Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1993-10-26
CITY OF MOUND MIgSION 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, MINNF..SOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL- REG~ MEETING 7:30 P.M., TIJF~DAY, OCTOBER 26, 1993 C1TY COUNCIL ~ERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 12, 1993, REGULAR MEETING AND OCTOBER 19, 1993, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. PG. 3622-3627 PUBLIC HEARINGS: - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING ASSESSMENT - UNPAID MOWING ASSESSMENT - UNPAID SEWER & WATER ASSESSMENT CASE//93-050.' SCOTT SCHMIEG, 1736 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 13-16, BLOCK 10, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 24 0013. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. PG. 3628-3641 CASE//93-051: DI & LYNN CHEN, 2127 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 6, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK & ADJ. WATERBANK COMMON, PID//13-117-24 31 0032. VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. PG. 3642-3654 6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. DISCU~ PROPOSED POLICY ON STAIRWAYS ON PUBLIC LANDS. PG. 3655-3656 l~ ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT - WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. PG. 3657-3680 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERMS. PG. 3681-3695 3619 10. 11. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS (NCA'S.) PG. 3696-3719 12. RESOLUTION REGARDING GRANT APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF GOVERNMENT INNOVATION AND COOPERATION. PG. 3720-3727 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 3728-3736 13. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ho Financial report for September 1993 a prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. PG. 3737-3738 B. Planning Commission Minutes of October 11, 1993. PG. 3739-3745 Co Parks & Open Space Commission Minutes of October 14, 1993. PG. 3746-3753 Do Letter from a Minnetrista resident sent to the House of Moy. PG. 3754 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) notice on Legislative Policy Adoption Meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 4, 1993, at the Ramada Hotel and Conference Center (McGuire's), Arden Hills. If you are interested in attending, please let Fran know as soon as possible. PG. 3755-3756 Memo from AMM on changes made to 1994 Legislative Policies and Priorities Packet included in last Council packet. PG. 3757 Hennepin County is holding a public hearing on October 26, 1993, regarding a proposed Solid Waste Management Fee Ordinance and an ordinance on hauler licenses. The County is considering reducing the tipping fee for 1994 from $90 per ton to $60 per ton. This will definitely have and effect on the $1.75 per household reimbursement we currently receive for our residential recycling program and future fees that we charge in order to operate our recycling program. PG. 3758-3776 Letter from Mayor Rockvam, Spring Park, re: thank you and appreciation to the City of Mound for preparing a proposal for police services to Spring Park. PG. 3777 3620 Joyce Nelson, Recycling Coordinator, indicated that over 1200 persons utilized the Cleanup Day on October 16. We collected over $5000 from users of the site. This is less than what we collected last Spring. The number of users is also less, which makes me think that we should offer the service once a year rather than twice and that Spring might be better than Fall. The Annual Christmas Party has been scheduled for Friday, December 17, 1993, at the American Legion, Mound. Details on this later. 3621 Mound City Council October 12, 1993 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 12, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 12, 1993, in thc Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Joyce & Marvin Nelson, Peter Petty and Norman Hemerick. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve the Minutes of the September 28, 1993, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 RECYCLOTTO WINNER. The Mayor presented $200 Westonka Dollars to Peter Petty, 3100 Inverness for recycling the week of October 5. 1.2 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 The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions as listed in the proposed resolution. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g93-134 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 SttOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, P & Z CASE Mound City Council October 12, 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE #93-052: NORMAN HEMERI(~K, 4716 ABERDEEN ROAD. LOTS 12. 13 ~ 14. BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT. PID #18--117-23 23 0039, RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-135 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4716 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOTS 12, 13 AND 14, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0039, P & Z CASE g93-052 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 DISCUSSION: ENCROACHMENT~ ON PUBLIC LANDS, The City Manager explained that at the August 27th Meeting there was a list of 7 or 8 applicants for getting permits or approving stairways on public lands to access the Commons. There was concern by the Council of whether to approve separately or in a batch. The Staff was following a process developed earlier in the year and approved by the City Council to go forward the look at all of the commons areas and public lands areas to inventory each and determine what was there and whether there were permits for these structures. There was confusion as to what the Council was looking at for existing stairways as they relate to the Building Code. Is the staff to apply the Building Code to existing stairways and what is staff to do with new applications for new stairways.'? After discussion the following was determined. The Building Official is to draw a policy which would say: 1. New stairways shall meet the Uniform Building Code and the standards. Existing stairways shall be considered legal nonconforming uses unless they are structurally unsafe (a percentage to be determined by the Building Official). As long as they are safe, permits will continue and be considered a legal nonconforming use. If the stairways are replaced, they have to meet the new standards. If they are unsafe based upon the criteria set, then they have to be ,it · I, t i Mound City Council October 12, 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE #93-052: NORMAN HEMERICK, 4716 BEACHS1DE ROAD, LOTS 12, 13 & ld. I~LOCK 1, ~HADYWOOD POINT, PID #15-117-23 23 0039, RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CQNSTRUCTION OF CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-135 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4716 BEACHSIDE ROAD, LOTS 12, 13 AND 14, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//18-117-23 23 0039, P & Z CASE//93-052 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded. 1.4 DISCUSSION: ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS The City Manager explained that at the August 27th Meeting there was a list of 7 or 8 applicants for getting permits or approving stairways on public lands to access the Commons. There was concern by the Council of whether to approve separately or in a batch. The Staff was following a process developed earlier in the year and approved by the City Council to go forward the look at all of the commons areas and public lands areas to inventory each and determine what was there and whether there were permits for these structures. There was confusion as to what the Council was looking at for existing stairways as they relate to the Building Code. Is the staff to apply the Building Code to existing stairways and what is staff to do with new applications for new stairways? After discussion the following was determined. The Building Official is to draw a policy which would say: 1. New stairways shall meet the Uniform Building Code and the standards. Existing stairways shall be considered legal nonconforming uses unless they are structurally unsafe (a percentage to be determined by the Building Official). As long as they are safe, permits will continue and be considered a legal nonconforming use. If the stairways are replaced, they have to meet the new standards. If they are unsafe based upon the criteria set, then they have to be ,J, · I, I I Mound City Council October 12, 1993 replaced at the time of the application. The Council directed the Building Official to write the crtefia. 1.5 RESOLUTION DECLARING OCTOBER 27, 1993. AS "UNFUNDED MANDATE DAY" IN THE CITY OF MOUND Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~/93-136 RESOLUTION ON UNFUNDED MANDATES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMEN'I$ AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.6 ~ POSSmLE DISSOLUTION OF THE LMCD.. The Mayor stated that this item is on the Agenda to get a feel for the Council's position on dissolving the LMCD. The Mayor stated that he attended a recent LMCD Mayor's Meeting which was supposed to be an informational meeting to allow better communication between the cities and the LMCD. Before they got very far, the Mayor of Orono starting talking about dissolving the LMCD. Mayor Johnson stated he asked the remainder of the Mayors to bring the dissolution of the LMCD up at their Council meetings to get a feel for the majority's feelings. Mayor Johnson stated there has not been a suggestion of a workable alternative to the LMCD. The Council did not express an interest in dissolving the LMCD. They agreed that they did not have a better alternative. They did, however, feel that there should be some changes made in the LMCD: more accountability to the cities; cities should have more involvement through their representative. No action was taken. 1.7 SET BID OPENING FOR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING - SNOW REMOVAL- 1993-94 MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to set November 1, 1993, to open bids for snow removal in the Central Business District - 1993-94, for November 1, 1993, at 11:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the payment of bills as Mound City Council October 12, 1993 presented on the pre-list in the amount of $309,779.56, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANF~US A. Department Head Monthly Reports for September 1993. Be REMINDER1 Interviews for Park & Open Space vacancies are scheduled for Thursday, October 14, 1993, 7:00 P.M. Please plan on attending the interviews. Ce 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. D. LMCD Mailings. E. Letter from a Watertown resident on the crosswalk issue at House of Moy. 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. G. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1993. H. 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. REMINDER; West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, November 2, 1993 - Andrea Ahrens; December 7 - Ken Smith. K. REMINDER; Special Recycling day, Saturday, October 16, 1993, 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 8:35 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Attest: City Clerk Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager ,ii, · I, Il MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - OCTOBER 19~ 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Andrea Ahrens, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present: John Cameron, City Engineer; Greg Skinner, Utilities Superintendent and Ed Shukle, city Manager. John Cameron, City Engineer, presented a preliminary draft of a feasibility report on outdoor material storage at the Minnetrista City Hall/Public Works site. The report focused on the Minnetrista site and presented two alternatives. Alternative #1 dealt with the existing storage area at the site. Alternative #2 dealt with the existing site and expanding it further to the south. Cost estimates for each alternative were close to being the same. Also discussed was equipment purchases related to the moving of material at the site and repairs to the access road, both from a temporary standpoint as well as a complete reconstruction. It was the consensus that the report deemed the project to be feasible and further consensus by the Council was to schedule a meeting with the city of Minnetrista to present the report and get their reaction to it. City Engineer John Cameron presented an updated report on water system improvements. He referenced a study that was done in 1990 on the city's water system. At that time a preliminary engineering report was prepared to review a pressure filtration plant for iron and manganese removal and ion exchange softening process and a lime-soda softening process. The city engineer presented some estimates on operation and maintenance costs as well as updated figures on a physical plant for the three different processes. The Council consensus was to place this item on the upcoming agenda for October 26, 1993 for further discussion. Park dedication fees were discussed. This topic came before the Council due to the fact that the recent minor subdivision involving Dakota Rail and Balboa, and Dakota Rail and John's Variety and Pets required Park Dedication fees for each of those major subdivisions. The Planning Commission had disagreed with the city Council's action and asked that the City Council review the ordinance and make some possible changes to it. The Council reviewed the current ordinance and directed the City Manager to research the matter further and report back at the next Committee of the Whole meeting. The City Manager reported on the meeting with Hennepin County and officials from Orono and Spring Park regarding traffic congestion at CSAH 15 and CSAH 51 in Spring Park. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss the backup of traffic from that intersection to County Road 19 in Navarre. Hennepin County indicated that the traffic congestion could be reduced if the right turn only lane going westbound on 15 was made into a non right turn lane and the double lane would eventually merge into one as you approach County Road 125. Spring Park has previously indicated that they did not want this changed and Mary Ann Thurk of the Commi~ of~e Whole Minutr~ - Oc~r 19, 1993 - Pa~e 2 Spring Park Council who was present at the meeting indicated that she was certain that the Spring Park Council did not want to make any changes in this regard. Hennepin County indicated that an employee within their office who lives in Mound, is driving the road daily and is monitoring the traffic on 15 at this intersection. The City Manager updated the police services contract proposal to Spring Park. He indicated that the Spring Park City Council took action on Monday, October lSth to continue with police services with the city of Orono. The annual Christmas party was discussed. Friday, December 17th was selected for the party to be held at the American Legion Club. Councilmember Jensen reviewed a list of goals and updated it with the Council. This will be an ongoing review at upcoming Committee of the Whole meetings. Discussion was held on whether the City Council should pass a resolution endorsing the ISD 277 Bond Referendum. Consensus was to take no position on the matter. The Economic Development Commission was briefly discussed. The Council consensus was to have the City Council visit the Economic Development Commission at its November 18, 1993 meeting to have an open forum on economic development and issues that will be facing the EDC in the future. The next Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 16, 1993, 7:30 PM, Mound City Hall. Upon motion by Ahrens and seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM. Re ctful 1.y submitted, Ed Shukle city Manager ES:ls RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER ASSESSMF. aNT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $-39.;~/ff:~ TO BE 5'7., 7 ~/3.2 7 CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY #12930 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: Mound: PID # DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows: 13-117-24 21 0089 13-117-24 12 0052 13-117-24 12 0220 13-117-24 12 0239 13-117-24 12 0036 13-117-24 12 0119 13-117-24 12 0207 13-11744 12 0190 13-117-24 12 0213 13-117-24 12 0009 13-117-24 13 0021 13-117-24 11 0056 13-117-24 14 0029 13-117-24 14 0040 13-117-24 11 0139 18-117-23 23 0004 18-117-23 23 0012 18-11743 23 0038 13-117-24 11 0122 IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY # Del. Sewer & Water 236.64 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 196.39 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 223.44 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 202.88 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 164.65 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 126.42 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 236.92 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 184.16 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 417.94 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 174.62 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 707.80 1 8% 12930 - Del. Sewer & Water 174.13 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 363.65 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 279.83 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 357.65 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 386.24 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 182.17 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 356.42 1 8% 12930 Del. Sewer & Water 245.35 1 8% 12930 13-117-24 11 0053 Del. Sewer & Water 209.14 13-117-24 22 0246 Del. Sewer & Water 301.00 14-117-24 42 0082 14-117-24 13 0002 14-117-24 14 0027 14-117-24 41 0025 14-117-24 42 0095 14-117-24 42 0015 Del. Sewer & Water 275.29 Del. Sewer & Water 225.82 Del. Sewer & Water 357.04 Del. Sewer & Water 281.88 Del. Sewer & Water 336.55 Del. Sewer & Water 155.68 14-117-24 42 0028 14-117-24 42 0042 14-117-24 42 0044 14-117-24 44 0007 14-117-24 42 0043 14-117-24 32 0054 14-117-24 32 0056 13-117-24 32 0044 13-117-24 32 0043 13-117-24 32 0005 13-117-24 32 0020 13-117-24 32 0115 13-117-24 32 0155 13-117-24 43 0072 13-117-24 43 0068 13-117-24 43 0086 13-117-24 43 0060 13-117-24 43 0135 13-117-24 41 0042 13-117-24 41 0055 13-117-24 41 0012 13-117-24 42 0023 13-117-24 42 0014 13-117-24 43 0118 13-117-24 42 0022 18-117-23 33 0027 18-117-23 33 0026 23-117-24 13 0012 23-117-24 32 0026 23-117-24 44 0030 23-117-24 44 0008 23-117-24 42 0073 23-117-24 41 0020 23-117-24 23-117-24 23-117-24 Del. Sewer & Water 307.32 Del. Sewer & Water 452.53 Del. Sewer & Water 503.72 Del. Sewer & Water 181.64 Del. Sewer & Water 327.96 Del. Sewer & Water 782.26 Del. Sewer & Water 269.39 Del. Sewer & Water 432.30 Del. Sewer & Water 479.20 Del. Sewer & Water 259.52 Del. Sewer & Water 404.73 Del. Sewer & Water 89.28 Del. Sewer & Water 378.73 Del. Sewer & Water 81.04 Del. Sewer & Water 247.93 Del. Sewer & Water 146.08 Del. Sewer & Water 223.73 Del. Sewer & Water 216.24 Del. Sewer & Water 226.11 Del. Sewer & Water 72.96 Del. Sewer & Water 105.41 Del. Sewer & Water 223.49 Del. Sewer & Water 418.36 Del. Sewer & Water 238.27 Del. Sewer & Water 83.22 Del. Sewer & Water 305.01 Del. Sewer & Water 178.08 Del. Sewer & Water 421.99 Del. Sewer & Water 304.58 Del. Sewer & Water 215.02 Del. Sewer & Water 282.85 Del. Sewer Del. Sewer 42 0088 Del. Sewer 42 0014 Del. Sewer 42 0018 Del. Sewer & Water 184.58 & Water 190.25 & Water 153.10 & Water 146.04 & Water 153.86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 8% 12930 23-117-24 42 0020 23-117-24 43 0008 23-117-24 42 0049 23-117-24 34 0073 23-117-24 34 0090 23-117-24 31 0041 23-117-24 34 0102 23-117-24 34 0101 23-117-24 34 0066 23-117-24 34 0066 23-117-24 23 0056 23-117-24 13 0074 14-117-24 41 0001 13-117-24 43 0022 24-117-24 12 0016 24-117-24 12 0019 24-117-24 13 0009 24-117-24 12 0020 13-117-24 44 0041 19-117-23 23 0120 19-117-23 24 0037 19-117-23 24 0091 19-117-23 13 0149 19-117-23 31 0125 19-117-23 31 0019 19-117-23 31 0030 24-117-24 41 0064 24-117-24 41 0066 24-117-24 13 0032 19-117-23 31 0017 19-117-23 24 0053 19-117-23 31 0004 24-117-24 41 0042 24-117-24 41 0095 19-117-23 31 0093 19-117-23 32 0101 19-117-23 32 0078 19-117-23 32 0083 19-117-23 32 0086 19-117-23 31 0128 19-117-23 34 0064 25-117-24 11 0068 19-117-23 33 0196 -2~' 1172' Del. Sewer & Water 232.85 Del. Sewer & Water 323.33 Del. Sewer & Water 171.96 Del. Sewer & Water 156.68 Del. Sewer & Water 98.59 Del. Sewer & Water 125.00 Del. Sewer & Water 286.43 Del. Sewer & Water 471.02 Del. Sewer & Water 157.88 Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water 59.52 237.33 154.12 205.03 79.72 187.97 114.32 207.49 265.95 212.96 215.20 178.35 395.06 242.27 196.11 256.44 201.17 198.71 269.38 187.40 297.14 191.03 172.18 Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water Del. Sewer & Water 63.42 266.51 155.64 98.07 299.60 269.26 216.85 237.20 531.18 189.62 269.18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 3 19-117-23 34 0093Del. 19-117-23 34 0004Del. 19-117-23 34 0036Del. 19-117-23 34 0043Del. 19-117-23 33 00'/5 Del. 19-117-23 33 0184Del. 19-117-23 33 0129Del. 19-117-23 33 0174Del. 24-117-24 44 0079Del. 24-117-24 44 0081Del. 24-117-24 44 0042Del. 24-117-24 44 0187Del. 24-117-24 44 0061Del. 24-117-24 44 0062Del. 24-117-24 44 0182Del. 19-117-23 32 0094Del. 24-117-24 41 0022Del. 24-117-24 42 0016Del. 24-117-24 42 0007Del. 25-117-24 12 0116Del. 25-117-2411 0064 Del. 25-117-2412 0112 Del. 25-117-2412 0113 Del. 25-117-2412 0102 Del. 19-117-2333 0206 Del. 30-117-2322 0036 Del. 25-117-24 12 0219Del. 30-117-23 21 0001Del. 25-117-24 11 0027Del. 25-117-24 11 0115Del. 25-117-24 21 0010Del. 25-117-24 21 0012Del. 25-117-24 21 0114Del. 25-117-24 12 0134Del. 25-117-24 21 0142Del. 25-117-24 21 0078Del. 25-117-24 21 0065Del. 25-117-24 21 0077Del. 25-117-24 21 0080 13-117-24 32 0092 14-117-24 44 0036 13-117-24 33 0076 Sewer & Water 96.92 Sewer & Water 213.83 Sewer & Water 183.37 Sewer & Water 312.00 Sewer & Water 65.26 Sewer & Water 247.38 Sewer & Water 718.72 Sewer & Water 287.41 Sewer & Water 336.75 Sewer & Water 286.97 Sewer & Water 309.80 Sewer & Water 133.30 Sewer & Water 322.73 Sewer & Water 166.62 Sewer & Water 199.42 Sewer & Water 209.45 Sewer & Water 119.30 Sewer & Water 302.86 Sewer & Water 309.23 Sewer & Water 398.03 Sewer & Water 191.54 Sewer & Water 163.24 Sewer & Water 108.06 Sewer & Water 259.31 Sewer & Water 195.68 Sewer & Water 161.42 Sewer & Water 137.97 Sewer & Water 174.92 Sewer & Water 243.80 Sewer & Water 136.63 Sewer & Water 186.48 Sewer & Water 360.96 Sewer & Water 216.03 Sewer & Water 108.16 Sewer & Water 122.88 Sewer & Water 297.73 Sewer & Water 178.08 Sewer & Water 132.75 Del. Sewer & Water 151.72 Del. Sewer & Water 1744.37 Del. Sewer & Water 421.76 Del. Sewer & Water 438.83 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 12930 Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 26, 1993) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 26, 1993), but prior to November 29, 1993, interest will be charged to December 31, 1993. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 29 1993 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1993, and all of 1994). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period is eight percent (8%). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1993 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,312.24 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY//12929 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: 1993 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FROM JULY 1, 1992 TO JUNE 30, 1993 IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,312.24. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. o Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows: INT. LEVY # IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS 12929 1993 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE 8% 1 e Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 26, 1993) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hail. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 26, 1993), but prior to November 29, 1993, interest will be charged to December 31, 1993. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 29 1993 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1993, and all of 1994). o o Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period is eight percent (8%). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. OC:)O0 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID MOWING ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $50.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY//12391 PID # WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to-wit: UNPAID MOWING CHARGES NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows: INT. IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY # 25-117-24 21 0010 UNPAID MOWING CHARGES $ 50.00 1 8% 12931 Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days (November 26, 1993) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll. Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall. Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section 370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00 increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be accepted. If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 26, 1993), but prior to November 29, 1993, interest will be charged to December 31, 1993. If the assessment is not paid on or before November 29 1993 the amount will be spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1993, and all of 1994). Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3. ,j · i,, o The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the required time period is eight percent (8%). The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. & · m,, [ I PROPOSED RESOLUTION //93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 1736 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 13 - 176, BLOCK 10, DREAMWOOD PID #13-117-24 24 0013, P&Z CASE//93-050 WHEREAS, the owner, Scott Schmieg, has applied for a 2 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a second story addition and expansion of the first floor, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the proposed addition represents a substantial improvement with a minimal encroachment that is also a natural extension of the existing floor plan, and; WHEREAS, this proposal follows suit with other properties in the immediate area that have also been improved in the past, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with the following findings of fact: There will be no change in visual impact to the street. The construction will be easier with straight walls versus jogged, and the roof line and trusses will look better. The addition is only 8 feet long and the impact is minimal. With the addition following the front line of the existing house it will not appear as if the house was added onto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 2 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of an addition. 0 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. Proposed Resolution October 26, 1993 Page 2 Case//93-050 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 second story addition onto the existing dwelling and a one story addition with a basement. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block 10, Dreamwood. 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. MINUTF3 OF A MEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMLC SION OCTOBER 11, 1993 CASE ~93-050: SCOTT SCHMIEGt 1736 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 13 - 16, BLOCK 10t DREAMWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 24 0013. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a second story addition and extend the main level of the house. The existing front yard setback is 18 feet, the required setback is 20 feet, resulting in a 2 foot variance request. The applicant states the shed in the northeast corner of the property will be moved to a conforming location. The existing dwelling is in excellent condition and the proposed addition does not further encroach into the front yard as it follows the front line of the existing footprint. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the proposed addition represents a substantial improvement with a minimal encroachment that is also a natural extension of the existing floor plan. This proposal follows suit with other properties in the immediate area that have also been improved in the past. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the condition that the shed be moved to a conforming location. The Commission discussed at length if the addition should be required to be stepped back 2 feet further to meet the required 20 foot setback requirement. Weiland withdrew his motion because he understood the addition to be different than what was actually proposed. The floor plan was reviewed by the Commission and reasons were discussed why not to step the addition back 2 feet to meet the setback. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the condition that shed he moved to a conforming location. Findings of fact include: There will be no change in visual impact to the street. The construction will be easier with straight walls versus jogged, and the roof line and trusses will look better. The addition is only S feet long and the impact is minimal. With the addition following the front line of the existing house it will not appear as if the house was added onto. MOTION carried $ to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, and Hanus. Michael and Weiland were opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on October 26, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOL.IND. MINNESOT,~ 55364-'~ 687 1612) 41i ri600 FAX 612~ 4-2 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Agenda of October 11, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official he, Variance Request APPLICANT: Scott schmieg CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 93-050 1736 Bluebird Lane, Lots 13 - 16, Block 10, Dreamwood, PID #13-117- 24 24 0013 R-iA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a building permit to install a second story addition and extend the main level of the house. The existing front yard setback is 18 feet, the required setback is 20 feet, resulting in a 2 foot variance request. The applicant states the shed in the northeast corner of the property will be moved to a conforming location. The existing dwelling is in excellent condition and the proposed addition does not further encroach into the front yard as it follows the front line of the existing footprint. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval as the proposed addition represents a substantial improvement with a minimal encroachment that is also a natural extension of the existing floor plan. This proposal follows suit with other properties in the immediate area that have also been improved in the past. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on October 26, 1993. This case ,& · i,, & VARIANCE APPLICATION 5341 Ma~oo~ Roa~, Hound, ~ S5364 Planning Commission City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. :__~ '"~ O~ Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property. /7~' Z~~/~J Owner's Name ~.z~/ ~/-~z/~ Day Phone Owner' s Address ~~ ~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION Addition ~;'~6f/~6~PdP~ Block /69 Zoning Oistrict--~]~__~se o~ Property: 5~ 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.): 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. 95-050 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~-~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E~ 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 VARIANCE (or existing) 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 (~'), No ( ). If no, specify eachnon-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (~soil ( existing ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in t~he land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No(~'. If yes, explain m m, & m 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. ~'oSb Was the hardship created by any (o~. r 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: /~J 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. - - / 06 17/93 18:iZ tAX ~: ~72 0620 CITY OF ~OUND ~ ~NCHOR SCIENTIFI ~001 NAME: ADDRESS: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVERC^LCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA 12~ EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 30% = SQFT X 15% =, 18,01 - HOUSE: LENGTH WIDTH /~*, 9 X //. '~$ ~'"~. 2o, o X So, 2. /¢.o x /'¢: "' x ~.~ · ,f × TOTA~'H~)USE ~* = /F~'. ¢ = ~'O '¢ = /~/. ~ = GARAGE: z~+.~ x z6. z - 6:37 TOTAL'GARAGE ***'**'************* 6~7°' DRIVEWAY: TOTAL DRIVEWAY ***************** DECK: ( if impervious surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: X = ~ x ~ = IGa' x = 4/~ TOTAL OTHER * * * TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER * * * * * UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS ..~.¥E S___N O BY: DATE: 9'-23~93 (ej~): Oenote~ spot elevation, mea~ sea lev(.I datu~ All bearl~gs are b45ed Ul',O~ en as~u~ed datum. LtG6L DE3C~[PIIO[{ O~ PR['II51~ Lu:~ ~3.1~,~5. and ~6, 8lo~k 10. 9reamw~,nd. ano the .ocaLIon o; all visible "hdrdCOver" ther~ufl. It ~ S~low an~ other I~prov~m~5 or encroachments, ,& · I,, I I ZONING LNI;(.)IC~IATION $11EET Survey on file? yee~J~ no Required Lot Width: 40 · BZTDACK8 REQUZRED~ Date Of survey~_~~_. Lot of Record? yesK (frontage on an Lmproved publLc ~treet) r~o., , ? ( HARR I SONS 2-C 17-24 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 2127 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 6, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, AND THAT PART OF THE LAND DESIGNATED ON SAID PLAT AS WATER BANK COMMON P&Z CASE//93-051 WHEREAS, the owners, Di and Lynn Chen, have applied for a 15 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a new dwelling, 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 Centerview Lane, a 10 foot side yard setback to the alley (south), a 15 foot rear yard setback (north), and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, all other proposed setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The topography of the lot and location of the mature trees limits the development options and creates a practical difficulty with this site, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with the following findings of fact: The house will not be a bowling alley type home. The existing dwelling on the the side is in a similar situation The retaining wall along Centerview Lane reduces the impact of the setback. The contour of the property creates some hardship to access off Centerview. The plan promotes preservation of the trees and vegetation at the lakeside of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 15 foot front yard setback variance to the required 30 foot setback to allow construction of a new dwelling. Proposed Resolution October 26, 1993 Page 2 Case #93-051 o 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. 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 Single Family Dwelling. o This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 3 and 4, Block 6, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnesota", and that part of the land designated on said plat as Water Bank Common, lying between the Northeasterly line of said Lots 3 and 4 and the shore of Lake Minnesota, and between extensions of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 3 and the Southeasterly line of said LOt 4, according to the recorded plat thereof. 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. & · m, & & MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIF SION OCTOBER 11, 1993 CASE ~93-051: D! & LYNN CHENt 2127 CENTERVIEW LANB~ LOT8 3 & 4~ BLOCK 6t ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK & ADJ. NATERBANK COMMONt pID ~13-117-24 31 0032. VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 15 foot front yard setback variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback to construct a new dwelling. All other setbacks and impervious surface are conforming. This property is not in the bluff zone, however, the general provisions of the shoreland zone do apply. These regulations are intended to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening for structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the water. This site has a number of mature trees that limit development if they are to be saved. This, coupled with the site topography, creates a difficulty with placement of a dwelling. A dilapidated and vandalized older home has recently been demolished to make way for the proposed improvements. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance due to topography of the lot and location of the mature trees which limits the development options and creates a practical difficulty with this site. Voss commented that he cannot understand why such a large lot, 15,000+ square feet, would require a variance to build a new house. Mueller noted that the lot depth is not that great, and he believes the house plan to be a good plan, that this plan is better than having a long narrow house. In addition, the plan is sensitive to the trees on the lot. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff for the following reasons= The house will not be a bowling alley tlTe home. The existing dwelling on the other side in a similar situation. The retaining wall along Centerview Lane reduces impact of the setback. The contour of the property creates some hardship to access off Centerview. The plan promotes preservation of the trees and vegetation at the lakeside of the property. Approval is contingent upon verification of the setback to the ordinary high water. Motion seconded by Michael. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were= Meyer, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Ranus, and Michael. Weiland and Voss were opposed. Voss commented that he sees no hardship due to the size of the lot, a house should be able to be placed on the lot in a conforming location. Weiland agreed with Voss. This case will be heard by the City Council on October 26, 1993. 302 Sunbird Cliffs Lane W. Colorado Springs, Co 80919 Phone (719) 599-0093 Fax (719) 599-7214 Oct. 17, 1993 RECEIVED 0C! 2 1 1993 ~0IIN~ Pt.A, NNING & INSP. City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sir/Madam: Reference is made to my Variance Application, dated September 21, 1993, relating to the property on 2127 Centerview Lane, Mound, and was presented by my sister Ms. Ming-Jen Chen, at the Planning Commission meeting on October 11, 1993. I like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Planning Commission for the approval of my variance application. I am looking forward for the approval by the City Council Meeting on October 26, so that we may move forward for the construction of our home in this beautiful city of Mound. My sister informed me that there was a question raised during the Planning Commission Meeting regarding to the setback from the proposed building to the lake shore at the high water level of the lake. I have asked our surveyor to add that information. The attached new survey map indicates that the setback the proposed building to the contour at 929.4 ft elevation is 55 ft, and it is 63 ft at the normal water elevation of 928.3 ft. Therefore the structure setback from Ordinary High Water Level should be between 63 ft to 55 ft, certainly greater than 50 ft as required. I hope this answers the question raised. If there is any other question, please give me a call. Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely Di Chert CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534~ MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. IJiNNESOTA 55364-~ 687 ~612) 472-0600 FAX ~612) 472-0629 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Planning Commission Agenda of October 11, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Sutherland, Building Official 6_~. Jon Variance Request Di and Lynn C. Chen CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: 93-051 2127 Centerview Lane, Lots 3 & 4, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka, and the adjacent Waterbank Common, PID #13-117-24 31 0032 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a 15 foot variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback to construct a new dwelling. All other setbacks and impervious surface are conforming. This property is not in the bluff zone, however, the general provisions of the shoreland zone do apply. These regulations are intended to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening for structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the water. This site has a number of mature trees that limit development if they are to be saved. This, coupled with the site topography, creates a difficulty with placement of a dwelling. A dilapidated and vandalized older home has recently been demolished to make way for the proposed improvements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance due to topography of the lot and location of the mature trees which limits the development options and creates a practical difficulty with this site. 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 4/9) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 4?2-0620 Planning Commission City Council Date:__ Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.q%~ ~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~g_l~e~". Please type or print the following information:, Address of Subject Property 2t2 I ~e~?e. rv/¢W Owner's Name ~? ~ ~ C. ~m Day Phone Owner's addressJd~ 5t(~iRO Ct~ ~ ~. COL~R~¢) Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ~;~5 $~{r~ Address f2%- ~+& ~T S~E,, ~LS, ~ S"~4~% Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3 lock Addition /~r'~,['~¢~n~ ~n~olu ~i~,'d~ ~0 L~e~;~PID No. Zoning District R-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, ~esoi.u'tion number'(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): A o~e sf'av/ C~s,'J~.+~l hor. t i'~ proposed ~ be b~;{~ o~ 'fhe ior, 'T~ 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. ~'~51 SETBACKS: Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S ~.~W ) 30 ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E~ ) {5- ft. Lake Front: (~SE W ) b-O ft. Side Yard: (?~E W ) ~O ft. Side Yard: ( E W ) ~O ft. Street Frontage: ~ ~PO ft. Lot Size: ~ 15t oosq ft Hardcover: ..... ~g.~ sq ft 'I ~ ft. %5.._ ft. TO ft. 10 ft. i0 ft. ft. ~l~loo sq ft ~ 42 .sq ft ~ ft. O ft. o ft. O ft. 0 ft. ft. O sq ft O sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district Jn which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (~) 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 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 (X). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ~ / ,? ~" Date 3 Date 36 g HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: ~. [~'1' '00 :t: SQFTX30%- l~l. O0 ± SQ FT X 15% LENGTH WIDTH 50 x ti X X TOTAL HOUSE ........... Z I,%" x TOTAL GARAGE .......... Z o x Zg~ = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY ...... ' ' ' 50 x t~ = X = TOTAL DECK ........... TOTAL DECK @ 50% ........ s~ FT 30~-o ,3 o oeo 3go ~o OTHER: X = TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. I ........ ... DATE Estoblished in 1962_ I. Ol SURVEYS ¢OMPANY~ INO. ~D 8~VEYO~ ~ALE r' DI ~ ~GI~D ~DER ~ OF ~ATE OF o ~otes w~ ~ Set ~1 · ~d A~nue N~ ~ Fm Exc~ati~ ~y (0.~ ~r~) 0 ~les Propo~d E~vaf~ ~ ~ ~tms~ms ~ ~e N~gerly l~e of sa{d ~t 3 ~ ~e / / .? 24" BASSWOOD GAR ~,1.74 '/ 952.72 /. 'B'i'TUMINOUS DRIVE A 88.04 ....... o RECEIVED Add-On City Council 10-26-93 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A 8.9' REAR Y2~RD SETB&CK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 4822 GLASGOW RO~D, RLS 1571, TRACT A, PID #24-117-24 44 0214 P&Z CASE #93-019 WHEREAS, the applicant, David Thompson, has applied for a 8.9' rear yard setback variance to allow construction of a new dwelling, and; WHEREAS, Resolution #93-79 was approved on June 22, 1993 by the City Council approving a 79.74 square foot lot area variance for this property, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA single Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both Glasgow and Dale, a 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is a corner lot and the "rear yard" as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, is functionally the "side yard" considering the placement of the house, and if this were a side yard and a lot of record the required setback would be 6 feet, and; WHEREAS, the neighbor to the south is in favor of preserving the trees as they provide shade, and he would rather see that corner of the lot open, and; WHEREAS, the zoning Ordinance states in Mound city Code Section 350:725, Subd. 7. Tree Preservation Policy - Landscaping, "A. It is the intent of the City of Mound to preserve wooded areas throughout the city and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existing tree cover." And, "C. 1. Structures shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved", and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval as it is realized that this lot could be functional with a 6 foot rear yard setback which is essentially a side yard. NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The city does hereby grant an 8.9 foot rear yard setback variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case ~93-019 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. 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 single family dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Tract A, RLS No. 1571. ® 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 TI4F MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 25, 1993 CASE ~93-019: DAVID THOMPSON FOR Vi~,ERI K~UROV, 4822 GLASGOW ROADt ELS 1571t TRACT At PID ~24-117-24 44 0214. REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, explained to the Commission that this property received a 79.74 square foot lot size variance on June 22, 1993, Resolution #93-79, to allow construction of a single family dwelling. The original proposal was conforming to setbacks, note Exhibit A. The applicant then submitted a survey with the permit application that showed a nonconforming rear yard setback of 6.1 feet in order to avoid two large trees on the south end of the property. Staff notified the applicants of the required 15' rear yard setback and the survey was revised to reflect a conforming location. After the property was re-staked, staff received a call from a concerned neighbor who does not want the oak tree removed as the tree provides shade, has an aesthetic value, and if at all possible it should be saved. Staff again reviewed the placement of the dwelling with the applicant and the City Planner, and this revised request is a result of that discussion. Corner lots have been the subject of several recent variance cases due to the difficulty with the placement of structures on these lots. The ordinance's tree preservation policy states, in part, it is the intent to preserve existing tree cover and that structures shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised footprint as shown on Exhibit B, resulting in an 8.9 foot setback variance to the required 15' foot rear yard setback allowing construction of a single family dwelling and preservation of the oak tree. Voss questioned the life expectancy of the tree. Sutherland noted that he is not an expert on the issue, but has seen many trees of this type of oak much larger than this in other parts of town. Johnson questioned if the neighbor to the northwest on Tract B has been notified that this house is proposed to be moved within 6 feet of the lot line. The Building Official confirmed that he has not been notified. Planning Commission Minutes Case $93-019 - 4822 Glasgow Road Page 2 Johnson questioned how close you can get to a 30 inch oak tree without killing it. Sutherland commented that when building close to a tree they say you should stay out of the drip line, and he noted that with this proposal, the house will only nick the drip line. He added, if he didn't think the tree could be saved, he would not have brought this request to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bill Meyer arrived at 7:46. It was noted that the house would be in the drip line of the Maple if it was required to meet a 15 foot rear yard setback. Hanus reviewed that the rear yard could be treated as a side yard. Sutherland agreed and confirmed that the City Planner stated that the rear yard on this property is essentially a side yard, and if this property were a lot of record, the required side yard setback would be 6 feet. It was noted that the house on Tract B faces Dale Road, there is no garage on the site, and their driveway is between the subject house and the house on Tract B. There is approximately 20 feet from the house on Tract B to the subject property line and there is a row of hedges along that line. The neighbor to the south, Matthew Bartel, would like the trees saved as he feels by moving the house closer to the northwest property line keeps the corner of Dale and Glasgow more open and it saves two shade trees. It was noted that the property is already nonconforming, regardless of the setback. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend to the City Council that a 8.9 foot rear yard setback variance be approved to allow construction of a new dwelling as it is realized that this lot could be functional with a 6 foot rear yard setback which is essentially a side yard. &pproval is contingent upon staff attempting to notify the owner of Tract B and relaying the setback variance issue prior to the October 26, 1993 City Council meeting. MOTION carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were= Meyer, Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, ¥0ss, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson was opposed. Johnson commented that he is uncomfortable with the fact that the neighbor on Tract B was not notified, and he feels it is a 50/50 shot the tree will die anyway. This request will be heard by the city Council on October 26, 1993. Add-On: Agenda Item 1.A. Planning Commission Meeting 10-25-93 CITY of MOUND 534~ Vz -"7,~OOD ,qOAD MOUND V',',£$OTA5516a"-:,5 :.'£ ,~'72 0600 FA~ E'2!a72.Cg20 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of October 25, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ Variance Request David Thompson for Valeri Kaurov 93-019 4822 Glasgow Road, RI_S 1571, Tract A, PID #24-117-24 44 0214 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND This property received a 79.74 square foot lot size variance on June 22, 1993, Resolution g03-79, to allow construction of a single family dwelling. The original proposal was conforming, note Exhibit A. The applicant then submitted a survey with the permit application that showed a nonconforming rear yard setback of 6.1 feet in order to avoid two large trees on the south end of the property. Staff notified the applicants of the required 15' rear yard setback and the survey was revised to reflect a conforming location. After the property was re-staked, staff received a call from a concerned neighbor who does not want the oak tree removed as the tree provides shade, has an aesthetic value, and if at all possible it should be saved. Staff again reviewed the placement of the dwelling with the applicant and the City Planner, and this revised request is a result of that discussion. Comer lots have been the subject of several recent variance cases due to the difficulty with the placement of structures on these lots. The ordinance's tree preservation policy states, in part, it is the intent to preserve existing tree cover and that structures shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised footprint as shown on Exhibit B, resulting in an 8.9 foot setback variance to the required 15' foot rear yard setback allowing construction of a single family dwelling and preservation of the oak tree. This request will be heard by the City Council on October 26, 1993. printed on recycled paper .1 · I, I I Certificate of Surve~v II/I / 198 17.~iTTO ~'""~ _ wo.f. 1% 20' , , L'L'L'~onO~dlAs~TrEveS, vor, -c......, .,~ PO Box Z~ Buffelo, M,n.eso,o~13 682-47Z7 Survey ~.c - ~ ~; ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ARDEN .~ ~** .. Hennepin County, Minnesolo 83287 :... - ~un~ "- ~ ' as mea ' No~hw ~,. measu, ' 1~.~ feet no~hwesterly of ~e ~utheasterly line of said Lot 7 as iv - / / . measured along ~id no~heasterly line of the southwesterly 20 0 feet of ' .,, ' / & ~ = WOOD STAKE P~CED o = IRON.MON. S~ ~e = IRON MON. INP~CE B.M. * B~RINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM 1st FLOOR EL~. . GARAGE FLOOR EL~. /~//. ~ BASEMENT EL~. ' TOP BLOCK EL~. 0~ E & P= ~IST. & PROP. EL~. ~'= DRAINAGE ~.0 = EXIST. EL~. (000. PROPOSED ELEV. ~0.0 I hereby ce~ify that this plan, su~ey or repo~ was JOB ~HOBORG prepared bY me °r under mY dire~ supe~isi°n and that I am a duly Registered ~nd Su~eyor under the laws of the State IND SURVEYING. of Minnesota. Book - Page . Scale ~ ~. ~ ~3 &E Date: ~, /~ /~ Registration No. 14700 / I~ I VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF 14OIYND $3¢1 Maywood Road, Mound, MN $5364 Phone: 4';2-0600, Fax: 4';2-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~ ~0/~ _ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City _~.~r: ..................................................... Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~ ~ ~ ~/~5:~/ Owner's Name //~,~/' /~//~. Day Phone Owner's Address- ~Ylg? K/h~ ~ / ~/~-~ Applicant's Name (if other, than owner,) /c~~/_~.~ Address ~/0~ _~//~, B/[~/ - Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Addition zon n a lxcation ever been made for zoning, variance~condi~ional Has an pp ' . ' crt or other zonxng procedure for thxs prop y. ~Y · permit, ........ ':-~'~on action taken, resolution number(s) and ~es, list da~e(s) oz app&xu~ux , provide copies of resolut$ons. . ,/~ .... ~~ f/~ '~ ~n., ~. Detailed descr[pton o[ proposed c~nstruct[on ~r alteration (size, number 4/93 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Rear Yard: ( Lake Front: ( 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. m,/ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. , ft. ~q ft ~2~,2/i~q ft ~. ~t~ ...sq ft sq ft ' ' sq ft / sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to ~regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes , No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape Please describe: ( ) soil ( ) existing ( ) other: specify Se Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests i(~e land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No If yes, explain ~e 3 Case No. Was the hardship created by any ~o~her man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes (), No~). If yes, explain / such as the Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vgr~nce pgculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~/~ No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affectS? 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. ~wner's Signature &pplicant's Signature 171 June 22, 1993 RESOLUTION ~93-79 RESOLUTION TO APPROV~ A LOT AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 4822 GLASGOW ROAD, RLS 1571~ TRACT A~ PID %24-117-24 44 0214 PaS CASE NUMBER 93-019 WHEREAS, the owner, Valeri Kavrov, has applied for a 79.74 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a new dwelling, and; WHEREAS, this property was approved to be subdivision in 1984 by Resolution #84-28, and; WHEREAS, this property is located within the R-iA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other proposed setbacks, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 79.74 square foot lot area variance to allow construction of a new dwelling at 4822 Glasgow Road, subject to the following: All improvements on the property be constructed in accordance with the city Code with respect to setbacks and hardcover. B® A hard surface driveway be installed within one year of occupancy as approved by the Building Official. Utility locations must be shown on the survey. If the water service box adjacent to Dale Road on Tract A serves the existing house on Tract B the water service must either be relocated or a private utility easement be granted over an area of a minimum of a 10' x 10' section to allow for possible repairs or maintenance in the future. 171 FROM ; $CHO~ORGLRNDSURVEYING PHONE NO. : 6129723221 Oct, 25 1993 07:21RM P02 I l~erel~y ¢.rtify that this plan. survey or report w~ JOB t prepara~ by me or ufl~of my dim~ supe~illOn an~ that ! ~m ~ ~ ~ .... INC." ~./~ zT-7z -~ . . ,, , ~c~l~ ~ ~. ~. ~3 S.~ Date: , ~, /~ /~B Registration NO. 147~ J = It TN~I:RT~ CON,OPtINg? ACCESSORY BUILD~I~_ '9 G I£Nl£1bkL ZONING LNFOIC~IATION SI IEET Survey on file? yeax no Required Lot Width: ~ / Date of eurvey~_~. Lot of Record? yesX. (frontaqe on an £mproved publLc street) , Depth~~- i'RZN¢% i'AL BUILDINO FRo.,,, FRONT: N S g SIDE: NGS W SlDg~ N S g # IS P~OPERT~ CONFORMING? YES_~ NO 7__ FRONT: FRONT~ SIOE: SIDE: R~R: LAKESHORE FRONT: FRONT: SIDE~ SIDE~ REAR: ACCESSORY BUILDING no ? 4' 9r §' 4' 9r ~' 4' 50' (~eaeured fro~ O.H.W.t ACCESSORY BUILDING WILL THE PRQPOSED IMPROVE~NT$ CONFORJ4? YES C ~ ~ ~ I 0 < *-' r~ O ch-~ .q O ~ MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 12, 199~ 1.4 DISCUSSION: ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS The City Manager explained that at the August 27th Meeting there was a list of 7 or $ applicants for getting permits or approving stairways on public lands to access the Commons. There was concern by the Council of whether to approve separately or in a batch. The Staff was following a process developed earlier in the year and approved by the City Council to go forward the look at all of the commons areas and public lands areas to inventory each and determine what was there and whether there were permits for these structures. There was confusion as to what the Council was looking at for existing stairways as they relate to the Building Code. Is the staff to apply the Building Code to existing stairways and what is staff to do with new applications for new stairways? After discussion the following was determined. The Building Official is to draw a policy which would say: 1. New stairways shall meet the Uniform Building Code and the standards. Existing stairways shall be considered legal nonconforming uses unless they are structurally unsafe (a percentage to be determined by the Building Official). As long as they are safe, permits will continue and be considered a legal nonconforming use. If the stairways are replaced, they have to meet the new standards. If they are unsafe based upon the criteria set, then they have to be replaced at the time of the application. The Council directed the Building Official to write the criteria. CCi City Council 10-26-93 Policy for Structures on Public Lands New Stairways. Ail new stairways shall be constructed according to the Uniform Building Code standards for residential stairways. Existing Stairways. Ail stairways existing upon the date of the adoption of this Procedure Manual (4-27-93) and that are not deemed structurally unsafe or otherwise unsafe by the Building Official are considered legal nonconforming uses. Legal nonconforming uses may have their use continued according to the permit procedures, provided such continued use is not dangerous to life. Alterations or Repairs to Existing Stairways. Alterations or repairs may be made to any stairway without requiring the whole stairway to comply with the building code, provided the alteration or repair conforms to that required for a new stairway. Maintenance of Stairways and Other Structures. Ail stairways, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe condition. The person to which the permit is issued is responsible for all maintenance. Minor maintenance of any currently permitted stairway, dock storage platform, or retaining wall can be done without a permit, but must have prior approval of the Building Official. The Building official shall inspect and approve such repairs. Correction Orders. Ail stairways or parts thereof that are determined to be unsafe by the Building official shall be issued a correction order to be abated by repair or removal. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymo~.Jth M,nnesota 55447 Telephone 6~2 476-6010 6~2 476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors October 19, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT'. Addendum No. 3 to Preliminary Engineering Report Water System Improvements MFRA #9316 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we have updated the construction cost as outlined in our Preliminary Engineering Report and Addendums 1 and 2 which were prepared in 1990. In addition, we have estimated the operation and maintenance cost for each of the alternatives. These are attached to this letter. The O&M costs enclosed for the Lime-Soda process does not include disposal cost for the lime sludge. It appears the only method available would be to construct drying pits and then use the dried material as fertilizer spread on farm fields. The size of the plant would require a minimum of two lagoons, one acre each in size. Normally, these lagoons would be located adjacent to the plant or within a short distance to allow for pumping of the sludge. A 3-acre site would be required when access and dikes are incorporated. We do not see such a site within the City, which means one would have to be acquired within a reasonable trucking distance. We have not attempted to find a site or estimate the disposal cost for the lime sludge. These costs could be substantial and further investigation should be done if the City is serious about pursuing this method of water treatment. If you have further questions concerning the report or addendums, we will be pleased to discuss them with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, Project Engineer JC:jmk Enclosures / Un/ted Sla~ Office of Wa~er Envimnmenlal Protection WH-550A Agency EPA 570/9-91-027FS September 1991 EPA The Phase II Rule "Phase H will roughly double the present number of drinking water standards." The Ph,~e 17 Rule was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 1991 and July 1, 1991. It will become effective in 1992 with monitoring requirements to begin on January 1, 1993. This rule sets drln]clng water standards for 38 inorganic and organic chemicals. All commnnity and non-trnn.qient non-commnnity water systems are required to monitor for and, if necessary, treat their supply to remove these chemicals. Trnn.~ient water systems are required to comply with the nitrate and nitrite regulations in Phase II. Phase II will roughly double the present n-tuber of drinldng water standards. While many of'these chemicals may occur in drinking water due to hnman activity, others are naturally occurring. Some chemicals are only rarely found in water supplies but are very widely used and are being regulated because of the likelihood that they may contnmlnate supplies. Drinking Water Standards ]V[nxlmnm Contaminant Levels (MCI, s): Public Water Systems are required to make sure that the water they supply meets the MCL for each Phase II chemi- cal. These are enforceable standards. MCLs for Phase II chemicals are listed in Table 1. Contaminant MCL {mg/L) Asbestos 7 MFL Barium 2 Cadmium 0.005 Chromium 0.1 Mercury 0.002 Nitrate 10 Nitrite 1 Total Nitrate/Nitrite 10 Selenium 0.05 o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 Ethylbenzene 0.7 Monochlorobenzene 0.1 Styrene 0.1 Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 Toluene 1 Xylenes 10 Contaminant MCL (mg/L) Alachlor (Lasso) Aldicarb (Temik) Aldicarb sulfoxide Aldicarb sulfone Atrazine (Atranex, Crisazina) Carbofuran (Furadan 4F) Chlordane Dibromochloropropane (DBCP, Nemafume) 2,4-D (Formula 40, Weedar 64) Ethylene dibromide (EDB, Bromofume) Heptachlor (H-34, Heptox) Heptachlor epoxide Lindane Methoxychlor (DMDT, Marlate) Polychlorinated biphenyts (PCBs, Aroclor) Pentachlorophenol Toxaphene 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.04 0,002 0.0002 O.O7 0.00005 0,OOO4 0.0002 0.0002 0.04 0.0005 0.001 0.003 0.05 Acrylamide 0.05% dosed at 1 mg/L Epichlorohydrin 0.01% dosed at 20 mg/L '* Printed on Recvc,,eo P-~o~f Treatment Techniques: When there are no analytical methocLs available for ntitoring a .contnmin~nt's presence in water, systems are required to use a ment tech-~que for removing this chemical. Two Phase II chemicals are controlled in this way, simply by limiting their use in other treatment processes. Maxim-,~ Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs): For each chemical, EPA has set a non-enforceable health gl~ which water systems should try to achieve. Water cont~ini,~g a chemical in an ~mount equal to or below its MCLG is not expected to cause any health problems, even over a lifetime of drlnl~ing thi.~ water. Monitoring Requirements A major feature introduced in Phsse II is its plan for synchronizing compliance monitoring across several existing and upcoming rules. Under this Standardized Monitoring Framework, the various monitoring frequencies for most source- related contsmin~nts will be coordinated within compliance periods of three years each Some monitoring and related system activities, such as vulnerability assessments, will occur at intervals which may span across up to three of these three-year periods, forming a nine-year compliance cycle. The first compliance cycle and the initial compliance period both begin on January 1, 1993. Table 2 gives dates for these Framework intervals over the next several decades. Monitor- lng requirements are given in Table 3. Other features o£Phase II monitoring requirements include: · SAmpling location - Ground water systems must sample at entry points to the distribution system which are representative of each well ~ any appli- cation of treatment. Surface water systems must s~mple at points within the distribution system which are representative of each source or at entry points to the distribution system after any application of treatment. Samples must be analyzed by a state-certified lab. · Initial sampling frequency - All system must s~mple at a base (or mini- m-m) frequency which is specific for a contamlnnnt or contaminant group. The state may grant monitoring waivers (as discussed below) and may allow a system to substitute suitable previous monitoring data for this initial monitoring. In the initial compliance period, the actual year in which a sys- tern samples will be determined by the state. · Repeat sampling frequency - In general, if a system does not detect con- t~m~nants in initial samples, then repeat s~mpling frequencies will be lower than initial frequencies. Repeat monitoring requirements are generally the same for all systems regardless of system size or water source. · Trigger to increase moni- toring- If contnmlnants are detected in any sample, the system must begin quarterly sampling until the state determines that subsequent results are "reliably and consistently' below the MCL. At least two to four s~mples must be taken before this determination may be made. Detection is defined sepa- rarely for various contami- Phase II Compliance Cycles CYCLE 1/:.:. CYCLE2 initial Repeat "em,at Repeat Repeat :. Repeat. Phase II Compliance Periods nants or cont-_ mlnnnt groups at either the MCL, 50 percent of the MCL, or at the analytical method detection limit. · Monitoring waivers - Sampling frequencies may also be reduced or eliminated ffthe system obtains a waiver baaed on: 1) previoua sampling results, and/or 2) an assessment of the system's w,lnerability to each specific contaminant. There are two types of waivers based on w,lnerabil- ity assessments: Use waiver. A system may be eligible for a waiver if it can show that a contpminant has not been used, manufactured and/or stored within a certain area around the system's water source, ffuse cannot be deter- mined, a use waiver ennnnt be granted. Susceptibility waiver: Even if a system is not eligible for a use waiver, it may be eligible for a waiver based on its susceptibility in terms of source protection, wellhead protection program reports, previous somple :esults, environmental transport and fate of the gon~minnnt, and Base Requirement Trigger that Waivers Contaminant Increases for Base Ground water I Surface water Sampling Requirements Asbestos 1 Sample every 9 years > MCL YES Based on VA~ Annual L Quarterly > 50% MCL, NO Nitrate After 1 year < 50% of MCL, SWS may reduce to an annual sample 1 Sample: If < 50% of MCL, > 50% MCL NO Nitrite state discretion YES 5 Inorganics 1 Sample every Annual sample > MCL Based on analytical 3 years results of 3 rounds 18 VOCs 4 Quarterly samples every 3 years > 0.0005 mg/L YES Annual after 1 year of no detects Based on VA~ 4 Quarterly samples every. 3 years Method YES 17 Pesticides After 1 round of no detects: systems Detection Based on VA~ and PCBs >3300 reduce to 2 samples per year Limit every 3 years; systems fi 3300 (MDL) reduce to 1 sample every 3 years Unregulated YES - 6 IOCs 1 Sample N.A. - 24 SOCs 4 Consecutive quarterly samples Based on VA~ ~ VA = Vulnerability Assessment elevated nitra~'levels. If susceptibility cannot be determined, th~s type Of wniv~r ¢~nnot be grmnted. · ~Jnregulated contaminant monitoring - Phase II also contmins one-tlme monitoring requirements for 30 other contmmlnants during v Abe initial period which begins on January 1, 1993. Systems must take one year of quarterly samples for organic contaminants, and one sample for inorgsnic contaminants. No MCLs have been set for these cont._ m~inmnts, and no further monitoring is required if these cheknicals are detected. Systems only need to report the results of this'monitoring to the state. Systems with less than 150 service connections may request a waiver from the State. Treatment Options · r~gfft~Ilent ~reatment options- For each regulated contaminant, E'PJ~ h~s identified a treatment technology which is considered the b%~availab[~ For ac~eving the MCL. If a system cannot reliably and han~istently meet an MCL, the system and State will work toge. tl~r ta 'decide which of these Best Available Technologies (BATJ) ~h'e System must install. BATs for Phase II chemicals are · l~ted in T~abl~ 4. · , ~i~red treatment options - Systems which cennot comply with ~n MCL .have,two options for deferring installation of treatment: _ variandes ~llow such a system to continue operating but only under a ~ording to a compliance schedule which sets a timeframe for ~lllng treatment to bring the supply into complionce. A system is eligible for a wariance only if it is already using BAT. Other factors, includ- ing health concerns and the reasonable availability of other sources of {rater, must also be considered before the state may grant a variance. - E~mptions from MCLs are available under some conditions including e~ononiic d~culties, regardless of whether or not BAT is being used. As W~th varionces though, a compliance sdaedule must be met, and other factors, including health concerns and the reasonable availability of other sources of water, must also be considered. For systems having no more than 500 service connections, exemptions may be extended for two-year per~ods if the system demonstrates an effort to take steps necessary for achieving compliance. · Short-Term Treatment Options - As a condition of granting a variance or exemptipn, States may require a system to provide its cons,~mers with either bottled water, point-of-use (POU) devices or pOint-of-entry (POE) devices as temporary means to avoid health problems related to exceedance of an MCL. · Non-treatment options - include region~lization, or joining with another nearby system, development of a new source, or blending present supplies with water from other supplies. Assistance, Programs Several EPA programs exist to assist systems that find installation is necessary. The Technology and Training Support Initiative is supervis- ing projects to identify, develop, and make available alternative drinking water technologies which are relatively inexpensive and simple to operate. Organics Volatile Organics; EDB; DBCP Granular Activated Carbon Packed Tower Aeration Pesticides and PCBs Granular Activated Carbon Inorganics Convention~ Technologies Coagulation/Filtration~ Lime Softening~ Additional Technologies Electrodialysis Reversal Ion Exchange Reverse Osmosis Asbestos Corrosion Control Diatomite Filtration Direct Filtration Optional for Mercury Granular Activated Carbon Optional for Selenium Activated Alumina Not BAT for varianee purpa~ for systems with <500 set. ce connections. Call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 Un/led WH.650A May 1992 EPA Phase V Rule IOC~. Andmony ThaU/um VOCs. Dichlorome~ne 1,2.4-Tric~flombenzgne 1.1,2-Tdc. hloroe~ Pesticides Dahpon DLnoseb Glypho~ Oxe*nyi Di(2-g~hyihexyi)~:lip~ DiCZ*echyihexyi)phrhaJam Hexachlorobenze~e Hex achlomcyclop~di~e 2.3.?.8-TCDD (Dioxm) radlonu~d~ (pe0posed ,My 1991). and a revised stonclarcl for arsenic (expected ~ Phase V Rule sets ~ water standorcis for 23 cor~aminants that may be found In drinidng water. The regulatto~ Incitx:t~ Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLg, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG~), recluirements for monitoring, reporting, publiC ~, oncl ~ Available Tect¥1ologles (BATs) for water tn~i,,,ent. In ts estimated that 256 systems ~ exceed an MCL, with most systems exceeding the MCL for arrttmony. Cc~ estimates Include a monitoflr~ cost of $5 million, state implementation cost of $10 millon, and annual treatment cost of $31 miBon, for a total of $46 million. These regtJatiom become effecthm 18 montt~ after the promulgation dote. DRINKING WATER STANDARDS 0.OO6 0.O06 0.004 0.00~ 0..l 0.1 0.1 0.1 de, fen, ed ' defex~d 0.00O5 0.002 0.0'/ 0.003 O.2 O. OO7 0.02 0. I 0.002 0.? 0.2 OJ 0.004 0.2 O.OO7 0.02 O.1 O. OO2 O.7 0.2 0.5 0.004 0.0002 0.4 0.OO6 0.001 ' 0.05 3 x 104 M~adn'mm Cont~'Wfmnl Levels (MCL~: Public Water Swterns are recluired to make sum that tt~ water they supply does not exceed the MCL for each' Phase V ct~micat. These are enforceable standards whic~ are ~ feasible and safe. Maximum ~ Levels Goals (MCLGs~. For each chemical, EPA has set a non-enforceoDle hearth .qooi which water systems should try to achieve. Water containing a chemical In an amocr~t equal to or below its MCLG is not exDected to cause any hearth problems, even over a lifetime of drinking this water. Final MCl~ and MCLGs for Phase V chemicats ore Itstecl in Table 1. APPUCABILITY OF MCLS MCLs establishecl uncler the Safe Drinking Water Act ore Federally enforceable stonclorcis for finished water provided by Public Water Supply Systems. In ocldiflon, these stcu~clorcls ore often usecl as reference points for the protection ancl remediation of water resources under several EPA programs as well as programs implemented by other-federal agencies oncl states. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Phase V makes use of the stonclorcl monitoring framework, which will reduce the complexity of the monitoring requirements. coordinate the requirements among various regulations, oncl synchronize the monitoring schedules, t:)y establishing 'three year" monitoring periods for ddnkincj water contaminants. (~ Pnnte~l on Recycfecl P ESTIMATED OPERATION ANDMAINTENANCE COSTS PRESSURE FILTRATION PLANT IRON AND MANGANESE REMOVAL $ 51,000.00 COST PER YEAR $ 16.00 COST PER HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR ION EXCHANGE SOFTENING PROCES~ COST PER YEAR * $ 43,000.00 COST PER HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR * $ 14.00 · THESE COSTS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE O&M COSTS FOR THE FILTRATION PLANT LIME-SODA SOFTENING PROCES~ COST PER YEAR COST PER HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR $ 296,000.00 $ 92.00 October 3, 1990 Revised October 19, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Addendum #2 to Preliminary Engineering Report Water System Improvements, 1990 Update MFRA #9316 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we are submitting this letter as an addendum to the Preliminary Engineering Report for Water System Improvements, 1990 Update, dated June, 1990. This addendum is written to address the cost of construction of an Ion Exchange System for softening the well water in Mound. The ion exchange process removes the hardness by replacing the calcium and magnesium hardness with sodium creating sodium salts in the softened water. The iron and manganese are removed as previously described in the June, 1990 engineering report. The cost of a treatment plant to remove the iron and soften the water by ion exchange is approximately $2,829,000 (see attached cost estimate). There are annual operating costs connected with this, including the cost of power, chemicals and backwash water and brine disposal connected with an /on exchange water treatment system. The total annual operating cost is not included, as it is beyond the scope of this addendum. If you have further questions concerning this treatment process, we will be pleased to discuss it Further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Rodney Gordon, P.E. JC:Jmk Enclosure John Cameron CITY OF MOUND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT Preliminary Cost Estimate Water Treatment Plant (Addendum No. 2) September 3, 1990 Equipment for 1500 GPM Ion-Exchange Water Softening Plant (Includes aerators, greensand filters, filter control system, ion exchange units, brine regener- ation system, brine tank, clearwell, chemical feed systems and control systems) Pumps (3) - 1,000 GPM Sitework Electrical Mechanical (Includes piping and labor to install equipment) Building (Includes 100,000 gallon clearwell and brine tank) SUBTOTAL Contingencies (10%) SUBTOTAL Administrative, Technical and Legal (15%) SUBTOTAL Well and Piping TOTAL 517,500 51,700 13,800 143,700 517,500 805,000 $2,049,200 $ 204 800 $2,254,000 $ 338 000 $2,592,000 $ 237 000 $2,829,000 September 6, 1990 Revised October 19, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Addendum #1 to Preliminary Engineering Report Water System Improvements, 1990 Update MFRA#9316 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we are submitting this letter as an addendum to the Preliminary Engineering Report for Water System Improvements, 1990 Update, dated June, 1990. This addendum is written to address the method and cost of softening the water from the existing water supply wells. The present water supply has a hardness of 370 parts per million (21.6 grains) to 450 parts per million (26.3 grains). Water which is softened usually has a hardness of 50 to 100 parts per million (2.9 - 5.8 grains). Softening water to these levels reduces the amount of soap required, improves the preparation and cooking of foods, reduces the scale in hot water heaters, and makes the water desirable for other domestic uses. Two ways that water can be softened is by ion exchange (similar to residential softening units) and treatment by a lime-soda process. Ion exchange removes the hardness in the water by replacing calcium and magnesium with sodium which can be a health problem with some individuals. We, therefore, investigated the lime-soda process as a method to remove the hardness from the City of Mound's water supply. The lime-soda process uses chemicals such as lime and soda-ash which when added to the water causes the calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese to settle out of the water. These minerals cause the water to be hard and their removal softens the water. A lime-soda plant would include aerators, chemicals mixers, flocculators, clarifiers, rapid sand filters, chlorination and other chemical feeders, a clear-well and high lift pumps. This treatment system would be sized to treat 1500 gallons of water per minute and would cost approximately 3,739,000 (see attached cost estimate). There would be annual costs connected with this, including the cost of power, chemicals and disposal of sludge produced by the treatment systems. The total annual cost is not included, as it is beyond the scope of this report. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 6, 1990 Revised October 19, 1993 PaGe Two If you have further questions concerning this treatment process, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Rodney Gordon, P.E. John Cameron JC: Jmk Enclosures CITY OF MOUND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT Preliminary Cost Estimate Water Treatment Plant (Addendum No. 1) September 6, 1990 Equipment for 1500 GPM Lime-Soda Water Softening Plant. (Includes Solids Contact Clarifier, Rapid Sand Filters, Aerators, Lime Slaker, Soda Ash Feeder, Chlorine Feeder, Carbon Dioxide Feeder, Polymer Feeder, Potassium Permanganate Feed System, Alum Feed System and Bulk Storage for Carbon Dioxide and Lime.) $ 575,000 Pumps - (3) - 1000 GPM $ 51,700 Sitework $ 13,800 Electrical $ 172,500 Mechanical (includes piping and labor to install equipment) 575,000 Building (includes structures for equipment and 100,000 gallon clearwell) $1,380,000 SUBTOTAL Contingencies (10%) SUBTOTAL Administrative, Technical, Legal (15%) SUBTOTAL Well and Piping TOTAL $2,768,000 $ 277,000 $3,045,000 $ 457,000 83,502,000 $ 237,000 $3,739,000 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 1990 UPDATE Prepared For: The City of Mound, Minnesota June, 1990 Revised October, 1993 June 19, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Water Treatment and Distribution System MFRA #9316 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we are submitting herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for Water Treatment and Water Distribution System Improvements. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding any information contained in this report, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Rodney Gordon JC:Jmk Enclosures John Cameron PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT For Water System Improvements 1990 Update Prepared For: The City of' Mound, Minnesota June, 1990 Revised October, 1993 SECTION I - INTRODUCTION The City of Mound owns and operates a municipal water system consistinG of four Groundwater wells, two elevated water storage tanks, one water storage stand pipe, and a distribution system which provides water to its customers. The present service area has an approximate population of 9,700 people which is slightly higher than it was when the previous water system report was written in 1982. This report has been authorized by the Mound City Council and it will include preliminary design and cost for a municipal water treatment plant to remove iron and manganese. It is also the intent of this report to investigate the present water distribution system and discuss any deficiencies in that system alonG with any recommended improvements to upgrade it where necessary. SECTION II - EXISTING SYSTEM ae General The City of Mound obtains its water supply from several wells within the City limits located as shown in the accompanying map. The wells presently in use are identified as No.'s 1, 3, 6 and 7. As part of the municipal water system, the City operates and maintains approximately 50 miles of distribution mains ranging from 2" to 10" in size, a 75,000 gallon elevated tank on Chateau Lane between Shoreline Drive and Bayport Road, a 300,000 gallon water tank located on Evergreen Road between Westedge Boulevard and Rosewood Lane, and a 250,000 gallon stand pipe in the Island Park area at Donald Drive and Devon Lane. Be Groundwater Wellg Well No. 1 is located on Auditor's Road and Marion Street. This well was constructed in 1934 and is cased with a 10" pipe from the ground surface to a depth of 285'. The well is screened with 8' of 10" diameter - No. 100 slot wire wound screen. This well is presently being pumped at 300 gallons per minute. Well No. 3 is located adjacent to the elevated water storage tank on Chateau Lane between Shoreline Boulevard and Bayport Road. This well was drilled in 1947 to a depth of 317' into the Jordan Sandstone. This well is presently being pumped at 450 to 500 gallons per minute. Well No. 's 4 and 5 are not in service and both have been abandoned. Well No. 6 was drilled in 1976 and put into operation in early 1977. This well is 175' deep and is furnished with a 24" casing from the surface to a depth of 75' and a 20" casing to a depth of 141'. A nominal 16" stainless steel screen is furnished from 141' tO 174'. This well is presently being pumped at 550 gallons per minute. Well No. 7 was drilled in 1977 and its location is Just off of County Highway 110 on Three Points Boulevard. This well is developed in the sand and gravel drift formation and is screened from 135' to 195' with 12" stainless steel screen. This well is presently being pumped at 750 gallons per minute and is the primary well in the City of Mound. Well No. Date Drilled 1934 Present Capacity GPM 300 Depth, Feet 285 Screen Size, Inches 10 Screen Length, Feet 8 Type of Well Drift 3 4 5 6 7 1947 1962 1957 1976 1977 450-500 Abandoned Abandoned 550 750 317 175 195 -- 16 12 -- 33 60 Jordan- Drift Drift Sandstone Water Quality Iron mg/1 0.23 0.41 Manganese mg/1 0.55 0.30 ...... 0.35 0.92 ...... 0.065 0.27 The water from these wells contain iron and manganese in various quantities. The table above indicates that the iron content of the water ranges from 0.23 to 0.92 mg/1 and the manganese content from 0.065 to 0.55 mg/1. Experience has shown that the domestic consumer finds the water objectionable when iron is present in amounts greater than 0.2 mg/1, and the tenacity of manganese is so great that its concentration should not be more than 0.1 mg/1 and preferably less than 0.05 mg/1. This indicates the need for water treatment to remove the iron and manganese. C. Storaqe Facilities Water storage facilities are provided for several purposes, such as: To equalize pumping rates over the day; 3 * To equalize supply and demand over a long period of high consumption; and * To furnish water for such emergencies as fire fighting or accidental breakdowns. City of Mound has, through the years, provided storage for all the purposes mentioned above. Both the 75,000 and the 300,000 gallon storage tanks "float on the line", that is they fill during periods of low consumption and empty during periods of high water consumption. Water is delivered to the system from the aforementioned wells to the elevated storage tanks. The wells are automatically controlled by the level in the 300,000 gallon tank through a master control panel located at Well No. 6. This master control panel enables the operator to select any sequence of wells to start and stop at pre-set levels in the elevated storage tank. These set points are adjustable as is the well sequence enabling the City to operate the entire well system at various sequences. Such a system provides excellent flexibility and operation and enables each well to operate an equal amount of time if the City so desires. This control system was provided in 1977 along with the construction of Well No. 7. SECTION III - POPULATION AND WATER USAGE According to the report written in 1982, the population in Mound has had a steady growth since 1930. That growth rate was high between 1930 and 1970, but after that time, the growth rate decreased. In the 1980 census, the population was 9,280 and by 1982 it was estimated at 9,400, with a projected population of 9,700 for 1990. Therefore, there has been a very small, steady growth since 1982. It is not expected that the population of Mound will change substantially through the design period of 20 years, which this report is based on. It is, therefore, estimated for design purposes that the population of Mound will be 10,000 people by the year 2010 the design period for such things as water treatment plants and distribution systems. Future and/or anticipated water usage requirements are based on several factors, such as projected population, anticipated industry and historical trends and water usage. All three of these factors will be taken into consideration in determining future water requirements for the study period. The historical data for the City of Mound indicated an increase in water usage from 1970 to 1976. After 1976 the water usage began to decrease mainly due to the drop in water usage attributed to Tonka Toys, which eventually moved from Mound in 1982. The usage since 1982 has been basically domestic consumption which has been around the total figure of 310,000,000 gallons a year, which is approximately 90 gallons per capita per day. For the use of design purposes, this report will project the future water requirements by using daily per capita usage of 100 gallons for the duration of the 20 year design period. This is a reasonable number for per capita usage as it is used for design purposes in many other City's of similar size in Minnesota. The estimated daily per capita usage of 100 gallons along with the 5 projected population of 10,000 persons produces an average day's use, through the design period, of 1,000,000 gallons. This gives a total annual water usage of 365,000,000 gallons as compared to the present usage of 312,300,000 gallons. 6 SECTION IV - SYSTEM DESIGN As mentioned in the previous section, the total estimated water usage for the design period per year is 365,000,000 gallons. In addition to determininG yearly usage, it is equally important to determine the maximum daily and the average daily usage of the maximum month. This is normally done by examininG historical water usage figures, but because of the lack of reliable data, we have assumed that the maximum daily usage is approximately 200% of the average daily usage. Therefore, the maximum daily usage is projected to be 2,000,000 Gallons per day for domestic use. Added to this figure would also be the required amount of water to fight any fire that might take place within the City of Mound at the same time the maximum usage is occurrinG. The Insurance Services Office of St. Paul recommends a design for a fire flow of 2,500 Gallons per minute for a duration of 2 hours. This would produce a total requirement durinG an occurrence of a fire of 300,000 Gallons. The total maximum day's usage would then be the domestic requirement plus the fire flow or 2,300,000 Gallons/day. In order to provide the quantities of water needed to supply the demand of 2,300,000 gallons for the maximum day, it is necessary to design a treatment plant size to provide at least the maximum days flow for domestic water, which in this case is 2,000,000 gallons/day. This would require a treatment plant that would produce treated water at the rate of 1,390 gallons/minute. It is recommended that the treatment system to be used in the City of Mound to remove iron and manganese be a horizontal pressure filter designed to remove iron and manganese which is present in the well waters in Mound. These filters are normally either a 750 gallon/minute size or the 500 gallon/minute size. In the case of the system recommended for usage to treat Mound's well water, we would have to use two 750 Gallon/minute horizontal pressure filters. Therefore, the proposed treatment plant would produce water at the rate of 1,500 gallons/minute. This would satisfy the projected 7 maximum day's water usage of 2,000,000 gallons per day as previously mentioned. This system would also include a pressure aerator, air compressor, filter function valves, filter manifold piping, air release system, backwash rate of flow control system, loss of head indicator and manganese green sand and anthracite filter media, along with an air washed distribution system consisting of air wash grids, blower assembly, valving, high lift pumps, clear well for treated water storage at the plant, etc. It would also be necessary with this treatment process to include chemical feed equipment to add chlorine, fluoride and potassium permanganate. The potassium permanganate is injected on the influent side of the filter for manganese removal and the remaining chemicals are added to the treated water. Treatment Systeg This report discusses two alternative ways to provide the 1,500 gallons/minute treatment required. These two alternatives are as follows: Alternative One would be a 750 gallon/minute treatment unit at 2 different locations. Each location would also have a clearwell to provide 50,000 gallons of storage for treated water, along with high lift pumps to pump water from the clearwell into the distribution system. In order to treat 750 gallons/minute, it would be necessary to have available at the site a well which produces that much water. In the case of Mound, Well No. 7 would be one site where a plant could be located as it does produce 750 gallons/minute. The other site would be near the fire station where Well No. 6 is presently located. Well No. 6 produces 550 gallons/minute and would have to be augmented by water from Well No. 3, which is approximately 2 blocks away. Water would have to be 8 transported from Well No. 3 by providing a 6" line to carry the raw water to the new proposed plant and that would cost approximately 207,000. The total cost of Alternative One then would be the cost of two treatment plants which is estimated to be $1,408,000, and the cost of the 6" waterline ($207,000) which gives a total cost of $1,615,000. An alternate way to provide sufficient water at this site would be to drill another well near Well No. 6. This would cost approximately $207,000 the same as the 6" line to transport water from Well No. 3. Alternative Two would be to place a 1500 gallon/minute water treatment plant at the site of Well No. 7. This plant would also have a clearwell to provide 100,000 gallons of storage for treated water along with high lift pumps. Because Well No. 7 produces only 750 gallons/minute, a new well producing the same as Well No. 7 would have to be drilled nearby. Well No. 7 and the new well would then provide 1,500 gallons/minute for complete treatment at this location. The new well and the piping required to bring water into the proposed site of the water treatment plant would cost approximately 8237,000. The total cost of Alternative Two would then be $1,466,000. Alternative Two has several advantages. The first advantage is the fact that the cost is approximately 8149,000 less. It also has a couple of other advantages, one being the fact that water treatment will be all at one location. It will also provide a new well so that the two wells providing water to the treatment system are reliable. If Alternative One was used, the one treatment system at Well No. 6 would be using two wells that are somewhat questionable in that 9 there has been problems with Well No. 6 in the past and Well No. 3 is now 43 years old. Another advantage is the fact that the other existing wells can be kept as stand-by wells to produce water during emergencies such aS fire or extremely high water usage. With the proposed treatment plant in operation along with the other wall§, the City would have the capability of pumping 2,800 gallons/minute into the distribution system in an emergency situation. We therefore recommend that the City use proposed Alternative Two to provide a system to remove iron and manganese from the well water. This recommendation is based on the assumption that the present distribution system is capable of providing flow capacity to accept water from the treatment plant at 1500 to 2000 gpm. This must be verified with a computer analysis of the distribution system before a final decision is made to accept Alternative 2. B. Distribution Syste~ The existing distribution system, which includes the pipe work and the elevated storage, was also investigated. The main reason for the investigation is to determine if the pipe network will distribute water in sufficient quantities to provide fire fighting capabilities in all areas of the City. This was done by flow testing approximately 37 hydrants throughout the City of Mound. The results of this survey indicated that the area between Lake Langdon and Dutch Lake have some problems in providing sufficient quantities of water while maintaining a proper residual pressure in the system as the water is being taken out of the system. Normally, the Insurance Services Organization recommends that a residual pressure of at least 20 pounds per square inch (psi) be maintained when the hydrants are flowing sufficient quantities of water to fight a fire. In the extreme western part of the area mentioned above, the residual pressure was decreased to 10 approximately 10 psi when the hydrants were flowed. This no-doubt results from the fact that the distribution system in this area is a dead end and the elevation of the topography is quite high. The one thinG that can be eliminated quite easily is the dead end system in this area. This can be accomplished by constructinG a 10" line from WestedGe Boulevard and Halstaed Lane, north across the railroad tracks alonG WestedGe Boulevard to the existinG 10" line approximately 600' south of Lynwood Boulevard. This would eliminate the dead end on the system and provide water directly to that area from the water tower on EverGreen Road near WestedGe Boulevard. Previously, it was recommended that the proposed water treatment plant be located near Well No. 7. The treated water, therefore, will be enterinG the distribution system at that point or at Commerce Boulevard and Three Points Boulevard. This is approximately two miles from the water tower on EverGreen Road and the high lift pumps located in that treatment plant would be pumpinG against a high head because of the head loss in the single 10" line down Commerce Boulevard leadinG to the water tower on EverGreen Road. If the proposed 10" connection alonG WestedGe Boulevard is constructed, this will reduce the head loss as there will be two routes the water can take to Get to the water tower on EverGreen Road. This will also help the pressure in the area between Lake LanGdon and Dutch Lake when the high lift pumps are in operation. Previously mentioned in the report was the requirements for fire fightinG capabilities of the existinG system. The ability to provide water to fight fire depends upon the rate at which water can be supplied to the system and the amount of storage available at the time the fire begins. In the City of Mound, there will be plenty of supply with the proposed treatment system, which will produce 1,500 Gallons/minute of treated water to the system at any Given time alonG with the 11 remaining wells which can produce approximately 1,500 gallons/minute. This supply eliminates the need for constructing any more storage in the City of Mound at this time. It is also understood that if an emergency arises whereby the storage is being depleted and there is a fire requiring high water usage, there are lines interconnecting the other City's in the area. This will help provide water to fight fire in the City of Mound under such emergencies. One thing that must be taken into consideration, is the fact that two of these wells, Well No.'s i and 3, are getting old. There is, therefore, a possibility that in the near future, they will have to be abandoned and the City will no longer have that additional supply in case of an emergency. At that time, the City would need to provide another well that would produce 750 gallons/minute or construct a water tower that has a capacity of 250,000 gallons. The need for this is demonstrated by the fact that during the peak day, the maximum water usage over a 14 hour period is approximately 2,000 gallons/minute. With the treatment plant producing only 1,500 gallons/minute, there is a 500 gallon/minute deficit over the 14 hour period making a total deficit of 420,000 gallons. If a fire should occur at this point, it would be necessary to have 275,000 gallons of storage on hand to fight the fire thus requiring a total storage volume of 695,000 gallons. The City presently has 375,000 gallons of elevated storage and this report recommends the construction of a 100,000 gallon clearwell with the treatment plant making a total of 475,000 gallons available toward making up the 695,000 gallon deficit during a major fire requiring additional storage of 220,000 gallons. This would have to be made up by additional elevated storage. The Insurance Services Organization recommends that the storage be sized so it would provide the required quantities of water when 80 percent full. It would, 12 therefore, be necessary to have an additional 300,000 Gallons of storage. It is, therefore, recommended that the City plan for future construction of a 300,000 gallon tank in approximately 15 years. 3&77 13 CITY OF MOUND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT Preliminary Cost Estimate Water Treatment Plant (Cost of 1 Plant for Alternate) 750 GPM Iron Removal Equipment Additional Equipment for Manganese Removal Chlorination, Gas System Fluoride Feed System Potassium Permanganate Feed System Building 1250 S.F. Electrical Pumps (2) - 750 GPM Site Work Labor to Place Equipment Clearwell, 50,000 Gallons SUBTOTAL Contingencies (10%) SUBTOTAL Administrative, Technical, Legal (20%) TOTAL Cost of 2 Plants Piping from Well No. 3 to Plant Site at Well No. 6 TOTAL $ 115,000 $ 23,000 $ 6,300 $ 2,300 $ 4,000 $ 109,200 $ 46,000 $ 46,000 $ 30,000 $ 13,800 $ 103,500 $ 34.500 $ 533,600 $ 53.40Q $ 587,000 $ 117.000 $ 704,000 91,408,000 $_ 207,000 $1,615,000 14 CITY OF MOUND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT Preliminary Cost Estimate Water Treatment Plant (Alternate No. 2) 1,500 GPM Iron Removal Equipment Additional Equipment for Manganese Removal Chlorination Gas System Fluoride Feed System Potassium Permanganate Feed System Building, 2000 S.F. Electrical Piping Pumps (3) - 1000 GPM Sitework Labor to Place Equipment Clearwell - 100,000 Gallons SUBTOTAL Contingencies (10%) SUBTOTAL Administrative, Technical, Legal (20%) SUBTOTAL Well and Piping (see Cost Estimate for Well TOTAL $ 230,000 $ 46,000 $ 8,000 8 2,300 $ 4,000 $ 172,500 $ 75,000 $ 80,500 $ 51,700 $ 13,800 S 184,000 $ 63,200 $ 931,000 $ 93,000 $1,024,000 $ 205,000 81,229,000 $ 237,000 $1,466,000 CITY OF MOUND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT Preliminary Cost Estimate 10" Watermain Extension - Westedge Boulevard Halstead Lane North to Existing 10" Main ~ UNIT PRICE 2,200 LF $ 26.00/LF 100 LF $ 19.00/LF 3,000 LB 8 2.00/LB 4 EACH 8 850.O0/EA 4 EACH 8 500.O0/EA 4 EACH $1,300.00/EA 200 TON $ iO.O0/TN 2,000 TON $ 9.00/TN LUMP SUM $ 170.O0/LF ITE~ 10" DIP Watermain 6" DIP Watermain Fittings 10" Gate Valves 6" Gate Valves Hydrants Granular Material 6" Class 2 Street Restoration Roadside Seeding Jacking 10" Watermain 60 LF SUBTOTAL Contingencies (10%) SUBTOTAL Administrative, Technical and Legal (25%) TOTAL TOTAL $ 57,200 8 1,900 8 6,000 $ 3,400 8 2,000 $ 5,200 $ 2,000 $ 18,000 $ 2,500 $ 10,200 $108,400 8_10,800 8119,200 $ 29 800 8149,000 MINUTES OF A M'F. ET~G OF TI-IF. MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1993 .INTERVIEWS FOR NEW PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MEMBERS 1. CHARLES (CHUCK) CHAMPINE, 1550 CANARY LANE Mr. Champine has lived in the Three Points Area since 1979 and would like to be of service to the community. He has been involved in school athletic programs over the years and the "Save the Pool" program. He knows the Park Commission needs some representation from the Three Points Area. He would like to see the Lost Lake area used as an open space area for the community at large, and he is open to looking at financing involving development issues. Mr. Champine is an abutting land owner to commons, and he has an opinion relating to how the commons could be operated. He feels the City has a short term approach and needs a long term approach to solve such issues as erosion problems on the commons, etc. He believes in volunteerism and would like to get the community involved in programs to help what the city can offer for parks and recreation. Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 He is not as familiar as he should be with the NCA program. His opinion on open spaces is that they should be jealously guarded if they are spaces that can be used by the general public. Champine is of the opinion that the parks program is not as good as it was ten years ago. If he had an unlimited amount of money, he would build a new park in the City of Mound. He has no conflicts with the meeting dates and commented that he would be a very committed member. 2. JOHN C. EDEWAARD, 5125 HANOVER ROAD Mr. Edewaard stated that he is interested in becoming a Park Commission member because there is an opening, he has the time to volunteer, and he would be a committed member. He is an analytical thinker and feels he would make fair decisions. He is interested in the City. He has been a resident of Mound since 1991. He does not use the parks, however feels there can never be enough public facilities. He does not live on commons or on the lake and is only vaguely familiar with the commons program. His profession is as a researcher for Anderson Edewaards & Assoc. He cannot determine what should be done with Lost Lake as he does not have enough information on the issue. He does not have a problem committing to the meeting times for the Park Commission. If he had an unlimited amount of money, he could not determine what he would do for the City because he does not have enough information, however he feels the presence of commons docks in Mound are important. 3. JANIS L. GEFFRE, 5056 EDGEWATER DRIVE Ms. Geffre has been a resident of Mound for seven months, and would like to be involved in the community. She has always been involved with the communities she has lived in and has the time to volunteer. She feels that being a new resident she may be able to give a different perspective on issues. Volunteer experience includes: PTA, chair for school events, member of homeowners association which managed a 20 acre park with a recreation program and a pool, St. Paul volunteer, and Minnesota Fair Share. Recently she has graduated with a degree in public administration which included courses which she feels could benefit the Park Commission. She has used Centerview Beach and Mound Bay Park. She lives on private lakeshore. She believes it is important to find out what people want in their community before parks are updated or changed. Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 She would like to see the Lost Lake area developed into an area such as the area in Spring Park next to the Presbyterian Home, i.e. landscaped with walking trails, flowers, trees, etc. She feels the area needs a warmer look. With access to unlimited funds to improve the City of Mound she would like to see all the utility lines buried underground and would like to see more plantings in the downtown area, especially Shoreline Drive, something like Wayzata. 4. MARY E. GOODE, 4991 BARTLETT BLVD. Ms. Goode has lived in Mound for only three months and decided to apply for the Commission because it sounded like the Commission needed help and she would like to help service the community. She toured the parks in the City by following a map she got at City Hall and was impressed with the number of parks and the cleanliness and condition of the playground equipment. Being new to Mound, she believes that the Lost Lake area would be a nice place for a softball diamond. She has no problem committing to the meeting times. She loves the lake and loves fishing. She lives on private lakeshore, however, is next door to Carlson Park which accommodates commons docks. She believes the dock system is an asset to the community. If she were given unlimited funds to improve the City of Mound she would buy property to develop parks as needed for each area of the City. 5. PETER C. MEYER, 5748 SUNSET ROAD Mr. Meyer believes Mound to be a fine community and would like to give something back, he is ready to commit. He has resided in mound for almost twelve years. In his opinion the Parks in Mound are very nice, he and his children frequent the parks and they like the equipment at Philbrook and Three Points. He does not live on Commons, but finds the commons program interesting. He lives across the street from Dutch Lake. He basically agrees with the development plan for the Lost Lake area, however, he is not sure about the proposed dredge as he does not feel the access to the lake is as important as people think it is. He feels it is important to save the wetlands. If he were given unlimited funds to improve the City of Mound he would 3 Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 like to educate the kids about the land. He has no problem committing to the meeting times. 6. DAVID STELNBRING, 2992 HIGHVIEW LANE Mr. Steinbring has lived in the City of Mound for five years, and explained that his family recently almost purchased a home in Plymouth because he likes their trail and park system, however, they decided to stay in Mound. He would like to see Mound improve their Parks and trails system. He is interested in having a place to for kids to play and grow up. In his opinion the parks in Mound are not used enough, he would like to see skating rinks and playground equipment at Bluffs Park which is near his house, however, he is not sure how the abutting neighbors to the park would feel about that. He would like to see the Lost Lake area developed into a lighted baseball or softball diamond. A skating rink on the lake at Mound Bay Park would be nice, the depot could be used for a warming house. He is not familiar with the commons dock program. If he was given an unlimited amount of funds to improve the City of Mound he would like to see the downtown plan implemented, he would like to have a large grocery store, like Rainbow Foods, and more parking. He does not like that you have to cross so many streets to get somewhere. He has no problem committing to the time required for the Park Meetings. He is in favor of keeping open space in Mound. General Discussion Relating to the Interviews and Vacancies The Commission reviewed the number of vacancies, there are two due to the resignations of Steve Kirshbaum and Brian Asleson. Mo Mueller's position was discussed and staff noted that M"'"'"""---- 'ueller was made aware t~i-~ if she ,:ltd not a/tend the October Park Commission meeting her position would be advertised. The Secretary informed the Commission that Mueller informed her that she would be submitting a letter of resignation due to her demanding work schedule. The Commission determined that Mueller's position should be considered a vacancy, therefore the total number of vacancies is three. The number of Commissioners was discussed; should there be seven members, or nine. Previously, the Park Commission had only seven members, then approximately four years ago the number was increased to nine because there were a number of qualified applicants at that time. It was the consensus of the Commission that because there are enough Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 qualified applicants to fill a nine member commission, the number should remain at nine. The Commissioner's ranked the applicants using ballots distributed by the Secretary. The results of the ranking are as follows (1 = first choice, 2 = second choice, etc.): 1. Janis Geffre 3,1,2,1,1 = 8 2. Mary Goode 2,2,1,2,2 -- 9 3. David Steinbring 4,3,3,3,3 = 16 4. Peter Meyer 1,5,4,4,4 = 18 5. Charles Champine 5,4,5,5,5 = 24 6. John Edewaard 6,6,6,6,6 = 30 The City Council will review this recommendation at the October 26, 1993 meeting. Staff will notify the applicants in writing of the Council's decision. Charles Champine 1550 Canary Lane Mound, Mn 5536~ August 23, 1993 To: Mound Advisory Parks And Open Space Commission Subject: Application for Commissioner fl{L"{) AUG 2 4 Dear Commission: I am respectfully applying for one of the vacancies on the commission. I believe that the commission has an important job to establish a leadership role in helping to guide the city council, and I would like to help. My reasons for applying for the commission are as follows: * My wife Joanne and I are 1~ year residents of Mound. I live in the Three Points area and we are abutting landowner to the shoreline commons area. I would like to represent these two constituencies before the commission and the city council. * I believe that Mound can do more to promote its use of its parks and other open areas. I would like to encourage concert and other activities throughout the year to bring people out of their homes and into their community. * The city is the custodian for some of the important open spaces surrounding the lake, and I am concerned about such issues as erosion and lake runoff. * The demographics of the city are changing, and I would like to help the city to support its citizenry, especially the youngsters and senior citizens. Parks and open areas are very important to these two groups. My qualifications for the Commission are as follows: * In my business life, I am the Manager of Corporate Telecommunications for Moore Data Management Services, a nationwide information services firm. * I have served three terms as Director of the prestigious Minnesota Telecommunications Association, and I am currently a director of the Midwest Telecommunications Conference. * I was one of the original members of the Mound Cable commission, and served from the initial investigations for a new system through its installation. * Both my wife and I have been active in volunteer work with Little League and Babe Ruth baseball~ the Westonka Fast pitch softball program~ the swimming and Save the Pool campaigns~ and Pop Singers. I hereby respectfully submit this application. Charles (Chuck) Champine ~ V John C. Edewaard 5125 Hanover Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-3254 Fa~x: (612) 472-2637 August 27, 1993 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: I would like to be considered a candidate for an opening on the Park and Open Space Commission. I have been a resident of Mound since August of 1991. My greatest strength is my willingness to volunteer my time. I believe that my commitment to the community can be felt through my involvement. I take pride in my accomplishments, and I want to be proud of the city in which I live. I look forward to meeting with the council. Thank you. John C. Edewaard July 21, 1993 JUL 2 6 1993 5056 Edgewater Drive Mound, MN 55364 Ed Schulke, City Manager City of Mound 5342 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Schulke; This letter is written in response to your article in the July 21 issue of the Sun Sailor regarding openings on the Mound Park and Open Space Advisory Commission. I am very interested in serving on this Commission. While I am a new resident of Mound I want to be an active participant in the development of this community. I have a degree in Public Administration and have been active in a Homeowners' Association in Seattle which managed a community park. I would be honored to be considered for a position on this Commission. Please contact me at 472-3695. Sincerely, August 31, 1993 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota REC'O AU8 1. 1993 Dear Mr. Shukle, Appointment to the park co~lssion for the city of Mound would allow me an opportunity to be of service to my community. The enclosed re~ume will give you a brief overview of the large amount of life experience and sound Judgment that I can bring to this appointment. The fact that I am new to the community would insure an unbiased outlook on the commission. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mary E. Goode 4991 Bartlett Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 phone (612) 472 5405 Education: Certification: Licenses: 4991 Bartlett Boulevard "Mound, Minnesota 55364 phone (612) 472 5405 Albertson College of Idaho, Nampa Idaho Received 12 graduate credits in elementary education through June, 1993 4.00 Cumulative Grade Point Average Eastern Oregon State College, La Grande, Oregon Bachelor of Science, June, 1987 Major: Elementary Education Specialization: Mathematics 3.78 Cumulative Grade Point Average Treasure Valley Community College, Ontario, Oregon Associate Degree, June, 1985 General Studies 3.75 Cumulative Grade Point Average Phi Theta Kappa Honors Society Hurley Medical Center School of Nursing, Flint, Michigan Diploma .in Nursing, July, 1965 Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan boise State University, Boise, Idaho Received undergraduate transfer credits Oregon Basic Teaching Certificate-Elementary/ Math Board of Nursing State of Michigan Currently licensed as a Registered Nurse In the states of: Michigan and Idaho Teachlna Experience: Nyssa Middle School, Nyssa Oregon August, 1988-June, 1993 Taught seventh grade geography to three and four sections each school year. Taught sixth and/or seventh grade English for two years. Taught TAG elective class for qualified~students for two years. Taught one semester of math, and one semester of health, also taught elective classes in photography and publications, which included the school yearbook. Substitute teacher: Educational School District, Vale, Oregon Sept., 1987-June, 1988 Substituted for grades K through 12 for county. Included approximately 60 days of substituting including grades 3, 6, 8, and 11. Student Teaching Spring term, 1987 Student Teaching Alken Elementary School, Ontario, Oregon Taught sixth grade. Ontario Junior High School, Ontario, Oregon Taught three classes of Algebra I to eighth and ninth grade students. One class was honors Algebra Nursln~ Experience: July and August, 1984 Public Health Nurse, Part time, Malheur County Health Department, Ontario, Oregon. Participated In maternal-child health and nutrition programs. June, 1979-Jan., 1984 Sept., 1977-June, 1979 Public Health Nurse, Mecosta County Health Department Big Rapids, Michigan, Position Included Home Health and Public Health supervisory home visits and epidemiologic activities for about one-third of Mecosta County Michigan (approximately 8,000 residents). Was responsible for venereal disease Interviewing and follow-up for the entire county. Also responsible for school nursing for a district of some 1,000 students in grades I through 12. Staff Nurse in a family-oriented Labor and Delivery Unit doing approximately 1,500 births per year. Sept., 1976-Sept., 1977 Pediatric Nurse, Ingham Medical Center, Lansing, Michigan. Unit focus In on treatment of child abuse, cystic fibrosis, cerebral ~palsy, orthopedic, and congenital heart correction. Sept. 1966-Aug, 1976 Organizations: Jan.-Aug., i988 Avocations: Mecosta County General Hospital. Positions Included: Head nurse for medlcal-surglcal-pedlatrlc unit with focus In orthopedics for three and one-half years. Head nurse In emergency room for eight months, and Full and part time positions as staff nurse In medical-surgical, and obstetrical units. American Public Health Association, 1979 to present. Oregon Education Association, 1988 to present. Juvenile Services Coe~nlsslon, State of Oregon, Served as Chairperson of committee that administered funds for programs for juveniles at risk. Fishing, fresh and salt water. Cross country skiing. Skeet shooting. Boating and swimming ~ ~PAR~ ~SSION 10-14-03 RECEIVED OCT! 11993 IVlOUI & INSP. Attention: Ed Shukle, City Manager c/o Park Commission For the better part of my 29 years, I have found my greatest pleasure outdoors. Now I want the opportunity to return the favor to our community. Preserving what we have enjoyed, and enriching it for our childrens' children, should be our greatest concern. My name is David Steinbring. I grew up in New Hope, I spent most of my time in Park and Recreation activities. In 1982 1 graduated from E.$. Cooper High School. Moving on to the North Hennepin Community College I pursued a 2 year Liberal Arts Degree. Along the way, 1984, I was named a Junior College Football All-American. Continuing my education took me to St. Cloud State. For five years I have resided in Mound with my wife Patricia, and our two children, Kjesfine and Patrick. I am presently employed in Plymouth with Baxter Diagnostics. The Park Commission offers me an opportunity to be involved with the positive growth in Mound. I see a city with many assets to offer its citizens. You just can't build a lake! Thank you for considering me for the Park Commission. David Steinbfing 2992 Highview Lane Mound, MN. 55364 472-7771 MIN ES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1993 VTI · W ALP E On August 10, 1993, the City Council requested the Park and Open Space Commission to recommend 6 to $ properties as possible NCA's for the Council to review and designation of 3 to 4. The Commission recommended the following properties: 1. PID 24-117-24 44 0196: Located between Churchill and Dundee in Arden. This property is 16,400 square feet and has retained as a park, however, has not been named or developed. 2. PID 23-117-24 31 0077: North of Bartlett, end of Rusticwood (Rustic Place). This parcel is adjacent to the School District property already preserved as a nature study area. This parcel is a relatively undisturbed remnant of 'Big Woods" habitat. Classified as a Park. 3. PID 23-117-24 22 0003: Westedge Blvd. (old sewer plan0, a nice mixture of prairie, woodlands, and wetlands. This parcel is adjacent to other natural areas. Classified as a Park. 4. PID 19-117-23 33 0216: The north half of Doone Park at Doone and Tuxedo. This is a wooded area which the Commission would like to see developed with a walking path and perhaps a wild flower garden. This area is adjacent to an undeveloped grassy open space with no play structures. 5. PID 13-117-24 11 0064: An undersized 8,125 square foot parcel located in the R-I zone at the corner of Enchanted and Heron in Shadywood Point. For sale to adjoining property owners only. 6. PID 14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014: Diamond Lane, across the street from Philbrook Park and retained for drainage purposes. 7. PID 14-117-24 44 0057: Located west of Commerce Blvd. (behind Netlo's building) and south of Dakota Railroad abutting Langdon Lake. This area could be useful for a future trail system. MOTION made by Sclunidt, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to the City Council the above listed seven properties as Nature Conservation Areas. Motion carried unanimously. In December, the commission would like to discuss the access to Swenson Park used by bicycles and walkers. PID 24-11%24 44 0196: Located between Churchill and Dundee in Arden. This property is 16,400 square feet and has rctaJned as a park, however, has not been named or developed. ccc ,~ s~r~,e UAI~C~ESTER : .... (I~2)" :'.'.~]: (93) ) ';./ ,.-. / / (??8) 2. PID 23-117-24 31 0077: North of Bartlett, end of Rusticwood (Rustic Place). This parc~! is adja~nt.to the.School District property alrcady preserved aa a nature study ar~a. This parcel is a relativcly undisturbed remnant of "Big Woods' habitat. Classified as a Park. RUST I CWOOD ~ RD 5 '65. 3,) (78) 4.67 ( ~6) (90) (6) ~ ~ (7) ~ 4 -(~s) -~ (6~)~ SI 145 3,( 333,a 14 ::(85) 3s ~3/ (87) )' (4) , 14.? · 1?. 5 GGC '~0 ~: (11)~ ,4CS:aS 3t, l g PID 23-11%24 22 0003: Westedge Blvd. (old sewer plant), a nice mixture of prairie, woodlands, and wetlands. This parcel is adjacent to olher natural areas. Classified as a Park. ,, ,, lit ,i m, PID 19-117-23 33 0216: The north half of Doone Park al Doone and Tuxedo. This i$ a wooded area which the Commission would like to see developed with a walking path and p~rhaps n wild flower garden. This area is adjacent to an undeveloped grassy open space with no play structures. $ $ 19-117, PID 13-117-24 11 0064: An undersized 8,125 square foot parcel located in the R-I zone at the corner of Enchanted and Heron in Shad.ywood Point. For sale to adjoining property owners only. 13-117-24 GOV'I LUII RES ........ (WEST ARM) 2 PID 14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014: Diamond Lane, across the street from Philbrook P~k and retained for drainage purposes. · · · Z584.6? RES " 17-24 ~o.~.. 41 8 (43) (53) (55) ..... ( (5~) ( ( ~0 .,o.~s~ 8 (lO (7) _8 (6) (651 't' ~', (6g) (67) (aZ) . · Oi e PID 14-117-24 44 0057: Located west of Commerc~ Blvd. (behind Netka's building) and south of Dakota Railroad abutting Langdon Lake. This area could be useful for a future trail system. 5) (Za) 3,l T5 ~4 ?. ,~..~ I~-YNWOOD D~ VD ~5.05 5Z'45'7'1 .. i (63) t Z~O (~) 4-117-24 25Z3. 47 ,lES l GOVT LOT (6) 6 ,4-D 37e. 60 RES ~':~" .......... 1 " August 10, 1993 1.2 Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following: SUMMARY ORDINANCE J64-1993 A SUHMARY OF AN ORDINANCE ~DDING SECTION 319 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO HOUSING MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL HOUSING The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 DISCUSSION:. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) - TEAL POINTE The city Manager asked that this item be delayed to await the arrival of Bruce Chamberlain, city Planner. 1.4 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED NATURE CONSERVATION AREA (NCA'S) PLAN_ The city Manager explained that this has been an ongoing matter for some time. The Park & Open Space Commission and the Planner have now put together a Nature Conservation Area Plan and are recommending the Council adopt it. The Council discussed the plan and complimented the POSC for all their work on this project. The Council would like to see 3-5 sites designated NCA as an appropriate start to allow more detailed monitoring. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to accept the .Natu. re Conservation Area Plan from the Park & Open Spa?e Co_mmxsslon arcels they have surveyed as poss1Dle mua ~ LUL ~v, · Preview and designation of 3-4. The vote was unanimously ~n favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Julie Lilledahl, 3233 Tuxedo Blvd., stated she and the other landlords were not telling people there would be fees and inspections as was indicated at the July 27th meeting. She gave the Mayor a copy of the letter that was sent to rental property owners. The Mayor stated that there is a line in the letter that could lead people to believe the Council was considering fees and inspections - "(Rental licensing? Fees? Multiple inspections?)". Vince Forstyke, 3131 Inverness, asked for a copy of the ordinance and summary. He was given one. 241 CITY OF MOUND Nature Conservation Areas Plan July, 1993 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. City of Mound Nature Conservation Areas Plan CONTENTS Introduction Def'mition Site Inventory NCA Designation Parameters NCA Uses Costs Administration Action Plan 1 2 2 4 6 7 10 10 INTRODUCTION In 1991, the City of Mound updated its Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use section of the plan, only 9% of Mound's land is presently vacant. The community is rapidly approaching full development. Significant areas of Mound were originally seasonal cabins located on small lots. Over time, these seasonal structures have been rebuilt and converted into year-round residences. This conversion process has resulted in relatively dense concentrations of single-family housing. Such a development pattern places an emphasis on the need for open space to provide a balance to residential, commercial and industrial land uses. In reaction to information contained in the Land Use section of the plan, one of the recommendations found in the Recreation section of the plan stated that Mound should expand its existing ownership of nature areas and open space. The plan went on to identify tax forfeited land as one possible source of nature and open space areas. Frequently, land becomes tax forfeit because it is unbuildable due to topography, soil conditions or the presence of wetland areas. These development constraints are desirable qualities for open space and nature areas. Some tax forfeit properties are buildable lots. Buildable tax forfeit properties may be just as important to preserve as non-buildable properties. Upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan update, the Mound Park and Open Space Commission compiled a detailed listing of sites that have the potential to be added as open space and nature areas. Since 1991, these sites have generally been known as Nature Conservation Areas (NCA). The purpose of this plan is to provide an analysis of the process of determining which properties in the community should be designated as Nature Conservation Areas. This plan does not undertake a parcel by parcel analysis of all candidate sites. That review is being completed by the Park and Open Space Commission at this time and will need to continue to be done in the future as additional sites are identified. The designation of parcels as Nature Conservation Areas ultimately needs to be made by the Mound City Council upon receipt of recommendations from the Mound Park and Open Space Commission. This plan addresses the following general issues: · What is a nature conservation area? · What sites should be considered for designation as nature conservation areas? · How should nature conservation areas be used? · How will such areas be administered and maintained? · What are the costs of establishing such a program? Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 1 7o7 DEFINITION_ What is a Nature Conservation Area? Nature Conservation Areas have been def'med by the Mound Park and Open Space Commission as, "City owned and/or controlled lands which are, or could be, essentially natural and would conserve flora and fauna. Such areas are to be established in recognition of the benefits of preserving natural open space for present and future generations." SITE INVENTORY What sites should be considered for designation as Nature Conservation Areas? In answering this question, the Mound Park and Open Space Commission has taken a comprehensive look at all publicly owned land. Exhibit 1 identifies 255 parcels which were identified in a survey completed in March of 1992 as potential nature conservation area sites. These sites are categorized as follows: 1. Wetlands - Property either owned by the City of Mound or property conveyed to the City by the State of Minnesota (tax forfeited land). This category contains 67 parcels. 2. Park/Conservation. - City owned land currently used as park and open space areas. This category contains 64 parcels. 3. Public Buildin~ - Existing public buildings such as city hall, public works, pump houses, fire department, etc. 4. _City Controlled Land_s - Land used for utility purposes, drainage, streets, the cemetery or land that has been otherwise classified as unbuildable. This category combined with public buildings contains 94 parcels. 5. Tax Forfeit Pro e for Sale to Ad'oinin Pro eft Owners Onl - Property that has been released to Hennepin County and is currently for sale to adjoining property owners only. This category contains 25 parcels. 6. Tax Forfeit Property_ Released for Public Auction. - Property that has been released to Hennepin County and is currently available for purchase through public auction. This category contains 5 parcels. Of the 255 parcels categorized in items 1 - 6 above, 225 parcels are under the direct control of the City of Mound. The remaining 30 parcels which were tax forfeited property have undergone prior review by the City. The result of the reviews that were conducted was a determination that these parcels were of more value to adjoining property owners or other Mound NCA Plan 2 Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 KEY: ~ Wetland- Either City Owned or Conveyed to the City by The State (Tax Forfeited Land) ~J~ Park/Conservation. City Owned ~' Public Buildings (City)o (Wells, Fire Dept., City Hall, Public Works, Etc.) I Under City Control - Used For Utility, Drainage, Street, Cemetary, or is Unbuildable · Tax Forfeit Property For Sale To Adjoining Property Owners Only ~ Tax Forfeit Property Released For Public Auction H CITY OF OUND MINNESOTA Exhibit I PRELIMINARY NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS L A K .E il' M I N N E \ \ / / / // ~ / _./ Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 individuals than they were to the City. Consequently, they were released to Hennepin County for sale to private parties. If it is later determined that some of these parcels are appropriate as Nature Conservation Areas, they can be reclaimed from the County providing they have not yet been sold to private parties. Exhibit 1 does not include all property held by the City of Mound. Commons property and various street rights-of-way are not included on the map since they do not have property identification numbers. In general, these areas include the following: · Devon Commons · Brighton Commons · Wiota Commons · Waurika Commons · Wawonassa Commons · Waterside Commons · Unimproved rights-of-way (fire lanes) that provide access to Dutch Lake, Lake Langdon or Lake Minnetonka · Unimproved rights-of-way with widths 15 feet or greater providing access to Lake Minnetonka In order to assess the features and quality of each of the potential Nature Conservation Area sites, the Mound Park and Open Space Commission developed a uniform survey. The survey (Appendix A) contained 8 questions, all of which were structured to define the site's land use and natural habitat characteristics. The survey forms, combined with photographs of many of the areas constitutes a comprehensive inventory of each of the candidate sites. NCA DESIGNATION PARAMETERS The key to addressing the identification of sites eligible for designation as Nature Conservation Areas is establishing a set of uniform parameters that can be applied to all candidate sites. Prior to discussing specific parameters, it is appropriate to further investigate the def'mition and purpose of Nature Conservation Areas. In accordance with the definition compiled by the Mound Park and Open Space Commission, NCA's are sites that either are or could become "natural". The emphasis of the definition is nature which implies an area with few, if any man made intrusions. Therefore, active parks within the City of Mound should not be considered as Nature Conservation Areas since their purpose is distinctly different from the passively oriented natural areas. This does not imply, however, that passive, natural areas that are part of larger active parks cannot receive NCA status. Publicly owned wetlands are, however, consistent with the definition and purpose of Nature Conservation Areas since they represent the preservation of a natural resource rather than an active use by people. Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 4 3')1o Assuming the premise that Nature Conservation Areas are passive spaces that emphasize nature, the following are offered as parameters to be used in assessing candidate sites and assigning NCA designations. Type of Use - Nature Conservation Areas should not have existing active uses nor should such uses be planned for NCA sites. Active uses are generally defined as facilities that accommodate individual or group athletic endeavors or provide physical exercise or structured play opportunities. Site Size - The size of a Nature Conservation Area should not be limited by some arbitrary minimum or maximum standard. It is possible to have natural areas that contribute to the well being of the community that are of various sizes. Realistically, however, the area and dimensions of potential NCA sites needs to be considered. For example, a narrow strip of land that is five or ten feet wide may provide natural habitat, however, the total contribution of open space that it makes is so small that its designation as an NCA seems questionable. Amount of Existing Open Space in the Vicinity - The review of any potential NCA site should consider the amount of existing open space in the immediate vicinity. If a potential NCA site is in an area that has significant publicly owned natural areas and unless the vegetation and features of the candidate site are truly unique, the site may be more appropriate for private ownership. In such cases, the City may consider retaining a conservation easement to protect the land. Site Characteristics - Sites containing unique flora, fauna or other natural characteristics are eligible for NCA designation. Sites that have the potential to be readily reclaimed by natural vegetation are also worthy of consideration. Historic and Archaeological Characteristics - Sites containing historic and archaeological resources are also eligible for NCA consideration. Indian mounds, fossil relics and other features could be preserved by the NCA designation. An on-site survey may be necessary to best identify these characteristics. ° Noxious Weeds - Vacant lots typically become the home of noxious weeds and other plant materials that present an unsightly appearance. The designation of an NCA should not occur simply to manage or remove an existing weed problem. Sites should meet the other parameters identified herein rather than base the decision on the need to control unwanted vegetation. ° Illegal Dumping - Unfortunately, vacant lots also become the home of unwanted household items. Although illegal, the dumping of such materials occurs occasionally throughout the City of Mound. NCA status should not be used solely as a tool to help prevent illegal dumping from occurring. However, it is also acknowledged that illegal dumping could be mitigated by NCA designation. Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 '?11 Use of Adioining Properties - Parameters 1 - 8 focus on how the NCA will impact the surrounding area. It is also necessary to consider the reverse of this situation. Parcels that border on existing land uses that negatively impact the use of a site as a natural area should not receive NCA status. An example may be a small tract of land immediately adjacent to a county road which is so impacted by noise, emissions and salt spray in the winter months that its function as a natural area is significantly impaired. Such parcels may be more appropriately owned and used by private parties to provide additional buffering from the source of the negative impacts. Zoning Status of Adjacent Properties - Mound's historic development pattern has resulted in properties which do not comply with current zoning standards. These parcels are classified as nonconforming lots due to various factors but frequently due to lot size. If a parcel eligible for NCA status lies adjacent to a lot that is nonconforming due to lot area, sale of the parcel to the abutting property owner may result in the creation of a lot that meets the zoning standards. In such cases, it would benefit both the community as well as the property owner to release such a parcel for sale. If the lot has unique natural characteristics, mechanisms other than NCA designation and public ownership could be employed to ensure resource preservation. One such method would be the City retaining a conservation easement. NCA USES. As the definition implies, Nature Conservation Areas are to be established in recognition of the benefits of preserving natural open space. Therefore, any uses which threaten the primary purpose of resource preservation are inappropriate. Uses that are consistent with purpose of establishing Nature Conservation Areas can be classified into two major types: 1. Habitat - The provision of habitat for plants and animals is a valid use for Nature Conservation Areas. Depending on site characteristics, this type of use can be accommodated through the protection of existing habitat areas or through the planting or re--establishment of habitat where degradation has occurred. 2. Recreation - Nature observation is a passive recreational pursuit. Except in cases of extremely sensitive ecological situations, Nature Conservation Areas should be accessible to the general public. In order to provide accessibility, low intensity improvements should be considered to accommodate passive recreation. Examples of such improvements may include trails, benches and identification signage for significant plant species. Mound NCA Plan 6 Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 Although perhaps not specifically defined as a use, aesthetics is another aspect of Nature Conservation Areas. The vistas afforded by an open field or the colors, textures and shade of a wooded area enhance a community by providing contrast to the built environment. COSTS Cost is an issue that needs to be addressed in the establishment of Nature Conservation Areas. In general, three types of costs need to be considered. They include acquisition, restoration and maintenance. Acquisition Costs Acquisition costs can be considered as either direct or indirect. Direct costs result from the purchase of private lands by public entities. In this case, the public entity is most likely the City of Mound. At the present time, all of the parcels being considered for designation as Nature Conservation Areas are already in public ownership through tax forfeiture or through donation by private parties. Therefore, at this point in time direct acquisition cost is not an issue. In the future, however, the City may consider the purchase of significant private parcels for inclusion in an overall system of Nature Conservation Areas. If and when such an event occurs, it will be possible to quantify the costs and determine if appropriate funding is available. The establishment of Nature Conservation Areas also creates indirect costs that are possible to quantify. Indirect costs are principally related to property tax implications. At public meetings on various municipal issues, a common statement is that property should be "put back on the tax roles." Such statements are frequently made based on emotion rather than fact. In order to assess the indirect costs related to property taxes resulting from retaining land as Nature Conservation Areas, 24 random properties that are currently designated as "released" for public sale were selected. The corresponding values placed on the properties by Hennepin County range from $500 to $5000 and have a mean value of $1620. The total value of the 24 properties is $38,900. In reviewing land values with the County Assessor, there is no general value standard that is used for all land parcels. Tax forfeit parcels may have more value than identified by the County if their purchase and subsequent combination by a land owner results in the creation of a conforming zoning lot. For example, a lot having 8,000 square feet in the residential zone that requires 10,000 square feet may see an increase in value if it can be combined with a tax forfeit lot that is 2,000 square feet in size. The following examples illustrate the tax implications of NCA designation. Both examples rely on the following assumptions: 1. The tax rate on all properties under $72,000 is 1%. Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 7 Property taxes (payable 1993) will be distributed in the following manner: City of Mound rate: 19.842% Hennepin County rate: Westonka School rate: Misc. rate: Total rate: 41.869% 58.714% 1.770% 122.195% _Example 1 - Indirect Costs Example 1 consists of a tax forfeit lot with a total size of 3,200 square feet and a corresponding value of $1,000. For the purposes of this example, this lot will be known as Parcel B. The parcel immediately south of the lot (Parcel A) is non--conforming since it does not contain the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The following illustrates the combination of parcels A and B. Value: Parcel A = $31,000 Parcel B = $1,000 Total Existing Tax for Parcel A: ($31,000)(.01)(1.22195) = $378.00 Mound Share of Existing Tax for Parcel A: ($31,000)(.01)(. 19842) = $61.50 Total Tax for Parcels A and B: ($32,000)(.01)(1.22195) = $391.00 Mound Share of Tax for Parcels A and B: ($32,000)(.01)(.19842) = $63.50 Based on the value supplied by the County, putting Parcel B "back on the tax rolls" results in a total tax increase of $13.00, of which $2.00 goes to the City of Mound. In this particular case, however, the actual combined value may be higher than $32,000 since the combination results in a conforming zoning lot. Without specifically reviewing the property, the County will not speculate on how much if any value increase would occur in this example. In all likelihood, however, any increase will not result in substantially higher tax benefits to the City of Mound. Example 2 - Indirect Cost.s. Example 2 consists of a tax forfeit parcel with a total size of 6,250 square feet and a corresponding value of $1,500. In this example, this parcel will be known as Parcel D. All parcels surrounding the tax forfeit lot are conform to all zoning lot size requirements. If an adjacent property owner (Parcel C) was interested in adding the tax forfeit lot to his or her property, it would result in the following: Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 8 Value: Parcel C = $46,800 Parcel D = $1,500 Total Existing Tax for Parcel C: ($46,800)(.01)(1.22195) = $571.87 Mound Share of Existing Tax for Parcel C: ($46,800)(.01)(.19842) = $92.86 Total Tax for Parcels C and D: ($48,300)(.01)(1.22195) = $590.00 Mound Share of Tax for Parcels C and D: ($48,300)(.01)(.19842) = $95.83 In this particular example, the value of Parcel D would not likely exceed the $1,500 figure since it is not needed by any of the surrounding properties to meet zoning requirements. The results of this example are very similar to Example 1. Mound does not see substantial tax benefit from putting Parcel D "back on the tax roles." In this case, the total benefit is approximately $3.00 per year. If all 24 of the randomly selected parcels were put "back on the tax roles", they would increase the total amount of taxes collected by approximately $475.00. Mound's share of this tax increase would be approximately $77.00. In considering the designation of Nature Conservation Areas, indirect costs related to property taxes should not be a major factor in decisions because of their minimal effect on municipal revenues. Restoration Costs Restoration costs are related to the type and magnitude of restoration undertaken. Therefore, it is impossible to budget a general amount for site restoration without specific reference to a given parcel of land and the extent of restoration needed. For example, restoration of wetland areas can involve extensive efforts including dredging, construction of detention basins and other improvements which are very costly. For most NCA sites, it is presumed that restoration will consist primarily of establishing or re-establishing various types of plants. Again, planting costs will vary with the amount plant materials needed. The following is a general guide: Shade Tree (3" caliper) Coniferous Evergreen Tree (8' height) Deciduous Shrub (3' height) Tall Grass Seed (per acre) Wildflowers, Grasses & Sedges (per acre) Wildflowers (per acre) $ 275.00 $ 225.00 $ 22.00 $ 325.00 $2150.00 $2950.00 Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 9 3 The above prices are for plant materials only. If neighbors or other groups are unavailable to install plant materials, the above prices should be multiplied by a factor ranging from 1.5 to 2.0. Maintenance Costs Maintenance costs associated with the establishment of Nature Conservation Areas are difficult to estimate. The difficulty in estimating maintenance costs occurs because the concept of NCA's is unique to Mound and comparable facilities do not exist. Therefore, estimates of maintenance costs require speculation. Maintenance associated with Nature Conservation Areas is likely to include principally clean-up and vegetation removal. Unfortunately, undeveloped parcels are sometimes sites for illegal dumping. When this occurs, the City bears the responsibility of absorbing the clean up costs. At the present time, the City of Mound annually spends between $15,000 and $20,000 on tree removal and cleaning up dumped debris. As NCA's become established, the cost of these items may rise. Based on current costs, it is not unreasonable to assume that the establishment of Nature Conservation Areas could result in an annual maintenance budget increase ranging from $2,500 to $5,000 to account for debris and vegetation removal. Application of the Adopt a Green Space Program to Nature Conservation Areas has the potential to reduce the budget increase for maintenance. ADMINISTRATION Upon establishment, Nature Conservation Areas become publicly owned land under the control of the City of Mound. Therefore, they will become the administrative and maintenance responsibility of existing City departments. The Mound Park Department is the logical choice for administration and maintenance of all NCA areas in accordance with policies and budgets approved by the City Council. Establishment of additional Nature Conservation Areas may also increase administrative costs. For example, if NCA's are "adopted" by neighborhood groups, City staff will need to provide a plan or field direction for clean-up and improvement efforts. ACTION PLAN. The old saying that you need to learn to walk before you can run applies directly to Nature Conservation Areas. Nature Conservation Areas are unique to Mound. There is no model available from other communities that can be applied. As a result, the process of establishing NCA's will be, to a certain extent, one of "developing the rules as you go along." The effectiveness of administrative policies, the scope of costs involved and required maintenance efforts will be defined over a period of time based on experience. Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 10 Based upon the information contained within this report, the following action plan steps are recommended for consideration: ° o The Park and Open Space Commission should conduct a detailed review of all existing candidate NCA sites and organize them into priority groups. For example, the Commission may establish three groups with the highest ranked sites containing significant natural amenities or those sites eligible for immediate sale which contain appropriate natural features. The Commission may want to consider establishing a decision matrix incorporating the NCA Designation Parameters contained within this report to assist in the objective evaluation of potential sites. Initial designation of NCA's should occur on a limited basis. If the City proceeds to establish such areas, it may be appropriate to start with an initial designation of 3 to 5 areas to allow for detailed monitoring. Promote application of the existing Adopt a Green Space program to Nature Conservation Areas. Consider encouraging or possibly requiring adoption of NCA's by neighborhood or community groups as a prerequisite of NCA status. Investigate other methods of preserving open space areas. Establishing conservation easements on parcels sold to abutting property owners or deeding various sites to organizations such as the Nature Conservancy may be viable alternatives to the City of Mound retaining ownership of all NCA parcels. Publicize Nature Conservation Areas. Making the public aware of the existence of and value of NCA's will assist in soliciting groups to adopt or sponsor various sites. When possible, tax forfeited parcels should be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission prior to being reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Nature Conservation Areas program should be viewed as an ongoing process. Additional parcels can be added to the system at any time in the future so long as f'mancial resources are available. Continually monitor the successes and failures of the program and make adjustments accordingly. Mound NCA Plan Draft 3 - July 22, 1993 1 1 APPENDIX A Site No. MOUND GREEN SPACE SURVEY Site name/location: Site P.I.D. No.: Surveyor: Date: Size of area (acres, square feet) City owned: yes Site Use: no 1. % Forest cover Trees: Maple Willow Ash Cottonwood Bitternut Hickor~ Conifer Spring Flowers: Dutchman's Breeches Trillium Bellwort Hepatica-- Columbine". Wild Ginger other flowers: Shrubs and other plants: Basswood Oak . Ironwood _ Elm other Bloodroot Solomon slal .... Gentian Lily . , or Animals: 2. % Prairie cover Other plants: Spring beauty .. Butterflyweed 3. % Wetlands % open water Cattails , Water Lily plants: Animals: % purple loosestrife , Blue Flag . Other 4. Unusual or unique plants, animals, or other features: 5. % Disturbance Evidence of disturbance (animals, buildings, cultivation, human abuse, etc.): 6. Threats to site (alien plants such as buckthorn, tartarian honeysuckle, or purple loosestrife; insects; disease; human abuse; etc.): 7. Surrounding land use: (agriculture %, commercial %, recreational %, residential ~%, other ~). Describe in detail, including density of development and proximity to other green space: 8. Conservation/Management needs (improvements): Photo: yes no (on back) Other comments (use reverse side, if necessary): CITY of MOUND MOUND MU',~NE~,QTA 55!~c :{87 ~6!2, .:72 CESO FAX ~6~,2 -~,72 3(L'C October 22, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLEv CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION REGARDING GRANT APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF GOVERNMENT iNNOVATION AND COOPERATION lution and a draft application example Attached is a res0. ~ ~--~- of three separate grant supporting in concept the applications that will be submitted to the State Board of nd Coo eration to assist in financing Government Innovation a · P- -- ~he" relate to recreation planning service sharing projects services, public safety and personnel management services under the lake area cities cooperation study. · ' s involved with the lake area study is Each of the clt~e .... ~ ..... ~ch will accompany the gran? · ' ~U~£~II Dassinq a s~m~lar re~ _ -- ~~ ta Board of Governmen~ ~ ..-£~-~ ~ the state o~ ~.,~,, .... o ~_,.. ~n 00 for eacn ~o app£1c~uxv~,o =~__ ~ ~eain anDroxlmau=~ ¢~, Innovation and Coopera~zun grant application. The deadline for the applications is November 5, 1993. The resolution does not commit any city to mandatory participation in the planning or service sharing; if one or more grants are received, flexibility will still be maintained. The resolution is only providing support to the concept of submitting the grants in the above three areas. The actual applications have been developed by subcommittees of the steering committee. Kay Zwernik, Metropolitan Council Planner and the facilitator of our study, is doing the technical work on the applications. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:is printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION REGARDING GRANT APPLICATIONS TO BOARD OF GOVERNMENT INNOVATION AND COOPERATION WHEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota is a party to an agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the cities of Chanhassen, Deephaven, Excelsior, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Wayzata and Woodland (here-in-after referred to as "the cities") to explore opportunities for improving cooperation between the cities relative to the provision of public services; and WHEREAS, the cities have identified the potential for improved cooperation in a number of services delivery areas and have selected for initial concentration the areas of recreation services, public safety and personnel management services; and WHEREAS, the cities have identified the need for additional planning activities before the potential for improved cooperation can be realized in the areas of recreation and public safety; and WHEREAS, the cities have identified start up costs that must be paid prior to the implementations of a cooperative personnel management system; and WHEREAS, the State Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation is now accepting applications for competitive grant applications for Cooperation Planning Grants and Service Sharing Grants; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned planning and implementation needs ofthe cities are deemed to be projects which are eligible for funding by the State Board's grant programs; and WHEREAS, initial application deadline for the aforementioned grant programs, combined with the time it will take to finalize the cities' grant applications, preclude the Mound City Council from adopting a resolution in support of the specific grant applications. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mound City Council supports, in concept, the submission of three separate grant applications to the State Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation to help fund the aforementioned cooperation planning and service sharing projects. 37 / BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that at the request of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation, the Mound City council will consider adopting a subsequent resolution prior to January 7, 1994 which pledges the support of the Mound City Council to all aspects of the grant applications that are to be submitted to the State Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk BOARD OF GOVERNMENT INNOVATION AND COOPERATION APPLICATION FORM Application For A Service Sharing Grant Name of particlpa~g local govemrnent unlts. Fourteen cities including Ch anhassen, Deephaven, Exceh/or, Mi- n_¢tonka, Minnetonka Beach, M/nnetr/sta, Mound, Orono, Shorcwood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Wayzata and Woodland. l~arne~ addresl and telephone number of an individual who ir able to respond to que~ns regarding the grant applicatt'o~ Name~ ~ Position: Address: Mctropol/tan CouflciJ 230 East Fifth Street St, Paul. ~ $5101 Telephone Numbert What ir the specific ~ervice(s) or program(l) wlu'ch are to be provided under a Hared servicer agreement between the participating local unity of govemment? How will thi~ shared lervice~ agreement be different from trbting shared xervices arrangements? Fxplain how other, non. participating local government~ may be~fit from thi~ project. The service to be provided is a shared human r~r, ources and personnel service. In this litigious society it is ~remely important for al/citie~ regardless of size to comply 100 percent with all laws and requirements. However, it ~ very dif~ult, if not impom'bI~ to b~ an ~'p~rt or knowledgeable in all of the personnel matters cities are required to comply with today. In all but two cases, the cities arc unable to assign human re. sources responsibilities to a city employee. As a result, dr/es Uy to learn as much as thcy can about a new law or mandate. The service will provide specialized policy level aid to thc particfpating cities. The nccd for human resources services vary from city to city. i~ach city would participate and r_,'x~__ive services based on thc needs it identities. It it also expected that thc ncc& of each city would change from year to year. Cities have idcn~ed the follow/ag as services they would potentially be interested in uu'llzing: Revising and/or completing pcnonncl policies Rev/sing job descriptions to comply with new laws Assessment of ADA needs Developing a family medical leave policy Receiving updates and interpretations of state and federal legislation in thc human rc~ourc4~ ar~a Developing s~aff training plato or pmgram~ among cftlea (performance r~, P~ ~ul~ ~rU ~r the ~pment of fo~ (u~ app~on fo~) ~ti~ ~g ~bor ~gotistio~t ~ acrviex will not provide dh~:t employee supervision. Records, revieu~, individual i~ue~ will remain the re,potability of each individual city. Thc Metropolitan Council will continue to provide t~hnie, al asslstaac~ and support to the fourteen citlc~ on thf~ project during the start.up yeac The Counc~ will help fac~itatc a tmooth prooc~ for dc~clophig H~c new ~ervtc0 and to lay the ground work for ils a~ured continuation, Thc ou]y other thared personnel ~ewice i~ Minnesota at the pr¢~cnt time ia aa agreement bc~ th~ ~;ltie~ of Faribault ~d Northfield and the county of Rice. One y~ar of a two- year agreement hu pax~cd. One individual i:t shared by the three units of ~cwerameat. Initially the ~ervice would direct ~ of ils activitle~ to thc 14 citic~ involved at a present time. In future yea~ it would I~ possible for cities such ~s St. Bonifa6us, Mcdina or Long La~ to partake, under a pur,;ha.s~ of ~:rvtc~ arrangemenL% in some of the ~vailable aids provtdcd by the s~rvi0~. It is also possiblc thai othm' lo~al malts considcring a replication of this model c~uld learn from this project Total amount el'state grant requested: $~0,000 .91eas~ hitntlf), all necessat), one-timt start-up c~ f~ ~ pm~sed shard se~ces. ~v~ a detn~ de~p~ of ~ ~an-~ com. I~ will sta~-up c~'ts ~ ~ be ~M ~ ~t ~nt ~ t~ B~ of ( ;~m~nt l~,a~ a~ C~pcra~n at~ width zm~-~ c~ a~ ~ ~ f~ f~ Ot~ S~ q ~. ldenti~ all o~tr :~c: of ~ve~ ~t w~ ~ ~ to ~ a ~n of thc stun-up ~. Start-up cesta for she penormel-shariag project am sclatlvcly simplc. Through an Rt,P process the citics will identit~ an entity that will most capably bc able to mcct thc identified needs of thc cities durl~ thc initial start.up ye~. The 6ti~s will enter into a contractual arr~gcmcnt with thc eatity for a melve-mon~ period. C?itie~ w~l provide support services for the entity such ss word procc~slng, copying, use of fax machine and telephone, meeting room spnc~,~ plu~ staff time as needed. TI~ Metropolitan Oauncll will provide technial assistal~c.g and OtbC~ support ag specked in the IRtached agreement. Proulds a coFy of the plan for offaing a x vcmmentat service under a jaint powers agreement with nnother local government un~ or with an asency of stat¢ govgrntnem. Abe. provide a cx~y of a resolution adopting tht plan pursuant to Minnesota Statues~ 465.80, sub.3. ~hc plan sltali lndude: U) a proposal to entsr into an agreement.for thc joint e.r~rcis'e ofpowers under l~in~sota statutes, ~71.~9, that will result in ~ ~ul~ ~tegrated sereice or function pruv~Ied b~ the eligible local unlt of government and one or more other government units at defined in 3dCmn~ota Statutes, 471.59. In late 1992 foun~n cities in the Lake Minnetonka area wrote thc Metropolitan Council and asked for assistance in helping them look at a variety of s~nric~ offered by thc cities and for better or less eapcmiv~ way~ to delivar them. Th~ Metropolitan Council responded by incorporating the offer of technical assistance and support into its vn~rk plan. Be~nning in JanuarY 1993 the 14 cities and Council staff began meeting monthly to discuss what specific assistance the cities wanted and what support the Council might be able to offer. In lale spring the cities and the Council worked to develop an agreement that speciBes the roles and reapomibiliti~ of the cities and the Council. On June 30 the propmal was presented to the elected officials. Representativm from all of thc cities were present at the mocting and had opportunities to ask qucations and recc~ clarification. Flexibility has been stressed throughout the discussions devcloptng this agreement. The cities all agree about the mutual benefit of looking at further pot, aibilities for sharing acrviccs. However, all c/ties also understand that every city docs not need to participate in all thc ~pec/fic services studied. In addition each city that is participating in a new or different shared service may chcx3se a different level of participation. During the months of June and July all thc citica passed a resolution agreeing to participate in thc three-year project. During the months of Suly and August thc agreements were passed from city to city to obtain thc signatures of each city's mayor and city admtn;<trator/manager. The Metropolitan Council also pa.ued a resolution agreeing to provide support for the project for three yeats and signed the agreements. F. ach city received in early Scptembcr an original agreement signed by all the participants. The only reservation exp~ by several of the dries was, 'Will this be just another layer of government making more rules and causing mom meetings?' This concern was ezpressed quite vociferously. "No more layers ofk, ovcrnmentI, City representatives were assured there would be no more layers of government. Thc intentions of those who formed the agreement was to keep it as simple as poss~1¢. For thc above rca.mn the cities are extremely reluctant m £orm a joint powers agreement in addition to the agreement already signed. They foci the current arrangement is sufficient and in concert with thc sentiments of the local officials, tpecific projection~ of annual cost sa~ing~ or more efficient service operations that are reasonable 1~ to result from the combintd ten, ice or function (the plan mu~t thoroughly document how the projected cast ~avingg (f any, were determined,, all one. time only ~tart-up costs should not be Included in determining the cost of providing the servg'ce under the share tervic¢ agreement). More efficient and enhanced respouse to human rcsourc~ dcmands will be realized in thc first year. At the pr~cnt time human re~urc~ nee& arc being met in three ways: 1) the re~pov, s~ilities for personnel it, sum arc part of a staff person's job dc~cription, usually an tmistant city manager; 2) thc city admintttrator/manager tries to read up on a subject or go to a workshop to lcam the new laws or procedures; or 3) the city contracts out for the The first way is inefficient because so many other matters are of pressing importance for the assistant cfty manager that it if dif~ult to devote the time necessary for human resourc_~_ issues and polices because they are, extremely time consuming. The second way is also inefficient because city administrators have many respoasibilides. As a t~esult, personnel policies and procedures can often not be current or in complete legal compliance because the time simply is not avm'lable to dm,otc to them. The third way is extremely ~pemive for small cities. One city has so fat this year paid out ~,.500 just for rewriting job descriptions, and they ar~ only half completed to date. Smaller cities generally do not ~ct ~ide or budget for specific personncl cxpe~. Needs in this area usually arL~ after the budget has already been adopted and then the necessary dollars are taken from the general fund. One of thc participating citie~ with a population of less than $,000 has already spent over $8,000 this year on consultants for personnel related functions. A sun, ey of actual dollars spent in recent years on personnel.related concerns has not be conducted yet, but one will bo completed during the start-up year. By doing a survey thc project can determine what thc current and past financial commitments have been. This will help formulatc thc service requirements for 1995 for budget planning purposes. evidence of the need for ftnancial as~tance to meet start-up costs that would be entaited in providing the combined service or functior~ Explain why cristing resources, or projected program ~aving~ can not be used for the start-up co~ts. While the needs of the cities for h~man resources services have been identified through a group brain-storming process, the budgets in the cities have already been dc~cloped for 1994. Specific dollars to start th~ service hav~ not been allocated because the cities just began to identify services to be investigated at the end of July when the sigaed a~rcemcnt (attached) became effective. .Once the start-up costs have been met and cities have a better idea how much time (service) each will need, the individual cities can set aside money for the 1995 budget year. During thc start.up year, a formula w~ be developed for each city's participation. List thc desired outcomes from thc proposed shared ser4ces agreement. How will they be mcasured: a) City employees will be a more informed work force. Whilc technical tr~.'ning will still be the rcspons~ility of individual departments within cities, cross-city or multi-city training can be provided on general topi~ such as: customer service, aexual harassment, thc right to know, diversity in thc work place, harassment, AWAIR, blood pathogen policies and cumulative trauma injuries, to name a few. Joint training will reduce cost~ to cities by not iadividually hL, ing trainers or sending all employees to workshops. Results can be measured in numbers of people trained, fewer complaints and grievances, training dollan saved and improved morale. ~fies will have rcduced exposure to liability claims ~d Po~ ~11 ~ d~lo~ ~h w~ b~ ~t~ ~ormi~ ~ ~ ~ci~ and ~d f~r~ ~ ~d m~dnt~. ~tt~ ~llci~ and pr~ 'a~mp~ t~g ~ r~u~ ~le ~nsiti~ ~m such agc~cim ~ ~e ~partment by Human ~ ~P~nt uf ~p/oyee Rehtlo~ PoHu~n ~ntml ~e~ and thc n~ ~ericans ~ N~ ~ ~ well ~ Up~d~ ~ei~ ~H d~ ~ernbili~ ~d ~g ~r ~n~ ~e ~lfi~ Cu~nt~ h many d~ ~e~ ~ a I~k of fo~ ~n ~R~ ~ ~r d~h~ to de~p ~Uer ~, thc ~i~ ~k ~ t~ a p~t~ appma~ rn~er ~n a ~acti~ on~ ldentR'y the minimum length of timc the purtlclpatfng local governments a~c committed to implcmcnt~ng the plan. l). Hav. c the governing bodies of thc local units of£overnment parsed resolutions approving the appl~catlou fur the Service Sharing Grant? ~ Yes Copies Of All Resolutions Ate Attached To The Appl~cation. 10. It' applicable, ~ the governin~ bod~ca of thc local government units provided a copy of this application to the excl~ive employee tepreacntat~v~ as certified under Af~nnc~ota Stutute, 17gA. 12? ~ Not Appli~ble To ~ best of oar imowle~e, all Information contained la ~ application is a~:urate nad eOmplete. SJ~tftture 11tie FOR OCTOBER 26, 1993, COUNCIL MEETING: ADDITIONAL LICENSES: 1. HEADLINER'S BAR & GRILL - 3 ADDITIONAL GAMES OF SKILL LICENSES - 1 ADDITIONAL POOL TABLE LICENSE BILLS- October 26, 1993 BATCH 3102 TOTAL BILLS $132,133.19 $132,133.19 U i0 I j~ 0 I I I I I I!1 I I!1 I 0000 Z ii} · N ° 3 0 o IZ ,4:) ° ,-4 33Z I ~lZ ~-'~ 1:~ lad , ~' ~ la, ~r~ Z I I I~ I I I I I I fl I I I I I .t (:DO ! ! ! ! CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT SEPT. 1993 75. OO% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets Shop & Stores City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers SEPT. 1993 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 57 50O 2 000 1 380 17O 38O 2 140 46 550 145 900 24 000 79 000 779 200 4 000 138.440 406 750 17 100 97 160 174 340 33 1 O0 1 (] 000 136,840 2,613 (339) 0 19,374 70 18 15,127 910 4,552 89,149 0 13,474 33,061 505 5,517 14,252 0 250 10,243 42,980 1,302 711 129,134 2,266 46,949 107 530 19 074 64 898 565 672 2 615 95 194 269. 648 4,080 68,477 130,001 5,982 1,340 92,190 14,52O 74.75% 698 65.1 O% 669 51.52% 41,246 75.79% (126) 105.89% (399) 100.86% 38,370 73.70% 4,926 79.48% 14,102 82.15% 213,528 72.60% 1,385 65.38% 43,246 68.76% 137,102 66.29% 13,020 23.86% 28,683 70.48% 44,339 74.57% 27,118 18.07% 8,660 13.40% 44,650 67.37% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2 325 780 208,776 I 650 043 675 737 70.95% Area Fire Service Fund 244,200 17,185 197,992 46,208 81.08% Recycling Fund 99,350 10,004 109,402 (10,052) 110.12% Liquor Fund 194,620 17,559 149,789 44,831 76.96% Water Fund 358,190 28,993 263,420 94,770 73.54% Sewer Fund 761,350 71,644 669,909 91,441 87.99% Cemetery Fund 4,790 519 3,276 1,514 68.39% Docks Fund 55,440 8,412 40,879 14,561 73.74% exp-93 10/18/93 G.B. CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT SEPT. 1993 75.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND SEPT. 1993 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,217,590 0 556,841 3,260 25 10,271 69,500 3,530 50,152 860,500 64,567 491,774 48,750 822 8,224 65,000 5,870 38,971 58,500 5,350 20,609 1_2,390 1,286_ 11,450 VARIANCE (660,749) 7,011 (19,348) (368,726) (40,526) (26,029) (37,891) (940) 2,335,490 81.450 1,1 88,292 (1,147,198) 244,200 29,758 239,606 (4,594) 113,550 3,255 71,390 (42,160) 1,200,000 102,480 977,414 (222,586) 350,000 28,003 252,193 (97,807) 650,000 51,752 495,478 (154,522) 4,200 0 3,675 (525) 73,280 1 O0 70,879 (2,401) PERCENT RECEIVED 45.73% 315.O6% 72.16% 57.15% 16.87% 59.96% 35.23% 92.41% 50.88% 98.12% 62.87% 81.45% 72.O6% 76.23% 87.5O% 96.72% 10/18/93 rev-93 G.B. 3 MINUTES OF A NIEETING OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIF SION OCTOBER 11, 1993 Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Jerry Clapsaddle was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Dorothy L. Davis, Judith Ann Linquist, Burt C. Linquist, Norman Hemerick, Ming Jen Shirley Chen, Scott Schmieg, and Joe Fleischhacker. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1993 were presented for approval. Michael noted a correction on page 4, second to the last paragraph, first line, the word "of" should be "off". MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hanus to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 1993 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~93-048: BURT C. & JUDITH A. LINQUIST, 4879 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 40t SUBD. OF LOT8 I &32 S&L RAVENSWOODt PID ~13-117-24 41 0053. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a conforming 12' x 16' bedroom addition. The required setbacks and corresponding variances are as follows. Required Existing Variance HOUSE SIDE WEST 6' .35' 5.65' GARAGE FRONT 20' -1.0' 21.0' SIDE EAST 4' -0.5' 4.5' HARDCOVER 1,951 SQ FT 2,511 SQ FT 560 SQ.FT Including the proposed 192 square foot addition, the impervious surface coverage is at 38.6%, exceeding the allowable hardcover by 560 square feet. This case is difficult due to the fact that based on exterior observation, the existing nonconforming dwelling is in poor condition, it lacks proper frost footings, the rafters are sagging, etc. These and other issues result in the opinion of staff that it should be demolished at the earliest opportunity and this total site redeveloped with a suitable structure conforming to the ordinance. October 11, 1993 Planning commission Minutes City of Mound Staff recommended the Planning Commlss ~i~c%e~e d~%~%~n~rm~ variance request due to the poor cona structures on the site, and that the proposed addition does not represent an improvement to the nonconforming situations. Sutherland noted that he has not worked with the applicants on this request. Hanus referred to the encroaching garage and questioned if you can have a variance for more than the required setback. The structural condition of the dwelling was discussed. The applicant's noted that there is only a partial basement, approximately 10' x 15', · a slab on grade. The Building official the balance of ~he h~use ~s .... ~ .... nosed addition, an architect mmented that in 0r~er to D -.. dition could be compatible co ...... : .... howlna how an ad would have to suDml~ u~,= o ~ , have lived in this house with the existing structure. The applicant s for 26 years. Other concerns expressed by the commission included the increase to the already nonconforming impervious surface coverage, and what to do about the nonconforming detached garage. Voss and Johnson were not concerned about the minor increase in impervious surface, nor were they concerned about the location of the nonconforming garage as they are common in this area of town. weiland commented that more information is needed from the applicant. 'land seconded by Weiland to table this MOTION made by WeL [ 'souse the concerns Planning commlssl?n w~=9.~n'_"'T''i~ans showing that the applicants submi~ arcBi=ec~ura~ w~. - .... · structurally compatLble with the ex~s=~n9 add~tion can ~e ..... , ~h se in favor were Meyer[ dwellin · Motion carrLea · u~ *. __o .... Mueller~ Johnson~ Weiland, Jensen, Voss~ an~ Hanus. was opposed. Michael commented that he feels the Planning Commission should address the variance now, including hardcover and the issue of the garage, prior to requiring the applicant to spend money on architectural plans. The Building official summarized that he will review with the applicant the hardcover concerns, consideration of demolishing the detached garage, the concerns relating to the structural compatibility of the addition to the existing structure, and how staff should handle the variance relating to the garage encroachment on the right-of-way. CASE ~93-049~ [ SECTION 23 PID 33-117-24 14 0001. Building official, Jon sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to construct a deck within 10 feet of an indian mound. Variance Resolution $92-104 was approved for this property on August 11, 1992 to allow construction of an addition, however, the deck was not Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1993 City of Mound included in this approval as the applicant was undecided about his deck design at that time. The Shoreland Management Ordinance (SMO) was adopted on March 15, 1993 and requires a 50 foot setback to an unplatted cemetery or indian mound. The house itself is less than the required setback being located approximately 22 feet from the mound. Recognition of the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 3 feet to the dwelling is also required. The initial design of the deck was to come straight out, however, the applicant's architect has made every effort to redesign the deck to minimize the impact to the indian mound while maintaining reasonable use of the property. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as the request is a reasonable use of the property and every effort has been made to minimize the impact to the indian mound. Sutherland stated that he reviewed his staff report with Ceil Strauss of the DNR and she agreed with his recommendation. Jensen commented that before she would approve of this variance, she would like an opinion from some other agency, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The validity of the indian mound was questioned as there is no written documentation to verify that this is actually an indian mound. In addition, the indian mound was drawn on the survey by the applicant, how do they know for sure where it starts and stops? Mueller commented that in knowing some history about the City of Mound, he knows this area of town is notorious for having indian mounds and there is a book that will verify that this indian mound is documented. He is in favor of the variance as he feels the applicant is making an effort to minimize the impact to the indian mound. Hanus questioned if any other agencies need to be contacted or get involved with issues such as these. Weiland suggested that they get something in writing from another agency for the protection of the City and the owner. Weiland commented that he would also like to see the request approved as he feels the applicant is making an effort. MOTION made by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance request upon the following conditions: Staff verify other agency/organization involvement and jurisdictions and their response to this issue. Provide a written opinion from Ceil Strauss at the DNR. Motion seconded by Michael. Mueller is concerned about how the other agencies/organizations may respond. What if a negative response is received? The Planning Planninq Co~nisBion Minutes City of Mound October 11, 1993 Commission should be able to review the responses before they are forwarded to the council as it may change the Planning commission's recommendation. MOTION withdrawn by Hanus. N made b Mueller and seconded by Voss to tabl~ this MOTIO ....Y -~- ~*~-~ 25- 1993 Planning commission request un~x~ u.- v~.~--~_.. [_ -laced on the October 26, 'n and the rec~ues: snaAA ~ ~ meetl ~, ........ ._ Staff shall investigate other l~ couno1A ~9~au~' . 1993 C y ..... ~ .... . ..... "t and ~urisdictions and their aaencV/ or~anlza~/on Auv~v~--~- ~ .... * ~h~ e in i[21~2. ~2 ~is issue. Motion carrleo · ~ t .... ~~W~" ...... ~,~ . Johnson, Neiland, Jensen, £avor were: Meyer, .- ..... er. and Hanus. Michael was opposed. Michael would rather have seen the case moved forward. ~ ~._ ~ VARIANCE FOR 10 DREAMWOou ~u .~ ..7 24 2 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for . . struct a second story addition and extend the main a variance to con ............. d setback is 18 feet, the · . se The existing ~ron~ level of the hou · - ..... ~-- in a 2 foot variance request. · is 20 fee=, required.set,ac? ..... h~a ~n the northeast corner of the pro~er~y The applicant states u~= ~-t-- L'i__.:__ ~o existin~ dwelling is in wi~ be moved to a coniormlng locuuxu,,...-..~_ ~%---~ ...... cash ex llent condition and the proposed addition ooes non into the front yard as it follows the front line of the existing footprint. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval as the proposed addition represents a substantial improvement with a minimal encroachment that is also a natural extension of the existing floor plan. This proposal follows suit with other properties in the immediate area that have also been improved in the past. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with the condition that the shed be moved to a conforming location. The Commission discussed at length if the addition should be required to be stepped back 2 feet further to meet the required 20 foot setback requirement. Weiland withdrew his motion because he understood the addition to be different than what was actually proposed. The floor plan was reviewed by the Commission and reasons were discussed why not to step the addition back 2 feet to meet the setback. Planning Commission Minutes October ll, 1993 City of Mound MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff with tho condition that shed be moved to a conforming location. Findings of fact include: There will be no change in visual impact to the street. The construction will be easier with straight walls versus jogged, and the roof line and trusses will look better. The addition is only S feet long and the impact is minimal. With the addition following the front line of the existing house it will not appear as if the house was added onto. MOTION carried $ to 2. Those in favor were= Meyer~ Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, ross, and Hanus. Michael and Weiland were opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on October 26, 1993. CASE #93-051: DI & LYNN CHEN, 2127 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 6, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK & ADJ. WATERBANK COMMONm PID #13-117-24 31 0032. VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 15 foot front yard setback variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback to construct a new dwelling. All other setbacks and impervious surface are conforming. This property is not in the bluff zone, however, the general provisions of the shoreland zone do apply. These regulations are intended to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening for structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the water. This site has a number of mature trees that limit development if they are to be saved. This, coupled with the site topography, creates a difficulty with placement of a dwelling. A dilapidated and vandalized older home has recently been demolished to make way for the proposed improvements. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance due to topography of the lot and location of the mature trees which limits the development options and creates a practical difficulty with this site. Voss commented that he cannot understand why such a large lot, 15,000+ square feet, would require a variance to build a new house. Mueller noted that the lot depth is not that great, and he believes the house plan to be a good plan, that this plan is better than having a long narrow house. In addition, the plan is sensitive to the trees on the lot. October 11, 1993 planning Commission Minutes City of Mound MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff for the following reasons: The house will not be a bowling alley type home. The existing dwelling on the other side in a similar situation. The retaining wall along Centerview Lane reduces impact of the setback. The contour of the property creates some hardship to access off Centerview. . The plan promotes preservatxon of the trees and vegetation at the lakeside of the property. ~pproval is contingent upon verification of the setback to the ordlnar¥ high water. Motion seconded by Michael. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were= Me,er, Mueller, Johnson, Jesses, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland and Voss were opposed. Voss commented that he sees no hardship due to the size of the lot, a house should be able to be placed on the lot in a conforming location. Weiland agreed with Voss. This case will be heard by the city Council on October 26, 1993. C~SE 93-052. NORMA~_ ...... _.,,_~ 2~ VARIANCE FOR DETACR~u ~YWOOD POINT ~lu ~o ~*- .3 GIiRAGE. 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. Ail 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 e a nonconforming front setback to allow to recognil ........ as the ~roposal is tics of a con£orming ~a~ ~ con~truc dwellin is in excellent condition conforming, the_existi~g _ g eyed to a conforming --~ ~* ~s not feasible f~r it to be m _. ~a~i'o~ at this time. Mueller seconded the mo=ion. Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 1993 City of Mound Hanus questioned if a variance can be granted if the exact measurement is not known. 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. ~ITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the September 28, 1993 City Council meeting and the agenda for the October 12 meeting. Voss questioned if Jensen had raised the contingency fund issue with the City Council. Jensen commented that this issue will be raised at a COW meeting, and that they did have some discussion relating to this issue when the Council was discussing CDBG funds. It was noted that the CDBG program is not in favor of having housing removed, they would rather see the houses fixed. Jensen reminded the Commissioners that Saturday, October 16, the the City's special recycling day at the lost lake site. Also, this Friday, there will be a meeting at the City of Spring Park to discuss the concerns relating to the traffic back-up on Shoreline Drive in Spring Park. MISCELLANEOUS Jon Sutherland stated that he would like to have a Planning Commission potluck dinner at his house this fall. A date could not be decided upon, therefore, Jon is to pick a date and whoever can come, will come. Sutherland Commented on the City of Oakdale who has recently combined their Park Commission and Planning Commission into one board. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:09 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: MINITFES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1993 Present were: Commissioners Lyndelle Skoglund, Shirley Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, and Carolyn Schmidt, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. The following were also present: City Council Members Liz Jensen and Ken Smith, Charles Champine, John Edewaard, Janis Geffre, Mary Goode, Peter Meyer, and David Steinbring. MINUTES MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Byrnes to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of August 12, 1993 as written. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES The Secretary noted that there is an additional applicant who should be added as 3. F. David Steinbring, 2992 Highview Lane. 1. CHARLES (CHUCK) CHAMPINE, 1550 CANARY LANE Mr. Champine has lived in the Three Points Area since 1979 and would like to be of service to the community. He has been involved in school athletic programs over the years and the "Save the Pool" program. He knows the Park Commission needs some representation from the Three Points Area. He would like to see the Lost Lake area used as an open space area for the community at large, and he is open to looking at financing involving development issues. Mr. Champine is an abutting land owner to commons, and he has an opinion relating to how the commons could be operated. He feels the City has a short term approach and needs a long term approach to solve such issues as erosion problems on the commons, etc. He believes in voluntccrism and would like to get the community involved in programs to help what the city can offer for parks and recreation. Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 He is not as familiar as he should be with the NCA program. His opinion on open spaces is that they should be jealously guarded if they are spaces that can be used by the general public. Champine is of the opinion that the parks program is not as good as it was ten years ago. If he had an unlimited amount of money, he would build a new park in the City of Mound. He has no conflicts with the meeting dates and commented that he would be a very committed member. 2. JOHN C. EDEWAARD, 5125 HANOVER ROAD Mr. Edewaard stated that he is interested in becoming a Park Commission member because there is an opening, he has the time to volunteer, and he would be a committed member. He is an analytical thinker and feels he would make fair decisions. He is interested in the City. He has been a resident of Mound since 1991. He does not use the parks, however feels there can never be enough public facilities. He does not live on commons or on the lake and is only vaguely familiar with the commons program. His profession is as a researcher for Anderson Edewaards & Assoc. He cannot determine what should be done with Lost Lake as he does not have enough information on the issue. He does not have a problem committing to the meeting times for the Park Commission. If he had an unlimited amount of money, he could not determine what he would do for the City because he does not have enough information, however he feels the presence of commons docks in Mound are important. 3. JANIS L. GEFFRE, 5056 EDGEWATER DRIVE Ms. Geffre has been a resident of Mound for seven months, and would like to be involved in the community. She has always been involved with the communities she has lived in and has the time to volunteer. She feels that being a new resident she may be able to give a different perspective on issues. Volunteer experience includes: PTA, chair for school events, member of homeowners association which managed a 20 acre park with a recreation program and a pool, St. Paul volunteer, and Minnesota Fair Share. Recently she has graduated with a degree in public administration which included courses which she feels could benefit the Park Commission. She has used Centerview Beach and Mound Bay Park. She lives on private lakeshore. She believes it is important to find out what people want in their community before parks are updated or changed. 2 37 t7 October 13, 1993 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 4'17 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540'~-'1309 Phone: [6'123 348-6846 FAX: [6'123 348-8532 OCT 1 4 1993 CERTIFIED MAIL Subject: Proposed Hennepin County Ordinance Fifteen, Solid Waste Management Fee and Hauler License Ordinance Public }leafing on October 26, 1993, 11:00 a.m. ltennepin County Board Room, A;2400 Government Center To All Interested Parties: A public heating will be held on Tuesday, October 26, 1993, at 11:00 a.m., in the Hennepin County Board Room for the purpose of adopting Hennepin County Ordinance 15, dated October 8, 1993; amending the tip fee for 1994 at $60.00 per ton; and establishing a hauler collected management fee for 1994 of nine (9) percent of the total gross receipts from Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (lVlMSW) collection and disposal services provided residential waste generators and fourteen and-a-half (14.5) percent of the total gross receipts from MMSW collection and disposal services provided non-residential waste generators, to be effective January 1, 1994. Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Fee and Hauler License Ordinance (Ordinance 15). This Ordinance establishes authority for a Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Fee to fund environmental management programs which protect the health and welfare of the Hennepin County citizens pursuant to State mandates governing waste management programs. Written comments on the proposed ordinance would be welcome and will be entered into the hearing record. Testimony will also .be taken on October 26. If you have questions regarding the proposed ordinance, feel free to call Tim Goodman, 348- 2863, or Tom Heenan, 348-4491. Sincerely,..~ Director JL:jh Enclosure HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer HENNEPIN COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMBER FIFTEEN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEE AND HAULER LICENSE ORDINANCE DEPARTM'F~NT OF ENVIRONMiO~AL MANAGEM~NT 0~o~r$,1~3 HENNEPIN COUNTY ORDINANCE NUMB FIFTEEN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEE AND HAULER LICENSE ORDINANCE III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PROVISIONS ....................... 3 Subsection 1 Administrauon ................... . .............. 3 Subsection 2 Compliance ........................... 3 Subsection 3 Administrative Procedures_ · ................ . ........... 3 Subsection 4 Solid Waste Management l-'ee .................... 3 Subsection 5 Procedures for Establishing the Amount of Solid Waste Management Fee ..... Subsection 6 Procedures for Adjusting the Amount of Solid Waste Management Fee ....... 3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEE COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE POLICIES ' .3 Subsection 1 Collection ........................................... 4 Remittance .............. Subsection 2 .... 4 Subsection 3 Statements ........................................ . . . · 4 Subsection 4 Reports .......................................... .4 Subsection 5 Examination of Records ................................. . . 5 Subsection 6 Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ...................... 5 Subsection 7 Late Payment 5 Subsection 8 Unpaid Fee ........................................... 5 Subsection 9 Collection Actions ....................................... LICENSING & REGISTRATION . . 6 Requirement ......................................... 6 Subsection 1 · · Subsection 2 Subsection 3 Subsection 4 Subsection 5 Subsection 6 Subsection 7 Subsection 8 Subsection 9 Subsection 10 Subsection 11 Subsection 12 License Procedur~r Denial .................................. 8 License Issu~..c.e ......................................... 8 License F7 ............................................ 8 Insurance .9 Compliance with Other Laws ........................ . ..... 9 p C arges ................................ 9h Cleanu · · . ............. Dispute Resolution ......................... . . 10 Accuracy of Information ................................ 10 Indemnification of County ....................... 10 Administrative Procedures ................................. Vo VI. VII. VIII. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES Subsection 1 Misdemeanor · ..... · ........ · ......................... 13 Subsection 2 Injunctive Relief -~ Subsection 3 Venue and Prosecution Subsection 4 Costs and Special Assessments ............................... 14 Subsection 5 Citations Subsection 6 Departmental Order SEVERABIL1TY PROVISIONS ARE CUMULATIVE .................................... 15 EFFECTIVE DATE ii The purpose of this ordinance is to establish authority for a Hennepin County Solid Waste Management Fee to fund environmental programs which protect the health and welfare of Hennepin County citizens pursuant to State mandates governing waste management programs. The Ordinance includes: procedures for establishing a Solid Waste Management Fee for the entire County of Hennepin; the fee payment method; reporting requirements; licensing provisions and penalties for noncompliance with provisions of this Ordinance. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.811, Subd. 3(a) and Subd. 5, Section 400.08 and Section 115A.93. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners does ordain: SECTION I DEFINITIONS Subsection 1 Subsection 2 Subsection 3 Management. Subsection 4 For the purpose of this Ordinance, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings given them, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. "County" is Hennepin County, Minnesota. "County Board" is the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. "Department" is the Hennepin County Department of Environmental "Generate" is the act or process of producing waste. Subsection 5 "Generator" is any person who generates mixed municipal solid waste in Hennepin County, either residential generator or nonresidential generator. Subsection 5a "Residential Generator" is a Generator who pays for waste collection services for a building with one to four dwelling units, a mobile home, a condominium, a townhouse, a cooperative housing unit, or a building on perma-lease. Subsection 5b "Nonresidential Generator" is a Generator who does not qualify as a Residential Generator. A home operated business will be treated as a Nonresidential Generator. If the building has four or less dwelling units, but also has one or more units not used for dwelling purposes, such as a store or a restaurant, then the Generator is considered a Nonresidential Generator. Subsection 6 "Hauler' is a person engaged in the business of collecting, transporting or disposing of mixed municipal solid waste generated in Hennepin County. Subsection 7 "Licensee" is the person who has been given authority by the County Board or the Department to collect, transport and dispose of mixed municipal solid waste generated in Hennepin County. Licensee also includes registered Self-Haulers who dispose of mixed municipal solid waste in excess of five (5) tons in any given month. Subsection 8 "Mixed Municipal Solid Waste" is garbage, refuse, and other solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of the waste aggregates for collection, but does not include auto hulks, street sweepings, ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural waste, tries, lead acid batteries, used oil, and other materials collected, processed and disposed of as separate waste streams. Subsection 9 "Ordinnnce" is Hennepin County Ordinance 15 - Solid Waste Management Fee and Hauler License Ordinance. Subsection 10 "Person" includes, but is not limited to: an individual, business, Hauler, Self-Hauler, public or private corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, trust, unincorporated association, goVernment or agency or political subdivision thereof, landfill operator, generator, any other legal entity, and any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent, or other legal representative of any of the foregoing. Subsection 11 "Self-Hauler" is a Generator disposing of his or her own Mixed Municipal Solid Waste. Subsection 12 "Solid Waste Management Fee" is the charge established by the County Board, payable by Residential and/or Nonresidential Generators to the County for Solid Waste Management Services. Subsection 13 "Solid Waste Management Services" includes all activities provided by the County or by Persons under contract with the County which support the preferred waste management responsibilities, described in Minnesota Statutes 115A.01 et seq, 473 and 400.08 including, but not limited to waste reduction and reuse; waste recycling; composting of yard waste and food waste; resource recovery through Mixed Municipal Solid Waste composting or incineration; land disposal; and management of problem materials, and household hazardous waste. 2 SECTION H GENERAL PROVISIONS Subsection 1 Administration: This Ordinance shall be administered by the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management. Subsection 2 Compliance: No Person shall collect, transport or dispose of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste generated in Hennepin County except in full compliance with the provisions herein. This shall not prevent the transportation of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste by a collector through Hennepin County. Subsection 3 Administrative Procedures: All provisions of Hennepin County Ordinance Number 1, County Licenses and Procedures, shall apply as though fully set forth herein. Subsection 4 Solid Waste Management Fee: A Solid Waste Management Fee shall.be imposed for Solid Waste Management Services provided by Hennepin County. The Generators (owners, lessees, or occupants of property in Hennepin County, or any or all of them) shall pay the Solid Waste Management Fee imposed in the manner set forth by the County Board. Subsection 5 Procedures for Establishing the ,a, mount of Solid Waste Management Fee: The County Board shall establish the amount of the Solid Waste Management Fee by resolution, following a public heating, and shall state the effective date for the enactment of the Solid Waste Management Fee. Subsection 6 Procedures for Adjusting the Amount of Solid Waste Management Fee: The County Board may adjust thc amount of the Solid Waste Management Fee by resolution, following a public hearing, and shall state the effective date for thc enactment of the adjusted Solid Waste Management Fee. There will be a sixty (60) day period prior to the effective date of such adjustment. SECTION III SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEE - COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE POLICIES Subsection 1 A. Collection: As a condition of license, each Hauler shall bill and collect the Solid Waste Management Fee from Hennepin County Residential and Nonresidential Generators for whom they haul Mixed Municipal Solid Waste. 3 Each Hauler shall make reasonable efforts to collect the Solid Waste Management Fee. Subsection 2 Remittance: ho The Solid Waste Management Fee collected by Haulers must be remitted to the County. Failure to remit the Solid Waste Management Fee collected may result in the revocation of the Hauler's license. Self-Haulers shall pay the Solid Waste Management Fee imposed directly to the County. If a Generator makes partial payment to a Hauler, the Hauler shall then apply payment to the Solid Waste Management Fee proportionally. De Each Licensee shall remit the Solid Waste Management Fee by the 20th day of the month following the month in which the SoLid Waste Management l~ee was collectexl by Haulers or imposed on Self-Haulers. The Solid Waste Management Fee shall be accompanied by the completed Solid Waste Management Fee form which will be provided to the Licensee by the Department and which will be completed in accordance with instructions provided. Subsection 3 Statements: Consistent with the Hauler's normal billing practices, each Hauler shall separately state and clearly label the Solid Waste Management Fee on each invoice or statement issued to their Residential and Nonresidential Generators for payment of waste collection and disposal services. Subsection 4 Reports: On forms provided by the County, each Hauler shall submit, on a timely basis, written reports to the Department which may include, but not be limited to, total gross billings and receipts for all coll.ecfion and disposal services performed within Hennepin County, the number of Residential and Nonresidential Generators within Hennepin County, the number of tons collected within Hennepin County and disposed of within and outside Hennepin County and such other information as requested by the Department. Subsection 5 Examination of Records: The Department or its duly authorized agent shall have the right to examine records, including access to computer records which shall be made available by the Hauler, and all Residential and Nonresidential Generator accounts of the Haulers. The department shall be allowed free access at all reasonable times to inspect and copy at reasonable cost all business records related to a Hauler's collection, and disposal of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste to the extent necessary to ensure that all charges required to be collected are remitted to the County. SuCh records shall be maintained by the Haulers for no less than five (5) years. 4 October 14, 1993 Park Commission Minutes She would like to see the Lost Lake area developed into an area such as the area in Spring Park next to the Presbyterian Home, i.e. landscaped with walking trails, flowers, trees, etc. She feels the area needs a warmer look. With access to unlimited funds to improve the City of Mound she would like to see all the utility lines buried underground and would like to see more plantings in the downtown area, especially Shoreline Drive, something like Wayzata. 4. MARY E. GOODE, 4991 BARTLETT BLVD. Ms. Goode has lived in Mound for only three months and decided to apply for the Commission because it sounded like the Commission needed help and she would like to help service the community. She toured the parks in the City by following a map she got at City Hall and was impressed with the number of parks and the cleanliness and condition of the playground equipment. Being new to Mound, she believes that the Lost Lake area would be a nice place for a softball diamond. She has no problem committing to the meeting times. She loves the lake and loves fishing. She lives on private lakeshore, however, is next door to Carlson Park which accommodates commons docks. She believes the dock system is an asset to the community. If she were given unlimited funds to improve the City of Mound she would buy property to develop parks as needed for each area of the City. 5. PETER C. MEYER, 5748 SUNSET ROAD Mr. Meyer believes Mound to be a fine community and would like to give something back, he is ready to commit. He has resided in mound for almost twelve years. In his opinion the Parks in Mound are very nice, he and his children frequent the parks and they like the equipment at Philbrook and Three Points. He does not live on Commons, but finds the commons program interesting. He lives across the street from Dutch Lake. He basically agrees with the development plan for the Lost Lake area, however, he is not sure about the proposed dredge as he does not feel the access to the lake is as important as people think it is. He feels it is important to save the wetlands. If he were given unlimited funds to improve the City of Mound he would Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 like to educate the kids about the land. He has no problem committing to the meeting times. 6. DAVID STEINBRING, 2992 HIGHVIEW LANE Mr. Steinbring has lived in the City of Mound for five years, and explained that his family recently almost purchased a home in Plymouth because he likes their trail and park system, however, they decided to stay in Mound. He would like to see Mound improve their Parks and trails system. He is interested in having a place to for kids to play and grow up. In his opinion the parks in Mound are not used enough, he would like to see skating rinks and playground equipment at Bluffs Park which is near his house, however, he is not sure how the abutting neighbors to the park would feel about that. He would like to see the Lost Lake area developed into a lighted baseball or softball diamond. A skating rink on the lake at Mound Bay Park would be nice, the depot could be used for a warming house. He is not familiar with the commons dock program. If he was given an unlimited amount of funds to improve the City of Mound he would like to see the downtown plan implemented, he would like to have a large grocery store, like Rainbow Foods, and more parking. He does not like that you have to cross so many streets to get somewhere. He has no problem committing to the time required for the Park Meetings. He is in favor of keeping open space in Mound. General Discussion Relating to the Interviews and Vacancies The Commission reviewed the number of vacancies, there are two due to the resignations of Steve Kirshbaum and Brian Asleson. Mo MueHer's position was discussed and staff noted that Mueller was made aware that if she did not attend the October Park Commission meeting her position would be advertised. The Secretary informed the Commission that Mueller informed her that she would be submitting a letter of resignation due to her demanding work schedule. The Commission determined that Mueller's position should be considered a vacancy, therefore the total number of vacancies is three. The number of Commissioners was discussed; should there be seven members, or nine. Previously, the Park Commission had only seven members, then approximately four years ago the number was increased to nine because there were a number of qualified applicants at that time. It was the consensus of the Commission that because there are enough Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 qualified applicants to fill a nine member commission, the number should remain at nine. The Commissioner's ranked the applicants using ballots distributed by the Secretary. The results of the ranking are as follows (1 = first choice, 2 -- second choice, etc.): 1. Janis Geffre 3,1,2,1,1 = 8 2. Mary Goode 2,2,1,2,2 = 9 3. David Steinbring 4,3,3,3,3 = 16 4. Peter Meyer 1,5,4,4,4 = 18 5. Charles Champine 5,4,5,5,5 = 24 6. John Edewaard 6,6,6,6,6 = 30 The City Council will review this recommendation at the October 26, 1993 meeting. Staff will notify the applicants in writing of the Council's decision. REVIEW OF 1994 I)O(~_K FORMS AND DOCK LOCATION MAP Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed the proposed ordinance changes, 1994 dock forms and proposed dock location map changes, as follows: Ordinances chan es to i Code Section 437 - Dock Licenses: a. 437;00, Subd. 5, Delete the word "appurtenances" as it is not a ~ommonly understood term, and replace it with "accessory items". b. 437:10, Subd. 1. c~ Change "Shoreline Classifications" to "Shoreline Types" as referred to in the Use Plan. c. 437:10, Subd. 1L. Change the dock removal deadline from " December 31" to 'November 1', to provide safer sliding at Highland Park. d. 437' 15. Change the necessary water depth from 36" to 48" to conform with LMCD regulations. ~ No specific changes have been made to the forms, only those changes prompted by the above ordinance changes and date changes. 5 3 Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 3. Dock Location Map; ao Change description of "Shoreline Classifications" to read "Shoreline Types", and change "Class" to "Type". b. Change "Waterside Lane" to "Waterside Common". There was discussion relating to the change in the dock removal deadline from "December 31" to "November 1 ". The Dock Inspector confirmed that these dates apply only to Highland Park. Ahrens questioned what determines an "approved site." Ahrens is not in favor of allowing people to leave docks in all winter, she feels it creates a hazard and looks junky, especially when the docks get broken up and dock parts sink to the bottom of the lake and they are not picked-up. Ahrens requested this issue be placed on the work agenda for next year. What areas can the docks remain? What areas should the docks be required to be removed? Faclder stated that he can chceck the LMCD regulations regarding docks in the winter. Carolyn commented that she would like to see a height restriction on stacked dock sections. She feels these tall piles can be dangerous if kids play on them and they can also obstruct the lakeview. Fackler commented that he would rather handle this type of concern administratively and on a complaint basis. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the proposed changes to City Code Section 437, the dock forms for 1994, and the dock location map for 1994. Motion carried unanimously. The Secretary noted that a public hearing will be held by the Park Commission on November 6, 1993 for the Dock Location map, and the City Council will review this recommendation at their meeting on November 23, 1993. NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS: REVIEW POTENTIAL PARCELS On August 10, 1993, the City Council requested the Park and Open Space Commission to recommend 6 to 8 properties as possible NCA's for the Council to review and designation of 3 to 4. The Commission recommended the following properties: 6 Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 PID 24-117-24 44 0196: Located between Churchill and Dundee in Arden. This property is 16,400 square feet and has retained as a park, however, has not been named or developed. PID 23-117-24 31 0077: North of Bartlett, end of Rusticwood (Rustic Place). This parcel is adjacent to the School District property already preserved as a nature study area. This parcel is a relatively undisturbed remnant of "Big Woods" habitat. Classified as a Park. PID 23-117-24 22 0003: Westedge Blvd. (old sewer plan0, a nice mixture of prairie, woodlands, and wetlands. This parcel is adjacent to other natural areas. Classified as a Park. PID 19-117-23 33 0216: The north half of Doone Park at Doone and Tuxedo. This is a wooded area which the Commission would like to see developed with a walking path and perhaps a wild flower garden. This area is adjacent to an undeveloped grassy open space with no play structures. PID 13-117-24 11 0064: An undersized 8,125 square foot parcel located in the R-1 zone at the corner of Enchanted and Heron in Shadywood Point. For sale to adjoining property owners only. PID 14-117-24 31 0013 & 0014: Diamond Lane, across the street from Philbrook Park and retained for drainage purposes. PID 14-117-24 44 0057: Located west of Commerce Blvd. (behind Netka's building) and south of Dakota Railroad abutting Langdon Lake. This area could be useful for a future trail system. MOTION made by Schmidt, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to the City Council the above listed seven properties as Nature Conservation Areas. Motion carried unanimously. In December, the commission would like to discuss the access to Swenson Park used by bicycles and walkers. 7 Park Commission Minutes October 14, 1993 REVIEW PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS AT MOUND BY PARK Parks Director, Jim Fackler, referred to the information in their packets which outlined costs for various playground structures and gazebos. Fackler informed the Commission that the Council will not be voting on the final budget until December, and approximately $19,600 has been approved in the proposed budget for such an improvement. Byrnes commented that the gazebos would not be adequate for the "Celebrate Summer" events. She suggested a portable stage with a bandshell, such as the City of Brooklyn Center has. Byrnes was not quite sure if it was Brooklyn Center that has the bandshell, but she will be asking Jim Glasoe at Community Services because she also wanted to talk to them about renting the trailer. This issue will be discussed again at the next meeting. Commissioner Schmidt dismissed herself from the meeting, therefore, due to lack of a quorum, the meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. 8 MICHAEL L. GILLHAM 3300 EAGLE BLUFF RD. MINNETKISTA, MN. 55364 (612) 472-5982 October 16, 1993 Ms. Fi Yin Moy House of Moy Mound, Mn 55364 Dear Ms. Moy: I have just read in the Westtonka Sun Sailor that you are in the process of suing the City of Mound for the cross walk issue. But you are not suing the City of Mound, you are suing your customers and the residents of Mound who pay taxes. Take a good look around You, the only good thing about the general appearance of Mound is a new bank building and shopping center. Now we all have to drive by a giant chicken head atop your establishment. We are all tired of ~our chicken head and ye get the message. Now here's the facts of life and why the pedestrian sign had to come down. 1)Pedestrians do not take the responsibility to look before crossing with the sign. 2)That is a four lane road and if one truck or bus is stopped, it is easy for another car who has forgotten about the sign, to pass and endanger a pedestrian. 3)It is a fact that drivers do not pay enough attention to these pedestrian cross walks, thus additional danger to the pedestrian. I have personally, more than once, come close to running over people who think they own the road assuming that ALL automobiles will see them and stop. One gentlemen thought that and is now not alive to tell about it. My family currently does business with your restaurant, but if I have to continue to look at that chicken head, we will find another restaurant of your type to do business with. Grow up and face the facts, people will get to the other side of the street. Most places of business must provide parking space for there customers, maybe the City of Mound should require you to provide safe parking for your customers, that could get plenty expensive for you. Count your blessings that you get FREE access parking across the street. Sincerely, l~~h~! ~ichael Gi CC Mayor of Mound %-/ Westtonka Sun Sailor 3';$9 The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Presents: OCT 1 4 1993 Legislative Policy Adoption Meeting Thursday, November 4, 1993 ~, ~- ~r Ramada Hotel crud Conference Center (McC-,~ire'O Continental Ballroom County Road E Arden Hills, Minnesota (One-half mile south of 14>94 and Lexington Avenue) Spouses, significant others and guests welcome Social hour $'.~O-~Op.~. Buffet style dinner 6'.30 p.~. Price: $25 Business meeting 7~O p.~ Le~ b de~ltely more at this year's Peaty Adoption ~ We ~ ~ ~e ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~k~~ ~~ m ~,~ m~~, ~ ~ m~ ~eto ~ ~M ~~ ~ f~ ~ 1~4 ~ We'l ~e, ~ ~~, make ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~t ~tot~ ~ ~~-~~~ ~y. ~~M~ ~b~k~~ 1~4~e~ we~~~~~~ Dinn~ re~ervatlon~ ($25 per person) should be placed with Carol Williams (490-3301) no later than noon, Nov. I. (Please channel AU. reservations through your office of City Manager! Administrotor.)Your city will be billed after the event, or If you choose to pay in advance, checks may be made payable to AMM. Reservations are not n==ded, nor a fee charged, for city officials offending only the busine~ meeting at 7:30 p.m. Note: This notice has been mailed directly to all member Mayors, Council members, and City Managers/Administrators. ~4~ map and agenda on back '~'~' A.eoclatlon of Metropolitan Munl¢lpalltle~ · ~490 Lexington Avenue North.St. Paul, Mlnne~eta 5512. I1~ ...... IJ .1 l_ _. I11 II Business agenda I. Call to order. 2. Welcome. Mayo~ Tom Sather. Arden Hills. 3. Consideration and adoption of 1994 Legislative Policy Program. Copies previously mailed to City Manager,/Administrators. 4. Input on establLshing the 1994 AMM legislative priorities. 5. Other business. 6. Adjournment. Jl~O1 W. ~ NORTH COUNTY ROAD E I mcliWA¥ 36 OCT 1 8 1993 a ociat[on of metr. opo[tt.an munlclpalll'le- BULLETIN Oct. 15, 1993 To: Managers/Administrators FROM: Roger Petemon, Director of Legi.qlative Affairs RE: Changes to proposed 1994 Legislative Policies and Priorities packet. The Board of Directors at its Oct. 14, 1993, meeting made policy change recommendations for membership consideration as indicated below. ~ make gtZ0.ig5 of these gJZallgg5 for XOJIi: ~ and councB member. Previously mailed policy with these changes will be considered at the AMM Policy Adoption Meeting Nov. 4, 1993, at the Arden HilL~ Ramada Hotel 0dcGuire's). If you have any questions please contact either me or Vern Peterson at 490-3301. 1. Policy III. B-6 County Economic Development Authorities (ED,as). This policy on page 34 is deleted since it is partially resolved by and partially contradictory to LMC Endorsement Policy VI-H on page 72. 2. Policy VII.A.1 Restructuring of Metropolitan Agencies. Bold paragraph point three has been rewritten to reflect actual expectations for the 1994 legislative session regarding metro transit issues. · GRANT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO REORGANIZE THE TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT STRUCTURE AND OPERATION IN THE REGION. IF A RESTR~G OF TRANSIT PLANNING AND OPERATION IN THE METROPOLrrAN AREA IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LEGISLATURE IIEFORE X~ OVERALL METROPOLITAN COUNCIL/ METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE RESTRUCTURF. THE A]VI]V[ WOULD SUPPORT RESTRUCTURING BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: 1. EnnA~CF~ OVERALL COORDINATED PLANNING TO IMPLEMENT LONG-TERM TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION ~; ,~. DEVELOP AND SPECIFY THE TOTAL PLANNR4G PRC~"'F,,S$ SO (A) THE PUBLIC AND INT~ED AGENCIF3 MAY EASILY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, (B) THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL AGENCIES INVOLVED ARE DEFINED AND (C) DUPLICATION OF DUTi]~ AND TA~KS AMONG THE AGENCIES ARE MINIMIZED; 3. ORGANIZE THE VARIOUS AOENCIES TO ACHIEVE THE APPROPRIATE MIX OF TRANSIT AND HIGHWAY FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT LONG-RANGE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION GOAI~; 4. DEVELOP FLEXIBLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITIES THAT RECEIVE LESS THAN ADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICE SO THEY MAY BECOME PART OF THE SYSTEM MORE EASILY AND BE PROVIDED WITH ONE-STEP ACCESS DURING THE PROCESS; AND ~. CLEARLY DELINEATE THE RESPONSIBILITIES INVOLVED WITH PROVIDING FOR TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA. NOT ONLY WOULD THIS HE. Lp TO ESTABLISH ACCOUNTABILITY, IT ALSO WOULD PROVIDE TRANSIT/TRANSPORTATION USERS WITH A BETTER IDEA OF ~lrHICH AGENCY SHOULD BE CONTACTED WHEN PROBLEMS ARISE. 3. Endorsement Policy VI.E Liquor Issues. Delete the last bold line on page 69-70 dealing with one class of beer and wine sales. The LMC committee deleted this part of their policy. 3 7*9 3490 lexington avenue north, st. paul, minnesota 55126 (612) 490-3301 Subsection 6 Minnesota Government Dat~ Practices Act: Records or information received, inspected, or copied by the County shall be subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn~ta Statute Section 13.01, et seq. and are classified as private or nonpublic data as defined in Section 13.02, Sutxt. 9 or 12 of the Act. The records and information may be used to enforce collection of Solid Waste Management Fees. Data becomes public if certified to the County Auditor for unpaid outstanding charges pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 400.08, Subd. 4Co) or where legal actions are commenced. Subsection 7 Late Payment: A late payment penalty of 1.5% per month on the Solid Waste Management Fee, collected but not remitted by the Hauler, shall be charged to the Hauler and/or Self Hauler not making payment by the due date. If a Hauler fails to bill and collect the Solid Waste Management Fee from a Generator, the Hauler shall be responsible for the Solid Waste Management Fee and a 1.5% per month late payment penalty. The 1.5 % per month late payment penalty shall commence from the date the Solid Waste Management Fee should have been billed. Subsection 8 Unpaid Fee: On or before October 15 each year, the County Board m&y certify to the County Auditor all unpaid outstanding Solid Waste Management Fees, and a description of the lands against which the Solid Waste Management Fees arose. It shall be the duty of the County Auditor, upon order of the County Board, to extend the assessments, with interest not to exceed the interest rate provided for in Section 279.03, Subd. 1, upon the tax rolls of the County for the taxes of the year in which the assessment is filed. For each year ending October 15, the assessment with interest shall be carried into the tax becoming due and payable in January of the following year, and shall be enforced and collected in the manner provided for the enforcement and collection of real property taxes in accordance with the provisions of the laws of the State. The charges, if not paid, shall become delinquent and be subject to the same penalties and the same rate of interest as the taxes under the general laws of the State. Subsection 9 Collection Actions: Exercise of any remedy under this subsection does not preclude exercise of other remedies. A. If an owner, lessee, or occupant of a Hennepin County property or any Person obligated on their behalf to pay the Solid Waste Management Fee fails to pay a Hauler the Solid Waste Management Fee in a timely manner, the County may use any available legal remedies to collect the overdue, unpaid Solid Waste Management Fees from any or all of them. B. If a Hauler has collected Solid Waste Management Fees and failed to remit them to the County in a timely manner, the County may use any available legal remedies to collect the Solid Waste Management Fees from the Hauler. C. If a Self-Hauler fails to pay the Solid Waste Management Fee to the County in a timely manner, the County may use any available legal remedies to collect the Solid Waste Management Fee from the Self-Hauler. SECI~ON IV LICENSING & REG~TION Subsection 1 Requirement: A. Registrations Required: Each Self-Hauler who disposes of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste in exce~s of five (5) tons in any given month shall register with the County on a form provided by the Department. B. License Required: Each Hauler shall have a license i~ued by the County. Unless earlier suspended or revoked, each license shall be valid for a twelve-month period. No license is transferable; any attempted transfer of a license shall immediately void such license. Subsection 2 License Procedure: A. Initial Application: An initial license application shall be completed and returned to the Department within thirty (30) days of receipt of the form provided by the Department. The application form shall be deemed received by the applicant three working days after deposit in the mail by the Department. Failure to return the application with complete information or within the time required shall result in a denial of the license. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of this Ordinance pending action by the Department on the license. B. Annual License Renewal: The Department shall provide license renewal forms to the Hauler within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of Hauler's current license. Annual license renewal forms shall be completed and received by the Department thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of I-Iauler's current license. Failure to return the license renewal forms with complete information or within the time required shall result in a denial of the license renewal. C. Conditional License: The Department may grant a conditional license which shall specify the conditions upon which a permanent license will be granted and the time requirement within which the conditions must be met. Failure to comply with the conditions specified shall result in a revocation of the conditional license and denial of the permanent license. D. Business Operation Change: Every Person, Hauler or Self-Hauler who disposes of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste in excess of five (5) tons in any given month shall 6 notify the Department in writing of any change in its business operation, including the transfer of any truck, conveyance, container or other equipment, prior to the effective date of the change or transfer. E. Transfer of Ownership: No license will be granted to any Person or for any vehicle, conveyance or equipment which have had a transfer of ownership unless and until all Solid Waste Management Fees, Tipping Fee. a, Special Fees and other charges due and owing under the previous ownership have been paid. F. Information Required: As a condition of license or registration, each applicant or Licensee shall submit the following information to the Department. It shall be the responsibility of each Licensee to report to the Department any change to any information previously submitted within thirty days of such change. Name, address, telephone number, social security number, and Minnesota business identification number of applicant or Licensee. e Business office, address, telephone number, if different from applicant or Licensee. e o Name, address, title and telephone number of the business owners, officers and person serving as the business contact person with the County. List of all Hauler's vehicles, conveyances, and other equipment used for the collection, transportation and disposal of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste within the County, their location within the County, and the address where such stored when not in use. Vehicle identification number, license plate number, make, model, year, number of axles, body type, gross vehicle weight, and capacity of each vehicle operating within the County. Summary of the total number of all containers used for the collection of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste within the County, by type and capacity of container. Disclosure of the following information concerning applicant or Licensee, including but not limited to: parent corporations; subsidiary businesses; partnerships; limited partnerships; corporate or business names used by subsidiary affiliations of applicant or Licensee; identification of all officers, agents, responsible parties or beneficial owners of applicant or Licensee's business. o Such other information as requested by the Department. 7 Subsection 3 License Issuance or Denial: A. License Action: The Depamnent shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the license or renewal application to issue or deny the license, license renewal or conditional license. The Department will issue a temporary license valid for thirty days upon its failure to act upon an application. B. Notification: The Depaxtment shall notify the applicant in writing of its decision. If issued, the license shall be mailed by first-class mail to the address provided in the application. If denied, a written decision shall be served personally or by certified mail upon the applicant at the address provided in the application. C. License Denial: A license denial shall provide written notice stating the basis for the denial and shall provide notice to the applicant that if an appeal is desired, a written request for a hearing must be received by the Department within fifteen (15) calendar days following service, exclusive of the day of service. Upon receipt of a request for hearing, the Department shall set a time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures in this Ordinance. Subsection 4 License Fee: A. Payment: License fees shall be set by the County Board. No license fee shall be prorated for a portion of a year and no license fee shall be refunded. Payment of the license fee must accompany the license application or license renewal. B. Late Payment: Payments not received with the License application or license renewal form shall be considered late and subject to the following late payment penalty, in addition to the regular license fee: One to seven days late, twenty-five l~rcent penalty. Eight to thirty days late, fifty percent penalty. C. Penalty Fee: On the expiration date of the current license, any activity for which the license is required shall cease. No license shall be issued until a new license application is submitted. If a new license is approved, the fee shall be the fee for a new license plus a 100% penalty fee. D. No Bar to Prosecution: Payment of the license fee together with payment of any late payment penalty shall not bar other enforcement action by the County. Subsection 5 Insurance: A. Licensee and Applicants: The applicant or Licensee shall furnish the County certificates of insurance containing a thirty-day cancellation notice issued by insurers 8 duly licensed by the State of Minnesota. The insurance must inclUde the following: Commercial general liability insurance covering all premises and operations of the Licensee with limits of not less than $250,000 per person/S500,000 per occurrence for bodily and personal injury, and $500,000 per occurrence for property damage. If such liability policy includes an aggregate limit, Licensee shall ensure that the unencumbered aggregate remains not less than $500,000. o Commercial or business automobile liability insurance, including non- owned and hired vehicles, with combined single liability limits of not less than $500,000 per occurrence. Workers Compensation insurance in accordance with Minn. Stat. 176.182, and including Employers Liability coverage with limits of not less than $100,000. B. Municipalities: Municipalities and municipally owned and operated waste collection vehicles may be exempt from insurance requirements contained in this section upon presentation of evidence acceptable to the Department of its ability to respond to all financial obligations to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statute Chapter 466. Subsection 6 Reports: On or before January 31 of each year, and on such other dates as the Department shall request, each Hauler shall submit a written report of its operations during the previous year covering matters relating to this Ordinance, as specified by the Department. Subsection ? Compliance with Other Laws: The obtaining of a license herein shall not be deemed to exclude the necessity of obtaining other licenses or permits as required by applicable laws or regulations. Hauler or Self-Hauler shall at all times operate in compliance with all applicable rules or requirements. Subsection 8 Cleanup Charges: If in the sole judgement of the County, a Hauler or Self- Hauler is primarily responsible for all or a portion of waste littering roadways, the County may charge such Hauler or Self-Hauler the entire cost of the cleanup, removal and disposal of such waste. Subsection 9 Dispute Resolution: In the event a dispute arises regarding the assessing of fees or charges that cannot be resolved with the Department, the parties may agree to submit the issue to a mutually agreed upon Dispute Resolution process or, should agreement on the process not be reached, the dispute will be submitted to the Office of Administrative Hearings for resolution. Subsection 10 Accuracy of Information: All information recruited by this Ordinance shall be complete, accurate, and submitted in a timely manner. Subsection 11 Indemnification of County: Each Hauler or Self-Hauler shall take all reasonable precautions neces~ to protect the public from injury and shall defend, indemnify and save the County harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, expenses and claims of damages that may arise by reason of any ton claim for bodily or personal injury, disease, death or damage to prope~ resulting directly or indixectly from an act or omission of the Hauler or Self-Hauler, its agents, employees, or independent contractors, or anyone for whom any of them may be liable. Subsection 12 Administrative Procedures: A. Suspension or Revocation of License: Any license required under this Ordinance may be suspended or revoked for violation of any provision of this Ordinance. Suspensions shall be for a period up to sixty (60) days or until the violation is o Written notice of a suspension or revocation shall be served personally or by registered or certified mail upon the Licensee at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the effective date of the suspension or revocation. The written notice shall contain the effective date of the suspension or revocation; the facts which support the conclusion that a violation or violations have occurred; a statement that if the Licensee desires to appeal, a written request for a hearing must be received by the Depaxtrnent within fifteen (15) calendar days following service of the notice, exclusive of the day of service; and that the request for hearing must state the grounds for appeal. If a hearing is requested, the suspension or revocation shall be stayed pending outcome of the hearing. Upon receipt of a request for hearing, the Department shall set a date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures in this Ordinance. B. Summary Suspension of License: If the Department finds that the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency action, summary suspension of a license may be ordered. 2. Written notice of a summary suspension shall be by personal service 10 upon the Licensee or by posting notice of the summary suspension of the license at a Hennepin County's solid waste facility. The Department shall also take reasonable steps to notify the Licensee by telephone prior to the summary suspension. The written notice shall state the effective date of the summary suspension; the violation requiring emergency action; the facts which support the conclusion that a violation has occurred; a statement that if the Licensee desires to appeal, a written request for hearing must be received by the Department within ten (10) calendar days following service of the notice, exclusive of the day of service; and that the request must state the grounds for appeal. Upon receipt of a request for hearing, the Department shall set a date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures in this Ordinance. 5. The summary suspension shall not be stayed pending an appeal. C. Reinspection by Department: Upon written notification from the Licensee that all violations for which a suspension or summary suspension was invoked have been corrected, the Department may reinspect the vehicle or activity. If upon reinspection the Department determines that all violations have been corrected, the Department may, in its discretion dismiss, modify or stay the suspension or summary suspension. Written notice shall be provided to the Licensee. D. 1t~: Hearings required pursuant to this Ordinance shall be conducted as follows: 1. Hearing Officer: The hearing shall be before an impartial hearing officer who shall conduct the heating on behalf of the County Board. The Department shall prescribe the duties of the hearing officer or contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Department shall ascertain the availability and timeliness of scheduling the hearing through the Office of Administrative Hearings. If it is determined that a prompt hearing is not readily available through the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Department may appoint an individual learned in the law to act as the hearing officer. 2. Preheating and Hearing Notice: The Department shall schedule and provide notice of the date, time and place of the prehearing conference and hearing. The preheating conference shall be held at least three (3) weeks prior to the hearing. The hearing shall be held no later than forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of the request for hearing or by mutual agreement of the 11 parties, subject to scheduling by the Office of Administrative Hearings. 3. Procedux~: The preheating conference and hearing shall be conducted in the following manner: The preheating conference shall define the issues, schedule the exchange of wimess fists and documentary evidence, seek agreement on the authenticity of documents and relevant testimonial evidence, determine whether intended evidence is cumulative and repetitive, and consider all other matters that will assist in a fair and expeditious hearing. Each party shall exchange all relevant information and documentary evidence at least one (1) week prior to the hearing date. Such information shall include all evidence intended for introduction at the hearing and includes but is not limited to the following: exhibits; statements; reports; witness lists, including a description of the facts and opinions to which each is expected to testify; photographs; slides; demonstrative evidence. Evidence not exchanged in accordance with this provision will not be considered in the hearing unless good cause is shown to the hearing officer. The hearing shall be public and shall be tape recorded or, at the discretion of the hearing officer, shall be recorded by a court reporter. d. Ail wimesses shall testify under oath or affirmation. Hearings shall be informal and the rules of evidence as applied in the courts shall not apply. Irrelevant, immaterial a.nd repetitious evidence shall be excluded. The Department shall have the burden of proof through clear and convincing evidence. The Department, Licen~ or applicant, and additional parties as determined by the hearing officer, shall present evidence in that order. Each party shall have the opportunity to cmss-exarnine the witnesses of the other party. The hearing officer may examine witnesses. Failure of an applicant or Licensee to appear at the hearing shall result a waiver of the right to a hearing. 12 The hearing officer shall issue a report containing written findings of fact and conclusions based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and shall submit the same to the County Board. The County Board shall consider the report of the hearing officer at the next possible board meeting and may adopt or modify the report and take action, reject the report of the hearing officer, or remand for further hearing. The parties shall be notified of the action of the County Board within thirty (30) calendar days following its determination. Appeal of a decision by the County Board shall be made to the District Court within thirty (30) calendar days following the County Board's action. The District Court shall determine whether the record of the hearing contains evidence upon which the County Board could have reached its decision and wlSether the County Board abused its discretion in reaching its decision. SECTION V VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIF$ Subsection 1 Misdemeanor: Any Person who willfully or negligently does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor: (A) hauls Mixed Municipal Solid Waste without a required license or registration; or (B) hauls Mixed Municipal Solid Waste and fails to collect or fails to remit to the County the required Solid Waste Management Fee. Negligence, for the purposes of this section does not include hauling Mixed Municipal Solid Waste for a Generator who subsequently fails to pay higher bill. In case of partial payments made by Generators, the Hauler shall remit the Solid Waste Management Fee to the County in the same proportionally. Nothing in this section precludes prosecution for misdemeanors or felonies under State law. Subsection 2 Injunctive Relief: The County may institute appropxqate actions or proceedings, including application for injunctive relief, action to compel performance or other appropriate actions to prevent, restrain, correct or abate any violation or threatened violation of this Ordinance. 13 Subsection 3 Venue and Prosecution: The Hennepin County Attorney's Office shall prosecute violations of any provision of this Ordinance. Such prosecutions shall be venued in Hennepin County. Subsection 4 Costs and Special Assessments: The County may recover costs, including staff and other related costs, incurred to enforce compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. At the discretion of the County Board, the costs may be certified to the County Director of Property Tax and Public Records as a special lax against the real property owned by such Person. Subsection 5 Citations: The Department, its duly authorized representative, or any licensed peace officer shall have the power to issue citations for violations of this Ordinance, but this shall not permit the Department or its representatives to physically arrest or lake into custody any violators. Subsection 6 Deparhnental Order:. The Department may issue such Orders as may be necessary for the enforcement of this Ordinance. Each Order shall state the violation 'and the action and time schedule required for compliance. SECTION VI SEVERABR,ITY It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County that the provisions of this Ordinance are separable in accordance with the following: Validity of Provisions: If any court of competent jurisdiction shall rule that any provision of this Ordinance is invalid, other provisions not specifically included in said judgment shall not be affected. Application to Site or Facility: If any court of competent jurisdiction shall rule that the application of any pwvision of this Ordinance is invalid to a particular GeneraWr, structure, gte, facility, operation, Hauler or Self Hauler such judgment shall not affect the application of said provision to any other structure, site, facility or operation not specifically included in the judgment. 14 ~ON ~ PROVISIONS ~ CU1VIULA~ The provisions in this Ordinance axe cumulative and are additional limitations upon all other laws and ordinances coveting any subject matter in this Ordinance. S~ON VIII EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 1994. Passed by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County this xxxx day of XXXX, 1993. COUNTY OF I-~.NNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVED: BY: Chair of the County Board Assistant County AtWmey ATTEST: Clerk of the County Board 15 Ha¥or Jerome R Rockwm 471-9515 October 19, 1993 OCT, 2 ! 1993 Councilmembers Wm. D. Weeks 471-7285 MaryAnn Thurk 471-9286 Harlyn Dill 471-8857 Mark Breneman 471-7555 Mr. Ed Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: On behalf of the entire City Counci! I wish to express our thanks to you and Chief Harrell for your speedy and enthusiastic response to our request for a police service proposal. It was indeed gratifying to experience such prompt action. The Council has chosen to stay with the Orono Police Depart- ment, at least for the next year, for a number of reasons. The Counci! was apprehensive about committing to a long term (5 year) contract when we haven't had any experience with your department but we understand your position as well. To gear up your department also takes commitment and we appre- ciate that. You and Len Harre!! are certainly super sa!esmen and your presentation was impressive. You made our decision very difficult indeed. Again p!ease accept our thanks, and who knows, we may be seeking another bid in the future. We certainly !ook forward to continuing our neighborly re- !ati/onship as we have for many years. / JPR/po P.O. BOX 452, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-0452 · Phone: 471-9051 · Fax: 471-9055 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Notice and Agenda 5:30 pm, Wednesday, October 27, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall OCT 2, 5 1993 Meeting report review of 9/22/93 per enclosed copy; Mayors 3rd quarter meeting critique: a. Board member observations of the mayors' comments b. City Council response to reports from their mayors c. Assessment of mayors' and city council comments, response, and LMCD board recommendations to deal with the comments, response; Review recommendations for inclusion in Nov. 20 Board workshop agenda; (see reverse side for discussion outline) Discuss interest expressed by LMLOA president to enter into a fund raising program for Lake Minnetonka research and education projects in a cooperative arrangement with LMCD's Save the Lake fund. Additional business recommended by the committee; 6. Next meeting and adjournment Please confirm your plans to ~tten~dd or re r___eq~ bY calling JoAnn or Jan, 473-7033. Thank you! Administrative Commitee Nov. 20 Board Work~hgR -- items for agenda discussion: (not in order of priority) LMCD working relationship with cities per response of Mayors and other city communications * Board member liaison/reports to mayor, councils informal as well as formal; * Inviting advance city comment on select items before adoption * LMCD chair's personal visits with mayors/councils * Sensitivity, awareness to city's land issues role * Additional priorities District funding outlook for multiple dock licenses as a result of 1993 staff time study analysis -- anticipating a fee reduction for 1995 income budget (budget draft due in early May) Car/trailer parking agreements with cities for public access: * Positive action here sets groundwork for future watercraft surcharge legislation to help fund lake programs. Priorities for implementation Environment Committee tasks detailed in Phase Two of Consultant Osgood's report following Stakeholder Survey results: (Env. Com. Chair Rascop to lead this discussion) Board and Conunittee meeting efficiency: * Con~nittee assignments -- reducing committee size to ease meeting attendance burden. Board to rely more heavily on committee recommendations for action it takes. * Staff service to evening, weekend committees * Use back-to-back meetings were practical f. Convaittee chairs to present priorities for 1994 -- g. Other items to consider Since this meeting is scheduled for three hours, 9:00 am to 12:00 noon, a time allocation to discuss each agenda item would be appropriate and held to in order to complete agenda OCT P. 5 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Report 5:30 PM, Wednesday, September 22, 1993 Tonka Bay city Hall Present: Committee Chair Scott Carlson-Minnetrista; Tom Reese-Mound; George Owen-Victoria; Bill johnstone-Minnetonka; Jim Grathwol-Excelsior; Bob Rascop-Shorewood; Tom Penn-Tonka Bay; Bert Foster-Deephaven; Gene Strommen, Executive Director; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician. 8/25/93 MEETING REPORT: The committee accepted the meeting report of 8/25/93, and forwarded it to the Board for approval. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS ON CITIES' RESPONSES TO LMCD'S 8/22/93 ADMINISTRATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMORANDUM ON LMCD'S STRUCTURE, FUNDING AND RESPONSIBILITIES: MINNETRISTAL Carlson reported on his meeting with the Minnetrista city Council. The council expressed support for 1) funding through a metro area watercraft surcharge. 2) a smaller Board size. There was no problem with Minnetrista being combined with Victoria, but the council did not want to be combined with Minnetonka Beach because it is not close by. Carlson believes the tax capacity of Minnetrista will experience more growth in the near future than the other lake cities. Carlson advised that Senator Gen Olson was interested in the subcommittee report progress, as it relates to future legislation. Carlson commented on the Mayors' Meeting as follows: Callahan OronQ - believes LMCD should be abolished Rockvam Sprinq Park - believes LMCD should continue to manage the lake, but needs changes Abdo. Minnetonk~ Beach - supportive of LMCD and encouraged LMCD's coordinator role through the Environment Committee Anderson Excelsior - supportive of LMCD, concerned with funding Duf_~f Woodlan~ - supportive of LMCD Hau_~ Tonka ~ - has made some statements about LMCD being abolished Administrative Committee Meeting Report, 9/22/93, Page 2 VICTORIA: Owen reported that his meeting with the Victoria city council was positive. He didn't find that there are any problems with Victoria. There were no comments on restructuring the LMCD Board. MINNETONKA BEACH: Johnstone attended the last Minnetonka Beach council meeting. The council members like the current board size and representation. They prefer funding from revenue instead of property taxes, but are concerned about going to the legislature. MINNETONKA: Johnstone went to the Minnetonka council meeting in July. The general belief was that the funding of the organization is a good value. The council supports having a local governing body. There were no comments on restructuring the Board at that time. EXCELSIOR: Grathwol said that the Excelsior council was supportive. Its concerns are with funding. SHOREWOOD: Rascop met with his city council before the subcommittee memorandum was distributed. He stated that the council is satisfied with the status quo and is supportive of the LMCD. MOUND: Reese reported that the Mound council members are in favor of a seven member board. They would prefer to be represented alone, or with Spring Park. They feel that 14 members are too many. However, they will work with the present board makeup. TONKA BAY: Penn said that although the mayor speaks against the LMCD, he does not appear to have council support for his position of disbanding the LMCD. The mayor's chief problem is with funding. The council favors a smaller board, but does not want to give up their vote. There was support for a user fee. DEEPHAVEN: Foster said that the council is okay with the LMCD budget. The council does not want to commit to the car/trailer public access parking agreement. CITY LEVY DUE DATES: Carlson said that the District needs to establish due dates for the city levies. Strommen noted that about half of the cities pay in full in January. The balance pay quarterly, a fairly long standing practice. CITY SURVEY IDEA: Carlson wondered if a survey should be sent to the lake cities asking what they see are the priorities for managing the Lake, such as decibel levels, BWI violations, wake problems. Administrative committee Meeting Report, 9/22/93, Page 3 BOARD WORKSHOP: · The Board workshop date was recommended for 9.00 am, Saturday, November 20, after the Water Structures Committee meeting. Some suggested topics for discussion were: 1) Supplemental surcharge for metro watercraft to address Eurasian water milfoil funding 2) Board structure modification 3) Multiple dock license fees THIRD QUARTER LMCD REPORT TO MAYORS MEETING: Committee members were reminded of the LMCD Report to Mayors Meeting scheduled for 7:00 am, Friday, September 24, at the Lafayette Club. The meeting adjorned at 6:50 PM. 10/21/93 RT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA OCT 2 5 1993 7:00 PM - Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 27, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd 7:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARING Maple Forest Addition, Minnetrista, West Upper Lake - New Multiple Dock License Application for an eight slip dock Gale & Jeannie Stead, 21600 Fairview Street, Greenwood, Lower Lake South; Dock use area, side setback and length variance 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE - INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Johnstone READING OF MINUTES - 9/22/93'Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda (5 minute limit) CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests an individual discussion of any item. In that case the item will be removed from consent agenda and considered as a specific item. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock * A. Approval of minutes, 10/9/93 meeting Bo Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Dock Length Variance Application, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay; recommending approval of revised site plan with conditions per minutes * C. Robert & Barbara Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, Mound, Halsteds Bay; recommending approval of Public Hearing Report and draft Findings & Order approving 5' side setback variance with same terms and conditions as included in variance order granted Stock's 8/25/93 * D. Boulder Bridge Farms Homeowners Assoc., Shorewood, S Upper Lake; recommending approval of new license for reconfiguration of docks in lagoon with no increase in number or size of slips, with bridge to be replaced before docks are rebuilt "LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 10/27/93, Page 2 Ee F® * G. Deicing Licenses: 1) Applications requiring Board approval; recommending approval with special notice that on finding any violation, the Water Patrol will be immediately contacted for issuance of a citation a) Minnetonka Boat Works, Browns Bay, Orono b) North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono 2) Applications approved by Executive Director, list attached (no-action required) Lakeshore Lighting: recommending a lighting subcommittee be appointed, with Reese as chair, to prepare a Request for Proposals with a budget of no more than $5,000, to hire a lighting consultant to develop an ordinance and technical specifications, to be funded by the Save the Lake fund Fee Payment and Late Fee Schedule: recommending the fee payment and late fee schedule for multiple dock licenses be the same in 1994 as was established for 1993 * A. H. Additional business 1) Cosentino Variance application refund LAKE USE AND RECREATION, chair Foster Approval of minutes, 10/18/93 meeting B. Joint & Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for Sheriff's Water Patrol services in 1994 - recommending approval with letter of recommendations per committee discussion with Inspector Postle and Captain Peterson of Sheriff's Dept * C. De Ze Special Events · 1) Deposit Refunds of $100 each - recommending approval of. a) Mtka Redman Tournament, by Operation Bass, 9/19/93 b) Don Shelby US Invitational 9/9/93-9/11/93 c) Minnetonka Crossing Windsurfing - event cancelled d) viking Bassmasters Tournament, 10/3/93 First reading of An Ordinance Relating to Refundability of LMCD License Fees; amending LMCD Code Sect. 1.06, Subd. 5 Fees; recommending approval Annual Shoreline Boat Count (no action required) Hennepin county Sheriff's Water Patrol Report Ge Additional business 1) Boat & Water Safety Education Program for BWI offenders, first date set for Saturday, 11/13/93 (no action required) LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol * A. Approval of minutes, 10/18/93 meeting B. Progress on the Report of the 1992 Task Force Study C. Additional business LMCD Board of Directors Agenda, 10/27/93, Page 3 o ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Rascop l) Approval of minutes, 10/12/93 meeting 2) News report detailing Stakeholder Survey results and Environment Committee recommendations 3) Preliminary preparations for detailing Phase Two tasks as identified in Stakeholder Survey 4) Additional business Be Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn 1) Approval of minutes, 10/15/93 meeting 2) Scientific Subcommittee recommendation for Hennepin Conservation District to provide matching grant funds for weed pulling and sediment treatment to control EWM 3) Additional business 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson * A. Approval of minutes, 9/22/93 meeting B. Report on 10/27/93 meeting held prior to Board meeting C. Additional business FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson * A. September Statement of Cash Transactions * B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (handout at meeting) C. Quarterly reports EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. Office lease renewal Be Depository Agreement with Norwest Bank re: authorized signers for checking and savings accounts Ce Treasurer's Bond, for change in treasurer from Carlson to Rascop D. Meeting Schedule review NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT ~10/21/93 ~AKB NZNNB?0NKA CONSBRVA?ZON DZS?RZC? Public ~ea~£~g: To conside~ a variance application ~rom Robert and Barbara Floeder, 3022 Blu[[s ~ane, Hound, 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). o The Floeders property was platted 12/74, and has 20.6' f 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. 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 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. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT In Re: Application for VariRnce of Robert & Barbara Floeder FINDINGS On Wednesday, September 22, 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 Robert and Barbara Floeder, the owners of property located on Halsteds Bay at 3027 Bluffs Lane, Mound, Minnesota. The application of Mr. & Mrs. Floeder was for a variance from the setback limitations provided by the LMCD Code of Ordinances. at the hearing on behalf of the application. The subject lot was platted in December, 1974. Mr. & Mrs. Floeder appeared It has approximately 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 determinin'g 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 on lots as small as 20 feet CLL60021 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 the 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 57 and 111 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. ~ CLL60021 LKllO-4 2 7. 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 before 1977 when the Floeders purchased the lot, with the dock in place. 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. 8. 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 allowed. 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. CLL60021 LKll0-4 3 · 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 no more than 3 feet in width. 9.. 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 shall 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 ~ day of , 1993. Eugene R. Strommen Executive Director k ~ CI.L60021 LKI10-4 4 1 (6) (5) OUILOT & '"'"' (,4) ( (3) 14 (Z6) (17) (16) ~ R[CO OCT 2 5 1993 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 22, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Penn at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; William Johnstone, Minnetonka; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; George Owen, Victoria; Duane Markus, Wayzata. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Robert Slocum, Woodland; Orono, no appointed board member. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS - Penn for Cochran None PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda. None READING OF MINUTES - 8/25/93 Board Meeting A. Rascop moved, Owen seconded, to approve the minutes of the 8/25/93 Board meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA A. Reese moved, Babcock seconded, to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Items so approved are indicated by a "*" Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock *A. Approval of minutes, 9/11/93 meeting. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 2 *C. Do Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Variance Application, Gideons Bay, recommending approval of 9/11/93 site gonditions on lighting and canopies. Dock Lenqth Tonka Bay; plan with Babcock noted that a new site plan dated 9/22/93 has been received from the applicant addressing DNR concerns per 9/21/93 letter about the wetland areas. Foster stated that it was troubling to receive the new site plan and the DNR letter right before the meeting. Penn noted that the site plan that was just received is different than the one reviewed by the Water Structures Committee on Saturday that is because of the DNR changing its position on the vegetation removal to a dredging permit requirement. The applicant prefers not to dredge, thus the greater dock extension. MOTION: Moved by Fost=r, seconded by Grathwol to table the request and refer it back to the Water Structures Committee for review. Motion carried with Reese, Carlson, Babcock and Bloom voting nay. Rascop felt that Lot 3 should also be addressed at the committee meeting. The applicant stated that the plan presented addresses dock access for Lot 3. He indicated that this is the best compromise and indicated his willingness to work with the Water Structures Committee. Rascop felt that access for every platted lot should be indicated on the site plan. Bloom stated that the piece of land on the west side near Pearl Street doesn't actually exist, but it is clearly shown on every map he has seen. He suggested that a more accurate map be available. Cosentino Dock Length Variance Application, 20640 Linwood Road, Deephaven, Lower Lake South; recommending approval of Findings and Order denying dock length variance. Unrestricted watercraft at multiple docks; recommendin9 ~proval of staff proposal, as amended, for cod,-~ amendments. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 3 Unrestricted watercraft (Continued) Babcock reviewed the Water Structure Committee's four reconunendations for code amendments relating to unrestricted watercraft at multiple docks. MOTION: Moved by Babcock, Foster seconded to recommend approval of the code amendments and that the ordinance language be drafted. Grathwol was concerned about the 1:10 boat density. Babcock stated that the committee recommended 1 boat per 15' of shoreline. MOTION: Moved by Rascop, Marcus seconded to amend the previous motion to change the code amendment from 1 boat per 15' of shoreline to 1 boat per 50' of shoreline. Foster stated that he is opposed to the amendment. He felt it was too restrictive. It doesn't allow the sailing schools enough Ooats. Carlson was concerned about the effect on current multiple dock licenses. He felt that 1:15 is way too dense and has a visual impact on the lake. He was uncomfortable with voting on one or the other motion without knowing what the impact would be. Board members discussed various multiple dock licenses that have unrestricted boats on the lake. LeFevere stated that staff has provided a number of reports that the committee can review. He stated the motion on the table is to order the'preparation of an ordinance, and the language can be changed during the review process. Vote: Board members voted on the amendment to the motion. Motion failed: Voting in favor: Voting against: Carlson, Rascop, Marcus, Reese. Johnstone, Grathwol, Owen, Penn, Babcock, Foster and Bloom. Vote: Board members voted on the original motion. Motion carried with Bloom and Marcus voting against the motion. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 4 *E. Additional business: Chapman Place Marina Variance application refund (in the amount of $125.74). ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Rascop 1. Progress on Environment Survey response Rascop reviewed progress on the environment survey. He noted that out of 350 surveys sent out, only 50 have been returned. October meeting date and priority for city participation Rascop stated that the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 12, 1993 at 8:30 a.m. He stated that meeting attendance recently included only one city. He encouraged everyone's participation. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster *A. Approval of minutes, 9/13/93 meeting. Decibel Level Ordinance Amendment, third readinq; changinq the decibel level limit on Lake Minnetonka from 82 to 80 decibels. MOTION: Moved by Foster, Reese seconded, to approve the third reading of the ordinance relating to lowering the decibel level limit on Lake Minnetonka from 82 to 80 decibels. Motion carried with Babcock voting against the motion. Bloom asked if anything further has been heard from the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) about a model ordinance. Foster indicated that the NMMA uses a different procedure for testing decibel levels than the State of Minnesota does. He noted that the NMMA tests the noise level at the driver's seat, while the DNR tests 50' away from a passing boat. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 5 *C. Decibel Level Ordinance Amendment (Continued) Marcus questioned if the new ordinance can be enforced. LeFevere stated that it is a question for the sheriff to answer. He stated that there is no reason why it canft be enforced. Special Events - recommending approval of: Deposit Refunds of $100 each: a. Wednesday Evening Bassin', 6/2/93 - 8/4/93 b. Bell Industries Dealer Fishing Tournament, 8/25/93 c. Minnetonka Challenge 5-Mile Swim, 8/7/93 and 8/23/93 Application Refund (of $100) for Lake Minnetonka Ice Fishing Contest. Proposed Code Amendment to Section 1.06, Subdivision 5 Fees, recommending that license application fees be non-refundable. MOTION: Moved by Foster, Reese seconded that the ordinance be amended to have the license application fees be non-refundable. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop stated that the attorney should be directed to prepare an amendment to the existing ordinance. Foster added that it should be brought back to the Board for review. Carlson questioned what kind of events are included. Thibault discussed the various license fees included in the ordinance. Rascop believes that the fee used to be non-refundable. He was concerned about several non-profit organizations this would hurt, such as the Boy Scouts. Strommen stated that the code as we read it now is not clear. He indicated that the question becomes one of the review process. He stated that there could be a large investment on the part of committees and staff in time spent on the application. LeFevere noted that the current code is ambiguous. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 6 De Proposed Code Amendment (Continued) MOTION: Moved by Foster, Babcock seconded to direct the attorney to draft a code amendment to make the license application fees non-refundable. Motion carried unanimously. Foster noted that it should be non-refundable after the application document and fee have been received. Babcock felt that it should be after staff notifies the applicant that their request has been approved. LeFevere noted that the potential problem is that people don't put applications together well. Staff could put in a great deal of time and expense helping them submit their application. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report Additional Business Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Penn MOTION: Moved by Penn, Reese seconded to approve the Eurasian water milfoil report. Motion carried unanimously. Penn discussed the recent Milfoil Task Force meeting and report submitted. Owen suggested that a copy of the report be sent to every city. Carlson suggested that a cost per acre for harvesting be included in the report. He felt that there might be less expensive ways to remove the milfoil than harvesting. Penn stated that the task force also discussed the issue of pulling weeds vs. cutting. It was felt that it could be a viable alternative to cutting. He stated that one machine may be modified to determine its capability. He stated that a proposal will be submitted for the cost of doing this. He stated that there are some advantages to pulling, but it isn't the answer for the entire lake. It may be necessary to do a combination of pulling and cutting. He stated that the issue will be brought before the Board at a later date. Babcock asked what the problem was with propellers this year. Strommen stated that they are working the same, but there is more of a concern with fragmentation with harvesting. He explained how the machine is slowed down LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 7 Be Milfoil (Continued) and pushed into weed beds when there are high winds. He noted that the DNR is interested in a floating barrier at Spring Park Bay access to keep the access clear. He discussed the paddlewheel propulsion to avoid cutting weeds. Most commercial harvesters are built with this system. Penn felt that it was worth looking into. He felt that there might be some viability to looking into pulling to augment cutting. Carlson asked if there would be any state funding. Strommen noted that the DNR is looking at a cooperative program. He stated that there might also be other agency funding sources. Carlson felt that nothing should be done over and above what is currently being done unless funding is available. Penn noted that the DNR is getting pressure from out-of-state lake associations to more seriously address the milfoil issue in Minnesota. Reese felt that more review should be done on the costs of pulling before any money is spent. Penn agreed, stating that a lot more analysis needs to be done before any kind of decision is made. Penn discussed DNR sonar field testing on St. Alban's Bay. He also noted that the Corps of Engineers will be testing Cormans and Phelps Bays with Garlon 3A in 1994. Babcock asked if the Corps needs approval from any other governmental agency to proceed with the work. Strommen replied that the work is being done in cooperation with the DNR under EPA auspices. The Board would be kept informed of the progress. Johnstone asked if any preliminary reports have been prepared on the sonar tests. Strommen noted that information is just now being prepared. The report of the 9/17/93 meeting was distributed to the Board members in their packets. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson *A. Report of 8/25/93 meeting LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 8 Attorney opinion on votinq alternates for LMCD Board members MOTION: Moved by Carlson, Rascop seconded to accept the 9/8/93 attorney's report. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop noted that the mayors of surrounding cities should be provided with a copy of the report. There have been requests for alternates from Orono, Spring Park and Wayzata. Foster felt that Council members should also receive a copy. Co Board member reports on cities response to Administrative Committee Memorandum of 8/22/93 It was noted that there is no general consensus from the cities on the board makeup. It was the general consensus that some additional funding mechanisms would be appropriate. Carlson urged Board members to attend the mayors' meeting on Friday, September 24. *FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. August Statement of Cash Transactions MOTION: Moved by Carlson, Johnstone seconded, to approve the August statement of cash transactions. Motion carried unanimously. B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment MOTION: Moved by Carlson, Babcock seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment in the amount of $19,876.55, checks 9408 through 9445 and payroll check 1137. Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-REPORT, Strommen Personnel report, completion of probationary period for clerk Strommen stated that Jan Briner, clerk, has completed her six month probationary period. A performance review has been held, and staff is satisfied that she is LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 9 ae Personnel Report (Continued) performing above the level of her job requirements. An increase in pay from $6.75 to $7.25 per hour is recommended. MOTION: Moved by Carlson, Foster seconded, to recommend the increase to $7.25 per hour. Motion carried unanimously. Be Meetinq Schedule review Strommen suggested that the Board workshop considered by the Administrative Committee be held following the Water Structures Committee meeting. November 20th, from 9:00 a.m. to noon, was the Board consensus. Johnstone stated that he would like an attorney's opinion on whether or not the Board is complying with public meeting requirements. The Board discussed the issue and was satisfied all open meeting law requirements are being met. Grathwol called for a meeting on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. for the Lake Access Committee, immediately following the Lake Use and Recreation Committee. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Election of Officers, per Nominatinq Committee recommendation Carlson recommended the following Nominating Committee nominations: William Johnstone ................ Chair Thomas Penn ............... Vice Chair Douglas Babcock ............... Secretary ...... Treasurer Robert Rascop ......... Nominations were called for from the floor. MOTION: There being no further nominations, it was moved by Babcock, Foster seconded to close nominations. Motion carried unanimously. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PAGE 10 ae Election of Officers (Continued) MOTION: Moved by Foster, Bloom seconded to vote by acclamation for the slate of officers presented. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Penn adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Per signatures of Board officers: David H. Cochran Chair Douglas E. Babcock Secretary OCT 5 DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Meeting: Water Structures Committee 7:30 AM., Saturday, October 9, 1993 Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata. Room 135 Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Chair, Spring Park; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior: Robert Rascop, Shorewood: Robert Slocum, Woodland. Thomas Reese, Mound, arrived as noted. Also Present: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Techni- cian. 1. Michael Revier, 2691 Ethel Avenue, Orono, Dock Use Area variance application. Babcock reported that the Dock Use Area variance application from Michael Revier is pending the outcome of mediation between the applicant and the neighbors. The mediation is scheduled for 10/16. Babcock said discussion will be tabled until the media- tion is concluded. David Runkle, 2684 Casco Point Road, questioned why the subject was on the agenda. Thibault explained the agenda is prepared ten days before a meeting and the mediation date was not known at that time. Runkle said the mediation may take more than one meeting. 2. Gideons Point Homeowners Assn., Tonka Bay, Gideons Bay, Dock length variance application. Thibault reviewed the revised site plan dated 9/22/93. The primary difference with previous plans is that there is a dock for Lots 1 and 2 at 160' for the slips to start at the end of the cattails. The original plan was for a 190' dock. That was reduced to 120' The change to 160' is based on a recommendation from the ~nDNR that a dock length of 155' - 160' would not cause any significant problems for other types of recreation, will not require removal of cattails, will not require dredging and is consistent with other docks in the area. The new site plan provides for a 140' dock on Lot 3 with a walkway over the wet- lands to give access to the owner of Lot 3 without encroachment on Lot 4. Slocum asked Thomas Wartman, spokesperson for the Homeowners Association (HOA) what could be predicted for cattail growth in the next several years. Wartman said the current water depth, 3.5' at 929.72' elevation on 5/19/93, would prevent any addition- al growth as higher water causes cattails to recede.. Slocum expressed his opinion that he would rather see the dock at 120' with removal of some cattails. Foster said he does not believe the cattails will grow around the dock because of the boat activ- ity. Justin Holl, 30 Pearl Street, said that, the neighbors, while objecting to the length and location of the (locks, do not object to the owners having access to the Lake. Holl would like to see one dock for the three lots with one variance, with one walkway over the wetlands. WATER STRUCTtJRES COMMITTEE October 9, 1993 Jerry IIol 1, 30 Pearl Street, said she wants to preserve the wetlands. She asked that the new lakeshore owners not be allowed to riprap or wall off the Lake and that the cattails be allowed to remain to keep the water clean. She showed a site plan locating a dock with slips for Lots 1, 2 and 3 starting on the easterly peninsula on Lot 3. John Davis, 55 Willow Road, is a nei?hbor to the west of Lot 1. lie said he supports Mrs. Holl's proposal, tie said the dock on Lots I and 2 is the wrong location. Davis said tile Lake will go down again and he foresees the applicant coming back for a 210' dock in the future. By moving toward Lot 4 with all of the slips there is less disruption of the cattails. Gerald Hol I, 15 Highland Avenue, supports the $. llol I plan with the dock on the east side. tie said they have full support of the neighbors. The west side is tile wrong place as the east side has more water depth. It is their contention that there is no spit of land on the west side and that means tile dock is actually 300' in length. Foster responded that placing the clock on the east side would require an additional 390' of walkway through the wetlands to reach the 140' dock on Lot 3. Rascop said the J. }loll plan is not the one under discussion by the committee. Wartman said the J. llol I plan is not accept- able to the owners of Lots 1 - 5. Wartman said the J. Holl plan would create a multiple dock situation on Lot 3. The HOA has tried to follow the MnDNR guidelines with tile latest proposal. Babcock said the committee is trying to reach a satisfactory compromise. His personal view is the problem was created by the applicant when the 8' easement along the entire shoreline was not established. Respondino= to a question from Foster, Wartman said the original plan for the 8' easement was changed as a result of advice from his attorney and the LMCD attorney, Charles LeFevere, that the "declaration of watercraft storage facilities" gave the HOA control of the shoreline. The easement was mentioned in the Findings and Order but it was not filed. Babcock said the LMCD should have ensured that there was adequate water depth for the entire development, lie would prefer that the IIOA place tile docks in a det, p water arch on another property through easements. It is Babcock's belief that the tlOA has some leverage with the property owners. In tile 2550' of shoreline under the control of the HOA, Babcock believes there is adequate room for the docks. He does not support the variance request. He believes Holl's plan impacts the wetlands as much as Wartman's. He thinks placing the docks on I,ot 3 is better for water depth in low water years. Wartman said the water depth is essentially the same at Lot 3 as for Lots I and 2. Babcock responded that the committee should look at what is going to happen in low water years before making any decision. Justin Holl said in low water years he has not been able to get his boat out. Grathwol said both sides have been exercising restraint. The Holls are to be commended for bringing the wetland issue to the attention of the LMCD. Any one of the plans is consistent with past practices on tile Lake. He believes restrictions are WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE October 9, 1993 necessary so people have a chance to know beforehand what they have to do with wetlands. Grathwol said tie cannot find anything in the Code to distinguish which proposal is better. Rascop said the plan submitted by the HOA 9/22/q3 is the one the committee has to consider as long as the Holl plan is not acceptable to the HOA. This plan does not achieve the water depth of 4' (from 929.4' OHWL) the LMCD has set as a standard. Slocum said he would feel better about the plan if the com- mittee did not allow canopies on tile docks. Wartman said the HOA has agreed any canopies would be of the same color and there would be low shielded lighting. Wartman said the original plan called for an 80' setback. tlc said the dock on Lots l and 2 could be angled over to a 60' setback instead of the 40' shown. Foster said he believes the original denial was because of the dock across the wetlands. Now it has been concluded that a walkway across the wetlands is acceptable in these circumstances. He believes there was less impact at the 80' setback. He believes the ttoll plan is too cumbersome. Thibault said the Holl plan crosses much more wetland. To angle the dock further to the east would cut off more access to the wetland. Going out 160' is not desirable but would be al- lowed on a residential site. She said there is no practical place for any of these docks. The HOA has offered to reduce the density from 51 slips to 47 slips. The MnDNR does not have any problem with tile walkway over the wetland and accepts the 160' dock to preserve the cattails. Foster said he sees two issues. One is the possible change of the 40' setback to 60' The other is what to do in low water years, on the latter issue he wondered whether the LMCD could legally prevent the HOA from getting an extension when everyone else on the Lake is eligible. Babcock suggested requiring a shift of the boats to the outlot on the west side of the develop- merit in low water years. This would require a further extension of the Outlot dock with two or four more boats at this dock. Foster suggested some restriction on the size of boats to be stored in the si ips. Wartman said each owner is al located one 24' slip and one 32' slip. Foster said he could foresee one canopy for each lot. Itc would consider the 60' setback, allowing two canopies on the Lot 1 and Lot 2 dock with tie on spaces for two small boats, one on each side. Babcock said any decision should be based on what is best for any future owners, even though the current owners approve. Wartman said he would agree to a 60' side setback with one canopy each for Lots 1 and 2. He would agree to moving the boats to the Outlot in low water years if necessary. MOTION: Foster moved. Slocum seconded, to recommend to the Board that the 9/22/93 site plan be approved with a 60' side setback on the west side. The dock for Lots 1 and 2 to be limited to two 32' finger docks with side ties for the smaller boats, Lots 1 and 2 to be limited to one canopy each, the canopies to be the same color, with shielded lighting on the dock. The east side of WATF, R STRUCTURES COMMITTEE October 9, 1993 the Pearl Street property line is to be surveyed before the docks are built. The dock on Lot 3 is to be as shown on thc site plan presented. VOTE: Grathwol, Slocum and Foster voted aye. Babcock and Rascop voted nay. Motion carried. The final site plan is to bc furnished to thc IIol Is and Davis before the Board meeting. J. 14011 asked that the jog in the walkway to the dock on Lots 1 and 2 be removed. 3. Robert & Barbara Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, Mound, Halsteds Bay The committee received tile Public Hearing report of 9/22/93 including the Findings, for the application of Robert and Barbara Floeder for a reduction in the side setbacks from 10' to 5' to permit installation of a clock and a boat. Thibault distributed a letter from 6erald A Palen, 6547 Bartlett Boulevard, neighbor to the west, indicating no objection to the variance. Thibault said Charles LeFevere, LC,lCD Counsel, suggests using the Findings and Order for the variance granted to Thomas and Roma Stocks for a similar situation in the development and adapt them to the Floeder application. biOTION: Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to recommend approval of the variance application of Robert and Barbara Floeder under the same terms and conditions as included in the variance aranted to Thomas and Roma Stocks on 8/25/93. The Findings and Order are to be available to the Board at its 10/27 meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. drathwol was excused. 4. Boulder Bridge Farm 14omeowners Assoc., Shorewood, S Upper Lake The committee received a new multiple dock license applica- tion for reconfiguration of the (locks in the lagoon with no increase in the number or size of slips. Stephen Zahn, 28050 Boulder Bridge Drive, President, Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners Association, explained the purpose is to remove a pier dock in the lagoon and place the docks around the edge of the lagoon according to the 9/13/93 plan. Zahn showed the committee a drawing of the new bridge which will be built to access the s Iips on the northwest side of the lagoon. Tile new bridge will replace one taken down to al low access for dredging the lagoon. He said the MnDNR bas indicated the HOA does not need a permit for a pre-fabricated br-idge. }le will furnish the District with the letter from the MnDNR. The bridge will be 11.3' high, high enough to allow entrance of dredging equipment in the future. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded, to recommend approval of the minor change in the grandfathered multiple dock license of the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association with no increase in the size and number of slips. The bridge is to be in place before the reconfigured docks can be built. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE October 9, 1993 Reese arrived during the following discussion. 5. Deicing License Applications A. Applications requiring committee and Board Approval. 1) Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono, Browns Bay 2} North Shore Drive Marina, Orono. Maxwell Bay In a memo dated 10/8, Thibault explained that the Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono, Browns Bay and the North Shore Drive Marina. Orono. Maxwell Bay applications were denied refund of their full deposit last year because third inspections were required. Ordinance #119 provides they be referred to the Board because they did not get back their full refund. Foster said tile licensees must understand the importance of the fencing and thin ice signs. He favors deicing because he favors pi le driven docks. He suggested a double fee for the current license year for Minnetonka Boat Works and North Shore Drive Marina. Rascop said that would require an amendment to the fee schedule. Rascop suggested flagging tile fee rcsolut ion so an increase can be included in 1994. Babcock suggested adopting a policy that once a letter is sent to a licensee notifying of a deficiency which is not cor- rected within 48 hours, a citation should be issued by the Water Patrol. Rascop suggested tile immediate tagging of the installa- tion with a tag similar to what a building inspector issues for a violation. Slocum said there would have to be more than just an LMCD tag as that might blow away or not be noticed immediately. Reese suggested issuing a provisional license to the two licensees under consideration. They would be advised they wil I be treated differently than other renewals unless there are no further violations. Babcock suggested using the LMC, D tag for immediate visibili- ty. That would be followed by a letter and phone call. Forty- eight hours should be the maximum allowed for correction. A letter should be sent to all applicants along with tile license advising them of the policy. Slocum said the 48 hours should start when the letter is sent. The committee discussed what would comprise a deficiency. Foster said there are cases when the open water extends beyond the licensees Dock Use Area. He said there should also be a provision for handling sites that have been abandoned or there is no one available to contact. Thibault said there is always the possibility of turning off the deicing equipment. She offered to work with the Water Patrol to see if they would support an LMC:D policy of issuing a citati_on if a deficiency is not corrected in 48 hours. Reese said the ultimate solution would be allow the LMCD to correct the deficiency and charge the cost back to the Iicensee. MOTION: Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend approval of the Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono. and the North Shore Drive Marina 1993-94 deicing licenses with a letter advising them that on finding any violation the Water Patrol will be contacted for issuance of a citation. The Ordinance requirements will be strictly enforced in 1993-94. VOTE: ~otion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE October 9, 1993 B. New and renewal appl icat ion~ to be approved by the Executive Director. Thibauit submitted a list of 23 deicing license ~pplications for 1.q93-94 received as of 10/8/93. Thibault reported that the neighbors of the Forest Arms Country Club, Orono, are concerned about the propo~'~ed deicing installation as it would create a safety hazard for children and snowmobilers in the area. The committee indicated it has no objection to the renewals, with the Executive Director having the option of bringing the two new applicants to the Board's attention. 6. Lakeshore Lighting The committee received a draft of an Ordinance amendment relating to artificial lights directed to the Lake from sites on the Lake. a 10/2/91 letter from LeFevere explaining that the amendment was written to avoid the LMCD being involved in land controls, a recent 9/13/93 memo from the Executive Director to the Technical Review Committee regarding a previous 10/14/92 letter proposing a model shoreland ordinance for regulating lakeshore lighting and the original 10/14/92 memo to the Techni- cal Review Committee recommending the model shoreland ordinance provision. Babcock said there are several types of lightin~° situations to consider. 1) Multiple Dock Licensees whose lights areregulat- ed under the Code. 21 Homeowners xYho light their docks. 3~ Sites which have lights but no docks. These sites are difficult to control as they have no relation to the Lake. 41 Lights on non-riparian property. Reese said he feels this has been discussed for over a year and is frustrated by the level of follow up. Thibault responded that the staff has contacted the cities anti the Technical Review o ordinance. The cities Committee with a model shoreland l ightin~ have not elected to act on the specific recommendations. Reese said there are two solutions, one is a shielded light and the other is a movement detector to trigger lighting, tie suggested bringing in a representative from Northern States Power to make NSP aware of the problems inherent in the type of light- ing it is installing. Babcock said the thought in previot~s years was to get the cities to put shoreland lighting regulations in their Shoreland Ordinances. That did not happen. Rascop added it must be remem- bered the LMCD requires lighting for deicing facilities. Babcock said the District needs an ordinance people can understand with a technical description. Perhaps it should say LMCD does not want the light source visible from the Lake for more than 10 minutes at a time. Rascop said he would not recom- mend any ordinance which cannot be enforced. Babcock said the District should consider adoptin~ a light- ing Ordinance, develop the technical specifications, then allow time to phase the lights in. Perhaps there should be a moratorium WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE October 9, 1993 on new lights. LMCD might also help cities develop new lighting ordinances. Rascop though perhaps any lighting should be shield- ed away from the Lake. Reese suggested bringing in a lighting consultant to work with the committee. MOTION: Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to cecommend appointment of a lighting subcommittee with Reese as Chair with the charge to prepare a Request For Proposals with a budget of no more than $5,000 to hire a lighting consultant to do an ordinance and technical specifications. Funding could come front the Save the Lake Fund. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. "Envelope Concept" for Multiple Dock Licenses Thibault asked if the committee is interested in having l.,eFevere prepare an opinion on the envy. lope conccl~t for tile committee. Rascop suggested going back thl'ough tile fi Ices to put together previous information gathered on the subject. Thibault said it is necessary to know how the envelope concept would affect the other ordinances. Babcock said he believes there is only one objective of marinas in the envelope proposal. It is to expand boat sizes at grandfathered multiple docks. He said the multiple docks with a 1:50' or a 1:10' density can do whatever they want within the Dock Use Area (with Board approval ). The only category the envelope affects is the grandfathered license with greater densi- ty than 1:10' Changes are allowed at those sites within 100' front the 929.4' shoreline, if the si ip ,sizes do not increase. He does not believe the envelope concept is consistent with the Management Plan. Foster suggested al lowing grandfathered marinas to make changes in the dock configuration within the envelope of their license, not limitin.~ it to 100' with n~ increase in slip size. Foster said he would want the grandfathercd marinas to be allowed to make changes within the "footprint" of their licenses without a variance. He does not want them to increase the footprint size. Babcock suggested dropping the expression "envelope" Foster said it could be changed to a "grandfather marina modified envelope concept" with the understanding the licensee can do any- thing within the allocated area except increase the slip sizes. Babcock said the real problem with the reconfi-~uration is the lack of information as to just how many slips and the slip sizes on some of the Erandfathered marinas. In many cases there is not a registered survey. Rascop suggested the staff bring a report back to the com- mittee. The committee suggested Thibault discuss with LeFevere the effect of allowing changes in the 100' to 200' area, with no increase in slip size by just changing some words in Sect. 2.01, Subd. 2 a) of the Code. 3-5 WATER STRUCTURES COMMI'FTEE October 9, 1993 8. Multiple Dock License Renewal Fees Babcock said in 19q2 the District set up a fec payment schedule allowing a 20% deposit of the full application fee, with a $100 minimum due on or before 12/1. There followed a late fee schedule for penalties if the deposit was not received by 12/1. The full amount or balance was due 3/31. Babcock asked if the committee would want to recommend the full license fee being due 12/1/93 with penalties after that date or an extension of the 1q93 fee schedule for 1994. Foster said he would favor the extension to the Iqq4 license fee with notice that there will be a reversion to the full amount being clue on 12/1/94 for 1995. Babcock said the licensees were advised that this was in effect for 1993 only. Thibault agreed the licensees were given adequate notice. Slocum said he believes asking fol' the full fee on 12/1 is a hardship on the applicants. Rascop suggested making the applica- tion fee due 1/1 as long as it is an annual license with increase late fee charges. Reese suggested reducing the first month's late fee. The committee discussed the LMCD cash flow needs. Thibault said the schedule used last year was successful in bringing in full payment of all the applications by' 3/31. MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend the Multiple Dock License Fee schedule remain the same as it was established for 1993, for the 1994 licenses. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The executive director is to report on any cash flow effect. Adjournment Chair Babcock declared tile meeting adjourned at 10:45 AM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair REC'D OCT 2, 5 · DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting: 5:30 PM., Honday, October 18, 1903 Norwest Bank Buildinz, Wayzata, LMCD office Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven: James Grath- wol, Excelsior: Tom Penn, Tonka Bay: Thomas Reese, .Hound. Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach arrived as noted. Also Prescott: Inspec- tor Michael Post le. tlennepin County Sheri ff's I)epartment: Capt. Larry Peterson, Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician. Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. arrived as rio t e d. The meeting was called to order by Chair Foster at 5:35 I'M. 1. Joint & Cooperative Agreement with t!ennepin County for the Sheriff's Water Patrol Services. Post le said there have not been any complaints or concerns expressed regarding the Joint and Cooperative Agreement between Hennepin County and the LMCD since the extensive review in 1992. Peterson said there are no changes contemplated in the Agreement. Bloom arrived. Postle commented on the recommendations contained in the letter dated 10/30/92 which confirmed the Board's renewal of the Agreement for 1993, namely: I. The Chair of the Lake Use and Recreation Committee will serve as liaison with the Water Patrol. attend deputy training sessions and legal reviews conducted by I.HCD's Prosecutin~ attor- ne y. Postle Comments: The training sessions the Chair may attend should be limited to selected volunteer special deputy training sessions only. Outside attendance at tile training ,;c~sions for the Sheriff's Deputies is limited. Postle said some of the instructors do not want outside attendance at the classes. Foster said he has not attended any training sessions be- cause he was not aware of them. Ite has met with the prosecuting attorney on occasion. The recommendation will be re-written to reflect Postle's comme n t s. 2. An informal open house at Water Patrol headquarters be encouraged to allow LMCD Board members to get better acquainted with Water Patrol personnel and learn more about its enforcement program. 3. Each LMCD Board member is encouraged to ride with a patrol crew while on Water Patrol duty. Postle comments: There is an open invitation to visit the Water Patrol headquarters. Foster said tie and Reese have visited tile headquarters. Penn said it is difficult to do that unannounced, and Board members do not appear to be motivated to do it. He suggested structuring a meeting with the committee and Board members at the Water Patrol lteadquarters. I.AKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE Octol~er 18, 1093 Post le said the Sheriff's Patrol Division administration will be moving to new quarters in the Brooklyn Park/~laple Grove area. Starting in blarch of 1994 all of tl~e vehicles at~d emergen- cy equipment wi l ! be sto~ed at the new l~c:at ion. 'l'hnt will open up m~re space at the Sprillg Park location for the W;tter Patrol Lieutenant and deput les. Penn suggested the 1, ake Use and Retreat loll Col)lini t tee cou Id hold a meeting at the Water Patrol office in Spring Park. Foster recommended having an activity where tl~e I.~,IC'D Board members could vlsi t the Water Patrol headquarters for a tour to see how it operates. This could stimulate additional support for Water Patrol activities. Reese said the program of accompanyin~ the deput les on patrol is important. Post le said the Wnter Patrol encourages that activity. It was agreed recommendations 2 and 3 could be combined. 4. Deputies should have additional sensitivity training in dealing with the public. Reese said he found the deputy he rode with sensitive to the pub I i c. Postle Comments: Sensitivity trai~i~1 is part o1' tl~c train- ing a deputy receives before beino, certified by. the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) as a Iicensed officer. This recom- mendation should be addressed to the volu~teer special deputies. Strommen arrived. Foster said he would like to see the deputies audi volunteers be especially sensitive in their public contacts because of the recruational nature of the lake use. Pod;tie said that all offi- cers have the same amount and kind of tr~,ining wherever they are Wol'killg. postle said thcy certain areas, like I.akc qinnetonka. 'l'hvrc :qhould I~c no diflcr- ence in treatment between boaters and motorists, p,zte~sou ~aid all complaints are thoroughly investigated. Peterson said a volunteer special deputy is relieved of duty if there a~c repeat complaints, lie said a deputy on tl~e Water Patrol cannot be held to a different standard than any other deputy. Grathwol said it should be understood the District is con- cerned about the deputies who operate on the Lake. lle suggested a re-wording of the recommendation to: "Volunteer Special Depu- ties should continue to have special trainin~ in deal in~. ~ith the public." He does not believe that means the District is saying they should be held to different standards. Peterson said he does not have any problem with tl~e wording suggested by Grathwol. Postle suggested chanein7 the word "sensitivity" He said in police parlance sensitivity usually oo ted the wordin:,z bo: "The applies to civil ri*hts~ . He su~es - volunteer special deputies should continue regular,, in-service officer-violator training in dealing with the public. A ~ewordin~ will be drafted. 5. Semi-annual meetings will be held with the W;~ter Patrol and other involved public safety departmcnts to discuss summer and winter lake rules enforcement priorities. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 18, 1993 Peterson sa'id he understands from Sgt. wm. Chandler that the LbtCD is to set up the meetings. A meetino in November was sug- gested. The executive director said this is an objective of the Management Plan. 6. The Water Patrol agrees to work with tile LblCI) to develop monthly enforcement information pertinent to Lake ~linnetonka, recognizing that this may require some hand tabulation to secure data specific to Lake blinnetonka. Peterson said the District has been vetting that information mo n t h 1 y. Foster asked for the addition of a seventh recommendation. Foster said the District has passed a new decibel ordinance for Lake Minnetonka changing from 82 dba to 80 dba, following complaints from the public and from the Water Patrol that boats which passed tile tests were st i I I noisy, l'oster su,._,gcsted de- veloping the State testing method for measuring decibels at the site instead of the 50' pass by test. tie said the pollution Control Agency has a system of testing boats by holding the meter 4' above the water and 4' behind the transom. This v:ould allow the deputy to issue a citation at the site where the violation occurred rather than requiring the offender to brin~ tire boat to the Water Patrol test site. Peterson said his personal feelin~ is that the deputies would like to test and ticket at the same time. They are obli- gated to the ordinance requirements. Postle said Foster's suggestion is agreeable if it is ac- ceptable to the courts. Language will be drafted for inclusion of a seventh recom- mendation regarding on-site testing of decibels and ticket issu- ance if in violation. The changes in the recommendations wi I I be drafted and submitted to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department. MOTION: Foster moved, Bloom seconded, to recommend to thc Board approval of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement between Hennepin County and the Lake lqinnetonka Conservation District for tire services of the Sheriff's Water Patrol for 1994 with the letter of recommendations as discussed by the committee. VOTE: l~lotion carried unanimously. Postle said the Agreement could be approved without going through the County Attorney as long as there are no changes in the Agreement. 2. Special Events A. Review Definition of Special Events The commit tee rece ired a ! 0/I 2/03 mvmo f rOlll 'l'l~il~au I t con- taining suggestions for changes in the code regardin'.2 thc defini- tion of special events. A list of the types of special events was distributed. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 18, 1993 Foster said the subject deserves more time and study. Peterson said Sgt. Chandler or Deputy Schmidt coul{I attend the next committee meeting to assist in def'ining speci~l events and help in matching the definitions the Water Patrol uses with the LMCD Code. Snowmobile Rental Proposal The executive director said Recreational Concepts, Inc. Snowmobile Rental and Tours (RCI} intends to rent snowmobiles at the Excelsior Park Tavern site. He said it is possible that RCI might involve some events which would require licensing. The actual rental would not be regulated by the LMCD Code according to the executive director's Code assessment. Peterson said he does not expect the Water Patrol to be involved in the rental activities as there is no inspection requirement for snowmobiles. The Water Patrol would be limited to enforcing the Code regarding snowmobile use on the Lake. The committee concurred with the executive director's as- sessment that LM(?D has no Code provision regulating a rental operation taking place at a land facility. The Water Patrol and City of Excelsior were advised of RCI's communication. An event program would be handled according to LMCD Code requirements. 2.B. Deposit Refunds MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of $100 deposit refunds to each of the following: 1) Mtka Redman Tournament, by Ol~er:~tion Ba:;s, 0/19/~3 21 Don Shelby IIS Invitational, 9/0/03 - 9/11/93 3) Minnetonka Crossings (Cancelled) 4} Viking Bassmasters 10/3/03 VOTE: btotion carried unanimously. 3. Draft Ordinance, Amending Sect. 1.06, Subd. 5 Fees, to Speci- fy Non-refundability of License Application Fees MOTION: Bloom moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval of the first reading of An Ordinance Relating to LMCD License Fees; Amending I,MCD Code Section 1.06, Subdivision 5. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. Annual Shoreline Boat Count The committee received the annual shoreline boat count, with comparisons to previous years. This year a count for each bay by type of boat was included. The committee also received the lqO3 inventory of docks with three or more restricted watercraft along with the lqgl and 1992 inventor les. Grathwol observed that the shoreline boat count shows a density similar to 1986, prior to the drought years. Thibault noted there are fewer docks with over four restricted watercraft than last year. The information will be forwarded to the Board. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE October 18, 1993 5. Water Patrol Report The committee received the Water Patrol monthly activity report showing the following: * One accident - Excelsior Bay * Three thefts from boats * One damage to Watercraft , Two BWI's * One drowning - Black Lake , Miscellaneous: Investigate divers for tile Hinnesota Historical Society on Abandoned Property. Lower Lake North. An evidence dive for the Mound Police Department. Priest's Bay. The report will be forwarded to the Board. 6. Additional Business Foster said the committee should plan on spending more time on the special event review at the next meeting. 7. Adjournment Bloom moved, Foster seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 PM. FOR TIlE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen. Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair OCT 5 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Access Committee Minutes 6:45 pm, Monday, October 18, 1993 LMCD Conference Rm. 160, Norwest Bank Bldg. Present: Committee Chair Jim Grathwol, Excelsior; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; Tom Reese, Mound; Gordon Kimball, Larry Killien, DNR Trails & Waterways; Howard Bennis, Deephaven; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE REPORT, INTRODUCTION. Chair Grathwol provided background on the Task Force study draft which was initially sent out to board members. He said completion and acceptance of this report will close out the Task Force study Subsequent to this draft, the executive director circulated a refined narrative of the first outline, including additional detail from the 1993 subcommittee meetings. The purpose of this outline is to present all of the subcommittee and Task Force proceedings from which a more concise report will be developed. It will set the direction for future accomplishment of the 700 car/trailer parking goal. In addition to the detailed outline, Gordon Kimball and Martha Reger prepared highlights and conclusions dealing with 1. Goal of 700 car/trailer parking spaces 2. Standards for car/trailer parking 3. Parking inventory 4. Public access agreements between LMCD and the cities 5. Potential new access sites 6. Marina potential to augment lake access 7. Grays Bay Causeway access site 8. Maxwell Bay access site (not ready at this time) Kimball added he does not see the report containing information on Management Plan objectives, nor to review the 1983 and 1986 Task Force studies. It should set the stage for action to be taken, continue processing the access agreements and determine marina potential for public access. REPORT DISCUSSION. Committee discussion offered recommendations to: 1. Develop the final report to incorporate: a. A one page bullet-type executive summary to identify: * The task * What was accomplished * What has to be done b. A short text utilizing Kimball's outline c. Identify the tasks which the Task Force will be delegating to the LMCD to carry out LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Minutes, 10/18/93, P. 2 d. Appendix which would include~:~ * Standards * Inventory * Car/Trailer parking * List of existing access sites * List of potential access sites * List of marinas to consider for potential car/trailer parking augmentation * Task Force members identified by agency or organization * A brief chronology Satisfaction with the direction the report summary is taken was expressed by Jabbour. City of Deephaven council member Bennis expressed his difficulty in supporting designated public access through a formal agreement. Committee members were supportive of finding a way to work with Deephaven officials so that a formal agreement could be accomplished. Killien advised the committee that he will represent the DNR in the implementation aspects of the Task Force study as Kimball takes on another assignment in Trails and Waterways. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT MEETING. Considering the next phase of editing and preparations the Task Force report must now undergo by LMCD and DNR staff, Grathwol concluded that the committee should meet again to review the revised report. The next meeting was agreed for: 7:00 pm, Monday, November 22 (fol-lowing the 5:30 pm Lake Use Committee) LMCD Conference Room 135 ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. Euge~F..R. _S.tron~.en Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force Minutes 8:30 am, Friday, October 15, 1993 Conference Rm 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata Present: Task Force Chair Tom Penn, LMCD Board, Tonka Bay; Bob Rascop, Shorewood, Tom Reese, Mound, LMCD Board John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Miles Canning, Tom Frahm, Bob Leighton, LMLOA; Mike Halverson, Rick Walsh, Chip Welling, MN DNR; Dick Osgood, LMCD consultant; Marsha Videen, Parkers Lake Improvement Assn. Gene Stron~nen, LMCD executive director MINUTES REVIEW. 10/15/93 minutes were accepted as presented. MN DNR REPORT ON AQUATIC EXOTICS CONTROL. The DNR report was presented first to allow full LMLOA presence during the Scientific Subcommittee review of the pulling grant proposal. Sonar (fluridone) Test Sites were reviewed by Chip Welling. Parkers Lake had a bad algal bloom, as a result little milfoil growth was observed as late as August. St. Alban's Bay enclosures were disturbed by lake gull defecation resulting in heavy algal blooms within the enclosures. Zumbra tests were not affected by algal blooms. However, the enclosures with moderate to heavy Sonar dosage rates had milfoil growth in them. It appears the data from these tests will be limited as to dosage rate comparison. A report on the results should be ready in November, Welling added. He further noted that whatever the test result outcome, whole lake Sonar tests will be conducted in 1994. Crooked Lake, Coon Rapids, inspection this year shows some native plants have returned. It is believed other native plants have not come back. Considerable chara (a lake-bottom growing fibrous algae) which may be preventing natives and even EWM from re-establishing new growth. The balance of 2.4d treatments were done this past month among existing infestations the DNR is helping to control. Reese asked why certain Lake Minnetonka areas which had heavy EWM infestations are now light to no EWM growth. Osgood responded that exotics are unpredictable, a characteristic of non-native plants. Barren has found from literature that all milfoil infestations experience diminished growth in their cycle. Halvorsen agreed that EWM monitoring on Lake Vadnais, Ramsey County, is now less than half of what it was in its early infestation. No treatment or mechanical control has been done on this St. Paul water reservoir lake. EWM TASK FORCE, Minutes, 10/15/93, P. 2 Access inspections of watercraft in EWM infested lakes were on schedule during the summer to meet the 10,000 hours authorized by legislation. Civilian Conservation Corps volunteers and some paid DNR staff conducted the access inspections. The Corps of Engineers matching grant to support biological control research is being resolved between the DNR and CoE St. Paul office. Luke Skinner, DNR, is working with Ed McNally. EVALUATION AND STATUS OF AQUATIC PLANT PULLING TESTING. LMCD Proposal to Modify Equipment for Fall Test -- Modifying equipment for an aquatic plant (weed) pulling test this fall was withdrawn, Strommen reported. LMCD mechanic Marsh Gabriel advised that the side propeller thrusters would inefficient or inoperable in certain milfoil growth areas without the side-wing cutters clearing at least a portion of the machine's path. As a result it would not be a representative test of what LMCD would need to know to determine its equipment's effectiveness for possible pulling purposes. Upon reviewing this circumstance with John Evans, Freshwater Aquatics, Evans agreed his harvester was not yet equipped the way he wants it for a measured pulling test. It was mutually agreed to cancel the fall test. A future test would be considered in 1994 when the equipment is ready. Strommen added that United Marine International (UMI) estimated $7,600 just for the materials to convert the propellers to paddle wheels. Installations costs were thought to bring the cost to about $10,000. Scientific Subcommittee evaluation of LMLOA grant proposal at request of Hennepin Conservation District. Subcommittee Chair John Barren reviewed the subcommittee report of 10/4/93 for two proposals dealing with weed pulling and a sediment treatment with iron to reduce EWM growth. The subcommittee recommended, with some misgivings, that both projects be funded with available dollars ($20,000) split at a 2:1 ratio between LMLOA proposal and Clear Water Technologies, Inc. proposal. Two conditions were added to the LMLOA proposal calling for (1) an independent evaluation of the weed puller as detailed in the 10/4 report, and (2) LMLOA provide more technical details on modifications, design changes, equipment and labor costs; Clear Water Technologies experimental design is to be expanded to include three lakes to improve statistical EWM TASK FORCE, Minutes, 10/15/93, P. 3 validity of the test, and only the evaluation portion of the proposal should be funded. All grant monies should be repaid if the projects result in profits for the applicants. Barten reiterated the subcommittee's problem with the weed puller proposal because it is conceptual. No technical information supports how the pulling operation would actually work. Plans and equipment specifications were lacking. Barren also expressed doubt on the iron sediment treatments performing the desired control. Miles Canning stated that the weed pulling machine modification will require a certain amount of experimentation to get the machine operating. He also expressed concern that $14,000 is short of the $21,000 needed. He was not sure where %he extra funds will come from. Strommen recommended that marina owners as a group, or individually, may be willing to support the project. Some may be able to provide in-kind service and supplies. Canning asked if the Save the Lake funds could be used. Penn responded that it would depend upon the final proposal. It could be within the scope of research and education aims of the fund. Accountability as to how the test is conducted and how the funds are used is a major consideration, Penn added. Rascop sees funding an entrepreneur's project something new for the Save the Lake fund It would depend on a well thought-out proposal. Reese suggested the dollars are understated for the pulling equipment development. He does not see LMCD having a role in the technical development. He does not see it applicable to LMCD's operation because of a possible tripling of LMCD's cost of the current cutting procedure. Canning points out that this technology will have a major role in shallow water harvesting. Frahm sees a major benefit as reducing residue by pulling. Reese suggested a mile stone schedule identifying when major tasks will be done. Penn believes if LMCD contributes to the program it will want to monitor the equipment development and use. Leighton asked that the Task Force look for reasons to support the new technology. Penn agreed with the understanding that it be presented correctly. It was the Task Force concensus that the Subcommittee Report be accepted based upon its stated conditions. EWM TASK FORCE, Minutes, 10/15/93, P. 4 HENNEPIN PARKS. John Barten reported that Bryant Lake has been inspected for milfoi! regrowth. No other treatments have been conducted since his last report to the Task Force. LAKE ASSOCIATION REPORTS. lake associations. There were no new reports from the NEXT MEETING AND ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, November 19. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 am. Director .,J 11 % · I,, I ,il, League of Minnesota Cities R[C'O OCT :2 5 1993 3490 l. min~n Avenue North S ?.d, N 120a044 IEC'I] OCT 2 5 1993 (612) 490-56~ October 22, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Managers or Clerks (Please distribute a copy of these materials to your mayor and councilmembers) James F. Miller (~ ~ f}q ~ Executive Director" 1994 Policy Adoption Conference and Legislative Policies Because the Legislature will be meeting in a "short" session in 1994, some anticipate that significant legislation will not be passed. History, however, suggests that every session of the Legislature can be critical. Therefore, it is important that your city exercise its right to vote on those policies which will guide the League's legislative program during this coming session. Enclosed is a copy of the 1994 City Policies and Priorities, as proposed by the league's policy committees and the Board of Directors. These policies address significant city issues such as local government aid, annexation, tax increment financing, transportation funding, and wetlands protection. The League membership will vote on these policies as part of the LMC Policy Adoption Conference which will be held on Thursday, November 18, 1993 at the Decathlon Club, 7800 Cedar Avenue South, Bloomington. Directions and other relevant information are included. In addition to consideration of the proposed policies, city officials will have an opportunity to hear from a variety of speakers on municipal issues. In order for League staff to plan properly for the meeting, please register as early as possible. We look forward to seeing all of you on November 18th. OVER 18 November 1993 I 2 3 4 $ 6 . 21 22 23 2~ 25 26 27 1993 Policy Adoption Meeting Plan now to attend the League of Minnesota Cities 1993 Policy Adoption Meeting on November 18, 1993 at the Decathalon Club in Bloomington. As a member of the League of Minnesota Cities, your city is entitled to vote on the League's 1994 City Policies and Priorities. The policies address crucial issues affecting cities, and your vote counts. Schedule 8:30 a.m. Eegistration 9:30 a.m.. President's message--Leland Swanson, LMC President and Mayor, Morris 9:4.5 a.m. Annexation/growth management 11:00 a.m. Open meeting law 11:4.5 a.m.. Legislative preview, House Speaker ltv Anderson (invited) 12:15 p.m.. Lunch l:lS p.m. Adoption of proposed policies Development Strategies Elections and Ethics General Legislation and Personnel Land Use, Energy, Environment and Transportation Revenue ,~u rets Mandates League of Minnesota Cities 1993 Policy Adoption Meeting I Registration form I I LMC 1993 Policy Adoption Meeting Ii City Contact person Ii Telephone 'number II Name Ii Title II Address II City Ii State Zip I I Thursday, November 18,1993 The Decatha!on Club Registration per person: $40.00 Make checks payable and mail to: League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55126 Feel free to duplicate for multiple registrations --I I I I Ii Name I~ Representing Ii Address Ii City II State I I I Housing form LMC 1993 Policy Adoption Meeting Please specify: $59 + tax single (one person) $59 + tax double (two people) Zip I will arrive after 4:00 p.m. Please guarantee the reservation with (Credit card) Number and expiration date Phone:( ) [ Month/Day/Year Month/Day/Year Arrival Arrival time Departure I Bloomington, MN 55425 I I Che& in time a:00 p.m. meckouttlme 12:00noon (612) 854-7777 Mail to: Reservations department The Decathalon Club 7800 Cedar Avenue South I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Directions to Decath~n Club DIRECTIONS TO DECATHLON CLUB RICHFIELD 1-4~4 BLOOMINGTON 71)~ S1 LON ATHLETIC CLUB KIIllbrlw Dr, 1 BURN$VlLLI~ From the east on 494; -494 West -to 12th & Port[and, exit right after Hwy. 77. -top of exit ramp turn left -go to second stop light (79th) turn left. -you will pass Eddie webster's (left side) -you will also pass First Star Financial Building on the left. -we are located on the left side, with the tennis courts facing the south side of the building. From the west on 494: -494 Bast -to Portland Exit -top of exit ramp go straight on service road parallel to freeway. -you will cross Portland and 12th. -pass Comfort Inn and Eddie Webster -we are located at the end of the service road on the right hand Our Adress is: The Decathlon Club 1700 Bast 79th Street Bloomington, MN 55425 Fax Number is: (612) 854-7777 League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55126 (612) 490-5600 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES POLICY ADOPTION MEETING RULES I. Registration Registration shall remain open from the previously annoUnced opening of conference registration until completion of policy adoption. 2. Voting Privileges Aoo The vote on any legislative matter shall be by acclamation; but at any time before the result of the vote is announced, the presider may, and shall, if requested to do so by ten or more delegates present, submit the question under consideration to a vote by municipality, in which case each member municipality represented shall have one vote. When any vote by municipality is conducted, only one delegate per city shall be permitted to vote on policy proposals, priorities, or motions. Each current LMC member city shall designate one official as delegate (and may select another city official as an alternate) for voting purposes. Only those officials with voting cards for their cities shall be eligible to vote. Possession of the voting card of the city and the signed voting card register shall be evidence that the holder of the voting car is the city's delegate for purposes of voting. 3. Committee Reports The chair or vice chaff of each committee shall present the committee report and move adoption of the policy statements. After adoption of policy language, the chaff or vice chaff shall move adoption of priority rankings. Upon a motion supported by at least 10 delegates, the chair shall place on the agenda for discussion: A) a proposal to make a substantive change in the language of a proposed policy, B) change a priority, C) a request to divide a proposed policy statement, or to take a position which the appropriate policy committee chaff or representative states was not considered by the committee. The text of nonproeedural motions and amendments, other than changes in policy priorities and motions to divide a policy statement, must be submitted in writing to the chair prior to debate. 4. Majority Required A) Amendments to language or division of proposed policy statements require a majority vote of the City delegates voting on the motion. B) Final passage of any policy or amended policy or change in priority requires a favorable vote of 2/3 of the City delegates voting on the policy. $. Disputes Disputes regarding eligibility to vote shall be referred to the LMC General Counsel and may be appealed to the conference. Such reports or appeals shall be a special order of business and may be taken up at any time a new question (main motion) is in order. 6. Limits on Debate Each speaker shall be limited to three minutes on any debatable question. The chair may extend the debate limits in order to consider an issue if numerous delegates request to be heard on the issue. The chair may reduce the time allotted for debate in order to complete policy adoption, but in no case shall the length of time be reduced to less than three minutes per side. 7. Parliamentary Procedure Precedence. The policy adoption process shall be governed by the LMC Constitution, these roles, and Roberts Rules of Order, Revised. The conference shall be its own judge of these roles and Roberts Rules of Order. Appeal of the Chair. Debate of the motion "appeal of the ruling of the chair," rule #6 notwithstanding, shall be limited to two minutes by the appealer and two minutes by the chair. Either may designate another eligible voting delegate (or LMC officer or board member) to speak in his/her place. Changes.. Motions to "rescind" and ~reconsider" shah require a two-thirds vote of delegates present and voting. 8. Number of "A" Priorities A motion to change a proposed policy's priority to an "A" priority must also propose another "A" proposed policy to be reduced below an "A" priority. The f'mal number of "A" priority policies shall not exceed the number proposed to the conference by the Legishtive Committee, but when a policy with a proposed "A" priority is divided, the number of "A" priorities shall not be considered to be increased. Ii ,i, · I,,, I ,I Proposed 1994 City Polic' les and Priorities for legislative and administrative action 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55126-2977 (612) 490-5600 FAX (612) 490-0072 © 1993 League of Minnesota Cities Ali rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Legislative Policy Committee Members Development Strategies General Legislation and Personnel Craig Waldron. Administrator, Oakdale--Chair Robert Haarman, Administrator, Sauk Rapids--Vice Chair Cynthia Albright, Councilmember, Duluth David R. Arvig, Mayor, Twin Valley Romeo Cyr, Mayor, Red Wing Brian Fritsinger, Community Planning Director, Arden Hills Larry D. Hansen, Administrator, Stewartville Terri Heaton, Deputy Director of Admin. Services, Bloomington Jon Hohenstein, Asst. to Administrator, Eagan Ronald S. Johnson, Administrator, Zumbrota Steven Jones, Administrator, Mora Andrea Hart Kajer, Legislative Liaison, Minneapolis Mark D. Larson, Administrator, Glencoe Scott Larson,. Administrator, Cambridge John Moravec, Councilmember, Crystal Frank Ongaro, Mayor's Office, St. Paul Bruce Peterson, Community Development Director, Willmar Ron Rogstad, Admin. Services Director, Oakdale Larry Siegler, Councilmember Fairmont Judy Tschumper, Economic Development Director, Burnsville Elections and Ethics Dianne Krogh, Assistant Manager/Clerk, West St. Paul- Chair Fran Clark, City Clerk, Mound--Vice Chair Lucille E. Aurelius, Clerk, Maplewood Judith Cox, City Clerk, Shakopee Patricia Crawford, Clerk/Treasurer, Motley Thomas P. Ferber, Clerk, Richfield Darlene George, City Clerk, Crystal Carole Grimm, Clerk, Rochester Barbara Lanum, Couneilmember Bass Brook Myma Maikkula, City Clerk, Brooklyn Park Harry Mares, Mayor, White Bear Lake Joyce Mereil, Director of Elections, Minneapolis Mary Mueller, City Clerk, Apple Valley Doris Nivala, Admr/Clerk/Treasurer, Ham Lake Molly O'Rourke, City Clerk, St. Paul Susan Olesen, City Clerk, Burnsville Joan Russell, Councilmember, Golden Valley JoAnne Student, Deputy Clerk, Columbia Heigh~ Maria Vasiliou, Couneilmember, Plymouth Liz Witt, Deputy Clerk, Eagan Evelyn Woulfe, City Clerk, Bloomington William Thompson, Mayor, Coon Rapids--Chair Michael McCauley, City Manager, Waseca--Vice Chair Richard Abraham, Administrator, Lake City Lynn Boland, Personnel Director, Apple Valley Frank Boyles, City Manager, Prior Lake Lorraine Browne, Mayor, Atwater Thomas Butt, City Manager, St. Anthony Gary Doty, Mayor, Duluth Holly Duffy, Asst. to Administrator, Eagan Bob Fragnito, Mayor, Nashwauk Kelly P. Frawley, Asst to Administrator/Personnel Offer., Cottage Grove James Froehle, MACTA, Fridley Karl Glade, Mayor, Alexandria Ken Hartung, Administrator, Bayport Paul Hicks, Councilmember, Hastings Brian Holzer, Fire Chief, Burnsville Andrea Hart Kajer, Legislative Liaison, Minneapolis John Kelley, Chief of Police, New Brighton Kathleen McBride, Finance Director, So. St. Paul Jean MeConnell, Councilmember, Rochester Kent Michaelson, Dir., Personnel/Labor Relations, Bloomington Mantel Mitchell, Police Chief, St. Louis Park Mark Nagel, City Manager, Anoka James Norman, Administrator, Renville Samantha Orduno, Administrator, Mounds View I)esyl Peterson, City Attorney, Minnetonka Marty Pinkney, Councilmember, Moorhead Miriam Porter, Administrator, Victoria Bryan Read, City Administrator, Kenyon Thomas Reber, Administrator, Fairmont Howard Rowland, Personnel Director, Brooklyn Park Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake Susan Schumaeher, Personnel Coordinator, Maple Grove Dan Scott, Police Chief, North St. Paul Jill Shorba, Administrative Assistant, Burnsville Jeanette Sobania, Personnel Coordinator, Plymouth Joyce Twistol, Clerk, Blaine Betty Zachmann, Clerk Treasurer, Winsted Land Use, Energy, Environment, and Transportation Curtis Jacobsen, City Administrator, Howard Lake-- Chair Marsha Soucheray, Councilmember, Shoreview--Vice Chair Rosemary Given Amble, Cotmcilmember, Bemidji 1994 City Policies and Priorities Lynn Becklin, Councilmember, Cambridge Gary Berg, Community Development Director, Cottage Grove Jerome Bohnsack, Clerk Administrator, New Prague Lavonne Bowman, Councilmember, Fairmont Gerald Brevet, City Administrator, Staples Gary Brown, Engineer, Brooklyn Park Bruce Bullert, Engineer, Savage Bonnie Cumberland, Mayor, Brainerd Bob Derus, Administrator, Corcoran Jerry Dulgar, City Manager, Crys~! Craig Ebcling, Engineer, Burnsville Susan Hoyt, Administrator, Falcon Heights Gloria Johnson, Councilmember, Golden Valley Vernon A. Johnson, Mayor, Roseville Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence Laurence .lung, Planning Commission Chair, Mendota Mark Karnowski, Administrator, Lindstrom Bill Klein, Councilmember, Inver Grove Heights Tony Knapp, Councilmember, Manksto Paul Krauss, Phmnlng Director, Chanhassen Julian Empson Loscalzo, Public Works Dept., St. Paul Harry A. Lyon, Jr., Councilmember, North St. Paul R. David Miller, Economic Development Director, Dodge Center Robert F. Morgan, Administrator, Branch Larry Nicholson, Counciimember, Moorhead Bill Ottensmann, Director Public Works, Coon Rapids Stanley Rensberger, Councilmember, Ortonville Terry Schneider, Councilmember, Minnetonka Ryan Schroeder, Administrator, Ramsey Glenda Spiotta, City Administrator, Sunfish Lake Gene White, Councilmember, Prior Lake Revenue Sources Karen Anderson, Councilmember, Minnetonka--Chair Lanelle Olsen, Councilmember, Northfield--Vice Chair Duke Addicks, State Legislative Liaison, Minneapolis ~ Anderson, Finance Director, Bumsville Ronald L. Anderson, Mayor, Blooming Prairie James W. Antonen, City Manager, Moorhead William Bassett, City Manager, Manksto Douglas Bunkers, City Administrator, Luveme Edward Bun'ell, Finance Director, Roseville Paul Ciernia, Councilmember, Falcon Heights Hank Duitsman, Mayor, Elk River Terry Dussauit, Asst. to City Manger, Blaine Dan Elwood, Administrator, Spring Valley Dan Faust, Finance Director, Maplewood Kathleen Gaylord, Mayor, South St. Paul Alvin J. Gruis, Councilmember, Rushmore Francis D. Hagen, Manager, Robbinsdale Peter Hames, Finance Director, Brooklyn Park Lyle Hanks, Mayor, St. Louis Pa.,k Joel Hanson, Administrator, Little Canada Blaine C. Hill, Clerk/Treasurer, Brockenridge Greg lsaackson, Clerk-Administrator, Cottonwood Darrell Johnson, Treasurer/Finance Officer, Winona Femer 'Skip" Johnson, Mayor, Mound David J. Kennedy, City Attorney, Crystal Duane Knutson, Mayor, Fertile Lynn Lander, Administrator, Hermantown Klm Lee, City Planner, Faribault Steven Mielke, City Manager, Hopkins IO~thleen Miller, Administrator, Lauderdale Ron Moorse, Administrator, Orono Doug Nakari, Admr/Cler/Treasurer, Cook Dennis Nelson, Clerk/Treasurer, Windom Gary Neumann, Asst. Administrator, Rochester Lyle R. Olson, Dir. of Admin. Services, Bloomington Steven Perkins, Council Administrator, Red Wing Al Ringsmuth, Mayor, Waite Park Mark Sievert, City Administrator, St. James Roger Simonson, Administrator, Two Harbors Greg Sparks, City Administrator, Worthington Virginia Sterling, Councilmember, Apple Valley Dean Swanson, Councilmember, Crosslake Kurt Ulrich, Administrator, Champlin Gene VanOverbeke, Finance Director/Clerk, Engan Daniel J. Vogt, Admr/Clerk/Treasurer, Brainerd James Willis, City Manager, Inver Grove Heights John Young, Jr., Councilember, Hawley Federal Legislative Clarence Ranallo, Mayor. St. Anthony--Chair Karen Anderson, Councilmember, Minnetonka Larry Bakken, Mayor, Golden Valley --- Janel Bush, Federal Liaison, Minneapolis Dave Childs, City Manager, Minnetonka Sum T. Christ, Mayor, Manksto Steve Cramer, Councilmember, Minneapolis Kevin Frazell, City Administrator, Cottage Grove Tom Hansen, Asst. to Manager, Burnsville Sue Hess, Councilmember, St. Cloud James Hurm, Administrator, Shorewood Gail Lippert, Admr/Clerk/Treasurer, Greenfield Mille MaeLeod, Couneilmember, Moorhead Elizabeth Martinson, Councilmember, Cook Bruce Nawrocki, Council President, Columbia Heights Lanelle Olsen, Councilmember, Northfield Doug Pearson, Couneilmember, Brooklyn Park Steven Perkins, Council Administrator, Red Wing Neii Peterson, Mayor, Bloomington Yvonne Prettner, Councilmember, Duluth David E. Runkel, Councilmember, Harmony Tony Scallon, Councilmember, Minneapolis Peter Stolley, City Administrator, Northfield Terence Stone, Mayor, Madelia John Young, Jr., Councilmember, Hawley 2 League of Minnesota Cities General Policy Statement ()ne of the most important purposes of the League of Minnesota Cities is to serve as a vehicle for cities to define common problems and develop policies and proposals to solve those problems. The League of Minnesota Cities represents 805 of Minnesota's 855 cities as well as 10 urban towns and 20 special districts. All sizes of communities are represented among the League's members (the largest non-member city has a population of 225) and each region of the state is represented. The policies that follow are directed at specific city issues. Two principles guide the development of all League policies: Minnesota cities' need for a governmental system which allows flexibility and authority for cities to meet challenges for governing our cities and providing our citizens with services while at the same time protecting cities from unfunded or underfunded mandates, liability or other financial risk, and restrictions on local control; and That the financial and technical requirements for governing and providing services necessitate a continuing and strengthened partnership with federal, state, and local governments. This partnership particularly in the areas of finance, development, housing, environment, and transportation is critical for the successful operation of Minnesota's cities and the well-being of city residents. PRIORITY SETrING "A" priority indicates a major issue area to which the League would devote a large amount of time and resources, working actively with legislators and other groups to seek new laws or regulations, and when appropriate introduce legislation. "B" priority indicates issue areas that are important to cities but on which the League would probably spend less time unless the legislature or other groups mount a major effort to which the League would respond. "C" priority indicates issue areas to which the League would respond only when other groups raise the issue and to which the League would not commit a significant amount of staff time. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 3 CONTENTS Legislative Policy Committee Members ................................................ I General Policy Statement ......................................................... 3 Mandates Policy ............................................................... 6 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES DS-I. DS-2. DS-3. DS-4. DS-5. DS-6. DS-7. DS-8. DS-9. DS-lO. DS-I 1 DS-12. Tax Increment Financing A* ............................................... 7 Job Creation Through Manufacturing Districts A ................................... 7 Development of Polluted Property B .......................................... 8 Abatement Authority B ................................................... 8 Housing B .......................................................... 9 State and Local Development B ............................................ i0 Economic Development Authorities B ......................................... II Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Programs B ......................... I ! Building Permit Surcharge Fees C ........................................... 12 Development Financing C ................................................ 12 Municipal Service Districts ¢ .............................................. ! 2 Tax-Exempt Status of Land Cities Hold for Development C ........................... 13 ELECTIONS AND ETHICS EE-I. EE-2. EE-3. EE-4. EE-5. EE-6. EE-7. EE-8. EE-9. EE-IO. EE-I 1. EE-12. Absentee Voting A .................................................... 14 Consolidating Local Elections A ................................ 15 Recording Votes for Write-In Candidates B ..................................... 15 Retaining Local Authority to Govern B ........................................ 15 Structure of City Government B ............................................ 16 Reimbursement for State Elections B ......................................... 16 Term Limits B ....................................................... 17 All Mail-in Ballot Elections C ............................................. 17 Lobbyist Reporting Requirements C .......................................... ! 8 Precinct Boundaries C .................................................. 18 Presidential Primary C .................................................. 18 Voter Fraud C ....................................................... 19 GENERAL LEGISLATION AND PERSONNEL GLP-I. GLP-2. GLP-3. GLP-4. GLP-5. GLP-6. GLP-7. GLP-8. GLP-9. GLP-IO. GLP-I I. GLP-12. Gl.P-13. (; I.P- 14. Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) A* ....................... 20 Open Meetings and Data Practices A* ........................................ 20 Utility Service Territories A .............................................. 21 Comparable Worth B ................................................... 22 Employee Training and Education Requirements B ................................. 23 Employee Wages and Benefits B ............................................ 23 Local Police and Paid Fire Relief Associations B .................................. 24 Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Benefits Financing, and Administration B ............................................ 24 Tort Liability and Insurance B ............................................. 24 Vetenm's Preference B .................................................. 25 Volunteer Firefighters' Pensions B ........................................... 26 Liquor Issues (2 ...................................................... 26 Prevailing Wage (2 .................................................... 27 Recovery of State Program Administration Costs C ................................ 27 4 League of Minnesota Cities & · I,, I ,il, LUEET-1. LUEET-2. LUEET-3. LU EET-4. LU EET-5. LU EET-6. LUEET-?. LUEET-$. LUEET-9. LUEET-10. LUEET-11. LU EET- 12. LUEET-13. LUEET-14. LUEET- 15. RS-1. RS-2. RS-3. RS-4. RS-5. RS-6. RS-7. RS-8. RS-9. RS-10. RS-Il. RS-12. RS-13. RS-14. RS-15. LAND USE, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND TRANSPORTATION Annexation A* ....................................................... 28 Intergovernmental and Jurisdictional Governance A ................................ 28 Solid and Hazardous Waste Management A* .................................... 30 Transportation Systems Funding A* .......................................... 31 Transportation Utility Fee A .............................................. 32 Bridge Funding B ..................................................... 33 Municipal State Aid System B ............................................. 33 Railroad Right-of-Way Preservation B ........................................ 33 Transportation Services Fund B ............................................ 34 Wastewater Treatment B ................................................. 34 Water Conservation and Preservation B ........................................ 35 Wetlands Conservation B ................................................ 36 Zoning, Subdivision, and Planning Statutes B ...................... , ............. 36 Energy Conservation C ................................................. 37 Environmental Trust Fund C .............................................. 38 REVENUE SOURCES State Aid to Cities A* .................................................. 40 Local Government Trust Fund A* .... ~ ...................................... 40 Property Tax Reform B ............................... , ................. 41 State Unallotment Authority B ................................. ~ ........... 41 Property Tax Administration B ............................................. 42 Service Duplication Taxation Exclusion B ...................................... 43 City Fund Balances B .................................................. 43 City Financial Reporting Requirements B ...................................... 44 Cooperation, Collaboration, and Consolidation B .................................. 44 Service Fees for Government-Owned Property B .................................. 45 State Administrative Costs C .............................................. 45 Taxation Hearing and Notification Law C ...................................... 45 Local Property Tax Authority C ............................................ 46 Referendum Levies C .................................................. 46 License Fees C ...................................................... 47 A* policies have been selected by the Legislative Committee as the highest priority issues for the 1994 legislative session. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 5 I 2 MANDATES The League opposes any additional unfunded state mandates and urges all branches of the federal and state governments to adopt a policy which promotes accountability at all levels of government by directly linking the funding responsibility for programs with the level of government creating the program. If this principle of accountability can not be adhered to, the state and federal governments should provide stable revenue sources to compensate for the costs of mandates and help reduce local compliance costs by giving cities greater flexibility in meeting new and existing mandates. In cases where the state and federal government do not provide necessary funding, the League supports legislation which would allow local governments to not comply with mandates that are not funded. The League also urges the Legislature and Congresss to review, repeal, or revise current mandates. The Legislature and Governor should also encourage the newly-created Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation to fulfill its responsibility to review mandates for elimination by the Legislature. One of the most serious problems facing cities is the growth in the number and cost of federal and state-mandated programs which substitute the judgments of Congress and the Legislature for local budget priorities. These mandates interfere with local decisions regarding city services and force cities to reduce funding for other basic services or to raise taxes. Federal and state policy makers must resist imposing mandates that direct cities to allocate scarce resources without regard for local needs and piorities. The League, therefore, supports legislation which allows noncompliance with new unfunded mandates. The League recommends that only under specific conditions should this noncompliance option not be available. The League also believes that a statement of compelling statewide interest and need for a new mandate should be requffed both for new laws and for state agency rules. Kxamples of costly mandates include: comparable worth, binding arbitration, prevailing wage, veteran's preference, election requirements, payment of state sales tax, and federal regulations on wastewater treatment, drinking water, and stormwater management. 6 League of Minnesota Cities DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES DS-1. Tnz Increment Financing (A) The League supports changes to the tax increment financing (TIF) laws that will make this economic development, redevelopment, and housing tool more usable, including general authority for pollution districts and elimination of the city aid penalty for certain districts. The League urges the Legislature to repeal the aid penalty, improve the financing mechanisms for pollution clean-up, and return to a more flexible definition of qualified tourism development. Over the past several years, TIF authority has been seriously limited, and, as a result, the ability of cities to engage in needed development and redevelopment has been sharply reduced. The state needs to acknowledge that cities are the primary governmental unit responsible for economic development to create jobs and help stabilize the state's economy, redevelop blight and decay, develop affordable rental and owner- occupied housing, and clean up pollution within cities. TIF has proven to be the most effective tool for cities in fulfilling these needs and the current restrictions need to be removed to allow these efforts. The Local Government Aid/Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid penalty (LGA/HACA) should not apply to TIF districts. If the Legislature is not willing to remove it, cities should not be restricted in their means of paying for the penalty. The general fund of a city should not be responsible for this penalty, and the Legislature should remove the prohibition on developer payment of the penalty. Although the clean-up program created by the 1993 Legislature began to address the problems and costs of polluted property, the I.~.ague supports additional funding from the current contamination tax and the creation of alternative financing methods to adequately fund the statewide clean-up grant program. The new restrictions on the qualifications for tourism districts made during the 1993 session should be repealed. The new restrictions unfairly limit the promotion of tourism to areas with low-income standards, but which already have a strong base of tourism facilities. The League acknowledges that limited use of tax abatements, in coordination with county officials, offers a new mechanism to address problems which do not require tho corrective actions of a tax increment district. Abatements, however, are not designed to handle costly redevelopment or pollution clean-up, and cannot serve as an adequate replacement for TIF. DS-2. Job Creation Through Manufacturing Districts (A) The state needs to acknowledge that cities are the primary government unit responsible for assisting in the creation of jobs and stabilizing the economic condition of the state. Cities should be given the necessary tools to help businesses create stable jobs with wages and benefits to support families. The primary factor of the state's effort should be authority for an effective, workable manufacturing tax increment financing district. The League believes that the state needs to make a concerted effort to provide cities with the necessary tools to create a stable market of well-paying jobs for the residents of the state. Authority for a manufacturing tax increment 7 1994 City Policies and Priorities financing (TIF) district would allow cities such a tool. This TIF district should be used to target the creation of new jobs or retention of existing jobs. In particular, small cities across the state are desperate for a workable form of TIF so that they may remain viable communities, retain existing jobs, and offer employment opportunities to their residents and to the surrounding areas. Unless these districts are exempt from the aid penalty, increments will not be adequate to create necessary jobs. To qualify, manufacturing districts should be able to meet the criteria for either an economic development, renewal, redevelopment, or pollution district. In addition, these districts would be more economically viable with modifications to the existing TIF laws limiting pooling and the "five-year rule" for activity in the project. DS-3. Development of Polluted Property The League supports the efforts taken by the 1993 Legislature to develop a statewide clean. up program for polluted property. Adequate funding for contamination across the state will not be generated by the contamination tax and further efforts should be made to dedicate attother revenue source. In addition, the League opposes the requirement that local properly tax revenues be required to obtain funding for pollution clean-up. Across the state, Minnesota cities face tremendous obstacles to the development of polluted properties. The Legislature has taken -encouraging action to address the liability exposure for development of polluted property. The extensive costs of clean-up still present an obstacle to development of polluted land. Clean-up costs often exceed the value of the land so there is no incentive for private sector intervention. Public sector subsidies are therefore critical. Changes to the tax increment law have made hazardous substance subdistricts useless in providing assistance with clean-up costs, and Superfund dollars are not sufficient to address this need. Polluted sites will continue to have a blighting influence on our communities and pose a potential health threat to our state's citizens unless this problem is addressed. The 1993 tax law made a step toward developing a pollution clean-up program and acknowledged that tax increment f'mancing (TIF) is an appropriate tool to provide a portion of the funding. The League, however, opposes the Legislature's decision that cities must use general taxes and fees from their city residents to provide a portion of the clean-up funding to be eligible for contamination grants and use of TIF authority. Cities should have the right to clean-up polluted private property without penalizing all city taxpayers. Another issue which hampers the development of polluted property is the inability of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to meet necessary timelines for issuing "no action letters." In collaboration with city officials, the MPCA should immediately develop reasonable response timelines to improve their ability to facilitate clean-up of polluted properties. Development opportunities can be lost because of such delays. In addition, while "no action letters" are readily available for public entities, they are not available to the private sector. In addition, some certainty concerning "closure" is needed after a property has been cleaned up according to directions by the MPCA. DS-4. Abatement Authority (B) The League supports the creation of programs of tax and value abatements as additional tools to help cities promote economic development, redevelopment, and housing. The League supports legislation to authorize 8 League of Minnesota Cities ,I, · I,., I .& cities to either abate property value or property taxes. These tools, in addition to tax increment financing, are needed for cities across the state to target assistance to smaller- scale, main street businesses, and blighted: neighborhoods and to offer opportunities to stimulate the creation of jobs. Only efforts to preserve tax base, promote job creation or retention, provide low- or moderate-income housing, or redevelop blighted areas should be eligible for abatements. Criteria would be developed to guarantee that these tools would ensure accountability by both the local governments and the property owners. property owner should be considered for an abatement. B. Property value abatements should be authorized for targeted redeveloplnent. Cities should also be encouraged to establish "preservation and rehabilitation zones" that encompass a number of properties which are blighted and where valuation assessments are unrealistically high. Such zones could be created where specific standards exist, such as areas where the occupancy rate is high, property values are declining, and household incomes are low. This tool would be targeted to residential and employment/manufacturing property. Programs such as the homestead credit, "this old house," the abatement authority for enterprise zones, and the new contamination tax for pollution clean-up have all set the precedent for a coordinated system of value and tax abatements. Abatements of up to 15 years would provide the necessary timeframe to encourage meaningful efforts by property owners or their city. Periodic review of the effectiveness of an activity, rather than review of the abatement authority, could be valuable. Two types of abatements would facilitate redevelopment and job creation: A. Property tax abatements should be available for all types of property to abate the taxes that are caused by increases in value which are due to improvements that are made to the property. Currently, property owners are discouraged from making substantial improvements to their property because of the offsetting penalty of increased taxes. If a city were able to abate the total amount of these increased taxes, funds would be available to the property owners to assist in the f'mancing of the project. Only the tax increases which result from improvements that are part of a development agreement between city and the County and school district boards should have the opportunity to review and comment on creation of "preservation and rehabilitation zones." Cities would be authorized to administer the program and grant abatements to participating properties within the zone. In these zones, abatements of all or a portion of the existing property value should be allowed. Housing The League urges the Legislature to continue support for measures which enable cities to preserve affordable housing stock and to finance new construction of single and multi-family housing that meets local needs. The League recommends the following specific actions. A. The state aid penalties shouM be repealed for owner-occupied, low- and moderate- income tax increment financing (TIF) housing districts. The League supports the decision by the 1993 Legislature to repeal the aid penalty for TIF rental housing and urges them to extend this provision to owner- occupied, Iow- and moderate-income housing. The tax increments available from Iow- and moderate-income housing projects and scattered site projects are frequently too low to create viable projects, and the needs for 1994 City Policies and Priorities 9 I"7 such housing are not being fully met. The city aid penalty adopted in 1990 makes this situation worse, and it should be repealed. The prohibition on developer payment of the aid penalty is likely to dramatically reduce the viability of constructing owner-occupied housing through TIF. B. The share of market value in the TIF housing project that can be used for purposes other than low- and moderate-income housing should be increased.from 20 percent to 35 percent. The opportunity for a project to include a greater share of higher-income housing units, retail/commercial, or other properties in a TIF housing district can frequently make possible the construction of low- and moderate-income housing which would otherwise not occur. C. The differences in property tax class rates between owner-occupied properly and rental property should be reduced. The first $72,000 of homestead property has a class rate of 1.0 percent of market value, compared to 2.3 percent of market value (one-three units), and 3.4 percent for rental housing with four or more units. These large class rate differences discourage the construction and ownership of multifamily rental housing, as well as the availability and upkeep of single-family housing on a rental basis. Property tax relief that is provided for low-income rental housing should, however,. be tied to agreements by developers and property owners. Some form of guarantee should ensure that such tax relief helps maintain affordable rates to assure long-term availability of such units. D. The procedure for allocating low-income housing tax credits enacted by the 1990 Legislature should be continued. E. The housing impact and replacement mandates should not be tightened or extended to all cities, and increased flexibility should be granted to first class cities. Cities and their development organizations follow extensive due process procedures, and are required to provide relocation benefits and assistance. Measures that also require cities to replace Iow-income housing on a one-for-one basis are unreasonably hindering public improvements and efforts to improve the local economy and standard of living. The state's compliance requirements which apply to Duluth, Minneapolis, and St. Paul should be changed to match the federal relocation guidelines. DS-6. State and Local Development Policy 01) The League urges the Legislature to create a state development policy that specifies the state's goals and work plan for economic development and redevelopment, acknowledges that cities are the primary agents to facilitate and coordinate development, and authorizes the appropriate tools and revenue sources in a timely manner for cities to achieve those goals. Upcoming updates to the state's economic blueprint should identify the value of cities' role in Minnesota's development and redevelopment. Many communities throughout the state are threatened by physical deterioration and a lack of economic opportunity. As neighborhoods deteriorate, so does a city's ability to combat the problems of crime, homelessness, and unemployment that so often accompany community decay. As tax bases dwindle, a city's ability to generate dollars to rehabilitate distressed areas decreases. Revitalization of Minnesota's cities is necessary for continued efficient use of existing local and state investments in infrastructure. Across the state, economic development programs and expenditures are occurring without established policies and goals. Although cities support the Department of Trade and Economic Development's creation 10 League of Minnesota Cities of an "Economic Blueprint for Minnesota," the blueprint provides no recognition of the primary role cities play in improving the economic heallh of the state and promoting development and redevelopmeut. The ..... Legislature should also acknowledge this role. The League continues to support state policies which acknowledge the partnership between the state, cities, and community residents, and to allocate the necessary resources and revenue options to cities. Cities urge approval of new workable state enterprise zone or manufacturing job opportunity zone incentive programs. The League also encourages the Legislature to enact a new version of the Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) to address specific characteristics and demographics which contribute to blight and decay in the central cities, suburban cities, regional outstate centers, and small cities. DS-7. Economic Development Authorities (B) A. The League supports the state's current policy of limiting the specific authority and powers of economic development authorities (EDA) to city governments. The limited economic development tools available in the state are vital to assist in the creation of jobs and industry across the state, and are concentrated in urbanized governments. The League believes that the Legislature should continue its decision to limit EDA authority to cities as the primary local government responsible for the organizational and f'mancial coordination of development and redevelopment. The state has already determined that city government most efficiently provides governmental services in areas intensively developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental purposes. The League believes that the state should continue to recognize the importance of using and preserving the existing infn~slrncture thai exists within cities, and continue lo find Ihal urban developlnent, and all related authority, should remain within cities, managed by city governments. B. The League supports legislation which would provide city economic development authorities (EDA) the same power and authority as those given to port authorities. The League urges the Legislature to authorize all cities to designate development areas anywhere within their jurisdiction, or to designate area development authorities when they enter into joint powers agreements with other cities. Present law restricts development areas, qualifications, and authority for EDAs. In addition, EDAs should be allowed to issue general obligation bonds for project activities without a referendum. DS-8. Small Cities Comrmmity Development Block Grant Programs The League supports state administration of the small cities portion of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The League also supports the continuation of the set-aside o f federal funds for economic development grants and augmented state appropriations to supplement the federal funds set aside. The small cities CDBG program should continue as a source of funding which encourages cities to develop viable communities by providing decent housing and suitable living environments and expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income people. The state should maintain the CDBG program balance between cities' economic development needs and the needs of low- and moderate-income people and let cities retain maximum 1994 City Policies and Priorities 11 flexibility in determining how to carry out CDBG program objectives. The League recommends an expanded program, including a formula for matching, which requires state funds to be used to match local funds. The program should be designed to encourage cities to recycle state funds and the local match, and to leverage public funds prevent economic deterioration, to attract new businesses and jobs, to retain existing businesses and jobs, and to maintain and strengthen the local tax base. Federal tax legislation has substantially changed the applicability of tax-exempt development financing. As a result, the League recommends the following principles: and to fill in financing gaps. These funds should not be used to provide financial incentives to new start-up or relocating businesses within the state. DS-9. Builffmg Permit Surcharge Fees (C) The Legislature should reinstate the law that returns the amount of locally generated Municipal retention of a maximum of Minnesota tax-exempt development allocation authority; Maintenance of local discretion and flexibility in development decisions; and Minimizing state control of local development decisions. building permit surcharge fees that exceed the costs of the state building code division to local units of government. Local units of government levy a one-half percent surcharge on building permits to fund the operation of the State Building Codes and Standards Division. Until the 1991 Legislature changed the law at the request of the governor, any excess fees over actual operating costs were proportionately rebated to local units to help pay for training and continuing education costs for building officials who enforce the state's building code. Local units of government are facing tough financial times and local officials need these revenues in order to fund the training of local officials to enforce the state-mandated building code. DS-lO. Development Financing (C) The League supports the continued use of industrial development bonds (IDBs) and other tax-exempt instruments as development tools. The League also asks that the governor and the Legislature continue to involve the League in developing a method of allocating the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds. DS-11. Municipal Service Distfi~ (13 The League supports general legislation which allows all cities to create municipal service districts. Cities should have authority to .finance the types of improvements listed in Minn. Stat. 429.021 (relating to the construction, replacement, and maintenance of such things as streets, sidewalks, gutters, storm and sanitary sewers, waterworks systems, street lights and public lights, and public malls, parks, or courtyards) without having to obtain specific authorizing legislation. Current law has the necessary safeguards to ensure local participation and support frotn affected taxpayers. Both service charges and ad valorem property taxes should be available to finance services or capital improvements in the district. Tax-exempt financing allows cities to undertake a diverse range of activities to Court decisions concerning special assessments have made it even more difficult 12 League of Minnesota Cities for cities to use special assessments to finance public services and improvements. The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted the Minnesota Constitution to require not only that a special assessment project "specially benefit" affected parcels or property, but also that the city be able to prove that the market value of a property will increase in direct relation to the amount of the special assessment applied to that property. the provisions which penalize partial improvements or leases to the private sector. Until recently, almost all property a political subdivision owned was granted tax'exempt status. Now, tax exempt status is allowed only for a period of eight years in most situations, or for an unlimited period of years if the property is held for housing programs or is classified as "blighted land" under state law. This interpretation has made it more difficult to assess all (or even part) of a capital improvement project to repair or replace, as opposed to newly built improvements. In addition, cities' abilities to finance annual operating and maintenance costs of some services to property through the use of special service charges is unclear under current law. The only current financing alternative to special assessments or services charges, the general property tax, is not appropriate to finance some capital or operating expenses. DS-12. Tax-Exempt Status of Land Cities Hold for Development (C) The League supports granting unlimited tax-exempt status to property cities hold for later resale to promote economic development including removing the time limitation and The policy is intended to create an incentive for political subdivisions to engage in economic development activities, as well as to promote returning property to the tax rolls. Unfortunately, it does not fully recognize that industrial development, housing construction, or rehabilitation efforts may extend over a long period of time. Provisions penalizing improvements and provisions affecting leasing of the property discourage cities from being active in establishing and maintaining local development corporations, controlling their economic development and planning processes, and being selective about the type of development which occurs in the city. The state needs to understand that cities have every incentive, and make concerted efforts, to get property back on the tax rolls as soon as possible. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 13 ELECTIONS AND ETHICS EE-1. Absentee Voting (A) The League recommends that the following changes in absentee voting be adopted to simplify the process for voters and to make it easier to conduct absentee balloting. If the Legislature adopts nonqualification absentee voting, LMC urges the following reforms be made in implementing that form of voting: Authorize local election officials to provide an absentee application form to any person on request; Require individuals returning five or more absentee ballot applications to do so within five days of the date they were signed; Establish a maximum frae of not more than $700 for tampering with or otherwise interfering with absentee balloting; Allow use of facsimile to transmit completed absentee ballots only on the final three absentee voting days before the election; Provide facsimile absentee ballots for hospitalized eligible voters the night before the election; Allow agent delivery of absentee ballots to and from the voter in the hospital including election day up to 5 p.m.; Eliminate the evening hours for absentee voting at city hall on the Monday before election day; Maintain the privacy of the identity (names/addresses/phone numbers) of voters who have applied for and returned absentee ballots until after the polls close; · Allow local election officials to accept and reject completed absentee ballot envelopes during the 30-day period prior to election; Simplify language and streamline format of voter instructions on applications and ballot return envelopes; Make the cut off for voter registration the same as for absentee voting if adopting nonqualification absentee voting; and Reimburse local jurisdictions for the added cost of conducting nonqualification absentee voting. While the League supports elimination of the witness requirement for absentee voting, legislators should approach with caution the use of date of birth as a means of identifying applications and returned ballots. The Legislature should also recognize that making additional changes in absentee election requirements fei' local government will increase local administrative costs, and these costs should be evaluated. The Secretary of State should organize a task force comprised of local election officials; representatives of voter rights, minority, civic, and public interest organizations, and legislators to examine issues such as ballot secrecy; voter identification; use of absentee ballots by political campaigns; alternative procedures for receiving, securing, and counting ballots; and the impact On voter participation (including increased incidence of voters requesting to vote at the polls after having voted by absentee prior to election day). New statutes making it possible for voters to use absentee ballots rather than to vote at the 14 League of Minnesota Cities & · I,, I polls need to be evaluated over the next two years to determine whether such measures have helped increase voter participation. EE-2. Consolidating Local Elections (A) The League supports measures designed to help increase voters' awareness and participation in local elections, including the scheduling of elections in September and November. The Legislature should uphold current city authority to establish the date of local regular and special elections and to refrain from restricting home rule charter authority to provtde for the conduct of local elections. Legislative proposals to consolidate all local elections on a single date and year raise serious concerns. Problems associated with overlapping election districts, multiple election issues, voter confusion, ballot secrecy, and the need to establish cost-sharing responsibilities must be addressed befo~ such a plan would sufficiently benefit voters. The League seeks to maintain city authority to conduct local elections, particularly when other local units of government also conduct elections on the same date as regular city elections. While the League supports measures to encourage greater voter participation and strengthen voter confidence in the election process, continued legislative interest in limiting the number of local elections must be tempered with a realistic concern for difficulties presented as well as for added city expense of conducting multiple jurisdictional elections on the same day. City officials support measures to reduce the conflict between incongruent school and city election districts and the corporate city limits and precinct lines. Lack of conformity of school district boundaries with those of cities is a serious deficiency in conducting combined local elections. Cities must retain authority to schedule special elections on ballot questions, bond referenda. and home nile charter amendments and lo fill vacancies in city elective offices. The Legislature should consult cities when considering requirements to alter school district boundaries. At a minimum, school districts should designate official boundaries along recognizable, physical features. In growing communities, new school district lines should be accomplished, wherever possible, only in relation to corporate city boundaries. In any case, attempts to adjust school district lines must be done in cooperation with local cities affected by such changes. EE-3. Recording Votes for Write-In The League urges the Legislature to require write-in candidate to file a notice of intent prior to election in order for write-in tallies to be completed. The Legislature should authorize cities over 2,500 population not to list the name of a candidate who does not file a notice of intent to be a write-in candidate prior to the election. These individuals should be required to file notice of intent by 12 noon the day before the election. In smaller cities where local residents traditionally run as write-in candidates, election officials should continue to count votes cast for write-in candidates who receive at least 10 percent of total votes cast in that election. EE-4. Retaining Local Authority to Govern (B) The League supports city authority to fill vacancies in elective offices by appointment and to exercise home rule charter authority to conduct local elections. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 15 ,9 ~ Legislation to prohibit cities from filling vacancies in local elective offices is ill-advised, costly, and creates obstacles to local self-governance. Further, the I2~ague opposes to measures that would pre-empt home rule charter authority for conducting local elections. Such restrictions undermine cities' authority to conduct regular governmental activities and to carry out statutory responsibilities. Vacancies in the offices of mayor, city council, and/or elected city clerk must be filled promptly to assure that a quorum is maintained to permit the city to conduct official business. There are more than 130 standard plan cities in which the position of city clerk is elective. It would be irresponsible and unworkable to require such cities to wait until the date of the next regular city election to fall vacancies in that office. In addition, for the nearly 700 cities that hold regular city elections in November of even-numbered years, such a requirement could force the city to hold an extra election in the odd-numbered year, thereby substantially increasing local election costs. Statutory cities have authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies for the portion of the term remaining, which allows the rest of the term to be carded out until thc next regular city election. If the vacancy occurs during the first two years of a four-year term, the appointee serves until the next city election when a special election is held to fill thc remaining two years of a term, the appointee serves for the remainder of the term. EE-5. Structure of City Government The League supports city authority to adopt a single-member ward system for city council elections as an option for organizing local representation. The League also supports city authority to determine local government structure, including the form and method of election of city offices. Local home rule charter authority to determine the manner by which candidates may be nominated, the form of the ballot and other matters related to conducting local elections, and the manner of removal from office should be upheld as long as provisions are in keeping with state charter authority. The statutory city code permits cities to select one of several methods of organizing and allows voters to request or the council to make changes. If a statutory city encounters problems that cannot be solved locally, officials can request the Legislature to adopt special authority or determine to adopt a home rule form of government. When voters in a home rule charter city have authority to determine the form of government at the local level, the Legislature should not pre-empt the capacity to make such decisions at the local level. EF.,-6. Reimbursement for State Elections (B) The League urges the Legislature to fund the full cost of conducting state primary, special, and general elections at the local level. The legislative reimbursement of expenses associated with conducting the 1992 presidential primary demonstrates that cities can easily document and account for such costs to the state. It is no longer adequate for the Legislature to provide only a minor portion of the funds to cover the actual cost of administering such elections. It is reasonable for the state to pay a portion 16 League of Minnesota Cities of the costs associated with state election contests held in conjunction with local elections. Such costs also include expenses incurred for printing and supplying of posters, manuals, advertising, legal publications, and any other materials associated with conducting state elections. EE-7. Term Limits (B) The League strongly opposes legislation advocating adoption of a state constitutional mnendment limiting consecutive terms for elected city officeholders. The state constitution defines eligibility for election to office and guarantees the rights of voters to determine which candidates will serve in those positions. Weakening of these important democratic principles is not justified by current dissatisfaction with some incumbent officeholders or with the lack of turn-over in certain elective offices. The constitutional guarantee of "universal eligibility" to serve in elective office at the state and local level should not be restricted. It is not necessary or prudent for uniform term limits to be imposed at the loc. ad level. City elected officials are not generally viewed as full-time political officeholders and are rarely compensated at levels comparable to those serving in higher office. Many cities struggle to encourage citizens to seek office because of the difficult and time-consuming nature of the work which mayors and city councils must perform. Adoption of legislation proposing term limits for such offices would further discourage those who may be the very officeholders whose dedicated service and willingness to serve are vital to the interests of voters and effective local government. Though the League opposes any additional term limitations, if the Legislature decides in favor of proposing a constitutional amendment, only state elective offices should be proposed to be limited, or at least there should be separate ballot questions for state and local offices. EE-8. All Mail-In Ballot Elections (c) The League recognizes mail-in balloting as a alternative method of election. The Legislature should carefully evaluate all procedures and state requirements for conducting this method of election to alleviate difficulties with conducting elections by mail. The League also maintains that it is not necessary for the county auditor to approve the city's decision to conduct a local election by mail, when the county is not conducting other elections on the same date. The Legislature should direct the Secretary of State to organize a special task force comprised of election administrators, local officials, citizens, representatives of public interest organizations, and lawmakers to examine current rules and procedures for conducting elections by mail. Task force recommendations should propose changes needed in state rules and procedures to make it possible for cities to administer such elections efficiently while protecting the security of returned ballots and assuring voter confidence in the election process. Conducting elections by mail does not reduce local costs to taxpayers when cities are required to spend more for postage, printing, personnel, and election judge compensation to carry out requirements for administering this form of election. 1994 City Policies and Priorities l't ~9 ~- EE-9. Lobbyist Reporting Requirements (C) The League urges the Legislature to simplify lobbyist repoffing requirements for cities and clarify that reporting of city expenses not directly related to lobbying activities is not required. The League also urges elimination of requirements for cities to submit separate annual reports to both the State Auditor and the State Ethical Practices Board. Since the Legislature has enacted comprehensive lobbying reporting requirements for lobbyists and local units of government, it is clearly unnecessary to retain this additional report. Current lobbyist reporting and registration requirements took effect in 1991. It is, therefore, reasonable for the Legislature to eliminate the additional reporting of estimated lobbying expenditures to the State Auditor, which was instituted in 1989. EE-10. Precinct The League urges the Legislature to support changes in the design of the national census in 2000 to require that the U.S. Census Bureau follow election precinct boundaries or clearly recognizable physical features to establish census blocks and tracts. Cities in rural areas and cities with extensive areas of undeveloped land have additional concerns. In such circumstances it is important for census blocks to be split along physical features or precinct boundaries in order to make it less difficult for cities to redraw precinct and ward boundaries when implementing local redistricting plans. Cities must continue to have full authority to determine precinct and ward boundaries which reflect neighborhood, community, and geographic factors that impact voters and representation at the local level. Neighborhoods are particularly important in the building of community and participation in government. The Legislature should not interfere with or weaken city authority to determine how such political and election boundaries should be established. In 1992, inconsistency in designating physical features for census block units resulted in difficulty at the local level in conforming new precinct and/or ward boundaries to such federal population units. In some circumstances, cities were precluded from changing local election boundaries to correspond to census blocks since state law requires that precinct and ward boundaries follow physical, definable features. Recent interest in authorizing cities to set precinct boundaries along census blocks lines presents opportunities for some cities, but it is also important for changes to be made in the method of designating official census block units to assure that in the future, features such as streets, shorelines, railroad rights-of-way, or other boundaries and lines clearly visible from the ground are used to establish units within which population counts will be taken. Such changes in the method of assigning census blocks will also facilitate the ability to assign geographic information to voter registration information and make it possible to reassign election district and polling place identification automatically by computer when redistricting has been accomplished. EE-11. Presidential Primary (C) The League urges the Legislature to assure full reimbursement of the local costs of conducting future presidential primaries. The League supports cost-saving measures for conducting the primary at the local level, and urges the Legislature to modify state election ~)~ 18 League of Minnesota Cities 1, · I,, I ,Il, law to change methods of conducting the presidential primary, including: · Place all polilical party presidential candidales on a single ballot; · Do not rolale candidale names; · Consolidate precinct polling place locations; · Reduce hours of polling; and · Pay costs of local publication of the sample ballot. State revenues should be used to pay for local government expenses, including: · Preparation of ballots and election equipment; · Supplies and personnel (including election judge compensation and election administrative and technical staff pay), including overtime; · Advertising, newspaper notices, and postage; · Polling place rentals and transportation related to election activities; and · Costs for maintenance of political party preference identification on voter records and updating of the voter file. Unless the Legislature provides funds from state revenue sources Io cover Ihcsc cosls, Iht League urges repeal of the law establishing the presidential primary. EE-12. Voter Fraud (C) The League urges the Legislature to make it more likely that violators of voter registration and election laws will be prosecuted and recommends the following: Make those who fraudulently vouch for persons registering at the polls subject to the same penalties that apply to those found guilty of fraudulent voter registration; Establish a maximum fine of up to $500 for tampering or otherwise interfering with absentee balloting; Modify penalties for violation of state voter registration requirements to increase the likelihood of prosecution of offenders, particularly for violations of election day registration provisions; and Make clear that prosecution will result if candidates interfere with voters on election day. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 19 ,0-"7 GENERAL LEGISLATION AND PERSONNEL GLP-I. Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) (A) A. The League supports legislation which modifies the existing interest arbitration process to require arbitrators to give primary consideration to internal equity comparisons attd the impact that any arbitration award might have on the personnel compensation systems of the city involved in the arbitration. Further, the League opposes considering any additional employee groups as essential employees. City and other governmental experience with the arbitration process has shown that arbitrated awards generally exceed negotiated settlements. Unlike the state, local governments do not have the authority to reject these arbitrated awards. The Legislature should re-examine binding arbitration as a means of determining pay and benefit issues. The goal of any modification to the process should be to ensure that arbitrations do not interfere with other state programs such as pay equity. There should not be any additional employee groups placed in the category of "essential employees." B. The League recommends that the Legislature reinstate the previous definition of employees covered by PELRA to people employed for more than 100 worldng days in a calendar year. The 1983 Legislature reduced the time period that part-time employees must be employed before they are considered employees covered by PELRA. This has resulted in higher wages for some part-time employees, and more significantly, has resulted in cities hiring fewer part-time employees. Legislative action in 1991 caused further confusion, which may also result in a lessening of job opportunities, particularly for students and the disadvantaged. Additionally, many employees who view their work as temporary or transitory in nature, have been asked to pay their fair share of union dues, even though they receive no benefit from union membership. Recent legislative interest in cost-saving initiatives at the local level could be substantially promoted by a statutory amendment to enable local governments to effectively use seasonal employees. GLP-2. Open Meetings and Data Practices (A) The League supports legislation clarifying the open meeting law and the data practices act to make local government compliance easier and less costly. The Legislature needs to continually reexamine the open meeting law and the data practices act. The intent of the open meeting law is to ensure, within practical limits, the access of people to the actions and motivations of government. The data practices act is intended to ensure, within practical limits, the privacy of people who willingly or unwillingly become involved with their government. Both laws are difficult to follow individually, and when private or other classified information must be discussed by a public body subject to the open meeting law, as inevitably it must in many situations, the government is forced to attempt to meet two conflicting statutes. The Legislature has attempted to identify problem areas and to provide clear rules for local governments to follow. Unfortunately, not all circumstances can be anticipated nor remaining ambiguities addressed. The League supports amendments addressing the following issues. 20 League of Minnesota Cities Several city officials have incurred huge personal costs defending open meeting law violation allegations, because state law treats the open meeting law somewhere between a civil and criminal matter. ~At ~ the very least, the legislation should authorize local governments to reimburse their officers to the same extent as if criminal charges were brought because of their official actions. Selection of city employees is complicated by the data practices act's classification of the identity of non-finalists as private. This problem could be resolved by allowing closed meetings of public bodies to screen applicants until finalists are chosen. This would protect the privacy rights of individuals and yet allow the public to be involved at the most important stage of the process, that being the selection of an employee from the group of finalists. Certain meetings, such as settlement meetings involving judicial or administrative actions, are more likely to be more productive and concluded faster if they are not subject to the open meeting law. The Legislature should broaden current provisions to allow quasi-judicial officers or certain state employees to authorize closed meetings of public bodies. The current law requires reasonable efforts to keep private any private data which must be discussed publicly. This causes both practical and political problems in that if the public body can accomplish the impractical task it destroys the public's respect for government and if the government can't successfully shield the information it is exposed to significant legal liability. The Legislature should repeal this requirement. Recent proposals to increase the penalty section of the open meeting law as a means of ensuring greater compliance are misplaced. City officials are making good faith efforts to comply with both laws. Without additional clarification, however, the Legislature must realize that city officials owe it to their constituents to limit the city's exposure to liability. The Legislature should focus on clarifying ambiguities and modifying both laws as indicated above. Further, the Legislature should consider abandoning judicial actions with individual penalties as the primary means of enforcing the open meeting law. Altemative dispute resolution mechanisms, commissions similar to the state news council, or other options should be explored. GLP-3. Utility Service Territories (l) The League supports legislation confirming the power of Minnesota cities: 1) to require franchises of all non-municipal electric, gas, telecommunication, steam, and hot water utilities as a precondition to service within municipal boundaries; and 2) if a city has or starts a municipal utility, to serve all territory within city boundaries upon payment of two times the current annual gross revenues plus the depreciated value of physical property in the service territory acquired. In order to plan in the most effective and economical way for city economic development and infrastructure needs, including those not directly related to gas and electric or other services, cities need substantial controls over the type, location, cost, and layout of electric, gas, and other utilities. They must also be able to cause relocation of the same without great public expense. Recent decisions of the Public Service Commission have called into question city powers to franchise in or serve new areas of the city. Rigid service territory boundaries 1994 City Policies and Priorities 21 of the city. Rigid service territory boundaries established by the commission must be subject to practical modification to best serve the needs of city residents and the state as a whole. GLP-4. Comparable Worth (B) The League supports efforts to eliminate any sex-based differences in compensation of public employees but asks the Legislature to revise the pay equity statute to allow local governments sufficient time to comply with recently adopted administrative rules regarding compliance determinations. Additionally, the League urges the Legislature to amend the statute to limit the law's applicability to only full-time employees and to clarify that separately established governmental entities must file separate compliance reports. The local government pay equity act, first adopted in 1984, has been frequently amended by the Legislature. Significant amendments were adopted in 1990, and in 1991 the Legislature authorized the Department of Employee Relations to promulgate rules to assist the department in determining local government compliance with the statute. These rules, which include several new tests, necessitate many changes to local government compliance efforts, took effect almost a full year after cities and other public employers were required by the statute to submit compliance reports. Cities which are found out of compliance must be granted additional time to comply with these new standards prior to facing imposition of state sanctions which include five percent reductions in financial assistance and $100 per day penalties. The League supports legislative action to delay the implementation deadline to December 1994. At the very least, the Legislature should act to delay imposition of new statistical tests of health insurance contributions, salary range differences, and exceptional service pay programs until December 1994. The rules address other significant issues not previously dealt with by the legislation, including the clef'tuitions of employees and employers covered by the act. For the definition of employees, the rules use the same definition as in the public employees labor relations act (PglRA). Use of this definition causes two significant problems. First, because local governments use a great number of part-time and seasonal employees in order to effectively and efficiently provide important services, many more jobs will have to be included in compensation systems than is the current practice. This requires much more administrative work in establishing job descriptions and ranking jobs which by their very nature are often impossible to accurately describe or value. Second, bexT~use benefits, including health insurance programs, are often limited to full-time employees, cities run the risk of being found out of compliance with the pay equity act not because of gender-based discrimination, but rather because of valid distinctions between full-time and part-time employment. The League proposes adopting a definition of employee which would not include any employee working less than 20 hours per week on average or who is employed in a position which is filled less than six months in any year. For the definition of employers covered by the act, the problem is slightly different. The law clearly requires all cities and other political subdivisions of the state to comply. The problem is determining who is the employing agency for a particular group of employees. Historically, employees of ce~ain enterprises such as public utilities, hospitals, nursing homes, and libraries have been considered as separate and distinct from employees of the city. Often, the only connection is that the 22 League of Minnesota Cities city council acts somewhat pro forma to ratify he annual budget proposed by the separate entity prior to certification of the tax levy. Unfortunately, it is this feature of formal budget adoption on which the rules focus, ': regardless of separate payroll systems, personnel rules, salary and benefit systems, etc. The League supports statutory clarification that other aspects of the government structure be considered when making a determination of which governing body is the employer of a group of employees. To be considered separately established, the governmental entities may have separate personnel systems, separate facilities, separate bookkeeping and payroll systems, and no interrelationships other than budget approval and/or financial assistance. In addition, these existing governmental entities must be separately established prior to 1984. GLP-5. Employee Training and Education Req-irements (B) The League opposes any additional state-imposed employee training, education, or certification programs, but supports the availability of technical and financial assistance from the state for local or regional training and education programs. The Legislature has recently considered proposals to require state certification for firefighters and dispatchers, four-year college degrees for police officers, and may consider limiting the use of part-time peace officers. There have been other related proposals, all which seem to ignore the significant impact on local recruitment and retention and cost containment efforts. Rather than respond with additional state requirements, the League supports efforts by the state to make training programs more readily available for local employees as well as financial assistance by the state to encourage local governments to provide additional training and educational opportunities for their employees. GLP-6. Employee Wages and Benefits (B) The League supports legislation promoting the efficient and economical provision of city services. State legislation routinely affects cities with regard to employee wages and benefits, usually resulting in higher costs to city taxpayers. Consequently, the League opposes additional employee wage or benefit mandates for public employees, whether they be in the form of requirements or prohibitions. Salary freezes, health insurance requirements, mandatory leaves, and many other personnel issues have been debated and acted on by the Legislature in recent sessions. The Legislature has frequently granted or mandated additional benefits and workplace regulations applicable to public and private employers. While many of these actions have worthwhile purposes, they have a significant impact on local finances and on the collective bargaining process. The Legislature must bear in mind that to the extent that certain benefits are given away unilaterally there is no need to bargain for them, thus allowing public employees to demand other benefits through negotiation. Additionally, while some benefit increases seem to have a minor impact when first considered, they may inflate rapidly in the future or combine with other provisions of law to cause significant expense. While it is unrealistic perhaps for the Legislature to refrain totally from mandating certain benefits, they should consider the ramifications of their actions and understand their substantial role in increasing the personnel costs of local governments. Similarly, efforts to micromanage local personnel systems or restrain broad employment practices also often have severe negative consequences, and should be avoided. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 23:3~ Cities, like all employers, are alarmed at the rapidly rising cost of health care in Minnesota. Further, health care availability is a critical issue in many parts of the state. The League supports efforts to ensure the availability of quality health care at affordable costs. Employers who currently provide health care benefits for their employees, however, should not have to pay twice. Some past legislative actions have limited cities' flexibility in selecting health care providers. Specifically, as an element of the creation of a statewide health plan for public employees the Legislature provided that exclusive representatives may unilaterally determine whether their employees will participate in the state plan, leaving only the proportion of premium paid by the public employer subject to bargaining. The result may be additional administrative or personnel costs to the public employer. The Legislature should eliminate the unilateral selection authority it has granted exclusive representatives. GLP-7. Local Police and Paid Fire Relief Associations (B) The League opposes multiple mechanisms for inflation adjustment. If the Legislature determines that "escalation" (pensions adjusted by the percentage increase of wages of active members)presently in effect does not offer adequate inflation protection, that mechanism should be adjusted or abolished. However, no new mechanism such as that authorized for Minneapolis police or firefighters in Laws 1988, Chapter 319, should be authorized while "escalation" remains in effect. Additionally, the League supports changes in actuarial assumptions relating to salaries and investment return to more truly reflect experiences. GLP-8. Public Employees Retirement Ass~_'~fion (PERA) Benefits, Financing, and Administration (B) The following principles should govern any changes the Legislature makes in the PERA and the other statewide pension plans. I. There should be no reduction in the high five year averaging period. 2. Early retirement incentives should be adopted only if they have positive or neutral long-term impact on city and pension fund .~natt c e $ . 3. Costs and saving should continue to be shared equally between employers and employees except for public safety positions, for which employers should bear no more than 60 percent of the cost. The adoption in 1973 of the "high five year" benefit formula for PERA has provided very adequate pension benefits for career city employees. Further shortening of the averaging period would create windfalls for some PERA members and multiply opportunities for manipulation of service and salaries to maximize pension benefits without proportional contributions to the fund. GLP-9. Tort Liability and Insurance m) The League supports legislation reducing the exposure of cities to civil lawsuits without unduly restricting an injured party from recovering compensation from negligent individuals. The League also supports actions ensuring the availability and affordability of insurance coverage for cities. The growth of tort litigation over the past several years has resulted in increasing liability for governmental entities, private businesses, and individual citizens. Additional]y, business practices of insurance 24 League of Minnesota Cities companies have played a significant role in insurance pricing. The League supports reasonable reforms addressing both sides of the liability/insurance issue. The municipal tort liability act was enacted in 1963 to protect the public treasury, while giving citizens relief from the arbitrary, confusing, and administratively expensive prior doctrine of sovereign immunity. The act has served that purpose well in the past. However, courts frequently forget or ignore the positive benefits secured to citizens as a result of the act, which includes liability exceptions and limitations. The special vulnerability of far-flung government operations to debilitating tort suits continues to require the existence of a tort claims act, applicable to local governments as well as the state. The League recommends the following. Our system of clearly defining and limiting the scope of public liability should continue. The League strongly supports retention of the dollar limitations on governmental liability. The current limits of $200,000/$600,000 seem sufficient at this time but should be reviewed periodically to ensure that those injured are not unfairly compensated and that the limits remain constitutional. The limits should be set at an amount that allows all levels of government to economically procure coverage, and provide sufficient lead time to avoid budgetary problems. Additionally, the limits should conform to the extent possible with coverage limits available from insurers. Liability for particular city operations, such as firefighting and park and recreation facilities, should only arise if there is a showing of gross misconduct or gross negligence. · The League favors eliminating joint and several liability except in limited circumstances. The fault-based system of damage awards has apparently eroded. In order to facilitate the return to a fault-based system, joint liability should be abolished in cases where defendants have not acted in concert, and a modified comparative fault system should be used to evaluate the actions of other individuals involved with the injury and assess damages only in proportion to the amount of each person's fault. At the very least, the Legislature should modify recent amendments to the comparative fault statute and eliminate joint liability for governmental and private defendants when they are less than 30 percent at fault. Recent court cases have indicated potential employer liability exposure to defamation claims arising out of providing references on past employees to prospective employers. The result is that many employers have stopped providing information on past employees except information specifically classified as public under the law which must be disseminated upon request. Employers which give information about the job performance of former employees should be presumed to be acting in good faith and, unless lack of good faith is shown by clear and convincing evidence, there should be no liability for making the disclosure. This provision would not protect knowingly false or deliberately misleading information, but would promote more effective hiring practices and could potentially limit the public's exposure to negligent hiring cases or less than high-quality public employees. GLP-10. Veterans' Preference A. The League supports amending the veterans' preference act to provide that a veteran must select one and only one hearing 1994 City Policies and Priorities 25 -¢ ~ procedure rather than be able to request both a veterans 'preference hearing and a grievance procedure under a collective bargaining agreement. Current statutes entitle a veteran to at least two different hearing procedures to challenge any disciplinary action. This is inefficient and may be unworkable, since the standards for court review of the decisions of veterans' preference boards and grievance arbitrators vary significantly. The Minnesota Supreme Court, has indicated that these statutes need to be amended. The law should provide for a selection of a single heating procedure and eliminate any requirement for salary payment pending the hearing when the veteran does not request a hearing within 10 days or when an impartial hearing body determines that the dismissal was for just cause. B. The League supports legislation providing specific time lines to be followed by employers and employees in the veterans' preference discipline or dismissal process, so that an employee must provide notice of their intent to appeal within 10 days and the hearing process must be completed no later than 90 days following a proposed disciplinary or dismissal action. Currently an employee has 60 days from the date of the employer's notice of discipline or dismissal to request a heating. If a hearing is requested, there are no time lines for holding heatings or rendering decisions. Under this system, a termination decision can, and has, taken more than a year, during which the employee receives full pay and benefits. The result is extremely costly to cities, particularly small cities, which often must hire replacement workers for this period. The League's proposal to provide a more expedited process would not infringe on the employee's right to a hearing, but would ensure a more efficient and cost-effective procedure. Additionally, a public employer which has its termination or discipline decision upheld should not be responsible for paying any of the employee's costs of challenging the action and should be reimbursed for any salary paid to the employee pending the hearing. GLP-11. Volunteer ~n'efighters' Pensions The League opposes creation of any additional city volunteer firefighter pension plans which set retirement benefits based on the compensation of a class of active employees, such as the plan in Bloomhtgton. The state has had a policy of terminating escalated city pension plans by preventing new entrants since 1980 (except for Bloomington fire relief) and by encouraging consolidation with PERA. The league initiated and supported and continues to support the state policy. GLP-12. Liquor Issues (C) The League supports repeal of the public hearing requirement for cities with liquor stores that experience losses in two of three consecutive years and supports repeal of off- sale hour restrictions based on proximity to first class cities within the same county. Liquor issues have been consolidated into a single bill in recent legislative sessions. The League generally supports this practice but only if each provision is adequately considered by the Legislature and the parties affected are given ample opportunity for input. The League has identified the following issues which may or should be considered by the Legislature. 1. Continuation heatings. State law currently requires that a city operating a municipal 26 League of Minnesota Cities liquor store hold a public hearing if the store loses money in any two of three consecutive years. This statute, adopted prior to "truth in taxation" hearing requirements, is now duplicative and wasteful and should be repealed or combined with other budget hearings. 2. Off-sale hours. Minnesota Statute 340A.504, subd. 4 limits off-sales of liquor to I0:00 p.m. generally, except that cities of the first class and cities within 15 miles of cities of the first class (within the same county) must close at 8:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Political boundaries make the latter portion of this statute unfair. The League supports repeal of the neighboring city, same county, portion of this statute, and generally believes that cities should be fully authorized to establish hours of sale and be expressly authorized to establish differing license fees for establishments having different hours of operation. GLP-13. Prevailing Wage (C) The League believes that wages paid on public contracts should be consistent with wages earned by people working at similar jobs in the community. The League urges the Legislature and the Depatl~ent of Labor and Industry to work together to modify the prevailing wage system to make it more equitable and to help control the costs to local governments. The present administration of determining wages uses the "mode" calculation. It designates the wage earned by the greatest number of people in a job class as the prevailing wage. This calculation is flawed, and can either under estimate or over estimate representative wages in a community. A "weighted average" of the wages paid for the job class during the year is a more accurate reflection of wages paid. Requiting prevailing wages, calculated under the existing method, often overpays for public projects. This results in more costly public projects, higher local taxes or limits on other city services, and limits the size of projects or makes them too costly to do. Current administration of the prevailing wage system imports wages from neighboring counties, resulting in metro-area wages being paid across the state. If a particular job class does not have a sample wage to determine subsequent wages for that job class, the current system may force the local government to use the wage rates paid for the closest area wage for the category--often the higher wage rates which are paid in the metro ar~. The League commends the analysis of these problems, and the recommendations for modifications and corrections to the prevailing wage system which was prepared by the Department of Administration (April 1991). GLP-14. Recovery of State Program Administration Costs (LD The League supports removing limitations on the ability of local governments to charge fees or otherwise raise revenues to pay for state programs. Additionally, the Legislature should adopt statewlde processes which further local administration of state All levels of government are fmding it difficult to finance governmental programs and law enforcement activities. The League supports continuing efforts to internalize program costs and to provide financing for law enforcement activities through forfeiture statutes and other means. Specifically, the prohibition on collecting local handgun permit fees should be repealed; license renewals and/or motor vehicle registrations should be used as a means of collecting unpaid fines, penalties, or other governmental fees; and forfeiture assets should be left as a resource primarily for local enforcement activities. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 27 LAND USE, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND TRANSPORTATION LUEET-1. Annexation (A) A. The League supports legislation restricting further urban growth outside city boundaries and facilitating the annexation of urban land to cities. Public policies which encourage substantial development in non-urban areas and which extend public services beyond existing jurisdictions and service areas are wasteful and counter-productive. Additionally, shoreland and prime agricultural land are major natural and economic resources and the state should include as a major objective their preservation and wise use. Particular attention should be given to the issue of development and the delivery of governmental services to urbanizing fringe areas. In the metropolitan area, the Legislature should not modify the existing framework for restricting or guiding development absent careful study and input from metropolitan cities and their associations. State law should continue to encourage the preservation of shoreland and prime agricultural land and discourage the development of such land outside designated growth areas to be served by a city. The League recommends the following. State statutes regulating annexation should make it easier for cities to annex developed or developing land within unincorporated areas which the annexing city has designated as a growth area. The Legislature should clarify 1992 legislation which allows property owners to initiate an annexation by petition to specifically allow these annexations notwithstanding orderly annexation agreements which might contradict the petition. Cities should be given the authority to extend their zoning ordinance and subdivision controls up to two miles outside the city's boundaries regardless of the existence of county or township controls, in order to ensure conformance with city facilities and services. B. The League also supports legislation restricting the ability of individual property owners to petition the Municipal Board to detach their land frotn one city and to annex it to an add'oining city. In 1985 the state's annexation statutes were amended to allow an owner of land to petition the Municipal Board for concurrent detachment and annexation. Prior to 1985, only the affected cities could begin the process. Since the amendment, several instances have arisen where owners have petitioned the board because they were dissatisfied with land use or development assistance decisions made by the host city. The Legislature should either repeal the property owner petition provision or provide the affected cities a right to veto the petition. At the very least, the Legislature should provide a list of factors for the Municipal Board to analyze when considering requests for concurrent detachment and annexation. LUEE~- 2. Intergovernmental and Jurisdictional Governance (A) Actions by both the state and federal governments are increasing the fiscal pressure 28 League of Minnesota Cities and jurisdictional reorganization of county and state roads. Issues of jurisdiction and financial responsibility need increased attention. The League supports improvements to the equity and efficiency of ,, intergovernmental negotiations between cities and other governmental units. Efforts to resolve issues of resolving jurisdictional issues and turnbacks should emphasize improving equal and balanced mechanisms for these processes. Two specific issues need to be considered. 1. Dispute resolution board Cities acknowledge that the overlapping jurisdiction of county state aid highways within cities needs a more formal process for resolution. Local governments should negotiate on proposed design and construction issues during the planning phases of development or redevelopment of these roads. Where such negotiation does not resolve all issues, either the city or the county may convene a dispute resolution board. Its membership would include the following members of the affected county and city -- one city councilmember or mayor, one county commissioner, the city engineer, and the county engineer. The four members of the board should jointly select a fifth member of the board. Likely sources for this member are: the state office of dispute resolution, local dispute resolution offices, the Center for Transportation Studies, the Department of Transportation, or the Institute of Traffic Engineering. If the four members cannot agree on a fifth member within two months of the creation of the negotiating board, an administrative law judge should appoint the final member. Costs of the process of resolution should be shared equally between the city and the county. Negotiation through this board should be limited to one year. Unresolved discussions could be appealed to an administrative law judge. 2. Turnbacks Cities support a process of planned and mutually agreeable jurisdictional changes of city, county, and state roads. It is important to acknowledge that, rather than actually saving money, turnbacks shift the cost of road maintenance and repair from a larger group of taxpayers to a smaller group. Also, the increased cost for cities to assume responsibility for general maintenance and life-cycle treatment for a substantial number of additional miles of road greatly exceeds the current financial capacities of cities. The Legislature should make changes that cities are accorded the same notification and heating process for the turnback of county highways provided to townships. Counties should hold a public heating and hear comment within the city where they propose to revoke their authority for a highway. As with the process for townships, counties should: a) complete repairs and improvements that are necessary to meet their own highway standards before turning the road back to the city, and b) maintain the road for a period of two years from the revocation date. The League also recommends the following changes to help facilitate individual turnbacks: Rules should be changed to allow counties to upgrade county state aid highways using county state aid highway funds prior to turnback when cities concur and without the penalty which is currently imposed; and The League supports allowing cities to participate in the decisions which determine whether a turnback road will be designated as a state-aid road. If the city chooses to designate the road as a state-aid road, this designation should not affect the standard designation process, so that developing cities will be able to 1994 City Policies and Priorities 29 continue to designate a percentage of new road growth as part of the state-aid system. LUEET-3. Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (A) The League supports creation o fa cleanup program for closed municipal solid waste landfills which is separate from the state Superfund program and supports state programs designed to minimize or eliminate the need for landfilling solid and hazardous waste. The problem of regulating, controlling, and disposing of solid and hazardous waste will continue to be a major environmental issue both nationally and in Minnesota. Major state legislation addressing this issue has been enacted annually since 1980. These acts responded to the concerns and issues raised by the League, other local governments, and citizens. The existing waste management and control system for handling and disposing of hazardous materials centralizes responsibility at the state level, but requires the cooperation and support of all levels of government. The system established for solid waste is more diffuse, relying on cities to control and regulate collection, counties to regulate or operate existing resource recovery or disposal facilities, and the state to coordinate responsibilities and plan for future disposal needs. Both systems should foster and encourage abatement, recycling, and resource recovery for as much of the waste stream as possible and then to assure environmentally sound disposal for the remaining waste. The system appeam to be working, and therefore the League does not perceive a need for major changes to existing legislation at the present time. But any future legislation that may be considered should enhance and not diminish the emphasis on these concerns. 30 The League supports efforts aimed at avoiding or reducing the creation of solid and hazardous waste. These efforts should include disincentives for creating hard to dispose of items and notifying consumers of the ease or difficulty of disposing of materials prior to purchase. The League supports efforts at the state and federal levels to institute financial incentives to avoid single-use packaging materials. The state should not preempt local regulatory authority in the absence of an effective, statewide regulatory framework or program which is at least as strong as regulations already adopted by cities. Further, financial or other incentives should be used to encourage environmentally acceptable product generation and handling. The League supports the prohibition of disposal of unprocessed solid waste in landfills, as cost-efficient and environmentally safe alternatives are developed and funding is provided to cities to implement their responsibilities. Ash from waste to energy facilities should continue to be regulated as a special waste. Funding for recycling, reduction, and abatement efforts. The League supports alternatives to general taxes as sources of financing conservation efforts. These alternatives can include specific taxes, additional fees on landfill or disposal facility users, and state or county grants and loans. Financial assistance programs need to be regularly reviewed and continued if necessary to effectuate waste reduction. Changes in f'mancing should be implemented in a manner which avoids budgetary disruption. The Legislature should continue to fund educational and operational pilot program efforts on the subject of solid and haTardous waste disposal, including alternatives for the disposal of household League of Minnesota Cities hazardous waste, such as those promoted by the household hazardous waste reduction project. The League also supports legislation requiring that the six percent garbage sales tax (SCORE tax) be distributed directly to the local unit of government that actually operates the recycling program within that jurisdiction. Siting process. The siting of solid waste facilities has become extremely difficult. The Legislature should continue to consider siting issues and provide additional incentives or mechanisms to encourage siting of necessary facilities. Clean-up of landfdls and other hazardous substance locations. The clean-up and decontamination of existing hazardous waste sites, including closed municipal landfills and dumps, should continue before there is further damage to public health and the environment. The League supports the continuation of the state Superfund program, including its liability provisions, for most sites, but supports the creation of a separate landfall clean-up program financed out of a tax or fee on toxic materials. Regardless of the clean- up program established, local governments should be protected from extreme clean-up costs, or costs which do not directly relate to their contribution to the problem. Management of solid waste collection and disposal. Cities should retain their existing authority to organize collection and regulate solid waste facilities and should not be required by statute to compensate parties for changes in regulations nor have their local authority to regulate land uses unilaterally overridden by other levels of government. LUEET-4. Transportation Systems Funding (A) The League supports extending the state sales tax to gasoline and other fuels to generate adequate revenue to fund future transportation needs. State trunk highways, county stale _aid roads, and municipal state aid streets should receive 55 percent of these revenues and 45 percent should be available to fund metropolitan and Greater Minnesota transit systems. Cities understand that an efficient transportation system is a vital element in planning for fiscal, economic, and social development at state, regional, and local levels. The League urges the state to consider using revenue sources which have adequate growth potential to meet the increasing needs of all transportation systems, including the mobility needs of our citizens, efficient movement of goods, improving accessibility and efficiency of current transit programs, reducing automobile congestion, and overall energy and environmental concerns. The League urges the Legislature and the governor to acknowledge the immediate needs of transportation and to create a Mobility Trust Fund to distribute sales tax revenues from the sale of gasoline. The expected $180 million of new sales tax revenues could fund approximately $100 million of future road and highway needs through a Surface Transportation Fund, and $80 million for both existing and new metro and rural transit systems through a Transit Assistance Fund. The current general fund appropriation of $40 million for transit programs should be made available for other transportation and transit- related spending. Because these would be new sales tax revenues, the League would not oppose the full 6.5 percent sales tax being directed to the Mobility Trust Fund, without distribution of two cents to the Local Government Trust Fund. Revenues from the sales tax would fulfdl future transportation needs in lieu of gas tax increases for roads and additional general fund appropriations for transit. 1994 City Policies and Priorities In addition, the League supports authority for special local tax authority to be used to fund enhanced or specialized transit services which are locally determined to be necessary. Imposition of local taxes should not, however, affect the overall state responsibility of funding for these transit services. If the sales tax on gasoline is found to be unconstitutional, the League urges the Legislature to resolve the constitutional use of gas tax revenues for expanded uses. Until this is resolved, the League supports amending the statutory definition of road or highway, to include other transportation modes within "transportation corridors." The League would then support a gas tax increase adequate to meet the current needs of these transportation modes. Under this funding option, mass transit projects within transportation corridors would be eligible for gas tax revenues if the projects helped to achieve the state's overall transportation goals, maximize Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding, and reduce pollution to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Eligible transit expenditures would include property, vehicles, and equipment for public bus and rail systems, and their related facilities. LUFJ~-5. Transportation Utility Fee (A) The League urges the Legislature to adopt League-sponsored legislation to authorize cities to create, at their option, a transportation utility. Such authority would acknowledge: the effects of limited local revenues and cuts to the state aid revenues; the benefit to all taxpayers of a properly maintained local transportation system; and the severe limitations of existing special assessment authority. A transportation utility, comparable to the statutory authority for cities to operate storm sewer utilities, would provide a stable, long-term, dedicated funding source for reconstruction and maintenance of city transportation facilities. Current transportation funding options available to cities are inadequate and the current special assessment law, Chapter 429 (Local Improvements, Special Assessments) does not meet cities' financing needs because of the benefit requirement. The law requires a minimum of 20 percent of such a project to be specially assessed against affected properties. In practice, however, proof of increased property value to this extent--benefit--can rarely be proven for regular repair or replacement of existing transportation infrastructure. Alternatives to financing through the use of Chapter 429 authority are nearly nonexistent. The Legislature has given cities the authority to operate utilities for waterworks, sanitary sewers, and stormsewers. The stormsewer authority (1983), in particular, set the precedent for a process of charging a fee on a utility bill for a city service or infrastructure which is of value to the entire city without metering and without proof of property value increases (benefit). A transportation utility would use technical, well-founded measurements, based on traffic generated. It would equitably distribute the costs of providing local transportation services, including properties which are exempt from the property tax. Authority for cities to operate a transportation utility would reduce the need for cities to incur the additional costs of debt in order to finance major reconstruction and maintenance projects. It would also limit the frequency of large special assessment charges on individual property owners. Finally, authority for this utility would be 32 League of Minnesota Cities enabling only. Cities would need to individually weigh the benefits of such a tool for their long-term maintenance and reconstruction transportation needs and have their city councils approve the use of the, '- utility. LUEET-6. Brid~e Fundin~ The League urges the state to acknowledge the importance of local bridges to the statewide transportation network and the overdue need for funding bridge repair and replacement. A funding program should be continued at an annual level of at least $30 million in order to provide the necessary funds for cities, towns, and counties to replace and repair local bridges. Additional bonding authority, general fund appropriation, and/or tax revenues should be made available for new bridge construction across the state. LUEET-7. Municipal State Aid System (B) A. In order to more adequately represent the current eligible miles of city streets, the League supports raising the municipal state aid system (MSAS) limit to 3, 000 miles. This is an administrative change only and will not affect the actual distribution of MSA funding. Existing law limits the system to 2,500 miles and total mileage currently in the system is approximately 2,300. This mileage increase for the system is necessary to accommodate the mileage needs of growing cities which reach the 5,000 population level and larger cities with growing street systems so that these cities may also receive adequate municipal state aid. B. The population factor of the municipal state aid system should be changed to reflect annual population updates based on estimates from the state demographer or Metropolitan Council, rather than federal or special census counts. C. In spite of the consolidation of the metropolitan state construction districts 5 and 9, the League supports legislation which continues the previous metropolitan membership on MnDOT committees to ensure adequate statewide representation. By law the MSA Screening Committee consists of one member from each highway district and from each fa'st class city. The unintended effect of combining the metropolitan districts reduces metropolitan representation on this body. LUEET-8. Railroad Right-of-Way Preservation The League urges the Legislature to acknowledge the importance of abandoned railroad rights-of-way, and to work to preserve future abandonments for public use. Over 50 percent of Minnesota's railroad rights-of-way (5,000 miles) have been abandoned in the last 60 years and an additional 1,000 miles are projected to be abandoned in the next decade. These rights- of-way have great public value, for transportation, communication, recreation, and environmental purposes, and the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) program strongly supports efforts to reclaim and reuse abandoned railroad rights-of-way. Bicycle or hiking trails, snowmobile routes, light mil lines, utility corridors, transmission corridors, and pipeline corridors are just a few examples of important future uses of railroad fights-of- way. The public cost to acquire these rights-of-way increases substantially once rights-of-way have been abandoned or sold off in small parcels. Because future abandonments are unpredictable, the time for public acquisition 1994 City Policies and Priorities 33 can be relatively short, and numerous governments may be involved, the state needs to become involved to ensure preservation of these corridors until such time as the future public use can be determined. LUEET-9. Transportation Services Fund (B) The League encourages further clarification attd separation of transportation-related spending of the highway user distribution fund and those non-highway or non-transit purposes which should be funded from the transportation services fund. Funding for local and state roads, for facilities, operations, and maintenance should be clearly appropriated from the highway user distribution fund. The League opposes diversion of these funds for other state programs (such as the Department of Public Safety, Tourism, the Safety Council, river parkways, etc.) which do not directly benefit the transportation or transit systems in the state. These operations should be funded directly through the state's general fund. The League supports the establishment of a transportation services fund by the 1994 Legislature as a positive first step toward this policy. LUEET-10. Wastewater Treatment The League supports continued state and federal assistance, and alternative programs, which provide financing for wastewater treatment construction projects. Clean water is vitally important to the citizens of this country and particularly to residents and visitors of Minnesota. Minnesota's cities remain committed to improving water quality. Unfortunately, the costs involved in providing cleaner water are staggering. Because of the incredible cost, it is economically impractical to immediately eliminate wastewater pollution. Therefore, all levels of government must take a reasonably balanced approach to solving the wastewater pollution problem. The ability of cities to comply with any clean water program is contingent upon the availability of adequate funds for treatment facilities. Since 1978, federal grant funding for the wastewater treatment construction grant program has been rapidly phased out. The same budget constraints facing the federal government exist at the state and local level but to a greater degree due to limited revenue soUlr.,es. The League supported creation of both the revolving loan fund and the state independent grants program and continues to support state financial assistance which is based on the economic ability of each local government to finance its wastewater treatment infrastructure. The programs should be streamlined to minimize delays caused by state agency reviews of economic and engineering matters. Funding priorities should be established based on the environmental sensitivity of the receiving waters and the quality of the effluent discharged from the facility. The League opposes efforts by either the state or federal governments to institute enforcement actions or impose increased fees or charges against communities for failure to meet effluent standards while at the same time assigning these communities a low priority on the needs list for state and federal funding. The League supports recent Pollution Control Agency (PCA) efforts to have agency staff available to communities as resources for operator assistance, evaluation of treatment needs, educational or liaison efforts, and rate-setting assistance. The League 34 League of Minnesota Cities J J t, I ,11, particularly supports the use of neighboring city staff as additional advisors for communities. The League requests that the Legislature provide additional staff and resources to the the agency to continue and expand the community assistance program. Financial assistance programs should not penalize communities that have adjusted their local utility rate system or reserve funds to meet facility financing needs. The League supports restricting eligibility for on-site system financing to areas which are not readily able to connect to existing or programmed city sewage facilities. The League opposes direct or indirect restrictions on construction of new city facilities if these restrictions are inconsistent with other state or regional development controls. LUEET-11. Water Conservation and Preservation (B) The League supports state water conservation and preservation programs that maintain a significant role for cities and provide adequate financial assistance and flexibitity. In order to safeguard the public health and the environment it is necessary to conserve and preserve our water resources. Many watershed districts, counties, cities, and towns have done a good job of dealing with surface and groundwater management issues and have the authority and ability to continue to do so in a cost-effective manner. These existing mechanisms should continue to be used to the greatest extent possible to address surface and groundwater management problems, instead of establishing a new system or creating new organizations. The l_eague supports, as a basic principle, that no one has the right to pollute either ground or surface water resources. A reasonable relationship of economic and social costs and benefits should be a precondition toward achieving a goal of non-degradation or treatment resulting in clean water. The ability of cities to meet goals must be recognized as contingent upon the availability of adequate funding, including state assistance. These principles should apply to both the protection of our drinking water supplies and the operation of municipal services. The League supports the following groundwater and surface water protection initiatives. Continuation of the state's safe drinking water act compliance program which undertakes federally mandated tests on behalf of cities. However, re-examination of the water connection fee imposed by the Department of Health on connections to public water supplies should be undertaken. The fee should be modified to eliminate the inequity in the current $5.21 per year fee being collected from community supplies but not from non-community systems. Additionally, measures to ensure that testing is accomplished in a cost-effective manner should be adopted, including the use of private sector laboratories. Local units of government should retain the basic responsibility for surface water management, because they are closest to the problem. Efforts to minimize duplication in regulatory programs should be continued. The state's new wetland conservation program should continue to be evaluated and amendments to improve the act should be required to be introduced in the 1995 legislative session, especially amendments to provisions of the wetland roles that conflict with existing state storm water management and water quality programs. The League supports 1994 City Policies and Priorities 35 efforts to control erosion and sediment runoff not only from urban sources but from non-urban sources. The League supports a full legislative review of all water-related permit fees and opposes the imposition of these fees on local units of government to the extent that the actual costs to the state cannot be specifically justified and only serve as an alternative means for the state to raise revenue. If fees are determined to be properly imposed on governmental units, the fees should be based solely on the cost of actually providing governmental services to the political subdivision, and private sector alternatives should be made available to ensure minimal costs to local taxpayers. LUEET-12. Wetlands Conservation The League, along with many other governmental associations, supported passage of the 1991 wetlands conservation act. Experience gained by administration of the interim program and parffcipation in the rule-writing for the permanent progrmn indicates a need for additional legislative action. Specifically, the League supports the following legislative initiatives. Remove the $75 limitation on replacement plan reviews. Since all proposals to alter, drain, or fill a wetland involve a substantial expenditure of local staff time, including, but not limited to, professional engineers or hydrologists, any limitation on cost recovery less than actual expenses means that the general taxpayer is subsidizing the proponent of an activity which, by definition is potentially adverse to the environment. Initiate detailed review of costs/benefits of expanding the scope of protected wetlands to include Types 1, 2, and 6 and evaluate alternative mitigation methods to compensate for any direct loss from impacts to Type 1, 2, and 6 wetlands. Amend the governmental oversight process so landowners can clearly understand which government unit needs to review a proposal, and refine the system to ensure expedited reviews of proposals consistent with the environmental goals of the program. Provide for state defense and indemnification of local governments administering state laws for any "taking" claims which property owners might allege. Make wetland replacement requirements equal between urban and non-urban land at a 1' 1 ratio. LUEET-13. Zoning, Subdivision, and Planning Statutes (B) The League supports the recodification of the existing planning enabling statutes but opposes changes that would restrict cities' current substantive and procedural flexibility to address unique circumstances. Minnesota's zoning, plafining, and subdivision statutes and regulations are essential to promoting economic development, preserving environmental resources, and ensuring the efficient delivery of public services. The governor's advisory council on state-local re!ations conducted a thorough review of the state's planning and zoning laws. The League participated in this study. A subcommittee of local elected officials was formed to review the recommendations developed by a technical committee composed of planning officials from townships, cities, counties, regional development commissions, and the state. Those recommendations have been collected in a report on land use legislation, and draft legislation has been prepared, reviewed, and modified by cities 36 League of Minnesota Cities throughout Minnesota. The League supports passage of the legislation as currently proposed. The 1993 Legislature preempted local : ,, authority to adopt setback requirements for manufactured homes in a manufactured home park if the ordinance would have the effect of prohibiting replacing a home in a park with a home manufactured in conformance with state standards. This preemption is scheduled to lapse August 1, 1994. The League urges the Legislature to allow the preemption to lapse and to allow local governments to continue to adopt and enforce reasonable public safety regulations. If the state precludes local regulation, it should recognize and assume responsibility for potential liability for personal injury and property damage, which arises as a result of the state action. LUEET-14. Energy Conservation (C) The League supports legislation providing incentives for energy conservation in both the public and private sectors. Overall energy conservation strategies involving the public, private, commercial, and industrial sectors are being developed based on the rationale that conservation efforts achieve the greatest energy savings at the lowest cost. Many of these efforts are receiving valuable assistance from the state. The League believes that a city's individual energy conservation strategy can be accomplished if the Legislature permits or establishes some of the following measures. The League recommends support of the use of bonding and special levies by loca governments for implementation of energy conservation measures, including building energy audits. This authority would supplement the current municipal energy loan program. The Legislature should also continue to encourage private sector conservation through tax credits and other incentives and should explore the possibility of expanding incentives for earth-sheltered, solar, super-insulated, and underground development. The League supports efforts to promote statewide applications of district heating and cooling technology including: providing additional funds or the ability to special levy for conducting district heating and cooling feasibility studies at the community level; ensuring consideration of district heating and cooling potential in the power plant siting process; and continuing use of the state district heating bond program for renovation of existing district heating and cooling systems. Rising energy costs will continue to place a burden on the economic vitality of communities in Minnesota. The League recommends: Continuation of the fuel assistance program for low-income households, with expanded services to train recipients in energy conservation practices and with a requirement of recipient participation in weatherization programs if the recipient is the owner; Support for weatherization programs operated through cities, counties, and community action program agencies; and Continued support for the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency's loan and grant program for home weatherization. Local governments are in the best position to assess local needs and regulate energy consumption within their communities. The League recommends giving any municipality the option to 3'1 1994 City Policies and Priorities adopt and enforce standardized provisions or appendices regarding energy conservations that are more stringent than the state building code. LUEET-15. Environmental Trust Fund (C) The voters have approved a constitutional amendment for the creation of an environmental trust fund, and the Legislature should act promptly to include as eligible programs wastewater treatment facilities, Superfund cleanup actions, and solid waste disposal facilities, except the siting of new incinerators. The 1988 Legislature concluded that all Minnesotans share the responsibility to ensure wise stewardship of the state's environment and natural resources for the benefit of current citizens and future generations, and that the proper management of the state's environment and natural resources requires foresight, planning, and long-term activities that allow the state to preserve its high quality environment and provide for wise use of its natural resources. In order to provide a long-term, consistent, and stable source of funding, the Legislature asked Minnesota's citizens to approve the creation of a constitutionally dedicated environment and natural resources trust fund financed by one-half of the state lottery (with voter approval) and other state appropriations. The ballot indicated that the environmental trust fund "will be used for air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources." The voters approved the measure overwhelmingly. Although the fund is constitutionally created, the eligibility of programs and projects for funding is set by statute. Current law provides that the following programs or projects are eligible for financing from the trust fund: RIM (Reinvest in Minnesota), a program encouraging the use of marginal agricultural land as wildlife habitat; Research projects; Data collection; Public education programs; Capital projects preserving or protecting unique resources; and Activities that preserve or enhance wildlife, fish, and other natural resources that otherwise may be substantially impaired or destroyed in any area of the state. Projects or programs specifically excluded from eligibility include: Supeffund cleanup actions; Wastewater treatment projects; and Solid waste disposal facilities (incinerators, landfills, etc.) The legislation does provide that if the principal of the trust fund reaches or exceeds $200 million, up to five percent of the fund ($10 million) may be used to provide cities with below market rate interest loans for water system improvements. Every one of the environmental protection programs identified as ineligible to receive trust funds have estimated needs of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. The need to allocate governmental resources to ensure adequate and clean water for drinking, recreation, and commercial use should be one of Minnesota's highest priorities. The efficient management of solid waste is also an immediate and demonstrated need, yet these programs are ineligible for trust fund financing. A trust fund may indeed be needed, but the Legislature should act to ensure that an environment and natural resources trust fund not ignore current serious and expensive environmental problems. A balance between short- and long-term environment and natural resources needs should and can be established. 38 League of Minnesota Cities I, · I,,, I ,11, The state should adequately finance current programs designed to provide this and generations with a quality environment and abundant natural resources, and increasing the types of Programs eligible for funding from the trust fund is one way for the state to meet its obligations. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 39 REVENUE SOURCES RS-I. State Aid to Cities (A) State aid and property tax relief programs for cities were originally established in conjunction with the introduction of the state sales tax to reduce the reliance on the property tax. These programs have allowed cities to provide an adequate level of services to Minnesotans, regardless of local property wealth or service overburden factors. Certainty and stability in the state aid system remain a major goal for city officials. However, in three of the past four years, state aid originally certified to cities during their budget process has been retroactively cut. When this occurs, city officials have few options but to reduce essential city services and delay necessary maintenance programs. To ensure certainty and stability, the League recolnmends the following policy guidelines if changes are made to the state aid system: A. Local government aid (LGA) should remain an essential component of the property tax system. The program should annually grow along with the growth in local government trust fund (LGTF) revenues. LGA is an important source of non-property tax revenue for cities. Annual growth in the appropriation for LGA is necessary to prevent increased or excessive city reliance on the property tax. The League continues to support its 1993 LGA formula proposal and, guided by the principles of that formula, will support formula changes that will improve the stability or the integrity of the program. B. The League opposes the conversion of city homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA) or LGA to school aid. Converting city HACA or LGA to school aid could force cities to dramatically increase their property taxes in order to maintain sufficient operating revenues. In addition, due to constant pressure to increase the resources available for schools, there is no assurance that conversion of city HACA or LGA to school aid would result in permanent reductions in school levies or have a neutral impact on the taxes paid by local taxpayers. C. The League supports restoring the HACA growth factor for cities. The 1993 Legislature repealed this provision for cities, schools, townships, and special taxing authorities. However, counties continue to receive additional HACA under this provision. The HACA growth factor assures that the property tax relief provided by the state through the classification system is paid by the state and not provided by shifting tax burdens to other types of property. RS-2. Lots__! Government Trust Fund (A) The 1991 Legislature established the local government trust fund (LGTF) to create a dedicated and stable source of revenue for necessary state property tax relief programs. However, since its inception, IX}TI: revenues have been the target of budget balancing efforts of both the Governor and the Legislature. With uncertainty surrounding the 1994-95 biennium budget, the LGTF is beginning to resemble the unstable and undesirable system it was designed to replace. The League recommends the following policy guidelines if changes are made to the local government trust fund: 4O League of Minnesota Cities A. The League continues to support the local government trust fitnd (LGTF). llowever, this support is contingent on the stability and integrity of the fund. Cities continue to support the concept of the LGTF which includes an irrevocable dedication of a portion of the sales tax and motor vehicle excise tax to a defined and stable set of property tax relief programs. If dedication cannot be assured under the current system, the League will pursue modifications to the structure and composition of the fund or a constitutional dedication of the trust fund revenues to property tax relief programs, or both. B. To prevent rapid increases in local property taxes, city aid from the local government trust fund (LGTF) should adjust annually at the same rate as sales tax and motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) revenues. The LGTF was established to provide a secure source of funding state aid and property tax relief programs. These programs are an important revenue source for most cities. Without growth in these programs, property taxes would be used to fund all necessary budgetary increases. C. The League supports modification to the local government trust fund (LGTF) provisions governing surpluses and shortfalls in the fund; all programs funded by the trust fund should be adjusted in a direct proportion to the surplus or shortfall. Currently, surpluses are distributed to local government aid (LGA), the county community social services act (CSSA), and county criminal justice aid. Shortfalls in the LGTF are balanced by reducing nearly all programs funded by the LGTF, including homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA). The integrity of the LGTF would be enhanced, and the volatility of any particular program would be reduced if all programs were adjusted in a similar manner. D. The League opposes chattges to the property tax classification/HACA system that would cause significant shifting of property tax burdens from one class to others. A portion of the property tax relief provided to farms by the 1993 Legislature was accomplished by shifting county and school taxes to city taxpayers. This shifting causes local property tax burdens for certain properties to increase due to the actions of the Legislature. However, local government officials are held responsible by their taxpayers. RS-3. Property Tax Reform (B) The League of Minnesota Cities will support property tax reforms that will enhance the understandability and fairness of the property tax system without compromising the ability of cities to provide services to citizens. The property tax is the only major tax available to finance city operations. Any reforms that erode this tax source should also provide alternative revenue sources that will both ensure stability for local taxpayers as well as equity in the levels of service provided to all Minnesotans. RS-4. State Up:dlotment Authority The League supports the basic structure of the unallotment authority given to the Governor in 1993. The League encourages the Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy to recommend similar provisions for the future. The unallotment authority would allow the Governor to reduce state spending across the board. This preserves the relative spending priorities established by the Legislature and minimizes the potential impact on any given 41 1994 City Policies and Priorities program. The unallotment authority should only permit spending reductions to cover immediate cash flow needs. Any reserve above the necessary cash flow should be available and drawn down to cover budgetary commitments previously approved by the Governor and the Legislature. RS-5. Property Tax Administration (B) A. Cities should receive a share of revenues from penalties and interest collected on delinquent property taxes. Under existing law, one-half of penalty and interest payments on delinquent property taxes are distributed to counties and one-half to school districts. This policy doesn't accurately distribute the penalties and interest which accrue on taxes that are levied by cities. Because the Legislature has not been inclined to correct this inequity, the League proposes that a compromise distribution be instituted -- allocation of one-half of all penalties and interest on property taxes to school districts, and the other half to be equally divided between cities and counties. This arrangement will not result in any net cost to the state. When property taxes are delinquent, cities-- just like counties and school districts--lose expected revenue, and the current value of tax revenues. Delayed tax payments can cause a city to reduce services or spend down reserves as they wait for late payment of property taxes. Counties have always received such revenues without deductions from levy limits or from state aid payments; it is treated as "other income." Cities should receive their appropriate share of penalties and interest on their delinquent property taxes as an unlimited revenue source. Cities should also continue to receive the penalties and interest which accrue to their special assessments. B. Counties should distribute property tax and other city revenues as soon as practicable. To help encourage prompt distribution, cities should receive market interest on property tax and other city revenues held by the counties from the property tax settlement date until they are distributed. In 1993, counties are allowed to hold payments made on or before May 15th until July 6. Although cities may petition to receive up to 70 percent of these tax revenues by June 21, this still allows counties to accrue interest on city tax receipts for over a month. With the October 15 payment, the counties can hold the funds until November 30, there is no opportunity for earlier payment to cities. These delays benefit the counties and result in lost cash flow benefit for cities. C. The Legislature should repeal authority for counties to assess a separate charge to administer special assessments. The 1993 Legislature has given new authority to counties to impose unlimited charges to administer special assessments. This new fee brings into question what county functions are paid for by a county's general fund levy, including the general administration of all such taxes and fees. This new fee results in higher taxes for city residents, who are also county residents and pay county taxes. This authority allows counties to impose unregulated and unnecessary fees for duties which should be included in the overall costs of county government. This new authority is also contrary to the current efforts of cities to become more cost efficient. There is no opportunity for cities to chose to administer special assessments in the most competitively economical manner (eg. duties performed by the city, a private 42 League of Minnesota Cities J, · I,,, I ,11, contract, etc.). RS-6. Service Duplication Taxation Exclusion (B) The League encourages the Legislature to adopt League supported legislation which would enable city property taxpayers to become exentpt from county levies for services which are either not provided to city residents or which duplicate services provided by the city. In many cities, residents are paying the costs of county provided services such as police protection, which primarily benefit county residents outside the city. In other cases, city residents may receive benefits from the county spending, but the services duplicate services which city governments are already providing. In order to more fairly allocate the cost of services and to eliminate duplication, city taxpayers and city governments should be given authority to petition to be exempt from county taxes or fees for services that duplicate city service or for services that are not provided by the county within the city limits. Currently, the city taxpayers in some cities are not required to contribute to the costs of a county library system if they are already paying for a city library system. Legislation should be passed to allow this arrangement to be extended to other services. During the 1994 session, the Legislature should study this proposal and hold hearings to allow testimony to adequately assess the extent of the issue and the need for realignment of taxation and service provision. RS-7. City Fund Balances The Legislature should not attempt to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds are necessary to maintain the fiscal stability of city governments, provide adequate cash flow, allow purchases of capital goods and infrastructure, and to maintain favorable bond ratings. There are many f'mancially sound reasons for cities to have adequate cash balances, including the following. The funds that a city has on January 1 must finance their expenditures for the first six months of the year. A city's primary sources of revenue, property taxes and state-shared revenues, are not received until June and July -- six to seven months into the city fiscal year. Just as the state has asserted its need to maintain an adequate cash reserve account, a city must have a fund balance for its operating expenditures to avoid interfund or commercial borrowing. However, unlike the state government, cities do not receive monthly revenues from numerous sources (such as sales taxes, personal and corporate income taxes, and various fees and charges to other governments). The alternative is costly borrowing, which is not in the interest of local taxpayers or the state. Some cities also use their fund balance for major capital purchases or infrastructure. By gradually accumulating revenue over a period of years, a city can save its taxpayers the expense of issuing debt and incurring a large expense in one year. Cities explain this process of "saving" for major purchases, such as fire equipment, to their taxpayers and the state when cities "designate" their fund balance for such a purpose. Cities need to maintain some fund balance to meet emergency or unanticipated expenditures created by situations such as natural disasters, lawsuits, and premature breakdown of vital equipment. Cities are not allowed other revenue raising authority to address these issues during their budget year. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 43 Bond rating firms require proof of financial liquidity and a demonstrated ability to service debt in order to receive a favorable bond rating. Adequate city fund balances are required for preferential bond ratings. Additional interest costs, and higher taxpayer burdens, result when cities without adequate fund balances receive poor bond ratings. The better the bond rating of a city, the lower the interest costs of borrowing are to the taxpayer. RS-8. City Financial Reporting Requirements (B) The League supports modernization and an increased level of comparability of.financial data that cities report to state agencies. The League will continue to work with the financial reporting and accounting study (FINREP), the Intergovernmental Information Systems Advisory Council (IISAC), and the Legislative Commission on Planning and l~'scal Policy to accomplish these efforts. The Legislature should, however, fund the study and implementation of changes through the general fund, rather than the Local Government Trust Fund which is to be dedicated to property tax relief. Local accounting practices and preferences should not be required to change as a result of the study, nor should local costs increase, bTmdly, requirements for reporting additional information should be carefully weighed to determine the validity of the state's need for local government data. Minnesota has one of the most modern and rigorous systems of municipal finance oversight in the nation. The Office of the State Auditor currently receives and reviews annual financial reports from all cities. Cities over 2,500 are required to have annual audits and the Auditor has authority to audit any city. Cities also report financial data to the Department of Revenue, Pollution Control Agency (PCA), Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED), and other state agencies. The private accounting field has proven to be fully competent to conduct city audits, and are likely to be more economical than contracting with a public agency. Therefore, the League is opposed to giving the Office of the State Auditor the authority to audit cities or their instrumentalities. For all audits, local governments should be allowed to take proposals and use a private auditor rather than the State Auditor, if the government chooses. In addition, cities with populations under 2,500 should continue to be exempt from the expense of an annual audit. RS-9. Cooperation, Collaboration, and Consolidation (B) The League supports the extensive efforts which have been made by cities across the state to provide services through cooperative agreements, collaboration and, in some cases, consolidated programs or governments. We support the creation of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation, and the opportunities it provides to help stimulate cooperative efforts attd to eliminate mandates. Additional funding for grant programs, however, should not be funded through the local government trust fund and should not be at the expense of funding for current aid programs. The state needs to acknowledge that even with state encouragement, local officials are the most qualified to determine where shared or consolidated services are most appropriate and will be most effective. Many studies and surveys of cities in Minnesota have shown that cooperative agreements and shared services are very common. Cities across the state continue to make efforts to increase the number and extent of programs provided, and/or to reduce the costs of public services. Because city officials are most qualified to assess local needs, the Legislature should not mandate cooperative agreements or consolidation requirements for League of Minnesota Cities J · I,,, I ,11, any city services or the form of city government. RS-10. Service Fees for Government-Owned Property (B) The Legislature should establish a program for reintbursing municipalities for services to state and regional facilities. The program should (I) ensure that state and regional agencies pay for services that benefit their property, and (2) allow cities to receive compensation for services that are funded through general revenue, such as police and fire, which are valuable to state and regional agencies. Any such fee-for-service program should not be funded through the local government trust fund. The State of Minnesota owns a significant amount of property within cities in the state. Cities provide a range of services that benefit these properties. However, since the state is exempt from paying property taxes, municipalities are not reimbursed for the cost of these services. This places an unreasonable burden on cities. The State of Wisconsin established a program called "Payment for Municipal Services" in 1973. The program provides a mechanism for municipalities to be reimbursed by the state for services they provide to state-owned properties. Through a formula based on the value of state-owned buildings within a city, the Wisconsin system reimburses cities for police, fire, and solid waste services. RS-Il. State Adminks'tmfive Costs (c) The League opposes the policy of deducting state agency administrative costs from funds which are appropriated for property tax relief. If the state continues this inappropriate policy, the costs should be more equitably borne by the full local government trust fund, rather than only from funding for local government aid (LGA). The League believes that all state government expenses should be subject to the standard appropriation review process and be funded directly by specific state appropriation, not by blanket deductions from property tax relief programs and from state grants. Where a state agency is required to recover costs through a state charge-back for services to local units, the state should be required to hold administrative hearings to justify the charges on the basis of the services provided to the individual local units of government. City LGA provides f'mancing for administrative costs for: the Office of the State Auditor, the Department of Administration (for the Intergovernmental Information Systems Advisory Council (IISAC), the State Demographer, and the Department of Employee Relations. For 1993 LGA, $502,972 was deducted for these state agencies. In addition, LGA funds, distributed primarily to cities, have been used to finance operations by the State Auditor and Department of Administration, which are not caused by cities alone, but by all local governments, including counties, school districts, and townships. RS-12. Taxation Hearing and Notification Law (C) The League supports a property tax hearing and notification process that provides accurate and timely information to taxpayers, fits into the current budget process for local governments, and is cost-efficient. The process should continue its focus on property taxes raised from local taxpayers. State government shouM set an example, and be required to follow similar requirements for public hearings and notification processes on tax and budget issues. 1994 City Policies and Priorities 45 (~_~ The state-mandated ''truth in taxation" process has existed through four years of local government budget cycles. Both the major changes and the minor tinkering have not substantially improved the process for citizens or for local governments. The League urges the Legislature to make the following changes to improve the effectiveness of the process for both taxpayers and local government officials. The process should be limited to one official, announced public hearing to discuss the proposed levy. The actual adoption of the levy and budget should take place at a regularly scheduled meeting of the governing body of the city, county, school, or special district. Cities already conduct an open budget development process beginning as early as May, and becoming more final with the certification of proposed property tax levies by September 15. Local governments should be allowed to amend the levy that they preliminarily propose to the county auditor on September 15. Many cities have a difficult time realistically assessing their budget needs to be able to certify a proposed levy and budget by September 15 -- far ahead of the beginning of the next budget year. The early date, combined with the restriction that prevents the city's final levy from exceeding its preliminary estimate, works against responsible budgeting and forces cities to overestimate their budget needs to avoid potential revenue shortfalls. As a state mandate, the costs of this requirement should be fully funded by the state. The appropriation made for the 1990 process has not been renewed. Local governments must now f'md additional funds to finance this state-mandated process from their tight or shrinking local budgets. Proposed tax infor~nation should continue to be provided on the mailed notice; financial data requirements in newspaper advertisements should continue to be excluded. The Legislature should consider eliminating the newspaper advertisement requirement -- notices sent to each property owner and posted in each apartment building effectively notify citizens of the heatings and proposed levies. Tax dollars spent for the cost of publishing advertisements could be better spent on city services for taxpayers. The title of the requirement should be changed to the "taxation heating and notification law." The current title implies that there was and would be a lack of accuracy and accountability without this process. In addition, the calculations used in the process are frequently misleading and confusing, and challenge the "truthfulness" and accuracy of the information provided. RS-13. Local Property Tax Authority (C) The League strongly supports the Legislature's repeal of city levy limits and support of local decisions on city spending. Without levy limits, local accountability is enhanced and cities are allowed to plan for, and respond to, changing financial conditions and the increasing costs of state and federal mandates. Levy limits are inconsistent with the principles of local se~'-governtnent and accountability. RS-14. Referendum Levies The League supports repeal of the requirement that city referendum levies, unlike general property tax levies, apply to property market value. In addition, it may not be accurate for a referendum ballot to state "By voting YES on this ballot question, 46 League of Minnesota Cities you are voting for a property tax increase." The state has deliberately designed a system if property classes based on property use which creates varying tax burdens. The method by which a property tax is adopted should not influence this class rate system. This law makes an inappropriate distinction between capital expenditures and operating expenditures only for city governments. Both spending items are components of total city spending and should impact taxpayers comparably. If the Legislature wants to adjust tax burdens, changes should be made in the classification system, rather than through the tax base. In addition, the simple statement that taxes will rise as a result of a referendum levy may be false. In cases where the city has reduced their general levy, or a previous debt is retired, a city's property tax levy may actually decline when compared to the previous year. RS-15. License Fees (C) The Legislature should repeal all maximum fee provisions relating to off-sale liquor, on-sale wine, bottle club, and Sunday liquor licenses, and allow cities to decide locally the appropriate fee to charge for such licenses. The statutes typically grant authority to issue licenses or permits without specific maximum fees. Cities should have the discretion to set fees based on their own costs, needs, and standards. Case law provides ample limitations on cities' power to set license fees by requiring that revenues produced must be related to the cost of issuing the license and regulating the licensed business. The statutory maximum fee has not increased in over 30 1994 City Policies and Priorities 47