1~ gOY~ementS;oPposed League of Minnesota Cities 3490 I~xiug~n Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55~ (612) 490.5600 OCT 4 October 1, 1993 TO: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks FROM: Lee Swanson, LMC President RE: Unfunded Mandates Day The League is collaborating with the National League of Cities and other associations representing local government in an important public education campaign to explain the impact of the dramatic increase in the mandates imposed on cities by the federal government. The effort will begin on Wednesday, October 27, "Unfunded Mandates Day" in cities throughout the United States. I am urging all LMC member cities to help educate citizens and lawmakers about hOw unfunded federal and state mandates affect cities. I have enclosed information to help your city actively participate. The materials have suggestions to help you draw attention to the financial and administrative burdens of unfunded state and federal mandates on local budgets and taxes. I encourage your city to take the following steps prior to and on October 27, and to continue this effort throughout the coming year: (1) Adopt the enclosed resolution on unfunded mandates at a city council meeting BEFORE October 27, and send/fax a copy to the League if you do. (LMC fax: (612) 490-0072) (2) Modify the enclosed sample letter to fit your city's situation and send it to members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation over the mayor's signature. O) Provide at least one example of a federal and/or state mandate that has had a major impact on your city. Send a description of that mandate to Sarah Hackett at the LMC Office by OCTOBER 13. Include a general description of the specific requirement(s); an estimate of the cost to your city; and a brief explanation of the impact of the mandate(s) on city operations and services. As part of the activities for October 27, I will write an editorial about the effects of mandates on cities for distribution to major daily newspapers. The League will send you a different editorial that you can use with your local paper. You will need to add some examples of the impact of mandates on your city. Below is a list of some state and federal mandates. Enclosed you will also find a flyer the National League of Cities has produced which answers questions about mandates. Please make additional copies for councilmembers as well as for citizens in your community with whom you may have a chance to discuss these concerns. Thank you and good luck! STATE AND FEDF, RAL(*) MANDATES PERSONNEL/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS Unemployment compensation Workers compensation Public pensions - Basic and Coordinated plans Continuation of health and life insurance coverage Prevailing wages paid on public contracts (both) Veterans preference Employee right-to-know Parental leave/Family leave* Fair Labor Standards Act* Americans with Disabilities Act* PUBLIC SAFETY Peace officer standards & training Temporary detention facilities/ detoxification centers 911 - emergency phone service Confined space entry Animal control "First responder" & firefighting by city employees on state hwys. ENVIRONMENT Wastewater treatment standards (both) Drinking water standards (both) Surface water management Waste disposal criteria/facilities* Hazardous substance transportation Recycling Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Lead-based paint testing and removal* Leaking underground storage tanks (both) Superfund (both) Land use planning State zoning standards Uniform building code Flood plain management Flood insurance Shoreland development TRANSPORTATION. Municipal state aid roads Computer requirements REVENI.~ CONSTRAINTS Tax-exempt property Limitations on local special assessments Limitations on maximum penalties and fines Truth in Taxation Sales tax and MVET on city purchases Minimum levy contribution to regional libaries *indicates a federal mandate GENERAL GOV'T/RECORDS Conducting elections Record retention schedule Data Practices Act Open Meeting Law Competitive bidding Publication of summary budget Municipal liquor store reporting Street lighting Tax-exempt bond reporting* Model Mandates Fax Letter October 27, 1993 The Honorable U.S. Senate/House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510/20515 Dear Senator/Representative: We are writing on behalf of the citize d pay~l~ of (CITY NAME) asking your help in reduc- ing the burden of unfunded federal ma~.te~We t~ge your action to force a change in the way the federal government considers future m'~ Today we are beginning a public education campai~ in our city about what federal mandates are and what they mean to citizens. We i~~ear the real costs that are passed on to our city. Federal mandates directly affect the c~....~f oUr'~lties and towns. Legislative and regulatory requirements to perform duties with°u'?°~i's~l~rafi°n'..~-n-, . ~ of local priorities, costs, or possible altema- fives put an unfair burden on taxpayer~ By i~oring other pressing local needs or priorities, federal mandates take decision making powe~..t.~ds of local officials. Too often, federal rules and regulafiont~!i~ impose unrealistic time frames, and specify procedures or facilities where less costl~~O~.might be just as effective. It is time for that to change. ...._~ We want you to take a leadership role [~[~~ the tide. Enclosed ~s a copy of a resolution on federal mandates adopted by our city councfl'~'~uld like to report that Congress will act to water m~. .: .~ this session adjourns. We would like to reduce stormwater and drinking ~~ report that no future law or regulation d without close consultation with local leaders, and without the federal government pick~~are of any costs. Please join our campaign to end unfun ~ed~dates and to reintroduce government as a partnership to serve our citizens. ~' ::[~ Sincerely, '>.~i~ ~ CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION ADDRESSES ARE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE Senator Dave Dm'enberger CIR) 154 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3244 U.S. Senators Senator Paul Wellstone (DFL) 702 Senate Ha~t Bldg. Washington. D.C. 2051110 (202) 224-5641 1020 Plymouth Bldg. 12S. 6th SL Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 2370-3382 I (800) 752-4226 Court Int~rnntional Bldg. 2550 University Ave. Room 100 N. St. Paul, MN 55114 (612) 645-O323 I (800) 642-6041 First District T'uno~hy J, Penny (DIRE,) 436 Cannon Hou~ Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2472 P.O. Box 368 10~ W. Park Squa~ Owatonna, MN 55060 I (800) 862-8632 Second Distrkt David Minge (DFL) 1508 Longworth Hoo.~ Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2331 I {612) 269-8863 542 First St. S. Montevideo, MN 56265 (612) 269-9311 10~ E. Third St. Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 448-6567 938 Fourth Ave. Windom, MN 56101 (507) 831-0115 Third District Jim Ram, tad (IR) 322 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2871 8120 Penn Ave. S. Suite 152 Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 881-4600 Fourth Distrkt Bruce F. Vento (DFL) 2304 Raybum House Office Bldg. Washinglon, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-6631 727 Galtier Plaza 175 E. 5th St. Box 100 St Paul, MN 55101 (612) 224-4503 U.S. Representatives Fifth District Martin Olay Salx) (DFL) 2336 Raybum Hou~ Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-4755 462 Federal Courts Bldg. 110 S. 4th St. Minneapolis. MN 55401 (612) 348-1649 Sixth District Rod Grams (IR) 1713 Longworth House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2271 2013 2nd Avenue North Anok~ MN 55303 (612) 427-5921 Seventh Distrkt ColUn Peterson (DFL) 1133 Longworth House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2165 714 Lake Ave. Suile 107 Deltoit Lakes, MN 56501 (218) 847-5056 2603 Wheat Drive Red Lake Falls, MN 56750 (218) 253-4356 3333 W. Division St. Cloud, MN 56301 (612) 259-O559 Eighth District James L, Oberstar (DFL) 2.'~6 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Wn.~hington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-6211 231 Federal Bldg. Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 727-7474 Brainerd Cit7 Hall 501 Laurel St. Bralnenl, MN 56401 (218) 828-4400 Chisholm City Hall 316 L~ke St. Chisholm, MN 55719 (218) 254-5761 Sample News Release on Unfunded Mandates Day Leaders (or your title and name) of (your community) announced today (their, his, her) intention to support and participate in a nationwide campaign to break Washington's habit of making local governments pay the cost of expensive and intrusive federal programs, commonly referred to as "unfunded mandates." October 27th will be observed as "National Unfunded Mandates Day" in cities, counties, towns and villages across the United States through a coordinated joint effort organized by the National League of Cities, state municipal leagues and several other public interest groups representing local governments. The term "unfunded federal mandate" describes actions taken in Washington that impose, but do not pay for, a costly program or requirement that local governments are directed to carry out. For cities and towns, unfunded federal mandates have become an increasingly difficult and intrusive problem. Along with the growing financial burden of their costs, they also have the effect of distorting local priorities by diverting resources that might have been assigned to other community needs. "We want to make it clear that we usually have no quarrel with the intentions of laws enacted by Congress -- such as assuring a healthful environment and enabling people with disabilities to participate fully in our society," said ( title and name ). "What concerns us is that the costs and tasks of these good intentions are all too often left for us to pay for and carry out. Adding to our frustration is the fact that these programs, enacted by distant lawmakers in Washington, can lay claim to our local tax funds ahead of the needs and priorities of the people who elected us to address those needs," said ( title and name ). ( If you have any specific intentions to convene a special council hearing, town meeting, news event, etc., in October, it might be mentioned here. ) (over) Some mandates, especially in the environmental area, constitute an enormous burden by themselves. Many others may seem modest by themselves, but taken together, their total costs, along with time-consuming regulations and paperwork, are choking the limited resources of local governments. ( Cite example(s) from your community or region, if possible. ) The events in October will mark the official beginning of an ongoing campaign by the National League of Cities to build a grassroots awareness and understanding of the ways that unfunded mandates encroach on local decisionmaking and local revenue systems. "We believe that the elected leaders and professional administrators of our cities and towns can play an essential role in helping local citizens and taxpayers learn first-hand about the ways that unfunded mandates can affect their community," said Donald J. Borut, NLC executive director. "That first-hand perspective is what will explain this difficult issue best." In addition to increasing public awareness of unfunded mandates, the events in October also will serve as a catalyst to initiate actions in Congress to reimburse local governments for federal mandates, or to provide relief from their excessive burden. "Washington must begin to tackle its budget problems, just as our community and other cities have been doing for years," said ( title and name ). "This is no time for Washington to think it should solve its problems by passing their cost on to us." Work on current and pending legislation already is underway, and the organizations representing local governments also are involved in seeking institutional reforms to the federal regulatory process. Those initiatives would provide local governments a stronger voice in the development of rules, procedures and compliance deadlines drawn up by federal agencies. Model Mandates Fax Letter October 27, 1993 The Honorable U.S. Senate/House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510/20515 Dear Senator/Representative: We are writing on behalf of the citizens and taxpayers of our city to ask you to act to reduce current unfunded federal mandate burdens and to urge your action to force change in the way the federal government considers future mandates. The cumulative impact of federal legislative and regulatory requireme~ ?.:.~!~°? duties without consideration of local circumstances, costs, or capacity, or be~bject to ~Yi! !~i!i~l penalties for noncompliance directly affects the citizens of our c)ues comp'dance regardless of other pressing local needs a:~!:::~lTip~!y~ii~g tne nc~m~, .~.~--.;,., *,,.,., safety of our citizens, forcing a combination of hT~e~::~ea~i::i~es'::a~ :l'ees and reducecl lOCm serv,ces. Too often federal rules and regulations are ~Ble:i::::~:~?~iize-fits-all requirements that impose unrealistic time frames and specify procedui~ ~~!fi~ilifi~i~!i~:~here less costly alternatives might be just as effective. It is time for that to chan~ffi?.i~i!~::i~::~iii::~?:!ii:: ':~iiii!i~?:ii~;:iii!:~:' ' ..... ' Today we are beginning a publi~ education ca~paign in our city about what federal mandates are and what they mean to our mutual ~$~fltUe661 :'~We intend to make clear the real costs that are passed on to our city .... We want you to 6~:ai~i~ErS~:'~,role in turning back the tide. Enclosed is a copy of a resolution on federal mandates B9 °Ur governing body. We would like to report that Congress will act to reduce stormwater and~nking water mandates before this session adjourns. We would like to report that no future law or f~gUlation will be imposed without close consultation with local leaders and without the federal government picking up its share of any costs. We will make progress repons to our council and our community about what you are or are not doing to help us. So please join our campaign to end unfunded federal mandates and to reintroduce government as a partnership to serve our citizens. Sincerely, $ Unfunded Mandates Day-October 2'7, 1993 ACTIVITY CHECKLIST Yes, We Will. Adopt an unfunded mandates resolution at a governing body meeting before C~--tober 27. Personalize a news release, and send it to our local and regional media before October 27. By October 15, send NL¢ an'example of at least one federal mandate that has had a significant (mpact on our community. We will describe the ~ general requirement, .estimate h°w much it will cost our toxpayers, and highlight the specific burdens it imposes on our municipality and on our citizens. Let our state munlc|pal league know about the activities we are planning for October 27. Conduct a press conference or information briefing on October 27, 1993 -- National Unfunded Mandates Day. Personalize and fax, on October 27, a letter and a copy of our adopted unfunded mandates resolution to .members of our Congressional delegation. National League'o[ Cities SEP :3 0 September ~-?, 199~ National 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. League Washington, D.C. of 20004 Cities (202) 626-3000 Fax: (202) 626-3043 Officers Pres~denl Donald M Frase~ Mayor. Mmneapohs Minnesota F/rst Vice President S~arpe James Mayor Newark. New Jersey Second Vice President Carolyn Long Banks Counowoman-at-Large AtLanta Georgia Immediate Past President Gtenda E Hood Mayor Orlando Flonda Executive D~reCtOr Donald J Borut Dear Mayor: I have enclosed an information kit to assist you in taking a leadership role on National Unfunded Mandates Day, October 27, 1993. Your active participation in this nationwide effort to educate citizens and members of Congress about the tremendous financial and administrative burdens of unfunded federal mandates is essential, both on October 27 and during the coming months. The information kit contains basic information to help you draw attention to this issue in your community and with your Congressional delegation. I urge you to take the following steps during the coming weeks and on October 27: (1) Adopt the enclosed resolution on unfunded mandates at a governing body meeting before October 27. (2) Personalize the enclosed news release and send it to your local and regional media before October 27. (3) Provide an example of at least one federal mandate that has had a significant impact on local operations in your community and send a description of that mandate to NLC headquarters by O~tobez 15. Your summary should include a general description of the specific federal requirement, an estimate of the cost to your community, and a brief description of the impact this mandate has had on your community. We will use these examples in Nation's cities Weekly and in national reports about the negative impact of unfunded mandates on local governments. (4) Conduct a press conference or information briefing on October 27 to announce your community's plans to participate in the national campaign to end mandates as we know them and change the way the federal government implements national (over) OCTOBER. 27, 1993 National Unfunded Mandates Day Mayor September 27, 1993 Page Two (5) policies affecting local governments. We urge you to include all members of your governing body in this briefing, along with county officials, school board officials, and business leaders who share your concerns about the impact of unfunded federal mandates on local priorities and local budgets. The information kit includes a proposed statement that you can use at your press conference that day. Personalize and fu the enclosed letter to members of your Congressional delegation along with a copy of your adopted resolution on October 27. Simultaneous faxes to Congress on October 27 will make it clear to national leaders that this issue is a significant concern to local leaders throughout the country. Please notify your State Municipal League of your plans on October 27 so that they are aware of activities throughout the state. In addition to the specific events on October 27, we are planning follow-up activities in Washington to work closely with national leaders to produce results from this effort. There will also be a track of sessions focusing on mandates at the Congress of Cities in Orlando, December 2-5. While your participation in National Unfunded Mandates Day is an important starting point for this effort, it is equally important that we maintain momentum beyond that day in order to achieve long-term change. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen if we continue to work together. Thank you for your commitment and support. Sincerely, Donald M. Fraser President Mayor, Minneapolis SOME COMMENTS ON THE FUNCTIONS OF THE LMCD ......... by Tom Reese 1. The LMCD provides some exceedingly unique and singular services in the following areas: · Adjudication short of litigation of neighborhood dock use area disputes. · The initial drafting, and the subsequent Upgrading of the various ordinances that govern the lake. These are one of a kind and are based on the collective experiences of board members and staff. · Leadership in pioneering new initiatives on recreational uses of lakes, ie. Personal watercraft usage, Noise levels, Wakes control, Lakeshore lighting, Fishing contests, Control of exotics, Boat storage, Public access, Environmental protection, etc., ie. the Management Plan et al. 2. The LMCD concept provides for uniformity of treatment for all lakeshore owners, lake businesses, would be developers, and lake users. If this responsibility were divided in any way, the new entity could be subject to whip sawing by the various interest groups. 3. While the budget is often a topic of discussion, mostly because of its high visibility, the staff level, by any measure, is low. Board members are unpaid, not even receiving mileage, nor trips to conventions and the like, yet the time requirement is greater than other municipal Jobs which are paid. Much of the traditional staff work is done by the unpaid board members. Any other form of organization would at the least require pay for members, and perhaps a greater staff. 4. The LMCD provides a manner of at least overseeing the Sheriff's Water Patrol, a difficult task at best. Along with this comes the grouping and overseeing of the prosecutions, and the channeling of fines into lake improvement activities. 5. The existance of the LMCD testifies to the uniqueness of Lake Minnetonka and serves to distinguish it from other large recreational lakes around the state. It is an informed public agency with a large visibility, which should make it more difficult to pass unfriendly or /ltc~i, eese cc. Mound Council /~/10/6/93 Gene Strommen, Exec Dir LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 103B.601 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Applicability. Thc definitions in this section apply to sections 103B.601 to 103B.645. Subd. 2. Board. "Board" means the governing board of the directors of the district. Subd. 3. District. 'District~ means the Lake Minnetonka conservation district. Subd. 4. Municipality. "Municipality" means the home rule charter or statutory city of Minnetrista, Mound, Spring Park, Orono, Minnetonka Beach, Wayzata, Minne- tonka, Woodland, Deephaven. Shorewood, Greenwood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay, or Vic. toria. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 47 103B.60S DISTRICT. Subdivision I. Establishment. The Lake Minnetonka conservation district estab- lished under Laws 1967, chapter 907, and Laws 1969, chapter 272, is a corporate and political body and a political subdivision of this state, and ma), sue and be sued, enter into contracts, and hold real and personal property for its purposes. Subd. 2. Distrlet is an employer. The district is an employer within the definition of section 176.01 !, subdivision 10, and is included in the provisions of chapter 176. Subd. 3. District is public corporation. The district is a public corporation within the definition of section 466.01 and is included in the provisions of chapter 466. Subd. 4. Dissolution. The district may be dissolved by the decision of the govern- ing bodies of three-quarters of the municipalities in the district. The decision ora town shall be made by the board of supervisors of the town. History: 1990 c .791 art 2 s 48 103B.611 BOARD. Subdivision 1. Composition. The district is governed by a board composed of mem- bers elected by the governing bodies of the municipalities included in the district. Each municipality shall elect one member. Subd. 2. Term. The term of office of each board member is three years. Subd. 3. Powers. Subject to the provisions of chapters 97A, 103D, 103E, 103G, and I ! 5, and the rules and regulations of the respective agencies and governing bodies vested with jurisdiction and authority under those chapters, the district has the follow- ing powers: (1) to regulate the types of boats permitted to use the lake and set service fees; (2) to regulate, maintain, and police public beaches, public docks, and other public facilities for access to the lake within the territory of the municipalities, provided that a municipality may supersede the district's action under this clause by adopting an ordinance specifically referring to the district's action by one year after the district's action; (3) to limit by rule the use of the lake at various times and the use of various parts of the lake; (4) to regulate the speed of boats on the lake and the conduct of other activities on the lake to secure the safety of the public and the most general public use; (5) to contract with other law enforcement agencies to police the lake and its shore; (6) to regulate the construction, installation, and maintenance of permanent and temporary docks and moorings consistent with federal and state law; (7) to regulate the construction and use of mechanical and chemical means of deic- ing the lake and to regulate mechanical and chemical means of removal of weeds and algae from the lake; (8) to regulate the construction, configuration, size, location, and maintenance of commercial marinas and their related facilities including parking areas and sanitary facilities. The regulation shall be consistent with the applicable municipal building codes and zoning ordinances where the marinas are located; (9) to contract with other governmental bodies to perform any of the functions of the district; (10) to undertake research to determine the condition and development ofthe lake and the water entering it and to transmit their studies to the pollution control agency and other interested authorities, and to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution; (! 1) tO receive financial assistance from and join in projects or enter into contracts with federal and state agencies for the study and treatment of pollution problems and demonstration programs related to them: and (! 2) to petition the board of managers of a watershed district in which the lake conservation district is located for improvements under section 103D.705; a bond is not required of the lake conservation district. Subd. 4. Bylaws and board proct4ures. The board shall adopt a seal, bylaws for the regulation of the affairs of the district, and rules of procedure to govern the board's actions that are consistent with law. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 49 103B.615 DISTRICT OFFICERS. Subdivision !. Election and terms. (a) The board shall elect from its membership a chair to serve for a period of one year and shall also elect a secretary and a treasurer. (b) The officers hold office at the pleasure of the board. Subd. 2. Compensation. The board shall fix the compensation of the officers. Subd. 3. Other officers and employees. The board may appoint other officers, agents, and employees who shall perform duties and receive compensation as the board determines and are removable at the pleasure of the board. History: 1986 c 444; 1990 c 391 art 2 s 50 103B.621 TREASURER. Subdivision I. Bond. Before taking office, the treasurer shall give bond to the dis- trict in an amount to be determined by the board. Subd. 2. Duties. (a) The treasurer shall receive and is responsible for all money of the district. The money of the district shall be considered public funds. (b) The treasurer shall disburse the funds of the district in accordance with rules of the board. Subd. 3. Investments. (a) If there are funds not currently needed, the treasurer may invest the funds in treasury bonds, certificates of indebtedness, bonds or notes of the United States of America, or bonds, notes or certificates of indebtedness of the state of Minnesota. The bonds, certificates, or notes must mature by three years from the date of purchase. If the board determines that invested funds are needed for current purposes before the maturity dates of the bonds, certificates, or notes, the board shall notify the treasurer and the treasurer shall order the sale or convert the bonds, certifi- cates, or notes into cash in the amount determined by the board. (b) The interest and profit on investments shall be credited to and constitute a part of the funds of the district. Subd. 4. Financial statement. The treasurer shall keep an account of the funds received and disbursed. At least once a year at times designated by the board, the trea- surer must file a financial statement with the municipalities forming the district show- ing in appropriate and identifiable groupings: (1) the receipts and disbursements since the last approved financial statement; {2) the money on hand; (3) the purposes for which the money of the district is appropriated; {4) an account of all bonds, certificates, or notes purchased and the funds from which they were purchased; and (5) the interest and profit that has accrued from investments. Subd. 5. Compensation for clerks. The district may pay to the treasurer compensa- tion to cover hiring clerks to carry out the treasurer's duties. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 $ 51 103B.625 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. Subdivision I. Appointment. The board may appoint an executive director for the district. The executive director shall serve at the pleasure of the board and shall receive compensation as determined by the board. Subd. 2. Duties and powers. Under the supervision of the board, the executive direclor: (I) is the executive and operating ol~cer of the district; (2) is responsible for the operation, management, and promotion of all activities with which the district is charged and other duties prescribed by the board; and (3) has the powers necessarily incident to the performance of the duties of the executive director and other powers granted by the board, but without authority to incur liability or make expenditures on behalf of the district without general or specific directions by the board, as shown by the bylaws or minutes of its meetings. History: 1990 c $91 art 2 s 52 103B.631 PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND EXPENSES. Subdivision 1. Duties may be performed by municipal employees. The duties of the district may be executed by employees of the municipalities. Subd. 2. Expenses. The expenses of the district shall be borne by the municipali- ties. The portion of the expenses of the district borne by each municipality must be in proportion to its net tax capacity provided that the portion of any one municipality may not be more than 20 percent of the total expense or less than $200. History: 1990 c $91 art 2 s .53 103B.635 FUNDING OF DISTRICT. Subdivision 1. Budget. The board must, on or before July I each year, prepare and submit a detailed budget of the district's needs for the next calendar year to the govern- ing body of each municipality in the district with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The governing body of each municipality in the district shall review the budget and the board, upon notice from a municipality, must hear objections to the budget. After the hearing, the board may modify or amend the budget. Notice must be given to the municipalities of modifications or amend- ments. Subd. 2. Municipal funding ofdlstrict. (a) The governing body or board of supervi- sors of each municipality in the district must provide the funds necessary to meet its proportion of the total cost determined by the board. CO) A municipality may raise the funds by any means that the municipality has to raise funds. The municipalities may each levy a tax not to exceed .00242 percent of tax- able market value on the taxable property located in the district for funding the district. The lev)' must be within all other limitations provided by law. (c) The funds must be deposited in the treasury of the district in amounts and at times as the treasurer of the district requires. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 54 103B.641 REGULATIONS OF DISTRICT. Subdivision !. Authority and effect. (a) The district may adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the purpose of its establishment and the powers granted to the district. Co) The rules and regulations have the effect of an ordinance if declared by the board of directors of the district and stated in the rule or regulation. (c) The rules and regulations of the district may be enforced by the district by injunction in addition to penalties under this section. Subd. 2. Adoption procedure. (a) A rule or regulation must be suitably titled. Co) A rule or regulation must be adopted by a majority vote of all of the members of the board of directors. The adopted rule or regulation must be signed by the chair, attested by the secretary of the board, and published once in an official newspaper. ,is (C) Proof of publiCation must be attached to and filed with the rule or regulation. Each rule and regulation must be recorded in the rule and regulation book by 20 days after its publication. Subd. 3. Penal~. A person who violates a rule or regulation that has the force and effect of an ordinance is guilty ora misdemeanor and subject to a sentence of not more than 90 days plus costs or a fine of not more than $100 plus costs. History: 1990 c .t91 art 2 s .53 103B.645 PROSECUTION OF VIOLATIONS. Subdivision I. Complaint for violation. A prosecution for a violation of a rule or regulation shall be brought in the name of the district upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. If the accused is arrested without a warrant, a written complaint shall be made, to which the accused shall be required to plead, and a warrant shall issue on the complaint. The warrant and all other process in such cases shall be directed for service to a police ot~cer, court ot~cer, marshal, constable, or sheriff of any of the municipalities in the district. Subd. 2. Complaint. it is a sufficient pleading of the rules and regulations of the district to refer to them by section and number or chapter, or any other way that clearly reflects the rules and regulations that are the subject of the pleading. The rules and regu- lations shall have the effect of general laws within the district and need not be given in evidence upon the trial of an action. Subd. 3. Appeal to district court. Appeals may be taken from the district court in the same manner as from judgments in civil actions. History: 1990 c $91 art 2 s 36 CITY OF MOUND SPECIAL DAY SATURDAY- OCTOBER 16. 1993 - 8 AM to 4 PM AT THE LOST LAKE AREA ON COUNTY ROAD 15 BETWEEN SUPERAMERICA AND THE POST OFFICE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE ACCEPTED: GOODWILL: CLOTHING, SMALL WORKING APPLIANCES, GAMES DOMESTIC ITEMS (PANS, DISHES, ETC.), HARDWARE TOOLS, LAMPS...** THERE IS NO CHARGE ** MATTRESS: THERE IS A CHARGE BY SIZE: CRIB $3, SINGLE $5, DOUBLE $6, QUEEN $7, KING $8 FURNITURE: CHAIRS $3, RECLINERS $5, LOVESEAT COUCH $6, SOFA $10, HIDE-A-BED SOFA $15 CARPET: 50 CENTS PER SQUARE YARD (Jute back only, no foam padding) TIRES_: $1 EACH, $1.50 WITH RIM APPLIANCES: $7 EACH this includes washers, dryers, stoves, furnaces, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers...$15 for AIR CONDITIONERS SCRAP METAL: SWING SETS, LAWN FURNITURE, GRILLS, BICYCLES, AUTO PARTS, SPRINGS, PIPE, METAL WINDOW FRAMES, AUTO BATTERIES, ETC. ** NO CHARGE ** ELECTRONICS- $4 EACH TELEVISIONS, STEREOS, VCRS, VACUUM CLEANERS, COMPUTERS; No charge for: Telephones, Radios, Camcorders, Tape Players, This includes rechar.qeable and ~,ordless appliancee . PHONE BOOKS: A CONTAINER WILL BE PROVIDED AT NO CHARGE BATTERIES: HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES ** FREE ** NEW BINS: BRUSH: IF YOU BRING IN YOUR BROKEN RECYCLING BIN, WE WILL REPLACE IT OR YOU MAY PURCHASE NEW ONES FOR $6 $3 PER CUBIC YARD, $9 A TRUCK LOAD UP TO 12" IN DIAMETER, INCLUDES DOCK SECTIONS, AND SCRAP WOOD (BRUSH PILE WILL BE OPEN WEEKENDS THROUGH OCTOBER) THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL N~ BE ACCEPTED: Household plastics, plastic toys, styrofoam, insulation, window glass, rope, hazardous waste (paint, oil, thinners, etc.) cans, glass, newspaper, cardboard, garbage, leaves, foam rubber, construction waste, carpet padding. ANY QUESTIONS, CALL CITY HALL AT 472-0603 BILLS- October 12, 1993 Batch 3093 Batch 3094 Total Bills $152,751.12 157,028.44 $309,779.56 ~Ct:I '(GE ~.~-tI t'~ ~"'~I I I I I I I I I I I~ I ,t I I ,I I I I I ~ ~ ~1 I I I ~ ~ oooooooooo: ooooo~~', oo oo~ ~ oo ~ oooo~o~oo~ o~oo~o~ool I =1 ~ .o , oo~ooooooo~. ~ ; opoo~ooooo~, , - tt~ t~, ! ~o~ I ~ . ~ ~ t / O! O0~ I ~ ~ ~oo~ooOOO~ ~oo~ooooo~ ~t o~ ~' O0 I I I I I~ I I I II I I I I II~ I I I~ I I I I ~ I I I III ~ o~ I I . / I I ~ '~ ' ~ I o III I · i, o to o ol ¢~ o,~4 o~-I 0,.4 O~ J uJUJ k-. ~:: 0 o O0 0 ~4 I I I I Z l,I Ill ooL '4 I I ! I I I ~..J oooo I I I L_ 44 <= Z Z ::3 8 I oo o~ 0 Z 0 07-0ct-93 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT INVESTMENTS The following is the September investment activity: BalanCe: September 1, 1993 $5,506,501 Bought: CP 2.89 Shearson Due 9-27-93 249,901 CP 3.09 Shearson Due 9-29-93 999,407 Money Market 4M 110,000 Inst Govt Income Piper 1,400,000 Inst Govt Inc Piper - Income Reinvested N/A Money Market 4M - Income Reinvested 1,719 Matured: CP 3.23 Shearson (1,240,023) CP 2.89 Shearson (249,901) CP 3.09 Shearson (999,407) Money Market 4M (TO CHECKING ACCT.) (50,000) Balance: September 30, 1993 $5,728,197 Computer Users Meetinq in Mankato The quarterly meeting of the CSI Computer User Group was held on September 16 in Mankato. I had the opportunity to be brought up to date on the status of the different financial applications that are being used in Mound, including payroll, special assessments, utility billing, and fund and budget accounting. The users have been told that CSI is moving toward implementation of the COBOL II runtime module on their development system. Also CSI will be upgrading its development system and application software to version 3.2.4 to remain current with IBM. What all of this means is that we will have to set aside a couple of days to install: * Upgraded AIX 3.2.4 IBM Operating System * Upgraded Microfocus COBOL II 3.1 * COBOL II 3.1 versions of CSI application software The cost of these changes will be close to $1,500. CITY of MOUND 5341 Mz,:'~/OOD ROAD ~/OU,qO M',!iESOTA55364 1687 ~,c 472 0600 FAX 612) 472 0620 October 4, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS MANAGER SEPTEMBER MONTHLY REPORT The third quarter is over. One more to go. So far for the year our sales are up $112,000.00 over the same period last year. That is a 12% increase. Customers are up 7,376 over the same period last year. Now that the summer is over, we have re-arranged our sales floor to coincide with the seasonal change. Down with the wine cooler, gin and rum displays and up with the brandy, cordial and wine displays. I also thought it was time to adjust for the ever increasing "fine wine" sales. Jug and table wine sales have declined recently. It was time to move them to a smaller shelf and move the popular better wines to a larger shelf. By doing so I also will be able to expand this category by about 25 items. A better and larger selection equates into more sales, thus more profits. Never stand still. It is an ever changing world. If you are complacent and stagnant then your competitor has a huge advantage over you. I had an employee, Amy Thomas, give her two week resignation. Very unfortunate. She was an outstanding worker who had been with us for over a year. Very good with customers, always on time, and her work was extremely accurate. With her other full time position and some other things going on in her personal life, she simply was not able to continue with us anymore. She will be missed. JK:ls printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND October 7, 1993 TO: FROM: RE: CITY MANAGER FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER MONTHLY REPORT There were 2 Regular Council Meetings in September. There was Agenda preparation, minutes, and 13 resolutions in conjunction with those meetings. The Mound Code of Ordinances was updated and distributed to all persons having a book. The special assessment hearings will be held in October. These special assessments are for Central Business District Parking Maintenance, unpaid mowing charges, and delinquent utility bills which will be placed upon taxes. Hearing notices were made up and have been submitted to the newspaper for publication. The mailed notice requires additional information and this also is being done. The tax books have to be consulted on each one of the proposed assessments to be sure the notice is mailed to the proper person. I am all caught up on indexing all the Minutes so far this year. The cemetery records were updated with things that have happened in 1993. There were the usual calls from residents and other people requiring information. I am on a number of election committees, i.e. League Elections of Ethics, Optical Scan Users Group, MCFOA Elections, Absentee Voting, Voter Registration, and we have had several meetings this month in preparation for the upcoming Legislative Session. fc p~mted on recycleC p~per CITY of MOUND 534~ MAvWOOD MOUND Li NNESOTA 552c4 612 472-06C9 FAX ,6~2 472 5620 PARKS DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 1993 MONTHLY REPORT Parks The remaining equipment for summer use has been put away for the winter. The parks have had their last mowing done and the mowers will now be set up for winter use. Small projects that we set aside, due to the summer calling for time being spent on time consuming beaches and mowing, are now being done. The staff from the summer will be completely gone by October 15. One worker, John Taffe, will be available for work as needed, he has helped with the ice rinks and plowing during storms. Docks The dock inspector has begun rounds looking at winter dock storage. Cemetery The mowing and general up-keep has slowed with the weather change. Currently, we have to wait for the leaves to fall for the last clean-up. The staking for winter burials will be done in October. Trees/Weeds Two trees were removed from City property and two others were removed from private property under forced removal. Four weed notices were sent to private property owners in which two of them had to have forced mowings. JF:pj printed on recycled paper MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 1993 FIRE FIGHTERS DRIbLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 9 f20 9/23 ~ RIlRS H2IMS RA~E __ 1 o~' ~\:DK~SFN X X 2 19.00 3~ 38 6.00 228,O0 2 $REG A~'D~.qON X (~E~) 1 9.50 lb 31 6.00 186.00 3 JI~RY BABB X X ~ 19.00 0 20 6 00 120.00 4 PAIJ~ BABB X X ~ 19.00 0 30 6 O0 180.00 5 DAVID BOYD X X 2 19.00 2 17 6 .00 102.00 6 DON BRYCE X X 2 19.00 0 23 6.50 149.50 7 SCOTI BRYCE X X 2 19.00 0 22 6.00 132.00 8 DAVID CARLSON X X 2 19.O0 3 22 6.00 132.00 9 JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 1 21 6.00 126.00 10 STEYE COLLINS X X 2 19.00 2 18 6.00 108.OO 11 RANDY E~GELFART X X 2 19.00 2 29 6.00 174.OO 12 STEVE ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 0 37 6.25 231.25 13 PHIL FISK X X 2 19.00 2 21 6.00 126.00 14 DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 2 40 6.00 240.00 15 KEVIN GRADY X ~.~ 1 9.50 4 26 6.00 156.O0 16 CRAIG Ht~DERSON X X 2 19.OO 5 27 6.00 162.OO 17 PABq~ I~Y X X 2 19.00 3 20 6.00 120.OO 18 BRAD LAND~IAN X X 2 19.00 2 24 6.00 144.00 19 RON MARSCHICE X X 2 19.00 2 22 6.00 132.00 20 JOHN NAFUS X X 2 19.00 2 14 6.00 84.00 21 JAMES NELSON X_ X 2 19.00 2 17 6.00 102 22 MARV N"ELSON ( E~ X 1 9.50 2 16 6.00 9~ 23 BRET NICCI~ X X 2 19.00 5 19 6.00 114.OO 24 GREG P.~J./., X X 2 19.00 4 22 6.00 132.00 150.O0 25 blIKE PAP.1 X X 2 19.00 O 25 6.00 26 TIM PAl2.! X X 2 19.O0 1½ 24 6.00 144.00 27 GREG PEDERSON X X 2 19.00 2 31 6.00 186.OO 138.O0 28 CHRIS POL?~DER X X 2 19.00 O 23 6.00 6.00 72.00 29 TON~f RAS~IUSSEN X X 2 19 . 001 2 12 156.00 30 MIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19. O0 5 ~ 26 6. O0 31 KEVIN SIPPRELL X X 2 19.00 2 31 6.00 186.O0 32 RON STALLblAN X X 2 19 .O0 5½ 21 6.00 126.OO TOM ~,~SON X ~_~.~) 1 - 9.50 0 20 6.00 120.OO 33 34 ED Vo~'x'ECEK X X 2 19.00. 1½ 31 6.00 186.OO RICK ~(iLLIA~IS X X 2 19.00! 22½ 30 6.00 180.OO Cg? (37 0 -0- 2 11 6.00 66.00. X X 2 19.00 2½ 35 6.00 210.O0 37 DENNY WOY'IL'KE 35 33 68 ~ 87½ 82~ 170 646.00 97 896 I~ 5,396.75 1 70 l~lql,q 646. O0 97 _ 1 IUrAL 7,209.75 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT THIS 'LAST THIS'YEAR LAST t~ MO~ l~ TO DATE TO DATE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 1993 NO. OF C~JT~ 47 63 456 361 FIRE 8 11 88 73 MOUND ~ERGEN~ 17 24 177 121 FIRE 1 3 9 7 DIINNETONKA BEACH M,~RGENOY 0 0 2 4 FIRE 4 1 20 15 MINNETRISTA MMERGENb~ 3 1 29 29 FIRE 4 8 25 18 ORONO ~(~ 2 2 24 16 FIRE 0 2 4 2 SHOREWOOD M~0~RGENCY 2 0 3 1 FIRE 1 2 19 24 SPRING PARK ~I~-RGE~L-'Y 5 8 53 47 --- FIRE 0 1 4 4 MUTUAL AID M~ERGENCY 0 0 1 0 TOTAL FIRE CALLS 18 28 167 143 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 29 35 292 218 COMMERCIAL 1 0 7 9 RESIDENTIAL , 6 ih 46 54 IhS)US'nUAL O Q o 1 GRASS & ~SCELLANEO~S 6 7 5~ 30 Ab'TO ] O 8 10 FAiSEALARM / FIRE ALARMS 4 q 53 NO. OF HOURS FIRE 171 217 1975 1929 - MOUND I1MERGENCY ?q~ ~7~ q?6~ 2967 TOTAL ~69 587 5296 4296 FIRE 7 97 99 103 - MTKA BEACH M~ERGENCY O O 5Z 90 TOTAL 7 37 151 193 FIRE 60 31 365 416 - bI'TRISTA m.~%RGENCY 85 18 549 527 TOTAL 145 49 914 943 FIRE 76 179 518 347 - ORONO M~ERGENCY 48 39 464 340 TOTAL 124 218 982 687 FIRE 0 28 80 126 - SHOREWOOD mqERGENCY %5 Q 41 16 ,.. ~ 1~ ~8 121 142 ?!RE 15 54 407 501 - SP. PARK M,~RGENCY llZ 151 1018 972 TOTAL 127 205 1425 1473 FIRE 15 40 164 220 -MUTJALAID EMERGM~Y~Y 0 0 30 0 TOTAL 15 40 194 220 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 170 165 1467~ 1552~ %OTAL FIRE HOURS 344 586 3608 3642 TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 552 578 5415 4312 TOTAL FIRE & MM~IRGENCYMOURS 896 1164 .9023 7954 MUTUAL AID .~ECEIVED 0 0 2 3 ~U~UA~ A~ ~V~ 1 1 ~ 4 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT DRILL REPORT Date SEI~, 2O, l $B Dlsclpl:ne and Teamwork Critique of f:res Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First Aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused 0 Present / Not Paid Miscellaneous : PERSONNEL ~/~J.Andersen G.Anderson %.Babb .Babb D.Boyd D.Bryce S.Bryce D.Car]son ~y~ J.Casey i Collins .Englehart ~3~ .Erickson P.Fisk D.Grady K.Grady C.Henderson ~P.Henry ~B.Landsman R.Marschke J.Naius J.Nelson M.Nelson B.N~ccum G.Paim l. Palm T.Palm G.Pederson ~A=C.Pounder ~_~L=T.Rassmusen ~ M.Savage /K.Smpprell R.Stallman T.Swenson E.Vanecek i[Williams Williams .Woytcke DRILL REPORT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Date Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First Aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-ContaIned Masks Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operatxons Radio Operations House Evolutzons Nozzles & Hose Appliances Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused 0 Present / Not Paid ~ce 1 I aneous : -~4 ~g)m4p~-/'~A3 I. F'~.p,',,,(.,, PERSONNEL JG ·Andersen ·Anderson .Babb D. Boyd D.Bryce S .Bryce .Carlson J. Casey · Col l ins ~_A~R. Englehart ;~1~S . Er lckson !'Flsk .Grady .Grady ~_~_C.Henderson ~ P.Henry _~B.Landsman R.Marschke ~---~-J.Nafus ~T~J.Nelson _MNelson BiNzccum ~'-r/~G.Palm ~-~_M.Palm T'Palm .Pederson .Pounder .Rassmusen ~M.Savage ~_K.Sipprell ~j~_R.Stallman T.Swenson E.Vanecek R.Williams T.Williams D.Woytcke MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF I MEN ON DUTY ! ~5'~1 J, ANDERSEN /'~ G. ANDERSON O J. BABB .~ D. BOYD ~ D. BRYCE ~ S. BRYCE ~ D. CARLSON [ J. CASEY ~ S. COLLINS ~ R. ENGELHART ~ S. ERICKSON ~.~ ~ p. FISK ~ ~.-GAR~A I S ~ D. GRADY ~ K. GRADY ~ C. HENDERSON ~ p. HENRY ~ B. LANDSMAN ~ ~ R. MARSCHKE J. NAFUS j. NELSON M, NELSON B. NICCUM ,. G. PALM M. PALM _~T. PALM ~.~ . G. PEDERSON _~ T. RASMUSSEN .f)-'~ M. SAVAGE ~. K. SIPPRELL / ~- R. STALLMAN O T. SWENSON ! !~ E. VANECEK ~o.ojz R. WILLIAHS T. WILLIAbiS D. WOYTC E TOTAL MONTHLY HOURS CITY of IOUND DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 7, 1993 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official ~ SEPTEMBER 1993 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 30 building permits issued in September for a construction value of $103,430, for permits that's about average over the last five years. Year-to-date value is down about 41 percent. There were 35 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits issued for a total of 65, this month. PLANNING & ZONING Six zoning cases were forwarded by the Planning Commission to the City Council this month. A truth in housing discussion with evaluators was held at the Planning Commission level with minutes being forwarded to the City Council members, this meeting was intended as a question and answer session. The Minnesota Association of Housing Code Inspectors intends to give us a written response on suggestions to our proposed ordinance. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS I have received several favorable comments on the action of our Community Service officers. The addition of Rick Maki continues to have a positive affect on the exterior storage in our community. Their inspections are filed by log sheets within the Police Department and I am working on a system of tracking their work to provide documentation to you. Rick is settling in and states in enjoys his job and is glad to be here. printed on recycled paper 3 33 Planning & Inspections Department September 1993 Monthly Report EDUCATION / TRAINING I attended the International Conference of Building official's (ICBO) Annual Business Meeting this month in Sacramento. This year, building officials voted on 561 proposed code changes. Our local chapters had several code changes approved this year, one significant change is that repairs to the exterior of dwellings will not require that smoke detectors be updated. Currently, whenever any work in excess of a $1,000 value is completed, smoke detectors have to be updated. It is difficult for inspectors to get inside when there is no inside work, this will reduce additional inspections. JS:pj City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: SEPTEMBER Year: THIS MONTH YE~Ji TO DI%TE { PERMITS ~ UNITS VALUATION ~ UNITS VALUATION C~IO~ SlHGLE FAMILY DETACHED 11 I, 182,792 SINGLE FAMILY A'I'rACHED (CONDOS) Two FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE F.~41LY (3 OR MORE UNITS) ~ON-I~SXD~I~Xlkl~ ~ P~.Mm VALUATION ~' PERMITS VALUATION I~w CONSTRUCTXON OmCE ~ mOFESS~ONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC ! SCHOOLS SI/BTOTAL P~SIDL~P'rI~L # PEJI. MIT$ VALUATION I pEJt. Mrr$ VALUATION ADDIT I ON S/ALTER~TI ON$ ~Drr]oNs TO ~C[PAL BUn. D[~O 4 29,100 28 49 !, 375 DETACi~£D ACCESSORY BmLDmOS 2 16,896 17 157,119 DEC'ms 4 8,063 35 89,075 SW~MMnqa m~ot~ 1 11,000 3 20,889 MBC£LLAN£OU$ RI~tODF...L 17 34,371 149 648,695 SUBTOTAL 28 99,430 23 2 1,407,153 NON-~,E$ID~IAL I Pmu~rr~ VALUA~ON ~ p~rr$ VALUA~ON ADD IT IONS / ALT£1(ATI ON$ CO~O~CtAL ~ ~'rAm 2 4,000 11 51,745 OFFICE ! PROFESSIONAL ~DUSTmtU. 5 130,766 m~LIC, $C~OOtS ! 57,450 O~AC~D ACC~$O~¥ OTHER~ SUBTOTAL 2 4,000 17 239,961 DEMOLITIONS ; PER~IT$ ~ UNITS VALUATION II ~ PF-R~IT$ VALUATION R.F~IDENTIAL DWl~LLING$IJ 3 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 2 NON-Rr=SIDENTIAL IIUILD[NGS TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 6 CONV'~RSIONS/CHANGE OF USE # PE.R~ITS # UNITS VALUATION [] , PERMITS VALUATION II FROM/TO: '~AL CONV~RSI ON$ * 2,829,906 TOTAL ao 0 toa,,~ao PI~RMXT COUNT THIS MONTH YEAR-TO-DATE *BUn. Dn~a 30 266 ~c~ & ~A'r~n~o wants 2 29 ~.mCMANICAL 14 54 O~Ud>~O 2 6 $&w, STREET ~XCAV., ~IRE, t'rC. 2 26 .... TOTAL 65 484 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: Ed Shukle FROM: Len Harrell SUBJECT: Monthly Report for September 1993 I. STATISTICS The police department responded to 1,144 calls for service during the month of September. There were 26 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 criminal sexual conduct, 3 burglaries, 1 aggravated assault, 17 larcenies, and 3 vehicle thefts. There were 80 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 6 child abuse/neglect, 3 forgery/NSF check, 3 weapons, 2 narcotics, 20 damage to property, 1 liquor law violations, 5 DUI's, 4 simple assaults, 8 domestics (3 with assaults), 15 harassments, 7 juvenile status offenses and 6 other offenses. The patrol division issued 129 adult citations and 3 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 15 tickets. Warnings were issued to 115 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 5 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 19 adults and 9 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 13 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 4 vehicular accidents, 2 with injuries. There were 38 medical emergencies and 160 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 16 occasions in September and requested assistance 15 times. Property valued at $24,934 was stolen and $8,461 was recovered in September. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1993 II. INVESTIGATION The investigators were involved in investigating six child protection cases and five criminal sexual conduct cases in September. Those eleven cases accounted for over 88 hours of investigative time. Through September, the department has investigated 53 child protection matters and 13 criminal sexual conduct cases. Other cases investigated included burglary, forgery, theft, assault, stalking, criminal vehicular operation, harassing communications, and continued the investigation into the shooting on the Island. III. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 16 hours of overtime during the month of September. Officers used 42 hours of comp-time, 106 hours of vacation, $ hours of sick time, and 11 holidays. Officers earned 42 hours of comp-time. Community Service Officers Hyland and Maki have been concentrating on getting the exterior storage violations cleared up before the snow flies. They have also been working to address the number of commercial vehicles that are parked in residential zones. Training Three officers attended EMT refresher during September for a total of 9 days of training. Two officers attended a four day course utilizing a new interviewing system for investigation. Officer Huggett attended the National USPCA Field Trials with "Rambo" in St. Louis. "Rambo" suffered a shoulder injury and was unable to finish competition. He is healing fine. I attended the fall conference of the Minnesota Chiefs in Detroit Lakes. A full day was spent on the topic "Dealing with the Problem Employee". MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - SEPTEMBER 1993 I also attended the Emergency Management Conference to attend a required course for our Emergency Preparedness funding. The course was held at Ruttgers. The weather was cold and wet! Police Reserves The Reserves donated 315 hours during the month of September. There are currently 14 active members in the Unit. OFFENSES REPORTED CLEARED UNFOUNDED SEPTEMBER 1993 EXCEPT. CLEARED BY CLEARED ARREST ARRESTED ADULT JUVENILE PART I CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 2 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated AssauLt 1 0 0 0 BurgLary 3 0 0 0 Larceny 17 0 0 3 VehicLe Theft 3 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 26 0 0 3 PART II CRIMES ChiLd Abuse/NegLect 6 4 0 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 3 0 1 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 20 0 1 0 1 Weapons 3 0 0 0 0 Narcotics 2 0 0 2 2 Liquor Laws 1 0 0 I 1 O~l 5 0 0 5 5 SimpLe AssauLt 4 0 2 1 1 Domestic AssauLt 3 0 0 3 3 Domestic (No Assault) 5 O O 0 O Harassment 15 1 4 0 0 JuveniLe Status Offenses 7 0 3 4 0 PubLic Peace 0 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 Att Other Offenses 6 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 TOTAL 80 5 11 22 PART Ill & PART IV Property Damage Accidents 2 Personal Injury Accidents 2 Fatal Accidents 0 Medicats 38 Animal CompLaints 160 Mutual Aid 16 Other Genera[ Investigations 808 19 TOTAL 1,026 Hemepin County ChiLd Protection 6 Inspections 6 TOTAL 1,144 5 11 25 19 14 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1993 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS MONTH Hazardous Citations 66 Non-Hazardous Citations 53 Hazardous Warnings 14 Non-Hazardous Warnings 98 Verbal Warnings 77 Parking Citations 15 DWI 5 Over .10 4 Property Damage Accidents 2 Personal Injury Accidents 2 Fatal Accidents 0 Adult Felony Arrests 1 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 31 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 3 Juvenile Felony Arrests 5 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 9 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 0 Part I Offenses 26 Part II Offenses 80 Medicals 38 Animmal Complaints 160 Other Public Contacts 808 YEAR TO DATE 458 476 123 231 1,021 275 56 44 59 18 0 30 211 24 36 61 9 256 543 298 836 6,967 LAST YEAR TO DATE 575 224 107 316 879 444 51 35 61 15 0 42 328 94 31 79 39 253 554 209 741 5,044 TOTAL 1,497 Assists 58 Follow-Ups 31 Henn. County Child Protection 6 Mutual Aid Given 16 Mutual Aid Requested 15 12,032 396 254 44 103 34 10,121 683 209 47 105 39 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1993 CITATIONS DWI More than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired, or No Plates Illegal Passing Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Derelict Autos Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL ~DULT 5 4 0 5 0 63 2 0 12 0 1 1 1 0 25 0 1 15 0 1 0 7 0 ! 144 JUV 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1993 WARNINGS NO Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL ADULT 0 16 20 0 6 60 0 0 0 7 109 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 WARRANT ARREST~ Felony Warrant Misdemeanor Warrants 1 12 0 0 Run: 28-$ep-93 11:22 PRO03 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Primary ISN~s only: No Date Reported range: 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 :ivity codes: ALL Status: All Property Types: All property Descs: ALL Brands: All Models: ALL Officers/Badges: ALL Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd StoLen Date Recov'd Tp Oesc SN Stat StoLen Value Recov~d Value Quantity A A B BICYCL E DETECT 93001835 01 02 S 9/18/93 1,500 93001867 01 01 R 9/24/93 5,300 9/24/93 5,300 93001762 01 01 S 9/08/93 50 93001761 01 01 R 9/08/93 6 9/08/93 6 93001853 01 01 R 9/21/93 1 9/21/93 1 93001787 01 01 S 9/10/93 1,000 93001787 01 02 S 9/10/93 150 93001787 01 03 S 9/10/93 150 93001787 01 04 S 9/10/93 215 93001787 01 05 S 9/10/93 5,000 93001787 01 06 S 9/10/93 1,000 93001787 01 11 R 9/10/93 2,450 9/13/93 2,450 93001750 01 01 S 9/07/93 300 930017'59 01 01 S 9/08/93 65 93001~59 01 02 S 9/08/93 30 93001787 01 09 R 9/10/93 300 9/13/93 300 93001787 01 10 S 9/10/93 40 93001800 01 01 S 9/12/93 50 93001872 01 01 S 9/24/93 70 93001897 01 01 S 9/18/93 150 93001749 01 01 S 9/07/93 299 93001724 01 02 S 9/02/93 60 93001768 01 01 S 9/04/93 3,000 93001835 01 01 S 9/18/93 700 93001667 01 01 S 8/26/93 7~ 93001685 01 01 S 8/29/93 1 93001706 01 01 S 8/31/93 1 93001752 01 01 S 9/07/93 35 93001842 01 01 S 9/19/93 299 93001694 01 01 S 8/29/93 1,000 93001787 01 07 R 9/10/93 400 9/18/93 400 93001718 01 01 R 9/02/93 4 9/02/93 4 93001724 01 01 S 9/02/93 500 93001752 01 02 S 9/07/93 333 93001787 01 08 S 9/10/93 400 Act Code **** Report Totals: VB029 V1023 U3498 U3288 U3288 TB029 TB029 TB029 T8029 T8029 TB029 TB029 TF159 TG159 TG159 TB029 TB029 T4159 T4169 TG215 TF059 VA029 VB029 83394 TG021 TG151 83894 TF021 TC029 T8029 U3288 TF059 83894 TB029 24,934 8,461 36.000 Brand SHORELANDE JVC REALISTIC SONY S ATLANTA YHISTLER RANGER WHISTLER LARSON FORESTER Model MIDI XLG2000 40 CH 8510/8511 700 RCLSO00 15' Page Off-1 Off-2 Assnd Assnd 421 411 404 404 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 404 416 411 416 411 421 421 418 421 416 421 421 4O5 421 421 418 421 416 421 421 421 418 421 ~.~: 28-$ep-93 13:59 CFS08 Primary ISN~s o~Iy: No ~ate Reported range: 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All D~spositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: Ali Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ~=T[VITY CODE DESCRIPTION 9000 SPEEDING 9001 J-SPEEDING 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 9906 TEST REFUSAL 9014 STOP SIGN ~:)16 FAILURE TO YIELD 9018 EQUIPt4ENT VIOLATION 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 9040 NO SEATBELT 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 9220 9221 9300 9312 9313 9315 9430 9451 ~60 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF J-NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF LOST ARTICLES/OTHER FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS FOUND PROPERTY UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS H/R PROPERTY OAMAGE ACC. MEDiCAL/AB MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Ca[Is For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 62 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 15 5 12 25 1 1 8 1 2 2 1 Page Run: 28-Sep-93 13:59 CFS08 Primary ISN's on[y: Date Reported range: each day: Received: Activity Resulted: Dispositions: Officers/Badges: Grids: Patrol Areas: Days of the week: NO 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 00:00 - 23:59 Att Att Alt ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION DOG AT LARGE ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS MEDICAL/DOA MEDICALS MEDICALS/DX MEDICALS/CI ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIEO DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT PUBLIC ASSIST LOITERING/LURKING J'LOITERING/LURKING 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 9910 MISC. SERVICES BY OFFICERS 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 9950 INFO/INT 9980 WARRANTS 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS AID/8100 9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 2 1 3 32 2 1 6 5 1 2 1 6 5 3 6 4 1 13 1 7 7 Page Run: 28-Sep-93 13:59 CFS08 Primary ISN's onty: Date Reported range: Time range each day: Ho~ Received: Activity ResuLted: Dispositions: Officers/Badges: Grids: Patrol Areas: Days of the week: No 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 00:00 - 23:59 AL AL AL AL AL AL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service [NC[DENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION [NC[DENTS A2423 ASLT 2-FEAR BOO ILY HARM-F[REARM-ADLT-STR A5351 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC A5353 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-STR A5354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BC]O[LY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 83394 BURG 3*UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 83894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT D8500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIdUANA-POSSESSION I3060 CRIN AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J2700 TRAF-ACCID-GM-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J3500 TRAF'ACCID'MS'DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE'UNK INJ'UNK VEH L4041 CSC 2 WEAP-UNK ACT-OTH FAM-UNDER 13'F L7022 CSC 4-UNK ACT-PARENT-UNDER 13-M M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW N5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 5 15 Page :un: 28-Sep-93 13:59 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No }ate Reported range: 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 )e each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Received: Alt Activity Resulted: ALl Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: ALl Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: ALL ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION P3110 P3150 T4159 T4169 TB029 TC029 TF021 TF059 TF159 TG021 TG061 TG151 TG159 TG215 U3018 U3028 U3288 U3498 VA029 VB029 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRiVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-RAILROAD-UNK INTENT THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP 'HEFT-NOT MORE 500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BUlLDING-MONEY THEFT-201-5OO-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP THEFT-201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAILS-MONEY THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-MONEY THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-GM-GARAGE-FIREARMS THEFT-MS'BY CHECK-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-ISSUE b'ORTHLESS CHECK'200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING'200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS THEFT'FE-OVER 2500-MOTORCYCLE VEH-MORE THAN 2500'FE-THEFT'BOAT'MTR! VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT'BOAT'MTRI MOUND POliCE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Page Run: 28-Sep-93 13:59 CFS08 MOIJND POLICE DEPARTMENT Page 5 Primary iSN~s only: NO Date Reported range: 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: Ail Officers/Badges: Ail Grids: Alt Patrol Areas: Ail Days of the week: Enfors Carls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACT]V]TY CODE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF INCIDENTS W2120 WEAPONS-GM-DISCHARGE-PISTOL-NO CHAR W2140 UEAPONS-GM-DISCHARGE-FIREARM-NO CHAR W3190 ~EAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR Y3230 CRIM AGNST GOVN-MS-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH **** Report Totals: 369 Run: 28-Sep-93 11:17 OFF01 Primary ISN~s onty: No Date Reported range: 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 itions: ALL Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Ati Grids: All MOUND POLICE OEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING Page 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED A2423 ASLT 2-FEAR BODILY HARM-FIREARM-ADLT-STR A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT'FAM A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC A5353 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-STR A5354 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT D8500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION I3060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J2700 TRAF-ACCID-GM-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH L4041 CSC 2 WI~AP-UNK ACT-OTH FAM-UNDER I~-F L7022 CSC 4-UNK ACT-PARENT-UNDER 13-M M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW JUVENILE-RUNAWAY N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS P)llO PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 3 100.0 0 1 1 50.0 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1 50.0 0 1 1 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 2 100.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 2 100.0 0 0 2 100.0 0 0 2 100.0 0 0 2 100,0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 1 100.0 1 1 2 100.0 3 2 5 100.0 0 4 4 28.5 0 1 1 5.2 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 15 1 14 10 0 19 0 19 18 0 Run: 28-Sep-93 11:17 OFF01 Primary ISN's onty: No Date Reported range: 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Att Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: Alt Grids: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 2 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED P3150 PROP DAMAGE-MS-RAILROAD-UNK INTENT T4159 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP T4169 THEFT'S250 LESS-MS'FRM WATERCRAFT'OTH PROP TB029 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDJNG-OTH PROP TC029 THEFT'501'2500-FE-BUILD1NG-OTH PROP TD159 THEFT-NOT MORE 500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TF021 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BUJLDING-MONEY TF059 THEFT-201-5OO-GM*YARDS-OTH PROP TF159 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAlLS-MONEY TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-MONEY TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TG215 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-GARAGE-FIREARMS U3018 THEFT-MS-BY CHECK-200 OR LESS U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE I~ORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS V1023 VEH THEFT-FE-OVER 2500-MOTORCYCLE VA029 VEH-MORE THAN 2500-FE~THEFT-BOAT-MTRI V8029 VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-BOAT-MTRI ~/2120 WEAPONS-GM-DISCHARGE-PISTOL-NO CHAR ~2140 WEAPONS-GM-DISCHARGE-FIREARM-NO CHAR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 - 0.0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0o0 0.0 0.0 Run: 28-Sep-93 11:17 OFF01 Primary ISN~s onty: No Date Reported range: 08/26/93 - 09/25/93 'ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Grids: ALt MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPT[ON TOTAL CLEARED W3190 WEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 Y3230 CRIM AGNST GOVN-MS-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 **** Report Totats: 100 5 95 59 18 ? 11 36 37.8 CITY of MOUND October 7, 1993 534' tPAYWOOD POAD MOUND UiNNESOTA 5~364 1687 ~6~2 ~t72 36["i ~A× 6~2, ~-2-0L23 To: From: Subject: Ed Shukle City Manager Greg Skinner Public Works September Activity Report Street Department We have finished all of the blacktopping for the year, We are now starting to do our traffic counts. This will should be completed in early November. As ! stated in last month report we had problems with our roller. Well the repairs are now completed, ! can definitel~ say that we will not have to purchase a new roller for some time. We have completely rebuild it. The road leading to centerview beach was a big project for us this month. This was a joint effort between Public Works and the Parks Department. WE removed what was left of the blacktop and replaced it with rock. With the high water this sun%mcr it was in very bad shape. Parks also put in Rip-Rap on the west shoreline. The project went smooth and was completed in 5 days. Before we started this project I was approached by a company called Great Baby Production Inc. They wanted to do a video of the project. They do safety video's for children from the ages 2 to 6 years old. At this time they are still doing the editing and we will review the tape th~$ month, They also are going to video when we mix are salt sand this month. I met with the John Cameron and Dick BLalon to go over the proposed plan for the Minnetrista site. John will present the report at the COW meeting on October 19. Water Department We replaced another Fire Hydrant this month. This is the second on in as many months, It looks like someone just bumped it and drove away, eprinted ~'n recycled paper specifications for our meter up-grade project. We should be able to go out for bids in late November or early December. Sewer Department We completed our sewer line maintena[lce for the year. We will now start wet well cleaning. In 1991 the City was a part of a law suit file by a resident on Jones Rd for a sewer back-up. In 1993 the Judge sided with the City. At this time we thought that we were finished with this case. Not so, I received a subpoena to appear in court has witness for the previous owners. The judge found in favor of the previous owner and there is still the possibility of an appeal. CITY of MOUND 6'2 -:'-2 ;6.-,0 FAX 6~Z -'-£ 0629 September 29, 1993 Mr. James H. Baer 1665 Canary Lane Mound, MN 55364 RE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND TRUTH IN HOUSING DISCUSSION Dear Truth in Housing Evaluator: The Planning Commission meeting and the open forum discussion directed at the proposed point of sale truth in housing ordinance was a great success and this was partially due to your participation! Your profession was well represented with 12 evaluators in attendance. The conversation was invigorating and beneficial. Your collective comments and suggestions were well received by our Planning Commission, City Council members and staff. You also did an excellent job of fielding our questions. The information gathered will be on our future work agendas of the Planning Commission who will prepare a final draft for City Council review and possible adoption. You are welcome to review the proposed ordinance in its present form and contact myself or my assistant, Peggy James, with your further comments. Thank you again for your help, we look forward to working with you in the future. Building Official CC: Ed Shukle, City Manager Planning Commission ~ity Council printed on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 TRUTH-IN-HOUSING DISCUSSION WITH EV~LUATORS The following Evaluators were in attendance for this topic of discussion: Dennis Lash, James H. Baer, John Seorum, Richard Brammer, Stephen M. Donahue, Frederick J. Gerst, David B. Johnson, LeRoy Hedquist, Ron Zacharda, John Johnson, Harry E. Hoese, and Jac Kelvic. In addition, city Council Member Phyllis Jessen was present. The ordinance, as proposed, was highlighted for the evaluator's benefit. The Building official commented that the truth in housing files will not be open to his office, and will not generate inspections or orders from his office. Questions were asked of the evaluators by the Commission and the Building official. Following are prominent comments and suggestions received from the Evaluator's. The evaluator's answers were varied, however, the comments contained herein were agreed to by a consensus from the evaluators. Se Benefits: a. Housing stock will be improved, therefore helping a dwindling tax base. b. It will help the seller bring house up to code which makes the house more marketable. c. Inspections can save lives (i.e. water heaters blowing up). d. Inspections protect seller from being sued. It is a good idea to keep the ordinance as simple as possible and don't reinvent the wheel and to use other cities. St. Louis Park has a very stringent code, and if you drive around the City this is evident. Because people are required to maintain the inside of their homes they become proud of their homes and tend to maintain the outside also. It is good to begin with a ,,disclosure" type of ordinance versus a ,,compliance" type ordinance. It was suggested the City adopt a complete set of housing codes on which to base the ordinance, similar to the Minneapolis Housing Maintenance Ordinance. It was also noted the basic issues are addressed within our proposed ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Truth in Mousing e 10. Disclosure Report. The form is bulky and should have fewer pages, 4 or less. The verbiage at the top of each page does not need to be repeated. Make sure the line spacing on the form is adaptable to typewriter spacing. It was suggested that evaluators who have specific concerns about verbiage on the Disclosure Report could mail corrected forms back to the City of Mound. Why is the seller not required to sign? Number of houses sold per year in Mound was reviewed Commissioner Mueller: by 1-1-92 thru 12-31-92 = 340 houses put on the market or sold 9-1-92 thru 9-1-93 = 425 houses " Potential fees were discussed as follows: Inspection Fee for Homeowner/Seller City Filing Fee License Fee for Evaluators $100 - $150 $10 - $20 $30 - $85 Average time spent on a property including the inspection, travel time, and completion of the disclosure report is 3 hours plus. The Minnesota society of Housing Inspectors (MSHI) has a guidelines to set base fees at $120. "Zoning" Disclosure Report: There is a concern about the amount of time it will take for the City to process this report. There is often an urgency for the disclosure report to be available for a showing or offer. The evaluators are concerned the City turn-around time may slow their timetable. be The following process was suggested for the Zoning Disclosure Report: 1) The Evaluator requests the zoning report from the City for a particular property. 2) The city will mail the report to the party specified by the Evaluator. 3) It is the seller or agents responsibility to ensure that the Zoning Disclosure Report is attached to the Housing Disclosure Report within 10 days of the date of the Housing Disclosure Report. This process will need to be investigated. It was requested that building permit history be accessible to them at City Hall. Planning Commission Minutes Truth in Housing September 27, 1993 17. 11. Insurance requirements. It was suggested that the City of Mound have the same limitations as the City of Minneapolis. A possible typo was noted within the proposed ordinance, Section 318, pages 5- 6, lines 194 - 199; it was questioned if $250,000 for general liability was correct, it seemed too high. 12. How to notify public of upcoming ordinance: city newsletter, cable televisions advertisements, and contacting the Board of Realtors was suggested. 13. Should condominium units with central mechanical systems be inspected? Most of the evaluators were in favor of requiring an inspection for condominiums as they often find plumbing problems, problems with electrical outlets, etc. 14. An annual meeting should be held between the evaluators and the administrator of the program. Communications lines should be kept open at all times. The administrator should review reports occasionally and give feedback to evaluator to let them know if inspections are acceptable. 15. Testing requirements for licensing was reviewed: Minneapolis: Requires a simple written exam and a passing score of 75% or more on an evaluation of a test house. Continuing Education is also required. Hopkins: Requires you to be licensed in Minneapolis. St. Louis Pk: Stringent written test. 16. Should Mound have their own test house? It was suggested, that in order to get quality inspectors and to ensure that they understand Mound's guidelines, they should have their own test house. Not all the evaluators agreed as Mound could simply require the evaluators be licensed by other cities that already require this. Harry Hoese, Chairman of the Board for MSHI agreed to have their board review Mound's proposed ordinance and return it with comments. He estimated the review to take about two months. It was noted that individual comments are also welcome. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT September 28, 1993 SEP 2 9 1993 TO: FROM: Subject: City Administrators, City Councils Eugene R. Stro~en, Executive Director LMCD Board Reports and Communications We are pleased to forward the following significant communications for your guidance and information on current issues and programs. Board Elections: Board elections at the September 22nd LMCD Board meeting resulted in the following slate of officers: Chair: Bill Johnstone, City of Minnetonka Vice Chair: Tom Penn, City of Tonka Bay Secretary: Doug Babcock, City of Spring Park Treasurer: Bob Rascop, City of Shorewood The new officers will be sworn in at the October 27th meeting. Alternates ~ T~CD Board Members: The issue has been raised by some cities on the possibility of having an alternate person represent a board member when that board member is unable to attend meetings. LMCD Attorney Charles LeFevere addressed that issue in his 9/8/93 letter, copy enclosed. LeFevere concluded that alternates are not allowed by the LHCD enabling act, nor is it in the best interest of the decisions the Board must make to involve alternates in those decisions. The Board reviewed and adopted this opinion at its September 22nd meeting. 1993 Eurasian Water Milfoil Control Proqram: The summary report for the 1993 Eurasian water milfoil (EWM) control program is also enclosed. In concluding its review and acceptance of this report presented by E~lq Task Force Chair Tom Penn, Tonka Bay, the Board also addressed the voluntary aspect of each city's investment in the control program. It was emphasized that the ie~%' portion dedicated to EWM control is voluntary. The E%~M control program, of course, is dependent upon all cities participating in it to make it successful. This year Hennepin County assisted in funding the program through a special grant made to the Hennepin Conservation District. The Board will continue to seek this and other agency and state assistance to continue moderating the cities share of this annual program. Lake Access Task Force Study:. Finally a draft report on the Lake Access Task Force study is in the process of being completed. The LMCD Lake Access Committee will review the report October 18th, followed by Board review October 27th. We will forward drafts to the cities on a timely basis. A Lake Access Task Force meeting will be called, likely in November, to consider the report for acceptance. Guidance from the Task Force as to the progress being made on public access agreements with the cities will also be invited. Attorneys at Law · A. AL,SOP H. BATTY STEPHEN J. BU~,UL JOHN B. DEAN MARY G. DOBBINS STEFANIE N. GALEY CORRINE A. HEINE JAMES S. HOLMES DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN R. LARSON WELLINGTON H. LAW CHARLES L. LEFEVKRE HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pllisbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 Facsimile (612) 33%9310 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (612) 337-9215 September 8, 1993 JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. ROBERT J. LINDALL LAURA K. MOLLET BARnAitA L. PORTWOOD JAM~S M. STROMMEN JAMgS J. THOMSON, JR. LARRY M. WERTHEIM BONNIE L. WILKINS GARY P. WINTER DAVID L. GRAVEN (1929-199t) OF COUNSEL ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT L. DAVIDSON Mr. Gene Strommen Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 FAst Wayzata Blvd. Suite 160 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391-1836 Re: Appointment of Alternate Directors Dear Gene: At the last meeting of the Board, I was directed to prepare an opinion on the question whether it would be permissible for the LMCD Board of Directors or the cities which appoint directors to the LMCD to provide for the appointment of alternate directors to serve in the absence of any of the Directors of the Board. For the reasons set forth in this letter, it is my opinion that neither the Board nor the cities have the legal authority to do so. If the LMCD had been established by the cities as a joint powers organization, it would be possible for cities to amend the joint powers agreement to provide for the appointment of alternates. Such an arrangement is not uncommon where joint powers organizations are created by cities, and the cities wish to have their representatives operating on instructions from the city. In the case of the LMCD, however, the organization is created by the Legislature rather than by the cities, and therefore is governed by the law creating the District. The Legislature has created the LMCD as an autonomous political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. The powers of the member cities are limited generally to appointing directors and to dissolving the District by a three-fourths vote of the cities. The powers of the District have been delegated by the Legislature to its Board of Directors. Although the Directors are initially appointed by the municipalities, they do not serve at the pleasure of the cities which appoint them, and they are entitled to serve a three-year term. The law does not suggest that the Directors are subject to direction or control by the cities appointing them. The Directors of the LMCD are responsible for a number of important functions. In many respects they act in the same manner as elected officials governing any other political subdivision. The District, through its Directors, has the power to sue and be sued, enter into contracts, adopt budgets, invest and expend funds, adopt and t~r;%.~,enf~rce ordinances, hire employees, and purchase property. SEP 1 4 1993 355? L.M.C.D. Mr. Gene Strommen September 13, 1993 Page 2 Given the nature and powers of the District, there are a number of reasons why it would not be advisable, even if it were legal, to provide for its governance by alternates. The acts of the Board of Directors include such matters as the adoption of ordinances, the issuance and revocation of permits following public hearings, the hiring and firing of employees, and the like. In carrying out these duties, the Directors are not subject to direction of the city appointing them. Each Director is responsible to exercise his or her independent judgment and to faithfully discharge the duties and to execute the powers given to the Board by the Legislature. If these acts were undertaken by a board comprised of a membership that changed from one meeting to the next, there is a good possibility that the board members acting on an application or adopting an ordinance would not have been present for the hearings or earlier consideration of these matters. Under such circumstances there would be a much greater likelihood of inconsistent results. If the LMCD were an organization which was comprised of directors who are appointed simply to act as proxy for the member municipalities, it would be more feasible to provide for appointment of alternates. However, given the fact that the powers and functions of the LMCD are similar in many respects to those of Minnesota cities, it may not be advisable to provide for alternates for the same reasons that governance of any other legislative body, such as a city, should not be undertaken by a board whose membership changes from one meeting to the next. In any case, whether or not it is advisable, the powers and duties of the LMCD have been entrusted by the Legislature to its Board of Directors. The appointment and terms of those boards of directors is provided for by the legislation creating the District. As such, the LMCD Board of Directors has no more authority to provide for its own governance by alternates than a city council would for the governance of the city by alternative councilmembers. Likewise, the powers of the municipalities with respect to the LMCD are limited to those provided by statute. The cities do not have the authority to provide for the appointment of alternates where that authority is not granted by the legislation creating the District. Therefore, in my opinion, neither the LMCD Board of Directors nor the city councils of the municipalities around the lake have the authority to provide for alternate directors unless such authority is provided by legislative amendments to the District's enabling act. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL: ckr Enclosures CLL58345 LK110- 4 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1993 EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL WEED HARVESTING PROGRAM SEASON REPORT PREPARED BY TODD GRAMS PROJECT SUPERVISOR 3,r~/ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1993 EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL WEED HARVESTING PROGRAM SEASON REPORT OBJECTIVE Ao Control EWM to assist recreational boating, and make the lake aesthetically pleasing to the greatest extent possible. Bo Document the progress of the operation by recording data gathered on a daily basis during the harvesting season. Work towards developing a better system to improve future EWM control programs. PERM IT ALLOWANCE A. The MN DNR approved 1,065 acres for harvesting on Lake Minnetonka. B. Acreage harvested by the LMCD operation totaled 601 acres. OPERATIONS SCHEDULE A. Operator training began June 16, 1993 for two days. Trained during these sessions were: Todd Grams Jeff Sulwold Dirk Wells Lance Hughes Mark Argento Jori Lidberg Mark Kapala Chad Walker Bobby Booher Dan Hagen Project Supervisor Assistant Supervisor Harvestor Operator Harvestor Operator Harvestor Operator Harvestor Operator Harvestor Operator Conveyor Operator Conveyor Operator Shore Clean-up Harvest schedule commenced June 21, 1993. This effort included the four LMCD machines and one Hennepin Parks machine captained by Mark Kapala. The season ended August 20, 1993. AREAS HARVESTED - * denotes areas harvested twice. A. Bay areas harvested in order harvested: BAY_ .ACRES APPROVED_ .ACRES HARVESTED._ Phelps * 100 130 South Upper 32 3 1 St. AIbans * 25 34 Excelsior * 20 4 Gideons * 45 3 6 Big Island 35 I 9 Carmans * 83 8 2 Lafayette 60 50 Smiths * 75 4 7 Browns 60 37 Wayzata 40 3 8 Grays 45 3 0 Spring Park 30 29 East Upper 30 3 0 ~_r 20, TOTALS CECOND HARVEST 31 10 10 15 700* 601 Other bays for which acres were approved did not require harvesting. These acres are in addition to the 601 total. Bo 2.5 acres were harvested under contract by a private contractor on Libbs Lake. SELECTING AREAS TO BE HARVESTED A. Bays harvested and the order of bays harvested was dictated by visual examination with priority given to less travel time from previous bays harvested. B. Once a bay was selected, buoys were used to mark off the areas to be harvested. Preference was given to patches of weeds which would be troublesome to primary boat traffic or dock users. OPERATING EXPERIENCES A. Lightning and winds resulted in 3 days lost to the operation. Finding people willing to accept weeds for disposal was not difficult, although, the greatest area of frustration for the operation this wet season was the lack of dry dump sites to dispose of the weeds. More than once, the entire operation was put on hold due to rainfall which rendered a dumpsite to soft to drive on with trucks. Machine breakdowns also hindered the operation to a great extent during the last three weeks of July. During this period of time, the crew operated with two to three harvestors of the five. The addition of mechanic Marsh Gabriel was one of the greatest assets in reducing down time due to breakdown. Not being able to communicate between the office and the site also resulted in operational difficulties. During travel time to and from the office, the circumstances affecting the operation would change. As a result, a substancial amount of travel and time was required to support the operation. A portable phone would be a way to remedy this situation and is strongly recommended by the supervisor for next season. LMCD CREW PERFORMANCE Ao In the opinion of the supervisor, the staff recruited and hired were exceptional. The moral was high and the performance admirable. This can be attributed to a high level of maturity and some previous crew experience. The supervisor would consider all staff members reapplying for employment next season. Bo Marsh Gabriel served as mechanic and did a terrific job. The supervisor would recommend retaining his services. HARVESTING OPERATIONS RECORDS A. The reporting system was initiated by each harvester completing a daily harvester log. The conveyor operators would also keep a log which noted the arrival times of trucks and how many times the trucks were filled. Next, this data would be totaled and entered into a data base. The entries on the daily harvester records included; 1. Harvestor loads 2. Engine hours 3. Cutter head hours 4. Daily work hours 5. Downtime spent waiting, traveling, on preventive maintenance, and on breakdown maintenance. Copies of the harvester log report and the conveyor truck report are attached. B. The acreage harvested was determined by the supervisor plotting the areas buoyed off on a map to scale. This system is about as accurate a system available to the LMCD. C. Seasonal Data of Note Harvestor Loads per Engine Hour Harvestor Loads per Work Hour Harvestor Loads per Cutter Hour Harvestor Loads per Day Acres per Engine Hour Acres per Work Hour Acres per Cutter Hour Acres per Day Harvestor Loads per Acre .4 .4 .6 10.0 .58 .50 .78 13.66 .7 Acres per Harvestor Loads 1.4 SEE ATTACHED REPORTS FOR ADDITIONAL DATA. 3s& ~BAY DATE LOADS ACRES ENGINE CUIlER WORK WAIT ITRAVEI.]PREVENT ~!PHELPS- .. .. ,. :'6/18 .... 10,3 19 !23 18,4 31,5 1,5 0 2 ! ~6/21 15'" 30,., 28 ~.~ ~ '" ~.5,,, 0 ...... 1.5 : 8/3 8 8 15 8,7 16,5 1,5 0 ! ... .. 8/6 ,16 9 .. 3.7.2 . i.28.5 ..... ~44 ....... i'i-'~'5 .... 0 ........ 11'5 ................ :! 8/10 17 10 26,6 21,8 !31,5 1,25 1 1 ~,l 8/11 17,5 10 31,2 24,1 35,25 !,5 ,25 1,5 ! 18/12 11 5 24,1 .18 32,5 1 !0 2 i ................... !8/'i'3 e ...... i~ ......... '~'"~6 ......... i-9 ...... 24~' 1 1.25 2 !._T.O.TAL$ 119.8 130 ~239.7 186.2 288.5 13.75 2.5 Il5 IS.~OUTH....., UPPER 6/23 1':t.75 18 3':t.8 25.2 3'9.75 5 t0 1.75 I .......... 6/24 9 13 32.6 ~315 34.5 ,17'~ l'~.5' !3L25 iEXCELSIOR 'f6/25 1,75 4 6,4 5 I8,75 i 11,4 i [~/:;,e ~ ~ :;,0.5 ,5.4:;,,~.5 .25 io [, iTOTflL [ ......... :~'3-i'~5 ......... '~'~i' ............. i'73 .............. 50';i ....... [661'5 ' i":'2"~ ....... i1":75 .......... 2':~5 .............. GIDEON i6/28 3.8 !1 15,4 13,9 17 0 0 !,25 ~ [6/29 7 15 .... 1--9.1 14.8 15.3 1.25 2.25 1.5 __T. OTRLs ...................... i2;~':'3 !36 "6~:'~ "'!~g':'6' [69? ...... [2-:~5 i3 ............ i3:~5" ~....~s i~o ,~. ~ -~'o ~o ........ .'~'..~ ........ [.,~o ?~ i'. : ~ '"i~. ...F'.']'.'''~-. .... ' ..... fl'~iD,. , ......... :i7/! 14 27 31.6 23.2I38.75 !.25 io 1.5 OLD £RRNNEL i7/2 9.5 20 30.3 2'.5i4o.25 ~.5 l, I8/19 7 i5' 1'6.7 '" 11.2 ..... [23.2'5 i':~ ................. t:5" ['i ................ _TOTALS ........... ! ..... 42.75 82 108.6 73...~ .... !!43 4.25 4.5 ......... ! 4.7..~.. ' i i I I - ~ETTE TOTALS SMITHS IOTALS BROWNS IOTALS tYZATA TOTALS GRAYS JOTALS ;PRING PARK IOTALS EAST UPPER OADS ACRES 8 8.5 2 10 15 O.5 15 35 50 12.75 9.5 13 8.5 0 30.75 9 2O 7.5 17 16.5 37 ENGI CUTTER 3.9 18 21 13.6 24.8 7.4 29.3 0.6 99 69.6 .9 21.6 20.2 15.7 6.8 9 73.9 56.3 22.5 17.7 19.5 16.3 42 34 WORK WAIT TRAVEL PREVENT :2.25 1.75 .25 0 0 .5 8.5 .25 0 2.25 36.5 .5 ~.75 1.5 I 5.25 9 6 40 2.25 0 2 .5 I .25 ?8.75 .25 75 I .25 3 1.75 25 32.5 1.5 .75 24.5 ! .5 0 i .25 57 3.5 1.5 2 7 i I 22.7 17.6 24.25 9.25 12 21.1 16.7 18.5 ~ 8 8.4 14.4 23.5 5 1 4.1 9.2 8.25 .25 38 76.3 i57.9 34.5 9 12 10 15 22 30 .2 17.3 4.5 18.8 13.7 9 63.4 ~5.1 .5 1.25 ! .5 .75 ! 0 2 .5 0 2 2.5 2 .75 0 .5 1.75 28 1 0 ! 16.75 0 2.5 i 76.5 ! 3.75 14.5 12 14.25 12 9 5 37.75 ?9 0.25 24 6 4.75 30 22.5 16.4 24.75 37.3 26.1 .75 20.3 15.8 24.25 0.1 .3 90.25 24.4 19.3 1.75 12.6 9.5 27 28.8 52.75 1 1.5 0 .5 .5 3 3 I .75 0 .75 I ! .25 1 .25 .5 2.5 BAY DATE LOADS ACRES ENGINF CUTTER WORK WAIT TRAVEl PREVENT .~EST UPPER 8/! Oi ! .5 4 4.9 2.5 8.25 0 1.5 .5 SEASON TOTALS 44 426 601 1037 772 1214 53 40 62 ............. DAYS~LOADS ACRES ENGINE CUTTER !WORK WAIT TRAVEL PREVENT ~HARV~ .... HRS.' ................ HRS." '~'R'S~i .......... ?~S ........... ~'~ ............ i~'~"S ...................... ........................... : ................ ~ . ...... : ,~ ....... ~ ...... ~ ........ ~ .... LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Suite 160, Wmyzmts MN S$391 ' ~73-7033 L.M.C-D- MEETING SCHEDULE OCTOBER, 1993 Saturday Tuesday day Wednesday Water Structure~ Committee 7'30 am, ~135 Norwe~t Bmnk Bldg, Wmyzata 12 15 18 Environment Committee 8'30 mm, ~135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Eurasimn Water Milfoil Task Force 8'30 am, ~135 Norwe~t Bank Bldg, Wayzata Lake U~e & Recreation Committee 5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata 27 Lake Acce~ Committee 6'30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Administrative Committee Mae%lng 5'30 pm, Tonka Bmy City Hall Public Hearing 7'00 pm, Tonka Bay Glty Mall LMCD Board of Director~ Regular Meeting 7'30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall 17/93 WP/~T~:93 · Ju L IEC"13 OCT 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 AM, Saturday, October 9, 1993 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135 (Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) 0 Michael Revier, 2691 Ethel Ave, Orono, Carmans Bay, dock use area variance application; pending recommendation from outcome of mediation between applicant and neighbors Gideons Point Homeowners Assn., Tonka Bay, Gideons Bay, dock length variance application; review of revised site plan dated 9/22/93 Robert & Barbara Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, Mound, Halsteds Bay; Public hearing report and findings for side setback variance application Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Assoc., Shorewood, S Upper Lake; new multiple dock license application for reconfiguration of docks in lagoon with no increase in number or size of slips Deicing License applications A. Applications requiring committee and Board approval 1) Minnetonka Boat Works 2) North Shore Drive Marina B. List of new and renewal applications approved by executive director Lakeshore lighting - review of proposed LMCD ordinance and proposed model ordinance for cities submitted to the Technical Review Committee Pending issues before the committee (informational): A. Excel Marina, 141 Minnetonka Blvd, Excelsior, St. Alban's Bay; new multiple dock license application - pending revised site plan and result of CUP application with City of Excelsior B. Ordinance regarding unrestricted watercraft storage at multiple docks - pending draft ordinance from LMCD attorney C. "Envelope concept" for multiple dock licenses - pending staff analysis 8. Additional business 29/93 R 'O OCT 4 1993 3. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Public Hearing: To consider a variance application from Robert and Barbara Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, Mound, on Halsteds Bay, to reduce the side setbacks from 10' to 5' to permit installation of a dock and a boat. Meeting: 7 PM, Wednesday, September 22, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; George Owen, victoria; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Tom Reese, Mound. Also present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician. The Public Hearing was convened at 7 PM by vice chair Penn. The Board received a report from staff which included a site plan of Floeders' and their neighbors' docks, a site survey, and a plat map of the area. Thibault gave an explanation of the variance application, pointing out that Floeder's property is in the same development as, and is the mirror image of the Stocks' property. The Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, applied for and were granted a variance for a similar situation (at the 7/28/93 Board meeting with an amendment 8/25/93). and has 20 6' of The Floeders property was platted 12/74, · shoreline. The Code requires 10' side setbacks which would not allow any dock use area. The Floeders purchased their property 10/27/77, with the dock in place. The dock was sold with the property and it was their understanding that it was legal. There have been no complaints about the dock from the neighbors. Floeder would like the variance so the dock and boat storage is not contingent on the neighbors approval. Mr. Floeder said that they would be considering selling their property in the near future, and felt that the value of the property would decrease substantially without the docking rights. Rascop pointed out that in considering a variance, the Board cannot consider a hardship that is strictly financial. The lot configuration is the hardship under consideration, as it was for the Stocks' variance application. Rascop also pointed out that there are several 25' lots to the west of this development. Staff pointed out that the other lots may not be under the same constraints as Floeder and Stocks, if they were platted before 2/2/70. Bernard Benz, 3035 Bluffs Lane, adjoining neighbor to the East, said that he has no problem with the variance request. His question was why, after 15 years, these two people in the development have found out that there is a problem with their docking rights. I PUBLIC HEARING - Floeder September 22, 1993 Floeder stated that the other adjacent neighbor, Palen, also has no problem with the variance request. With no other comments from the public, Penn declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:10 PM. Floeder was advised that the information from the Public Hearing will be forwarded to the Water Structures Committee at the next meeting on Saturday, October 9, 1993 at 7:30 PM. FINDINGS: o o Robert & Barbara Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, Mound have submitted a variance application to reduce the side setbacks requirements from 10' to 5', to allow a dock and boat at their property on Halsteds Bay. The Floeders' property has 20.6' of lakeshore. It was platted 12/74. The Code provision for 5' setbacks applies to lots platted before 2/2/70. Therefore, the Floeders do not have a dock use area, and cannot place a dock or boat at their property unless the neighbors waive the side setback requirements. The Floeders purchased their property 10/27/77, with the dock in place. The Bill of Sale for the property included the dock. The dock has been in place since then with no complaints from the neighbors. At the time of the public hearing, no one spoke against this variance application. Bernard Benz, 3035 Bluffs Lane, spoke in favor of it. A property in the same development, at 3032 Highview Lane, is the mirror image of Floeder's property. The owners of that property, Stocks, applied for and were granted a setback variance, with specific conditions applied. 3S72. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT CHECK LIS-[ FOR VARIANCE APPLICA110N REVIEW Applicant's name and address: Robert and Barbara Floeder 5027 Bluffs Lane, Mound MN 55564 Property is located in the city of: Mound Bay/area: Halsteds Bay//1 Section 1.07, Subd. 1. General Statement. Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access to lhe handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from the requirements of this Code or may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted by this Code, provided that such variance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes of this ordinance, the public health, safely and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by the public or riparian owners. 1. l'ype of variance being applied for: Side setback variance from 10' to 5' 2. Practical difficulties and/or hardship requiring variance: O' Small lakeshore frontage, (20.6') creating no dock use area if 1 setbacks are maintained .5. Decision standards for variance: A. Is the proposed use reasonable? Yes, the proposed use of a 40' long dock, without a slip structure type canopy, for one boat, with 5' setbacks is reasonable. B. Would it be unreasonable to require conformance [o the ordinance? Conformance with the ordinance would give the applicant no dock use area. C. Is the difficulty of conforming to the ordinance due to circumstances unique to the property? .the small lakeshore frontage is not unique to this property. -[here is another lot in the same development that is the mirror image of this lot. A variance with conditions was iranted to the other Io[, due to certain circumstances as stated in the Findings. Stocks, ,30.32 Highview Lane, Mound) There are many other small lots with under 50' of lakeshore around [t~e lake. Staff finds that most were platted before 2/2/70. Floeder Variance Applicalion, Criteria Check List, Page 2 Note: the five lots to [he wes[ of [his si[e, on Hoisted Boy, ranging in shoreline width from 2,5' to 33', have been combined into two parcels-one 83' and one 50', per Peggy at Mound. D. Is the problem one created by the applicant? The problem arose when the developer subdivided the lot in 1974, wilh 20' of lakeshore, after the LMCD Ordinance defining authorized dock use areas (DUA) was adopted. 1'he City of Mound approved the development without bringing the LMCD DUA restrictions to the developer's attention. When the applicants purchased the property in October 1977, there was a dock in place and the dock was included in the Bill of Sale for the house. The applicant believed the dock was authorized at Ibis site. E. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of this oreo as there has been o dock at this location for over 16 years. -[he area is residential with docks similar or longer than the dock proposed by the applicant. '[he owners of the adjacent lois on both sides hove raised no objections [o changing the setbacks from 10' lo 5'. Bernard Benz, ,3055 Bluffs Lone, spoke in favor of the variance for its limited dock use. COMMENT: In the Findings & Order for the Stocks variance application, at ,30,32 Highview Lane, Aftorney LeFevere stated reasons for granting o 5' side setback variance at that site. Start finds similar reasons and conditions could be applied to the Floeders' application. A copy of the Stocks Findings & Order is attached for reference. Signed: Ro'chel Thibault, Administrative 'technician Date: 9/28/93 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT In Re: Application for Var4-nce of Thomas and Roma Stocks FINDINGS On Wednesday, May 26, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., pursuant to due notice, a public hearing was held by the Water Structures Committee of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District at Tonka Bay City Hall in the City of Tonka Bay, Minnesota. The hearing was held to consider the application of Thomas and Roma Stocks, the owners of property located on Halsteds Bay at 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, Minnesota. The application of Mr. & Mrs. Stocks was for a variance from the setback limitations provided by the LMCD Code of Ordinances. Mr. & Mrs. Stocks appeared at the hearing on behalf of the application. The subject lot was platted on December 3, 1974. It has 20 feet of shoreline. Under the LMCD Code of Ordinances, lots platted after February 2, 1970 require a 10 foot setback from each extended lot line. Therefore, the subject property has no dock use area without a variance. The board finds that this is a hardship within the meaning of LMCD Code Section 1.07, subd. 1. In determining whether to grant a variance, the board must conclude not only that there is a hardship, but that granting the variance, along with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, will not adversely affect the purposes of the LMCD ordinances, the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the lake by the public or riparian owners. Under Section 1.07, subd. 6, the Board may only grant variances when it is demonstrated that such action is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. The variance requested in this case is significant. There will be many cases in which it is not appropriate to allow docks or boat storage oll lots as small as 20 feet CLL55199 1 LKll0-4 wide. Here, however, the Board finds that there are a number of factors which tend to reduce the impact of granting the variance request. Among these are the following: 1. Halsteds Bay is a remote bay on Lake Minnetonka which tends to reduce the impact of boat storage on the public as a whole. 2. The subject parcel is located along a concave shoreline which reduces the effect of a somewhat higher boat storage density on the public and the lake generally. 3. The parcel is on tile north end of Halsteds Bay. This end of the bay is largely developed. Therefore, there is little reason to expect that future development of this area, together with the effect of this variance, will create too great a density of boat storage on this part of the lake. 4. The subject lot is adjacent to larger lots. The adjacent lots to the west and east are 79 and 160 feet in width respectively. Although there is one other 20 foot lot in the same development, the remainder of the shoreline has been developed at lot sizes which are substantially larger. 5. The District has determined that it is appropriate to grant the right to somewhat greater boat storage in the case of single family residential lots which are occupied by houses and where the watercraft are owned by the residents of the site. See Code Section 2.02. In this case, the site is occupied by a single family residence and the boats stored at the site will be owned by residents of the site. 6. The variance preserves a 5 foot setback on each side. There is no adjustment of extended lot lines and there will be no encroachment of either docks or boats across extended lot lines or into neighboring dock use areas. LKllO-4 2 The owners of adjacent dock use areas have stated that they have no objections to the granting of the variance as long as it does not encroach into their dock use areas. Additionally, there has been a dock and boat on this site since 1975. Neither of these facts is dispositive of the question whether to grant a variance; however, both are evidence that constructing and maintaining a dock at this site has not created any problems in the past, and therefore is not likely to do so in the future. The 1973 Lake Use Study Boat Density Indexes contained in the Boat Density Policy Statement adopted by the Board on October 13, 1974 showed Halsteds Bay as one of the few bays on the lake not considered to be in critical or potentially critical condition with respect to boat density. It was one of the least crowded bays in terms of boats stored per water acre and boats stored per mile of shoreline. Therefore, granting the requested variance will not be contributing to substantial overcrowding. 9. The restrictions imposed by the following order will help substantially to reduce any potential adverse impacts. The dock allowed will be small, and no canopy will be aliowed. Additionally, the owner will be limited to storage of one watercraft of moderate size at the dock. On the basis of the foregoing, the Board concludes that there is a hardship and that granting the variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the purposes of the LMCD Code of Ordinances, the public health safety and welfare, or reasonable access to or use of the lake by the public or by other riparian owners. The Board further finds that granting the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. CLL55199 3 LK110- 4 ORDER On the basis of the foregoing, it is ordered that the variance requested be granted subject to the following conditions and limitations. 1. The dock constructed at the site may be no more than 40 feet in length, and must be a single straight dock with no "L", "T", etc. The dock may be uo more than 3 feet in width. 2. Only one boat or watercraft may be stored at the dock, and such watercraft may not have a beam of more than 8 feet. 3. No canopy may be constructed in conjunction with the dock. 4. The dock and boat storage shall be so constructed, located, and maintained that a 5 foot setback shah be maintained on each side of the subject parcel. The variance provided for herein shall grant no vested rights to the use of Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the District to assure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the lake. By order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District this 28th day of July, 1993, as amended August 25, 1993. Eugerte R. strommen Executive Director CLL55199 LKll0-4 4 I ! ! I LOT A (6) "'"; (4) '5. t6 04 0~1L01 A ~ (~) ~ ,~ 2B I. 64 125 (,8) ~ (¥~) I0 (17) ( 1~5 .,. '..? (14) AUG 1 1 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Environment Committee Meeting Notice TO: FROM: Environment Committee Members and Informational contacts per enclosed Mail Roster Environmental Committee Chair Bob Rascop The October 12 Environment Co~m~ittee meeting agenda and attachments are enclosed. The draft Survey Report is the significant document. You will find the report divided into the survey summary, suggested actions and discussion of how the suggested actions might be implemented. Co~nittee members will be specifically asked to comment on the particulars of the suggested actions, pages 20-22. For example: Who should implement a particular action and by when? How would funding be provided? Is the priority ranking for each action appropriate? All city mayors are being provided a copy of the survey results and suggested actions with this mailing for their advance review. Interested mayors should feel free to attend the co~ittee discussion. Mayors are also encouraged to have their city representative in attendance for this review. Thank you for offering your support. RSV_____~P o_~_f ~11 persons ~ t__qo attend i~ fequeste~ ~_~ callin~ the ~CDL 473-7033. Any agency or city unable to provide representation is asked to provide your comments in advance of the October 12 meeting to Dick Osgood, 470-4449 (phone/FAX). Thank you for your advance review of this material and your participation in the discussion October 12. The results of this discussion will be forward for further agency/city evaluation. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District - Environment Committee Conference Room 135, Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Tuesday, October 12, 1993, 8:00 a.m. AGENDA 1. Welcome (Bob Rascop, Chair) 2. Review Agenda (Rascop) 3. Review Survey Report (Enclosed) ** * Please come prepared to discuss the survey report *** a. Review and discuss results b. Review and discuss analysis c. Review and discuss possible actions, specifically timing and funding d. Adopt the report 4. Communication of Survey Results and Discussion of Possible Courses of Action a. Format (how delivered and to whom) b. When delivered 5. Next meeting: December 12, 8:00 a.m. 6. Schedule for 1994 - bimonthly 7. Adjourn Environment Comz~ittee LMCD Interagency and City Mailing Roster Meeting of 10/12/93 Full Name Organization Dick Osgood Eugene R. Strommen Carolyn Dindorf Dave Wright Fred Bruntjen Gaylen Reetz Janet Leich Jeff Magnuson John Batten John St ine Marcel Jouseau Michael A. Panser, PE Paul Neumann Pauline Bouchard Ron Harnack Tom Maple The Hon. Alan M. Albrecht The Hon. Barbara Brancel The Hon. Dale Palmatier The Hon. Edward Callahan The Hon. Jerry Rockvan The Hon. John E. Anderson The Hon. Nick Duff The Hon. Richard Engebretson The Hon. Robert Abdo The Hon. Robert Gisvold The Hon. Scott Carlson The Hon. Skip Johnson The Hon. Tim Bergstedt The Hon. Vern Haug A10rsen Barbara Bedell Carl Zieman Charlotte Erickson Dave Callister David Childs Edward Shukle Frank Kelly James Hurm Miriam Porter Pat Osmonson Ron Moorse Sandy Langley Albert Foster David Cochran LMCD staff LMCD staff Hennepin Conservation District DNR-Ecological Svc. Mn Pollution Cntrl Ag. Hennepin County Lake Mtka Lakeshore Howeowners Assoc. Hennepin Parks Mn D.N.R. Metropolitan Council Wenck Associates, Inc. Carver Cry. Soil Con. Mn. Dept of Health Bd. of Water/Soil Resources Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist. City of Greenwood City of Shorewood City of Victoria City of Orono City of Spring Park City of Excelsior City of Woodland City of Deephaven City of Minnetonka Beach City of Wayzata City of Minnetrista City of Mound City of Minnetonka City of Tonka Bay City of Wayzata City of Minnetonka Beach City of Excelsior City of Minnetrista City of Tonka Bay City of Minnetonka City of Mound City of Greenwood City of Ghorewood City of Victoria City of Spring Park City of Orono City of Deephaven City of Greenwood City of Woodland LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors page 1 (Over) Environment Conm~ittee LMCD Interagency and City Mailing Roster Meeting of 10/12/93 Full Name Douglas E. Babcock Duane Markus George C. Owen James N. Grathwol Mike Bloom Orono LMCD Board Member Robert E. Sloc,~m Robert P. Rascop Scott Carlson Thomas W. Reese Tom Penn William A. Johnstone Organization LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors LMCD Board of Directors page 2 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District - Environment Committee Minutes - August 24, 1993 :tendance: Fred Bruntjen (Excelsior); Kathy Pyatt, Bob Leighton, and Bob Tomalka (LMLOA); Carolyn Dindorf (Henn. Cons. Dist.); Tom McDowell (Henn. Parks); Ed Fick (MnDNR); Michael Brandt (Henn. Co.); Pauline Bouchard (Mn Dept. Health); Dave Cochran, Gene Strommen and Dick Osgood (LMCD). Call to order, 8:20 a.m. introductions (Strommen) · Dick Osgood reviewed the work plan and strategy for the Environment Committee. The committee reviewed the day's agenda as well as the schedule for phase one (Stakeholder Survey) of the work plan. The rationale for the stakeholder survey was outlined followed by detailed discussion of the stakeholders, to whom the survey would be mailed, and the survey document. Stakeholder discussion. The committee reviewed the list that was included in their packets and offered suggestions regarding specific names as well as other categories. The amended stakeholder list will be the mailing list for the survey. In addition, it was agreed that agency heads would receive notification of staff members who had received the survey along with an invitation for other agency people to participate. Survey document. The survey document was reviewed in detail. Staff noted specific suggestions to be used in the final drafting of the survey. Most discussion centered around re-wording the questions so that meaningful actions toward the environmental objectives could be implemented. The committee also discussed the importance of the cover letter and suggested improvements. Adjourn, 11:15 Next meeting, October 12, 8:00 a.m. A STAKEHOLDER SURVEY CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OF LAKE MINNETONKA Summary Report October 1993 DRAFT Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Wayzata Boulevard Suite 160 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 612-473-7033 iNTRODUCTION This report summarizes the responses to the "Stakeholder Survey Concerning the Environmental Values of LakeMinnetonka." Because many agencies and interest groups are involved in the management of Lake Minnetonka, effective coordination of all management activities is essential. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has conducted and evaluated this survey as one step in its comprehensive program to coordinate the management of the lake. This survey will help the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District focus the management of the lake by all management authorities, as outlined in the "Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka." By asking those who have a role in the management of the lake -- either because they make decisions that affect the lake or because they are affected by those decisions -- we can begin to assign priority to management objectives for the lake. The results of this survey are atoolthat will be used to focus the management of the lake for the best interests of al_J stakeholders. The survey was sent to 259 people and completed by 65 (25%). The respondents had direct familiarity with at least 31 bays of the lake and engaged in 13 different recreational activities on the lake. Some of the respondents did not use the lake on a regular basis, but served the public as elected or appointed officials who make significant management decisions on behalf of lake users. The value of this survey is not so much in the strict quantitative results as in the diversity of the responses-- the lake is valuable to many people in different ways. Obviously, these values sometimes conflict. There are also several consistent themes that are highlighted in this summary. This report is organized in several sections. The first section, RESULTS, summarizes the objective and subiective responses to the survey questions. The next section, ANALYSIS, discusses the results and identifies both the diversity of responses and the consistent themes that are evident in the results. The last section, ACTIONS, offers possible actions that are necessary to restore, protect and preserve the important environmental qualities of Lake Minnetonka. RESULTS Thesurvcy resultsbclow follow the format of the survey. The survey was sent to the following groups: Local Officials (mayors, council members, city staff) 128 Community Groups (LMLOA board, historical societies, etc.) 23 Businesses (Marinas, Yacht Clubs, Restaurants) 35 User Groups (Anglers, Boaters, Water Sports, Winter Use) 6 State Agencies and University of MN 16 Regional/Watershed (boards and staff) 13 County Agencies (board and staff) 3~8 TOTAL 259 Because not every question was relevant to all respondents, they answered only those questions for which they felt qualified. In every case, the number of respondents answering the question (in parenthesis following the question) and percentages of those respondents answering in various ways are included. In some cases, many respondents included comments with their objective response. When these comments could be generalized in one or two brief sentences, they were included. I. Physical Factors Appearance. Water clarity and color are measurements of the appearance of water. These factors can be affected by suspended and floating algae and sediments as well as dissolved materials. Sometimes, water clarity alone is used to indicate 'water quality.' Here, it is considered as one of many other factors that together indicate the total quality of the lake. (Eight surveys were returned without the first page) 1. is the appearance of the water an important management factor? (57) Yes 96% No 4% Comments: The appearance is important for a good overall impression. The appearance relates to the recreational value of the lake. 2. Some recreational uses or other activities may be affected by the appearance of the water: Please list those uses that are affected (# responses): Swimming 46 Ice fishing 4 Fishing 25 Canoeing 2 Water Skiing 21 Sailboard 2 Boating 15 Jet ski 2 Scuba/snorkel 12 Business 3 Sailing 9 Aesthetics 3 Birding 1 Please list those uses that are not affected (# responses): Boating 22 Fishing 6 Sailing 3 Winter 2 Wind surfing 1 lee skating Sight-seeing 2 ! Water storage Shoreline aesthetics 2 Ice fishing 2 Waterfowl 1 Snow mobile 1 3. Some bays of the lake are affected by diminished clarity: Please list those bays (# responses): Black Lake 6 Jennings 12 Carmans 4 Libbs Lake 4 Maxwell 6 Carson's 5 12 Cook's 6 N/W Arm Crystal 5 Peavy Lake 3 Priest's 3 Emerald Lake 3 5 Excelsior 3 Seton Lake Forest Lake 5 Spring Park 4 Gideon's 6 St. Louis 3 Gray's 6 Stubbs 7 Halsted's 15 Tanager Lake 6 Harrison 7 Upper Lake (bays) 5 4. Are any bays of the lake not affected by diminished clarity? Please list those bays (# responses): Crystal 2 Excelsior l Lower Lake 10 St. Alban's Wayzata 3 5. Are you aware of any bays on the lake or times of the year when their appearance is particularly good or bad? Be specific. Please indicate times and locations (# responses): Good times of year: Spring/fall (5), August (9) Bad locations on lake: N/W Arm 2 Forest Lake 1 Priest's 1 Halsted's 7 St. Louis 1 Harrisons 2 Stubbs 2 Jennings 1 1 Lower Lake I Tanager Lake Maxwell Physical disruption. Shallow areas represent a physical impediment and a potential hazard to boats. Most channels and some harbors in LakeMinnetonka require periodic dredging in order to mitigate these effects. Also, shorelines are subject to disruption by wave erosion. These disruptions may pollute the lake toa certain, but not well known, degree. Impacts include the re-suspension of toxic materials, nutrients and sediments. 1. To what degree should dredging or other physical disruptions be controlled or regulated? Please explain: Only when necessary 25 (# responses) Should be closely regulated 21 Require shoreline protection/ 10 minimize erosion No new channels Present program is adequate There should be no dredging Less regulation (more dredging) I1. Chemical Factors ao Nutrients. Nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, fertilize lakes and cause their premature aging. When excessive, nutrients cause algae to grow in nuisance proportions as well as shifting to the more obnoxious blue-green (scum-forming) varieties. In addition, nutrient enrichment isa factor in overabundant aquatic plant growth. Nutrients enter the lake from runoff, but also can be recycled within the lake from the sediments. 1. Are you concerned about the impact of nutrients? (65) Very Concerned No concern 1 2 3 4 5 55% 31% 14% 0 0 2. Relative to other environmental management needs of Lake Minnetonka, what priority should be given to managing nutrients? (65) Highest Priority Lowest Priority 1 2 3 4 5 31% 51% 15% 1% 3. Would you support public investment in better managing nutrients in Lake Minnetonka? (64) Strong Support No Support 1 2 3 4 5 47% 31% 14% 5% 3% bo Toxic chemicals. Toxic chemicals include metals such as mercury, lead, or chromium; or organics like PCBs, hydrocarbons, or pesticides. These chemicals can be toxic to aquatic life or pose a public health concern, like fish consumption advisories or cancer risks. The source of the toxic chemicals is from the watershed and the atmosphere. We know very little regarding the extent of these contaminants in Lake Minnetonka. 1. Are you concerned about the impact of toxic chemicals on aquatic life and public health? (65) Very Concerned No concern 1 2 3 4 5 38% 35% 14% 9% 3% 2. Relative to other environmental management needs of Lake Minnetonka, what priority should be given to understanding and managing toxic chemicals? (64) Highest Priority Lowest Priority 1 2 3 4 5 31% 30% 28% 8% 3% 3. Are you willing to make significant lifestyle changes, if necessary, to help manage these toxic chemicals? (For example, use of lawn chemicals). (63) Significant Changes No Changes 1 2 3 4 5 49% 37% 11% 3% 0 4. Would you support public investment in better understanding and managing the impact of toxic chemicals in Lake Minnetonka? (65) No Support Strong Support 1 2 3 4 5 34% 29% 22% 11% 5% Commcnt: Public investment should be on a Metro-wide basis. 35' / !il. ao Biological Factors Bacteria. Bacteria can sometimes be pathogenic or indicate the presence of other pathogens in the water. Most commonly, problems result from runoff from animal feedlots, or urban runoff contaminated with pet or waterfowl wastes. 1. Are you concerned about the public health impacts of bacterial contaminants? (65) Very Concerned No concern 1 2 3 4 5 29% 38% 25% 6% 1% 2. Would you support public investment in better understanding and managing the impact of bacterial contamination in Lake Minnetonka? (62) Strong Support No Support 1 2 3 4 5 31% 23% 31% 13% 3% bo Algae. Algae are microscopic plants that live suspended in the water. Algae form the base of the aquatic food chain and can become an obvious nuisance. 1. is the kind or amount of algae a problem anywhere in the lake?49) Yes 76% No 24% What bays? Black Lake N/WArm Carmans Priest's Casco Cove Seton Lake Forest Lake St. Alban's Halsted's St. Louis Jennings Tanager Lake Libbs Lake Upper Lake Maxwell What kind of algae? Blue-green, green, red 2. Are there times of the year when these problems are worse? (43) Yes 93% No 7% August (mid-summer, hot, dog days, etc.) 35 responses Winter 1 response Co 3. Relative to other management needs of Lake Minnetonka, what priority should be given to managing algae? (61) Lowest Priority 2 3 4 5 23% 49% 15% 5% Should manage nutrients or source rather that thc problem Highest Priority 1 8% Comments: Directly related to nutrients. Aquatic plants. Aquatic plants provide habitat for fish and other important functions in lakes. When the plants become too abundant, they are anuisance' Eurasian watermilfoil, an exotic plant, is a problem because it is too abundant an_~d displaces native plants. 1. To what degree are aquatic plants a nuisance for: A great degree 1 2 Power Boating (57) 25% 32% 25% 21% Sailing (52) skiing/Towing (55) 25% 31% 21% 20% Fishing (56) Swimming (56) 43% 30% Aesthetic (49) 33% 37% No impact 3 4 5 30% ! 2% 2% 27% 19% 8% 25% 13% 5% 23% 25% 11% 18% 7% 2% 14% 12% 4% Other (identify) 0 0 0 0 Aquatic habitat (1) 100% 0 0 0 100% 0 0 0 Canoeing (1) 100% 0 0 0 Odor (3) 100% 0 0 0 Shoreline (1) 0 0 0 0 Real Estate Value (1) 100% 0 0 Eutrophication (1) 100% 0 0 7 2. Where in Lake Minnetonka are aquatic plants a significant hinderance to recreation? Name bay or use areas (# responses): All bays 1 1 Excelsior 1 Not a nuisance 1 Gideon's 1 Black Lake I Gray's 2 Brown's 3 Phelps 3 Carmans 2 Smiths 3 Carson's I St. Alban's 2 Cook's i St. Louis i Crystal I Upper Lake 3 Diamond Reef 1 3. Except for milfoil, do other plant species represent a nuisance? (48) Yes 46% No 54% What species (if you are not familiar with the species, be as specific as you are able): Responses included: Cattails, coontail, curly-leafed pondweed,'should be weed- free,' 'green slime,' Smith's Bay, purple loosestri re. Fish. A diverse mixture of fish sizes and species is possible with a healthy environment. However, habitat degradation, over-fishing or even stocking can upset the balance. Ideally, the fishery in Lake Minnetonka can be sustained by managing fish habitat and regulating fishing to some degree. 1. What fish species do you prefer for angling? (# responses) Panfish (sunfish and bluegills) 26 Crappie 18 Bass 33 Walleye 23 Northern 18 Muskie 2 2. What size range are preferable? _Panfish (Sunfish and Bluegills): up to 5 inches 18% 5-10 inches 77% 10-15 inches 5% 15-20 inches 0 20-30 inches 0 30+ inches 0 Indicate size for each species. Crappie: tip Io 5 inches 5-10 inches 10-15 inches 15-20 inches 20-30 inches 30+ inches 0% 80% 20% 0 0 0 t I I, ' Bass: up to 5 inches 0% up to 5 inches 5-10 inches 3% 5-10 inches 10-15 inches 10-15 inches 48% 15-20 inches 39% 15-20 inches 20-30 inches 20-30 inches 6% 3% 30+ inches 30+ inches Muskie: Northern Pike: up to 5 inches 0% up to 5 inches 5-10 inches 5-10 inches 0% 10-15 inches 10-15 inches 4% 15-20 inches 15-20 inches 21% 20-30 inches 20-30 inches 50% 25% 30+ inches 30+ inches 3. Are these fish caught for (Indicate preference for each species): (# responses) Personal consumption (Species preference - Panfish, Crappie, Bass, Walleye, Northern) Release (Species preference - Crappie, Bass, Walleye, Northern) Trophy/competition (Species preference - Bass, Northern) 31 0% 3% 17% 51% 20% 9% 24 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 9 4. What bays of the lake do you prefer for fishing? Specify bays and species preference (dot = responses): BA..__~Y Norther~n .,Bass Big Island Black Lake Brown's Carmans Carson's Cook's Crystal .. Echo Excelsior Gideon's Gray's Halsted's ... Lafayette Lower Lake ... Maxwell North Arm Peary Lake Phelps Priest's Robinson's Smiths Smithtown Spring Park St. AIban's St. Louis Stubbs Tanager L, Tonka Upper Lake ... Wayzata West Arm Walley_e TOTAL 31 Panfish .Crappi_e 39 42 44 31 10 IV. Ecological Factors a. Exotic species. Exotic species, like Eurasian watermilfoil, carp, curly-leafed pondweed or zebra mussel, are biological nuisances. Because these plants and animals lack natural competitors and predators, they often become overabundant and displace more valuable native species. Further confounding the problems associated with these plants and animals, is the fact that they are difficult to control. 1. To what extent should measures be taken to prevent the infestation of exotic species not already in Lake Minnetonka? (58) Do nothing Maximum degree I 2 3 4 5 41% 40% 12% 5% 2% What exotic species (# responses): Zebra mussel 26 Ruffe 7 All species 6 2. To what extent should measures be taken to control the infestation of exotic species already in Lake Minnetonka? (59) Do nothing Maximum degree 1 2 3 4 5 41% 36% 14% 10% 0 What exotic species (# responses): Mil foil 35 6 Carp 1 Loosestri fe Curly-leafed pondweed 2 3. Are the current control methods for milfoil in Lake Minnetonka adequate? (56) Yes 27% No Please explain (# responses): Current methods do not eliminate milfoil Should be more pulling Current method spreads milfoil Should use chemical controls Cost too high Debris on shoreline/fragments Should be more research 73% 13 7 6 8 3 4 2 11 4. What nuisances do you now experience as a result of exotic species? species are a nuisance for what recreational or ecological function? Please describe (# responses): Milfoil Interferes with boating Interferes with swimming Interferes with fishing Interferes with sailing Interferes with water skiing Fragments/debris 24 None 4 9 Real estate value 2 8 Aesthetic 2 7 Habitat 2 6 Odors 1 3 .Purple Ioosestri fe Habitat Specifically, which 5. What measures would you suggest to learn more about the threat of exotic species and their impacts? (# responses) Education (such as workshops, forums, boat launch patrols, clearinghouse, signage, newsletters) Research Immediate, proactive action Ecological moniloring Through management agencies 13 10 2 I ! bo Bioliclntegrity. Biotic integrity is a measure of ecosystem health. Assessing biotic integrity compares the kinds and numbers of aquatic organisms as well as their functional relationships with unimpaired conditions. The result is a numeric index that relates the degree of ecologic impairment. On the one hand, such analyses are useful if the management objective for a lake is to attain some 'natural' condition. However, the lay public may not make any connection between academic measures of aquatic health and how they value the lake. On the other hand, achieving ecosystem health usually means that tangible management objectives are also realized. 1. Is the concept of ecologic health or biotic integrity useful in setting management objeclives for Lake Minnetonka? (53) Yes 89% No 11% Comment: Now is the time for action 2. Should the management objectives for Lake Minnetonka include measures of ecosystem health? Yes 87% No 13% 12 3. Do you feel that the quality or health of Lake Minnetonka is: (,64) Increasing: 30% Decreasing: 52% 19% Not changing: Reasons Sewers, fishing, clarity Exotics - milfoil, mercury, eutrophication, overuse, chemicals, wetland loss Except for milfoil, loosestrife and threatened over- development Watershed activities (including wetlands). The intensity ofstormwater runoff generally increases with the intensity of urban development- Thus, as land is urbanized, more pollutants enter lakes. Reversing this can be difficult and costly. However, comprehensive watershed management is the most direct way to manage lakes for the long- term. 1. What priority should be given to watershed management for accomplishing environmental objectives? (62) No priority Highest priority 1 2 3 4 5 58% 32% 8% 2% 0 2. What priority should be given to protecting, creating and restoring wetlands as a means to protect or improve lake quality? (62) Nopriority Highest priority 1 2 3 4 5O% 39% 8% 3% 5 0 V. Please include any other comments or concerns that you have: 1 think the lake should be for sailing- small °utb°ards and executive boats. Get the rest off the lake. Better trash control where fishing is prevalent. I agree with most efforts to improve the lake - however, I disagree with the idea of keeping the channels dredged to a usable depth, eventually parts of the lake would no longer be usable - the movement of water through the channels also keeps the lake healthier. I'm no expert in any way, often feel all this is aimed at homeowners on the lake. It is discouraging to lake area residents. 13 There are several different organizations managing Lake Minnelonka. These organizations should pooltheir resourcesto monitor and managelhelake. Make use of as many sources as possible, such as Departmenl of Natural Resources, MN Pollulion Control Agency, Minnehaha (-'reek Watershed District, etc. Why isn't Ihere a user fee on every boal used on Lake Minnclonka? Many things could be funded with this money and ! know of no users that would object. Since both strengths and weaknesses of lake quality impact are often exaggerated, education is very important (especially for laymen). How about a weekly article in local paper with statistics (such as lake level, clarity, etc.)? Lip service or another .5 year study or a barrel of money won't help - decisive action, fair regulations, and strict enforcement is required. We need weeds of any kind or even certain living organismsprolected and not others. Example: Why do we need weeds. Example: why do we need turtles, frogs, snakes, alligators, etc. If you can suddenly impose wake limits to reduce the flow of nutrients into the lake you should also be able to limit the application of fertilizer on non-commercial watershed property. Boat Traffic. Congestion. Speed. BWI. Recreational craft. Noise pollution. Accessibility. ease of public access, is an extremely important faclor for the many Ihousands who do not live on the lake. Aesthetics and safety of accesses should be a priority. it is the DNR's ruling thai anyone wilh iakeshore property should have access - is this in the best interest of all the lake when that property is wetlands? I use the lake *ery little so am not that familiar with it other than being a farmer in Upper Painter Creek Watershed. 1) Litter. 2) Noise pollution from jet ski/personal watercraft. Minnetonka is the most popular lake for boating, fishing in Hennepin County and the state. Federal and state dollars not jusl for local communities or county should be sought for ensuring the life and health of this body of water. I think harvesting milfoil is not the way to go. Maybe if this money was applied to find another way-- be it with chemicals or whatever. I hope that the Conservation District and Ihe Watershed Dislric! work together for belier monitoring of lake quality and slream inflow. Bright lights on Ihe shore are a serious lype of pollution nol addressed here. iV. 2. How man). times per )'ear do you use the lake? (62) 0 5% 1-5 21% 6-10 10% 11-20 8% more than 20 56% 14 ANALYSIS Respondents' Profile Sixty-five respondents having familiarity with 31 bays of thc lake and participating in 13 distinct recreational activities completed the survey. 95% of the respondents personally use the lake with the median number of uses being more than 20 per year. Practically all (96%) of the respondents indicated that the lakc's appearance is an important management factor, with a nearly equal percentage (89%) indicating that the concept of ecological health of the lake is important. Overall Summary It is clear that the health of the lake is important to everyone and, except for Eurasian watermilfoil and overuse, Lake Minnetonka attracts many diverse users who engage in many diverse uses. It is also clear that very few people are critical of the overall management of the lake, again with the exception of milfoil and crowding. Lake Minnetonka is a large, socially and ecologically complex lake, that supports intense recreational use. It is obvious that recreation an._.~d ecological health are both important to those who use and value the lake. Lake Minnet°nka is ahighly managed lake. Few people pretend that ' -rural' attributes remain intact. On the other hand, most people want ahealthy lake its strictly na .... nt ob;ectives for the lake must balance providing for diverse environment. Clearly, managem~ J recreational use and protecting basic environmental qualities. 1. Physical Factors The appearance of the lake is important to everyone. Perhaps this question was too obvious, but it provides a consistent starting point. There was some overlap between those recreational uses not affected by thc appearance of the water. Many rcspondcntsindicated that w while affected and swimming, fishing and boating (all types) are affected by the appearance of the ater, other respondents disagreed, saying that boating and fishing are not affected. Based on the nearly total consensus regarding the importance of the appearance of the lake, it certainly affects those recreational activities in which the respondents participate. Twenty-four distinct areas of the lake were identified as having diminished water clarity, while five distinct areas were identified as not being affected. These responses indicate three general areas of tolerance for water clarity: those bays affected, those bays not affected and those bays in common. By comparing these responses with the results of the LakeMinnet°nka Lakeshore Owners Association summer Secchi disk monitoring results, it will be possible to obiectively delineate benchmarks for the lake's water clarity objectives- Further resolution of thc intolerance for poor appearance comes from question #5, where the respondents identified eleven bays whose appearance is particularly bad. In addition, these bays worst appearance is in late summer. Dredging channels in Lake Minnet°nka is viewed asa necessary evil. All those responding to the question (except one) indicated that drcdging is necessary, but that it should bc closely controlled and no new areas should be added. Only one respondent indicated that there should be no dredging at all. 15 !1. Chemical Factors All respondents indicated a high degree of concern over the impact of nulricnt pollution in Lake Minnetonka. This concern translated intoa consensus that nutrients deserve a high management priority and was backed up by a willingness to support public investments for nutrient management; 92% indicated a medium (#3) to high (#1) level of support. There is uniform concern for the impact of toxic chemicals in Lake Minnetonka as well as for their management priority, the willingness to make personal lifestyle changes and the need for public investment in better understanding and managing toxic chemicals. Specifically, 87%,89%, 97%, and 842 of the respondents indicated a medium (#3) to high (#1) level of concern, priority, significant changes, and support (questions 1-4, respectively) for managing toxic chemicals. This call to action is predicated on the existence of a real problem. Clearly, we must better understand the extent of the impact of toxic chemicals on aquatic life and human health before substantive actions are taken. In fact, the MN Department of Health and the MN DNR will issue an updated fish consumption advisory for Lake Minnetonka by next season. !11. Biological Factors The majority of respondents are concerned about the impacts of bacterial contamination, but a smaller percentage would support public investment in better understanding and managing bacterial contamination. Enough of the respondents (47% medium to no support, #3-5) hesitate to support public investments in this management activity, suggesting that a determination of the nature of the problem is needed prior to the implementation of a management program. Algae is a problem in several specified bays of Lake Minnetonka during the summer. Specifically, a large number of respondents are aware that blue-green (scum-forming) algae occur at nuisance levels during mid- to late-summer in certain bays of the lake. However, the priority for addressing Ihis nuisance is medium inconsistent with the expressed need fo (#3) compared to other managemenl needs. This appears r nutrient control, which is presumably necessary to control obnoxious algae. A number of respondents pointed out that nutrient management is Ihe most direct way to control algae, and thus is an obvious priority. Also, algae blooms are highly correlated with the appearance of the lake. Aquatic plants cause a severe (#1) to moderate (#3) nuisance for most recreational uses of the lake. Specifically, 87, 73, 81, 64, 91, and 84% of those responding to the question found aquatic plants to be a nuisance for power boating, sailing, skiing/towing, swimming, and aesthetic enjoyment, respectively. Swimming is thc most affected use and fishing is the least affected (it is unknown whether there are long-term affects on fish spawning habitats). A number of respondents also found aquatic plants to affect aquatic habitat, canoeing, unpleasant odors, shoreline uses, and real estate values. Further, lhe respondents were able lo identify several specific areas where aquatic plants are a particular nuisance in thc lake. Many of the respondents appear to equate nuisance aquatic plants with milfoil, indicating a perception that milfoil is the only 'weed' in the lake. There was a recognition thai plants other than milfoilcaused nuisances. Some of the respondents were able toidentifv certain plants species, while others simple indicated a general intolerance for all aquatic piants. Anglers prefer a variety of fish in a range of sizes, in addition, many fish both for personal consumption as well assporl(catch.and.release and trophy). The rest~ondcntsidentified 31 distinct areas of the lake they visit for fishing. It appears that all sport species are sought from nearly every area of the lake. This information will be useful for developing specific management ohjcclivcs dealing with thc management of a sustainable fishery. 16 IV. Ecological Factors Exotic species were included in this section because of their effects on lake ecology (we already know of their effects on recreation). A clear majority (81%, #1 and #2) felt the extreme measures were necessary to prevent the infestation of exotic species not already in Lake Minnetonka. In this regard, zebra mussel was identified as the most immediate concern. A similalr majority (77%,#1and #2) felt that strong measures were needed to deal with exotics now present in LakeMinnetonka, particularly milfoil. Based on the answer to question b.3.,most people do not think the present method of milfoilcontrolare adequate. Many offered suggestions and critiques of the harvesting program. The respondents were able to identify specific nuisances caused by milfoil. Generally, these were the interference for boating, swimming and fishing. Asmall number indicated the exotics are not a nuisance at ail. Education and research were suggested as ways to learn more about the threat of exotic species and their impacts. The concept of biotic integrity and ecological health was overwhelmingly endorsed as being important considerations for developing environmental management objectives for the lake. Many respondents commented that while they might not fully understand the science, they appreciate and value the concept. Fifty-two percent of the respondents think that the overall quality of Lake Minnetonka is decreasing. However, about half the respondents think that the lake's quality is increasing or not changing. Those who think the lake is improving tended to cite longer-term improvements resulting from the diversion of sewers in the 1970s and 1980s. Of those who feel the lake's quality is degrading, 93% specifically mention particular problems with milfoil. Of those who feel the lake's quality has improved, only 14% had problems with milfoii. Other negative factors mentioned included overuse, mercury, chemical use, eutrophication, and wetland loss. Those indicating no change often qualified their choice by acknowledging some improvements along with some degradations (usually milfoil). Clearly, milfoilsubstantially affects most users' over- perception of the lake's quality. There is uniform consensus that watershed management, especially protecting, creating and restoring wetlands, should receive high priority for managing the Lake Minnetonka envir V. General Comments and Concerns In addition to those areas highlight above, a number of other issues and concerns were There is frustration and discouragement due to lack of coordinated action to address environmental management aspects of LakeMinnetonka. While the perspcctivesof laI owners and other lake users were different, there was broad consensus that Lake Mtn highly public lake that deserves the highest considerations for environmental protec management entities. 17 ACTIONS The 'Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka" (1991) identified numerous environmental protection objectives, policies, and implementation strategies. In light of the needs of the lake and the lake users, as more clearly identified in this survey, the implementation of the environmental management objectives should proceed consistent with the actions outlined below. la other words, the suggested actions are those management objectives that should be highlighted for priority attention. In addition, the numerous objectives in the management plan have been focused in responses to real needs as expressed by Lake Minnetonka stakeholders. The figure below summarizes the priority ranking of actions that need to occur to address the management of the LakeMinnetonka environment, as determined by this survey. Four types of action -- management, research, monitoring and education/communication -- are needed to achieve the balanced environmental management of the lake. In cases where an action is identified, it may be that it is already occurring. In all cases, actions for agiven environmental factor should proceed from the highest priority to the lowest. For example, because we know so little about the prevalence of toxic chemicals in the lake, it makes sense to measure them so that subsequent actions can be directed most effectively. The priority rankings are consistent with the input to the survey and have been reviewed by the Environment Committee of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. These rankings are: Rank Urgency for Action Immediate action. Initiate action now, implement within one year. Implement within three years. No action foreseen at this time. The action categories refer to general kinds of action needed to address the concern. The specific · ommended actions will be detailed later in this section. For reference, these action categories summarized as follows: Management. The implementation of physical or regulatory controls to addressa well ,)ecified need. Examples include the milfoil harvesting program, the implementation of ~nicipal ordinances, or the presentation of a fish consumption advisory. 'earch. The conduct of applied research to develop technologies that do not now exist. example, finding a chemical application protocol that will accomplish the selective ication or control of milfoil. oring. Thecol,h~tiOn ofinform~tion to better define a problem or situation, or to '.e the effectiveness of management actions. Monitoring should not. block actions, eadshould facilitate and define actions. Monitoring is necessary to identify .' benchmarks for management. ~/Communication. Elevating the level of understanding and appreciation for the environmental concerns shared by all stakeholders. Environmental concerns stakeholders, thus blocking action. Through education and communication, ~nunity can become more unified in its attention to the comprehensive ~ management of the lake. 18 PRIORITY ACTION MATRIX for the implementation of Actions for the Management of Lake Minnetonka Environmental Factors Management i ~:Research Monitoring (Down) / Actions (Across) c°mmunicaiiaii: Nutrients (lake) 3 4 2 2 Nutrients (watershed) 2-3 4 2-3 2 Toxic chemicals (fish) 2-3 3 2 2 Toxic chemicals (watershed) 2-3 3 2 2 Bacterial 2-3 4 2 3 Algae see nutrients 4 2 2 Aquatic plants 2 2-3 2 1 Fish 3 3 2 2 Exotic species present now 2 2 2 1 Exotic species not present 2 2-3 2 1 Ecosystem health 2-3 3 2 2 Watershed, land use 2 4 2-3 3 Watershed, wetlands 2 2 1 2 The most important use of the Stakeholders' Survey will be to strike a balance between the desire for intense recreational use and the need for adequate ecological protection of Lake Minnetonka. There is broad and general recognition that the lake is both heavily used and intensively managed, both intentionally and not intentionally. Because of the extremely high value of this resource, there is the opportunity for positive management action. However, the many users' needs often causes polarization, which can effectively halt action. Ideally, the management of recreational and environmental management objectives must recognize the diversity of views, then look ahead so the needs of all stakeholders can complement one another. 19 POSSIBLE ACTI()NS 1. Eurasian watermilfoil is the uppermost environmental factor in people's minds as they consider the health and quality of Lake Minnetonka. it is clear that milfoil is the number one factor that affects people's perception of the lake's quality -- so much so that, except for milfoil, most people feel the lake is of very high quality. That the perception of milfoil and its management may be affected by misunderstanding and unrealistic expectations only emphasizes the need for better education and communication. Equally clear, is the fact that there is frustration that longer-term solutions have not been available. In addition, we really do not know the total environmental impact of the plant. DISCUSSION ITEMS: la. Thc Lake Minnetonka Conservation District should better communicate the objectives and effcctivcncss of its annual harvcsting program. In addition, the LMCD should address the problem of milfoil fragments. lb. The LMCD, in cooperation with mhcr management agcncics, should dcvclop a monitoring protocol to bc implcmcntcd in 1994 to track the population of Eurasian watermilfoil in Lake Minnetonka as well as changes to the native plant communities. lc. The LMCD, in cooperation with other management agcncies and interest groups, ought to develop long-term, comprehensive plan for thc management of milfoil in Lake Minnetonka. These strategies should include such issues as the ecological impact of milfoil, research into chemical and biological controls, and the prospects for mechanical harvesting in the long-term. 2. Pro-actively address the threat of other exotic species in Lake Minnetonka. Everyone understands that ridding the lake of a foreign invader once it has become established is practically impossible. This fear has lcd to a call to pro-actively face these threats and implement measures to protect Lake Minnetonka, especially from zebra mussel. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 2a. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District should communicate the nature of the response that is needed to address the threat of zebra mussels for Lake Minnetonka. 2b. Thc LMCD, in cooperation with others, should develop a monitoring plan to be implemented in 1994 that will detect zebra mussels should they be introduced into Lake Minnetonka. 2c. The LMCD, with other governing units, should develop a strategy to address the prevention of a zebra mussel infestation in Lake Minnctonka. 2d. The LMCD, with other governing units, should develop a strategy to address the prevention of other aquatic invaders in Lake Minnctonka. 3 2O 3a. 3b. 3C. 4a. Management of native aquatic plants. Thc benefits of nalive aquatic plants are overlooked by. many in the Lake Minnctonka community. Either they are not recognized or they are lumped with milfoil asageneral aquatic nuisance. Worse yel, the incidence of unauthorized or illegal chemical treatments appearsto be high, which indicates a general intolerance for all aquatic plants and fruslration regarding the lack of management options. To make mailers worse, no management agency has given serious attention to the impacl of milfoil on native plants (see #2 above). This apparent lack of management options and official aclions has resulled in frustration. The importance of native aquatic plants needs to be highlighted and a more coordinated and comprehensive management approach is needed. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Beginning immediately, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District should communicate the importance of native plants in LakeMinnetonka. Until a long-term managemcnl stralcgy can be developed for individualshoreland owners to control nuisance aquatic plants, the LMCD should evaluate other available technologies, for example boltom barriers, for use by shoreland owners for small scale control of aquatic plants. Along with recommendation lb, above, a monitoring program for native aquatic plants should be implemented. The protect]on, creation and restoration of wetlands in the Lake Minnetonka watershed. This isa clear call to implementation of the Wetland Conservation Act. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is recognized as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) that has been working with local municipalities to implement the wetland rules. DISCUSSION ITEM: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should continue in the role of RGU as the Wetland Conservation Act rules are implemented. There are generally insufficient data to guide responsible action for the implementation of many environmental objectives. Monitoring of ali environmental factors needs Iooccur. In some cases, adequate monitoring data may exist, but may not be readily available, in most cases, monitoring data or data collection programs do not exist. Comprehensive dala colleclion is an invcstmcnl into the long-term management and protection of a physical resource. Unfortunately, unless the objectives of the monitoring are both understood and accepted, these programs are often viewed as 'more studies.' This concern has been raised by thc respondents. On thc other hand, there arc were a number of concerns raised for which we have no information. For example, the impact of milfoil on native plants and fish spawning habitat, the prevalence of bacterial contamination, the contamination of fish flesh, and objective measures of the appearance of the lake. Without an objective baseline, effective management action cannot occur. 21 Sa. e A comprehensive data collection system that supports thc effective implementation of environmental objectives for Lake Minnetonka needs to be developed. In addition, there needs robe identified an entity to serve asaclearingh°use for Ihat data. Candidates might include the LMCD, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, or thc Freshwater Institute. DISCUSSION ITEM: The LMCD should develop a comprehensive data collection program to support the total environmental management of the lake and its watershed. This plan should include an interim monitoring program to be implemented as soon as possible. There is a need for better education and communication about the Lake Minnetonka environment and its management. The urgency for communication and education applies to the management of every environmental factor, ltisclear from the survey responses that misunderstandingsand missed communication opportunities have resulted in confusion, frustration and impatience. More effective management decisions will result from improved education and communication- 6a. 7a. DISCUSSION ITEM: The LMCD should develop and implement a education/communication strategy to address the environmental management objectives for Lake Minnetonka. Except for clarifications included herein, the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka should be implemented as scheduled. The Stakeholders' Survey has helped to focus the need for various actions to protect the environment of Lake Minnetonka. This input will assure that thc environmental objectives address real needs and values of those who usc, enjoy and value the lake. DISCUSSION ITEM: Except for clarifications included herein, the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka should be implemented as scheduled. 22 HEALTH RISKS ~cans about the fat in Chinese food Tony and Carrie Chang. usually draw a big holiday crowd at their Imperial Hunan Chinese restau- rant in Manhattan. But business at the family-owned eaterie was downright lousy over the Labor Day weekend. The reason, the Changs discovered by query- ~g previously loyal customers: a heavily ~ublicized st:ady by the Center for Sci- ence in the Public Interest, a research group in Washington, D.C., concluding that Chinese food is often just as fatty, salt-laden, and high in calories as a Big Mac with a large order of fries. . The question now worrying Chinese food purveyors: Is the furor over the new study a tempest in a teapot, or has Chinese food earned a permanent bad rap? The study dealt only with take-out foo~,'but ,sales of everything from Con- 32gra Inc. s La Choy and Chun King brands to General Mills Inc.'s China Coast restaurant chain may be affected. SERIOUS EATERS. Americans take. such dietary news seriously. Beef consump- tion, for example, dropped by 4.5% dur- ing the 1980s as the public became more aware of its health risks. On the plus side, the wine industry credits a 28% tritionist Jayne Hurley, who headed the research team. For instance, the study found that a typical take-out serving of Kung Pao Chicken, a spicy diced-chicken dish, has about the same fat content (76 grams) as four McDonald's Quarter Pounders '(table). Orange Crispy Beef, another popular take- out dish, has more calories than four or- ders of McDonald's ~aaw~l F~ (g) french fries. That was big news to many Chinese-food eaters. A Food Mar- keting Institute sur- vey-taken before the Science in the Public Interest study--showed that some 52% of Ameri- Cl~l~'~r~ (rog) cans considered Chi- nese food healthier than fast food. Nonetheless, corpo- f~di~n~ (rog) rate Chinese-food makers aren't ner- vous yet. ConAgra says it isn't planning increase in red-wine sales last year to a 1991 6'0 Minutes episode suggesting that red wine helps prevent heart disease. Just how bad can Chinese food be? "The results shocked even us," sa).s nu- to drop or reconfi- gure any of the fath- er items in its frozen Chinese lineup. "Let's face it, an egg roll 300 2400 2609 The averuge chinese dinner we looked at contains more sodium than you should eat in an entire day. It also has 70percent via day's fat. 80percent ora day's choles- terol and almost hall a day's saturated fat. "Daily Maxi- mums" are the government's new Daily Relerence Values (DRVs). u~hich will soon appear on food labels, & & BY JAYNE HURLEY & STEPHEN SCHMIDT An order of House Lo Mein with as much salt as a whole Pizza Hut Cheese Pizza? An order of Kung Pao Chicken with almost as much fat as four Quaner Pounders? An order of kloo Sbu Pork wi'~'n more than p. vice the cholesterol of an Egg McMuffin? According to a recent report by the Food Marketing I nsUtute and Preuention Magazine, 52 percent of all Americans say that Chinese food is "more healthful" than their usual diet. If only they knew. THE GREAT STIR-OFF No one's ever looked--really looked--at just how good (or bad) Chinese food is. So we recently decided to find out. We bought dinner-size take-out portions of 15 popu- lar dishes from 20 mid-priced Chinese restaurants in Wash- ington, D.C., Chicago, and San Francisco. Then we shipped them to an independent lab lo be analyzed for calories, fat, saturated fat, and sodium. Choleslerol we estimated by weighing the ingredients in each dish. Soup and egg roll aside, what we found would make your chopsticks splinter. · Fat ranged from a respect- able 19 grams (Szechuan Shrimp or Stir-Fried Veg- etables) to an outrageous ;( 76 grams (Kung Pao Chicken). That's more than you should eat in an entire day, and more than 40 percent of calories. (Most experts recommend a 30-percent limit. We say 20 percent.) · Other than Sweet and Sour Pork, the lowest-sodium din- ner (Stir-Fried Vegetables) had over 2,100 rog--about vour quota for a day. The 'highest-sodium plate (House Lo Mein) clocked in at an in- credible 3,460 rog. u On the plus side, the satu- rated fat was lower than you'll find in most American food. Only once (Moo Shu Pork) did it hit the ten percent of calories that most experts recommend. About half the dishes were even below our seven-percent limit. But many contained at least a day's worth of cholesterol. Good old Moo Sbu Pork had a two- day supply. f J~IUTRITION ACTION HEALTHLETTER The Whole Bucket ~cording to laboratory, analyses, here's what you'd get if you ate an entire take-out dinner-size order of each dish. (Other than the House Lo Mein, House Fried Rice, Egg Roll, and Hot and Sour Soup, the numbers include a typical 1 ¼-cup serving of steamed rice.) Dishes are ranked from best (lowest ~ percent of calories from fat) to worst 4' ,,, ~'~ (highest percent). ,.o~ ~.o~' ~. Dish (# o/cups) ~. ~. Szechuan Shrimp (4) 927 19 18 2 336 2,457 Stir-Fried Vegetables (4) 746 19 22 4 0 2,153 Shrimp with Garlic Sauce (3) 945 27 25 4 307 2,951 HunanTofu(4) 907 28 27 4 0 2,316 Chicken Chow Mein (5) 1,005 32 28 9 205 2,446 House Fried Rice (4) 1,484 50 30 6 346 2,682 House LoMein(5) 1,059 36 31 6 175 3,460 Hot and Sour Soup (1) 112" 4 32 8 129 1,088 Orange (Crispy) Beef(4) 1,766 66 33 6 296 3,135 GeneralTso's Chicken (5) 1,597 59 33 6 342 3,148 Beef with Brcs:coli(4) 1,175 46 35 7 228 3,146 Sweet and Sour Pork (4) 1,613 71 39 7 118 818 Kung Pao Chicken (5) 1,620 76 42 7 277 2,608 Moo Shu Pork (4) 1,228 64 47 10 465 2,593 Egg Roll(l roll) 190 11 52 2 7 463 SoySauceI(l Tbs.) 11 0 0 0 0 1,029 Fortune CookieI (1) 30 0 6 0 0 22 Soup Noodles2 (~6 cup) 150 8 48 0 0 300 Chow Mein Noodles~ (% cup) 119 7 53 I 0 99 September 29, 1993 12175 County Road 20 watertown, Minnesota 55388 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 To Whom It May Concern: I have read in the Star Tribune of your situation with the House of Moy and would like to express my support of the City. I occasionally visit Mound for varied reasons, includin~ ~o dine at the House of Moy. I never look forward to it, however, because Mound is an awkward city in which to drive. Intersecting roads are not clearly identified, pedestrians and crosswalks abound, and there is a plethora of signs, both traffic control signs and business signs. Add the railroad tracks and there are entirely too many things that need a driver's attention. I was delighted when the crosswalk leading to the House of Moy was removed. It is extremely awkward and dangerous for drivers to contend with a crosswalk smack in the middle of a road. As a diner at the House of Moy, it didn't bother me to walk to the intersection to cross the street. Regarding the sign that the restaurant placed, I hadn't noticed it with so many other signs cluttering the city. Then I realized that the sign violates a city ordinance. Did the owners of the House of Moy object when the ordinance was proposed? If no one was interested at that time, a person can hardly be taken seriously if they now object. It sounds like the restaurant owners want the City to change their location, when in fact this must be done by themselves as responsible businesspeople who try to meet their customers' needs. I have no intentions to visit the House of Moy in the future; mostly because of the owners' recent behavior but also because I do not enjoy driving in Mound. I do not expect a reply to this letter. I would, however, like to express my support of the city over this matter. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Je~nnifer O'Connell cc: House of Moy CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MGUNO MINNESOTA 6'2~ 472 :AX 6!2i ,:72 October 5, 1993 MEMO: FROM: .^~ osco.so., c.~.~ ^~,.,s..^.o.. · o~ ~o..so...~..~.,. cou.w JERRY SMRC~. "ENNEPIN COUNTY EO S"U~E. C'T~ ~A"*O~R ~)' RE: COUNTY ROAD 15 AT COUNTY ROAD 51 - SPRING PARK Per our telephone conversations of October 4, 1993, we have established a meeting date and time of Friday, October 1§, 1993 at 10:30 AM at Mound City Hall for the purpose of discussing traffic conditions on County Road 15 between County Road 19 and County Road 51. As you recall, the issue regarding the above has to deal with the traffic congestion at the intersection of County Road 51 and County Road 1§ in Spring Park. During the rush hour, traffic is backed up to the east as far as County Road 19 in Navarre. Hennepin County has made some adjustments to the stoplight itself at the location but thought it would be a good idea for us to sit down and go over the matter and make any suggestions or provide any input that would be helpful in resolving the problem. Please ask your mayors if they can attend the meeting, as their suggestions and input are important. I look forward to seeing all of you on October 15th at Mound City Hall, 10:30 AM. ES:Is A:CTY15JAM.MEM pm]ted On recycled poper M1NIYrES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMLqSION SEFFEMBER 27, 1993 Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Vice-Chair Geoff Michael (acting chair for this meeting at the request of Meyer), Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, city Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Bill Voss was absent and excused. MINUTE~ The Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 1993 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Weiland, seoonded by Hanus to approve the Planning Co~mission Minutes of September 13, 1993 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. TRUTH-IN-HOUSING DISCUSSION WITH EVALUATORS The following Evaluators were in attendance for this topic of discussion: Dennis Lash, James H. Baer, John Seorum, Richard Brammer, Stephen M. Donahue, Frederick J. Gerst, David B. Johnson, LeRoy Hedquist, Ron Zacharda, John Johnson, Harry E. Ho.se, and Jac Kelvic. In addition, city Council Member Phyllis Jessen was present. The ordinance, as proposed, was highlighted for the evaluator's benefit. The Building official commented that the truth in housing files will not be open to his office, and will not generate inspections or orders from his office. Questions were asked of the .valuators by the Commission and the Building official. Following are prominent comments and suggestions received from the Evaluator's. The evaluator's answers were varied, however, the comments contained herein were agreed to by a consensus from the .valuators. Benefits: a. Housing stock will be improved, therefore helping a dwindling tax base. b. It will help the seller bring house up to code which makes the house more marketable. c. Inspections can save lives (i.e. water heaters blowing up). d. Inspections protect seller from being sued. It is a good idea to keep the ordinance as simple as possible and don't reinvent the wheel and to use other cities. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 St. Louis Park has a very stringent code, and if you drive around the City this is evident. Because people are required to maintain the inside of their homes they become proud of their homes and tend to maintain the outside also. It is good to begin with a "disclosure" type of ordinance versus a ,,compliance" type ordinance. It was suggested the City adopt a complete set of housing codes on which to base the ordinance, similar to the Minneapolis Housing Maintenance Ordinance. It was also noted the basic issues are addressed within our proposed ordinance. Disclosure Report. The form is bulky and should have fewer pages, 4 or less. The verbiage at the top of each page does not need to be repeated. Make sure the line spacing on the form is adaptable to typewriter spacing. It was suggested that evaluators who have specific concerns about verbiage on the Disclosure Report could mail corrected forms back to the City of Mound. Why is the seller not required to sign? Number of houses sold per year in Mound was reviewed by Commissioner Mueller: 1-1-92 thru 12-31-92 = 340 houses put on the market or sold 9-1-92 thru 9-1-93 = 425 houses " Potential fees were discussed as follows: Inspection Fee for Homeowner/Seller City Filing Fee License Fee for Evaluators $100 - $150 $10 - $20 $3o - $85 Average time spent on a property including the inspection, travel time, and completion of the disclosure report is 3 hours plus. The Minnesota society of Housing Inspectors (MSHI) has a guidelines to set base fees at $120. "Zoning" Disclosure Report: a. There is a concern about the amount of time it will take for the city to process this report. There is often an urgency for the disclosure report to be available for a showing or offer. The evaluators are concerned the City turn-around time may slow their timetable. b. The following process was suggested for the Zoning Disclosure Report: 1) The Evaluator requests the zoning report from the City for a particular property. September 27, 1993 11. 2) The City will mail the report to the party specified by the Evaluator. 3) It is the seller or agents responsibility to ensure that the Zoning Disclosure Report is attached to the Housing Disclosure Report within 10 days of the date of the Housing Disclosure Report. This process will need to be investigated. 10. It was requested that building permit history be accessible to them at City Hall. Insurance requirements. It was suggested that the City of Mound have the same limitations as the City of Minneapolis. A possible typo was noted within the proposed ordinance, Section 318, pages 5- 6, lines 194 - 199; it was questioned if $250,000 for general liability was correct, it seemed too high. 12. How to notify public of upcoming ordinance: city newsletter, cable televisions advertisements, and contacting the Board of Realtors was suggested. 13. Should condominium units with central mechanical systems be inspected? Most of the evaluators were in favor of requiring an inspection for condominiums as they often find plumbing problems, problems with electrical outlets, etc. 14. An annual meeting should be held between the evaluators and the administrator of the program. Communications lines should be kept open at all times. The administrator should review reports occasionally and give feedback to evaluator to let them know if inspections are acceptable. 15. Testing requirements for licensing was reviewed: Minneapolis: Requires a simple written exam. and a passing score of 75% or more on an evaluation of a test house. Continuing Education is also required. Hopkins: Requires you to be licensed in Minneapolis. St. Louis Pk: Stringent written test. 16. Should Mound have their own test house? It was suggested, that in order to get quality inspectors and to ensure that they understand Mound's guidelines, they should have their own test house. Not all the evaluators agreed as Mound could simply require the evaluators be licensed by other cities that already require this. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 17. Harry Hoese, Chairman of the Board for MSHI agreed to have their board review Mound's proposed ordinance and return it with comments. He estimated the review to take about two months. It was noted that individual comments are also welcome. P~RK DEDICATION FEE DISCUSSION Johnson stated that he voted against the motions because he felt that the law, as written, did apply. He asked Jensen what the Council's feelings are on the circumstances, not the law, and is anybody interested in looking at changing the law? Jensen commented that there has been discussion about changing the requirement for collecting two park dedication fees for a minor subdivision lot split which creates only one new lot. Relating to the railroad subdivision issues, Jensen commented that after a lengthy conversation with the City Attorney she realized that the person who pays the fee is the owner of the land, not the purchaser and this changed her mind on the issue because now we have a person who owns a bulk of the land who is breaking off pieces of that land for some purpose, and since it has a functioning member of the community offering some additional funds for the benefit of the community is the same thing as a person splitting a residential property. She is inclined to leave the ordinance as is for the railroad type subdivisions. Mueller commented that he does not have a problem with the ordinance as it sits, but he does have a problem with the interpretation because, in his opinion, the interpretation of the ordinance by the City Attorney is not as cut and dry as it was explained in the City Manager's letter, nor in the City Attorney's comments in the Council Minutes. Relating to the most recent plat request, he believes that the requirement of the immediate combination of lots insinuates that a separate parcel is not being created. If they were allowed to keep the parcels separate then he would agree with charging a park dedication fee. Jensen explained that in this case you have the owner breaking of a piece of unplatted land and then selling it to the adjacent property owner, so initially there will be a separate new parcel. First a new lot is created, then the lots are combined. This is how the ordinance reads now and the only way to change this is to change the ordinance. Meyer referenced City Code Section 330:120, Subd. 6, and stated that, relating to the Balboa case, not every circumstance is cut and dry, and the Planning Commission made a recommendation based on what was felt to be the best solution for that circumstance. Subd. 6 says, "This section shall not apply to the division of platted lots", the subject lots are not platted, it does not refer to unplatted, therefore this required a judgement call, and the Planning Commission made a recommendation to help the Council, and made a judgement to the best of their ability, and the Planning Commission was not out of line. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Hanus commented that he feels the issue needs to be resolved before there is anymore damage. Hanus proposed a change to the ordinance, as follows: "Subd. 2. Park Land Dedicat ion. ~h~ i~'h~0n 6~i~?~.~6~!~ :~'~ .............. ~'9'~:~:~' ............ ~:'~'~":; ........... ~'~'~'X'~'~"; ............... ~'~ ........... ~'~ba~'9'i'~'i'~'~ .......... Of ....... l'a'nd ....... ai I'O~ihg development for residential, . . ." Mueller and Jensen agreed that the statement does not clarify anything, and some Planning Co~issioner's agreed that the statement helps clarify the intent. " . 6. This section shall . . . regulations of the City. Subd ........................................................................................ ~ . .................................................................... ~ Mueller thought the letter from the City Manager was insulting. Hanus commented that the City Manager was not present at the meeting when discussion on this issue took place. Mueller stated that if there was only one interpretation to an ordinance then there would be no law suits in this world and no reason for a Planning Commission. Mueller gave some examples how there are four different items within Subd. 2. that could be interpreted differently than both Mr. Pearson and Mr. Shukle have interpreted it. Jensen stated that damage will be done if a third application for a subdivision of unplatted property comes through and the City Council decides not to charge a park dedication fee, she encouraged that consistency has to occur. Meyer stated that he totally agrees with Mueller's comments relating to the interpretation and he feels the City Manager and City Attorney are acting very narrow minded. Clapsaddle suggested the option of getting interpretations from outside, and that our city Attorney should have the benefit of fellow council. Johnson suggested that we get the Council's collective view on this issue, i.e. are they interested in changing the ordinance as it relates to minor subdivisions and are they interested in looking at the situation as it relates to the railroad subdivisions? Jensen requested that the Building Official inform the city Manager to place this subject on the COW meeting agenda for October 19, 1993 so they may discuss this issue. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 1993 Johnson questioned Jensen, based on her conversations with the City Attorney, is the issue here the fact that this railroad land is not officially platted? Jensen stated that there is the fact that the land is currently unplatted and that businesses are just as much part of the community as residential property and therefore they get their opportunity to support the community by paying a park dedication fee. Jensen confirmed that she believes the City Attorney's response on this issue would be different if this land was platted property. Jensen surmised the issues she will raise for discussion at the COW meeting, as follows: 1) The Planning Commission would like the interpretation reviewed relating to the park dedication fees for minor subdivisions. If it is agreed that the City Attorney's recent interpretation is correct, then it is their recommendation that the ordinance be amended. It is the Planning Commission's opinion that this interpretation has been changed over the years and that the original intent was to charge one park dedication fee for each newly created lot; in other words, when one lot is divided into two lots only one new lot is being created in addition to the existing lot and only one fee should be charged. 2) The Planning Commission would like the intent and purpose of the ordinance clarified. It is their feeling that plats or major subdivisions which do not create a change in the use of the property, or increase the burden on the park system, should not be required to pay a park dedication fee. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the September 14, 1993 City Council Minutes and the Agenda for the September 28, 1993 meeting. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 6 League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55126 (612) 490-5600 October 4, 1993 I C'D SEP 3 0 1993 Dear City Official: You are cordially invited to attend the League of Minnesota Cities regional meeting in Brooklyn Center. The meeting will be held at the Part Inn International, located at 1501 Freeway Boulevard, Brooklyn Center. (Exit Shingle Creek Parkway, turn right at Freeway Boulevard) The afternoon program will begin at 2:30 p.m. with a panel consisting of Commissioner Charles Williams, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Commissioner James Solem, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Commissioner James Denn, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and, Commissioner Michael Jordan, Department of Public Safety. After a brief statement from each department, there will be a period for questions and answers. The social hour will begin at 5:00 p.m., and dinner will be served at 6:15 p.m.. After dinner and a welcome from Mayor Todd Paulson, League President Leland Swanson will address the group. This will be followed by a Truth in Taxation video, and an informative "LMC By the Numbers" presentation about the League. I hope you will be able to join us on October 21. If you plan to attend, complete the enclosed registration form and return it along with a check to Cathy Dovidio, League of Minnesota Cities, 3490 Lexington Avenue North, Shoreview, MN 55126. Come for the afternoon, the evening, or both. I took forward to seeing you there. Sincerely, es F. Miller Executive Director JMF:ctd League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MI~ 55126 (612) 490-5600 I.F. AGUE OF MINNESOTA CFFIES 1993 REGIONAL MEETING PROGRAM October 21 Brooklyn Center AFTERNOON PROGRAM 2:30-3:30 p.m. 3:30-3:45 p.m. 3:45-4:45 p.m. 4:45-5:00 p.m. EVENING PROGRAM 5:00-6:15 p.m. 6:15-7:00 p.m. 7:00-7:15 p.m. 7:15-7:30 p.m. 7:30-7:42 p.m. 7:42-7:55 p.m. 7:55-8:30 p.m. 8:30-9:00 p.m. Panel presentations by Commissioner Charles Williams _Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Commissioner Michael Jordan Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner James Solem Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Commissioner James Denn Minnesota Department of Transportation Break Question and Answer Session Program wrap-up/Preview of evening session Social Hour Dinner Welcome by Mayor Todd Paulson LMC President message - Leland Swanson LMC Video - Truth in Taxation Discussion and questions about Truth in Taxation LMC by the Numbers General questions and meeting wrap-up The League of Minnesota Cities wishes to thank the firm of ~Itlers and Associates, Ina for sponsoring our social hour this evening. "3 18 October 12, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION APPOINTING SARA MILLER TO FILL THE EXPIRED TERM OF GORDON TULBERG ON THE MOUND HRA - TERM TO EXPIRE 8-29-98 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Sara Miller to the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority to fill the expired term of Gordon Tulberg, term to expire August 29, 1998. October 12, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION APPOINTING SARA MILLER TO FILL THE EXPIRED TERM OF GORDON TULBERG ON THE MOUND HRA - TERM TO EXPIRE 8-29-98 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Sara Miller to the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority to fill the expired term of Gordon Tulberg, term to expire August 29, 1998.